How to Approach Halo 4

Games Other Halo
#1

As most of us probably realized, Halo 4 isn’t really the most popular game of the franchise. People hate, people ignore, and people forget what was actually a very intresting and in my own opinion, a needed Halo. Let’s dissect what I’m trying to say.

With the Multiplayer: Yes…it wasn’t traditional Halo, neither was Reach and that game is a favorite among the community. And thats what we need to do to enjoy Halo 4 multiplayer. Treat it like a side game, enjoy a new style of Halo. There really isn’t a need to get all worked up when people vote for a Halo 4 map in the MCC. It’s just going to ruin it for you and you not going to have a good time because your to busy complaining about it. What was Halo 4 multiplayer, well it was an attempt to bring back Halo to what it was in the Halo 2 and 3 days, introducing new things to the franchise like loadouts and ordinances. Yes, I think they did it wrong but it worked on some level to bring new players into the Halo universe. Basically, just enjoy the game for what it is, and have fun trusting behind a red spartan and going for an epic assassination.

With the Campaign: Halo 4 did so many wonderful things with Halo story that so many people look over and focus on what they didn’t like. For instance, the dramatic elements. With stunning cut scenes and the relationship development between Chief and Cortana was really a great thing to introduce to the epic universe. Or the villain, yes there’s finally an actual bad guy in Halo, the Didact. Having this in Halo really made the strive to complete the game and “kill” the Didact made it so much fun. Or the cinematic display with epic destruction going on around you as you punch a Promethean Knight to death. And thats all I have to say about that.

So, what do you think. Tell in the comments and tell me if you think Halo 4 is underrated!

#2

Personally I loved Halo 4, single player and multiplayer.

Like you OP I agree that it was a much needed Halo and I think the multiplayer change was also needed. I think 343i just tried to compete with more popular online shooters such as CoD and Battlefield and as you say bring players over from that franchises. It certainly worked in my group of friends as the ones who hates Halo online previously absolutely loved Halo 4 online and the ones who have upgraded to Xbox One’s have been enjoying it via the Master Chief Collection and have also pre ordered Halo 5.

The campaign I loved from start to finish, I had a blast going through it on co-op, I am actually going through it again now.

So yeah I agree, Halo 4 is underrated in my opinion.

#3

I’d argue that Halo 4 is a good game, but not a great one. As far as multiplayer, game ranks (SR) meant nothing and the actual ranked gameplay was rather flawed and a total pain in the -Yoink-. There were a bunch of maps that weren’t played, and some really bad ones that were. The armory was a huge step down, as were most multiplayer maps (I think “Haven” is the most memorable, and that wasn’t even all that great). Spartan Ops also fell kind of flat.

They tried a lot of new things with multiplayer, and most of it didn’t work. There just wasn’t a ton of replay value once you hit SR130. At least with Reach, the amount of ranks were insane. Plus, there were daily, weekly, and monthly challenges to keep you coming back. Part of the appeal was how the armory worked - storing credits to buy armor that unlocked at certain ranks. This contrasted to how poorly the armory worked in 4, where if there was an emblem you wanted you had to get 1,000 kills with the light rifle or some garbage. Some of the things just didn’t feel attainable, so there wasn’t really a purpose in trying.

#4

> 2533274876351728;1:
> As most of us probably realized, Halo 4 isn’t really the most popular game of the franchise. People hate, people ignore, and people forget what was actually a very intresting and in my own opinion, a needed Halo. Let’s dissect what I’m trying to say.
>
> With the Multiplayer: Yes…it wasn’t traditional Halo, neither was Reach and that game is a favorite among the community. And thats what we need to do to enjoy Halo 4 multiplayer. Treat it like a side game, enjoy a new style of Halo. There really isn’t a need to get all worked up when people vote for a Halo 4 map in the MCC. It’s just going to ruin it for you and you not going to have a good time because your to busy complaining about it. What was Halo 4 multiplayer, well it was an attempt to bring back Halo to what it was in the Halo 2 and 3 days, introducing new things to the franchise like loadouts and ordinances. Yes, I think they did it wrong but it worked on some level to bring new players into the Halo universe. Basically, just enjoy the game for what it is, and have fun trusting behind a red spartan and going for an epic assassination.
>
> With the Campaign: Halo 4 did so many wonderful things with Halo story that so many people look over and focus on what they didn’t like. For instance, the dramatic elements. With stunning cut scenes and the relationship development between Chief and Cortana was really a great thing to introduce to the epic universe. Or the villain, yes there’s finally an actual bad guy in Halo, the Didact. Having this in Halo really made the strive to complete the game and “kill” the Didact made it so much fun. Or the cinematic display with epic destruction going on around you as you punch a Promethean Knight to death. And thats all I have to say about that.
>
> So, what do you think. Tell in the comments and tell me if you think Halo 4 is underrated!

