Past Halo, Present Halo, Future Halo

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

It is obvious that Halo 4’s multiplayer did not manage to truly inspire the vast majority.
Many people, myself included, competitives, casuals or people in between, asked themselves why. They analysed why they weren’t able to inspire themselves for the game and have been searching for reasons.
Is it because of the poor maps? Is it because of the questionable/gamebreaking items in custom loadouts? Is it because of the inherently broken concept of Personal Ordnance? Is it because of Sprint and its negative impacts? Is it because of the general lack of balance and fair competition?

Sure, you can fairly answer all these questions with: “Yes, because of that. That was the issue with the game” when looking at it from a certain perspective.

But I think the actual issue lies much deeper. It lies right at the bottom to be specific.

Firstly, Halo CE-3 has a different multiplayer concept than Halo 4.
Halo CE-3 focused on arena gameplay, clear and fair competition between player vs player.
Halo 4 focused on being a Spartan and playing in and as a Spartan Fireteam against other Spartans and their Fireteams. (I think the statement that multiplayer has been made or rather called canon is evidence for that)
These two concepts are inherently and significantly different.

However, issues and the amount and kind of dislike like in Halo 4 do not arise only because things are inherently different then they have been before.
No, the issue is that Halo 4 didn’t fully implement its new concept. It focused on that Spartan theme but at the same time it tried to implement the old multiplayer (arena) theme as well.
The result has been a messed up, chaotic and twisted experience. It failed to truly inspire the vast majority because both concepts conflict with each other what caused a multiplayer without a clear concept at all and hence the experience was simply not entertaining.

Secondly, Halo 4 tried to cater but not to inspire.
I often read the statement that Halo 4 overly tried to cater to the casual community but not to the old fanbase but personally I think the opposite was the case.
Just ask yourself: when Halo 4 really catered to the casuals then why are they not playing the game? Why were they not able to inspire themselves for the game just like the old fanbase even though the game was apparently catered to them?

Taking a step back, Halo 4 offered the potential or rather the possibility to redesign Halo.
It’s the beginning of a new story so why not creating new gameplay and a new multiplayer experience as well or generally speaking a new Halo experience. Objectively there is nothing wrong with that.
But what did Halo 4?
It implemented the new concept of “being a Spartan” and did changes here and there but apparently it didn’t want to risk to “scare off” the old fanbase. So instead of actually redesigning the game and trying to win and inspire the old fanbase together with the rest of the market with the “New Halo”, it tried to cater to them by keeping the old and mixing it with some elements of the new. The result was a broken “classic” experience for the old fanbase just as well as for the rest.

As an unfortunate aftermath of that lack of a clear concept in H4 the community has been divided.
There are now people that would like to see the “New Halo experience” properly and fully developed in the next game and there are now people that wish for the “old experience” getting properly implemented and improved.
And instead of having people simply discussing the new or the improved old (like it would have been when H4 would actually have redesigned Halo or when H4 would have improved the old), people are now arguing which direction Halo should take or rather which way it should follow based on their personal preferences, often disregarding that there is always more than one way that leads to a positive result.
So, you could argue that both ways are still open and have both potential to deliver a great result, though personally I think the train that could have taken us through a completely new Halo experience is actually gone or rather was missed with Halo 4.

In conclusion, I think Halo has to focus on a clear concept again, it has to find a clear identity, be it the old or something new. Plus it should inspire instead of trying to cater.
It might sound hard but sometimes you just have to go back to square one.

However, I think we can all agree that Halo has to truly inspire, entertain and positively surprise us with the next title, whatever it might be in the end.

Thanks for reading.

2

Wow. You’re actually right!

3

Honestly I think it’s unfair to say that they had an unclear concept. If any of the Halo’s had an unclear direction they were going it was Reach (bleh)

Halo 4 made several changes that distanced it from other Halo’s (Rather than trying to still emulate past Halos while missing the mark [REACH])

The core differences are fast pacing and loadout customization, which are great identifiers of the new saga.

That said, personal ordnance DOES need to go, or at least happen half as often. Or maybe have personal ordnance linked to certain killing sprees.

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again.
This could all be solved with separate and dedicated Infinity (Sprint,loadouts,ordnance,instant respawns) and Classic (No sprint, no loadouts, map pickups, no armor abilities, no instant respawns) playlists.

4

> Honestly I think it’s unfair to say that they had an unclear concept. If any of the Halo’s had an unclear direction they were going it was Reach (bleh)
>
> Halo 4 made several changes that distanced it from other Halo’s (Rather than trying to still emulate past Halos while missing the mark [REACH])
>
> The core differences are fast pacing and loadout customization, which are great identifiers of the new saga.
>
> That said, personal ordnance DOES need to go, or at least happen half as often. Or maybe have personal ordnance linked to certain killing sprees.
>
> I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again.
> This could all be solved with separate and dedicated Infinity (Sprint,loadouts,ordnance,instant respawns) and Classic (No sprint, no loadouts, map pickups, no armor abilities, no instant respawns) playlists.

I didn’t try to say that Halo 4 never had a clear concept.
I said that (I think) the concept was “being a Spartan”, training/playing in a simulation, but it wasn’t pulled through right to the end. At one point the old arena concept blent in (likely to cater to the old fanbase) and that mix of concepts created an unclear concept.
And the results are the Infinity Settings, the sandbox and the maps.

Of course H4 made changes here and there that distanced it, like I’ve mentioned in the OP, but not to the point to call it something completely different in comparison to the old Halo’s.

