"I Want Halo To Be Halo"

Games Halo Infinite
1

I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.

There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:

“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”

What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”

With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.

I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.

What do y’all think?

2

> 2535448497705415;1:
> I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
>
> There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
>
> With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
>
> I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
>
> What do y’all think?

I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.

3

Well first, I will point out two video by Ascend Hyperion that I think explain things related to your question: The first one, The second one

As for the “Halo needs to be Halo”, I think it’s mostly linked to how visually 4 and 5 didn’t look like it belonged to Halo and how many players didn’t like both of those games for various reasons.
Maybe for them, the changes and new things added to Halo in those games are just like the art style, not representative of Halo and they just want those things to be thrown out of Infinite as because visually it is a come back to the original art style so it should also be the same gameplay-wise.
Also a lot of 434i changes for gameplay haven’t been well received and accepted by many fans, like, to give one exemple, the advanced movement of Halo 5 that makes the game more stressful (in the sense that even the social playlist, that should feel laid back and fun, feel competitive because if you’re not focused and always moving, you will die a lot and it will be more frustrating than not). I’m not saying every players doesn’t like the advanced movement because it has it’s fans in the community but you can’t deny the fact that it feels more like a TitanFall or COD than a Halo in multiplayer.

Here is a video of phillipgan that illustrate why advanced movement seems unnecessary in Halo games.

So when you take that into account, then you understand why some members of the community are scared or concerned of new things made by 434i, because they still haven’t completely if not at all, earned the trust of everyone.
That’s it for my view of the subject, I could be missing other reasons but this one is the most noticeable.

Edit: I forgot to say that Halo gameplay in Bungie’s games was quite unique and mixing it with gameplay mechanics seen in most FPS kinda strip Halo of his uniqueness and that’s also why they say that.

4

> 2535445440275012;2:
> > 2535448497705415;1:
> > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> >
> > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> >
> > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> >
> > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> >
> > What do y’all think?
>
> I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.

“Trend” following is inevitable in video games or creating anything in general, the thing that’s important about that is how do you re-invent or uniquely implement that trend in a video game. All games “follow” trends, I think.

My issue with the statement is when its said in protest of something that could really push a gameplay experience in a campaign or something.

I understand ambivalence to a bunch of ideas because you’re in fear of preserving the formula of the game, trust me I am too. But it’s gotten to a point where small suggestions are being written off completely and not given a chance to be explored because of “I want Halo to be Halo”

You negatively bring up sprint being in Halo (saw that coming from a mile away :rofl:) as if it’s primarily a COD mechanic. I agree with sprint not being a core mechanic in Halo to an extent

COD’s franchise now is infinitely (pun intended) more relevant than Halo because it tried different things, and “followed trends” while inserting their own spin into those trends. I’m not saying that Halo should entirely follow suit.

What I’m saying is there’s a way to still make Halo, classic good ol’ Halo without abandoning “innovativeness”. But You want Halo to be a trendsetter again?

Genuine question also: what trends did Halo set other than being a massive influence on the online multiplayer landscape?

5

> 2535448497705415;4:
> > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> > >
> > > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> > >
> > > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> > >
> > > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> > >
> > > What do y’all think?
> >
> > I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> > For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.
>
> “Trend” following is inevitable in video games or creating anything in general, the thing that’s important about that is how do you re-invent or uniquely implement that trend in a video game. All games “follow” trends, I think.
>
> My issue with the statement is when its said in protest of something that could really push a gameplay experience in a campaign or something.
>
> I understand ambivalence to a bunch of ideas because you’re in fear of preserving the formula of the game, trust me I am too. But it’s gotten to a point where small suggestions are being written off completely and not given a chance to be explored because of “I want Halo to be Halo”
>
> You negatively bring up sprint being in Halo (saw that coming from a mile away :rofl:) as if it’s primarily a COD mechanic. I agree with sprint not being a core mechanic in Halo to an extent
>
> COD’s franchise now it’s infinitely (pun intended) more relevant than Halo because it tried different things, and “followed trends” while inserting their own spin into those trends. I’m not saying that Halo should entirely follow suit.
>
> What I’m saying is there’s a way to still make Halo, classic good ol’ Halo without abandoning “innovativeness”. But You want Halo to be a trendsetter again?
>
> Genuine question also: what trends did Halo set other than being a massive influence on the online multiplayer landscape?

