After reading the plethora of posts going back and forth, arguing either in defense of or against the changes to halo 4 multiplayer, I have noticed two broad schools of thought
A) those for the changes seem to be broadly stating that halo needs/should evolve its gameplay for various reasons (keep up with the times, attract a larger audience, add variety etc)
B) halo 4 should not change it’s gameplay and should very much be halo 2/3 reincarnate.
Having played the halo series from the beginning, I can see the arguments from both sides and think both have some merit.
So my question is this: what changes would you have made from halo 2/3 to make halo 4 stand out? I mean with nearly every game series the next iteration of the game will add/change features to make the next in the series different from the previous installment. From a creative point of view this makes sense, you should have changes that tell prospective consumers that this new product is different or better than the previous version. Halo 2 seems to be widely regarded as the pinnacle of halo multiplayer, so what would you have done or have liked to see done to make the next installment of halo different? What reason would you have given the consumer to buy the next version of halo? Because changes must be made, if not then why would a consumer not just keep their current version and refrain from purchasing the next installment.
I am not saying I agree with all the changes or disagree, just merely curious to hear from other fans what they would have done to make halo 4 stand out from the other halos?
If you state “nothing, keep it the exact same as halo 2 but with updated graphics,”. I can understand where you are coming from (I will always have a soft spot for H2 in my heart). But unfortunately only updating graphics would not seem to justify the price tag of developing a new game ( you may as well just only have released new map packs for the last number of years).
So what are your thoughts? Sound off