I’m buying Halo 4 for a Halo game, not some crazy mutation of Halo. If I wanted to play something different, I’d play a different game. I’m not saying to keep everything exactly the same, but the core game play needs to remain untouched.
Halo cannot and will not, survive a whole new trilogy without adding innovative ideas to the series. This doesn’t mean it’s going to be a RPG, it will still most likely contain the core FPS gameplay, but it must change to keep up with the industry.
I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
Yes, keep the golden triangle intact.
> I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
Ah but that’s just it isn’t it…Halo could have died with Halo 3, a perfect fitting conclusion to a series that would be remembered as one of the best in gaming. If there is no change at all then Halo will end up being the next Call of Duty.
If you’re opposed to AA’s I think that they’ll be downplayed a bit in Halo 4, but even if they weren’t I wouldn’t see much of a problem with it. They add spice to the game especially when it comes to custom and Action Sack.
> > I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
>
> Ah but that’s just it isn’t it…Halo could have died with Halo 3, a perfect fitting conclusion to a series that would be remembered as one of the best in gaming. You may just end up seeing Halo turn into the next Call of Duty.
This will never happen, CoD is a good game sure but it has no soul, it’s like comparing a really good local restaurant that’s a little more expensive, and takes a little longer to make but it makes it that much better, to McDonald’s.
They need to change some things here and there
> I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
Halo should’ve stopped at Halo 3. It had reached (hehheh) the pinnacle where it was wildly popular, profitable, and comfortably at the point where it enjoyed by many, and the changes they had made had created just enough discomfort to keep in the spotlight for gamers in debate. You probably could’ve gotten away with making two or maybe even three more map packs for Halo 3 that would’ve sold like hotcakes.
But it should’ve stopped. While I can enjoy Reach, I am not blind. Reach simply took Halo that step from “Massively Popular, Well-made Entertainment Item” to “Shameless Cash Grab”.
It takes talent and skill to make something great. It takes humility and integrity to realize its time stop, even when money is involved.
> > I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
>
> Halo should’ve stopped at Halo 3. It had reached (hehheh) the pinnacle where it was wildly popular, profitable, and comfortably at the point where it enjoyed by many, and the changes they had made had created just enough discomfort to keep in the spotlight for gamers in debate. You probably could’ve gotten away with making two or maybe even three more map packs for Halo 3 that would’ve sold like hotcakes.
>
> But it should’ve stopped. While I can enjoy Reach, I am not blind. Reach simply took Halo that step from “Massively Popular, Well-made Entertainment Item” to “Shameless Cash Grab”.
>
> It takes talent and skill to make something great. It takes humility and integrity to realize its time stop, even when money is involved.
I dunno what would require more integrity, stopping it when you decide, or giving the public what they are shouting and begging for. Personally I think the Halo series will only die when Master Chief does.
> I’m buying Halo 4 for a Halo game, not some crazy mutation of Halo. If I wanted to play something different, I’d play a different game.
Well, have fun finding something different! I can guarantee you it is going to change.
> I’m buying Halo 4 for a Halo game, not some crazy mutation of Halo. If I wanted to play something different, I’d play a different game. I’m not saying to keep everything exactly the same, but the core game play needs to remain untouched.
OMG PLEASE the OP is 100 percent correct. Please no more AA’s or equipment they are just gimmicks if your going to innovate build on the golden triangle dont add to it it needs no new additions. No more Bloom or random spread either just give us a simple and clean Halo game and itll be a sucess.
You mean leave it exactly like Halo: CE but change a few storyline things? Yeah, boring.
Love how everyone is judging the future of the Halo series based on Reach.
Reach was a horrible Halo game. Bungie was clearly just getting it out of the way so they could move on to their next project. Who’s to say 343 isn’t putting some real heart into Halo 4?
> You mean leave it exactly like Halo: CE but change a few storyline things? Yeah, boring.
That would actually be a big improvement from Reach lol.
> Love how everyone is judging the future of the Halo series based on Reach.
>
> Reach was a horrible Halo game. Bungie was clearly just getting it out of the way so they could move on to their next project. Who’s to say 343 isn’t putting some real heart into Halo 4?
Reach was bad because it CHANGED Halo into something it wasnt. Do we really want that to happen again? Hell no, Halo is already awesome in its core foundations there is NO NEED to change it works superbly.
Innovate, but dont innovate on the core game mechanics of Halo. Innovate on weapons, build on the golden triangle BUT PLEASE DONTT ADD TO IT EQUIPMENT+AA’s BOTH RUINED THE GAME.
> > > I’d rather Halo die a good series than live to turn into crap.
> >
> > Halo should’ve stopped at Halo 3. It had reached (hehheh) the pinnacle where it was wildly popular, profitable, and comfortably at the point where it enjoyed by many, and the changes they had made had created just enough discomfort to keep in the spotlight for gamers in debate. You probably could’ve gotten away with making two or maybe even three more map packs for Halo 3 that would’ve sold like hotcakes.
