Should 343 go back to the classic feel? By classic I mean without the loadouts, without sprint, without bloom and without all the armor abilities. The thing is, who would have said to themeselves after halo 4 “man i wish they would have mixed the game with other shooters on the market instead of keeping the traditional feel!” if they would have released halo 4 with old mechanics (removing the stuff i mentioned above) do you think the game would have sold less? no. would have gotten more backlash? hell no. do you think it would have had a longer longevity? probably. So now I ask you again, should they make the best halo ever by fixing this? or should they try and appeal to the “casuals” who will buy the game anyways.
PS: I’m not a mlg player but halo 4 doesn’t feel like halo, that’s my problem here.
PPS: If big team battle is returning with big maps the dmr needs to be taken out of the game as ragnarok is just a snipe fest without any remote fun to it. (and tweak the lightrifle)
At the very least I hope 343 starts with the “classic” format and builds from there rather than building off of Halo 4’s mechanics. Almost nothing new gameplay wise in Halo 4 felt like a natural evolution of Halo, it felt like a checklist of “modern” shooter requirements. Sprint? Check. Customizable Loadouts? Check. Arbitrary perks? Check. Killstreaks? Check.
I feel that if 343 doesn’t move away from Halo 4’s path(even a little) then all the “balancing” of these new mechanics isn’t going to make it feel like Halo.
P.S. The DMR and LR get a bad rap but there are oh so many more important reasons why Ragnarok failed that were much more influential. Random ordinance, global and personal were a big factor, lack of descope meant that long range weapons could put down absurd levels of accurate ranged fire, and the Mantis was terrible for that map. The Mantis stopped most flanks but would get cut to ribbons if it crossed the hill into either side of the map.
Simply being map pickups is all that needs to be changed with the DMR/LR.
Why isnt there a middle ground in your poll? It has has forced me to pick ‘I like the new feel’
I think loadouts should stay, AAs should stay, sprint should stay.
> Why isnt there a middle ground in your poll? It has has forced me to pick ‘I like the new feel’
>
> I think loadouts should stay, AAs should stay, sprint should stay.
I second that. Loadouts, AAs and sprint are a natural progression of, I hate to say this, but an ageing title.
The problem however, was 343s failure to properly recognise the shortcomings of their current design and how a lack of alternative alienated the competitive crowd.
OP, There should be a middle ground here.
AAs can be changed to be better accepted by the community, I and many others have suggested ideas on how to do it, so it’s not that much of a radical leap from Equipement like it was.
Loadout customization, they’re fun, they’re great for custom games, and PvE modes, not in matchmaking. Matchmaking should be limited and/or NO loadouts.
Sprint, it’s in the game now, it should stay, give players the option to turn it off in the game settings. I much rather have that than 343i giving the finger to people who don’t want sprint, or those who do want sprint.]
“should they try and appeal to the “casuals” who will buy the game anyways.”
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Halo was originally designed for the competitive gamers?
But why was Halo CE designed and shipped with a campaign, and MP was a last minute tack on?
Halo has always been designed for the “CASUALS”, Halo 4 was meant to be designed for the Competitive gamers, and guess what, THEY HATE IT.
Halo is a game that’s a mix of other games, always has been. Halo’s history is full of “Halo is copying such and such!”, even the theme of Halo is copied from another source or two.
OP, There should be a middle ground here.
<mark>no not really, of course they will tweak things for the next game so just vote yes if that’s what you want.</mark>
AAs can be changed to be better accepted by the community, I and many others have suggested ideas on how to do it, so it’s not that much of a radical leap from Equipement like it was.
<mark>No they can not, that was their entire purpose in halo 4, they tried to make them more acceptable than halo reach and they are still really annoying.</mark>
Loadout customization, they’re fun, they’re great for custom games, and PvE modes, not in matchmaking. Matchmaking should be limited and/or NO loadouts.
<mark>I’m talking exclusively to your own load outs with unlocks and perks, having load out options in custom games and game modes like infection/flood is fine by me</mark>
Sprint, it’s in the game now, it should stay, give players the option to turn it off in the game settings. I much rather have that than 343i giving the finger to people who don’t want sprint, or those who do want sprint.]
<mark>Sprint should be removed there are a billion reasons why, my personal “favorite” I can’t find the word “These issues disrupt the flow, depth, integrity and intelligence of the game. They cause more anger than enjoyment and these are only the obvious effects.” having sprint can be fun in the game but every time you or someone else do it it feels wrong in halo.</mark>
“should they try and appeal to the “casuals” who will buy the game anyways.”
