I know one thing CoD does well.

Games Other Halo
35

> > > Wrong OP. COD attracts so many players because it is the EASIEST FPS on consoles. The amount of aim assist, bullet magnetism and camp oriented gameplay makes any inexperienced player feel like a pro when he gets those easy quickscopes.
> > >
> > > it does have to do with the same formula over and over but its MOSTLY because of the fact that cod is so incredibly easy and has nearly no skill gap.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also this thread is completely pointless because 343 confirmed halo will evolve not go back in time. There not going to dish out the same old thing so just DEAL with it and stop making threads asking to make halo 4 like previous halo’s ITS NOT HAPPENING.
> >
> > In other words, you’re telling me to adapt.
> >
> > While CoD IS an easy FPS, it is both competitive and fun. This is where Reach went wrong. It’s neither competitive OR fun.
>
> Though a few hundred thousand people that still play the game seem to disagree with you on that one.
>
> I don’t understand why people want Halo 4 to be essentially the same as Halo 3. If you want Halo 3, go play that instead. And for those of you that say that Halo doesn’t need to change, since it never has before Halo Reach, take a look at Halo 2. That was the Halo game that changed the most compared to its predecessor, adding tons of new features like dual-wielding, vehicle boarding, destructible vehicles, etc.
>
> Yes, perhaps Halo Reach wasn’t as wildly accepted as past Halo games, but the reason behind this is NOT because it changed, but more because of the changes weren’t necessarily well implemented or balanced. Now with Halo 4, we know it’s going to change a lot too. Does that mean that it’ll be bad? Not necessarily, no.
>
> We need to keep in mind that 343 Industries is made out of the fans of Halo, people like us who were once in the same community. If anybody should know how to make a fun Halo game, it’s them.

THANK YOU!

Unfortunately there is no way to make the typical mindset see this truth.

this is the simple minded halo fans logic----> “If halo 4 has anything from reach in it then halo 4 will automatically fail because reach is the most fail of all halo games”

^^^^^^^That is what i see on this forum alot and its sad.

36

> There are dozens of things that define what “Halo” is, gameplay mechanics are on the bottom of the list. What makes Halo “Halo” is the universe, the story, the settings, and the characters that inhabit it, not something as petty and insignificant as gameplay mechanics.
>
> If 343 or someone else decided to make a 3rd-person cover-based shooter starring UNSC Marines on the frontlines vs. the Covenant, it would still be a Halo game, just like how Halo Wars is still a “Halo” game.
>
> I’m not the one drawing a line in the sand dividing the Halo franchise and it’s community. Those who deny that Halo: Reach is a “Halo” game are and are a detriment on the community and the franchise.

Gameplay is not on the bottom of the list. How you feel when you are in control of a spartan is one of the most defining, aspects of the game that actually has an impact on the player. The most appealing aspect of the Halo has always been individual prowess and feeling like an unstoppable super soldier. The longer engagements open up more viable options to the player and add depth to the game that realistic shooter with low health can’t. Thats what give Halo its niche in the the FPS realm.

If CE had the exact same setting but the player was just a weak marine it wouldn’t be nearly as popular as it is today.

37

OP, y u no go play cod then?

