Proving The "New Halo is Good Halo" wrong

Games Other Halo
1

Well, here I stand. ready to post the ultimate, damning proof that new halo fans are wrong.

New Halo fans will often say

“Reach was a step in the right direction, Halo 4 was the defining moment yadayadayada”

Well, what if i told you, when it come’s down to it, Halo REACH was ultimately more different than Halo 4 compared to older Halos?

Here’s the proof:

when you strip starting AAs from reach and 4, sprint from 4, add resupply to a Halo 4 spartan, and make both games same starts, there is more differences between older Halos and reach than Halo 4 and older halos.

Halo Reach Had Bloom, low jump height, higher gravity, lower movement speed, no melee or weapon bleedthrough, excluding remakes 3 arena maps on launch (and only 2 of those 3 were good), No chief campaign focus, the covenant was the main threat, not the flood or Halos.

all those make Halo Reach’s base gameplay far different from Halo 1,2 or 3. So different that MLG v7 almost felt like a completely different game!

we take Halo 4 however:
No bloom
faster base move speed (around Halo 3 speed)
Bleedthrough was back
Jump physics was more like older Halos
Although most of Halo 4’s maps were bad, all the small maps were arena maps, unlike reach
Chief was our story focus, and the forerunners cloudy past was the focus of our story again.

thats half the proof. So now you may be saying, ok, thats all true, but then how come Halo 4 is played less than Halo reach if it is technically closer to old Halo?

well, quite simply, personal loadouts. In reach, players stuck around because the equal starts shined through, you knew what your enemy could have, it was far more predictable, even if the background mechanics were very different, you still knew they had one 5 choices, and they were the same choices as you. (barring certain gametypes) thats why it saw a greater population, in that regard, it was closer to old Halo. So players learned to enjoy this, some went straight back to Halo 3, others stayed. But that idea of equal starts remained. this equal but not same starts was tolerable to some, but not all.

with Halo 4, that changed. There were personal loadouts that meant all encounters had so many variables it would be impossible to prepare for them all. and as the players progressed through the specializations, this just got worse, as they UNLOCKED more combinations. Though 343 had given back alot of Halos core mechanics back, it was all hidden beneath the dislike and loathing of the broken and unfair personal loadout system. the equal as opposed to same starts that reach imposed was barely tolerated by some fans, then to learn of this idea of personalized loadouts? it was the last straw, they left the franchise, or sought refuge in the last Halo to do it right, Halo 3.

Im sure your bored reading by now, but i also hope you see what I just did. I just proved them wrong.

TL:DR Reach actually changed more than H4 did, as the base mechanics were hugely altered, whereas in H4 they base mechanics were mostly intact from Halo 1,2 and 3. The reason reach was more popular than 4 was that it kept the idea of EQUAL loadouts, and that you at least had a rough idea of what to expect. In Halo 4, this was completely gone, and no matter how much base mechanics returned, this killed the game.

Thus proving Halo was popular more for this Idea of equal starts, as opposed to it’s mechanics.

2

Maybe, maybe not.Its all about opinions.
For me Reach was a great game. I had alot of fun with my friends.
More gametypes, firefight and all that stuff thats people said 1000times…

Halo 4 campaign was ok. but multiplayer?- bad networkcode, less content, less fun.
At the beginning its was fun but the game got really fast boring.
Im sure 343 will do better next game.

Long story short.
All of my friends stopped playing Halo 4 and moved over to other games and other consoles.
And because of this (no people to play with) I sold my Xbox 360 and all my games.
But i will keep the good memories I had with the Halo franchise.

3

I disagree yet agree load-outs were not the prob it was what was in them that was the issue…also no weps on map and Po.

4

I am not really questioning opinions, what you prefer is what you prefer, I was proving that moving further and further from equal starts is causing Halo’s fall.

5

Reach ruined Halo and H4 buried it.
What’s done is done and we can only hope for

  1. H2 Anniversary to have multiplayer (COME ON, 343!!!)
  2. H:XBone to be a graphically improved version of H3. But with hitscan.

We could argue about opinions here, but as OP stated, MLG moved away from Halo with Reach (ZBDMR saved the game a bit), and the rest of the community moved away with H4. The numbers are clearly there, so all 343 have to do is get back to the classic Halo style. And that means no loadouts, no personal ordnance and no vehicle spamming. If you were able to scratch that from H4, it would indeed be a fantastic game, much better than Reach!
d(^_^)

6

I doubt that moving away from equal starts has caused Halo’s “fall”.
Halo 4 failed to inspire and entertain the vast majority because it is neither one thing nor the other.
On one hand it trys to be an arena shooter and on the other hand it trys to be something class based. The result was chaos and nothing clear.

I actually believe when 343i would have made a clear cut with Halo 4, redesigning Halo with it, abandoned the old and started a new Halo era (the possibility was given), came up with something completely different but clear and inspiring in regards to gameplay, I think Halo 4 would have been quite successful.

