I suppose it IS about change after all

Games Other Halo
1

One of the popular criticisms against those who voice complaints or negative opinions about Halo 4, aside from them simply being spoiled brats (which is a flawed argument by the way), is that they cannot accept or “adapt” to the changes of Halo 4. I have to say, that is partially true. However, we have adapted to the changes in gameplay. We can use Armor Abilities, ordinance and all of the Support and tactical upgrades just as well as anyone. That is the easy part. No, I’d wager the change I, and others, cannot accept is what Halo has become because of Halo 4.

I won’t bore you with some drawn out story about how I am a huge fan of Halo, it’s unnecessary. I will just say that playing Halo 4 doesn’t feel like I am playing a Halo game anymore. No, that is not a “HALO 4 ISN’T HALO” jab, Halo 4 is still a Halo game and saying otherwise is foolish. My point is that Halo 4 does not capture the feeling I’ve experienced from the Halo franchise over the years.

Past Halos had something for everyone. The Campaigns were super replayable with great environments, great set pieces like Scarab fights, memorable enemies and encounters and so on. Fighting through the Autumn in CE and stepping onto Halo for the first time, battling through New Mombasa’s streets (technically Old Mombasa but still) in Halo 2, fighting on the Ark in Halo 3…all such great environments. As mentioned above, the Scarab fights were a treat, but the Warthog runs in Halo: CE and 3, the Sabre section in Reach was great as well as missions Exodus and New Alexandria for their apocalyptic atmosphere.

In Halo 4, I can’t really say any of that has occurred. From Dawn to Requiem were the only parts where I felt I was playing a Halo game, the mystery and danger were there, but once the Infinity starts to show signs of being around, it’s gone. Personally, I thought having Chief and Cortana remain alone for a long time would built up the atmosphere even more, but that’s just me. As for set pieces, the Mammoth was cool I suppose, but the build up to the Lich was pitiful. It didn’t DO anything. The Broadsword was pretty cool though. As for the enemies, I’ll stick with the Covies for now. Honestly, they don’t look like the Covenant anymore. They all blend into these generic, monstrous looking aliens. The Jackals are no longer the bird-like aliens were are familiar with, the Grunts look like a Locust-reject from Gears and the Elites are no longer the refined, honor-bound warriors we know and love. I get they are a splinter-faction of the Covenant, but they just aren’t the Covenant anymore. I miss the English-speaking Grunts cowering in fear and the Elites who mocked you, now it’s just a bunch of jabbering aliens.

I just have no reason to play Chief’s new adventure anymore.

As for the multiplayer, I know this one is a hot button issue. When I refer to multiplayer, I refer to matchmaking, custom games and so on. The past Halos had something for everyone. Prefer a more competitive atmosphere? Here is a Ranked/Competitive playlist. Want something a bit more laid back, maybe with more players or not as competitive gametypes? Here is a Social playlist. Neither of that up your alley? Well here are Custom games, a place where you can build almost any sort of gametypes, a feature strengthened by Forge introduced in Halo 3. Even without Forge, Halo had robust Custom games, remember Zombies in Halo 2? Tower of Power? Just making rockets orbit you?

Halo 4 just doesn’t have any of that. There is just this mess of a UI and playlists are unorganized, Custom game options are severely lacking with several huge gametypes outright gone. Forge is a bit better, but I have no inspiration to make much of anything in the game with it despite sinking hours in Foundry and Sandbox and Forge World.

Vehicles also didn’t suck the big one back then. Using the Warthog, Banshee, Ghost and more didn’t feel like death sentences. Sure you weren’t invincible, but you’d definitely last more than a few seconds. Even with Halo 3’s power drain, vehicles were still useful. Now with Plasma Pistols as spawning weapons and plasma grenades everywhere, you’re -Yoinked!-.

Even the announcement of a new map pack was an event. Sure, not all of the maps were good, but each new map pack had something to look forward to. Heroic had Foundry, our first true Forge space. Legendary had Avalanche, a great BTB and Objective map. Mythic I and II brought us Sandbox, a huge step up for Forging, Heretic, a Midship remake, and I felt Longshore was a cool map. Halo 2 itself brought us map packs with tons of maps for a nice price.