38

> > > There are dozens of things that define what “Halo” is, gameplay mechanics are on the bottom of the list. What makes Halo “Halo” is the universe, the story, the settings, and the characters that inhabit it, not something as petty and insignificant as gameplay mechanics.
> > >
> > > If 343 or someone else decided to make a 3rd-person cover-based shooter starring UNSC Marines on the frontlines vs. the Covenant, it would still be a Halo game, just like how Halo Wars is still a “Halo” game.
> > >
> > > I’m not the one drawing a line in the sand dividing the Halo franchise and it’s community. Those who deny that Halo: Reach is a “Halo” game are and are a detriment on the community and the franchise.
> >
> > Oh, Ok. For the sake of this thread, we’re talking about gameplay.
> >
> > As far as gameplay was concerned. Reach wasn’t Halo.
>
> Nope, still was.
>
> Were we playing as Spartans? Yes
> > “But they’re Spartan-III’s and not Spartan-II’s so it doesn’t count!”
> /> Is just a freaking number. We were still super-soldiers, we could still move faster and jump higher than the regular troop.
>
> Were we fighting against the Covenant? Yes
>
> “But there wasn’t dual wielding!”
> > Halo: C.E. didn’t have dual wielding either, in fact, it didn’t have equipment or the BR, some of the elements that some people define as being core “Halo” mechanics. So I guess Halo: C.E. wasn’t “Halo”, either.
>
> Armor Abilities are the logical next-step from Equipment, Halo 4 will have a logical evolution of these concepts.
> > Jetpacks have been in Halo since Jetpack Brutes, we just haven’t been able to use them. Sprinting isn’t exclusive to Call of Duty, Spartans are allowed to sprint, and the inclusion of Spring as a gameplay mechanic allows for a infantry compliment to vehicles on larger maps. The Drop Shield was basically a prototype Bubble Shield and from a balance perspective, was more balanced than the Bubble Shield. Armor Lock… that’s a whole 'nother topic. Halo: Reach’s Armor Abilities allowed the player to chose what they wanted to use and use it when they wanted to, while Equipment was a chance thing, you either use it in the right moment, or you die and you don’t get to use it.

You’re right. The III is just a number. The reduced strafe acceleration, non floaty jumps and everything else that I seriously don’t have the time or patience to list here are what made it feel nothing like Halo.

Why you’re talking about dual wielding is beyond me.

Calling armour abilities the logical next step from equipment is very debatable. Why you are mentioning that brutes have always used jetpacks is, again, beyond me. That was always in campaign, if you really need me to establish the differences between campaign and multiplayer I can’t help you. Why you mention call of duty is beyond me. The fact that sprint is in other FPS games is not a reason for it bieng in Halo. I don’t see what you mean by “infantry compliment to vehicles”, this is a very vague statement. Derp shield was just completely useless.

All this time you’ve been talking about the abilities themelves, when it’s actually the concepts of AAs and loadouts in general which were bad. The reason they are bad as loadouts is simple: They are not, and cannot be balanced. Yet putting them in loadouts would suggest they are equal. Equipment was not a chance thing, you should know where the equipment is, rush for it if you want it, and if you’re more skilled than the other player you should get the reward of the equipment. At that point, you adapt your playstyle to the equipment, if you have a bubble shield or regenerator, you play more aggressivley.

39

> > > Halo has stayed “Halo” from the very beginning, including Halo: Reach.
> >
> > But Reach strayed too far.
>
> No it didn’t. It is still “Halo”. Just like how Halo Wars is still “Halo”.

He is talking about the gameplay not the reoccuring title.