However, when you strip Reach and 4 down they are both arena shooters like Halo 3.
Reach only made some more significant individual adjustments in the settings like bloom, lower jump hight, etc. but these are just as much settings for arena gameplay like the settings of Halo 3.
There is only the question which settings are subjectively better.
And actually Halo 4’s implementation of default Sprint and Flinch changed more of the game than anything in Reach.

One last question:
What do you consider an arena map or rather which elements justify a map as an arena map in your opinion?

7

> One last question:
> What do you consider an arena map or rather which elements justify a map as an arena map in your opinion?

No loadouts and perks, everyone starts under equal conditions.
Balanced, symmetric maps which give every team the same chances.
Rare, if at all, weapon pickups that are placed strategically on the map, i.e. you have to fight for them.
Fast gameplay with lots of player movement. Not a camp fest.
In short, everything that rewards actual player skill.

Unreal and Quake are the flagships for the genre, Halo 1-3 (even Reach a bit) and GoW are the console counterparts. Battlefield and Call of Duty are NO arena shooters and certainly don’t have arena maps.

8

> Reach ruined Halo and H4 buried it.
> What’s done is done and we can only hope for
> 1. H2 Anniversary to have multiplayer (COME ON, 343!!!)
> 2. H:XBone to be a graphically improved version of H3. But with hitscan.
>
> We could argue about opinions here, but as OP stated, MLG moved away from Halo with Reach (ZBDMR saved the game a bit), and the rest of the community moved away with H4. The numbers are clearly there, so all 343 have to do is get back to the classic Halo style. And that means no loadouts, no personal ordnance and no vehicle spamming. If you were able to scratch that from H4, it would indeed be a fantastic game, much better than Reach!
> d(^_^)

Halo 5 needs to be anything but a graphically improved Halo 3. Why strip the game down of good features (or at least features that have potential)? I’ve played Halo 3 already. We need a middle ground between 4 and 3 that both the competitive and casual player can enjoy. For the record casual players can enjoy a game without Sprint ect.

9

Because we don’t need another CoD. The people buying Halo want an arena shooter, a simple, competitive type of shooter.
Instead of adding silly Armor Locks and Sprints, 343 could better spend resources on balancing the weapons, which they actually did quite nicely in H4. That would be the innovation that keeps people playing, without ruining the competitive aspect.

10

> Because we don’t need another CoD. The people buying Halo want an arena shooter, a simple, competitive type of shooter.

So u speak for all people, saying everyone who buys halo wants a competitive arena shooter?
Then it wouldn’t even pay off for 343 to make another halo, since the majority of gamers are definitely not competitive arena shooters, 343 has every right to make halo appeal also to non competitive gamers, since they earn the most money from them and not those few competitive gamers compared to the rest…

11

> > One last question:
> > What do you consider an arena map or rather which elements justify a map as an arena map in your opinion?
>
> No loadouts and perks, everyone starts under equal conditions.
> Balanced, symmetric maps which give every team the same chances.
> Rare, if at all, weapon pickups that are placed strategically on the map, i.e. you have to fight for them.
> Fast gameplay with lots of player movement. Not a camp fest.
> In short, everything that rewards actual player skill.
>
> Unreal and Quake are the flagships for the genre, Halo 1-3 (even Reach a bit) and GoW are the console counterparts. Battlefield and Call of Duty are NO arena shooters and certainly don’t have arena maps.

Well, that was more of a personal question to Darkrain because he said Reach has hardly any arena maps but then said Halo 4 has but they are all bad.
So I would say there are either well designed arena maps or poorly designed arena maps.

I agree with most of your characteristics for an arena map though they do not necessarily and automatically create a good arena map.

I.e.: even though a map like Haven or generally all the Midship copies have all those characteristics you mentioned I would not consider them high quality arena maps because the gameplay on them is quite dull or rather monotonous in my opinion.

12

> Because we don’t need another CoD. The people buying Halo want an arena shooter, a simple, competitive type of shooter.
> Instead of adding silly Armor Locks and Sprints, 343 could better spend resources on balancing the weapons, which they actually did quite nicely in H4. That would be the innovation that keeps people playing, without ruining the competitive aspect.

Then there HAS to be a Social and Competitive playlist split. Everything you say is great about arena maps is what I hate.

Because they are completely symmetrical, the maps are boring. “Am I on the rocky side or the donut, or the icy side of the donut? meh - we’ll flip spawns in a minute anyways…” Really?

Reach’s maps have CHARACTER. I’m sure you can find technical reasons to hate on all of them, but you knew where you were instantly and depending on what weapons you had, you knew where to use them.

13

> Because they are completely symmetrical, the maps are boring.

That’s not necessarily true.

What makes them boring is their general layout and construction that repeats with every map.

Most of the time it is: horizontal, centric, symmetrical.
The typical and conventional or like I would call it “white-bread” Midship layout.

You can have symmetrical maps but all with different personalities by simply changing at least one of those other 2 characteristics I mentioned.

I.e:
vertical, centric, symmetrical
horizontal, linear, symmetrical
vertical, linear, symmetrical

3 different maps, 3 different personalities, 3 different gameplays even though all are symmetrical.
Though of course the map doesn’t have to be symmetrical either to be an arena map and of course there are more themes than centric and linear as well and even when two maps share the same themes they can still play completely different.
The possibilties are actually quite endless to improve and innovate an arena shooter through map design but unfortunately that has never really been done.

