How would people feel about these “CoD-inspired” features if Call of Duty did not exist, or did not have these features? This includes Loadouts, Perks, and all the other stuff people keep saying Halo took from Call of Duty. Are people just against them because Call of Duty had similar features, or are you just against them in general?
So basically I’m asking if these features were original ideas, unused in other games, would people still complain?
Exactly the same.
Edit: that’s how I’d feel about it. The haters would probably move into to criticising Halo for copying pixels from Doom.
I like all the stuff no matter where it came from.
they would probably wait and see then cry like babies.
I wouldn’t care, mainly because I know CoD didn’t invent sprint, load outs, or even perks.
CoD has literally no influence on my opinions on halo 4.
If CoD didn’t exist then maybe gamers today wouldn’t always want the “easy cookie” gameplay and might like the “hardwork” of actually earning your kills rather then shouting for shorter killtimes.
It is purely down to the fact that COD has similar elements if you ask me.
Without a doubt the most mainstream game out there right now, most dislike it because of it similarities being brought into Halo
A lot of people tend to forget or don’t know that Halo was once mainstream and MANY didn’t like it either, yet one of its features is now in pretty much every shooter. (regenerating health) Yet Halo wasn’t the first game to use regenerating health.
I love people are accusing Halo 4 of copying cod yet when Crysis 2 came out nobody said anything
> I love people are accusing Halo 4 of copying cod yet when Crysis 2 came out nobody said anything
Don’t forget Transformers.
Honestly? they would just find something else to complain about. I’m not fond of everything in halo 4. the “perks” for example. But im going to buy halo 4 and give it a try any way. I don’t like COD anymore. But apparentaly theres some un spoken rule that if you like one game you must hate the other…That being said some people have some legit reasons to not like these new ideas. But if you find someone leaning on the fact that they seem cod ish they probably don’t have much of an argument and you can just ignore them anyway.
> I love people are accusing Halo 4 of copying cod yet when Crysis 2 came out nobody said anything
Oh really? That’s one of the biggest complaints Crysis 2 receives whenever mentioned.
If CoD didn’t exist, Halo would still play like Halo. Not some cheap gimmicky CoD clone to please the casuals.
I’ll admit that when they first mentioned “Modifications” in Halo 4 on the GI article, my first thoughts was that they were going in the wrong direction. Then I reread the article and saw how uninformative they were on most of the issues they were talking about regarding to multiplayer, though the lack of information on it did kept me on edge on it.
Then E3 finally strolled around and I saw how the perks had very little impact on the fights themselves compared to CoD. We’re still on equal grounds in terms of damage, AA capabilities(besides making them last longer or used slightly more frequently before expiring), speed and shields. None of us are become imbalanced, our weapons don’t start off as pea-shooters, and we don’t become BAMFs from our perks. Our knowledge on the weapons and how we used those weapons to kill the enemy still became the primary method of killing. Keeping them limited to 2 perks(1 tactical, and 1 support) that doesn’t directly influence how the guns and player works is a step in the right direction, at least to me.
I guess where I’m getting at is that I don’t like how the perks modified the player to create differences on the guns and character’s health(or shields). So far, Halo’s “perks” is designed to stay away from a player’s stats when dealing with a fight, and so long as they are like that, I’m ok with it.
a lot of the features from cod pose balance issues. not saying halo 4 will be unbalanced because of them, they will just make it much harder to balance.
Well if COD never existed then most of these features wouldn’t have been put into Halo 4 so…
im just surprise it took so long to add join in progress to the console version when it was in halo pc
> im just surprise it took so long to add join in progress to the console version when it was in halo pc
They would’ve put it in sooner if it was actually a good feature.
> If CoD didn’t exist, Halo would still play like Halo. Not some cheap gimmicky CoD clone to please the casuals.
You guys act as if CoD was the one who started Loadouts/Sprint/etc.
It’s a bit ridiculous, CoD was actually if I’m correct somewhat of a late-entry in to this style of gameplay. They simply expanded upon it.
I’m also getting sick of knee-jerking reactions to an unreleased game. How in the hell do you know it’s not going to be competitive? Give me three, first-hand experiences and I’ll consider your claim of Halo becoming a “cheap gimmicky CoD clone.”
To add to my rant, I love how the term “gimmick” is thrown around when I doubt half of the people who use the -Yoink!- word know what it means.
It makes me wonder, is this what you really think? OR are many of these people simply hopping on an “anti-change” bandwagon at this point?
Give the game a -Yoinking!- chance before knocking it.
I have played both CoD and Halo, extensively. Though, I will admit I played Halo first and do prefer it to Call of Duty. The game breaking thing about CoD, that I’ve noticed falls in to two categories.
A completely broken and imbalanced sandbox, more along the lines of the weapons. In CoD, I don’t give a flying -Yoink- who you are. If you equip a weapon with a high rate of fire, slap a suppressor on it, and choose the game’s variant of the “Steady Aim” perk you’re instantly an near-unstoppable killing machine. Then, there’s the concept of 1sk Sniper Rifles. Most of this, is purely attributed to the poor implementation of Hit-Scan.
Kill Streaks. Before you start whining and saying Halo 4 has them, no it does not. It has a support package which gives you either a power-up, a weapon, or something personal. It is for YOU. In CoD, kill streaks can range from a near unstoppable AC-130 to an instant win weapon such as the MOAB (Which is stock now) or a Tactical Nuke.
These, are all things that combined with the insanely low kill times in CoD rack up even more kills with little to no effort. They’re essentially, nothing more than stat-padders in my eyes. When you give someone more incentive to do what they’re supposed to do (killing in CoD’s case) it leads to exploitation to get these incentives, it leads to “dirty” gameplay or whatever you feel like calling it. These incentives when in conjunction with the cheaper tactics all have a single goal. It isn’t winning, either. It’s personal accomplishment. You want the rewards, you want to look “good.” You want to seem like an utter badass for having a high number on a leaderboard.
I could go on with this for hours. I could even go on to explain the pivotal difference between an FPS like CoD and a tournament style FPS like Halo and the major balance differences that brings to the table alone.
You can’t compare CoD to Halo, there are simply too many differences between the two. They belong to their own separate sub-genres with more differences than similarities. It’s like I don’t know, comparing Pokémon to Digimon. They have similarities, yes. However neither is a rip off of the other, neither has taken “too much” influence from the other either.
Not sure if the post makes sense or not, just woke up. So, take it how you like.
> > im just surprise it took so long to add join in progress to the console version when it was in halo pc
>
> They would’ve put it in sooner if it was actually a good feature.
the way people quit now days it should be standard in all online games