Revolutionary v. Evolutionary

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

So I came across this article, and it made me think about the path Halo has taken. The following is an important excerpt from the article critiquing 343’s decision to evolve Halo 4 instead of revolutionizing the franchise…

“good game design can be revolutionary and not just evolutionary. Is revolutionary the safe way to go? Not at all, but the fact of the matter is this – the video game industry as a whole needs both revolutionary and evolutionary game design to keep moving forward. One game can’t be both, and one method of thinking can’t live without the other. / For evolutionary game design to work there must first be a revolution in game design. If evolution is the goal, revolution is the starting point. While successful revolutions are rare, they are incredibly important. Without innovation the video game industry would stagnate and could possibly collapse, much as it did in the late 1970’s, in part because of the lack of game innovation. The industry can’t forget that every once in a while the status quo needs to be upset, that brand new ideas and ways to play are just as important as including one new weapon or game mode in Halo 5 that didn’t appear in Halo 4.”

Before diving into this issue, let’s first take a look at what revolutionary features Halo has added.
Halo CE - The entire game itself was revolutionary, no questions asked.
Halo 2 - Dramatically revolutionized online multiplayer.
Halo 3 - Forge, theater, and file sharing.
Halo 3 ODST - N/A
Halo Reach - N/A
Halo 4 - N/A

*Keep in mind that this is all in perspective of the FPS/Shooter market for all consoles games, since that is that category Halo falls under; therefore, disregard Nintendo and the plethora of features, mods, and Independent opportunities available on PC.

Now, onto the discussion. As you can see, Halo has not done anything revolutionary for the franchise since Halo 3, which was almost seven years ago! Since then games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have not only dominated the market, but also diluted the FPS multiplayer experience by implementing nearly identical gameplay mechanics (ie: sprint, loadouts, bloom, perks, fast kill/respond times, vaulting, etc). Due to the success of these two franchises many games have followed in their footsteps while adding nothing new to the experience. This trend made it’s way into Halo with the release of Reach, and has proved to be problematic for the series.

I don’t want to sound like a huge nostalgia-fanboy, but like many here, I loved the classic MP experience from Halo 2 and 3. That being said, it’s hard to revolutionize a gameplay experience that (to many) isn’t broken. While I propose no definitive answers, my suggestion for revolution lies within Halo’s content/features rather than gameplay. Using Halo 3 as an example, Bungie made small tweaks to gameplay, while making revolutionary leaps in content with the introduction of forge, theater and a great file-sharing system.

Thus, the main question I raise to you is, “what must Halo do in order to revolutionize the franchise?” - Is reverting back to the core gameplay the right move? If so, what new features should the game bring to the table? Would you be fine with Halo 5 only evolving older features, such as forge or firefight, without creating (potentially) revolutionary new features?

Halo is a great franchise, the best in my opinion, and I don’t want to see it continue to just adapt to the popular market. Something must be done, but what?

2

> Thus, the main question I raise to you is, “what must Halo do in order to revolutionize the franchise?” - Is reverting back to the core gameplay the right move? If so, what new features should the game bring to the table? Would you be fine with Halo 5 only evolving older features, such as forge or firefight, without creating (potentially) revolutionary new features?

A game does not need to be revolutionary to be successful.
Super Mario Bros has proved this all to well, even though they added 3D as early as the N64, the best selling games remain the 2D ones (both the Original and New Super Mario Bros Wii) even when looked at on the WiiU (NSMB U has double the sales of SM 3D World).

The games were kept interesting with new upgrades and new mechanics (some of them being cheats from older games like the wall jump) but never strayed away of what their audience wants.

If anything straying away from the traditional pattern hurts sales because they are throwing away their old market in an attempt to claim a newer one (which in may cases already has a game for it) resulting in weaker sales which for the bigger part come from existing fans anyway (how many do you think bought Halo Wars without owning any of the previous Halo’s?).

The game should bring new things to the table but keep it traditional to how it is supposed to play, equipment and dual wielding are a great example of this.

3

> The game should bring new things to the table but keep it traditional to how it is supposed to play, equipment and dual wielding are a great example of this.

I agree, which is why used halo 3 as an example of how a game can be both evolutionary and revolutionary - “Bungie made small tweaks to gameplay, while making revolutionary leaps in content” It’s not practical to fix things that aren’t broken, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for new creative content elsewhere. Although we have little information on H5G, from what I’ve seen they are making the right decision to reboot the classic arena MP format.

