> They declined to talk much about “Halo 4,” but they said it will strike a delicate balance between keeping up with innovations in other first-person-shooter games and keeping the mechanics familiar to fans of the series.
Quoted from an article on CNN talking about an interview with Frank.
What innovations could they be talking about? The only thing that comes to mind is sprint or loadouts, both of which will ruin Halo 4 for me. Even if there are playlists without sprint the maps will still be designed for it so say good bye to any Lockout or Midship type maps.
343 is well-aware of the hatred for loadouts/AAs. I can almost guarantee that they will not be present in Halo 4. And either way, they wouldn’t be considered “innovations” since they have appeared on Reach before.
This is fantastic news. Change is great, keeping true to original Halo mechanics is great. I will say it again: Halo 4 is in good hands.
> 343 is well-aware of the hatred for loadouts/AAs. I can almost guarantee that they will not be present in Halo 4. And either way, they wouldn’t be considered “innovations” since they have appeared on Reach before.
>
> This is fantastic news. Change is great, keeping true to original Halo mechanics is great. I will say it again: Halo 4 is in good hands.
>
> Feel free to post a source as well.
> > 343 is well-aware of the hatred for loadouts/AAs. I can almost guarantee that they will not be present in Halo 4. And either way, they wouldn’t be considered “innovations” since they have appeared on Reach before.
> >
> > This is fantastic news. Change is great, keeping true to original Halo mechanics is great. I will say it again: Halo 4 is in good hands.
> >
> > Feel free to post a source as well.
>
> Source
>
> What do you think they could be talking about though?
Who knows? I don’t mind innovations as long as they build AROUND the core gameplay. I like Reach, it may almost be my least favorite Halo(Halo 3 is my last favorite), but I like it. What I don’t like is that it changed the core gameplay.
> > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
>
> Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
> > > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
> >
> > Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
>
> The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
>
> Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
>
> Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
>
> I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
I agree, Halo is NOT like alot of other popular shooters on the market and shouldnt be treated as such. You could not make 90 percent of other popular game mechanics work in Halo without ruining the game or infuriating the fanbase. I think 343i should come up with their own ideas if they are to add new game changing things into Halo or at least tailor game mechanics to fit in with the gameplay or it will fail. Bungie tried AA’s which do work in Halo, but do not fit fundamentally into Halo gameplay and disrupt gameplay. Shooters rely on perfectly synced game mechanics all working together for solid gameplay, and Halo CE and Halo 2 were perfect examples of that and thus play better to people who care about gameplay, Reach was the opposite of that and thus didnt play as well as previous Halo games and lost the core fanbase. In the end a shooter is not a RPG and doesnt need tons of game mechanics to work well and awe gamers with depth, just a few ones that fit together well. Why do you think Shadowrun didnt sell very well? Shooter fans dont want RPG depth in their games and frankly FPS work better with fewer game mechanics hence why Halo plays better than Brink.
> There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
i have to disagree, destructible environment is a good idea in halo if it is limited.
Also, giving players freedom does not mean letting choose everything they want, look at H3 custom games. Players had huge freedom in options and you had awesome VIP and infection gametypes. I think your exaggerating a bit in your latter post when saying freedom=complete chaos and players spawning with what they want.
> > > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
> >
> > Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
>
> The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
>
> Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
>
> Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
>
> I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
This. You earned my first thanks. Congrats.
I do actually believe that developers intentionally are dumbing games MP games these days simply for profit, the apparent “wider” audience that consumes CoD.
In my opinion, graphics aside the quality of gameplay has actually gotten worse in FPS games strangely. MW3 is far poorer than CoD 4 for example (didn’t think CoD could actually have a smaller skill gap but they pulled it off) and as for Reach in comparison to CE, H2 and even H3? It’s considered worse by the majority of long time fans.
343i, want Halo to be innovative? Cut the bloated crap we don’t need like AA’s, loadouts, equipment, whatever. Give us a simple, easy game to play that’s difficult to master. Just like CE and H2 was. Don’t do what everyone else is doing. And please don’t copy “bland modern military shooter 5”
> > > > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
> > >
> > > Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
> >
> > The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
> >
> > Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
> >
> > Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
> >
> > I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
>
> This. You earned my first thanks. Congrats.
>
> I do actually believe that developers intentionally are dumbing games MP games these days simply for profit, the apparent “wider” audience that consumes CoD.
>
> In my opinion, graphics aside the quality of gameplay has actually gotten worse in FPS games strangely. MW3 is far poorer than CoD 4 for example (didn’t think CoD could actually have a smaller skill gap but they pulled it off) and as for Reach in comparison to CE, H2 and even H3? It’s considered worse by the majority of long time fans.