40

> > > > Wrong OP. COD attracts so many players because it is the EASIEST FPS on consoles. The amount of aim assist, bullet magnetism and camp oriented gameplay makes any inexperienced player feel like a pro when he gets those easy quickscopes.
> > > >
> > > > it does have to do with the same formula over and over but its MOSTLY because of the fact that cod is so incredibly easy and has nearly no skill gap.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also this thread is completely pointless because 343 confirmed halo will evolve not go back in time. There not going to dish out the same old thing so just DEAL with it and stop making threads asking to make halo 4 like previous halo’s ITS NOT HAPPENING.
> > >
> > > In other words, you’re telling me to adapt.
> > >
> > > While CoD IS an easy FPS, it is both competitive and fun. This is where Reach went wrong. It’s neither competitive OR fun.
> >
> > Though a few hundred thousand people that still play the game seem to disagree with you on that one.
> >
> > I don’t understand why people want Halo 4 to be essentially the same as Halo 3. If you want Halo 3, go play that instead. And for those of you that say that Halo doesn’t need to change, since it never has before Halo Reach, take a look at Halo 2. That was the Halo game that changed the most compared to its predecessor, adding tons of new features like dual-wielding, vehicle boarding, destructible vehicles, etc.
> >
> > Yes, perhaps Halo Reach wasn’t as wildly accepted as past Halo games, but the reason behind this is NOT because it changed, but more because of the changes weren’t necessarily well implemented or balanced. Now with Halo 4, we know it’s going to change a lot too. Does that mean that it’ll be bad? Not necessarily, no.
> >
> > We need to keep in mind that 343 Industries is made out of the fans of Halo, people like us who were once in the same community. If anybody should know how to make a fun Halo game, it’s them.
>
> THANK YOU!
>
> Unfortunately there is no way to make the typical mindset see this truth.
>
> this is the simple minded halo fans logic----> “If halo 4 has anything from reach in it then halo 4 will automatically fail because reach is the most fail of all halo games”
>
> ^^^^^^^That is what i see on this forum alot and its sad.

I agree, people don’t know how to be open to the idea of something new and different, and stick to the idea that the game is going to be terrible, even though we know virtually nothing about it yet.

I’m fairly confident that Halo 4 will be a great game, and I know I’m going to spend an unhealthy amount of playtime into it, even if it does have some features similar to other games.

41

> Thats your opinion, its back up to #5 on xbox live and has over 500,000 players every 24 hours. That means more and more people are playing reach again. NO MATTER WHAT your opinion of the game is, those stats means reach is a successful and fun game.

No.

Halo 3 maintained a first place spot on the Xbox Live population leaderboards for 2 years straight, then MW2 came along and caused Halo 3 to drop to number 2 for another year.

Halo 3 remained number 2 until Halo: Reach released, and guess what? Halo: Reach dropped to NUMBER 3 just weeks after release.

Population is the last thing you should be proud of when it comes to Halo: Reach’s successes. It’s had the worst population statistics than any other multiplayer FPS Halo game ever made.

P.S.: Just to note, Halo 3 was incredibly similar to Halo 2. Things were added onto the experience in Halo 3, not manipulated like what was done to Halo: Reach.

42

I’m sorry but when compared to other Halo multiplayer FPS title’s, Reach is the weakest (and to some extent, the worst).

Halo Reach is Halo in name only, nothing more.

43

> > Thats your opinion, its back up to #5 on xbox live and has over 500,000 players every 24 hours. That means more and more people are playing reach again. NO MATTER WHAT your opinion of the game is, those stats means reach is a successful and fun game.
>
> No.
>
> Halo 3 maintained a first place spot on the Xbox Live population leaderboards for 2 years straight, then MW2 came along and caused Halo 3 to drop to number 2 for another year.
>
> Halo 3 remained number 2 until Halo: Reach released, and guess what? Halo: Reach dropped to NUMBER 3 just weeks after release.
>
> Population is the last thing you should be proud of when it comes to Halo: Reach’s successes. It’s had the worst population statistics than any other multiplayer FPS Halo game ever made.
>
> P.S.: Just to note, Halo 3 was incredibly similar to Halo 2. Things were added onto the experience in Halo 3, not manipulated like what was done to Halo: Reach.

Hey do you know what else? Back when halo 3 was so popular, COD hadnt established its name and wasnt the “easy mainstream fps to play”. Also the xbox 360 gave halo 3 hardly any competition. Gears of war 2 was TERRIBLE online and feel from grace pretty fast.

Also the PS3 was doing horrible back in those days.

In halo reach’s time the PS3 is doing VERY well and selling just as much as the 360 AND the PS3 has ALOT of great games now. As for games on the 360 halo reach has to go up against ALOT more competition than halo 3 ever did.

Skyrim fifa 12 battlefield modernwarfare 3 black ops just to name some.

