I just can't...

Games Other Halo
10

> > 1) Irrelevent. I’m asking the community what we should have instead of previous additions or the new ones in halo 4 since the new one’s have been deemed wrong. No point in telling me something is bad if you can’t offer a solution.
> >
> > 2) Opinion. Your basing the “taking away” off of old style halo play. Just like how sprint is really only mostly harmful to old style play. But because of the way halo 4 is made it’s less harmful.
> >
> > 3) Games like call of duty and battlefield have been making significant changes to their MP since they have been out. That’s not up for debate.
>
> 1. That’s like saying that I can’t say that I didn’t like a movie for x reasons. I am a film watcher, not a film maker. I am not educated or skilled enough to know what makes a movie good; I can only tell when I didn’t like something, and most of the time, what it was I didn’t like.
>
> Likewise, I am also a player, not a developer. I am not educated or skilled enough in game development to tell you what gameplay mechanics should be added. I can only tell you that something was added and as a player, I did or didn’t like it.
>
> 2. Not opinion. Halo 4 and Halo: Reach play a lot differently than Halo 1-3. Halo: Reach plays a lot different from Halo 4 even.
>
> 3. Between MW2 and Ghosts, please tell me how much of the core gameplay has changed. I’ll bet that if I showed any non-CoD player gameplay footage from each game, he would not be able to tell that they were different games.
>
> CoD’s new features are things like new perks and changes to the progressive rank system. The game plays more or less the same, yet CoD fans can easily tell you which games are their favorites because the minor tweaks can change a lot.

Thank you.

  1. I’m merely asking players on a player level What should be included. As it’s a players job to provide feedback to aid in making a better experience. I am also asking Because every new mechanic that has been introduced has been bashed and said to have hurt the game in one shape or another. And since you and me both agreed what is or is not okay is strictly an opinion people can’t be 100% right.

  2. Halo reach has been (at least from what i have seen) thrown in with 1-3 as it is still mainly an arena game. And as we have seen sprint in an arena setting was a huge problem. In halo 4 since it has been deemed no longer an arena shooter sprint works differently and less harmfully. This can be easily applied to any of the new mechanics in halo 4. If you wish for me to go into detail on this please say so.

  3. I can tell you the changes…But what you consider big changes may not be what i consider big changes. Things like stopping power is a great example. It’s a small simple perk. One tiny addition. When it was in play it generated a style of play for the meta game. You were pretty much going to lose if you did not have it. Thus making loadouts and what “worked” a very narrow list. Now fast forward to black ops 1 where we no longer have stopping power. Suddenly more weapons and play styles become viable. This is just one example of many.

That’s rigged. If you showed a player who wasn’t familiar with the series gameplay they are not going to understand the tiny changes that make a big difference. They are just going to see people shooting people. Ha. Every cod player i know has a different favorite COD game because of different additions. Halo 4 at it’s core still plays the halo formula.

11

> > > Players suck at suggesting new gameplay features.
> >
> > Nearly all upgrades to forge in Reach and Halo 4 were suggestions and requests from the community. And many forge stuff found in Halo 3, like phasing, were glitches found by the community, not the devs (and later they appeared as an official feature in Reach).
>
> Those are tweaks to existing systems and bug discoveries. Hardly the same thing as a completely new gameplay mechanic.

It’s part of the game like anything else. And it was an example.

Also, you only have to look and search for the feedback posts. They are rare, but still exist. Just not on page 1 or 2 :stuck_out_tongue:

