My rant against "Let Halo 4 be Halo 4"

You know what, I hate that phrase “Let Halo 4 be Halo 4”. There is an extremely good reason for it too, Its a sequel. From looking at it from a certain perspective, if you wanted something completely different, then you shouldn’t be looking at a sequel. When you look at it from the other, as it as a Sequel you notice that it is a Sequel and is going to be more of the same thing we liked to begin with.

“Let Halo 4 be Halo 4” There is something extremely wrong with that statement due to how it is a sequel. One example of this is how they will be taking the same elements from the other games within its sequel, in the order of events which make sense. They aren’t just going to give up on everything else due to how it would ruin the story element as well as fanbase momentum and common sense. In case anyone is wondering, the order in question is:

Halo Reach < Halo CE(A) < Halo 2 < Halo 3

With this in mind, we will be pulling less heavily from things on the left, and more heavily from things on the right. As for gameplay features we will see that it will more closely resemble Halo 3 than the previous Halo games due to how the story has already been set. It would make no sense to remove Dual Wielding because the Chief has been shown to know how to do it, and it would make no sense to add in Armour Abilities because they were lost on Reach. There is a simple hierarchy to determining basic features in a game -Basic being stuff that comes standard in a Halo game.

Moving back to the “Let Halo 4 be Halo 4” argument, Up until now each Halo game has been roughly similar because it follows the standard Sequel model, it uses old things plus a few new. As an example, Aside from Multiplayer, a few weapons and dual wielding Halo 2 was exactly like Halo 1, and aside from Equipment, Forge, Theater and a few weapons Halo 3 was exactly like Halo 2. With this, its pretty safe to say that Halo 4 aside from a few (major due to there being a 5 year gap that has been filled with side-games) features will be very similar to Halo 3 compared to say Halo 1, 2, ODST, or Reach.

Anyways, that’s my little rant, try not to pick it appart

> will be exactly like Halo 3.

i really hope not

Although it is a sequel, it starts a new trilogy.
But yes, I hate that argument as well.

> Although it is a sequel, it starts a new trilogy.

…A new trilogy of the same series that uses the same character that takes place within a few years of the first. The Chief isn’t suddenly going to forget everything he knew how to do in Halo 1, 2, and 3

> But yes, I hate that argument as well.

I knew I wasn’t the only person!

Halo 4 should be Halo 4. Why you ask? Other then the number in the name, IT’S A WHOLE NEW STORY LINE.

Why people like you want to limit 343i to following Bungie’s footsteps is beyond me. Why do you want to limit the potential of a new developer, with some serious talent, to being in the shadow of another developer that has now sold their soul to Activision for the next ten years?

Seriously. Look at the ghost recon franchise. Every game since 2001 has been a sequel. Guess what? it changed and I would know, it’s the BEST cqc shooter franchise to ever grace consoles in my eyes. But seriously, how much more change can you get in a game series then going from a first person perspective in GR to a third person perspective in GR2?

You will never, ever, see that kind of change to the halo franchise. Ya’ll need to shut it already about Halo 4 being like Halo 3, or being like Halo 2, or not being like Halo Reach and bla bla bla bla.

Wait for the game to be revealed. If you don’t like what you see? Find a new game. Nobody will miss you.

You either adapt to the game or move the -Yoink- on. I adapted to Ghost Recon’s transition to Ghost Recon 2. I’ve adapted to all the changes from Ghost Recon 2 to the Ghost Recon Advance Warfighter games. I will adapt to Ghost Recon Future Soldier.

/rant

My rant for “let Halo 4 be Halo 4”:

Halo 4 is in many ways a sequel to Halo 4, but in many ways it is not. Halo 4 is the beginning of a new experience, both for the chief and the players. Halo 4 should feel like Halo, but it needs innovation to will help set it apart both from other games, and from other Halo games. Halo Reach wasn’t the way it was due to being a prequel or spin-off, but because it was a new entry in the franchise. Bungie added new features in an attempt to make the game feel like Halo, while also being new and fresh (let’s not discuss the success or failure of these endeavors, but just recognize the reasons for them).

Things like canon should never weight down features in a game. “All the AA’s were lost on Reach” is not an official part of the canon. It was a joke statement by Bungie. If 343 want to bring them back for the sake of gameplay, they shouldn’t let canon reasons get in the way.