You cant ever compare halo3 's numbers to halo reach’s since halo 3 didnt have to compete with the PS3’s new impressive lineup OR the tons of games that are super popular on the 360 right now.

But the funny thing is despite ALL THIS COMPETITION halo reach is #5. That spells success no matter what you say. Gears fell to #8 and is still falling. Halo reach fell but now its coming back. That is amazing.

44

> Halo has stayed “Halo” from the very beginning, including Halo: Reach.

Lol.

45

> Halo has stayed “Halo” from the very beginning, including Halo: Reach.

This. Not a fan of Reach, but it still follows the Halo forumula to an extent. And no, the reason it attracts people isn’t because it stays the same, it’s because it’s an easy game with lots of explosions that appeals to casuals.

46

> > There are dozens of things that define what “Halo” is, gameplay mechanics are on the bottom of the list. What makes Halo “Halo” is the universe, the story, the settings, and the characters that inhabit it, not something as petty and insignificant as gameplay mechanics.
> >
> > If 343 or someone else decided to make a 3rd-person cover-based shooter starring UNSC Marines on the frontlines vs. the Covenant, it would still be a Halo game, just like how Halo Wars is still a “Halo” game.
> >
> > I’m not the one drawing a line in the sand dividing the Halo franchise and it’s community. Those who deny that Halo: Reach is a “Halo” game are and are a detriment on the community and the franchise.
>
> Gameplay is not on the bottom of the list. How you feel when you are in control of a spartan is one of the most defining, aspects of the game that actually has an impact on the player. The most appealing aspect of the Halo has always been individual prowess and feeling like an unstoppable super soldier. The longer engagements open up more viable options to the player and add depth to the game that realistic shooter with low health can’t. Thats what give Halo its niche in the the FPS realm.
>
> If CE had the exact same setting but the player was just a weak marine it wouldn’t be nearly as popular as it is today.

There is a growing misconception among modern gamers that GAMEPLAY is the least important aspect of a GAME. When i’m playing a video game I don’t give a -Yoink- about the great atmosphere, storytelling, or audio experience if the game isn’t any fun to actually PLAY. How it feels in your hands is more important than anything else. Once the developers nail what the gameplay is like, the other aspects can start feeding into that, and making it better.

Halo is Halo because of how it feels to play the game. You can have all the same characters, and locations, but as soon as you change that feel it becomes unrecognizable. When games do this, it’s comparable to what it would be like for someone to start speaking a different language mid conversation. You suddenly feel lost, even though the actual topic hasn’t really changed. Why should we all have to go learn Chinese just to finish the conversation? Especially when we went into with the perception that the entire thing was going to be in english.

47

No, I am not even going to reduce myself to having to read such filth. Call of Duty is the downfall of innovation in the gaming industry. Halo keeps the core feel of Halo, while always tweaking the formula and trying new things. Telling them to act like Call of Duty is a damn disgrace.

48

> There is a growing misconception among modern gamers that GAMEPLAY is the least important aspect of a GAME.

That’s because the game industry has evolved beyond “The ghosts are bad and you need to eat pellets to kill them”. Hate to break it to ya mate, but it’s the year 2012, not 1989.

50

CoD attracts players because it’s easy… Their is no other reason. People want to feel good by occasionally doing ok. Halo isn’t easy to pick up and play. CoD staying the same is actually making people quit if anything.

51

> No, I am not even going to reduce myself to having to read such filth. Call of Duty is the downfall of innovation in the gaming industry. Halo keeps the core feel of Halo, while always tweaking the formula and trying new things. Telling them to act like Call of Duty is a damn disgrace.

Halo’s sub-genre changed from Halo 3 to Halo:Reach and removed core formula of people spawning with equal starts. We just want Halo 4 to stick with even starts, but add things on the map that makes the experience better.

