Since the next Halo is coming out for Xbox One, I think this is a good chance for 343i to start fresh on Halo’s multiplayer.
By that, I mean they can bring back classic arena style Halo, and scrap everything that ruins the great experience we all know and love.
Anyone else agree?
Halo 4 was an even better chance for a fresh start, and the first version of that game (which was traditional) got scrapped.
Wishful thinking is fun, but classic Halo just isn’t going to happen.
> Since the next Halo is coming out for Xbox One, I think this is a good chance for 343i to start fresh on Halo’s multiplayer.
>
> By that, I mean they can bring back classic arena style Halo, and scrap everything that ruins the great experience we all know and love.
>
> Anyone else agree?
I wouldn’t call that Stating Fresh, I call that the right thing to do.
Bungie started Fresh with REACH, and look what that has done.
343 need to go back, take a very good look at Halo 3, and evolve it.
And use any features from REACH and Halo 4 that worked.
> Halo 4 was an even better chance for a fresh start, and the first version of that game (which was traditional) got scrapped.
>
> Wishful thinking is fun, but classic Halo just isn’t going to happen.
There is always chance for hope.
> > Since the next Halo is coming out for Xbox One, I think this is a good chance for 343i to start fresh on Halo’s multiplayer.
> >
> > By that, I mean they can bring back classic arena style Halo, and scrap everything that ruins the great experience we all know and love.
> >
> > Anyone else agree?
>
> I wouldn’t call that Stating Fresh, I call that the right thing to do.
>
> Bungie started Fresh with REACH, and look what that has done.
>
> 343 need to go back, take a very good look at Halo 3, and evolve it.
>
> And use any features from REACH and Halo 4 that worked.
This is basically what I ment.
343i has a fresh new chance to bring back traditional gameplay.
> > Halo 4 was an even better chance for a fresh start, and the first version of that game (which was traditional) got scrapped.
> >
> > Wishful thinking is fun, but classic Halo just isn’t going to happen.
>
> There is always chance for hope.
No there isn’t. Not when the evidence is so stupidly obvious.
Reach was a weak game and got tons of backlash. 343 took over the series and made a pretty good patch even though it came late and didn’t cover the entire game. People had hope for Halo 4 because they thought that 343 would avoid all of the problems associated with Reach and deliver a compelling game.
Halo 4 launched as an incomplete game that deviated from classic Halo even more than Reach. Once again, the people at 343 took it upon themselves to polish a turd and try and save its multiplayer, which was and still is nearly dead before the first anniversary of the game’s release.
Ultimately, there’s no reason to have hope that the cycle will break when it’s been going on for YEARS. People can have hope for things that might make it into the game, but hope for classic Halo? It’s laughable.
> > > Halo 4 was an even better chance for a fresh start, and the first version of that game (which was traditional) got scrapped.
> > >
> > > Wishful thinking is fun, but classic Halo just isn’t going to happen.
> >
> > There is always chance for hope.
>
> Ultimately, there’s no reason to have hope that the cycle will break when it’s been going on for YEARS. People can have hope for things that might make it into the game, but hope for classic Halo? It’s laughable.
But there is hope for having both. As many have said, a combination of classic and infinity divided by some sort of ranked/social playlist system could be exactly what Halo needs right now.
Many people long for the return of arena style (pre Reach), but many have also become too accustomed to class-based gameplay to completely remove it from the next game. It would be smart to compromise at this point so Halo XB1 can draw in as many players as possible from both ends of the casual/competitive spectrums.
Your entire post was spot on, BTW. You essentially summed up what thousands of other threads have had trouble saying. I just wanted to respond to this part specifically.
> But there is hope for having both. As many have said, a combination of classic and infinity divided by some sort of ranked/social playlist system could be exactly what Halo needs right now.
>
> Many people long for the return of arena style (pre Reach), but many have also become too accustomed to class-based gameplay to completely remove it from the next game. It would be smart to compromise at this point so Halo XB1 can draw in as many players as possible from both ends of the casual/competitive spectrums.
>
> Your entire post was spot on, BTW. You essentially summed up what thousands of other threads have had trouble saying. I just wanted to respond to this part specifically.
