If the thought even CROSSES YOUR MIND that one of the new additions is “gimmicky” or “unbalanced,” just scrap it. There is a lot of pressure on you guys to resurrect Halo, and gimmicks aren’t going to help you in the slightest.
Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
> Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
Best launch day sales for a Halo game yet?
Nothing about Reach was gimmicky because it all took pre-exsisting elements of the game and expanded them. If anything it’s the opposite because Reach tried to make the game mainstream rather than set it apart.
And that’s what gimmicks do, they try to set the game apart from everything else.
But all of the games have had “gimmicks” of some sort. Halo 2’s dual wielding, Halo 3’s equipment, ODST’s VISR, Reach’s AAs. These things don’t really change what makes Halo Halo, they just add new layers to it. Each game feels a bit different because of these additions, but they also feel distinctly Halo as well. Its ridiculous to think that Halo 4 won’t have any “gimmick” type thing added to it; it just matters how well its implemented.
Any new elements added to Halo 4 will be labeled as “gimmicky” by someone.
> > Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
>
> Best launch day sales for a Halo game yet?
>
> Nothing about Reach was gimmicky because it all took pre-exsisting elements of the game and expanded them. If anything it’s the opposite because Reach tried to make the game mainstream rather than set it apart.
>
> And that’s what gimmicks do, they try to set the game apart from everything else.
yea but still has not out sold halo 3
it only had best launch day sales because people thought it would be good
> yea but still has not out sold halo 3
Three years compared to one year.
I don’t understand peoples negativity towards Reach. It was different and was a prequel so of course it’s bound to be different but it didn’t turn out as horrible as everyone seems to make of it…
“Gimmicky” shouldn’t be used to describe a gameplay element. If you want a barebones game like Halo 2, I’m sure they’ll have a barebones playlist for you. Halo 4 needs to, and is going to, innovate. People will brand it gimmicky, but Halo hasn’t strayed too far from it’s roots (like Mortal Kombat) that it has to return to them to get fans back. All of the things done wrong with Reach can be fixed.
To everyone saying Reach was not based on gimmicky gameplay mechanics needs to wake up. Reach’s gameplay design was absolutely mindboggling. Every gameplay addition made the game more random, more frustrating, and much worse than Halo 3.
Not only that, but Bungie even managed to ruin theater.
To say default Reach is as good as the previous games is an insult to the series.
Thank god for 343i, the game is playable now.
> I don’t understand peoples negativity towards Reach. It was different and was a prequel so of course it’s bound to be different but it didn’t turn out as horrible as everyone seems to make of it…
It is terrible.
And different doesn’t have to mean horrible.
> > Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
>
> Best launch day sales for a Halo game yet?
Only reason why is because it has the word Halo in the title.
> > yea but still has not out sold halo 3
>
> Three years compared to one year.
Halo 3 sold Halo Reach.
If Reach outsells Halo 3 in it’s lifetime, I will be thoroughly surprised.
People need to stop using the word gimmick, find another word please, gimmick doesn’t automatically mean bad . . . like it seems to me when people use it in these forums.
Leave Halo 4 to 343i, lets see and examine what happens to the series. Multiple outcomes can become of it.
Halo 4 updates, and adds what people will call gimmicks and population will boom because of how fun the game is.
Halo 4 updates, adds gimmicks, populations dies.
Halo 4 returns to its Halo CE and Halo 2 roots, population booms.
Halo 4 returns to its classic predecessors, population dies.
They’re all possibilities, I mean, people on these forums think the best thing for Halo is for it to become more classic, while I agree with this group more or less, they might not be correct. I have a friend or two who wouldn’t have bought Reach if it wasn’t for Jet Packs (I know right).
So let’s see where Halo 4 gets us, and see what to fix from there.
Maybe Halo’s just on its last leg . . .
I think Halo 4 should do what Reach did gameplay-wise, except do it right. No loadouts(except maybe in Firefight), Armor Abilities as map pickups(maybe make them one-time uses, like Equipment), maps not ripped directly from the campaign, credits only being earned through kills and objective capturing, and maybe even larger multiplayer battles. That would be awesome, though I might be wrong.
> > Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
>
> Best launch day sales for a Halo game yet?
>
> Nothing about Reach was gimmicky because it all took pre-exsisting elements of the game and expanded them. If anything it’s the opposite because Reach tried to make the game mainstream rather than set it apart.
>
> And that’s what gimmicks do, they try to set the game apart from everything else.
wow you’re delusional
Basically what everyone else said. Reach only had good sales because everyone thought the game would be good. How is reach not full of crappy gimmicks? All of the Armor Abilities, low jumping and slow speeds to decrease the skill gap, a ranking system that rewards play time and not skill, and bloom. Seriously, your Bungie fanboyism is making your opinion mean less than nothing, and you’re not to be taken seriously.
To all those who claim Reach is terrible. Take a look at how many people play on a daily bases and then get back to me.
Your “opinion” is that you don’t like the game, and that’s fine. But saying it is a bad game is as bad a fallacy as stating that Halo CE had multiplayer.
As a fan for 8 years i can say unequivically that Halo Reach is my favorite game in the Halo series when it comes to MP.
Don’t go around saying Reach is a bad game when so many people enjoy it and it’s gameplay.
> If the thought even CROSSES YOUR MIND that one of the new additions is “gimmicky” or “unbalanced,” just scrap it. There is a lot of pressure on you guys to resurrect Halo, and gimmicks aren’t going to help you in the slightest.
>
> Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
Depends on what you mean with gimmicks.
I wouldn’t buy Halo 4, if it has the following:
Bloom
Armor Abilities
Loadouts
Joke of a melee system
Only An everyone wins ranking system
Sprint
Slow paced gameplay like Reach
Grenukes like Reach
Having Halo 4 as a zero gimmicky game is pretty much impossible, but maiking it have less than Reach is possible, and hopefully, none of those thing listed above are in Halo 4.
Armor abilities are great, i say keep sprint as everyone’s default armor ability and have Jetpack and Evade as pickups, i mean how is that different from Halo 3’s pickups?
> If the thought even CROSSES YOUR MIND that one of the new additions is “gimmicky” or “unbalanced,” just scrap it. There is a lot of pressure on you guys to resurrect Halo, and gimmicks aren’t going to help you in the slightest.
>
> Reach was based on gimmicky gameplay, and we all know how well that game turned out.
Reach is the 8th most played game in Xbox live, that’s what the game turned out.
Hopefully Halo 4 is more like Halo 2, were you had so little random factors unlike Reach (when there’s at least one ZB playlist I’ll take this back).
> Don’t go around saying Reach is a bad game when so many people enjoy it and it’s gameplay.
Compared to how many people enjoyed Halo 2 and 3 at this point in time in Reach’s life span, yeah, it is a bad game in a lot of ways.