Question for "evolution of Halo" supporters.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Let me preface by saying that I have no ideas of grandeur and I fully understand that the game is too far into development to change a god **** thing.

That being said. I would like to hear the explanation from the group of people who support the new direction Halo: Reach and Halo 4 took, as to why the population of These Halo games struggle as much as it does.

My opinion in the matter has been stated over and over on these forums and Bungie’s so I will not restate it again.

Regardless, Keep it clean, and don’ trash up my thread with a bunch of smack.

Out.

2

I do not support the Reach and 4 direction, at all. But I’m fairly sure that these will be some of the explanations why the population is what it is.

1: Halo 4 didn’t change enough

2: It’s new times now and there’s more competition.

3: People do not have time to play anymore

4: The Halo franchise is old

5: People play more games than before

6: Most players jump to the next new game as it is released

7: Halo 4 is to difficult to new players and worse players overall

Those are the ones I can remember from the top of my head.

3

The direction Halo took in Reach was not a “new” one. Bungie used the prequel Reach to forshadow the direction the story and the game were headed. It’s unfortunate that Bungie and Microsoft were not getting along so things couldn’t get done properly, but even if Bungie were still in charge today Halo 4 would probably be similar in gameplay to what we have now. It was all inevitable.

4

I know you said you wanted to hear specifically from the supporters, but I wanted to provide a frame for their arguments.

Players who enjoy Infinity settings are, for the most part, noncompetitive. To them, it’s not about winning, nor is it about skill; it’s about weapon variety, cool abilities, and “feeling like a Spartan.” They don’t care about balance as long as they get to use the gun they want at spawn. They don’t care about gameplay flow as long as they get to use cool gimmicks, like AAs or certain weapons and vehicles. They don’t care about teamwork as long as they can customize their loadout with active traits (AAs) and passive traits (perks) that will give them an advantage if they restrict themselves to a particular playstyle.

I don’t wish to attack these players–not everyone is as much of a competitive tryhard as I am–but as 343i has said, Halo has always been “hardcore.” When you try to drastically reduce or eliminate the hardcore-ness, you go against the nature of the game.

5

> I do not support the Reach and 4 direction, at all. But I’m fairly sure that these will be some of the explanations why the population is what it is.
>
> 1: Halo 4 didn’t change enough
>
> 2: It’s new times now and there’s more competition.
>
> 3: People do not have time to play anymore
>
> 4: The Halo franchise is old
>
> 5: People play more games than before
>
> 6: Most players jump to the next new game as it is released
>
> 7: Halo 4 is to difficult to new players and worse players overall
>
> Those are the ones I can remember from the top of my head.

Yeah, I’ve heard all of those arguments too, and they’re all moot points, really. I know that you aren’t the one bringing up these points on a personal level, but I’ll reply to them anyway.

  1. I have heard dozens, hundreds of people complain about how Halo 4 changed too much, yet have only heard one or two people actually complain that it hasn’t changed enough. Even though you can’t get the opinion of every single person playing the game, I think it’s clear that the majority thinks that the game changed too much.

  2. There has always been competition for Halo games, but Halo was the top dog back in the day due to being of great quality. Now, Halo isn’t as strong, so other games are getting more attention.

  3. Sure, some older people have real life to attend to, but there are still young people that play games. This argument really is invalid.

  4. Same goes for Pokemon, Mario and Zelda, yet those games never stopped being popular.

  5. Tell that to Call of Duty. People have always played a variety of games, but that does not excuse the serious drop in population that Halo has suffered with Halo 4, especially since millions of people bought the game.

  6. Sure, that is true, but Halo 2, 3 and even Reach managed to keep rather healthy populations despite this issue.

  7. Halo 4 is far more easy than any past Halo game, even 343i admitted that they designed it to be easy. The lure of Halo has always been the simple but challenging design behind it, and now that it’s gone, people don’t care to play it anymore.