I’m going to more or less give you an idea as to why I feel the Halo 4 campaign was bad with a quote by Willko:

"H4’s campaign felt more like bad fan-fiction than anythingWriter: So you know how all the forerunners died thousands of years ago when they fired the Halo rings? Well what if one of them was still alive anyway! How cool would that be!?
Other guy: But if the forerunners had the technology to survive the Halo firing, why wouldn’t they save more of them?
Well, because THIS guy is super important to the forerunners. They could only save the one.
So… he was spared in order to make sure the forerunners’ plan to ensure human ascendancy succeeds?
No way! It turns out that he’s, like, super opposed to the humans.
So why would they choose him to be the only one spared?
He didn’t want it. He’s actually in some kind of prison, and he’s guarded by all these robot thingies that we’ve never heard mention of before.
Hmm… Well at least he’s well guarded.
You would think so. BUT, as soon as he gets released, he takes control of them all with his mind and turns them on his side. Like, the moment he gets out. He’s so bad-yoink- that it takes him literally zero effort to do this.
That sounds like a pretty poor plan by the forerunners. Are you sure there’s no other failsafe?
Ah Ha! I’m glad you asked. You see, it turns out that the forerunners can also preserve their consciousness in the form of a pseudo-A.I. Do you remember the Librarian? Well she totally does this in order to watch over things.
Whew… So, she intervenes, right?
Nope. She can’t do anything to him cuz she’s just an A.I.
Oh dear… Well this living forerunner sure sounds formidable.
You haven’t even heard the half of it. He can also levitate things with his mind! Like he has the force!
Whoa! An enemy like that could force-crush the Master Chief’s throat and break him in half the first time they meet!
Yeah, yeah! He totally could. But, he WON’T!
Umm… O… Ok. Why not? That seems like the logical thing for a super-powered enemy that hates humans with a passion.
EH NENENENE. Don’t worry about that. He also has this nifty ship that can fly around and scan things. Even though he was imprisoned, the forerunners left him with a ship to fly around in, in case he escapes.
Oh man, with an enemy like that, I bet the player is in for one hell of a climactic showdown at the end of the game.
Well, that’s the thing. This guy is so crazy awesome, that no fully-interactive sequence could do it justice. The final showdown will be a cutscene.
That… doesn’t sound very climactic… or difficult.
Yeah, but the player will mess up the first time because we’ll throw in a quick time event when it isn’t expected. Then the player will have to do it again.
I don’t think that ending will go over very well. At least the beginning you described sounds cool.
Oh no, my friend. That’s not the beginning. You’ll have to fight the Covenant through a few levels first.
The Covenant? I thought the war ended in Halo 3. Doesn’t the UNSC have a truce with the Covenant?
Heh heh heh, Oh you poor deluded fool. A lot can happen in four years.
Oooooh, that’s ominous. I can’t wait to learn what happened.
Yeah, well don’t get your hopes up about that. Because instead of explaining that, we’re going to introduce, like, the biggest, hugest UNSC ship ever. And it’ll get its defenses breached a whole bunch of times. Like, more times than can fit in a single campaign. We’ll have to save some of those breaches for Spartan Ops.
I’ll be honest, I think you need to bounce some of these ideas off of some other writers. Your plot is a little rough around the edges.
No way! this is, like, way to freakin’ awesome."
If anyone can dispute these points, feel free to reply to this post.

#5

I like the halo 4 campaign because I feel I have always fun playing it.

#6

I won’t use the quote option, because I’d muck it up and end up copying his whole post, but pretty much everything Trigger Happy posted is what I was feeling right after finishing the Campaign the 1st time. And why oh why did they ever add those stupid quick time events? Man I hated them from the very 1st one, when you are climbing inside the ruins of (I believe) The Dawn.

Having said that, I have started to appreciate it more as it’s own game, and as an opportunity to do things a little different. Like Spartan Ops, started playing it, found out I love it. I bought the game at midnight on it’s release, and have yet to play a single session of War Games, but don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything.

One tiny pet peeve that sticks in my crawl to this day though is a bout the Forerunners… Why do they refer to THEMSELVES as The Forerunners??? I mean, I know that throughout the other games they’ve been discussed quite regularly, and that some continuity between games needs to be held, but it just irks me. In my mind, it be like reading the writings of the Ancient Aztecs as they recorded there history, to discover they refereed to themselves as The Ancient Aztecs, when they would have just called themselves The Aztecs.

#7

Keep in mind that people didn’t like H2 when it came out. This was even worse when H3 and Reach came out as there were many people who didn’t move on. There always seems to be a large group of players who hate on any changes. In H4 I can understand some of it, but I personally love the multiplayer and feel like it plays very smooth in comparison to other halos. In fact the one thing I love about H4 is sprint. I always wanted to be able to in H3, and it was my preferred armor ability in Reach even though others were op.
So ya, Halo 4 is good.

#8

There is nothing wrong with Halo 4. There are features of the game that many players didn’t agree with, but there are always differences of opinion over these matters, and that’s why a few H2 people were annoyed by Halo 3. Quite a few H3 people were unhappy with Reach. A significant majority of Halo players were unhappy with H4. The pattern here is not “Halo games get worse with age.” The pattern is “players get more opinionated and harder to please as the franchise evolves.” This is why I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that so many people dislike Halo 4 when I think it’s easily the best version yet. The $64,000 question is: will the pattern repeat again with Guardians?