For the sake of space, I didn’t include something I probably should’ve in my original post, which is that there’s a difference between evolution in the right direction, and evolution ‘just because everyone else is doing it’. I’m not saying that Halo shouldn’t evolve the franchise, but rather suggesting that they could use a revolutionary breakthrough too.

4

Forge world was very innovative in reach IMO, for the style of map editor that forge is. There were also many subtle things people generally did not notice, ie impostering (Allows onjects to be drawn very far away en masse with little impact on performance)and some other things.

Wasn’t the biggest fan of ODST, but that film-noir, detective style added in to an FPS was also pretty innovative IMO.

H4 wasn’t innovative at all, but personaly I was ok with that, seeing that it was 343s first ever game as a team (they had to try and get the basics right, killcam, loadouts were kept to appeal to a bigger audience, making sure the cash flow was there…)

I imagine 343 will do a good job with H5G, with a few little innovations aswell.

5

This is all we know about Halo 5 and any related “revolutions”:

> For us at 343 Industries, the launch of the Xbox One was an opportunity to think about what stories we wanted to tell, how to tell them, and how best to push the “Halo” franchise to showcase the platform.
> …
> “Halo” isn’t simply a perennial game franchise, it’s a part of the Xbox platform itself. In terms of innovation and ideation, it’s sometimes important to people who might not even play “Halo.” And of course it’s a passion and an essential experience for two generations of gamers. So we asked ourselves, how do we begin and where do we go with “Halo” on Xbox One?
>
> In the past, “Halo” games have pushed the Xbox forward, showcasing the console and its ecosystem in entertaining and innovative ways.
> …
> … “Halo 5: Guardians,” … is a massive and exciting project.
>
> “Halo 5: Guardians” is a bigger effort than “Halo 4.” That applies to the content and scope of the game, as well as the technology in what’s now a brand new and more powerful engine. Certainly there are some core elements carried over from prior games, but we’ve invested a huge effort in retooling our tech to take full advantage of the Xbox One’s hardware and ecosystem to create worlds and experiences worthy of next-gen.

6

> So I came across this article, and it made me think about the path Halo has taken. The following is an important excerpt from the article critiquing 343’s decision to evolve Halo 4 instead of revolutionizing the franchise…
>
> “good game design can be revolutionary and not just evolutionary. Is revolutionary the safe way to go? Not at all, but the fact of the matter is this – the video game industry as a whole needs both revolutionary and evolutionary game design to keep moving forward. One game can’t be both, and one method of thinking can’t live without the other. / For evolutionary game design to work there must first be a revolution in game design. If evolution is the goal, revolution is the starting point. While successful revolutions are rare, they are incredibly important. Without innovation the video game industry would stagnate and could possibly collapse, much as it did in the late 1970’s, in part because of the lack of game innovation. The industry can’t forget that every once in a while the status quo needs to be upset, that brand new ideas and ways to play are just as important as including one new weapon or game mode in Halo 5 that didn’t appear in Halo 4.”
>
> Before diving into this issue, let’s first take a look at what revolutionary features Halo has added.
> Halo CE - The entire game itself was revolutionary, no questions asked.
> Halo 2 - Dramatically revolutionized online multiplayer.
> Halo 3 - Forge, theater, and file sharing.
> Halo 3 ODST - N/A
> Halo Reach - N/A
> <mark>Halo 4 - N/A</mark>
>
> *Keep in mind that this is all in perspective of the FPS/Shooter market for all consoles games, since that is that category Halo falls under; therefore, disregard Nintendo and the plethora of features, mods, and Independent opportunities available on PC.
>
> Now, onto the discussion. As you can see, Halo has not done anything revolutionary for the franchise since Halo 3, which was almost seven years ago! Since then games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have not only dominated the market, but also diluted the FPS multiplayer experience by implementing nearly identical gameplay mechanics (ie: sprint, loadouts, bloom, perks, fast kill/respond times, vaulting, etc). Due to the success of these two franchises many games have followed in their footsteps while adding nothing new to the experience. This trend made it’s way into Halo with the release of Reach, and has proved to be problematic for the series.
>
> I don’t want to sound like a huge nostalgia-fanboy, but like many here, I loved the classic MP experience from Halo 2 and 3. That being said, it’s hard to revolutionize a gameplay experience that (to many) isn’t broken. While I propose no definitive answers, my suggestion for revolution lies within Halo’s content/features rather than gameplay. Using Halo 3 as an example, Bungie made small tweaks to gameplay, while making revolutionary leaps in content with the introduction of forge, theater and a great file-sharing system.
>
> Thus, the main question I raise to you is, “what must Halo do in order to revolutionize the franchise?” - Is reverting back to the core gameplay the right move? If so, what new features should the game bring to the table? Would you be fine with Halo 5 only evolving older features, such as forge or firefight, without creating (potentially) revolutionary new features?
>
> Halo is a great franchise, the best in my opinion, and I don’t want to see it continue to just adapt to the popular market. Something must be done, but what?

