Many of classic fans have stated that halo 5 does not feel like halo to them due to the enhanced movement and Spartan abilities. I can see where they are coming from. Those aspects definitely change halo to a somewhat different kind of halo. Should 343 have called halo 5 something else? It would have been a game in the halo universe, but would it still be considered a halo game?
Tell me your thoughts, but please keep it civil.
Edit: It appears that majority, well actually all of you who have commented, agree that it doesn’t matter how much the game has changed, if it happens in the halo universe, it’s a halo game.
That’s like changing the name of the Doctor Who TV show because they rebooted it with a little more action and colours. Or changing Bioshock for being in the sky instead of the water. There are actually quite a few comparisons I could bring up (but won’t) that kinda defeats that logic.
Halo is a franchise, everything based in the Haloverse (see, it’s called the Haloverse) will be called Halo cause, well, that’s the name of the franchise. Changing it because the game plays differently over time doesn’t make sense and will be very confusing, especially considering this game franchise earns enough to rival movies.
It should definitely keep the Halo name. It’s the same series and the same universe. The addition of new features should play no part in whether or not a game fits into a series. All games are going to change. They have to if they want people to continue playing them.
No,Pokemon.
Seriously what question is this.
All Halo titles will stick with the Halo name in them. The only reason 343i would release a game that doesn’t have Halo in the title would be unlikely. They would probably just be making a new franchise from their won visions.
Yes. It exists in the Halo universe so it should carry the Halo name. It doesn’t play so different that it isn’t a Halo game either. Is it classic gameplay? No, but it is certainly a Halo game. Anyone who says the former is being over dramatic.
It’s all Halo to me. Halo Reach was the only game that ever felt “un-Halo” to me, and even then that’s mostly because of the art style and its massive middle finger of a Campaign. Even then, I still like it. Whether or not something is “Halo” is entirely subjective. It’s not a defined quality. Halo has one of the most expansive and varied franchise lineup (games, novels, toys, etc) and it’s impossible to appeal to everyone. That’s part of the reason I think Halo 5 is as weirdly unfocused as it is: 343i tried to appeal to everyone and it both succeeded and failed in that regard.
I ended up starting Halo through a Mega Bloks set in 2009, followed by 3 years of reading the Halo books and watching walkthroughs of the Halo games released up to that time as well as Machinimas. I got an Xbox 360 in 2012 and got Halo Wars (it was the only T-rated Halo and my parents were very much wary of ESRB ratings). I got a Halo 4 LE for christmas that year and played it regularly for almost 2 years while managing to purchase the Halo games I didn’t have. I’m therefore more biased towards the Campaign and Content Creation side of Halo. The gameplay and the visuals weren’t as much of a dealbreaker for me as were the Forge and Campaign.
I know my opinions on Halo are different from many other people in the Community, but I know that agreeing to disagree is sometimes the best thing you can do when something as nebulous as a concept as “True Halo” is brought up. There is no such thing as “True Halo,” or “True Halo Fans.” We’re all just individuals with opinons on a common interest. If you want to argue and can argue effectively, be my guest. It’s what forums like these are for. But remember that your opinion is no more correct than anyone else’s, and that you only speak for yourself, not for the Community or for anyone else.
> 2535408730995228;4:
> No,Pokemon.
> Seriously what question is this.
This is a thought provoking question discussing whether 343 could or should re-name their halo to something different.
Please add something more constructive in the future, if you don’t like the question, simply don’t comment.
It seems the those who have provided constructive feedback all agree that if a game takes place in the halo universe, it is a halo game.
The Spartan Chronicles is my quick thought for a title without Halo in it. I think any Halo game should have it in the title although 343 said they’re gonna move away from numbering them.
that would make no sense… GTA 1 and 2 were bird’s eye games. now they have 1st person. Still called GTA
Halo should be called Halo for its entire existence.
Yeah I get that a lot of things have changed significantly - art styles, gameplay mechanics, etc. that might make it feel very different - but as long as they’re still set in the same universe, it’s still gonna be called Halo.
And in Halo 6, every indication seems to be that we will actually be back on a Halo again.
Why wouldn’t it be called Halo if Master Chief is still the character?
I would say that the name Halo should be kept simple.
It’s also the fact that the Halo games are recognized because of it’s simple and memorable name (Halo).
Nah, just keep it Halo, I think it works without causing confusion.
those werent the only reasons why it didnt feel Halo but thats not the point.
even though these games dont feel Halo anymore they should still be called Halos just not to make it confusing. I just think of them as a fan-fiction rather than the real Halo. Its like someone making a continuation to lotr without it having been tolkien.
If Halo 5 had another name it would be something like Rogue One or “Guardians: a Halo story”.
Either way I think it does not make sense, Halo 5 in theory “follows” Halo 4, the Master Chief is still in the game and it really feels like Halo. So every change 343 add they should rename the game?
ODST: a Halo 3 story.
Reach: The Halo prequel.