6

> I know you said you wanted to hear specifically from the supporters, but I wanted to provide a frame for their arguments.
>
> Players who enjoy Infinity settings are, for the most part, noncompetitive. To them, it’s not about winning, nor is it about skill; it’s about weapon variety, cool abilities, and “feeling like a Spartan.” They don’t care about balance as long as they get to use the gun they want at spawn. They don’t care about gameplay flow as long as they get to use cool gimmicks, like AAs or certain weapons and vehicles. They don’t care about teamwork as long as they can customize their loadout with active traits (AAs) and passive traits (perks) that will give them an advantage if they restrict themselves to a particular playstyle.
>
> I don’t wish to attack these players–not everyone is as much of a competitive tryhard as I am–but as 343i has said, Halo has always been “hardcore.” When you try to drastically reduce or eliminate the hardcore-ness, you go against the nature of your game.

While I do see your point, I would like to point out that many players, like myself, are social (or non-competitive) players, yet we still dislike Halo 4 immensely. Even though I don’t care about winning or competition, I still find gameplay flow the most important and fun part of Halo. If gameplay stutters and is filled with gimmicks, it just isn’t fun. What makes Halo fun is the balanced nature of it, even to many of us who are more causal gamers.

7

> What makes Halo fun is the balanced nature of it, even to many of us who are more causal gamers.

You’re right, and I thank you for pointing that out. I wasn’t sure how to incorporate that into my post.

8

> Players who enjoy Infinity settings are, for the most part, noncompetitive.

You’re just asking for a flame war here, since you used competitive in a sentence.

The direction Halo is headed is, as always, driven by the story. The equipment that becomes available to Spartans is a natural progression (for the most part) of what happens when a political entity gears up to wage war with another. First it was the insurrectionists, then the Covenant. None of this was going to be accomplished with just Battle Rifles and grenades. Now Forerunner technology has entered the equation and just about anything is possible. What we see in matchmaking has always been what we see in campaign. With CE things were pretty simple, but Halo 2 brought us, among other things, Big Team Battle. The truth of the matter is that the available sandbox has outgrown the current player cap and map limits.

What also needs to be emphasized is that Infinity type games with AA’s, loadouts, ordnance, “perks”, etc., are not the only games that will be available with the next release. It’s probably more likely than ever that “classic” games will be available at release. I don’t particularly care for those types of games, but I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be there for those that do. I think it’s just that simple.

9

> > What makes Halo fun is the balanced nature of it, even to many of us who are more causal gamers.
>
> You’re right, and I thank you for pointing that out. I wasn’t sure how to incorporate that into my post.

See? Now we’re at DefCon 4 because the word fun was used in a sentence.

10

I think everyone is missing my original point. I understand all of the arguments for the competitive side, myself having a few of the original ideas.

That being said, there are a significant number of people who toot the trumpet when it comes to modern Halo. Saying they made the proper advances in gaming and mechanics to keep Halo relevant. To those of you who make this case, why is the online population so low? Why is Halo at the brink of Irrelevancy?

The COMPETITIVE community has a case as to why Halo is struggling. What is your case?

11

Reason why Halo should change? Well for one, it can’t go back to being Halo 2.5. No matter what you people say, that is not going to bring Halo from the “dead”. That will just make the community happy, but no one else. While I’m not saying Halo should just copy other shooters, I do believe the Halo 4 base should be changed and refined to get to a sweet spot.

12

> To those of you who make this case, why is the online population so low? Why is Halo at the brink of Irrelevancy?
>
> The COMPETITIVE community has a case as to why Halo is struggling. What is your case?

It might not seem like it, but the two sides are not as far apart as it would seem.

Lack of a visible-in-game skill based rank pretty much shut down Reach, and it’s the same for Halo 4. That’s the 800 pound gorilla that leads to all the other complaints. Halo 2 and 3 had plenty of flaws, but they both had a skill-based rank system, so while there were complaints, people still played. No rank with Reach? Nothing but complaints about anything and everything. Same with Halo 4.

13

> Reason why Halo should change? Well for one, it can’t go back to being Halo 2.5. No matter what you people say, that is not going to bring Halo from the “dead”. That will just make the community happy, but no one else. While I’m not saying Halo should just copy other shooters, I do believe the Halo 4 base should be changed and refined to get to a sweet spot.