I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before. Sure it could use a little refinement, evolution if you will, but it was revolutionary.

7

Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were revolutionary. They were the first games to be proper first-person shooters, rather than flight simulators.

Bungie’s Marathon was revolutionary by extending free look to the mouse, which is an incredibly important control mechanism still used to this day.

Quake was revolutionary by extending 3D polygon usage to on-foot first person shooters.

Half-life was revolutionary in its attention to detail for virtually all of its gaming elements, raising the standards for all subsequent games.

Rainbow Six was revolutionary for popularizing the military tactical shooter genre with its focus on realistically modelling combat.

Halo was revolutionary for bringing the modern first person shooter to consoles, replacing the earlier standard set by Goldeneye (also revolutionary in its own right). No one mechanic was revolutionary in itself, but the subtle changes it made to FPS gameplay have been widely copied and have increased the quality of FPS games overall.

Those are revolutions. Nothing Halo has done since CE qualifies. Revolutions are almost always the first game in a series, and with later titles evolving from that starting point.

If you want a revolution, looking at H5 is likely looking at the wrong place.

Anyway, I don’t need H5 to be revolutionary. I just want it to be better than H4.

8

> I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before. Sure it could use a little refinement, evolution if you will, but it was revolutionary.

I’d make that argument if it weren’t the failure that many consider it to be. It could have been amazing if it weren’t for the terrible writing and the fact that there was no variety in environments and objectives, leaving a lot to be desired. It was a good idea but it’s execution fell very short of revolutionary and even evolutionary.

9

If a Halo game were truly revolutionary, it would be crucified by the community at large for being different.

Improving the current game is the only feasible way to go.

> I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before.

Even…combat arms…has a co-op campaign.

I felt a chill go through the room typing that…

10

> If a Halo game were truly revolutionary, it would be crucified by the community at large for being different.
>
> Improving the current game is the only feasible way to go.
>
>
>
> > I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before.
>
> Even…combat arms…has a co-op campaign.
>
> I felt a chill go through the room typing that…

Its more the weekly episodic campaign that I think is the more evolutionary/revolutionary aspect. It effectively was an attempt to turn a campaign into a series. It gave story fans a weekly reason to return to the game. It kept the universe forum on edge, even if the results were mediocre.

That said, how does its success or failure effect its evolutionary or revolutionary? Not all evolution or revolution is necessarily good. It had a neat idea, but like much of halo 4, felt half-done and poorly executed.

That said I will agree with the post that only CE was truely ‘revolutionary’.

11

> Its more the weekly episodic campaign that I think is the more evolutionary/revolutionary aspect.

Actually that’s something I forgot about. I remember every Monday Morning I would make some coffee and play some Spartan Ops.

Weekly Campaign is a new idea. A brilliant idea at that. It just needs to be done well.

12

> I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before. Sure it could use a little refinement, evolution if you will, but it was revolutionary.

Spartan Ops is just an extension of the campaign, I wouldn’t consider it revolutionary in the least bit. It’s really nothing special.

13

Halo gameplay works. Go back to CE and H2 and the games are great. Even reach and idst have their moments (more the campaign for reach).

If halo goes back to that, all it needs is something fresh to capture- I mean recapture- an audience.

Forge was great. I liked the community it drove. I would like to see something akin to forge created for a campaign type mode.

Look at how customizable firefight was in reach. Give players control like this over a spartan ops like mode, with editable terrain and encounters and build up a community driven by content created by said community.

Let us tell our own stories set in the halo universe.

That’s my one idea. That, and 343 should make awesome guns.

14

It’s funny because HCE was a revolution simply because it simplified and streamlined the FPS.

