Original Halo 4 build?

I’ve heard that 343 started developing Halo 4 only to scrap it and restart, developing and releasing what we know as Halo 4 today. Is there any gameplay footage or anything released by 343 indicating what this early Halo 4 looked like?

In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but it felt too ‘traditional’ so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.

> In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but it felt too ‘traditional’ so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.

Yep, that’s the article I was referring to. Happen to have a link?

> In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but <mark>it felt too ‘traditional’</mark> so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.

I bet if that had been released instead of what we got H4 would of been a much better game and enjoyed by a lot more players, after all people wanted a more Traditional Halo game and we all were very vocal about it back on the B.net forums when Reach hit the shelves.

> > In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but <mark>it felt too ‘traditional’</mark> so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.
>
> I bet if that had been released instead of what we got H4 would of been a much better game and enjoyed by a lot more players, after all people wanted a more Traditional Halo game and we all were very vocal about it back on the B.net forums when Reach hit the shelves.

343 brings early build to Microsoft

Microsoft- “This is just like Halo. :/”

343- “I know! Isn’t it great that the team could do this? :D”

Microsoft- “This is just like Halo. :/”

-Paraphrased from another article.

> > In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but it felt too ‘traditional’ so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.
>
> Yep, that’s the article I was referring to. Happen to have a link?

There ya go: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_.php?page=3

The exact quote is "One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a “very traditional” Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.

343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal".

@Berserk - When you look at the way the game turned out, quotes like this are very worrying. Why build something you know the fans will love (as said in the article) and then scrap it for the sake of change? Maybe they’ll get it right in Halo 5.

> @Berserk - When you look at the way the game turned out, quotes like this are very worrying. Why build something you know the fans will love (as said in the article) and then scrap it for the sake of change? Maybe they’ll get it right in Halo 5.

Because apparently Microsoft didn’t like it.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Halo 4 needs to die so that 343 will learn…

> This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
>
>
> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> Halo 4 needs to die so that 343 will learn…

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Halo 4 is dead. Only 15,000 players max, no competitive scene, outside the top 10 in the most played charts and currently behind Halo 3 population wise.

> > In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but <mark>it felt too ‘traditional’</mark> so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.
>
> I bet if that had been released instead of what we got H4 would of been a much better game and enjoyed by a lot more players, after all people wanted a more Traditional Halo game and we all were very vocal about it back on the B.net forums when Reach hit the shelves.

Nonsense! Some people might say they want a traditional Halo game but looking at every effort made in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FRANCHISE (classic and reduced feature playlists, remakes of one kind or another) those sentiments don’t generally bare out in the population.

Remember, the talk you see around here and elsewhere on the internet represents largely closed communities that attract like-minded followers to their congregations. Its a small and very biased sample, comprising not only just those who like to talk about Halo but those who like to talk about it with those who are also present in this venue. It breeds self-reinforcing sentiments that, under larger considerations, are crap (ex. Halo is/was an arena shooter, Halo is all about multiplayer) and go on to produce very poisonous expectations for what this game should be and what we should all be getting out of it.

Ie. that all future Halo games should be Halo 2/3 expansions, that they should be “traditional”, that they should “honor” the “legacy” of this franchise, or (as we would have said a few years ago before we sanctified gameplay mechanics) more of the -Yoinking!- same -Yoink-.

At the very least you should at least recognize that both Reach and Halo 4 sold better than Halo 2 and 3, that they had larger online populations than those games did as well at launch, but the crux was that neither game was as able to retain their respective populations? Was it because of horrible change? Possibly but if you’ve played Reach, or any shooter that isn’t Halo for that matter, there’s nothing in Halo 4 that should seem that alien to you or inherently undesirable. Replayability might (and probably is) still lacking but that feeds into the very next point.

What the decline of Halo 4 probably has more to do with (which is NOT represented on these forums) is how long we’ve all been playing Halo and how boring the same old mechanics, weapons, and format may have become for some, or indeed MOST people as they grow accustomed to every aspect of this franchise through years upon years of playtime. Far from being a godsend, a more traditional Halo 4 could easily have buried this franchise by delivering just that which the general population (never mind the community as we so narrowly define it) doesn’t want.

