How is Halo supposed to innovate and move forward if every piece of new info regarding Halo 4 gets shut down and spat on?
A lot of people who obsess over Halo want nothing but classic, but they hate and make fun of games like the Call of Duty franchise for sticking to its roots.
I don’t get it. Why the hypocrisy?
Do you want change, or don’t you? If you don’t want change, why do you make fun of other games for not innovating?
The haters are speechless.
> The haters are speechless.
They’re probably making threads about how Master Chief’s new armor will be the cancer of Halo 4 or something.
Nobody wants that. It’s just that with every new supposed “innovation”, the game becomes more unbalanced and more like every other modern FPS, losing it’s uniqueness. Making the game different is one thing, making it different and bad is another.
And I for one don’t have a problem with what Call of Duty does. I think it’s pretty smart really because they realize they have a winning formula and that there is no need to change it’s core if it’s popular. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were incredibly popular, stuck to the game’s core and were successful, right? Why should the developers have to completely change how the core game works if it already works fine, why not just make every iteration similar, but introduce things that add and not change, where is the need to completely change what defines Halo gameplay?
Halo 1, 2, 3, they were all able to innovate without ripping apart the game’s core, why can’t Halo 4?
I’m reserving judgement until E3. 343i should be releasing quite an abundant amount of info/gameplay there.
I can’t say I’m disappointed with Halo 4 right now.
Also, why not have Halo change? I mean we will always have Halo 2/3. If we don’t change
Halo 4 it will not be a new game. If we change it we get a new game and if we don’t like
it we will always have the older Halos.
> > The haters are speechless.
>
> They’re probably making threads about how Master Chief’s new armor will be the cancer of Halo 4 or something.
HAHAHAAHAHA!!!
> Nobody wants that. It’s just that with every new supposed “innovation”, the game becomes more unbalanced and more like every other modern FPS, losing it’s uniqueness. Making the game different is one thing, making it different and bad is another.
>
> And I for one don’t have a problem with what Call of Duty does. I think it’s pretty smart really because they realize they have a winning formula and that there is no need to change it’s core if it’s popular. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were incredibly popular, stuck to the game’s core and were successful, right? Why should the developers have to completely change how the core game works if it already works fine, why not just make every iteration similar, but introduce things that add and not change, where is the need to completely change what defines Halo gameplay?
>
> Halo 1, 2, 3, they were all able to innovate without ripping apart the game’s core, why can’t Halo 4?
Aside from the decreased movement speed in Reach, Reach still had the Halo formula. AA’s and bloom just supplemented gameplay. Think CoD4 and CoD 2. Still the same gun on gun gameplay, but the added ability to use air support, perks, and weapon attachments just added to that core gameplay.
An example of a negative innavation in Halo would be if 343 decided to make it a 3rd person shooter where it is cover based. THAT is a breach of the winning formula that makes Halo, Halo.
AA’s, Loadouts, etc are all just bonus stuff.
> Also, why not have Halo change? I mean we will always have Halo 2/3. If we don’t change
> Halo 4 it will not be a new game. If we change it we get a new game and if we don’t like
> it we will always have the older Halos.
That is what I’m saying. If people want classic, they can just stand up and swap discs. Problem solved.
> > Nobody wants that. It’s just that with every new supposed “innovation”, the game becomes more unbalanced and more like every other modern FPS, losing it’s uniqueness. Making the game different is one thing, making it different and bad is another.
> >
> > And I for one don’t have a problem with what Call of Duty does. I think it’s pretty smart really because they realize they have a winning formula and that there is no need to change it’s core if it’s popular. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were incredibly popular, stuck to the game’s core and were successful, right? Why should the developers have to completely change how the core game works if it already works fine, why not just make every iteration similar, but introduce things that add and not change, where is the need to completely change what defines Halo gameplay?
> >
> > Halo 1, 2, 3, they were all able to innovate without ripping apart the game’s core, why can’t Halo 4?
>
> Aside from the decreased movement speed in Reach, Reach still had the Halo formula. AA’s and bloom just supplemented gameplay. Think CoD4 and CoD 2. Still the same gun on gun gameplay, but the added ability to use air support, perks, and weapon attachments just added to that core gameplay.
>
> An example of a negative innavation in Halo would be if 343 decided to make it a 3rd person shooter where it is cover based. THAT is a breach of the winning formula that makes Halo, Halo.
>
> AA’s, Loadouts, etc are all just bonus stuff.
If you really think that AAs and loadouts don’t change the formula I see very little point in staying in this topic. It’s pretty obvious to most how they change the game from being an arena FPS into something more like a class based FPS with Halo 4 sounding like it’s going more into the territory of a class based FPS.
> I’m reserving judgement until E3. 343i should be releasing quite an abundant amount of info/gameplay there.
>
> I can’t say I’m disappointed with Halo 4 right now.
As far as MP goes, I’m not sure when a full out reveal/demo will occur, but the first campaign footage will be on June 4th during the MS press conference, and later on that night a 10pm on GTTV, they are showing the first ever Spartan Ops gameplay.
> > > Nobody wants that. It’s just that with every new supposed “innovation”, the game becomes more unbalanced and more like every other modern FPS, losing it’s uniqueness. Making the game different is one thing, making it different and bad is another.
> > >
> > > And I for one don’t have a problem with what Call of Duty does. I think it’s pretty smart really because they realize they have a winning formula and that there is no need to change it’s core if it’s popular. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were incredibly popular, stuck to the game’s core and were successful, right? Why should the developers have to completely change how the core game works if it already works fine, why not just make every iteration similar, but introduce things that add and not change, where is the need to completely change what defines Halo gameplay?