COD isnt “infinitely more relevant”, and even if it was itd be due to 343i confounding the franchise. 343i undoubtedly chases stupid trends, such as sprint, ads, quicktime events, advanced movement, emphasis on multiplayer rather than campaign, etc.
What trends did Halo set? Recharging shields, the two-weapon system, and dynamic AI just to name a few.

6

> 2535445440275012;5:
> > 2535448497705415;4:
> > > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> > > >
> > > > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > > > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> > > >
> > > > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> > > >
> > > > What do y’all think?
> > >
> > > I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> > > For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.
> >
> > “Trend” following is inevitable in video games or creating anything in general, the thing that’s important about that is how do you re-invent or uniquely implement that trend in a video game. All games “follow” trends, I think.
> >
> > My issue with the statement is when its said in protest of something that could really push a gameplay experience in a campaign or something.
> >
> > I understand ambivalence to a bunch of ideas because you’re in fear of preserving the formula of the game, trust me I am too. But it’s gotten to a point where small suggestions are being written off completely and not given a chance to be explored because of “I want Halo to be Halo”
> >
> > You negatively bring up sprint being in Halo (saw that coming from a mile away :rofl:) as if it’s primarily a COD mechanic. I agree with sprint not being a core mechanic in Halo to an extent
> >
> > COD’s franchise now it’s infinitely (pun intended) more relevant than Halo because it tried different things, and “followed trends” while inserting their own spin into those trends. I’m not saying that Halo should entirely follow suit.
> >
> > What I’m saying is there’s a way to still make Halo, classic good ol’ Halo without abandoning “innovativeness”. But You want Halo to be a trendsetter again?
> >
> > Genuine question also: what trends did Halo set other than being a massive influence on the online multiplayer landscape?
>
> COD isnt “infinitely more relevant”, and even if it was itd be due to 343i confounding the franchise. 343i undoubtedly chases stupid trends, such as sprint, ads, quicktime events, advanced movement, emphasis on multiplayer rather than campaign, etc.
> What trends did Halo set? Recharging shields, the two-weapon system, and dynamic AI just to name a few.

Two stick movement and look on console, the idea that FPS games can work well on console, storytelling in a FPS, to this day one of the most well known soundtracks in gaming. Halo was the game that set the trends that COD and others had to try to separate themselves from by adding things like ADS, sprint, etc. it’s incredibly sad that Halo is the one now chasing the trends. Halo going back to its roots would instantly set it apart from every big shooter out there now, there is a demand for something “different” that halo has been doing all along before Halo 4 and 5.

7

> 2535445440275012;2:
> > 2535448497705415;1:
> > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> >
> > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> >
> > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> >
> > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> >
> > What do y’all think?
>
> I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.

I feel that sprint wasn’t necessary in 4 and I thought 5’s advanced movement was decent but it didn’t belong in Halo. However, with Infinite being at a large scale, and having a massive campaign that is supposedly bigger than 4 and 5s combined, I’m fine with sprint as long as the game itself doesn’t feel like they’re trying to copy of call of duty. I don’t think having no sprint in Infinite would work because of the fact that traversing parts of the ring would end up taking so long without the ability to move quickly (of course, you could always use a warthog, but it still just seems better to have sprint in Infinite) I think that it should have at least a gamemode or two in multiplayer that doesn’t have sprint, in my opinion that would be good to make fans of 4 and 5 happy while also making older fans happy too.

8

> 2533274977144832;7:
> > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> > >
> > > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> > >
> > > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> > >
> > > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> > >
> > > What do y’all think?
> >
> > I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> > For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.
>
> I feel that sprint wasn’t necessary in 4 and I thought 5’s advanced movement was decent but it didn’t belong in Halo. However, with Infinite being at a large scale, and having a massive campaign that is supposedly bigger than 4 and 5s combined, I’m fine with sprint as long as the game itself doesn’t feel like they’re trying to copy of call of duty. I don’t think having no sprint in Infinite would work because of the fact that traversing parts of the ring would end up taking so long without the ability to move quickly (of course, you could always use a warthog, but it still just seems better to have sprint in Infinite) I think that it should have at least a gamemode or two in multiplayer that doesn’t have sprint, in my opinion that would be good to make fans of 4 and 5 happy while also making older fans happy too.

