ORIGINALITY & SKILL

Games Halo 5: Guardians
#1

I welcome innovations to Halo! That’s what put us on the map… Halo ranks were genius because they were original and brought the intense games we loved, original weapons that took a considerable amount of practice to master and therefore provided the game with longevity… an array of maps that kept the playlist fresh and appealing and STRATEGY that went along with the those maps, spawns and power pick ups! All these things were innovations in their time, and they functioned properly, its still possible that other more current innovations could do the same…

With that said, its about finding the right innovations, not to improve gameplay necessarily, because as some of you already said, the formula works, but to provide a fresh and original alternative to the mix, TO DO WHAT THE FIRST FEW HALOS DID, give us originality and a skillful game. Sure a game could go on for years with the same concepts but, honestly, if halo 3, Reach and 4 were to never be released, I think I would be pretty bored of halo 2 by now! Lol… We need fresh new games every 2 to 3 years to prevent us from getting bored of it.

And that, I believe is the problem with Halo! Bungie and 343i have simply moved away from innovating the game and tried to do what other games have done! 2 problems with this, what works for one game won’t always work for the all games… In the case of sprint, works for COD and other games, but seemingly breaks spawns and skillful set-ups in Halo. The other problem is that its not original, it was stolen from another game, so it’s no longer an innovation that will place the game at the top. It’s like steeling one my neighbors lifted Ford F150 just to find out that it won’t fit in my garage, so I drive it in anyways and break my garage door and roof… Now I have the F150, but its not original, because my neighbor has 2 or 3 of them! Instead if I would have gone out and purchased a nice 2 door mustang, that fit in my garage, then and only then would I be original and would effectively maintained the functionality of my garage!

Simple concepts, but yet difficult to apply… With this in mind, I ask, what innovation for future Halos would skillfully improve or at least refresh our experience of halo? Start form Halo 2, possibly the most successful and add to that… If we look at the Reach and Halo 4 as examples of what didn’t work, then what would? Maybe bringing back BxR and double shot but as legitimate combos NOT as glitches that could be preformed during the game, somewhat like street fighter or mortal combat. Could that be an interesting and fresh innovation to FPS Games? But remember whatever innovations we add should stay true to the game that Halo is, they should be original concepts added to the game, and they should involve skill to promote the skill gap that halo is known for!

#2

I agree with pretty much everything that you said. I do beleive that the things that made halo great was individuality and (I think) simplicity. Halo was very unique and easy to just step into and understand. You had guns, grenades, melees and sometimes vehicles. The controls were also quite simple. That simplicity also is part of what made the game’s depth and longevity so great just like sports. Most of them are pretty simple, but it leaves so much room for creativity.

Halo has sense, moved away from simplicity and individuality. It is currently getting too many features from other FPSs and losing so much of its’ simplicity that H4 doesn’t even have enough buttons for all the controls it has (try switching grenades while you have a personal ordinance up).

Use a game like H1 and H2 as the base and then add things that enhance and DO NOT deter from that base.

#3

But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.

Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.

But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.

and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.

I still play Halo 4 because i like what they did with it. They did make some mistakes but after a few title updates the game is balanced and it feels like Halo at it’s core even though it has all these new additions. Whenever I go back to Halo 3 it feels wrong. Even going back to Reach doesn’t feel right.

That fact is that nostalgic feeling is going to wear off after a while. That’s why COD isn’t as popular as it used to be. That’s why World of Warcraft isn’t as popular as it used to be.

Innovation and adding new gameplay mechanics is a good thing. But, there is a time where you need to stop. I think 343 has a good base to build off of with halo 4, they just need to make it so it’s similar to the core of Halo a little bit while still having the new mechanics that they’ve added in.

#4

> Innovation and adding new gameplay mechanics is a good thing. But, there is a time where you need to stop. I think 343 has a good base to build off of with halo 4, they just need to make it so it’s similar to the core of Halo a little bit while still having the new mechanics that they’ve added in.