Does Halo 4 have the same joy? Crimson was a flop, Majestic was good and Castle is a real mixed bag. For all the flash of the trailers, getting the DLC itself was not great once playing actually began.

In conclusion, the body of a Halo game exists in Halo 4, it’s fast, it has some cool new ideas, but unfortunately it does not have the soul of a Halo game. That is the change I can’t stand or want to. I have a feeling others would agree, but I will not say they do agree. You see, I can’t speak for everyone, everybody has a complex take on what they feel Halo is to them. What I say may resonant with a few, but not all. But I think those of us with doubts after Halo 4 was released can all agree, this isn’t the Halo we know and love.

So I suppose the question has to be asked: “Why are you still here then?”. The answer is easy, we want to make the game better for everyone or if unable to do so keep the game from becoming worse. We don’t complain to spite those who like Halo 4 nor are we spoiled brats who cling to nostalgia. I may have mentioned all those things I loved from the past Halo games, but I know it wasn’t perfect back then. We had a divided community, like we do now, we accused Bungie of being indifferent, as we accuse 343i of now. Yet we still had games we could all play and do our own thing. With all that Halo 4 has changed, can we say that now?

Halo HAS changed from the juggernaut franchise it once was with Halo 4. Whether or not that is beneficial will be seen in the future.

2

Well written and well presented Cobra, while I can’t agree with you on campaign terms I can definitely agree with you as far as the multiplayer goes. By campaign I won’t argue with the gameplay elements, they were significantly lacking, I will support the story however. It’s been one of my favourites. I believe the Mammoth level was a new experience? I think the Lich tied into the Scarab missions and the Broadsword level tied into the LNoS mission, I really enjoyed both.

Props to everyone who’s been popping onto the forums with well thought out arguments recently, it helps more than you know

3

I believe you expressed my feelings towards Halo 4 quite perfectly. The only thing that I really want to comment on is the sense of mystery that Halo games always had. That was what I was looking forward to the most in Halo 4 was being alone, facing a brand new and unknown Forerunner planet on my own, giving us that sense of loneliness that we had in Halo 1, notably in 343 Guilty Spark and the Library. No backup, nothing familiar. But, like you said, we have this feeling for around two missions, since the UNSC and the Infinity take no time to show their faces, throwing us into the old. At that point, there was no feeling of danger or hopelessness. We were no longer stranded on Requiem, since we knew that we could leave.

When it was announced that the Covenant would return, I wasn’t unhappy about it since I expected them to be the transition between the old and the new, to be there for the first couple of missions, but then rarely appear later on once they got replaced by Prometheans. Furthermore, I figured that we’d have these 3-way battles if the kind that made Halo 1 so great, due to their hectic nature. But no, this is all ruined because the Prometheans and Covenant team up together rather quickly, and the Covenant seem to appear more often than the Prometheans themselves. I’m all for using Covenant, but instead of having one big new threat and a smaller, old threat, we just have one single group of enemies again.

I still loved the campaign though, despite these flaws, it just wasn’t really the same as it was hyped up to be.

4

I love how the metrics for success are constantly shifting for Halo 4, for those that hate the game…

Usually when a game sells well and is well-reviewed, it is considered successful.

With Halo 4, these aspects are glossed over, and utter subjectivity comes to play.

Halo 1’s massive gaps is story-telling is ok… But Halo 4 gaps are a sign of shoddy writing.

We have seen everything from the:

OST being bad
Campaign being bad
graphics being bad
Art direction being bad
MP being bad
weapons being bad

If one was to read the OP, it would appear that Halo 4 was Duke Nukkem… And some individual will talk about population counts, MLG, etc…

I agree that a lot of things can and should be improved upon. Unfortunately though the hyperbole and subjectivity is strong in the majority of complaints.

There are many who enjoyed the story of Halo 4. Yet the OP makes it sounds as if there was some fundament flaw in it…

Nope…

The campaign is bad for YOU.

We, myself included, need to stop coopting the 8 million purchasers of Halo 4 and say what we feel about the game individually.

For me, the game is great. For the OP, not so.