This is the answer. Have game types that are “classic” where there no sprint, and other game types with sprint. I would be super happy about that.

9

Whenever I see the phrase “I want Halo to be Halo” I don’t take it as meaning the series shouldn’t progress. I take it as yes try new things but make sure those new things don’t fundamentally change the gameplay or tone. It’s all about balance. Finding ways to improve the game without making it feel like every other FPS out there by just doing the same things.

It really comes down to innovate vs imitate.

10

The people that throw this phrase around are the same ones creaming over the possibility of a large-scale BTB (50v50) which is literally just Battlefield.

11

> 2535457314567960;6:
> > 2535445440275012;5:
> > > 2535448497705415;4:
> > > > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > > > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> > > > >
> > > > > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > > > > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> > > > >
> > > > > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do y’all think?
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> > > > For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.
> > >
> > > “Trend” following is inevitable in video games or creating anything in general, the thing that’s important about that is how do you re-invent or uniquely implement that trend in a video game. All games “follow” trends, I think.
> > >
> > > My issue with the statement is when its said in protest of something that could really push a gameplay experience in a campaign or something.
> > >
> > > I understand ambivalence to a bunch of ideas because you’re in fear of preserving the formula of the game, trust me I am too. But it’s gotten to a point where small suggestions are being written off completely and not given a chance to be explored because of “I want Halo to be Halo”
> > >
> > > You negatively bring up sprint being in Halo (saw that coming from a mile away :rofl:) as if it’s primarily a COD mechanic. I agree with sprint not being a core mechanic in Halo to an extent
> > >
> > > COD’s franchise now it’s infinitely (pun intended) more relevant than Halo because it tried different things, and “followed trends” while inserting their own spin into those trends. I’m not saying that Halo should entirely follow suit.
> > >
> > > What I’m saying is there’s a way to still make Halo, classic good ol’ Halo without abandoning “innovativeness”. But You want Halo to be a trendsetter again?
> > >
> > > Genuine question also: what trends did Halo set other than being a massive influence on the online multiplayer landscape?
> >
> > COD isnt “infinitely more relevant”, and even if it was itd be due to 343i confounding the franchise. 343i undoubtedly chases stupid trends, such as sprint, ads, quicktime events, advanced movement, emphasis on multiplayer rather than campaign, etc.
> > What trends did Halo set? Recharging shields, the two-weapon system, and dynamic AI just to name a few.
>
> Two stick movement and look on console, the idea that FPS games can work well on console, storytelling in a FPS, to this day one of the most well known soundtracks in gaming. Halo was the game that set the trends that COD and others had to try to separate themselves from by adding things like ADS, sprint, etc. it’s incredibly sad that Halo is the one now chasing the trends. Halo going back to its roots would instantly set it apart from every big shooter out there now, there is a demand for something “different” that halo has been doing all along before Halo 4 and 5.

Halo was not the first twin stick FPS. Halo was not the first story driven FPS. Halo was not the first popular Console FPS. Plenty of games had legendary soundtracks prior to Halo. Halo wasn’t even the first “recharging health” game.

Halo didn’t invent any of this. Halo simply took what was out there and assembled them in a well put together package. It doesn’t play like any of the games that it borrowed these things from either, in the same way that Halo 5 doesn’t play anything like a COD game despite having sprint, “ADS” and a few advanced movement abilities.

12

> 2533274977144832;7:
> > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > >
>
> I feel that sprint wasn’t necessary in 4 and I thought 5’s advanced movement was decent but it didn’t belong in Halo. However, with Infinite being at a large scale, and having a massive campaign that is supposedly bigger than 4 and 5s combined, I’m fine with sprint as long as the game itself doesn’t feel like they’re trying to copy of call of duty. I don’t think having no sprint in Infinite would work because of the fact that traversing parts of the ring would end up taking so long without the ability to move quickly (of course, you could always use a warthog, but it still just seems better to have sprint in Infinite) I think that it should have at least a gamemode or two in multiplayer that doesn’t have sprint, in my opinion that would be good to make fans of 4 and 5 happy while also making older fans happy too.