>
> 343i, want Halo to be innovative? Cut the bloated crap we don’t need like AA’s, loadouts, equipment, whatever. Give us a simple, easy game to play that’s difficult to master. Just like CE and H2 was. Don’t do what everyone else is doing. And please don’t copy “bland modern military shooter 5”
They said they ARE adding new mechanics, HOWEVER we don’t know how big or small the additions are YET. But 343 said they’re keeping the core gameplay intact.
> > > > > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
> > > >
> > > > Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
> > >
> > > The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
> > >
> > > Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
> > >
> > > Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
> > >
> > > I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
> >
> > This. You earned my first thanks. Congrats.
> >
> > I do actually believe that developers intentionally are dumbing games MP games these days simply for profit, the apparent “wider” audience that consumes CoD.
> >
> > In my opinion, graphics aside the quality of gameplay has actually gotten worse in FPS games strangely. MW3 is far poorer than CoD 4 for example (didn’t think CoD could actually have a smaller skill gap but they pulled it off) and as for Reach in comparison to CE, H2 and even H3? It’s considered worse by the majority of long time fans.
> >
> > 343i, want Halo to be innovative? Cut the bloated crap we don’t need like AA’s, loadouts, equipment, whatever. Give us a simple, easy game to play that’s difficult to master. Just like CE and H2 was. Don’t do what everyone else is doing. And please don’t copy “bland modern military shooter 5”
>
> They said they ARE adding new mechanics, HOWEVER we don’t know how big or small the additions are YET. But 343 said they’re keeping the core gameplay intact.
THANKS for TELLING me THAT. It’s ALMOST as IF you’re acting like I wasn’t AWARE.
> > > > > > There is no worthy ‘innovation’ in modern day shooters. 343, I’m disappoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, what’s your idea of innovation?
> > > >
> > > > The only innovation I see in modern shooters is “dumbing the game down”. They too often allow you to “play how you want”, and if you read my other thread (which I know you did) you’d see I’m against that. Not in all genres, but most definitely in FPSs.
> > > >
> > > > Letting players play how they want often entails allowing them to control what weapon they get, not by skill (ala, gaining map control, thus weapon control) but allowing them to start with their desired weapon off-spawn. Meaning that if a player likes to camp they’re allowed to do that (by spawning with a shotgun), or more like, they’re encouraged to do that.
> > > >
> > > > Another ‘innovation’ I see in modern FPSs is rewarding players for everything they do. “Got a head shot? Here, we’ll slap this ‘+ 50 XP’ notification all over your screen, disrupting your view of the game world and distracting you!” I personally find this kind of mechanic annoying, and instead of hooking the player by solid gameplay they rely on hooking the player with a constant stream of virtual rewards; it’s cheap and praying on player psychology far too much, imo.
> > > >
> > > > I just don’t see any worthy innovation in modern FPSs that would benefit Halo other than making it a dumbed down game that appeals far too much to casuals and not enough towards the more ‘hardcore’ player. You can play a competitive game casually, but you can’t play a casual game competitively.
> > >
> > > This. You earned my first thanks. Congrats.
> > >
> > > I do actually believe that developers intentionally are dumbing games MP games these days simply for profit, the apparent “wider” audience that consumes CoD.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, graphics aside the quality of gameplay has actually gotten worse in FPS games strangely. MW3 is far poorer than CoD 4 for example (didn’t think CoD could actually have a smaller skill gap but they pulled it off) and as for Reach in comparison to CE, H2 and even H3? It’s considered worse by the majority of long time fans.
> > >
> > > 343i, want Halo to be innovative? Cut the bloated crap we don’t need like AA’s, loadouts, equipment, whatever. Give us a simple, easy game to play that’s difficult to master. Just like CE and H2 was. Don’t do what everyone else is doing. And please don’t copy “bland modern military shooter 5”
> >
> > They said they ARE adding new mechanics, HOWEVER we don’t know how big or small the additions are YET. But 343 said they’re keeping the core gameplay intact.
>
> THANKS for TELLING me THAT. It’s ALMOST as IF you’re acting like I wasn’t AWARE.
> > Can you please explain how Sprint ruins any Lockout or Midship style maps?
>
> Because normal movement is slowed down
Not necessarily related. In REACH this statement is true, but just because there is sprint in a game doesn’t really mean you have to slow down base player speed.
As for what innovations from other games he might be referring to: dedicated servers (GOW, Battlefield 3), a terrain editor (Far Cry), 60fps (virtually every non halo game on the market), Drop in/Drop out matches (CoD)…they could do all that without actually altering the Halo gameplay.