Right now, they’re making nobody happy. The Halo community isn’t happy, nor is anybody else interested in playing Halo either. If what you’re saying is true, then wouldn’t making the Halo community happy better than what we have now?

Plus, nobody is asking for Halo 2.5 People want 343i to build off of Halo 2/3, and add their own new, innovative ideas that fit into the Halo gameplay. They don’t want them to just copy-paste ideas from Call of Duty and call it a day.

14

> > Reason why Halo should change? Well for one, it can’t go back to being Halo 2.5. No matter what you people say, that is not going to bring Halo from the “dead”. That will just make the community happy, but no one else. While I’m not saying Halo should just copy other shooters, I do believe the Halo 4 base should be changed and refined to get to a sweet spot.
>
> Right now, they’re making nobody happy. The Halo community isn’t happy, nor is anybody else interested in playing Halo either. If what you’re saying is true, then wouldn’t making the Halo community happy better than what we have now?
>
> Plus, nobody is asking for Halo 2.5 People want 343i to build off of Halo 2/3, and add their own new, innovative ideas that fit into the Halo gameplay. They don’t want them to just copy-paste ideas from Call of Duty and call it a day.

You mean some people aren’t happy. The Halo community isn’t a single community , the people on this forums or any forum don’t fully or perhaps nearly represent the halo community . So will making the game similar to or like halo whichever make some of the halo community happy? Of course it would , but it would make others upset as well.

Some people aren’t asking for it but they aren’t doing a good job presenting why it shouldn’t since I don’t see many people asking anything exactly new to the franchise besides 32+ player combat it is either some gametype that is probably niche and doesn’t effect the core gameplay , extending something from the past games , or saying “It is 343’s job to make up new ideas, not me.” while at the same time putting that trust into a company that made halo 4. Besides even if they aren’t asking for it I’m pretty sure they would buy if it was halo 2.5.

15

Reach and 4 both had many problems like AAs, but it does look like 343 is straying away from some of those things.

16

> > I do not support the Reach and 4 direction, at all. But I’m fairly sure that these will be some of the explanations why the population is what it is.
> >
> > 1: Halo 4 didn’t change enough
> >
> > 2: It’s new times now and there’s more competition.
> >
> > 3: People do not have time to play anymore
> >
> > 4: The Halo franchise is old
> >
> > 5: People play more games than before
> >
> > 6: Most players jump to the next new game as it is released
> >
> > 7: Halo 4 is to difficult to new players and worse players overall
> >
> > Those are the ones I can remember from the top of my head.
>
> Yeah, I’ve heard all of those arguments too, and they’re all moot points, really. I know that you aren’t the one bringing up these points on a personal level, but I’ll reply to them anyway.
>
> 1. I have heard dozens, hundreds of people complain about how Halo 4 changed too much, yet have only heard one or two people actually complain that it hasn’t changed enough. Even though you can’t get the opinion of every single person playing the game, I think it’s clear that the majority thinks that the game changed too much.
>
> 2. There has always been competition for Halo games, but Halo was the top dog back in the day due to being of great quality. Now, Halo isn’t as strong, so other games are getting more attention.
>
> 3. Sure, some older people have real life to attend to, but there are still young people that play games. This argument really is invalid.
>
> 4. Same goes for Pokemon, Mario and Zelda, yet those games never stopped being popular.
>
> 5. Tell that to Call of Duty. People have always played a variety of games, but that does not excuse the serious drop in population that Halo has suffered with Halo 4, especially since millions of people bought the game.
>
> 6. Sure, that is true, but Halo 2, 3 and even Reach managed to keep rather healthy populations despite this issue.
>
> 7. Halo 4 is far more easy than any past Halo game, even 343i admitted that they designed it to be easy. The lure of Halo has always been the simple but challenging design behind it, and now that it’s gone, people don’t care to play it anymore.

No there was no competition for halo CE, 2 and 3, at the start if the 360 there was only halo and cod. The Nintendo games are genres that haven’t been flooded with tons of games, Mario games have changed a lot e.g Mario kart, galaxy, striker, super smash bros etc . Mario remains as a platformer but has provided a greater variety on the genre. What competition is there for Pokemon?

halo hasn’t changed, sprinting and loadouts is barely change. Going from an arena shooter to huge multiplayer shooter game would be a huge change.

