I just had to post something to address this idea that all of the recent changes to Halo’s gameplay represent an “evolution” of the franchise. If we’re going to borrow that term from the field of biology, then we have to use it appropriately. To wit, when something evolves, it becomes better adapted to its own particular niche . Taking on a set of commonly exhibited traits in order to fit in is essentially the opposite of evolution. One might claim that it represents the concept of “convergent evolution”, but even then the newly developed traits are assumed for independent reasons, not because someone else has succeeded with them.
What I mean by all this is that while Halo, as a series, does need to evolve with each new iteration, its evolution should reflect a refinement of its own, unique formula, shedding that which is unnecessary and accumulating changes that allow it to succeed in its own environment (which is represented, in this case, by its fan community). If a revolution, rather than an evolution, is desired, then that needs to take place within the context of an entirely new intellectual property. After all, if you give wings and a beak to a giraffe, then it’s no longer a giraffe.
Sure, adding COD elements might be new to a Halo universe (and most unwelcome), but it doesn’t mean the elements themselves are new. The juxtaposition is, but the outcome is not.
Halo 4 should have taken advantage of its arena shooter genre and innovated within those confines. It didn’t, and what we’re left with is a hybrid that lacks any real defining identity.
> Evolution does not imply changes for the better. A species can evolve useless features as well.
That’s only true of artificially induced evolution. In nature, species never evolve useless features, and adaptations are always better suited to the environment than were their predecessors.
> Halo 4 should have taken advantage of its arena shooter genre and innovated within those confines. It didn’t, and what we’re left with is a hybrid that lacks any real defining identity.
This is such a perfect statement; I couldn’t have said it better myself.
> > Evolution does not imply changes for the better. A species can evolve useless features as well.
>
> That’s only true of artificially induced evolution. In nature, species never evolve useless features, and adaptations are always better suited to the environment than were their predecessors.
I can think of half a dozen useless features in as many species. Or more.
And there are plenty of examples of small genetic mutations, also known as evolution at play, which result in a vastly inferior animal. And these animals do not always die out.
> > This community does not need to evolve. It needs to adapt.
>
> To what is essentially a different subgenre of first-person shooters?
I think he was trying to say we need to adapt to the game and I agree to some extent.
But Halo 4 needs a good polishing to get rid of the crap because there is a good game under a whole host of incomplete stuff (eg Fileshare), wrong stuff (eg Telling you to kill Elite Generals when there are no Elite Generals in Halo 4), and poorly thought out decisions (eg instant spawning and weapons vanishing too quick in Spec Ops and MM). Those are just examples and not even close to the whole list.
Also fix the bugs before any nerfing/buffing. Too often games get nerfed and buffed before the bugfixes totally alter the game mechanics which necessitates more buffing and nerfing.
> Evolution: Gradual change over time.
> Evolution can cause useless changes, bad changes, and good changes.
>
> Just throwing a simple definition out there.
Yes, and the bad changes do not always work themselves out.
I’d say this depends on how literally one interpret the concept of “evolution” in this particular context. I find it to be more of a semantic issue than anything else.
Personally, I’m more concerned about the abuse of the term “revolutionize” when it comes to video games, since people seem to like to attach that term to any game element that they find do not directly resemble something that has been done before. But that’s a different subject.
When I discuss how games develop over time or what contributions a given title has added into any given franchise I usually use one of the following terms:
*Innovation - A gameplay element that have no antecedent in all of video gaming and which can be translated into the game mechanics of other games within the genre it first appears in, and possibly into other genres as well.
*Progressive element - A gameplay element that isn’t new to either video gaming as a whole or the genre per se, but nonetheless constitutes a fresh addition into the given franchise.
*Gimmick - A gameplay element tailored for the given game/franchise. Often, but not necessarily, implemented for it’s own sake. These are, in contrast to the above categories, not translatable to other games since they are by and large more or less tied to plot related elements (I personally think the gravity gun in Half-Life 2 would qualify as such a feature).
> Evolution: Gradual change over time.
> Evolution can cause useless changes, bad changes, and good changes.
>
> Just throwing a simple definition out there.
The 2nd meaning is mutation, not evolution.
Cant believe people agree with me when I just say adapt.
> > Evolution does not imply changes for the better. A species can evolve useless features as well.
>
> That’s only true of artificially induced evolution. In nature, species never evolve useless features, and adaptations are always better suited to the environment than were their predecessors.
opinions or staements are not facts,
also any type of growth is evolution as de-evolution is non existent.
and comparing a video game to bioligical matter is just plain silly.
> Evolution: Gradual change over time.
> Evolution can cause useless changes, bad changes, and good changes.
>
> Just throwing a simple definition out there.
> > > Evolution does not imply changes for the better. A species can evolve useless features as well.
> >
> > That’s only true of artificially induced evolution. In nature, species never evolve useless features, and adaptations are always better suited to the environment than were their predecessors.
>
> I can think of half a dozen useless features in as many species. Or more.
>
> And there are plenty of examples of small genetic mutations, also known as evolution at play, which result in a vastly inferior animal. And these animals do not always die out.
for example humans, big toes are no longer required to support balance, yet we still have them, or are we evolving to an 8 toed species?
> This community does not need to evolve. It needs to adapt.
Adaptation is what happens when something lacks the ability to evolve. A survival necessity; we adapt to it just hoping it’ll get better because we love the story, mm, etc. Adapting is just dealing with what you’re given, good or bad.
> for example humans, big toes are no longer required to support balance, yet we still have them, or are we evolving to an 8 toed species?
Ehh, bad, bad example… Have you ever known someone who has lost their toes? Yes, you can walk without them, after months upon months of rehab. You have to learn to walk all over again & you’re not ever likely to run a marathon or walk a tightrope.