You make the arugment that each Halo title was a success because of the sequel model, but I beg to differ. Halo has been a continuing success because Bungie always crafted new experiences with each game, and 343 should attempt to follow that legacy. Halo 2 was redically different from Halo 1, Halo 3 had it’s changes, and Halo Reach returned to some old ideas while implementing new ones.

It is my firm belief that Halo 4 will not be a success if it allows itself to be held back in anyway, either because it being a sequel or canon issue or something else. Halo 4 must be like Halo 4, not a clone or a “.5” of an existing game.

Simply saying “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4”, “Halo 4 should be like Halo 3” or anything similar to those two sentences isn’t a real argument. To be honest, I don’t really like the fact that people are narrow minded enough to only think there are those two options. Sure, Halo 4 shouldn’t play exactly like any other Halo game, but why should it really be so different from the other Halo games? What sense does it make to abandon a perfectly good gameplay formula?

“Halo 4 should be like Halo 4” is obvious. In fact, that sentence merely means that the game can pretty much be like anything as whether it would play like Halo 3, Reach, Skyrim, Forza Motorsport, Call of Duty, or any other game, it would still be like Halo 4. Therefore the whole argument is irrational.

How Halo 4 should be then? Well, it’s obvious that we get nowhere with what people want. Replicating Halo 3 isn’t going to help, but abandoning or changing the core gameplay formula of Halo isn’t going to help either. That’s why Halo 4 should take the core gameplay formula, preserve it and build around it. The core gameplay mechanics should be derived from the decade old formula of Halo CE that was simple and elegant. Then every non-core gameplay element should be built to work around that core formula, reinforcing it and never hindering it. In other words, design choices such as armor abilities that force themselves to be a part of the core mechanics aren’t going to work elegantly.

In other words, I don’t want Halo 4 to be like some other Halo game. What I want from it is to take what made the gameplay so good in the first place, the original formula, and improving it. That means taking the best features from all Halo games and making them work. Then building more features around that, but not too much. As what I see as the hardest thing to do for developers these days is making the game simple. A small amount of deep gameplay mechanics is much better than hundreds of very shallow mechanics.

i kind of want an open world kind of feel.

> Halo 4 should be Halo 4. Why you ask? Other then the number in the name, IT’S A WHOLE NEW STORY LINE.
>
> Why people like you want to limit 343i to following Bungie’s footsteps is beyond me. Why do you want to limit the potential of a new developer, with some serious talent, to being in the shadow of another developer that has now sold their soul to Activision for the next ten years?
>
> Seriously. Look at the ghost recon franchise. Every game since 2001 has been a sequel. Guess what? it changed and I would know, it’s the BEST cqc shooter franchise to ever grace consoles in my eyes. But seriously, how much more change can you get in a game series then going from a first person perspective in GR to a third person perspective in GR2?
>
> You will never, ever, see that kind of change to the halo franchise. Ya’ll need to shut it already about Halo 4 being like Halo 3, or being like Halo 2, or not being like Halo Reach and bla bla bla bla.
>
> Wait for the game to be revealed. If you don’t like what you see? Find a new game. Nobody will miss you.
>
> You either adapt to the game or move the Yoink! on. I adapted to Ghost Recon’s transition to Ghost Recon 2. I’ve adapted to all the changes from Ghost Recon 2 to the Ghost Recon Advance Warfighter games. I will adapt to Ghost Recon Future Soldier.
>
> /rant

Now to be fair in my OP I was making the reference to how it will be “The Same” Although what I meant by that was it will be more similar to Halo 3 more than it would be to Halo Reach, 1, or 2 -on top of the in the moment rant. I would like this thread to refrain away from personal insults such as your “People Like You[sic]” or “If you don’t like what you see? Find a new game. Nobody will miss you.[sic]” Thats not what this thread is for. Its for venting about the particular phrase in mind.

In your post you make alot of assumptions about myself inside of it. I have played Halo 1 and Loved it, Switched to Halo 2, adapted and loved it, went to Halo 3 loved it and adapted, moved to ODST and adapted and loved it. Then suddenly reach came along and for some reason; I never played it as much. In Halo 1, 2, 3, and ODST I have marked hundreds of hours playing them… spending my entire day playing them, but something was off with Halo Reach… But this thread isn’t about Halo Reach so I will end that there.