> > > In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but <mark>it felt too ‘traditional’</mark> so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.
> >
> > I bet if that had been released instead of what we got H4 would of been a much better game and enjoyed by a lot more players, after all people wanted a more Traditional Halo game and we all were very vocal about it back on the B.net forums when Reach hit the shelves.
>
> Nonsense! Some people might say they want a traditional Halo game but looking at every effort made in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FRANCHISE (classic and reduced feature playlists, remakes of one kind or another) those sentiments don’t generally bare out in the population.
>
> Remember, the talk you see around here and elsewhere on the internet represents largely closed communities that attract like-minded followers to their congregations. Its a small and very biased sample, comprising not only just those who like to talk about Halo but those who like to talk about it with those who are also present in this venue. It breeds self-reinforcing sentiments that, under larger considerations, are crap (ex. Halo is/was an arena shooter, Halo is all about multiplayer) and go on to produce very poisonous expectations for what this game should be and what we should all be getting out of it.
>
> Ie. that all future Halo games should be Halo 2/3 expansions, that they should be “traditional”, that they should “honor” the “legacy” of this franchise, or (as we would have said a few years ago before we sanctified gameplay mechanics) more of the -Yoinking!- same -Yoink!-.
>
>
> At the very least you should at least recognize that both Reach and Halo 4 sold better than Halo 2 and 3, that they had larger online populations than those games did as well at launch, but the crux was that neither game was as able to retain their respective populations? Was it because of horrible change? Possibly but if you’ve played Reach, or any shooter that isn’t Halo for that matter, there’s nothing in Halo 4 that should seem that alien to you or inherently undesirable. Replayability might (and probably is) still lacking but that feeds into the very next point.
>
> What the decline of Halo 4 probably has more to do with (which is NOT represented on these forums) is how long we’ve all been playing Halo and how boring the same old mechanics, weapons, and format may have become for some, or indeed MOST people as they grow accustomed to every aspect of this franchise through years upon years of playtime. Far from being a godsend, a more traditional Halo 4 could easily have buried this franchise by delivering just that which the general population (never mind the community as we so narrowly define it) doesn’t want.

why then, does Call of Duty continue to be massively successful? It’s not the epic conclusion to campaigns (like the draw halo 3 had due to the emphasis on story in the first two installments), although of course, that will draw some. CoD continues to deliver the same mechanics over and over and over and… yet it tops the charts. It appeals well to a much larger base of players, you don’t need to be competitive to succeed, you don’t have to be the best to play well, it blurs the skill gap but respects it.

But what the franchise does do well is building off the previous. They take the last game and fix it, supplying the style of play the is clearly successful and rounding out flaws evident in the last while still retaining the style of game that people enjoy.

Halo reach and halo 4 diverged from the recipe that made halo 3 so incredible - not to widespread disdain of course, each were popular in their own right on release and strong in the months after, but what they lacked was the same dedication to improvement post launch, and in the case of halo 4, it legitimately lacked the halo identity.

CoD will always appeal to the masses, halo should look to change what was broken with the expirence in the last game and build the identity off that. Replacing armor lock with HL shield is an excellent example of that, tweaking AAs so that they fit better into the style of play they want. Waiting until March 2013 to release patches to obvious issues with online gameplay is not (anyone remember how well OMA ‘noob’ tubing went?).

Static weapon spawns are halo, it suppports coordination, map dominance, tactical play and a chance for the losing team to swing momentum. This is halo, not anyone getting a fun 1-hit-kill gun twice a game because then everyone wins. Level starting points are halo’s hallmark, not someone who’s played 6 hrs more than you having an innate ability that gives an advantage you don’t have access to (here’s looking at you stability).

Halo 5 needs to take what people wanted in halo 4, fix the unbalanced elements in the current expirence and then support the game effectively post launch.

> > > In the infamous “we hired people who hated Halo” article, someone from 343 said that they built an early version of Halo 4 but it felt too ‘traditional’ so they scrapped it. I’m pretty sure there is public footage of the early build.
> >
> > Yep, that’s the article I was referring to. Happen to have a link?
>
> There ya go: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_.php?page=3
>
> The exact quote is “One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a “very traditional” Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.
>
> 343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal”.
>
> @Berserk - When you look at the way the game turned out, quotes like this are very worrying. Why build something you know the fans will love (as said in the article) and then scrap it for the sake of change? Maybe they’ll get it right in Halo 5.

I think he might have meant that yes, that’s the article he was referring to in the first place, and that he’d like a link to some gameplay footage (if there is any) for whatever that “traditional” Halo experience was.