Since that game Halo’s devs have undone everything HCE accomplished by making Halo’s gameplay more convoluted and complicated.

15

> Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were revolutionary. They were the first games to be proper first-person shooters, rather than flight simulators.
>
> Bungie’s Marathon was revolutionary by extending free look to the mouse, which is an incredibly important control mechanism still used to this day.
>
> Quake was revolutionary by extending 3D polygon usage to on-foot first person shooters.
>
> Half-life was revolutionary in its attention to detail for virtually all of its gaming elements, raising the standards for all subsequent games.
>
> Rainbow Six was revolutionary for popularizing the military tactical shooter genre with its focus on realistically modelling combat.
>
> Halo was revolutionary for bringing the modern first person shooter to consoles, replacing the earlier standard set by Goldeneye (also revolutionary in its own right). No one mechanic was revolutionary in itself, but the subtle changes it made to FPS gameplay have been widely copied and have increased the quality of FPS games overall.
>
> Those are revolutions. Nothing Halo has done since CE qualifies. Revolutions are almost always the first game in a series, and with later titles evolving from that starting point.
>
> If you want a revolution, looking at H5 is likely looking at the wrong place.
>
>
> Anyway, I don’t need H5 to be revolutionary. I just want it to be better than H4.

CE pretty much standardized the use of only carrying 2 weapons instead of the entire arsenal in some pocket dimension.

It also added to the FPS genre:
*Melee as a button with every weapon rather then a weapon itself (think that saw thing in Quake or Crowbar in Half Life)
*Grenades as a button instead of a weapon to switch to
*Vehicles in the game (that could be existed at will)
*Automatic Shield system on top of the health system (before it was either regenerative health or Health + Body Armor)
*Bigger more open maps (Quake and Doom maps always felt very small, linear and confined.

Most of these things came to the table because of Halo CE.

16

> > So I came across this article, and it made me think about the path Halo has taken. The following is an important excerpt from the article critiquing 343’s decision to evolve Halo 4 instead of revolutionizing the franchise…
> >
> > “good game design can be revolutionary and not just evolutionary. Is revolutionary the safe way to go? Not at all, but the fact of the matter is this – the video game industry as a whole needs both revolutionary and evolutionary game design to keep moving forward. One game can’t be both, and one method of thinking can’t live without the other. / For evolutionary game design to work there must first be a revolution in game design. If evolution is the goal, revolution is the starting point. While successful revolutions are rare, they are incredibly important. Without innovation the video game industry would stagnate and could possibly collapse, much as it did in the late 1970’s, in part because of the lack of game innovation. The industry can’t forget that every once in a while the status quo needs to be upset, that brand new ideas and ways to play are just as important as including one new weapon or game mode in Halo 5 that didn’t appear in Halo 4.”
> >
> > Before diving into this issue, let’s first take a look at what revolutionary features Halo has added.
> > Halo CE - The entire game itself was revolutionary, no questions asked.
> > Halo 2 - Dramatically revolutionized online multiplayer.
> > Halo 3 - Forge, theater, and file sharing.
> > Halo 3 ODST - N/A
> > Halo Reach - N/A
> > <mark>Halo 4 - N/A</mark>
> >
> > *Keep in mind that this is all in perspective of the FPS/Shooter market for all consoles games, since that is that category Halo falls under; therefore, disregard Nintendo and the plethora of features, mods, and Independent opportunities available on PC.
> >
> > Now, onto the discussion. As you can see, Halo has not done anything revolutionary for the franchise since Halo 3, which was almost seven years ago! Since then games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have not only dominated the market, but also diluted the FPS multiplayer experience by implementing nearly identical gameplay mechanics (ie: sprint, loadouts, bloom, perks, fast kill/respond times, vaulting, etc). Due to the success of these two franchises many games have followed in their footsteps while adding nothing new to the experience. This trend made it’s way into Halo with the release of Reach, and has proved to be problematic for the series.
> >
> > I don’t want to sound like a huge nostalgia-fanboy, but like many here, I loved the classic MP experience from Halo 2 and 3. That being said, it’s hard to revolutionize a gameplay experience that (to many) isn’t broken. While I propose no definitive answers, my suggestion for revolution lies within Halo’s content/features rather than gameplay. Using Halo 3 as an example, Bungie made small tweaks to gameplay, while making revolutionary leaps in content with the introduction of forge, theater and a great file-sharing system.
> >
> > Thus, the main question I raise to you is, “what must Halo do in order to revolutionize the franchise?” - Is reverting back to the core gameplay the right move? If so, what new features should the game bring to the table? Would you be fine with Halo 5 only evolving older features, such as forge or firefight, without creating (potentially) revolutionary new features?
> >
> > Halo is a great franchise, the best in my opinion, and I don’t want to see it continue to just adapt to the popular market. Something must be done, but what?
>
> I would make the argument that Spartan Ops was revolutionary. As far as I know there hasn’t been anything like it before. Sure it could use a little refinement, evolution if you will, but it was revolutionary.