Reach made a ton of changes to the gameplay. It didn’t come with a classic/new split.
Halo 4 had the same and even more changes to the gameplay. It didn’t come with a classic/new split.
Third time’s the charm? Nope. Every time a solution is delivered, the population is too small to make a difference, or the solution is botched (AR starts in Legendary Slayer). If it didn’t happen those two times, it’s not going to happen the next time. Common sense makes that pretty clear.
The odds of in-game ranks are slightly better, but 343 is too afraid of letting old problems resurface when it comes to that sort of thing. They’ll either keep them exclusive to Waypoint (lol) or they’ll dumb them down to the point where they’re ultimately meaningless. Ranks are meant to separate people by skill, not let everyone reach the top with hardly any effort (CSR).
I just don’t agree with the idea of having hope for something when everything points to the contrary. I didn’t buy into the hype for Halo 4. I did research on released coverage and made educated evaluations, even though everyone was saying “OMG YOU CAN’T JUDGE IT UNTIL YOU PLAY IT!”.
End result? The game was awful and I saved myself some money.
Hope is nonsense to me.
THE HALO “PURIST” RECIPE FOR ALL HALO GAMES EVER:
WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR NEW HALO JUST CLONE HALO CE +or- HALO 2 +or- HALO 3 FOR “NEW” EVERY HALO GAME
The real sad news for these guys is that the likely biggest reason HALO 2 anniversary will not get made is because all of you guys have convinced 343i/MS that it would massively detract from the player base for HALO X1.
> THE HALO “PURIST” RECIPE FOR ALL HALO GAMES EVER:
> WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR NEW HALO JUST CLONE HALO CE +or- HALO 2 +or- HALO 3 FOR “NEW” EVERY HALO GAME
>
> The real sad news for these guys is that the likely biggest reason HALO 2 anniversary will not get made is because all of you guys have convinced 343i/MS that it would massively detract from the player base for HALO X1.
As far as the purist recipe goes, I think most would agree that the original trilogy was comprised of games that all honored but tweaked the game play of their forerunners. Duel wielding, vehicle damage, hijacking, interactive maps, and even equipment are all things that while may have been criticized in terms of implementation, did not fundamentally break that core game play.
Even Reach was built on traditional game play, even if it failed to properly respect it when implementing armor abilities. Halo 4 basically just played loosey goosey with everything. I don’t think its disingenuous to say that you are open to innovation while rejecting the direction that Halo Reach and Halo 4 have taken.
Why would Halo 2 anniversary detract from xbox one? Halo CEA utilized the Reach platform for multiplayer. Why is there any reason to think that a Halo 2 reskin would do any different? My hope for a Halo 2 anniversary would be that they could build and include the campaign the game was originally intended to ship with.
> > THE HALO “PURIST” RECIPE FOR ALL HALO GAMES EVER:
> > WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR NEW HALO JUST CLONE HALO CE +or- HALO 2 +or- HALO 3 FOR “NEW” EVERY HALO GAME
> >
> > The real sad news for these guys is that the likely biggest reason HALO 2 anniversary will not get made is because all of you guys have convinced 343i/MS that it would massively detract from the player base for HALO X1.
>
> As far as the purist recipe goes, I think most would agree that the original trilogy was comprised of games that all honored but tweaked the game play of their forerunners. Duel wielding, vehicle damage, hijacking, interactive maps, and even equipment are all things that while may have been criticized in terms of implementation, did not fundamentally break that core game play.
>
> Even Reach was built on traditional game play, even if it failed to properly respect it when implementing armor abilities. Halo 4 basically just played loosey goosey with everything. I don’t think its disingenuous to say that you are open to innovation while rejecting the direction that Halo Reach and Halo 4 have taken.
>
> Why would Halo 2 anniversary detract from xbox one? Halo CEA utilized the Reach platform for multiplayer. Why is there any reason to think that a Halo 2 reskin would do any different? My hope for a Halo 2 anniversary would be that they could build and include the campaign the game was originally intended to ship with.