> Nonsense! Some people might say they want a traditional Halo game but looking at every effort made in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FRANCHISE (classic and reduced feature playlists, remakes of one kind or another) those sentiments don’t generally bare out in the population.
>
> Remember, the talk you see around here and elsewhere on the internet represents largely closed communities that attract like-minded followers to their congregations. <mark>Its a small and very biased sample</mark>, comprising not only just those who like to talk about Halo but those who like to talk about it with those who are also present in this venue. It breeds self-reinforcing sentiments that, under larger considerations, are crap (ex. Halo is/was an arena shooter, Halo is all about multiplayer) and go on to produce very poisonous expectations for what this game should be and what we should all be getting out of it.

While I agree with that, in this case it is not a small biased sample, population does not lie.

People wanted a classic Halo thats the reason why H Reach had a decline in population compared to H3, and now H4 lost 90% of its player base less than a year into the game’s lifespan when H3 mantained solid numbers for years.

People want classic Halo or at least a Halo not plagued with gimmicks.

> At the very least you should at least recognize that both <mark>Reach and Halo 4 sold better than Halo 2 and 3</mark>, that they had larger online populations than those games did as well at launch, but the crux was that neither game was as able to retain their respective populations? Was it because of horrible change? Possibly but if you’ve played Reach, or any shooter that isn’t Halo for that matter, <mark>there’s nothing in Halo 4 that should seem that alien to you or inherently undesirable.</mark> Replayability might (and probably is) still lacking but that feeds into the very next point.
>
> What the decline of Halo 4 probably has more to do with (which is NOT represented on these forums) is how long we’ve all been playing Halo and how boring the same old mechanics, weapons, and format may have become for some, or indeed MOST people as they grow accustomed to every aspect of this franchise through years upon years of playtime. <mark>Far from being a godsend, a more traditional Halo 4 could easily have buried this franchise by delivering just that which the general population</mark> (never mind the community as we so narrowly define it) doesn’t want.

1.- And yet Reach and Halo 4 couldnt mantain the numbers that Halo 2 and halo 3 had on MM for years, what does that tell you? you know when a game that was the MOST sold Halo game ever has less players in less than a year than a game that sold considerably less and still mantained very high numbers over the years? it does say something don’t you think?

2.- While there is nothing “alien” to the game FPS wise, it does have very undesirable things added to it, for starters the full switch from Arena to Loadout based game (Reach still retained some sort of Arena gametype by having PW spawn on the map and not delivered to you via PO’s), Tactical Packages, Personal Oridnance and such are elements that SHOULD nto be part of Halo you say any other shotoer has them sure but Halo is not just any other shooter it is HALO, it used to require skill, it used to require map controll, it used to require several things that arent required now thanks to this additions.

PO’s make map controll useless, why controll a key position where a PW spawns if i can camp and get assists to fill up my PO meter and get a PW delivered to my feet?

Or how about the skill of knowinghow many weapons were in play so you could actually plan, you knew for example that on a certain map there were 2 snipers, one on your teams hands and one ont he enemie’s you knew what to expect and could plan on it, now there is no way of knowing because of the RANDOM factor.

3.- Note at all, you know why people hyped the game so much and why it sold the way it did? because Frankie O connor, the lead designer of Halo 4 stated on interviews that they would bring Halo back to its Roots, people saw this and thoguht we would get a decent Halo game after the dissapointment that was Halo Reach, however they made Reach V 2.0 and now the game is struggling to mantain 20k players at peak times.

Halo has always taken more raw skill to play than COD. COD is basically SWAT where you can spawn with LMG’s, Rockets, Shotguns, Snipers, etc. and call in air strikes and helicopters to hold your hand/get your kills for you. Most weapons kill in 3-4 shots, and it’s easy to mow down a whole enemy team. When the team works/sticks together that is, because in COD I very often just see “teams” rushing each other in uncoordinated mobs.
Halo 4 does introduce very COD-like elements, but not to the same degree. If you get a nice kill streak, you can spawn a weapon and not a Pelican strike or a team of Attack Dogs (crawlers?) or a Tac-Nuke that instantly wins the match for you just because you were camping with a sniper/noob tube. Also, Halo 4 did introduce personal loadouts, but you can’t equip SAWs and Rocket Launchers in them like you can in COD. The only thing here that I won’t defend are the tactical packages and support upgrades: They really do give you an unfair advantage over people who just don’t play very much.