12

> I like Halo 4 but here are the adjustments (some subtractions) I would make to H5 + Halo’s general future:
>
> 1) Keep loadouts (best change in all my years of Halo; hate AR)
> 2) Keep sprint (less boring gameplay)
> 3) Drop POD (pointless & very random)
> 4) Make all AA map pickups or remove completely (remove from Loadout) (I prefer drop them and use H3 pickup AA)
> 5) Absolutely have social & ranked again
> 6) Fix lag + connections
> 7) Decrease AIM assist big time
>
> I think the population comment is very fair and on topic. But IMO, the reason 90% left or whatnot has a lot more to do with the following (and less to do with H4, at its core, being bad):
>
> 1) Lag / Black screen / connection in general. This one is why literally every one of my friends quit.
>
> 2) Weapon balance pre-patch (too late b/c people already left
>
> 3) Lack of social + rank from the get go.
>
> 4) Level up WAY too fast to 130, lack of ‘progression’ / ‘purpose’ for that type of person
>
> ________________________________________
>
> IMO, Halo 4 is a very good game overall. I feel that many would agree if you removed lag and took out some of the things I listed above.
>
> Then 343 would have to find little things, as in BABY STEPS to add like the past Halo’s did.
>
> IMO, they tried to do too much too fast to keep up with other FPS. Again, I personally love H4 now after all the work they have done; but many other long term players simply don’t like the additions:
>
> TLDR: Not much needs to be added. It’s more baby step subtractions / tweaks to fix this game. It’s less of a disaster than people make it out to be.

I like/dislike some of your suggestions. I say it is off topic because the main point of my OP was to point out redundancy and ask the community for new mechanics that could replace what we have now. Sorry i wasn’t clear enough.

13

Sorry for double post, but I missed a really important list item as to why population dropped (aka it’s not b/c the game is BAD)…

  1. Lots of other gaming / technology options out there. Online has gotten bigger and bigger and H2 / H3 were around with FAR less competition.

All these things chip away at the population. People assume 9/10 people quit b/c the new halo is BAD; it’s simply not true (now, some do of course).

14

> Sorry for double post, but I missed a really important list item as to why population dropped (aka it’s not b/c the game is BAD)…
>
> 5) Lots of other gaming / technology options out there. Online has gotten bigger and bigger and H2 / H3 were around with FAR less competition.
>
> All these things chip away at the population. People assume 9/10 people quit b/c the new halo is BAD; it’s simply not true (now, some do of course).

Yes for the most part. People forget a lot has changed in the gaming market from h3 to halo 4. Some people just refuse to believe that has an effect on halo 4.

15

To get back on topic I would say we need some addition by subtraction.

‘New’ features should be fine tuning old (and of course adding in little things that Devs always do).

Make the best forge, customs, theater and fire fight that we’ve ever seen.

Make sure the connection is absolutely top notch.

Make sure ranked and social.

I guess my point is that these very basic things will help us all ‘get along’ and bond again as a happy Halo community. NOBODY would argue ‘against the changes’. I guess everything else is opinion based; so my biggest additions are…

  1. Keep loadouts (drop AA from it, add other LITTLE things like quick reload type)
  2. Drop POD all together in all modes
  3. Make AAs map only drops like H3 (add / subtract ‘what they are’… but nobody starts with them.

My list could go on, but I think this would fix Halo’s core.

16

> I can tell you the changes…But what you consider big changes may not be what i consider big changes. Things like stopping power is a great example. It’s a small simple perk. One tiny addition. When it was in play it generated a style of play for the meta game. You were pretty much going to lose if you did not have it. Thus making loadouts and what “worked” a very narrow list. Now fast forward to black ops 1 where we no longer have stopping power. Suddenly more weapons and play styles become viable. This is just one example of many.
>
> That’s rigged. If you showed a player who wasn’t familiar with the series gameplay they are not going to understand the tiny changes that make a big difference. They are just going to see people shooting people. Ha. Every cod player i know has a different favorite COD game because of different additions. Halo 4 at it’s core still plays the halo formula.

Exactly. Adding/removing a perk can change gameplay drastically, but the core remains. By simply removing one perk, the game suddenly became much more fun and balanced. All I ask is that Halo do the same thing: add/remove weapons, new maps, maybe even some new abilities, but the core should remain.

My point with the CoD gameplay was that even with all of those “big changes,” the core gameplay is so similar that you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart, and this is a good thing. If you showed someone gameplay footage of Halo 3, Halo: Reach, and Halo 4, graphical/artistic differences aside, they would still be able to tell that they were different games because of how differently they play (Halo: Reach added AAs and bloom, Halo 4 added sprint, loadouts, and perks). Whereas CoD is able to steadily build its fanbase because of its consistency, Halo has had to almost start over twice because of the changes.