Just because it work for cod doesn’t mean it will work for halo, the arena shooters are dead now no one is interested. It’s sad but that’s life, times change unfortunately.

Halo 2 manage to maintain a good population was because it was pretty much the only online shooter for the xbox original.

17

> I know you said you wanted to hear specifically from the supporters, but I wanted to provide a frame for their arguments.
>
> Players who enjoy Infinity settings are, for the most part, noncompetitive. To them, it’s not about winning, nor is it about skill; it’s about weapon variety, cool abilities, and “feeling like a Spartan.” They don’t care about balance as long as they get to use the gun they want at spawn. They don’t care about gameplay flow as long as they get to use cool gimmicks, like AAs or certain weapons and vehicles. They don’t care about teamwork as long as they can customize their loadout with active traits (AAs) and passive traits (perks) that will give them an advantage if they restrict themselves to a particular playstyle.
>
> I don’t wish to attack these players–not everyone is as much of a competitive tryhard as I am–but as 343i has said, Halo has always been “hardcore.” When you try to drastically reduce or eliminate the hardcore-ness, you go against the nature of the game.

I don’t know Vector, most of that doesn’t sound like it applies to me. Too black and white.

18

> > I do not support the Reach and 4 direction, at all. But I’m fairly sure that these will be some of the explanations why the population is what it is.
> >
> > 1: Halo 4 didn’t change enough
> >
> > 2: It’s new times now and there’s more competition.
> >
> > 3: People do not have time to play anymore
> >
> > 4: The Halo franchise is old
> >
> > 5: People play more games than before
> >
> > 6: Most players jump to the next new game as it is released
> >
> > 7: Halo 4 is to difficult to new players and worse players overall
> >
> > Those are the ones I can remember from the top of my head.
>
> Yeah, I’ve heard all of those arguments too, and they’re all moot points, really. I know that you aren’t the one bringing up these points on a personal level, but I’ll reply to them anyway.
>
> 1. I have heard dozens, hundreds of people complain about how Halo 4 changed too much, yet have only heard one or two people actually complain that it hasn’t changed enough. Even though you can’t get the opinion of every single person playing the game, I think it’s clear that the majority thinks that the game changed too much.
>
> 2. There has always been competition for Halo games, but Halo was the top dog back in the day due to being of great quality. Now, Halo isn’t as strong, so other games are getting more attention.
>
> 3. Sure, some older people have real life to attend to, but there are still young people that play games. This argument really is invalid.
>
> 4. Same goes for Pokemon, Mario and Zelda, yet those games never stopped being popular.
>
> 5. Tell that to Call of Duty. People have always played a variety of games, but that does not excuse the serious drop in population that Halo has suffered with Halo 4, especially since millions of people bought the game.
>
> 6. Sure, that is true, but Halo 2, 3 and even Reach managed to keep rather healthy populations despite this issue.
>
> <mark>7. Halo 4 is far more easy than any past Halo game, even 343i admitted that they designed it to be easy. The lure of Halo has always been the simple but challenging design behind it, and now that it’s gone, people don’t care to play it anymore.</mark>

Not in entirely true because in halo 4 the noobs don’t necessarily know what are the best perks and loadout weapons, and because of personal ordinance the good players will all get free power power weapons as well as all of the on map power weapons causing the noobs to be utterly slaughtered, and then they won’t even try to get better and the game because they don’t like getting completely humiliated, thus they go back to call of duty or what ever new game is out to play.