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Halo was originally designed for the competitive gamers?
<mark>It wasn’t but that is not the point, back then no games had loadouts, the game was balanced, by apealing to “casuals” I’m not talking about actual casuals therefore the: “”. what I meant was more along the lines: they are trying to sell more copies (aint nothing wrong with that) to an audience that wont even give a -Yoink- about how the game is designed and how it’s played.</mark>
But why was Halo CE designed and shipped with a campaign, and MP was a last minute tack on?
<mark>halo ce multiplayer was not a last minute tack on. they made the maps and everything but didn’t want to wait until the release of live to ship the game (bungies or microsofts decision i don’t know)</mark>
Halo has always been designed for the “CASUALS”, Halo 4 was meant to be designed for the Competitive gamers, and guess what, THEY HATE IT.
Halo is a game that’s a mix of other games, always has been. Halo’s history is full of “Halo is copying such and such!”, even the theme of Halo is copied from another source or two.
<mark>As i said before, balance. when it comes to halo copying everything, yes but it has always had a uniqe and amazing feel to it, now they are trhowing things at us left and right and the feel of previous titles are lost.</mark>
Our definitions of classic feel probably differ. As they probably differ from person to person.
Murder Miners has loadouts, wall jumping, lunging, grappling, altering the map, yet the shooting mechanics and weapons available still feel very similar to Halo 2 / Halo CE. But, you can spawn with a Sniper Rifle, and there’s generally no items on the map.
Some people might say “Halo’s movement / shooting mechanics are what defined it.”
Some people might say “Halo’s map-pickup system is what defined it.”
Let’s skip the classic debate for a moment and head over to the competitive one.
What separates an armor ability from a base trait?
Most base traits (moving, jumping, crouching) can be used in a variety of ways and empower the player.
Most armor abilities in Halo 4 (Regen, Hardlight, Sentry Gun, Promethean Vision) either act as defensive mechanics, or simply kill off skill requirement.
That isn’t to say the concept of abilities can never work in a competitive environment. MOBA’s for example all have special moves for their characters.
The problem is the abilities in Halo 4 detract from skill and viable options instead of expanding upon them. Thruster Pack is an example of an ability that, while it currently has potential to be used as a crutch, also has potential to bring more movement options to the player in the future.
> I second that. Loadouts, AAs and sprint are a natural progression of, I hate to say this, but an ageing title.
More processing power is a natural progression.
Better netcode is a natural progression.
Having a mechanic with specific upsides and downsides is not. It’s simply a different way to play the game. A way that I, and many others, disapprove of.
When we ‘standardize’ components of an FPS, we kill off any room for innovation or variety. Is Tribes Ascend ‘dated’ just because it uses skiing at 150mph across the map instead of sprinting?
> At the very least I hope 343 starts with the “classic” format and builds from there rather than building off of Halo 4’s mechanics. Almost nothing new gameplay wise in Halo 4 felt like a natural evolution of Halo, it felt like a checklist of “modern” shooter requirements. Sprint? Check. Customizable Loadouts? Check. Arbitrary perks? Check. Killstreaks? Check.
>
> I feel that if 343 doesn’t move away from Halo 4’s path(even a little) then all the “balancing” of these new mechanics isn’t going to make it feel like Halo.
>
> P.S. The DMR and LR get a bad rap but there are oh so many more important reasons why Ragnarok failed that were much more influential. Random ordinance, global and personal were a big factor, lack of descope meant that long range weapons could put down absurd levels of accurate ranged fire, and the Mantis was terrible for that map. The Mantis stopped most flanks but would get cut to ribbons if it crossed the hill into either side of the map.
>
> Simply being map pickups is all that needs to be changed with the DMR/LR.
No equipment–>equipment–>AA’s.
No loadouts–>preset loadouts–>customizable loadouts.
2 direct evolutions right there. One could also argue that being halo is a shooter heavily focused on proper movement things like sprint JP and thruster/Evade were innevitable.
The thing about armor abilities is that you don’t know what your enemy have and everyone can choose different ones. I know my enemy can jump, I don’t know whether he can fly and abuse map control or if he can pop around the corner regening his shield or if he will simply dodge away.
> The thing about armor abilities is that you don’t know what your enemy have and everyone can choose different ones. I know my enemy can jump, I don’t know whether he can fly and abuse map control or if he can pop around the corner regening his shield or if he will simply dodge away.