The only things totally broken in Reach and Halo 4 are Armor Lock, DMR or die, and 4’s maps were too wide open.
HALO 2 anniversary as a new release would have more players than Halo X1 due to the “Purist” devotion mentality, and any separation would be too much of a cost to the new console image if a ten year old game is out preforming the current version.
The “Purist” definition of variety is minor to miniscule tweaks to the “Proven Formula” which is add a couple new maps and one or two new guns every game. Even Bungie knew they had to break that overly confining mold to energize the franchise.
> The only things totally broken in Reach and Halo 4 are Armor Lock, DMR or die, and 4’s maps were too wide open.
>
> HALO 2 anniversary as a new release would have more players than Halo X1 due to the “Purist” devotion mentality, and any separation would be too much of a cost to the new console image if a ten year old game is out preforming the current version.
>
> The “Purist” definition of variety is minor to miniscule tweaks to the “Proven Formula” which is add a couple new maps and one or two new guns every game. Even Bungie knew they had to break that overly confining mold to energize the franchise.
I wasn’t arguing that Halo Reach and Halo 4 are “broken.” I was simply saying that they diverged from the traditional game play in ways that distorted rather than built the formula.
As far as the anniversary edition goes… I’m still not understanding how a graphically updated Halo 2 campaign along with traditional maps that utilize the Halo 5 multiplayer platform would represent separation in a way that would undermine Halo 5.
Obviously there are at least a few people that would like to see essentially a line by line port of the Halo CE code for Halo 5 matchmaking. But I think most people, including most “purists,” are open to innovation. Properly balanced armor abilities and equipment as on map pickups wouldn’t scare away most people. I don’t recall a great outpouring of distress over the grav lift “breaking” map flow on High Ground. If you properly tune a jet pack to have limited usage as an on map pick up, it would be seen by most as a tool in the sandbox, not fundamentally detrimental to map design. Using High Ground as an example, it wouldn’t undermine the importance of holding the tower. It would simply build a new element into the equation on the map. You would have to account for either controlling the jet pack or preparing for when the other team uses it. It wouldn’t be repeatedly usable to undermine the importance of high ground, cover, and map control. If the shield regen simply was a one pop equipment that briefly surrounded your character in a green aurora that started your shields charging at the moment of activation but then went inert, it would be used with discretion and much more situationally than the Halo 3 version that turned open ground into a power position for a brief period of time.
Even turtling abilities or promethean vision could be supported as limited use abilities that had to be earned.
Rejecting things like illy conceived loadout based armor abilities and perks, instant respawn, and personal ordinance doesn’t represent an aversion to change or innovation. It represents recognizing that taking a step in any one direction isn’t always a step in the right direction. All these things in some way undermine concepts and elements of game play that go right to the center of what the Halo experience has been for a decade.
So you want to do the same thing to the infinity fans of what happened to the classic fans in halo 4?
Thats stupid hen you can easily have both. Infinity can be easily balance but people dont like to take a chance and instead throw it out. Keep both styles of playlist and you get more players.
> > The only things totally broken in Reach and Halo 4 are Armor Lock, DMR or die, and 4’s maps were too wide open.
> >
> > HALO 2 anniversary as a new release would have more players than Halo X1 due to the “Purist” devotion mentality, and any separation would be too much of a cost to the new console image if a ten year old game is out preforming the current version.
> >
> > The “Purist” definition of variety is minor to miniscule tweaks to the “Proven Formula” which is add a couple new maps and one or two new guns every game. Even Bungie knew they had to break that overly confining mold to energize the franchise.
>
> I wasn’t arguing that Halo Reach and Halo 4 are “broken.” I was simply saying that they diverged from the traditional game play in ways that distorted rather than built the formula.
>
> As far as the anniversary edition goes… I’m still not understanding how a graphically updated Halo 2 campaign along with traditional maps that utilize the Halo 5 multiplayer platform would represent separation in a way that would undermine Halo 5.