I am done with the grand proclamations etc…

5

Very well written. Whether someone agrees with you or not, at least they can look at this post and know someone took the time to clearly articulate their thoughts.

As I read your post, I found myself agreeing with much of what you had to say. Now if only everyone would post like this.

THANKED

6

> The campaign is bad for YOU.

Wasn’t that the point of, “You see, I can’t speak for everyone, everybody has a complex take on what they feel Halo is to them.”?

7

> I love how the metrics for success are constantly shifting for Halo 4, for those that hate the game…
>
> Usually when a game sells well and is well-reviewed, it is considered successful.
>
> With Halo 4, these aspects are glossed over, and utter subjectivity comes to play.
>
> Halo 1’s massive gaps is story-telling is ok… But Halo 4 gaps are a sign of shoddy writing.

Halo 1’s story was quite straightforward, simple and effective. Everything felt new and refreshing since it was new. There was a huge sense of mystery behind Halo 1, since we knew that there was a lot more to the universe, even though it hadn’t been explained yet. The story we were given explained just the right amount of stuff to have us understand what was going on and why. Many people consider Halo 1’s campaign to be an almost flawless experience (though some levels, like the Library, were somewhat tedious). If you could kindly point out these “massive gaps”, however, then it could help us understand your point of view.

However, you have to remember that Halo 1 was the first game in a series, and didn’t have any established universe that came with it. There was no super hype like its sequels, and no expectations to live up to. It was a success due to it being a great game. Halo 4, on the other hand, is the 4th game in Master Chief’s story, and the 7th Halo video game to be released. At that point, not only does it need to be a great story that lives up and exceeds its predecessors, but it also has an expansive universe that it needs to follow. It also needs to cater to those who haven’t played past Halo games before. If you hadn’t played Halo 1-3, you’d be lost in Halo 4. Halo 1, on the other hand, doesn’t have that problem.

But the problem isn’t following that established universe, which it did well, but explaining it seems to be an issue. For those who didn’t read the books, the Spartan-IVs and Didact would not have been explained at all, creating a rather confusing story. Halo 1 had no such issues, since we didn’t need to know every single detail about the Covenant, since all of that came later. We knew that we were at war with them for a while now, and that’s all we really needed to know. Of course, you could say the same for the Didact, but the main difference is that, in Halo 4, we’re seeing the beginning of the new war. Can anybody who hasn’t read the books tell us why the Didact is killing humans? Or why some Elites are suddenly killing us again? Most likely not, no.

8

Halo 1 was also Bungie’s first game Hotrod, Halo 4 is 343’s first game. I think Halo 1 was a success because it was a new thing, something Halo 4 struggled to do.

9

I certainly disagree about your campaign and some multiplayer thoughts, but I do agree with your custom games thoughts. It’s really annoying how these things can’t be done in Halo 4, when they could be done in other older, less technically impressive games. That’s just my main gripe with this game. I do actually love certain elements of the story and how 343 seem to be trying to fix the crappy, crappy turn Karen Traviss is leading the series.

10

> Halo 1 was also Bungie’s first game Hotrod, Halo 4 is 343’s first game. I think Halo 1 was a success because it was a new thing, something Halo 4 struggled to do.

What? Halo 1 was far from being Bungie’s first game. Marathan, ONI and Myth are just examples of other series that they’ve made.

And Halo 1 was a success because it’s an amazing game. Even today, it’s still amazing compared to many new games, even being over a decade old. But yes, Halo 4 is 343is first game as a company, and they made a great campaign nonetheless. But keep in mind that their team was handpicked by Microsoft and is made of industry veterans who are all diehard Halo fans. With a team of 200+ people like that, it’s not unreasonable to expect something amazing out of them. Bungie, on the other hand, had probably less than 50 employees during the time of Halo 1.

11

I play Campaign in Halo 4 all the time. I’d say it’s my most played Campaign of the Halo games.

And, no Halo 4 didn’t turn the series away from the Juggernaut it was, that was Halo Reach.

12

I did adapt, and i still poop on kids. The difference is they sometimes get a kill or two on me compared to getting none at all because of some crutch 343 gave them (i.e ordinance, AA, sprint). The game is still 100x worse then its predecessors. Even reach NBNS was better then this garbage.