Yes, but this isn’t inherent to armor abilities. This is something that can be fixed in the future.
For example, different armor abilities affect the appearance of the player in different ways.
One example:
Hologram gives a blue aura around the player.
Thruster gives a green aura around the player.
Another:
Hologram gives the player a specific model.
Thruster gives the player a different model.
In TF2, I know if my enemy can cloak or if my enemy can set me on fire, simply by the appearance of their player model.
> One could also argue that being halo is a shooter heavily focused on proper movement things like sprint JP and thruster/Evade were innevitable.
Jumping enhances movement.
Sprint punishes movement.
There’s a difference. If I’m able to shoot while moving, that means I’m free to move at any time. If I can’t, it means I have to be careful about when I move, which is counter-intuitive to a movement based shooter.
> OP, There should be a middle ground here.
>
> <mark>no not really, of course they will tweak things for the next game so just vote yes if that’s what you want.</mark>
>
> But your making it out that when they like the new stuff they can only like it all or not instead of certain things which can create a biased and inaccurate poll.
>
> AAs can be changed to be better accepted by the community, I and many others have suggested ideas on how to do it, so it’s not that much of a radical leap from Equipement like it was.
>
> <mark>No they can not, that was their entire purpose in halo 4, they tried to make them more acceptable than halo reach and they are still really annoying.</mark>
>
> They didnt really edit them that much in halo 4. It was not halo 4’s purpose. And who says they cant have them in certain playlists and there has been thousands of improvements that would make even camo work.
>
> Loadout customization, they’re fun, they’re great for custom games, and PvE modes, not in matchmaking. Matchmaking should be limited and/or NO loadouts.
>
> <mark>I’m talking exclusively to your own load outs with unlocks and perks, having load out options in custom games and game modes like infection/flood is fine by me</mark>
>
> Since when did loadouts have to have perks and weapons be made unlockable? They dont have to be.
>
> Sprint, it’s in the game now, it should stay, give players the option to turn it off in the game settings. I much rather have that than 343i giving the finger to people who don’t want sprint, or those who do want sprint.]
>
> <mark>Sprint should be removed there are a billion reasons why, my personal “favorite” I can’t find the word “These issues disrupt the flow, depth, integrity and intelligence of the game. They cause more anger than enjoyment and these are only the obvious effects.” having sprint can be fun in the game but every time you or someone else do it it feels wrong in halo.</mark>
>
>
> Many people like sprint since when maps are designed around them properly the game works really well and speeds up the game (not too much) and makes the game have another skill with a risk of whether to sprint or not. All the need to do is fond a way to combat people using it to flee, other than that its fine. Also it once again doesnt have to be in all playlists.
>
> “should they try and appeal to the “casuals” who will buy the game anyways.”
> I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Halo was originally designed for the competitive gamers?
>
> <mark>It wasn’t but that is not the point, back then no games had loadouts, the game was balanced, by apealing to “casuals” I’m not talking about actual casuals therefore the: “”. what I meant was more along the lines: they are trying to sell more copies (aint nothing wrong with that) to an audience that wont even give a Yoink! about how the game is designed and how it’s played.</mark>
>
>
> But why was Halo CE designed and shipped with a campaign, and MP was a last minute tack on?
>
> <mark>halo ce multiplayer was not a last minute tack on. they made the maps and everything but didn’t want to wait until the release of live to ship the game (bungies or microsofts decision i don’t know)</mark>
>
> Halo has always been designed for the “CASUALS”, Halo 4 was meant to be designed for the Competitive gamers, and guess what, THEY HATE IT.
> Halo is a game that’s a mix of other games, always has been. Halo’s history is full of “Halo is copying such and such!”, even the theme of Halo is copied from another source or two.
>
> <mark>As i said before, balance. when it comes to halo copying everything, yes but it has always had a uniqe and amazing feel to it, now they are trhowing things at us left and right and the feel of previous titles are lost.</mark>
Just because another game has done it doesnt make it bad, and you may respond ‘it isnt halo’ for all you know it may off been cut from earlier titles for time, resources or hardware limits. And once again it doesnt have to be in main multiplayer.
No, it shouldn’t be all classic or I may as well keep playing Halo CE(A) for the next 10 years.
Classic settings are only the foundation, and should always serve as just that. The game should add to that, but nothing that demolishes it.
It should feel like classic, but there must be other new features in to keep my interest or I will just save money and play the original.
> No, it shouldn’t be all classic or I may as well keep playing Halo CE(A) for the next 10 years.