Well that’s assuming that the core is a worthwhile thing that deserves investment. In my mind however, its the core of Halo which is most detrimental to its lifespan. Look at where this franchise got its starts, a surprisingly functional console release that brought a genre seriously to the platform. How high do you think the bar was for CE, or for any game on the xbox way back in 2001? Do you expect it climbed much by 2004? By 2007 certainly there was progress in the industry but where we set our standards (Halo 2 or Halo CE) there’s considerable latitude for bad ideas to flourish. Take, for example, our spawning system or our over-reliance on the duality between precision semi-automatic and power weapons to drive MOST gameplay. At the very least we have a very reduced gameplay structure between one and four shot kills and we’re trying to preach the word of Halo to a market that was on par with the technical breadth of Halo gameplay six years ago, or simply to ourselves knowing that such an evolved market exists for our greater potential pleasure.

Looking ahead we may as well be trying to justify dunking stools.

There’s a point where you may want to simply focus on fan appeal but only when you’ve more or less established a genre whose standards aren’t progressively evolving. Take, for example, the Simpsons as it is now. A new show isn’t going to come along and steal its appeal because that creative work, unlike Halo, is an institution. We merely have an aging FPS franchise that can’t be expected to justify the colossal investment it takes to make each new game if it simply doubles back on its own appeal. Halo still needs to grow, and certainly in ways that work with “the core formula” but we need to keep in mind that such a core may be far less concrete than particular spawning systems, weapons, weapon categories, or even a multiplayer focus.

Halo may be far more abstract, and far more pliable, than we in the community give it credit for (in the pursuit of our respective group agendas. After all what would it mean to the competitive community if 343 decided to focus on other, and more promising, demographics (such as campaign aficionados)? Unthinkable, and so we’ve imposed many more limits than exist for Halo and for reasons unrelated to the game as it functions.)

#5

> But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.
>
> Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.
>
> But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.
>
> and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.

On the other hand, that’s exactly why it’s successful. If CoD was reinvented every two years, it wouldn’t be near as huge as it is now. CoD maintains a position as a popular shooter for two reasons: (1) it found something that worked and stuck with it, making only minor changes and adjustments from game to game, and (2) the fact that it doesn’t change means that it has more time to build and keep a fan base.

Very few people want Halo Xbox One to be an identical copy of previous Halo games. What’s important to more people is that Halo Xbox One changes, but in a way that keeps the original gameplay intact.

#6

> But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.
>
> Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.
>
> But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.
>
> and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.
>
> I still play Halo 4 because i like what they did with it. They did make some mistakes but after a few title updates the game is balanced and it feels like Halo at it’s core even though it has all these new additions. Whenever I go back to Halo 3 it feels wrong. Even going back to Reach doesn’t feel right.
>
> That fact is that nostalgic feeling is going to wear off after a while. That’s why COD isn’t as popular as it used to be. That’s why World of Warcraft isn’t as popular as it used to be.
>
> Innovation and adding new gameplay mechanics is a good thing. But, there is a time where you need to stop. I think 343 has a good base to build off of with halo 4, they just need to make it so it’s similar to the core of Halo a little bit while still having the new mechanics that they’ve added in.

Excellent point legit ninja. I too think a year after year same ol same ol game like cod and some of the sports games get really old really fast. I’ll buy new installments for these games every 2-3 years.

Every halo is distinct from one another and that’s what I love about it. Every new halo I can expect much more from then it’s predecessor, gameplay wise, graphics wise, and entertainment wise.