A direct separation of the concepts (disregarding that the current Infinity settings are already the result of an unclear concept) through playlists within the same game is definitely not a good solution.
It only points out that you haven’t followed a clear way but have tried to please everyone more or less with an inconsistent experience.
That whole “we have to cater to and please everyone” mentality is what ruins a product because it won’t be individual anymore nor will it actually fully please everyone in the end.
Just focus on something clear and pull it through and either you manage to inspire the vast majority with it or not.

5

I don’t see how dividing the two concepts could ever be a bad thing…

Clearly, their prime focus will be Infinity.
But making at least ONE dedicated playlist to classic gameplay is more than a reasonable request, as people are playing No-Sprint/No-AA/No-Loadout gametypes on HALO 4 JUST, PLEASE, LET THOSE PEOPLE PLAY THAT ONLINE.

Infinity will always be evolving, but it would be ridiculously easy to add in a classic mode, and frankly it’s embarrassing they didn’t put one in H4 (seeing as even amateur modders were able to create No-Sprint gametypes)

The main thing i have a problem with in Infinity (which seems like a clear concept to me) is personal ordnance.

6

The main problem other than the one’s already posted here is that in Halo 4 they tried to make the multiplayer cannon to the story… which was a bad idea and limited the freedom of it in my opinion.

7

I completely agree with you OP. I posted this in another thread:

Honestly I think Halo has either 2 options:
-Cut off Halo with classic Halo, and explicitly state it will be a revolutionary change from what Bungie once called “Halo”. Plus, 343 will choose to follow their own path and invigorate new styles of gameplay. Thus contradicting the use of using the title “Halo”. Sort of like a reboot possibly.

-Or revisit Halo and implement the multiplayer that was remembered from Halo 2. The only reason to continue this franchise is because it’s a <mark>SEQUEL</mark> to the franchise. If it’s not being a <mark>SEQUEL</mark>, why make a poor excuse for a Halo game when you can make it a whole new IP? All this is doing is taking advantage of the franchise’s reputation, when you could be doing so much better if you had your own vision with your own IP. By not giving some nod to the roots, without doubt inevitably the series would die with all the traditionalists eventually leaving the series.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” - A wise man
Unfortunately and truthfully, Halo has just about or is near the end of its course.
Just MY 2cents

That said, in regards to this thread I believe that yes we should have a clear distinct focus; however, I think it’s possible to have both classic and new directions as long as they’re both implemented <mark>WELL AND SEPARATED</mark>.

8

> Halo 4 focused on being a Spartan and playing in and as a Spartan Fireteam against other Spartans and their Fireteams.

I don’t think that Halo 4 Infinity focused on being a Spartan who is a part of a fireteam; I think it tried to make everything either too easy or have an illusion of being easy. I don’t recall 343i ever saying anything about wanting to make multiplayer immersive–they said they wanted it to tie into the story, but I don’t think that has anything to do with gameplay settings. They specifically said during the 2013 GDC that Infinity multiplayer was designed to be “easy” and for “newer players.” Players get random power weapons so they don’t have to compete with other players (teammate or enemy) for them, they don’t descope so they can take way too long to line up a long-range shot, they respawn instantly and can sprint because god forbid they spend two seconds not shooting at something, and points are awarded for the most mindless of things so that even the biggest liability on your team feels like he was useful.

9

>

The option or the chance to redesign Halo was likely already missed with Halo 4.
I mean I think it would still be possible since Halo 4 is quite undecided what it wants to represent but even though it was a mix it was still mainly build around the old arena core in the end and now turning it into something completely new would likely cause massive inconsistency within the new saga.
After Halo 3 you could have made a clear cut. But I am not sure if a cut after Halo 4 could work out just as well.

> “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” - A wise man

That statement has a truth but there is also always space for improvement.
The arena concept has never seen much improvement in Halo in my opinion, what I personally think is quite sad.
Especially in regards to maps and their designs you have a vast amount of possibilities to spice up and improve an arena shooter since the maps are what keeps it alive or kills it for the most part in my opinion.

10

> > Halo 4 focused on being a Spartan and playing in and as a Spartan Fireteam against other Spartans and their Fireteams.
>
> I don’t think that Halo 4 Infinity focused on being a Spartan who is a part of a fireteam; I think it tried to make everything either too easy or have an illusion of being easy. I don’t recall 343i ever saying anything about wanting to make multiplayer immersive–they said they wanted it to tie into the story, but I don’t think that has anything to do with gameplay settings. They specifically said during the 2013 GDC that Infinity multiplayer was designed to be “easy” and for “newer players.” Players get random power weapons so they don’t have to compete with other players (teammate or enemy) for them, they don’t descope so they can take way too long to line up a long-range shot, they respawn instantly and can sprint because god forbid they spend two seconds not shooting at something, and points are awarded for the most mindless of things so that even the biggest liability on your team feels like he was useful.

I know that one of their goals was to make the multiplayer more accessible but I don’t think „making the game easier“ or „making it more accessible“ can be taken as a main concept nor does it lead to results like in Halo 4.

When I recall it correctly 343i pointed out the increase of immersion several times and that it was quite of a big focus.
I have memories of an interview where they were explaining how they tried to give the player the feeling as if they are moving in MJOLNIR armor for example.
From the perspective of a game mechanic, Sprint actually only severs as an immersion in Halo.
Besides, how would you explain the sudden appearance of custom loadouts? To make an arena shooter easier you don’t have to turn it into something class based, have you?
And finally they called multiplayer canon. Assuming Halo 4 just tried to become an easier/ more accessible arena shooter then I think making multiplayer canon makes absolutely no sense. How in the world is the concept of an arena shooter supposed to represent a trainings simulation of Spartans?
It only makes sense to me when your goal was to actually turn the players into Spartans.

But like I mentioned, I think the actual Infinity concept wasn’t pulled through but instead it was mixed with the arena concept of the older titles what caused an indefinable multiplayer with all the current issues.