That would be feasible if everyone thought the same thing and if everyone was even introduced to Halo CEA to begin with.
- People will eventually move on, even if I don’t, meaning I have no one to play with. Halo PC had five hundred people a few years back, now only 80 daily. And in a few more years, it will have no one at all. I can love Halo PC as much as I want, it doesn’t matter if no one else shares the same feeling.
In twenty years, If I want to play Halo Ce, I will have to go around not only begging people to play with me, but also trying to explain the game to them at the same time.
- People newer to gaming aren’t even introduced to Halo CE, so no new players replace the old ones. Some younger people probably don’t even know what Halo CE even is. If my dad went around asking people “Hey, want to play some Contra?” he would just get blank stares. Because “what the -Yoink- is a Contra? lul gonna CoD now.”
"If you don’t like the new games, just play the old ones" is a poorly thought out response that is just meant to get people to shut up.
One benefit of “rehashing the same title (a la CoD)” is that it keeps hype focused around that title, it keeps a fresh audience around the same gameplay people have already come to enjoy. People can criticize CoD all they want, it is still arguably the most successful FPS on the market.
CoD will be successful for many years to come, Halo will not. Halo will eventually die, just like Quake before it, and games before that, simply because the hype is never kept up.
Why is Mario still successful, despite being much older? Because unlike those games, it is constantly kept in the spotlight. Everyone knows what Mario is, regardless of their age group. Sure, mario has branched out, so has Halo (see Halo Wars and Spartan Assault). But at the same time, core mario games still exist (New Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros 2, so forth).
Yes, I realize this wasn’t really the point you were getting at, but it’s something I felt needed said regardless. There’s nothing objectively wrong with rehashing the same game, just as there’s nothing objectively wrong with changing it each title.
Should 343 go back to the classic feel?
YES!
By classic I mean without the loadouts,
YES!
without sprint,
YES!
without bloom
YES!
and without all the armor abilities.
YES!
Imo, Halo just isn’t “Halo” anymore. Tbh, to me, it feels like some sort of mix up between lots of fps’s that are popular today. Halo is a little too easy today with lots of aim assist, op weapons on spawn. I think that Halo gameplay is kinda unpredictable right now with random ordnances, and enemies with lots of different aa’s.
What do You think?
> > I second that. Loadouts, AAs and sprint are a natural progression of, I hate to say this, but an ageing title.
>
> More processing power is a natural progression.
> Better netcode is a natural progression.
>
> Having a mechanic with specific upsides and downsides is not. It’s simply a different way to play the game. A way that I, and many others, disapprove of.
>
> When we ‘standardize’ components of an FPS, we kill off any room for innovation or variety. Is Tribes Ascend ‘dated’ just because it uses skiing at 150mph across the map instead of sprinting?
Whether you like it or not classic Halo is a dated experience, one we all love, but nonetheless dated. I’m passionate about preserving arena Halo, but change is needed to keep the franchise fresh and open to more players.
> Imo, Halo just isn’t “Halo” anymore. Tbh, to me, it feels like some sort of mix up between lots of fps’s that are popular today. Halo is a little too easy today with lots of aim assist, op weapons on spawn. I think that Halo gameplay is kinda unpredictable right now with random ordnances, and enemies with lots of different aa’s.
>
> What do You think?
It depends on context.
Halo Reach had a No Bloom, No Sprint, No AA’s competitive playlist. When people say they “Hate Reach”, I can guarantee this is not what they are talking about. They are rather talking about the vanilla game itself.
Whenever I see a competitive player say “I love Reach”, I always see two things happen. First, they are bashed for it. Second, they go back and clarify that they were only talking about the MLG settings of Reach.
I’d say Throwdown is still Halo at heart. It is certainly inferior to past games, but it’s still Halo. Where as the initial vanilla settings (Personal Ordnance, Random Global Ordnance, slow killtimes, slow movement) were very un-Halo.
> > No, it shouldn’t be all classic or I may as well keep playing Halo CE(A) for the next 10 years.
>
> That would be feasible if everyone thought the same thing and if everyone was even introduced to Halo CEA to begin with.
>
> 1. People will eventually move on, even if I don’t, meaning <mark>I have no one to play with.</mark> Halo PC had five hundred people a few years back, now only 80 daily. And in a few more years, it will have no one at all. I can love Halo PC as much as I want, it doesn’t matter if no one else shares the same feeling.