CE’s Halo and Silent Cartographer missions, semi-open worlds and apparently huge inspirations for Infinite’s campaign, seemed to manage just fine without sprint. Especially with Silent Cartographer, the longer areas are sized for vehicle travel and combat while areas you’re supposed to go through on foot are sized according to your base movement speed.

The thing about level design is it should always be sized so the player gets to where he wants to go in a satisfactory length of time. They’re obviously not going to force you to hike through a giant area better designed for vehicle travel just because “It’s open world”, that doesn’t change the fact that walking (or sprinting) long distances is boring. I imagine makers of this argument envision the game being like the 2020 gameplay demo if you weren’t given a warthog at the beginning, and you just had to walk to the first major encounter. Sure, you’d get there faster with sprint, but it’d still feel tedious and make you wish you had a vehicle. In this case sprint half-solves a problem that wouldn’t exist if 343 just designed the game right and put warthogs where they’re needed.

In short, open world doesn’t necessitate sprint.

13

“Halo should be Halo” doesn’t mean a bunch of dinosaurs hate change (I’m one of those dinosaurs btw). The copying other games point has been made, so I’ll add three others:

  • It means having a consistent art style. The change from H3 to H4 was beyond drastic. I can’t think of anything that aesthetically connects H3 to H4. - It means having a consistent story experience. CE, H2, and H3 all logically progressed from one to the next with their story. H4 has almost no connection to the end of H3 aside from the ship Chief was left stranded on. H4 and H5 suffer the same disconnectedness. - It means having a consistent game play experience. Each game in the original trilogy introduced some new element to the franchise without discarding the old elements. And H4’s drastic game play change makes it feel completely unconnected to H3 from a game play perspective.The overall point is Halo doesn’t feel like Halo anymore because it doesn’t play, look, or sound like the original three games did. Even the two spinoffs (Reach and ODST) still FEEL like Halo despite being different in their own ways. As an example, Reach had sprint. But it was only accessible as a pick up, similar to equipment in H3. That is an example of introducing a new game play element without discarding old elements.

And it’s not entirely unwarranted for people to point out that Halo used to be the top franchise in the world that everyone was playing and now it isn’t, so maybe we should go back and do that. It’s not a perfect argument, but it’s not crazy to look at the difference in popularity and think all the changes might be the problem.

14

> 2535435902217648;13:
> “Halo should be Halo” doesn’t mean a bunch of dinosaurs hate change (I’m one of those dinosaurs btw). The copying other games point has been made, so I’ll add three others:
> - It means having a consistent art style. The change from H3 to H4 was beyond drastic. I can’t think of anything that aesthetically connects H3 to H4. - It means having a consistent story experience. CE, H2, and H3 all logically progressed from one to the next with their story. H4 has almost no connection to the end of H3 and H4 and H5 have no connection whatsoever. There is no consistency in the story telling. - It means having a consistent game play experience. Each game in the original trilogy introduced some new element to the franchise without discarding the old elements. And H4’s drastic game play change makes it feel completely unconnected to H3 from a game play perspective.The overall point is Halo doesn’t feel like Halo because it doesn’t play, look, or sound like the original three games did. Even the two spinoffs (Reach and ODST) still FEEL like Halo despite being different in their own ways.
>
> And it’s not entirely unwarranted for people to point out that Halo used to be the top franchise in the world that everyone was playing and now it isn’t, so maybe we should go back and do that. It’s not a perfect argument, but it’s not crazy to look at the difference in popularity and think all the changes might be the problem.

The main source for most of this is that Halo 4 was always designed as an iteration on Halo Reach, not Halo 3. Halo Reach started us down a lot of the problems that Halo 4 compounded. Despite being a prequel, it was still a mainline Halo game and I think that 343 was worried about taking a step back after the movement Reach made (even in the cases of things people weren’t such big fans of).

I do get it, I am definitely a dinosaur around here too. I just think so many people look at Halo 4 in a vacuum when in reality almost EVERYTHING that Halo 4 did wrong was 343 trying to expand upon what Reach started, even when it doesn’t make sense.

It doesn’t excuse it, but it makes complete sense when you don’t draw the line from Halo 3 directly to Halo 4.