52

> > No, I am not even going to reduce myself to having to read such filth. Call of Duty is the downfall of innovation in the gaming industry. Halo keeps the core feel of Halo, while always tweaking the formula and trying new things. Telling them to act like Call of Duty is a damn disgrace.
>
> Halo’s sub-genre changed from Halo 3 to Halo:Reach and removed core formula of people spawning with equal starts. We just want Halo 4 to stick with even starts, but add things on the map that makes the experience better.

How the hell is Halo: Reach not giving you equal starts? You all have access to the same perks(unless your playing Invasion)! Hell, and to further drive the point home way CoD is a P.O.S game is because that game actually does allow players to spawn with crap like rocket launchers and light machine guns. And it isn’t like everyone gets access to those weapons from the start. No, you have to grind away until you can get that pretty LMG. Unlike Reach, where all players spawn with access to the same perks.

53

Call of Duty is a pick of go game for the casuals. It does that very well, and can be a very good game. It is popular because it appeals to the casual gamer, and is a good arcady type of shooter.

It is the casual gamer which buys COD, while Halo takes skill. Cod is basically whoever sees each other first kills him (mostly). Halo is a game which requires teamwork and skill (chest and headshots etc)

Halo can learn from Cod. Not in terms of its almost game crushing unbalanced perk system, awful maps, dull graphics and terrible audio but from its ease of its play. It is so easy just to slip into a game. Halo could do this better. In halo 3, i had games where bullets didn’t even count and the lag was awful. Plus, I have had btb which have taken tens of minutes to get into only for everyone to quit as it is on Spire! Halo does not appeal to the casual gamer, and to a certain extent it seems figures are everything.

If you want Halo to get to the top again, it will have to appeal to the casual market. Don’t fight it, accept it.

Lets look at a marketers perspective.

COD DOMINATES.

Hm…what are the masses playing?

Cod?

Lets make our game like that…so people will buy it.

TO conclude, for Halo to top the charts it will have to appeal to the casual gamer. I have friends who play COd due to its easiness and Halo is too hard for a novice player to get into to.

Change will happen to Halo 4, but there will be a classic mode. no matter how much 343 harp on about them being halo friends etc…they won’t their game to sell well. And this means putting it to the casuals.

54

I think COD attracts players because it focuses on and rewards the most basic game mechanic of any FPS, pointing-and-shooting. Its a game where the accurate thrive, and the inaccurate die. All other game play features, be it teamwork, communication, map knowledge, or weapons knowledge, all take a back seat to the fundamental process of lining up a shot.

COD uses a circular deadzone and has a linear relationship between joystick angle & in-game turn velocity. There are no acceleration jumps or delays. 60 frames/s provides smooth visual feedback. Hitboxes are true to image, auto-aim/aim-magnetism is not overdone, and the reticle is placed in the middle of the screen. All of this makes the player’s physical input intrinsically connected to the reticle on screen.

COD is a so-so FPS which does the basics really well, and Halo can learn from this.

55

> > > No, I am not even going to reduce myself to having to read such filth. Call of Duty is the downfall of innovation in the gaming industry. Halo keeps the core feel of Halo, while always tweaking the formula and trying new things. Telling them to act like Call of Duty is a damn disgrace.
> >
> > Halo’s sub-genre changed from Halo 3 to Halo:Reach and removed core formula of people spawning with equal starts. We just want Halo 4 to stick with even starts, but add things on the map that makes the experience better.
>
> How the hell is Halo: Reach not giving you equal starts? You all have access to the same perks(unless your playing Invasion)! Hell, and to further drive the point home way CoD is a P.O.S game is because that game actually does allow players to spawn with crap like rocket launchers and light machine guns. And it isn’t like everyone gets access to those weapons from the start. No, you have to grind away until you can get that pretty LMG. Unlike Reach, where all players spawn with access to the same perks.

So, if I don’t like armour lock, I’m at a disadvantage.

We should either all have AL, or all have Sprint, or all just have nothing and everything is found on the map.