#9

> 2533274873843883;8:
> There is nothing wrong with Halo 4. There are features of the game that many players didn’t agree with, but there are always differences of opinion over these matters, and that’s why a few H2 people were annoyed by Halo 3. Quite a few H3 people were unhappy with Reach. A significant majority of Halo players were unhappy with H4. The pattern here is not “Halo games get worse with age.” The pattern is “players get more opinionated and harder to please as the franchise evolves.” This is why I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that so many people dislike Halo 4 when I think it’s easily the best version yet. The $64,000 question is: will the pattern repeat again with Guardians?

I doesn’t matter to me if someone doesn’t like the same things that I do. What does bother me, is that when people bashed Halo 4 they had a seriously bad case of false consensus. They just pretended that literally everyone hated Halo 4 and that everyone had the same opinion as them, I don’t like people trying to drown my voice out.

#10

> 2533274978553590;9:
> > 2533274873843883;8:
> > There is nothing wrong with Halo 4. There are features of the game that many players didn’t agree with, but there are always differences of opinion over these matters, and that’s why a few H2 people were annoyed by Halo 3. Quite a few H3 people were unhappy with Reach. A significant majority of Halo players were unhappy with H4. The pattern here is not “Halo games get worse with age.” The pattern is “players get more opinionated and harder to please as the franchise evolves.” This is why I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that so many people dislike Halo 4 when I think it’s easily the best version yet. The $64,000 question is: will the pattern repeat again with Guardians?
>
>
> I doesn’t matter to me if someone doesn’t like the same things that I do. What does bother me, is that when people bashed Halo 4 they had a seriously bad case of false consensus. They just pretended that literally everyone hated Halo 4 and that everyone had the same opinion as them, I don’t like people trying to drown my voice out.

I know what you mean, but they definitely had numbers on their side. Halo 4 spent most of it’s product life with a multiplayer population that ran to about a fifth (or less) of what Halo 3 was pulling in it’s last six months. You don’t have to make a huge leap to conclude that “Everybody hates Halo 4,” even though that really isn’t the case. I guess what might be an even more accurate (and more damning) statement is that Halo 4 alienated a majority of “core Halo players,” meaning people who had been around since the start and were the people most likely to put more hours into multiplayer. Although again, not me.

In the end, though, I agree that it doesn’t matter if other people like what we like… as long as enough people like it to a) keep multiplayer populations where they need to be in order for skill-based matchmaking to function properly and b) insure the developer will continue the franchise with another installment. And so far, so good.

See ya out there, Rhydon!

#11

> 2533274978553590;9:
> > 2533274873843883;8:
> > There is nothing wrong with Halo 4. There are features of the game that many players didn’t agree with, but there are always differences of opinion over these matters, and that’s why a few H2 people were annoyed by Halo 3. Quite a few H3 people were unhappy with Reach. A significant majority of Halo players were unhappy with H4. The pattern here is not “Halo games get worse with age.” The pattern is “players get more opinionated and harder to please as the franchise evolves.” This is why I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that so many people dislike Halo 4 when I think it’s easily the best version yet. The $64,000 question is: will the pattern repeat again with Guardians?
>
>
> I doesn’t matter to me if someone doesn’t like the same things that I do. What does bother me, is that when people bashed Halo 4 they had a seriously bad case of false consensus. They just pretended that literally everyone hated Halo 4 and that everyone had the same opinion as them, I don’t like people trying to drown my voice out.

A majority of people would either say they hated it, were disappointed, tried but gave up on it. The decline of Halo 4s population proves that was the case. I am one of the few that kept playing til we had 20k players left in total and decided to go to Reach to find out they had more players playing that instead.

#12

> 2533274925960280;11:
> > 2533274978553590;9:
> > > 2533274873843883;8:
> > > There is nothing wrong with Halo 4. There are features of the game that many players didn’t agree with, but there are always differences of opinion over these matters, and that’s why a few H2 people were annoyed by Halo 3. Quite a few H3 people were unhappy with Reach. A significant majority of Halo players were unhappy with H4. The pattern here is not “Halo games get worse with age.” The pattern is “players get more opinionated and harder to please as the franchise evolves.” This is why I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that so many people dislike Halo 4 when I think it’s easily the best version yet. The $64,000 question is: will the pattern repeat again with Guardians?
> >
> >
> > I doesn’t matter to me if someone doesn’t like the same things that I do. What does bother me, is that when people bashed Halo 4 they had a seriously bad case of false consensus. They just pretended that literally everyone hated Halo 4 and that everyone had the same opinion as them, I don’t like people trying to drown my voice out.
>
>
> A majority of people would either say they hated it, were disappointed, tried but gave up on it. The decline of Halo 4s population proves that was the case. I am one of the few that kept playing til we had 20k players left in total and decided to go to Reach to find out they had more players playing that instead.

Now I’m curious. You shifted to Reach because it had a higher population, or because you liked the gameplay better and the population was just an extra added bonus? I ask because you kinda made it sound like the higher population was the driving factor and I don’t get that. Using that logic we should all just throw in the towel and start playing CoD.