> Halo has always taken more raw skill to play than COD. COD is basically SWAT where you can spawn with LMG’s, Rockets, Shotguns, Snipers, etc. and call in air strikes and helicopters to hold your hand/get your kills for you. Most weapons kill in 3-4 shots, and it’s easy to mow down a whole enemy team. When the team works/sticks together that is, because in COD I very often just see “teams” rushing each other in uncoordinated mobs.
> Halo 4 does introduce very COD-like elements, but not to the same degree. If you get a nice kill streak, you can spawn a weapon and not a Pelican strike or a team of Attack Dogs (crawlers?) or a Tac-Nuke that instantly wins the match for you just because you were camping with a sniper/noob tube. Also, Halo 4 did introduce personal loadouts, but you can’t equip SAWs and Rocket Launchers in them like you can in COD. <mark>The only thing here that I won’t defend are the tactical packages and support upgrades: They really do give you an unfair advantage over people who just don’t play very much.</mark>

I’m looking at you survivor.
H3 was fun to play. I just redownloaded it after my disc broke, and it was not as frustrating as H4. I hope H X1 is like H3, or at the very least, has most of 3s elements in it.

> I’ve heard that 343 started developing Halo 4 only to scrap it and restart, developing and releasing what we know as Halo 4 today. Is there any gameplay footage or anything released by 343 indicating what this early Halo 4 looked like?

See, here’s the problem. They (343i) say that this first build looked and played like Halo. For all we know it looked and played like their idea of traditional Halo. It’s entirely possible that what they did was worse than what we have now. Without gameplay footage we may never know.

What we do know is that Halo2 was not like Halo CE, and Halo 3 was not like Halo2 or Halo CE. There was a logical progression that had as much to do with the story as it did with advancements in game technology (and Bungie’s budget). The “great leaps” in gameplay occurred with the spinoffs: ODST and Reach.

In my opinion, had the developers immersed themselves in a solid six months of strictly Halo 3 gameplay and ignored Reach entirely, Halo 4 would have been produced differently. I’m not saying that we wouldn’t have had AA’s, loadouts and armor upgrades, but they probably would have been implemented in a way that did not detract from the basic skills veteran players developed over ten years.

For three major Halo releases you were a SPARTAN II. That was pretty much all you needed to know. In ODST you were a regular human (well, you were more than regular because you were an ODST Marine). Players accepted that and just played the game, plus there was no online matchmaking. In Reach you were a SPARTAN III that was less capable than an SPARTAN II (even though the number is higher), and you had access to experimental equipment during a desperate situation. Reach being a prequel, it was not logical to incorporate technologies in Halo 4 that were abandoned before the Halo rings were discovered, or to re-introduce them in a nerfed condition given the level of technology the UNSC gained access to prior to locating Requiem. In short, the differences between Halo 3 and Halo 4 should have been just a subtle as the differences between Modern Warfare and Black Ops.

Despite which CoD game you are playing, you are always playing CoD. Halo players are not getting that Halo vibe with Halo 4.

Gameplay footage of their original build would be enlightening.

> Despite which CoD game you are playing, you are always playing CoD. Halo players are not getting that Halo vibe with Halo 4.

Just felt this needed to be echoed.

Some have criticized CoD for not changing over several iterations of the game, but I applaud it for finding ways to innovate and add features while the core gameplay remains the same. CoD’s consistency in core gameplay has allowed its fanbase to steadily build over the course of time, whereas Halo 4 almost changed into a completely different game, causing Halo to lose and need to rebuild its fanbase.

I’m glad Halo 4 turned out the way it did. I enjoy it very much.
That being said…
1) Dwelling on what could have been is pointless.
2) Getting upset over hearsay is moronic.

> 1.- And yet Reach and Halo 4 couldnt mantain the numbers that Halo 2 and halo 3 had on MM for years, what does that tell you? you know when a game that was the MOST sold Halo game ever has less players in less than a year than a game that sold considerably less and still mantained very high numbers over the years? it does say something don’t you think?

Let’s keep this simple, first of all you have a bit to learn (and you’re certainly not alone on these forums in this) about the nature of proof. You have a trend, the population of recent Halo games has depreciated at progressively faster rates, and you have a theory (the new aspects to Halo are aweful/bad/gimmicky/whatever), but what you haven’t done is consider what else might be the cause of the trends that might better explain your data for there is quite often more than one possible correlation.

Bad games, more than ever, don’t work in this industry especially when they’re high profile. It’s just too satisfying to rip apart the efforts of a multi-billion dollar corporations for failing to maintain what you the individual see as a simple matter of quality. For journalists its an even juicier field, which leaves the huge question of why Halo continues to sell despite its online problems.