15

> 2806037446402987;14:
> > 2535435902217648;13:
> > “Halo should be Halo” doesn’t mean a bunch of dinosaurs hate change (I’m one of those dinosaurs btw). The copying other games point has been made, so I’ll add three others:
> > - It means having a consistent art style. The change from H3 to H4 was beyond drastic. I can’t think of anything that aesthetically connects H3 to H4. - It means having a consistent story experience. CE, H2, and H3 all logically progressed from one to the next with their story. H4 has almost no connection to the end of H3 and H4 and H5 have no connection whatsoever. There is no consistency in the story telling. - It means having a consistent game play experience. Each game in the original trilogy introduced some new element to the franchise without discarding the old elements. And H4’s drastic game play change makes it feel completely unconnected to H3 from a game play perspective.The overall point is Halo doesn’t feel like Halo because it doesn’t play, look, or sound like the original three games did. Even the two spinoffs (Reach and ODST) still FEEL like Halo despite being different in their own ways.
> >
> > And it’s not entirely unwarranted for people to point out that Halo used to be the top franchise in the world that everyone was playing and now it isn’t, so maybe we should go back and do that. It’s not a perfect argument, but it’s not crazy to look at the difference in popularity and think all the changes might be the problem.
>
> The main source for most of this is that Halo 4 was always designed as an iteration on Halo Reach, not Halo 3. Halo Reach started us down a lot of the problems that Halo 4 compounded. Despite being a prequel, it was still a mainline Halo game and I think that 343 was worried about taking a step back after the movement Reach made (even in the cases of things people weren’t such big fans of).
>
> I do get it, I am definitely a dinosaur around here too. I just think so many people look at Halo 4 in a vacuum when in reality almost EVERYTHING that Halo 4 did wrong was 343 trying to expand upon what Reach started, even when it doesn’t make sense.
>
> It doesn’t excuse it, but it makes complete sense when you don’t draw the line from Halo 3 directly to Halo 4.

That’s an excellent point. But even still, Reach still maintains a solid connection between H3 and Reach though (I was actually editing my post when you responded, which is where I added a connecting point between those two). H4 and Reach are so drastically different from an aesthetic perspective that the 343 games almost feel like they should just be their own franchise. I can’t honestly think of a single thing from H4 that connects it in any way to an older game like Reach, or ODST, or CE or whichever.

There’s a reason you can find about 117,000 videos negatively discussing the art style change in H4.

16

> 2535449076192416;12:
> > 2533274977144832;7:
> > > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > >
> >
> > I feel that sprint wasn’t necessary in 4 and I thought 5’s advanced movement was decent but it didn’t belong in Halo. However, with Infinite being at a large scale, and having a massive campaign that is supposedly bigger than 4 and 5s combined, I’m fine with sprint as long as the game itself doesn’t feel like they’re trying to copy of call of duty. I don’t think having no sprint in Infinite would work because of the fact that traversing parts of the ring would end up taking so long without the ability to move quickly (of course, you could always use a warthog, but it still just seems better to have sprint in Infinite) I think that it should have at least a gamemode or two in multiplayer that doesn’t have sprint, in my opinion that would be good to make fans of 4 and 5 happy while also making older fans happy too.
>
> CE’s Halo and Silent Cartographer missions, semi-open worlds and apparently huge inspirations for Infinite’s campaign, seemed to manage just fine without sprint. Especially with Silent Cartographer, the longer areas are sized for vehicle travel and combat while areas you’re supposed to go through on foot are sized according to your base movement speed.
>
> The thing about level design is it should always be sized so the player gets to where he wants to go in a satisfactory length of time. They’re obviously not going to force you to hike through a giant area better designed for vehicle travel just because “It’s open world”, that doesn’t change the fact that walking (or sprinting) long distances is boring. I imagine makers of this argument envision the game being like the 2020 gameplay demo if you weren’t given a warthog at the beginning, and you just had to walk to the first major encounter. Sure, you’d get there faster with sprint, but it’d still feel tedious and make you wish you had a vehicle. In this case sprint half-solves a problem that wouldn’t exist if 343 just designed the game right and put warthogs where they’re needed.
>
> In short, open world doesn’t necessitate sprint.

I didn’t mean that open world necessitates sprint, I guess I just feel that out of all the Halos the one that makes the most sense to have sprint in is Infinite.

