> In order for halo 4 to be successful it has to go back to it’s arena roots.
Actually, the argument is that in order for Halo in general to be successful with online numbers, it will need to adhere to core gameplay from the original trilogy.
Halo 4’s remaining population will mostly consist of Infinity fans, so there isn’t much point in trying to transform Halo 4 into an “arena” game.
> But why can’t they just go back and play halo 3 then?
That’s so incredibly simple; I don’t know how you can even ask such a question.
People want CORE gameplay to remain intact; not ALL gameplay, and people want two things out of a new Halo game:
- Identifiable, consistent core gameplay.
- The addition of new, exciting features that adhere to that gameplay.
As Halo 3 is now an old game, it isn’t hard to understand that it only offers one of those two things; can you guess which one it is?
That’s correct, the first one. Halo 3 does not offer something new and exciting, as it is an older game. Make sense?
> “Because i don’t want to play a 6+ year old MP.” But your asking for halo 4 to be the 6 year old MP?
Nope.
People are asking for core gameplay to remain consistent with the old core gameplay, but for new innovations which adhere to that gameplay.
If a new Halo game followed that guideline, then it would not have “6 year old MP”.
By definition, it would have new multiplayer, with identifiable gameplay at its core, which is holding it all together.
> No no no, additions can be made Just not These additions. Well what do you suggest then?
This is such a false argument and it is not the first time I’ve corrected it by any means.
It is not the responsibility of the fans to come up with the new ideas, it is the responsibility of the developers.
> Because a lot of the additions of the past halo installments were bashed on and people left over them.
Right? Never to the degree of these recent Halo games.
Every feature in every game that has ever been made will have had critics. What makes the hate for the features in Halo Reach and 4 unique, is that it is based upon the way in which those features detract from the core gameplay of previous titles.
> What makes their distaste wrong and yours right?
It has nothing to do with who likes or hates which feature, and everything to do with whether or not those features complement core gameplay.
People may incidentally like new features which don’t adhere to that gameplay, but their subjective view is not related to whether or not the features do adhere to it.
Let’s pretend that Black Ops 2 got rid of sprint, and then certain Halo fans actually preferred the game that way; their enjoyment wouldn’t act as an indication that no sprint works better with Call of Duty gameplay mechanics.
That’s what it all comes down to.
> A lot of the people who are against the new additions claim they don’t want a copy and paste but they never offer solutions. It’s always this circle of BS that always gets to me.
And why on Earth should they be expected to give ideas for new features? That’s just nonsense.
> I just bite my lip every time i see a post about “classic halo” will save they day when there is no proof to back it up. What is worse is when they say they don’t want to play 6+ old MP But they are so invested in thinking doing such is the right answer
I believe my previous points address this perfectly.