Edit: With campaign nothing really matters. Just give me a good story line to keep following.

13

Another thing that’s quite relevant to the thread’s title, I think, would be the mentality behind the creation of each Halo game. In every Halo game that Bungie made, there was one big mentality behind it : “Let’s make a game that we want to play.” Bungie always put themselves in the shoes of the people buying games, since they are gamers after all. To add onto that, they would always strive to innovate and bring something new and interesting to the table. Maybe it was just that the guys at Bungie have a great understanding of what makes good game, but that mentality has spawned some of the greatest games of this generation.

343i, on the other hand, seems to have the mentality of “Let’s make a game that non-Halo players want to play.” They focused on bringing in new players, players who weren’t interested in Halo as a franchise, preferring to play games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. From what I can tell by their pre-release press of “Call of Duty does things well that we can do better” and their GDC conference, it’s rather clear that they did not follow Bungie’s mentality in the least bit. Furthermore, unlike Bungie, once again proved by Frankie’s comment of doing things that CoD does, they would always try to imitate when it came to the multiplayer rather than innovate. They tried to make Halo like every other game out there, rather than have it stand out and be its own thing.

So, the whole mentality behind making Halo games has changed to. Once again, is it for the best or for the worst? It’s up to everybody to decide their own view on it.

14

343 and microsoft will make money on halo 5 and 6. then they will make money on various spin offs in the halo universe.

mp populations dont mean anything when you are making money hand over fist. halo 5 and 6 dont even need mp options to make a profit.

the series isnt dying. you just dont like the direction they are going.

just like ce changed the direction of the fps genre, that is what call of duty has done. people didnt like it then and people dont like it now.

15

> 343 and microsoft will make money on halo 5 and 6. then they will make money on various spin offs in the halo universe.
>
> mp populations dont mean anything when you are making money hand over fist. halo 5 and 6 dont even need mp options to make a profit.
>
> the series isnt dying. <mark>you just dont like the direction they are going.</mark>
>
> just like ce changed the direction of the fps genre, that is what call of duty has done. people didnt like it then and people dont like it now.

That’s my point, I admitted it in the original post. Yet I doubt my sentiment is mine alone.

16

> > The campaign is bad for YOU.
>
> Wasn’t that the point of, “You see, I can’t speak for everyone, everybody has a complex take on what they feel Halo is to them.”?

Everyone has a right to express their opinion.

Mine is no more or less important than anyone elses :slight_smile:

17

> > I love how the metrics for success are constantly shifting for Halo 4, for those that hate the game…
> >
> > Usually when a game sells well and is well-reviewed, it is considered successful.
> >
> > With Halo 4, these aspects are glossed over, and utter subjectivity comes to play.
> >
> > Halo 1’s massive gaps is story-telling is ok… But Halo 4 gaps are a sign of shoddy writing.
>
> Halo 1’s story was quite straightforward, simple and effective. Everything felt new and refreshing since it was new. There was a huge sense of mystery behind Halo 1, since we knew that there was a lot more to the universe, even though it hadn’t been explained yet. The story we were given explained just the right amount of stuff to have us understand what was going on and why. Many people consider Halo 1’s campaign to be an almost flawless experience (though some levels, like the Library, were somewhat tedious). If you could kindly point out these “massive gaps”, however, then it could help us understand your point of view.
>
> However, you have to remember that Halo 1 was the first game in a series, and didn’t have any established universe that came with it. There was no super hype like its sequels, and no expectations to live up to. It was a success due to it being a great game. Halo 4, on the other hand, is the 4th game in Master Chief’s story, and the 7th Halo video game to be released. At that point, not only does it need to be a great story that lives up and exceeds its predecessors, but it also has an expansive universe that it needs to follow. It also needs to cater to those who haven’t played past Halo games before. If you hadn’t played Halo 1-3, you’d be lost in Halo 4. Halo 1, on the other hand, doesn’t have that problem.
>
> But the problem isn’t following that established universe, which it did well, but explaining it seems to be an issue. For those who didn’t read the books, the Spartan-IVs and Didact would not have been explained at all, creating a rather confusing story. Halo 1 had no such issues, since we didn’t need to know every single detail about the Covenant, since all of that came later. We knew that we were at war with them for a while now, and that’s all we really needed to know. Of course, you could say the same for the Didact, but the main difference is that, in Halo 4, we’re seeing the beginning of the new war. Can anybody who hasn’t read the books tell us why the Didact is killing humans? Or why some Elites are suddenly killing us again? Most likely not, no.