But that’s sort of beside the point, its just a particular inconsistency that I’m sure you haven’t spent much time mulling over because it falls into that category of facts that your particular theory can’t explain well. But what might is just the fact that this franchise is over ten years old and still uses the same format. The entertainment value of the BR, to use a simple example, cannot be as high for Halo 4 as it was in Halo 2 because it doesn’t introduce any new concepts nor is used in any new contexts. It’s the same gun doing roughly the same job nearly 10 years on. So why expect people to play as fervently as they did now that they’ve had years to become accustomed to the excitement of Halo? Well, you don’t. You accept humanity’s attraction to novelty and dissatisfaction with stagnation and adjust your expectations for the Halo population accordingly.

Namely, that people won’t play it for as long as they once did regardless of their other opinions. Ergo fast population declines despite high sales. More traditional Halos would only exasperate the problem.

There’s more than one explanation for what we’re seeing, or at least more than one contributing factor.

> 2.- While there is nothing “alien” to the game FPS wise, it does have very undesirable things added to it, for starters the full switch from Arena to Loadout based game (Reach still retained some sort of Arena gametype by having PW spawn on the map and not delivered to you via PO’s), Tactical Packages, Personal Oridnance and such are elements that SHOULD nto be part of Halo you say any other shotoer has them sure but Halo is not just any other shooter it is HALO, it used to require skill, it used to require map controll, it used to require several things that arent required now thanks to this additions.

But Halo was never an arena shooter. As a history lesson (for Wikipedia is woefully inadequate when it comes to esoteric video game subgenres), games like Unreal Tournament were not the first games to use those qualities which we here in this community see as defining arena gameplay (ie. equal spawns and weapons on map). Some of the very first multiplayer FPS’s (which we would not consider arena shooters) used THOSE aspects because, quite simply, that’s how their campaigns worked and the extra effort in developing some other scheme of multiplayer wasn’t a priority for what was way back when just a sideshow to other, more important, game modes. Thus it was that a standard developed as many games used this convenient format which arena shooters (ex. Unreal) adopted in trying to emphasize multiplayer gameplay within this setting. However what distinguished those arena shooters wasn’t the elements you cited, but instead a change of pace, sandbox structure, level design.

Halo only has one of those, the level design, because like on-map weapons and standard spawning Unreal and Quakes design set certain standards that later games adopted ultimately out of convenience. But also like Unreal and Quake, Halo departed DRASTICALLY from acceptable arena standards.

Because of things like situational weapons, Halo is something else entirely, a particular genre of gaming that no one thought to name because its more or less represented by JUST HALO. There’s a few “Halo clones” but none really reached the same level of popularity because they never were able to duplicate the subtle nature of Halo’s mob appeal. But that’s another matter. Though someone fresh might look at what came before and say “Oh, it’s just Unreal” that statement is ignorant of, well, what those games were, and what came before them as well.

Thus you are talking out of your hinder when you say that Halo can’t, or at least shouldn’t, have elements that favor loadout based gameplay. Halo’s combat has always been situational owing to how Bungie threw a campaign sandbox into multiplayer without the careful progressive weapon balance that is CHARACTERISTIC of arena shooters that they probably would have (source: Bungie Podcast interview with Jamie Griesmer) if they had more time to develop it. Such situational gameplay is perfectly suited to a loadout system given that on-map weapon spawns are a less reliable way to provide players with the tools necessary for their intended strategies (which because of this and other factors too are much closer to a Rainbow Six than they are an Unreal.) To put it subjectively, its forced, tedious, and dull. To put it objectively, Halo’s on-map weapon spawning system was inappropriate for its sandbox.

What Halo 4 does now is simply addressing some of the core design issues of the franchise. Its not a complete redress, but its most definitely progress according to terms far greater than “maintaining Halo-ness”.

Now though, that doesn’t mean either that 343 should go full speed ahead and maintain the “Halo 4-ness” of the franchise from this point on. There are better possibilities for what Halo can become. What I’d like to emphasize though is that fundamental change is necessary to achieve that potential. 343 can’t maintain Halo just by aping the past, see point 1. But just as well they can’t go on maintaining what Halo 4 is now either for its not optimal to what Halo can be. Evolution (for a game in Halo’s position) requires not only change, not only the retention of useful characteristics, but continued change and continued evaluation of what parts of the game to keep.