17

> @vektor0 If you quote me next time could you please not break it up like that? When i quote you back it just makes things a mess.

Actually, breaking down a post into its individual points is a very effective way of debating.

I can’t tell you how much I wish most people would debate in that way.
I spend a lot of time and effort to reply to each individual argument a person makes, so as not to miss anything.
Yet most of the time, what I get in return is people replying to only one of my points, knowing full well that their reply is already invalidated by another one of my points which they missed out.

The most effective debaters on the forums will take the time to reply to individual arguments; if you find that to be inconvenient, it’s a shame but people shouldn’t have to change their writing style.

18

> > @vektor0 If you quote me next time could you please not break it up like that? When i quote you back it just makes things a mess.
>
> Actually, breaking down a post into its individual points is a very effective way of debating.

I think it’s just the format in which I did it which bugs him. I find it easier to read, but it is a little more cumbersome to format, which is what I think his complaint is.

I don’t have a problem with adjusting my writing style (within reason, of course) to accommodate another if it adversely affects his ability to respond.

19

To be honest, the only thing that sets my eyebrow a-twitch is when people like you mentioned in the OP fall over themselves about about ‘classic’, then in the next breathe lapse into how much they enjoyed Halo 2 and 3.

To me, those 2 just ain’t classic enough to be ‘classic’ Halo.

20

> 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:

  1. Identifiable, consistent core gameplay.
  2. 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.

21

I don’t see not providing solutions as a major issue, really. Of course it’s something I would recommend, but the problem with solutions is that good solutions are much harder than bad solutions. The exact reason why I don’t often provide solutions and completely avoid suggesting new gameplay mechanics is that I understand the issues they have.

That’s not to say I think all my solutions are horrible, but knowing how difficult it is to come up with solutions that aren’t completely miserable, I don’t expect people to do it. But if you still want these people to suggest solutions, ask them. I believe most people have something in their head, good or bad, which you can get them to reveal just by casually asking. However, personally, I consider justifying my position as a bigger priority.

The final problem I see with at least my own solutions is that the gameplay has diverged so far from my ideal gameplay that what I take for granted, others may not. When I explain the problems, it takes one post. When I tell my solutions, it requires another. Explaining my solutions would take a third. (Roughly, it’d actually be 1.5 full post lengths). Not something I usually get around to doing for aforementioned reasons.

> > > @vektor0 If you quote me next time could you please not break it up like that? When i quote you back it just makes things a mess.
> >
> > Actually, breaking down a post into its individual points is a very effective way of debating.
>
> I think it’s just the format in which I did it which bugs him. I find it easier to read, but it is a little more cumbersome to format, which is what I think his complaint is.
>
> I don’t have a problem with adjusting my writing style (within reason, of course) to accommodate another if it adversely affects his ability to respond.

The format definitely takes a bit of effort, but I personally think it makes the whole debate so much easier to read and to keep up with. I think it’s something anyone who likes to debate should get used to.

22

> > > @vektor0 If you quote me next time could you please not break it up like that? When i quote you back it just makes things a mess.
> >
> > Actually, breaking down a post into its individual points is a very effective way of debating.
>
> I think it’s just the format in which I did it which bugs him. I find it easier to read, but it is a little more cumbersome to format, which is what I think his complaint is.
>
> I don’t have a problem with adjusting my writing style (within reason, of course) to accommodate another if it adversely affects his ability to respond.

No I completely understand why he dislikes it. I’m not suggesting that its effectiveness in a debate scares him somehow; I realize it’s just that it is more difficult to reply to.

I’m just saying that I think the way in which it benefits discussion is more important than how inconvenient it is to reply to. I don’t want to make a huge deal out of if of course.

23

> 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.