We know nothing of the Flood.

We do not know why exactly the Covenant view Halo as a religious artifact.

The nature of this great journey is not fleshed out.

Those answers come in the second game, more to less.

In terms of the campaign of Halo 1, I loved it and agree that the sense of wonder is awe-inspiring.

However, there was significant Wart Hog rides of silence story-wise. There was a lot of repetition and back-tracking in the later stages.

We seem to give Halo 1 a pass story-wise because of the second and third games. But please consider that there was NO guarantee of Halo 2 when Halo 1 was created.

In this new trilogy, we know that we are getting Halo 5 and 6. This is why I have chosen to give 343i a chance to flesh out the Didact etc…

For me, the campaign is no worst than before. Just my opinion :slight_smile:

18

> We know nothing of the Flood.

We know they are a virulent parasite. Spark and Cortana explains a lot of this.

> We do not know why exactly the Covenant view Halo as a religious artifact.
>
> The nature of this great journey is not fleshed out.
>
> Those answers come in the second game, more to less.

Which works for me.

> In terms of the campaign of Halo 1, I loved it and agree that the sense of wonder is awe-inspiring.
>
> However, there was significant Wart Hog rides of silence story-wise. There was a lot of repetition and back-tracking in the later stages.
>
> We seem to give Halo 1 a pass story-wise because of the second and third games. <mark>But please consider that there was NO guarantee of Halo 2 when Halo 1 was created.</mark>
>
> In this new trilogy, we know that we are getting Halo 5 and 6. This is why I have chosen to give 343i a chance to flesh out the Didact etc…
>
> For me, the campaign is no worst than before. Just my opinion :slight_smile:

Why? Halo’s 2 and 3 were created so that point is a bit irrelevant.

19

> > We know nothing of the Flood.
>
> We know they are a virulent parasite. Spark and Cortana explains a lot of this.
>
>
>
> > We do not know why exactly the Covenant view Halo as a religious artifact.
> >
> > The nature of this great journey is not fleshed out.
> >
> > Those answers come in the second game, more to less.
>
> Which works for me.
>
>
>
> > In terms of the campaign of Halo 1, I loved it and agree that the sense of wonder is awe-inspiring.
> >
> > However, there was significant Wart Hog rides of silence story-wise. There was a lot of repetition and back-tracking in the later stages.
> >
> > We seem to give Halo 1 a pass story-wise because of the second and third games. <mark>But please consider that there was NO guarantee of Halo 2 when Halo 1 was created.</mark>
> >
> > In this new trilogy, we know that we are getting Halo 5 and 6. This is why I have chosen to give 343i a chance to flesh out the Didact etc…
> >
> > For me, the campaign is no worst than before. Just my opinion :slight_smile:
>
> Why? Halo’s 2 and 3 were created so that point is a bit irrelevant.

And Halo 5 and 6 will make any shortcomings of the story of 4 moot :stuck_out_tongue:

20

> And Halo 5 and 6 will make any shortcomings of the story of 4 moot :stuck_out_tongue:

They might, but that doesn’t change the fact that 343i did say they were going to really bridge the books and games together and didn’t really. There is so much material from the books that could’ve made Halo 4 better. It’s one thing to say, “Why are the Covenant bad guys in CE?” but it is another thing entirely to ask, “I thought the Forerunners were dead and liked humans, why is the Didact still alive and hates humans?”. It wouldn’t have been a stretch to say his experiences with the Flood drove him insane and built upon the human-Forerunner War besides a fuzzy cutscene and some Terminals that are in a bit of canonical flux at the moment because of Silentium. Heck, Spartan Ops could’ve been the ideal way to do so, more answers about humanities past could’ve come to light, give some background on the Didact, ect. Instead…well I’m not sure what exactly the point of Spartan Ops’s story was.