Except it didn’t really do anything exemplary with H4 unlike the revolutionary systems we saw in HCE, H2, and H3. No one really got H4 for SpOps, and it didn’t bring in and maintain a huge playerbase like H4’s predecessors did.

17

Even reach brought a lot to the table with improved forge. H4 gave us… Magnets I guess…

18

> If a Halo game were truly revolutionary, it would be crucified by the community at large for being different.

Take another look at I IZ CAB0OSE’s list of revolutionary games. Do you notice a pattern? Do you notice that all of the games listed were new series and not sequels to older games?

Like CAB0OSE said, if you’re looking to Halo for revolutionary innovation, you are looking in the wrong place. Halo has established a customer base with a particular gameplay, and it would be foolish to throw all that away for something “revolutionary” because continuing to do what it already does best would probably net better sales and ratings than attempting to boldly go where no developer has gone before. If your fanbase is made up primarily of “arena shooter” fans and you go and create a class-based loadout shooter, your fans will reject it because it’s not what they bought it for, and that’s exactly what happened with Halo 4.

On the other hand, when Bungie decided that they wanted to do something completely different from Halo’s gameplay, they ditched Halo and created a new IP. Their new IP has already set records and it hasn’t even released yet. Are you starting to notice the pattern yet?

Imagine if instead of Destiny being called Destiny, it was called Halo 4 (delayed two years). Do you think it still would’ve set records? Of course not; the existing fans would’ve rejected it because it’s not “arena” gameplay (and a lot of Halo fans are rejecting Destiny) and new fans would be put off by either being late in the series or assuming that they wouldn’t like it because they didn’t like its predecessors. Revolution almost necessitates a new series.

Now, this isn’t to say that Halo can never change or evolve. It changed and evolved a lot from CE to 2, from 2 to 3, and from 3 to ODST. Although there were some bad changes from 3 to Reach and 4, there were also some good changes. To say that “Halo fans think all change of any kind is bad” is horribly ignorant. Change is not bad. Bad change is bad. Change that makes Halo play less like a Halo game is bad. Variety and diversity in the shooter market is good because it allows everyone to play the game that they want, and this cannot be obtained by shoehorning every FPS gimmick into every FPS game, or attempting to change Halo into CoD or Team Fortress.

19

I’ve been playing a lot of borderlands recently. The RPG shooter game is a great idea… If Destiny had been a halo game, with full on RPG elements, but really stuck to the classic arena multiplayer I don’t see how this would have been a bad thing.

Interconnect the two- gain xp for main game by playing multiplayer, multiplayer avatar can be tricked out with cosmetic armor from campaign (and access to loadouts for some assym objective gametypes), etc- and that’s a game for me.

20

> I’ve been playing a lot of borderlands recently. The RPG shooter game is a great idea… If Destiny had been a halo game, with full on RPG elements, but really stuck to the classic arena multiplayer I don’t see how this would have been a bad thing.

One of the main concepts behind Destiny is the same character, same class and subclass abilities, and same loadout and armor equipment used in both PvP and PvE. This contradicts same-starts arena gameplay.

Also, I like the way that Halo’s Campaigns play as they are. But I also like Destiny’s RPG leveling. The great part is that as long as Halo doesn’t change into Destiny, I can have both: a linear single-player storyline with Halo and an open-ended RPG storyline with Destiny. What’s wrong with that?

> Interconnect the two- gain xp for main game by playing multiplayer, multiplayer avatar can be tricked out with cosmetic armor from campaign (and access to loadouts for some assym objective gametypes), etc- and that’s a game for me.

Forget about cosmetics–they don’t impact the gameplay and are therefore irrelevant to gameplay. Cosmetic multiplayer unlocks through the Campaign already existed in Halo 3 anyway.