19

> > > I do not support the Reach and 4 direction, at all. But I’m fairly sure that these will be some of the explanations why the population is what it is.
> > >
> > > 1: Halo 4 didn’t change enough
> > >
> > > 2: It’s new times now and there’s more competition.
> > >
> > > 3: People do not have time to play anymore
> > >
> > > 4: The Halo franchise is old
> > >
> > > 5: People play more games than before
> > >
> > > 6: Most players jump to the next new game as it is released
> > >
> > > 7: Halo 4 is to difficult to new players and worse players overall
> > >
> > > Those are the ones I can remember from the top of my head.
> >
> > Yeah, I’ve heard all of those arguments too, and they’re all moot points, really. I know that you aren’t the one bringing up these points on a personal level, but I’ll reply to them anyway.
> >
> > 1. I have heard dozens, hundreds of people complain about how Halo 4 changed too much, yet have only heard one or two people actually complain that it hasn’t changed enough. Even though you can’t get the opinion of every single person playing the game, I think it’s clear that the majority thinks that the game changed too much.
> >
> > 2. There has always been competition for Halo games, but Halo was the top dog back in the day due to being of great quality. Now, Halo isn’t as strong, so other games are getting more attention.
> >
> > 3. Sure, some older people have real life to attend to, but there are still young people that play games. This argument really is invalid.
> >
> > 4. Same goes for Pokemon, Mario and Zelda, yet those games never stopped being popular.
> >
> > 5. Tell that to Call of Duty. People have always played a variety of games, but that does not excuse the serious drop in population that Halo has suffered with Halo 4, especially since millions of people bought the game.
> >
> > 6. Sure, that is true, but Halo 2, 3 and even Reach managed to keep rather healthy populations despite this issue.
> >
> > 7. Halo 4 is far more easy than any past Halo game, even 343i admitted that they designed it to be easy. The lure of Halo has always been the simple but challenging design behind it, and now that it’s gone, people don’t care to play it anymore.
>
> No there was no competition for halo CE, 2 and 3, at the start if the 360 there was only halo and cod. The Nintendo games are genres that haven’t been flooded with tons of games, Mario games have changed a lot e.g Mario kart, galaxy, striker, super smash bros etc . Mario remains as a platformer but has provided a greater variety on the genre. What competition is there for Pokemon?
>
> halo hasn’t changed, sprinting and loadouts is barely change. Going from an arena shooter to huge multiplayer shooter game would be a huge change.
>
> Just because it work for cod doesn’t mean it will work for halo, the arena shooters are dead now no one is interested. It’s sad but that’s life, times change unfortunately.
>
> Halo 2 manage to maintain a good population was because it was pretty much the only online shooter for the xbox original.

No competition for Halo 2, you say? What about Mech Assault 2? Or Star Wars Battlefront 2? Those were damn popular games, back in the day, among others. To say that Halo 2 had no competition is just silly.

And Mario has changed, yes, but every new Mario game remains instantly recognizable as just that, a Mario game, and feels like one. Every new addition to their games fit the style of Mario. The same can be said for Zelda and Pokemon as well. What I was trying to point out is that these series are old, but still remain quite relevant to this day, so saying that Halo’s age is a cause for its decline in popularity is silly.

Pokemon does have much competition. Zelda games, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing. All games that people can and do buy and play instead of Pokemon. However, people still keep playing their Pokemon. Why? Because it’s fun. Why do people not come and play Halo, despite there being other games?

Sprinting and Loadouts is actually a huge change, it completely distorts the original vision of a Halo game. It’s as if they added perks to Super Smash Bros, or allowed players to have special items with which to battle Pokemon alongside their party. It just wouldn’t be well accepted, since it doesn’t work within the pre-established core gameplay.

20

> Reach was a POS, but 4 was one of the best Halos there is, if not the best. I want to see the explanation for not liking 4. There are no sprint/AA/custom loadout/descope gametypes, so what is there to -Yoink!- about when the game looks superior to 3 and has better hit detection.

Reach was one of the best by far or just below the level of the others since it stuck mostly true to the halo formula whilst trying new stuff, halo 4 had its new stuff get in the way of a lot which ruined it.

My entire post shows a handful of reasons for halo 4 being disliked besides those you’ve mentioned. Heres the post

Also halo 3’s projectile system works way better than hitscan since it doesnt have stupid hitboxes being made and makes shooting more skillful. Also halo 4’s cosmetic design is ok and far from the near perfection of halo 3 and reach which worked well and suited the whole halo theme. Also why on earth are you mentioning graphics as a reason for a better game when the newest one will nearly undoubtedly have better graphics, stupid reason.

Oh and after all of this I still like halo 4 and have played it loads before you go and use that card.