All I was saying in the OP was how it will be similar in shape to Halo 3 due to how things have played out in the past.

> My rant for “let Halo 4 be Halo 4”:
>
> Halo 4 is in many ways a sequel to Halo 3, but in many ways it is not. Halo 4 is the beginning of a new experience, both for the chief and the players. Halo 4 should feel like Halo, but it needs innovation to will help set it apart both from other games, and from other Halo games. Halo Reach wasn’t the way it was due to being a prequel or spin-off, but because it was a new entry in the franchise. Bungie added new features in an attempt to make the game feel like Halo, while also being new and fresh (let’s not discuss the success or failure of these endeavors, but just recognize the reasons for them).
>
> Things like canon should never weight down features in a game. “All the AA’s were lost on Reach” is not an official part of the canon. It was a joke statement by Bungie. If 343 want to bring them back for the sake of gameplay, they shouldn’t let canon reasons get in the way.
>
> You make the arugment that each Halo title was a success because of the sequel model, but I beg to differ. Halo has been a continuing success because Bungie always crafted new experiences with each game, and 343 should attempt to follow that legacy. Halo 2 was redically different from Halo 1, Halo 3 had it’s changes, and Halo Reach returned to some old ideas while implementing new ones.
>
> It is my firm belief that Halo 4 will not be a success if it allows itself to be held back in anyway, either because it being a sequel or canon issue or something else. Halo 4 must be like Halo 4, not a clone or a “.5” of an existing game.

First of all, thank you for not attacking my like the previous guy. Now lets get onto my post:

I have always agreed with the increase of new features in a game. Why bother purchasing the exact same thing re-skinned over and over again? As I have mentioned in the OP every game has added their elements and special touches to the series that will have forever long effect: Multiplayer and Dual wielding with Halo 2, Forge and Theater with Halo 3, and Firefight with Halo ODST. These items will be things that you can guarantee in any Halo Game moving forward. Its just something that is expected now… One example is how people will be up in arms about the removal of rendering films come April because its expected at this point that we have it (This is the main reason I am sure it will return come the Halo 4 Release).

When we get into Terms of General Gameplay, It will take from the previous games, hence the problem with “Halo 4 should be Halo 4” Because that would imply that Hslo 4’s feature set would be completely unique and not take a single thing from Past Halo Games at all. What the Phrase should be is “Halo 4 should take from previous games in an order that makes sense”. It works because it goes back to our model of Sequel Hierarchy which would take into consideration learned skills that the character has learned over the course of the series

> > My rant for “let Halo 4 be Halo 4”:
> >
> > Halo 4 is in many ways a sequel to Halo 3, but in many ways it is not. Halo 4 is the beginning of a new experience, both for the chief and the players. Halo 4 should feel like Halo, but it needs innovation to will help set it apart both from other games, and from other Halo games. Halo Reach wasn’t the way it was due to being a prequel or spin-off, but because it was a new entry in the franchise. Bungie added new features in an attempt to make the game feel like Halo, while also being new and fresh (let’s not discuss the success or failure of these endeavors, but just recognize the reasons for them).
> >
> > Things like canon should never weight down features in a game. “All the AA’s were lost on Reach” is not an official part of the canon. It was a joke statement by Bungie. If 343 want to bring them back for the sake of gameplay, they shouldn’t let canon reasons get in the way.
> >
> > You make the arugment that each Halo title was a success because of the sequel model, but I beg to differ. Halo has been a continuing success because Bungie always crafted new experiences with each game, and 343 should attempt to follow that legacy. Halo 2 was redically different from Halo 1, Halo 3 had it’s changes, and Halo Reach returned to some old ideas while implementing new ones.
> >
> > It is my firm belief that Halo 4 will not be a success if it allows itself to be held back in anyway, either because it being a sequel or canon issue or something else. Halo 4 must be like Halo 4, not a clone or a “.5” of an existing game.
>
> First of all, thank you for not attacking my like the previous guy. Now lets get onto my post:
>
> I have always agreed with the increase of new features in a game. Why bother purchasing the exact same thing re-skinned over and over again? As I have mentioned in the OP every game has added their elements and special touches to the series that will have forever long effect: Multiplayer and Dual wielding with Halo 2, Forge and Theater with Halo 3, and Firefight with Halo ODST. These items will be things that you can guarantee in any Halo Game moving forward. Its just something that is expected now… One example is how people will be up in arms about the removal of rendering films come April because its expected at this point that we have it (This is the main reason I am sure it will return come the Halo 4 Release).
>
> When we get into Terms of General Gameplay, It will take from the previous games, hence the problem with “Halo 4 should be Halo 4” Because that would imply that Hslo 4’s feature set would be completely unique and not take a single thing from Past Halo Games at all. What the Phrase should be is “Halo 4 should take from previous games in an order that makes sense”. It works because it goes back to our model of Sequel Hierarchy which would take into consideration learned skills that the character has learned over the course of the series