#7

> > Innovation and adding new gameplay mechanics is a good thing. But, there is a time where you need to stop. I think 343 has a good base to build off of with halo 4, they just need to make it so it’s similar to the core of Halo a little bit while still having the new mechanics that they’ve added in.
>
> Well that’s assuming that the core is a worthwhile thing that deserves investment. In my mind however, its the core of Halo which is most detrimental to its lifespan. Look at where this franchise got its starts, a surprisingly functional console release that brought a genre seriously to the platform. How high do you think the bar was for CE, or for any game on the xbox way back in 2001? Do you expect it climbed much by 2004? By 2007 certainly there was progress in the industry but where we set our standards (Halo 2 or Halo CE) there’s considerable latitude for bad ideas to flourish. Take, for example, our spawning system or our over-reliance on the duality between precision semi-automatic and power weapons to drive MOST gameplay. At the very least we have a very reduced gameplay structure between one and four shot kills and we’re trying to preach the word of Halo to a market that was on par with the technical breadth of Halo gameplay six years ago, or simply to ourselves knowing that such an evolved market exists for our greater potential pleasure.
>
> Looking ahead we may as well be trying to justify dunking stools.
>
>
>
> Interesting point of view. So what would you suggest could be a valid solution to improving Halo?
>
> It seems that we have this constant struggle between attracting new players to Halo and pleasing the veterans. But I get it, Halo should be constantly attracting new players, it’s overall the best way to maintain its popularity and its growth. You believe that the core in itself is broken… I’m not sure if I agree! I think the core of Halo makes it feel and play like Halo. Without it, it would be too distant to be considered Halo. Sure, this could be unpopular in the current gaming scene but if we change the core too much, then it won’t be Halo anymore. So the struggle becomes how to develop the core into a more popular state. I see what you are saying, and I do believe that change is necessary to maintain the games freshness and originality. My problem with some of the changes in recent titles, is more in regards to the direction in which 343i decided to move Halo towards. I’m ok with change but not necessarily the changes that 343i made. Like active camo as an initial load out… things of this nature break the game entirely.
>
> I think you have a good point… I’d like to see you elaborate on your ideas. How would you improve the halo experience, if you could? Overall, what would you keep and leave out of the game to make it popular again?
>
>
> There’s a point where you may want to simply focus on fan appeal but only when you’ve more or less established a genre whose standards aren’t progressively evolving. Take, for example, the Simpsons as it is now. A new show isn’t going to come along and steal its appeal because that creative work, unlike Halo, is an institution. We merely have an aging FPS franchise that can’t be expected to justify the colossal investment it takes to make each new game if it simply doubles back on its own appeal. Halo still needs to grow, and certainly in ways that work with “the core formula” but we need to keep in mind that such a core may be far less concrete than particular spawning systems, weapons, weapon categories, or even a multiplayer focus.
>
> Halo may be far more abstract, and far more pliable, than we in the community give it credit for (in the pursuit of our respective group agendas. After all what would it mean to the competitive community if 343 decided to focus on other, and more promising, demographics (such as campaign aficionados)? Unthinkable, and so we’ve imposed many more limits than exist for Halo and for reasons unrelated to the game as it functions.)

Interesting point of view. So what would you suggest could be a valid solution to improving Halo?

It seems that we have this constant struggle between attracting new players to Halo and pleasing the veterans. But I get it, Halo should be constantly attracting new players, it’s overall the best way to maintain its popularity and its growth. You believe that the core in itself is broken… I’m not sure if I agree! I think the core of Halo makes it feel and play like Halo. Without it, it would be too distant to be considered Halo. Sure, this could be unpopular in the current gaming scene but if we change the core too much, then it won’t be Halo anymore. So the struggle becomes how to develop the core into a more popular state. I see what you are saying, and I do believe that change is necessary to maintain the games freshness and originality. My problem with some of the changes in recent titles, is more in regards to the direction in which 343i decided to move Halo towards. I’m ok with change but not necessarily the changes that 343i made. Like active camo as an initial load out… things of this nature break the game entirely.

I think you have a good point… I’d like to see you elaborate on your ideas. How would you improve the halo experience, if you could? Overall, what would you keep and leave out of the game to make it popular again?

#8

Honestly, I liked the sprinting in H4. However, they took it too far with custom classes. They should have just kept weapons on the map. However, they could keep weapon skins. Like if you pick up a gun, it will customize to a skin that you have earned.

I also think that armor abilities should be like how they were in H3: pickups. Like you can pick up a jetpack on the map, and switch it out for a regen field or energy drain (bring it back)!