> > >
> > > Halo 1, 2, 3, they were all able to innovate without ripping apart the game’s core, why can’t Halo 4?
> >
> > Aside from the decreased movement speed in Reach, Reach still had the Halo formula. AA’s and bloom just supplemented gameplay. Think CoD4 and CoD 2. Still the same gun on gun gameplay, but the added ability to use air support, perks, and weapon attachments just added to that core gameplay.
> >
> > An example of a negative innavation in Halo would be if 343 decided to make it a 3rd person shooter where it is cover based. THAT is a breach of the winning formula that makes Halo, Halo.
> >
> > AA’s, Loadouts, etc are all just bonus stuff.
>
> If you really think that AAs and loadouts don’t change the formula I see very little point in staying in this topic. It’s pretty obvious to most how they change the game from being an arena FPS into something more like a class based FPS with Halo 4 sounding like it’s going more into the territory of a class based FPS.
Reach, although most deny it, is still an arena type shooter. You still take part in the Halo jumping, frag throwing, AR strafing combat. Just because you can sprint/go invis/ fly/ use armor lock for a couple seconds here and there doesn’t mean the game isn’t Halo anymore. All those do is add new strategical elements.
> > I’m reserving judgement until E3. 343i should be releasing quite an abundant amount of info/gameplay there.
> >
> > I can’t say I’m disappointed with Halo 4 right now.
>
> As far as MP goes, I’m not sure when a full out reveal/demo will occur, but the first campaign footage will be on June 4th during the MS press conference, and later on that night a 10pm on GTTV, they are showing the first ever Spartan Ops gameplay.
Boo-freakin-yah! I look forward to it!
> Nobody wants that. It’s just that with every new supposed “innovation”, the game becomes more unbalanced and more like every other modern FPS, losing it’s uniqueness. Making the game different is one thing, making it different and bad is another.
>
> And I for one don’t have a problem with what Call of Duty does. I think it’s pretty smart really because they realize they have a winning formula and that there is no need to change it’s core if it’s popular. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were incredibly popular, stuck to the game’s core and were successful, right? Why should the developers have to completely change how the core game works if it already works fine, why not just make every iteration similar, but introduce things that add and not change, where is the need to completely change what defines Halo gameplay?
>
> Halo 1, 2, 3, they were all able to innovate without ripping apart the game’s core, why can’t Halo 4?
I would agree with you the halo is using some of its uniqueness but i still think that these changes can be implemented without ruining the core of halo and making the game balanced. From what we heard it sounds very different from halo but from the people who have played the game such as KC Killa and others they say that it still feels like halo and stays true to the formula so i would rather go on the words of someone who has played the game rather than someone who goes on the internet and learns some small snippets about it.
It’s not allowed to change! It’s supposed to be the same game as the last with better graphics and new maps. It can only have guns, grenades, shields, and vehicles nothing else.
> It’s not allowed to change! It’s supposed to be the same game as the last with better graphics and new maps. It can only have guns, grenades, shields, and vehicles nothing else.
Not sure if serious, or joking.
I want halo to evolve, but not the way reach did. Its as if they didn’t compare and contrast any of the armor abilities. They just threw a bunch of stuff in the game and did little testing.
Halo ce, halo 2, and halo 3 all had one thing in common, they started with all players equal. Sheilds, grenades, BR or AR. Reach: Jet pack helps a player in one situation while sprint, and armor lock help in others. Its way to much for halo. If they nerf everything so that the Armor abilities are only used for self-defense, it should be fine.
I have adapted to reach very well, but armor abilities still decide the games outcome a lot of the time.
If im one side of the hill on breakpoint, the guy on the other side has rockets and jet pack, he boosts up and shoots a rocket downward. WTH! I can’t strategize that! I never saw that coming…Bull -Yoink-.
I am perfectly fine with them adding new things, as long as it doesn’t give the player an advantage on offense.
> <mark>Do you want change, or don’t you?</mark>
Change is not always good change. I want change, but I want change that makes sense and sticks to the core Halo theme. Certain changes are looking like they won’t fit in with Halo. Change for the sake of change will never end well. And when you have a formula that works really well, you will only need to change a few things to make it perfect. So why change the formula so drastically if it already works really well.
> I want halo to evolve, but not the way reach did. Its as if they didn’t compare and contrast any of the armor abilities. They just threw a bunch of stuff in the game and did little testing.
>
> Halo ce, halo 2, and halo 3 all had one thing in common, they started with all players equal. Sheilds, grenades, BR or AR. Reach: Jet pack helps a player in one situation while sprint, and armor lock help in others. Its way to much for halo. If they nerf everything so that the Armor abilities are only used for self-defense, it should be fine.
>
> I have adapted to reach very well, but armor abilities still decide the games outcome a lot of the time.
>
> If im one side of the hill on breakpoint, the guy on the other side has rockets and jet pack, he boosts up and shoots a rocket downward. WTH! I can’t strategize that! I never saw that coming…Bull Yoink!.
>
> I am perfectly fine with them adding new things, as long as it doesn’t give the player an advantage on offense.
I completly agree with you that these additions are fine as long as the game remains balanced i think AA’s have potential put people will always shut me down for saying that and reference how awful they were in Reach. However, halo 4 is a different game and everything will be implemented differently so i hope for the best.
Innovation means being original. Kill cams, skins, and sprint aren’t original.