14

> Reach ruined Halo and H4 buried it.
> What’s done is done and we can only hope for
> 1. H2 Anniversary to have multiplayer (COME ON, 343!!!)
> <mark>2. H:XBone to be a graphically improved version of H3. But with hitscan.</mark>
>
> We could argue about opinions here, but as OP stated, MLG moved away from Halo with Reach (ZBDMR saved the game a bit), and the rest of the community moved away with H4. The numbers are clearly there, so all 343 have to do is get back to the classic Halo style. And that means no loadouts, no personal ordnance and no vehicle spamming. If you were able to scratch that from H4, it would indeed be a fantastic game, much better than Reach!
> d(^_^)

My Halo 3 copy works just fine, and Xbox Live support for the 360 won’t die out for another several years.

15

That’s not proof OP, that’s an assumption. Have fun with your shiny new flame war.

I’m out.

16

I thought the proof was just putting Halo 4 in your 360 console?

17

> > Because we don’t need another CoD. The people buying Halo want an arena shooter, a simple, competitive type of shooter.
>
> So u speak for all people, saying everyone who buys halo wants a competitive arena shooter?
> Then it wouldn’t even pay off for 343 to make another halo, since the majority of gamers are definitely not competitive arena shooters, 343 has every right to make halo appeal also to non competitive gamers, since they earn the most money from them and not those few competitive gamers compared to the rest…

You’re right. 343 should just stick to the H4 forumula and hold on to their remaning 15k population. LOL 15k

18

> > > Because we don’t need another CoD. The people buying Halo want an arena shooter, a simple, competitive type of shooter.
> >
> > So u speak for all people, saying everyone who buys halo wants a competitive arena shooter?
> > Then it wouldn’t even pay off for 343 to make another halo, since the majority of gamers are definitely not competitive arena shooters, 343 has every right to make halo appeal also to non competitive gamers, since they earn the most money from them and not those few competitive gamers compared to the rest…
>
> You’re right. 343 should just stick to the H4 forumula and hold on to their remaning 15k population. LOL 15k

He never suggested that. He was simply stating that there is a large portion of the community that don’t enjoy everything competitive. Therefore 343 needs to find a middle ground in a social ranked split similar to Halo 3.

I am all for the competitive support. I myself enjoy playing competitive settings and would consider myself to be middle ground between competitive and casual. However I will say the importance of a game being completely stripped down and competitive is highly exaggerated. Competitive multiplayer isn’t going to sell the game. The title “Halo” will. I don’t know the exact figures but only a small portion of the people who bought Halo 4 actually touched the multiplayer.

Sure a balanced multiplayer will keep players playing but if it doesn’t pull in views (which chances are it won’t in comparison to games like CoD) it won’t be at competitive events. Take Halo Reach MLG (ZB NS). It has arguably the best competitive settings to date. Even those on the Beyond forums who hated Halo Reach voted it over Halo 3 MLG. However Halo isn’t the giant it once was therefore didn’t pull in the views and in turn was dropped. Halo 5 could be the most competitive game to date and still not be on the circuit.

Many competitive players have moved back to Reach and 3 which were more competitive games. However if you look at the playlist numbers in them games you will realize that the competitive community is actually just a grain of salt compared to the number of players playing casually in playlists like Team Slayer with AC, AL, Bloom ect.

I feel Halo 4 failed because it was overly casual. I can’t even stand the Infinity settings. Just because a player is labled a casual doesn’t mean they enjoy playing unbalanced gameplay. I see people talk about them as if they are morons willing to play anything which obviously isn’t true, hence why Halo 4 has a 15K population.

Pretty much what I’m getting to is that the casual audience is actually arguably more important. At any given time there may be more players playing BTB than there is hard core competitive players in total. However what I’m not suggesting is that we build the game for casuals. No, the game must be balanced. A competitive and casual player can enjoy a balanced game. Splitting up playlists into social and ranked then would allow us to tailor to each community. This may be stripping down existing gametypes of features such as radar for the competitive playlist and adding reworked features such as loadouts into the social playlists. Competitive support is important. However if the casual support is also not there, the competitive support would be redundant.

The vibe I constantly get from competitive players is that casual players should not be allowed there own settings which clearly would be the death of Halo.

19

@MZealous

I agree, they need to create a good middle ground like Halo 3 did.

However, whenever competitive players suggest this, we have people saying…

“Halo 3 is still available to play! Go play that then, no one wants a remake of H3!”
“I don’t want to use only a BR all the time, Competitive settings are boring”
“I love my infinity slayer, who says a game needs to be balanced!”

I just hope 343 realizes that their next game NEEDS to have balance and competition. Example, No POD’s, No perks and AA’s (Unless they are powerups on map), No (Or Limited) Loadouts, A skill based ranking system, ect.

20

Fifteen thousand people is still a considerable number, people.

I enjoyed 4 more than reach. It was much harder to stand reach.