> >
> > But it should’ve stopped. While I can enjoy Reach, I am not blind. Reach simply took Halo that step from “Massively Popular, Well-made Entertainment Item” to “Shameless Cash Grab”.
> >
> > It takes talent and skill to make something great. It takes humility and integrity to realize its time stop, even when money is involved.
>
> I dunno what would require more integrity, stopping it when you decide, or giving the public what they are shouting and begging for. Personally I think the Halo series will only die when Master Chief does.
No, it takes intelligence to ignore what the community wants/keeps screaming for. If developers actually listened to their communities, every single game on this damn planet would be nigh-unplayable and broken, for both the community and any new parties interested in playing, because the people who actually know what they’re talking about aren’t the loudest or the most noticable.
> > Love how everyone is judging the future of the Halo series based on Reach.
> >
> > Reach was a horrible Halo game. Bungie was clearly just getting it out of the way so they could move on to their next project. Who’s to say 343 isn’t putting some real heart into Halo 4?
>
> Reach was bad because it CHANGED Halo into something it wasnt. Do we really want that to happen again? Hell no, Halo is already awesome in its core foundations there is NO NEED to change it works superbly.
>
>
> Innovate, but dont innovate on the core game mechanics of Halo. Innovate on weapons, build on the golden triangle BUT PLEASE DONTT ADD TO IT EQUIPMENT+AA’s BOTH RUINED THE GAME.
Reach sucked because the changes themselves sucked, simple as that. Hell, that’s if we only talk about multiplayer, which clearly isn’t our main concern here. The AAs barely changed anything in the campaign, so saying it ruined the game makes no sense. Reach wasn’t particularly good, but not because of AAs, but lazy level design, short missions, sucky story, etc. It was basically the same thing as Halo CE, they even brought health packs back. The AAs only changed a couple of moments here and there. The multiplayer on the other hand… and even then, it’s not the AAs in themselves that ruin the MP, but mainly armor lock (even if I’d rather not have any AA at all). Reach is in fact a perfect example of a game that isn’t particularly good BECAUSE it was just the developers being on automatic pilot, delivering what they always delivered, but lacking the originality, the “freshness” and ideas that were there in the beginning. There is only so many ways to do the same thing before you run out of ideas of how to do it, and Reach was a prime example. Hell, every subsequent Halo game was less good than the prior exactly because of that.
Most of the subsequent missions were different takes on Halo CE missions. Nightfall was the first half of Truth and Reconciliation part 2, Winter Contingency was Halo (of Halo 1) part 2, Quarantine Zone was Two Betrayals part 2, High Charity is The Library all over again as Cortana, The Ark is Assault on the Control Room part 2, etc, etc. Not that it’s a necessarily bad thing as I enjoyed Halo 2 and 3, but clearly, the original idea is pretty much always the best, because among other reasons, subsequently you need to do things a bit different, and you don’t have infinite options. So how many times can they remake those old Halo CE missions as inferior versions? Until it becomes mediocre and Halo dies of old age? No thanks. If Halo 4 is worse than Reach, don’t count on me to buy it, I’d rather have new stories told in books, even more since Halo CE is getting a facelift. Same for multiplayer, I can still play Halo 3, and if they ever remake Halo 2 with online MP, I have no reason to wait for a new Halo game for the same thing. Why pay 60 bucks for a game I already have but only better? Makes no sense.
I’m not saying change the core mechanics, I’m saying build upon them, give us badass AI, more of them and REAL sandbox level design, dynamic objectives as well as multiple ones, etc. There’s so many things technology can bring us to build on top of a successful formula, except no one takes any risks, no one does anything else than give us eye candy instead. Bethesda may be some of the only studios to actually use technology to build upon their games, just look how they improved the AI through the games to enable us to do new things which were never possible before? That’s how you make sequels, how you stay relevant to the industry and make your fans keep faith. The only things Bungie added were features which didn’t affect how you were playing the campaign. They were welcomed, but still.
> Reach was bad because it CHANGED Halo into something it wasnt. Do we really want that to happen again? Hell no, Halo is already awesome in its core foundations there is NO NEED to change it works superbly.
>
>
> Innovate, but dont innovate on the core game mechanics of Halo. Innovate on weapons, build on the golden triangle BUT PLEASE DONTT ADD TO IT EQUIPMENT+AA’s BOTH RUINED THE GAME.
Tossing a grav lift at a incoming warthog and sticking it while it’s backflipping over you is one of the most Halo-y things I can think of.
Equiptment is Halo and because AAs are essencially equiptment 2.0 so are they.
Removing them would be like removing the ghost.
No, AA’s are a failed successor to equipment. Bring back equipment, it was just fine. AA’s are not.