With all do respect (and I know what you’re getting at too, but…), I’m fairly certain not only have many people given solutions to a lot of Halo 4’s problems, but pretty much every “New ideas for Halo 4-5-6” thread in existence would argue with the idea that people don’t want change.

> 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 think what a lot of people don’t realise (I’m not singling you out in particularly, but people on this forum in general) is that when people say they want “Classic” gameplay, they generally aren’t asking for a Halo 3 re-skin. It’s that style of gameplay in general that had mass appeal, and while there certainly isn’t substantial evidence that it would work out now, at the same time Infinity clearly hasn’t been working either.

So then what are we left with? Do we go with what was successful in the past and build off of that, or do we go with what has been largely unsuccessful in the present? Neither is a guarantee for failure or success and so both should be included, but I’d argue working on what’s proven instead of what has failed seems like the better option.

That’s not to say we should ignore Infinity. Custom loadouts and some armor abilities (thruster for example) could work very well with the game, but I personally believe that it shouldn’t be the only option available like it was in Halo 4.

What I think they should do, is release a “F2P” basic Halo game with just three playlists, one classic, one Infinity, and one a mixture of the two utilising the best of both, and see what kind of results they get. The point is to get a consensus on what the community wants, and focus on that in the next game while catering to the other two options as well, if the population shows benefit for it. The money you lose in this F2P game you will inevitably make up for in the next game by giving the players exactly what they want, as opposed to making a guess.) would be ne

> EDIT: The point of this post is to point out the redundancy in the general community and asking you as a player what is a mechanic you could see replacing something we already have. Please stick to the topic at hand.

What is a mechanic I could see replacing with something we already have? Drop jetpack entirely (save for customs and campaign) and utilise Concussion rifle as its replacement.

Accomplishes the same thing, but damages the player in the process and has limited ammo. Two per map, 45 second respawn and maps design to incorporate the weapon. We’ll see far more advanced movement tactics this way and will negate the largest part of what jetpack damages.

I apologise if any of the above came of as hostile, I really don’t mean to but I’ve taken less care in how I post as of late.

24

The only thing that could have kept population high was visible-in-game rank, which disappeared with Reach. That kept Reach’s population low and it has kept H4’s population low. Had it existed with Reach there probably would have been less complaining overall.

Unfortunately, no one has come up with a solution that would prevent account selling and it’s inherent skewing of TrueSkill.

25

> The only thing that could have kept population high was visible-in-game rank, which disappeared with Reach. That kept Reach’s population low and it has kept H4’s population low. Had it existed with Reach there probably would have been less complaining overall.
>
> Unfortunately, no one has come up with a solution that would prevent account selling and it’s inherent skewing of TrueSkill.

I highly doubt that in-game ranks alone would have made the difference between Halo 4 retaining a healthy number of players, and Halo 4 losing players.
Halo 4’s problems go far beyond a lack of in-game ranks, though I don’t doubt that it is at least one of the problems.

I don’t think in-game ranks would appeal to the people it is aimed at, when the game itself lacks a great deal of competitiveness that it’s predecessors once boasted.

26

Imagine if AA’s were pick ups. Then you wouldn’t have to balance them (which would take away the frustration in trying to ballance them). It would also allow more powerful AA’s to be created.

This could also open up the door for map specific AA’s. Equipment was the most logical progression for the Halo formula. AA’ s should have followed were equipment left off. But oh well.

27

> > The only thing that could have kept population high was visible-in-game rank, which disappeared with Reach. That kept Reach’s population low and it has kept H4’s population low. Had it existed with Reach there probably would have been less complaining overall.
> >
> > Unfortunately, no one has come up with a solution that would prevent account selling and it’s inherent skewing of TrueSkill.
>
> I highly doubt that in-game ranks alone would have made the difference between Halo 4 retaining a healthy number of players, and Halo 4 losing players.
> Halo 4’s problems go far beyond a lack of in-game ranks, though I don’t doubt that it is at least one of the problems.
>
> I don’t think in-game ranks would appeal to the people it is aimed at, when the game itself lacks a great deal of competitiveness that it’s predecessors once boasted.

