Im not making this topic to offend anybody, everybody is entitled to there own opinion this statement is just based off of the history of the halo games and there population decline over the years. And I am basing this off of the compettive multiplayer and nothing else.
Anyways there is one question I always ask my self and I just can’t figure it out
“If 343 watched bungie fail after the release of reach, then why do they keep trying to stray away from the unique game play mechanics that made halo what it was?”
Reach was liked by a lot of people but compared to halo 3 it was a huge failure, halo 3 was one of the most hyped MLG games out there and reach was so random and unpredictable it was removed from MLG. That is a huge step down for the compettive aspect of halo.
Now we are on our second installment of halo post Bungie, and we are still seeing 343 trying to put mechanics into the game that Ruin the compettive formula.
Sprint and abilitys aren’t new ideas, just a fun fact sprint was accuaily introduced into the early build of halo 2 but it messed with pacing and threw off the compettive balance of the game so it was removed. Sprint messes with the TTK ratio and the TTK ratio has always been something unique to compettive halo, a longer TTK encourages Accuracy, teamwork and map control.
I have a huge list of issues caused by new game play mechanics but that’s not the point of this post. I strongly believe if halo never left its roots and only added to the amazing and unique formula instead of changing it entirely the franchise would be far better off.
Just for the sake of argument adding the mechanics is not “Evolving” it’s not considered evolving if the only reason it’s being done is because all of the other games are doing it. Why would we want all games to be the same?
I don’t think the issue with Reach was the fact that Sprint or anything were in there at all, but that SOME people could sprint and SOME people could armor lock and so on.
I have all of the Halos beginning with CE, I also purchased MCC to relive the good old days. When I purchased Halo 5, I was not expecting it to be stagnant without innovation, and am very pleased with it. I would not purchase a new halo, if it was going to be the same as an old halo. If I want an old halo, I can put MCC or reach into the XBOX.
I understand those pining for previous game modes, armors, weapons, and vehicles. Some of those were great and deserved to be in H5, but some requests are niche and will have trouble making it into new games as a result.
Halo 5 is very competitive. It has a great Halo feel to it and is the funnest for me personally since Halo 2.
Reach was liked by a lot of people but was hated by more than those who liked it.
> 2533274808945466;4:
> Halo 5 is very competitive. It has a great Halo feel to it and is the funnest for me personally since Halo 2.
It definitely feels more competitive than Halo 3, where the older the player, the better… here, anyone can pull of a kill and anything can happen. That’s what makes this installment the most competitive. Everything can happen…
Are you really Mexican by the way?
> 2533274815449320;5:
> Reach was liked by a lot of people but was hated by more than those who liked it.
I don’t know if that’s true. Even on the bungie forums there were plenty of defenders in the day and I still contend that the majority of Halo players will not find there way to either forum. A lot of the kids you see on here, started out in Reach. In my opinion, I’d say the split was about 50/50 for the multiplayer. I don’t remember anyone defending the campaign though.