> Let’s keep this simple, first of all you have a lot to learn about the nature of proof. You have a trend, the population of recent Halo games has depreciated at progressively faster rates, and you have a theory (the new games are aweful), but what you haven’t done is consider what else might be the cause of the trends that might better explain your data.
>
> Bad games, more than ever, don’t work in this industry especially when they’re high profile. It’s just too satisfying to rip apart the efforts of a multi-billion dollar corporations for failing to maintain what you the individual see as a simple matter of quality. For journalists its an even juicier field, which leaves the huge question of why Halo continues to sell despite its online problems.

And yet you also can not provide any proof that Halo’s population did not decline based ont he game changing its core mechanics, while another game aka Call of Duty keeps selling well and mantaining their population by stickign to their core mechanics.

> But that’s sort of beside the point, its just a particular inconsistency that I’m sure you haven’t spent much time mulling over because it falls into that category of inconvenient facts that your particular theory can’t explain well. But what might is just the fact that this franchise is over ten years old and still uses the same format. The entertainment value of the BR, to use a simple example, cannot be as high for Halo 4 as it was in Halo 2 because it doesn’t introduce any new concepts nor is used in any new contexts. It’s the same gun doing roughly the same job nearly 10 years on. So why expect people to play as fervently as they did now that they’ve had years to become accustomed to the excitement of Halo? Well, you don’t. You accept humanity’s attraction to novelty and dissatisfaction with stagnation and adjust your expectations for the Halo population accordingly.

Nor your theory can explain either, I dont see any proof on your end to justify what you are sayign either, I however have proof of Halo vets, websites, and players them selves saying hwo this game is not Halo and how they left Halo 4 because it is now a generic FPS just set in a sci fi enviroment.

> Namely, that people won’t play it for as long as they once did regardless of their other opinions. Ergo fast population declines despite high sales. More traditional Halos would only exasperate the problem.

Proof? because I do remember tons of players ASKING for a Classic Halo when Reach hti the shelves because Reach begun this trend to deviate fromt he classic Halo formula.

> -Yoink!-, Halo was never an arena shooter. As a history lesson (for it seems you do need it and Wikipedia is woefully inadequate when it comes to esoteric video game subgenres), games like Unreal Tournament were not the first games to use those qualities which we here in this very insular community see as defining arena gameplay (ie. equal spawns and weapons on map). Some of the very first multiplayer FPS’s (which we would not consider arena shooters) used THOSE aspects because, quite simply, that’s how their campaigns worked and the extra effort in developing some other scheme of multiplayer wasn’t a priority for what was way back when just a sideshow to other, more important, game modes. Thus it was that a standard developed as many games used this convenient format which arena shooters (ex. Unreal) adopted in trying to emphasize multiplayer gameplay. However what distinguished it wasn’t those “arena” elements you cited, but instead a change of pace, sandbox structure, level design that defined arena gameplay.

First i dont need no history lessons, please tell me when or where did I ever state Halo Wars to be an FPS when it is clearly an RTS? oh thats right i never did, and BTW Halo Wars flopped because it was NOT Halo. And yes I know about videogame history I played plenty of games when i was yougner Unreal, Quake and such so I know what an Arena shooter is and HALO used to be one.

> <mark>Thus you are talking out of your -Yoink!-</mark> when you say that Halo can’t, or at least shouldn’t, have elements that favor loadout based gameplay. Halo’s combat has always been situational owing to how Bungie threw a campaign sandbox into multiplayer without the careful progressive weapon balance that is CHARACTERISTIC of arena shooters that they probably would have (source: Bungie Podcast interview with Jamie Griesmer) if they had more time to develop it. Such situational gameplay is perfectly suited to a loadout system given that on-map weapon spawns are a less reliable way to provide players with the tools necessary for their intended strategies (which because of this and other factors too are much closer to a Rainbow Six than they are an Unreal.) To put it subjectively, its forced, tedious, and dull. To put it objectively, Halo’s on-map weapon spawning system was inappropriate for its sandbox.
>
> What Halo 4 does now is simply addressing some of the core design issues of the franchise. Its not a complete redress, but its most definitely progress according to terms far greater than “maintaining Halo-ness.”

At least I dont need to resort to insults to put my points across unlike you it seems and yes I can say what Halo SHOUDL and SHOULDN’t have based on 10 years with the franchise and seeing what changes have made the game suffer, by the way there is a difference between SHOULD and CANT i suggest you grab a dictionary.