The point that I was attempting to make here was that had there been a rank system similar to Halo 3 in Reach, players may have been far more tolerant of the changes. The lack of a competitive rank system was the flagship for all the other complaints.

If you (not you specifically) are paying attention to the way the Halo story is evolving, it’s pretty clear that AA’s can’t go away. Given the resources the UNSC now has available to them, we are likely to see more AA’s, and it’s highly likely that you may even be able to sport more than one at a time. If you are a campaign player this will not be an issue, but hardcore competitive players will likely not stand for it.

I see no reason, however, why there couldn’t be a playlist where all the games featured the basic elements found in Halo 2 and 3 multiplayer: Equal starts with equipment/power weapons as pickups to be fought over. This playlist would need to be available when the game is released.

As for Halo 4, the only solution that I can see that might help popularity would be to open up Custom Games/Forge and allow players the freedom they had in Halo 3 and Reach to make games they feel are more competitive/entertaining. All the arguments now are about what should be taken out to make the games more competitive. Well, why aren’t we able to do that in Custom Games? Why aren’t the Custom Games that are being produced featured in Matchmaking?

Halo’s story is not going backward, and neither should the online gameplay. It’s clear, however, that there should always be something there for those that liked the old ways and who don’t particularly care for the new stuff. That way there would be time for the holdouts to have a chance to appreciate what the developer has introduced, instead of the like it or leave it approach they have now.

28

> 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.

Halo 3’s population compared to Halo 4’s.
There’s your proof.

I agree with everything Jazzii Man said.

29

> The point that I was attempting to make here was that had there been a rank system similar to Halo 3 in Reach, players may have been far more tolerant of the changes. The lack of a competitive rank system was the flagship for all the other complaints.

I think it would have helped, but not nearly as much as it would have in a more competitive game.
I see what you’re saying though and I do agree that they should be in-game.

> If you (not you specifically) are paying attention to the way the Halo story is evolving, it’s pretty clear that AA’s can’t go away. Given the resources the UNSC now has available to them, we are likely to see more AA’s, and it’s highly likely that you may even be able to sport more than one at a time. If you are a campaign player this will not be an issue, but hardcore competitive players will likely not stand for it.

I’m all for AAs staying, and that’s such an incredibly simple thing to fix. Here’s how:

AAs are as normal in Campaign; AAs are placed upon the maps in multiplayer.
Seeing as multiplayer is Spartan training, the AAs could be placed upon the maps for the purpose of helping Spartans to develop and maintain the skills involved in obtaining them.

I’m not particularly concerned with how much sense multiplayer makes canonically, but I believe I’ve just given a perfectly good way that they could do.

> I see no reason, however, why there couldn’t be a playlist where all the games featured the basic elements found in Halo 2 and 3 multiplayer: Equal starts with equipment/power weapons as pickups to be fought over. This playlist would need to be available when the game is released.

This is a whole other subject really.

I don’t agree that it is as simple as including a playlist for one side or the other. I wont go into details here though.

> As for Halo 4, the only solution that I can see that might help popularity would be to open up Custom Games/Forge and allow players the freedom they had in Halo 3 and Reach to make games they feel are more competitive/entertaining. All the arguments now are about what should be taken out to make the games more competitive. Well, why aren’t we able to do that in Custom Games? Why aren’t the Custom Games that are being produced featured in Matchmaking?

I don’t believe there is any reason for 343 to include anything in multiplayer which is aimed towards traditional fans, simply because the remaining population will consist of players that wouldn’t touch it to being with.

> Halo’s story is not going backward, and neither should the online gameplay.

I made a thread about that type of argument the other day.

> It’s clear, however, that there should always be something there for those that liked the old ways and who don’t particularly care for the new stuff. <mark>That way there would be time for the holdouts to have a chance to appreciate what the developer has introduced</mark>, instead of the like it or leave it approach they have now.

It’s not a lack of exposure to the new gameplay which has prevented people from enjoying it, but the way in which that gameplay is not familiar at the very core.