>
> Obviously there are at least a few people that would like to see essentially a line by line port of the Halo CE code for Halo 5 matchmaking. But I think most people, including most “purists,” are open to innovation. Properly balanced armor abilities and equipment as on map pickups wouldn’t scare away most people. I don’t recall a great outpouring of distress over the grav lift “breaking” map flow on High Ground. If you properly tune a jet pack to have limited usage as an on map pick up, it would be seen by most as a tool in the sandbox, not fundamentally detrimental to map design. Using High Ground as an example, it wouldn’t undermine the importance of holding the tower. It would simply build a new element into the equation on the map. You would have to account for either controlling the jet pack or preparing for when the other team uses it. It wouldn’t be repeatedly usable to undermine the importance of high ground, cover, and map control. If the shield regen simply was a one pop equipment that briefly surrounded your character in a green aurora that started your shields charging at the moment of activation but then went inert, it would be used with discretion and much more situationally than the Halo 3 version that turned open ground into a power position for a brief period of time.
>
> Even turtling abilities or promethean vision could be supported as limited use abilities that had to be earned.
>
> Rejecting things like illy conceived loadout based armor abilities and perks, instant respawn, and personal ordinance doesn’t represent an aversion to change or innovation. It represents recognizing that taking a step in any one direction isn’t always a step in the right direction. All these things in some way undermine concepts and elements of game play that go right to the center of what the Halo experience has been for a decade.
The new things in HALO is bad! Just kidding, but in my less verbose view it’s just the DMR that broke the average and largest player group’s back nothing more. But I get why so many like to blame the other stuff it is just personal taste and some only like Vanilla while others like Neapolitan or even more complex flavors.
> But I get why so many like to blame the other stuff it is just personal taste and some only like Vanilla while others like Neapolitan or even more complex flavors.
I like all sorts of toppings on my burger. Just don’t serve me a tofu burger.
Figured I would keep it short and sweet for a change.
A distasteful yet practical matchmaking split would somewhat shadow CoD’s Core = Halo X1 Infinity and CoD’s Hardcore = Halo X1 Classic/Legendary. Yes that does mean Classic/Legendary Halo matchmaking would have less playlists due to the fact that they now ignore the current core of HALO and play more simplistically.
> A distasteful yet practical matchmaking split would somewhat shadow CoD’s Core = Halo X1 Infinity and CoD’s Hardcore = Halo X1 Classic/Legendary. Yes that does mean Classic/Legendary Halo matchmaking would have less playlists due to the fact that they now ignore the current core of HALO and play more simplistically.
Unless they were to simply redefine again what constitutes the “current core.” Infinity would have less playlists due to the fact that it would ignore the “current core” of Halo and play less simplistically.
Finagling aside, I think a split that tilts towards “modern” game types as opposed to traditional is likely.
> So you want to do the same thing to the infinity fans of what happened to the classic fans in halo 4?
>
> Thats stupid hen you can easily have both. Infinity can be easily balance but people dont like to take a chance and instead throw it out. Keep both styles of playlist and you get more players.
> > A distasteful yet practical matchmaking split would somewhat shadow CoD’s Core = Halo X1 Infinity and CoD’s Hardcore = Halo X1 Classic/Legendary. Yes that does mean Classic/Legendary Halo matchmaking would have less playlists due to the fact that they now ignore the current core of HALO and play more simplistically.
>
> Unless they were to simply redefine again what constitutes the “current core.” Infinity would have less playlists due to the fact that it would ignore the “current core” of Halo and play less simplistically.
>
> Finagling aside, I think a split that tilts towards “modern” game types as opposed to traditional is likely.
This. If we don’t see some form of split, 343i is either extremely stubborn or just -Yoinking!- stupid. I like to believe they are neither, and we’ll get some classic/Legendary playlists at launch with (possibly) more added at a later date. Sadly I think Legendary will be fused with Ranked, but I guess we can’t win all the battles and at least everyone will have something appealing to play.
I agree completely.
I think one of the main reasons that we saw a lack of innovation in Halo 4, is because it was on hardware that had already been pushed as far a it could as far as Halo games go. So they ended up just taking things from other popular shooters.
I believe that Halo 5 will have a huge advantage with being on next gen hardware, as it brings an opportunity for 343 to do things that we haven’t seen Halo do before, things that could actually work with Halo.