At least in my case (though I generally think most people who say this agree), what I mean by “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4” is to do exactly what you have suggest, or at least similar. Build upon what has been done, and then add something new. The argument is almost exclusive to topics where people are claim that “Halo 4 should be like Halo 1, or 2, or 3, or Reach,” and such. Topic were people are asking for a carbon clone of an existing multiplayer, or a “.5” version, with little innovation and focus on refinement of an older game’s sandbox.

The statement should never just be “spoken”(posted), but backed up with a strong argument.

Anyway, I’m done ranting on this for now. Agree to disagree, or something like that?

> Simply saying “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4”, “Halo 4 should be like Halo 3” or anything similar to those two sentences isn’t a real argument. To be honest, I don’t really like the fact that people are narrow minded enough to only think there are those two options. Sure, Halo 4 shouldn’t play exactly like any other Halo game, but why should it really be so different from the other Halo games? What sense does it make to abandon a perfectly good gameplay formula?
>
> “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4” is obvious. In fact, that sentence merely means that the game can pretty much be like anything as whether it would play like Halo 3, Reach, Skyrim, Forza Motorsport, Call of Duty, or any other game, it would still be like Halo 4. Therefore the whole argument is irrational.
>
> How Halo 4 should be then? Well, it’s obvious that we get nowhere with what people want. Replicating Halo 3 isn’t going to help, but abandoning or changing the core gameplay formula of Halo isn’t going to help either. That’s why Halo 4 should take the core gameplay formula, preserve it and build around it. The core gameplay mechanics should be derived from the decade old formula of Halo CE that was simple and elegant. Then every non-core gameplay element should be built to work around that core formula, reinforcing it and never hindering it. In other words, design choices such as armor abilities that force themselves to be a part of the core mechanics aren’t going to work elegantly.
>
> In other words, I don’t want Halo 4 to be like some other Halo game. What I want from it is to take what made the gameplay so good in the first place, the original formula, and improving it. That means taking the best features from all Halo games and making them work. Then building more features around that, but not too much. As what I see as the hardest thing to do for developers these days is making the game simple. A small amount of deep gameplay mechanics is much better than hundreds of very shallow mechanics.

Hense the Gameplay Hierarchy which accounts for various things the Character has learned throughout the game. For example: It makes no sense for the Chief to suddenly not know how to dual-wield, or how to run at his increased speed throughout the game, or how to get the most out of his jump. Its just what the character knows, and unless he goes though a coma and has amnesia I don’t see him forgetting (and even if he does, then there is still the thing called muscle memory to rely on).

By using the Hierarchy we see that at this point in time, Health Bars make zero sense because of the Auto-Foam-Injector built into his suit. I agree that it needs to be Halo, because ultimately that’s why I purchase the games, and that’s why I play the games. I want to play Halo, not Halo 4Reach, not Halo41, not Halo 42, Not Halo 43, I want Halo 4 to be the equal combination of everything that makes a Master Chief Halo Game, a Master Chief Halo Game!