>
> In twenty years, If I want to play Halo Ce, I will have to go around not only begging people to play with me, but also trying to explain the game to them at the same time.
>
> 2. People newer to gaming aren’t even introduced to Halo CE, so no new players replace the old ones. Some younger people probably don’t even know what Halo CE even is. If my dad went around asking people “Hey, want to play some Contra?” he would just get blank stares. Because “what the -Yoink!- is a Contra? lul gonna CoD now.”
>
> “<mark>If you don’t like the new games, just play the old ones” is a poorly thought out response that is just meant to get people to shut up.</mark>
>
> One benefit of “rehashing the same title (a la CoD)” is that it keeps hype focused around that title, it keeps a fresh audience around the same gameplay people have already come to enjoy. People can criticize CoD all they want, it is still arguably the most successful FPS on the market.
>
> CoD will be successful for many years to come, Halo will not. Halo will eventually die, just like Quake before it, and games before that, simply because the hype is never kept up.
>
> Why is Mario still successful, despite being much older? Because unlike those games, it is constantly kept in the spotlight. Everyone knows what Mario is, regardless of their age group. Sure, mario has branched out, so has Halo (see Halo Wars and Spartan Assault). But at the same time, core mario games still exist (New Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros 2, so forth).
>
> Yes, I realize this wasn’t really the point you were getting at, but it’s something I felt needed said regardless. There’s nothing objectively wrong with rehashing the same game, just as there’s nothing objectively wrong with changing it each title.
I was referring to single-player aspects. I still constantly play the Halo CE(A) campaign regularly to this day.
I never said this, nor meant to imply it. I realize you may have had to bring that up, but I feel I need to clarify my main point a bit more.
What I was really saying that what classic means to me is Halo CE, only that. Which is why I said what I did. And even still, I don’t mind a rehash with newer features, like Ghosts (which btw is arguably the best of the series IMMHO), but the OP didn’t mention any newer features, thus why should I buy it?
The hardest of the hardcore are not Halo’s audience and never has been, and I’m included in that demographic and can admit it, and I can also admit I don’t care. You want to play something you can see as Halo go play Halo 2/3, you want to play something that has helped reinvigorate and innovate the base gameplay mechanics to allow for better tactics because of more variety in equipment go play Reach/4. Simple solution.
You might say I’m just an idiot who should go look at the MM numbers, but honestly I couldn’t give less how many people are on Halo 4 because I see it as a good game. Those Halo players that could play games through the night back when Halo 3 came out are older, and have jobs and responsibilities, same with Halo 2 as its been EIGHT years. Bungie lost that fanbase long before Halo 4 even came out.
I agree with you Ramir3z77 on what you said in this:
“CoD will be successful for many years to come, Halo will not. Halo will eventually die, just like Quake before it, and games before that, simply because the hype is never kept up.”
However certain things you say sound like you might be blinded by a sense of nostalgia, and this just cannot be. It’s not always about keeping it the same or going back to old ways, it’s about ways to innovate/revive the series… Even if it alienates the “core” of the Halo community 343i can find a new fan base and I will be there to support them as I’d rather see my series die differently the to of died stale.
> The hardest of the hardcore are not Halo’s audience and never has been, and I’m included in that demographic and can admit it, and I can also admit I don’t care. You want to play something you can see as Halo go play Halo 2/3, you want to play something that has helped reinvigorate and innovate the base gameplay mechanics to allow for better tactics because of more variety in equipment go play Reach/4. Simple solution.
>
> You might say I’m just an idiot who should go look at the MM numbers, but honestly I couldn’t give less how many people are on Halo 4 because I see it as a good game. Those Halo players that could play games through the night back when Halo 3 came out are older, and have jobs and responsibilities, same with Halo 2 as its been EIGHT years. Bungie lost that fanbase long before Halo 4 even came out.
>
> <mark>I agree with you Ramir3z77 on what you said in this:</mark>
> <mark>“CoD will be successful for many years to come, Halo will not. Halo will eventually die, just like Quake before it, and games before that, simply because the hype is never kept up.”</mark>
>
> However certain things you say sound like you might be blinded by a sense of nostalgia, and this just cannot be. It’s not always about keeping it the same or going back to old ways, it’s about ways to innovate/revive the series… Even if it alienates the “core” of the Halo community 343i can find a new fan base and I will be there to support them as I’d rather see my series die differently the to of died stale.
A team who has grown LARGER, learned from experience, has Spielberg present on the front lines and a whole larger universe to unfold says otherwise.