17

“Halo needs to be Halo” isn’t a reason to reject a design decision, and “change is necessary” isn’t a reason to support one. They’re both just ways of dismissing a thing (in the former case, a design decision; in the latter, a rejection of that design decision) without having to critically examine the thing itself.

18

> 2535435902217648;15:
> > 2806037446402987;14:
> > > 2535435902217648;13:
> > > “Halo should be Halo” doesn’t mean a bunch of dinosaurs hate change (I’m one of those dinosaurs btw). The copying other games point has been made, so I’ll add three others:
> > > - It means having a consistent art style. The change from H3 to H4 was beyond drastic. I can’t think of anything that aesthetically connects H3 to H4. - It means having a consistent story experience. CE, H2, and H3 all logically progressed from one to the next with their story. H4 has almost no connection to the end of H3 and H4 and H5 have no connection whatsoever. There is no consistency in the story telling. - It means having a consistent game play experience. Each game in the original trilogy introduced some new element to the franchise without discarding the old elements. And H4’s drastic game play change makes it feel completely unconnected to H3 from a game play perspective.The overall point is Halo doesn’t feel like Halo because it doesn’t play, look, or sound like the original three games did. Even the two spinoffs (Reach and ODST) still FEEL like Halo despite being different in their own ways.
> > >
> > > And it’s not entirely unwarranted for people to point out that Halo used to be the top franchise in the world that everyone was playing and now it isn’t, so maybe we should go back and do that. It’s not a perfect argument, but it’s not crazy to look at the difference in popularity and think all the changes might be the problem.
> >
> > The main source for most of this is that Halo 4 was always designed as an iteration on Halo Reach, not Halo 3. Halo Reach started us down a lot of the problems that Halo 4 compounded. Despite being a prequel, it was still a mainline Halo game and I think that 343 was worried about taking a step back after the movement Reach made (even in the cases of things people weren’t such big fans of).
> >
> > I do get it, I am definitely a dinosaur around here too. I just think so many people look at Halo 4 in a vacuum when in reality almost EVERYTHING that Halo 4 did wrong was 343 trying to expand upon what Reach started, even when it doesn’t make sense.
> >
> > It doesn’t excuse it, but it makes complete sense when you don’t draw the line from Halo 3 directly to Halo 4.
>
> That’s an excellent point. But even still, Reach still maintains a solid connection between H3 and Reach though (I was actually editing my post when you responded, which is where I added a connecting point between those two). H4 and Reach are so drastically different from an aesthetic perspective that the 343 games almost feel like they should just be their own franchise. I can’t honestly think of a single thing from H4 that connects it in any way to an older game like Reach, or ODST, or CE or whichever.
>
> There’s a reason you can find about 117,000 videos negatively discussing the art style change in H4. There’s an argument to be made that it broke the franchise.

Maybe from a hardcore Halo’s point of view, the games seem drastically different aesthetically. However, most of the visuals are clearly rooted in Halo.

If I show someone the Halo 4 Master Chief armor, AR, Sword, Warthog, Scorpion, Banshee, Hunter or Ghost, they will know what that is despite the design adjustments. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say there is NO visual continuity between the older games and Halo 4. It definitely has some jarring re-designs, but so does Reach, which is where they apparently learned all of their lessons from.

I’ll be the first to say that the redesigned sounds went too far, and that some things (like the MC armor) should have been introduced, not just randomly changed. However, I think the “It’s not Halo” argument ignores the history of changes between the games over the years. Halo CE to Halo 2 has still been the biggest game to game adjustment I have had to make between two titles as far as art design and gameplay.

19

Halo Infinite looks like Halo. The art style, story, the music. Sure, there are some stuff inspired from other games, like grappling hooks from Titanfall, but it’s also bringing in old stuff from Halo and expanding on it, like equipment, and expanded vehicular combat. With Infinite, I’m truly beginning to believe, that Combat has Evolved.