> > > My rant for “let Halo 4 be Halo 4”:
> > >
> > > Halo 4 is in many ways a sequel to Halo 3, but in many ways it is not. Halo 4 is the beginning of a new experience, both for the chief and the players. Halo 4 should feel like Halo, but it needs innovation to will help set it apart both from other games, and from other Halo games. Halo Reach wasn’t the way it was due to being a prequel or spin-off, but because it was a new entry in the franchise. Bungie added new features in an attempt to make the game feel like Halo, while also being new and fresh (let’s not discuss the success or failure of these endeavors, but just recognize the reasons for them).
> > >
> > > Things like canon should never weight down features in a game. “All the AA’s were lost on Reach” is not an official part of the canon. It was a joke statement by Bungie. If 343 want to bring them back for the sake of gameplay, they shouldn’t let canon reasons get in the way.
> > >
> > > You make the arugment that each Halo title was a success because of the sequel model, but I beg to differ. Halo has been a continuing success because Bungie always crafted new experiences with each game, and 343 should attempt to follow that legacy. Halo 2 was redically different from Halo 1, Halo 3 had it’s changes, and Halo Reach returned to some old ideas while implementing new ones.
> > >
> > > It is my firm belief that Halo 4 will not be a success if it allows itself to be held back in anyway, either because it being a sequel or canon issue or something else. Halo 4 must be like Halo 4, not a clone or a “.5” of an existing game.
> >
> > First of all, thank you for not attacking my like the previous guy. Now lets get onto my post:
> >
> > I have always agreed with the increase of new features in a game. Why bother purchasing the exact same thing re-skinned over and over again? As I have mentioned in the OP every game has added their elements and special touches to the series that will have forever long effect: Multiplayer and Dual wielding with Halo 2, Forge and Theater with Halo 3, and Firefight with Halo ODST. These items will be things that you can guarantee in any Halo Game moving forward. Its just something that is expected now… One example is how people will be up in arms about the removal of rendering films come April because its expected at this point that we have it (This is the main reason I am sure it will return come the Halo 4 Release).
> >
> > When we get into Terms of General Gameplay, It will take from the previous games, hence the problem with “Halo 4 should be Halo 4” Because that would imply that Hslo 4’s feature set would be completely unique and not take a single thing from Past Halo Games at all. What the Phrase should be is “Halo 4 should take from previous games in an order that makes sense”. It works because it goes back to our model of Sequel Hierarchy which would take into consideration learned skills that the character has learned over the course of the series
>
> At least in my case (though I generally think most people who say this agree), what I mean by “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4” is to do exactly what you have suggest, or at least similar. Build upon what has been done, and then add something new. The argument is almost exclusive to topics where people are claim that “Halo 4 should be like Halo 1, or 2, or 3, or Reach,” and such. Topic were people are asking for a carbon clone of an existing multiplayer, or a “.5” version, with little innovation and focus on refinement of an older game’s sandbox.
>
> The statement should never just be “spoken”(posted), but backed up with a strong argument.
>
> Anyway, I’m done ranting on this for now. Agree to disagree, or something like that?

Sounds good… Just had to get my rant out in the opened, as well as post some other stuff that’s been buzzing my mind like angry bees such as the gameplay hierarchy and other stuff. My rant really came from a few threads that I was reading that people were just throwing it around like candy with zero explanation behind it

It’s a very redundant and silly argument. If Halo 4 wasn’t Halo 4, it wouldn’t exist.

It can take any element from the trilogy it wants except for the overdone and tired Battle Rifle.

Excuse me for wanting something different between games, and not just a $60 map pack.

Uh, why? It’s obvious that the argument means that Halo 4 should stick to Halo’s roots, but innovate as well. The phrase “Let Halo 4 be Halo 4” doesn’t mean we want a COMPLETELY new game. It doesn’t mean we want to see Halo 4 be an adventure game or a platformer, it means we don’t want it to be a clone of past Halo games.

We want Halo 4 to be new, not be a clone of a past Halo game, and if that isn’t obvious enough, well…

@ Toa Freak

Thank you, that was so well said. I couldn’t agree more. Like I said, it needs to evolve.

> Uh, why? It’s obvious that the argument means that Halo 4 should stick to Halo’s roots, but innovate as well. The phrase “Let Halo 4 be Halo 4” doesn’t mean we want a COMPLETELY new game. It doesn’t mean we want to see Halo 4 be an adventure game or a platformer, it means we don’t want it to be a clone of past Halo games.
>
> We want Halo 4 to be new, not be a clone of a past Halo game, and if that isn’t obvious enough, well…

And still I see people throwing the phrase around every time when someone says that Halo 4 should be more like some other previous Halo game, which only means they want it to have elements from that game. In which case it can easily be misunderstood to mean that the person throwing that term wants a completely new game.