#9

> But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.
>
> Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.
>
> But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.
>
> and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.
>
> I still play Halo 4 because i like what they did with it. They did make some mistakes but after a few title updates the game is balanced and it feels like Halo at it’s core even though it has all these new additions. Whenever I go back to Halo 3 it feels wrong. Even going back to Reach doesn’t feel right.
>
> That fact is that nostalgic feeling is going to wear off after a while. That’s why COD isn’t as popular as it used to be. That’s why World of Warcraft isn’t as popular as it used to be.
>
> Innovation and adding new gameplay mechanics is a good thing. But, there is a time where you need to stop. I think 343 has a good base to build off of with halo 4, they just need to make it so it’s similar to the core of Halo a little bit while still having the new mechanics that they’ve added in.

WTF are you smoking?

CoD has done nothing but grow in population and sales over the past 6 years. There are also tons of other game series that have been sticking with the same formula game after game, or over a long period of time. What CoD haters say about the game doesn’t speak to anything. Obviously people still enjoy CoD’s “stale” gameplay, or the numbers would say otherwise.

#10

> > But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.
> >
> > Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.
> >
> > But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.
> >
> > and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.
>
> On the other hand, that’s exactly why it’s successful. If CoD was reinvented every two years, it wouldn’t be near as huge as it is now. CoD maintains a position as a popular shooter for two reasons: (1) it found something that worked and stuck with it, making only minor changes and adjustments from game to game, and (2) the fact that it doesn’t change means that it has more time to build and keep a fan base.
>
> Very few people want Halo Xbox One to be an identical copy of previous Halo games. What’s important to more people is that Halo Xbox One changes, but in a way that keeps the original gameplay intact.

This.

While I used to laugh about CoD for bringing out almost the same every year, I have to say that i now would rather have this than what Bungie and 343 did with Reach and H4.

Maybe BF is a better example than CoD. Its is also always the same, but they bring in new weapons and vehicles. They also bring some new gametypes, cool maps and something special like beeing able to dive, counter knife and of course the great LEVELUTION.

Thats what I want for Halo. Making the game better without changing its core and bringing game breaking features just to change anything.

#11

> > > But staying on that “base” does lead to stagnate gameplay.
> > >
> > > Take Call of Duty for example. They had a system that work din COD 4 and for 6 years they’ve been using that same formula and trying to build off of it.
> > >
> > > But, with each release the game just starts to get stale. There is no innovation there what so ever. It’s literally a carbon copy almost each game because the gameplay hasn’t changed in 6 years.
> > >
> > > and we hate Call of Duty for that. It’s literally the same game every year.
> >
> > On the other hand, that’s exactly why it’s successful. If CoD was reinvented every two years, it wouldn’t be near as huge as it is now. CoD maintains a position as a popular shooter for two reasons: (1) it found something that worked and stuck with it, making only minor changes and adjustments from game to game, and (2) the fact that it doesn’t change means that it has more time to build and keep a fan base.
> >
> > Very few people want Halo Xbox One to be an identical copy of previous Halo games. What’s important to more people is that Halo Xbox One changes, but in a way that keeps the original gameplay intact.
>
> This.
>
> While I used to laugh about CoD for bringing out almost the same every year, I have to say that i now would rather have this than what Bungie and 343 did with Reach and H4.
>
>
>
>
> Maybe BF is a better example than CoD. Its is also always the same, but they bring in new weapons and vehicles. They also bring some new gametypes, cool maps and something special like beeing able to dive, counter knife and of course the great LEVELUTION.
>
> Thats what I want for Halo. Making the game better without changing its core and bringing game breaking features just to change anything.

It would be kinda cool if Halo had some form of levolution because I don’t see how that could affect gameplay negatively. Note levolution does not equal destructible buildings for those who are against those it. As for innovative ideas what could they do, I mean it’s easy to add them when the game is pretty bare boned to begin with (HCE) but it’s much harder to add them when the game is pretty meaty like Reach/H4 without the high risk of negatively affecting something so what could they do? They could add aquatic vehicles to the mix though I’m not sure how that would work out considering Spartans can’t swim in their heavy -Yoink- armor (then again they shouldn’t be able to float ;P) and I personally don’t really consider new gametypes and maps innovative.