20

> 2806037446402987;11:
> > 2535457314567960;6:
> > > 2535445440275012;5:
> > > > 2535448497705415;4:
> > > > > 2535445440275012;2:
> > > > > > 2535448497705415;1:
> > > > > > I’m super excited for Halo Infinite. Its the main reason why I joined this community, and I’m having a blast connecting with people on these forums as we giddily wait for Halo Infinite. However there is one thing that really bothers me about the Halo community in general.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There’s always this one particular statement that’s pretty rife in any discourse about Halo, and that’s:
> > > > > > *“No. I want Halo to be Halo.”*What does this actually mean? The common answer to that would be, Bungie’s Halo. The original trilogy obviously, because that was when the Halo franchise was at it’s prime. And it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. My problem with this statement is that people use this as a reply to other individuals in this community when a simple mechanic, mode, or something that diversifies the gameplay for Halo Infinite is suggested. An addition that doesn’t drastically beset the core Halo “feel.”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With all due respect, there are some people in this community that are stuck in the days of Bungie or- whatever you want to call it… nostalgia. I think it is incredibly detrimental to Halo Infinite’s potential.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want Halo to be Halo. But I also don’t want it to be the same linear experience I got a decade ago. Simplicity is nice. But change is absolutely necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do y’all think?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t think you have a good enough understanding of what people mean when they say this.
> > > > > For example, if someone says “I want sprint in Infinite!” and then another guy comes in and says "No, I want Halo to be Halo.’’ what he means is that Halo shouldn’t ever go along with game trends simply because they’re trendy. Let Halo be Halo, and not a weird amalgamation of Bungie Halo and COD.
> > > >
> > > > “Trend” following is inevitable in video games or creating anything in general, the thing that’s important about that is how do you re-invent or uniquely implement that trend in a video game. All games “follow” trends, I think.
> > > >
> > > > My issue with the statement is when its said in protest of something that could really push a gameplay experience in a campaign or something.
> > > >
> > > > I understand ambivalence to a bunch of ideas because you’re in fear of preserving the formula of the game, trust me I am too. But it’s gotten to a point where small suggestions are being written off completely and not given a chance to be explored because of “I want Halo to be Halo”
> > > >
> > > > You negatively bring up sprint being in Halo (saw that coming from a mile away :rofl:) as if it’s primarily a COD mechanic. I agree with sprint not being a core mechanic in Halo to an extent
> > > >
> > > > COD’s franchise now it’s infinitely (pun intended) more relevant than Halo because it tried different things, and “followed trends” while inserting their own spin into those trends. I’m not saying that Halo should entirely follow suit.
> > > >
> > > > What I’m saying is there’s a way to still make Halo, classic good ol’ Halo without abandoning “innovativeness”. But You want Halo to be a trendsetter again?
> > > >
> > > > Genuine question also: what trends did Halo set other than being a massive influence on the online multiplayer landscape?
> > >
> > > COD isnt “infinitely more relevant”, and even if it was itd be due to 343i confounding the franchise. 343i undoubtedly chases stupid trends, such as sprint, ads, quicktime events, advanced movement, emphasis on multiplayer rather than campaign, etc.
> > > What trends did Halo set? Recharging shields, the two-weapon system, and dynamic AI just to name a few.
> >
> > Two stick movement and look on console, the idea that FPS games can work well on console, storytelling in a FPS, to this day one of the most well known soundtracks in gaming. Halo was the game that set the trends that COD and others had to try to separate themselves from by adding things like ADS, sprint, etc. it’s incredibly sad that Halo is the one now chasing the trends. Halo going back to its roots would instantly set it apart from every big shooter out there now, there is a demand for something “different” that halo has been doing all along before Halo 4 and 5.
>
> Halo was not the first twin stick FPS. Halo was not the first story driven FPS. Halo was not the first popular Console FPS. Plenty of games had legendary soundtracks prior to Halo. Halo wasn’t even the first “recharging health” game.
>
> Halo didn’t invent any of this. Halo simply took what was out there and assembled them in a well put together package. It doesn’t play like any of the games that it borrowed these things from either, in the same way that Halo 5 doesn’t play anything like a COD game despite having sprint, “ADS” and a few advanced movement abilities.

What was the first twin stick FPS on console? I’m curious because I grew up with goldeneye and perfect dark, timesplitters, and I can’t remember an FPS before Halo that did the twin stick model we have now. Halo, while not the first story driven FPS, is up there with Half Life as one of the most memorable stories in FPS history, for a good reason. I could keep going, but there’s a reason why Halo is still relevant while all the other games you were thinking about nobody really talks about anymore.

At the end of the day, every console FPS after Halo tried to imitate Halo. Every Halo game with 343i tries to imitate other shooters. Whether people like that or not is personal preference.