If people really want not to be misunderstood, instead of throwing empty lines like “I don’t want Halo 4 to be a Halo 3.5” or “Halo 4 needs to be like Halo 4” that mean nothing, why don’t you actually spend few minutes explaining your view as I did.

> If people really want not to be misunderstood, instead of throwing empty lines like “I don’t want Halo 4 to be a Halo 3.5” or “Halo 4 needs to be like Halo 4” that mean nothing, why don’t you actually spend few minutes explaining your view as I did.

It’s not an empty line. It’s logic. It’s a Halo game, of course it’ll take from past Halo games in terms of core gameplay. Other than that, make it new. As I’ve seen somebody else on the forums say (sorry I can’t remember you’re name, or I’d give you credit) I don’t want to spend $60 on a map pack called Halo 4.

That is what the phrase means. Don’t pull a Call of Duty and make the sequel the the same as the last game. That’s all it means. Simple. It doesn’t need a paragraph long explanation.

> > If people really want not to be misunderstood, instead of throwing empty lines like “I don’t want Halo 4 to be a Halo 3.5” or “Halo 4 needs to be like Halo 4” that mean nothing, why don’t you actually spend few minutes explaining your view as I did.
>
> It’s not an empty line. It’s logic. It’s a Halo game, of course it’ll take from past Halo games in terms of core gameplay. Other than that, make it new. As I’ve seen somebody else on the forums say (sorry I can’t remember you’re name, or I’d give you credit) I don’t want to spend $60 on a map pack called Halo 4.
>
> That is what the phrase means. Don’t pull a Call of Duty and make the sequel the the same as the last game. That’s all it means. Simple. It doesn’t need a paragraph long explanation.

It’s an obvious fact. if Halo 4 wasn’t like Halo 4, it wouldn’t exist. As I said in my first post, Halo 4 could very well be like Halo 3, Reach, Skyrim, Forza Motorsport, or any other game and it would still be exactly like Halo 4. That’s the only meaning for the phrase, there are no other meanings for it. If you want to say that you don’t want Halo 4 to be a copy of another Halo game, why not use a bit more time to explain it. For example, I could very well have said the same thing in my first post in this thread, but I didn’t because I wanted to say something that actually means something.

Misunderstandings are born from statements like that. If no one had never started using sentences such as “Halo 4 needs to be Halo 4” and “Halo 4 shouldn’t be a Halo 3.5” and instead explained their opinions carefully, we wouldn’t be having such simple division of people who want Halo 4 to be like Halo 3, and people who want Halo 4 to be nothing like the previous Halo game. After all, I’m pretty sure that people actually wanting either of those are the minority, but because of people’s lack of willingness to explain their points further, it seems that there are only two types of people in this community.

> > Although it is a sequel, it starts a new trilogy.
>
> …A new trilogy of the same series that uses the same character that takes place <mark>within a few years</mark> of the first. The Chief isn’t suddenly going to forget everything he knew how to do in Halo 1, 2, and 3
>
>
>
> > But yes, I hate that argument as well.
>
> I knew I wasn’t the only person!

Over 4 years to be exact.

And I won’t bother with the MP if it’s going to be a carbon copy of Halo 3, FULL STOP.

> As an example, Aside from Multiplayer, a few weapons and dual wielding Halo 2 was exactly like Halo 1

You can think whatever you want, I really don’t care. Even though I do think H4 should be “itself” and not Halo 3.5…

But when you say H2 was exactly the same as CE if you take away dual wielding and multiplayer (how can you even say that last thing? That’s like saying: “lets cut off half the game and say the other half is the same as the previous thing”) you lost your credibility in my books.

CE might have set the base standards for the series…
H2 defined modern Halo.
And both are completely different beasts. The step from CE to H2 was probably the biggest one the series has seen so far, and no: H2 is not pretty much the same as CE was.

You need to take away a lot more than just dual wielding for H2 to look anywhere similar to CE.