I hope not. I enjoyed Halo 5 but it doesn’t have that full Halo feel and it will probably never again have any replayability for me. The movement is too complicated to get back into and just enjoy. I’m on the fence as to whether I’ll buy it or not if they don’t simplify the mechanics. The complicated movement mechanics are just frustrating anf boring. That’s just my opinion though.
> 2533274989469309;17:
> > 2533274875211743;2:
> > I’ve been a Halo player from the start (2001) so I (as expected) prefer classic style, but I thought Halo 5 MP was still great. It felt pretty different from classic Halo sure, but it was fun. If Infinite is like that, so be it imo. Plus, as unpopular as it sounds to hardcore fans, I don’t think classic style appeals to modern gamers as much. For the longevity of the game it (somewhat unfortunately) does have to adapt to appease newer generation of players.
> >
> > I don’t mind if I’m wrong about this (would prefer it in fact) so if anyone disagrees please correct me. 
>
> What’s with a lot of people saying they’ve been playing Halo since Combat Evolved? Is it to look impressive or something? Because I refuse to believe that people been playing since the very first, maybe 2004 or 2007 buy can’t be 2001
Yes, we originalists exist. Sorry if that’s hard for you to comprehend.
Mechanics and gameplay wise I found halo 5 to be the most fun in the series so I hope it stays minus maybe spartan charge if it can’t be reworked. That said I still enjoy the classic gameplay and though I’d be a little disappointed to see the new stuff go it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
> 2533274989469309;17:
> > 2533274875211743;2:
> > I’ve been a Halo player from the start (2001) so I (as expected) prefer classic style, but I thought Halo 5 MP was still great. It felt pretty different from classic Halo sure, but it was fun. If Infinite is like that, so be it imo. Plus, as unpopular as it sounds to hardcore fans, I don’t think classic style appeals to modern gamers as much. For the longevity of the game it (somewhat unfortunately) does have to adapt to appease newer generation of players.
> >
> > I don’t mind if I’m wrong about this (would prefer it in fact) so if anyone disagrees please correct me.
>
> What’s with a lot of people saying they’ve been playing Halo since Combat Evolved? Is it to look impressive or something? Because I refuse to believe that people been playing since the very first, maybe 2004 or 2007 buy can’t be 2001
I mention it to emphasize the fact that I’ve played for a really long time. Meaning that I’ve experienced every iteration of the game in it’s hayday.
Plenty of people critique certain Halo titles eventhough they likely didn’t even play it at the height of its popularity.
And yes, I really did play from 2001. Even played online through xbconnect in 2002-3.
I feel like it shouldn’t, for a number of reasons including but not limited to;
- Homogenisation; in other words, a lack of originality in a crowded market. - A lack of interest from the non-vocal majority as evidenced by declining sales and player retention of mobility shooters juxtaposed against the community response and financial success of franchises that have reverted to their core design philosophies (i.e. DOOM and CoD). - The gradual decline in recurring players since Reach, the first to implement Sprint, predictably followed by a sharp spike with Halo 4 which had the steepest population drop of any Halo game to date, only marginally recovering with Halo 5. - Incompatibility, or at least friction with Halo’s gameplay loop;
- High TTK conflicts with mobility mechanics and fast traversal.
- Focus on accuracy / consistent shots also conflicts with mobility mechanics. - Said mechanics necessitate changes to the balancing and sandbox such as:
- Increased Aim-Assist / Bullet Magnetism to compensate for increased speed.
- Increased focus on automatics to make them viable at longer range (a fact the competitive community were very vocal against).
- ADS for all weapons as a symptom of the prior.
- Lower overall TTK, bringing the gunplay further in-line with other modern shooters (calling back to the first point).
- Restricted map design that focuses almost exclusively on small, symmetrical maps.
- Redundancy of most vehicles and sandbox traversal mechanics in standard game-modes. - The balance of weapons extends to the AI in Campaign and Warzone, so even PvE experiences are tarnished as a result.Whether you are okay with all of the above or not is your subjective standpoint, and I wont argue that, but I don’t think any of this is good for Halo’s survival, let alone its success.
There’s further anecdotal evidence of the broader opinion considering that one incident on the PC that shan’t be mentioned, then the reaction to the mere change of visual appearance that Halo Infinite’s E3 trailer showed.
The supposed tip of the iceberg that is the classic Halo fandom is what got that trailer trending on Youtube in a year when Cyberpunk 2077 was revealed and Death Stranding and Last of Us 2 showcased gameplay for the first time; so let that sink in while you check to see where in the 30s Halo 5 is on Xbox’s most played, despite it being on the Game Pass.
> 2533274811172641;22:
> > 2533274989469309;17:
> > > 2533274875211743;2:
> > > I’ve been a Halo player from the start (2001) so I (as expected) prefer classic style, but I thought Halo 5 MP was still great. It felt pretty different from classic Halo sure, but it was fun. If Infinite is like that, so be it imo. Plus, as unpopular as it sounds to hardcore fans, I don’t think classic style appeals to modern gamers as much. For the longevity of the game it (somewhat unfortunately) does have to adapt to appease newer generation of players.
> > >
> > > I don’t mind if I’m wrong about this (would prefer it in fact) so if anyone disagrees please correct me.
> >
> > What’s with a lot of people saying they’ve been playing Halo since Combat Evolved? Is it to look impressive or something? Because I refuse to believe that people been playing since the very first, maybe 2004 or 2007 buy can’t be 2001
>
> Yes, we originalists exist. Sorry if that’s hard for you to comprehend.
Part of me wants to take that for an insult, and the other takes it for a compliment!
You cannot pay me to play it if it’s like h5.
With the increased tech skill of Halo 5’s movement, yes. I find it more satisfying to play than the ponderous nature of the previous games; I’ve been going back and forth between the MCC and Halo 5, and I find the old games to be enjoyable, but also boring by comparison. Simple can be good, but I don’t feel as engaged as I do in a round of Halo 5. Halo 5 is the closest the franchise has come to playing like Quake, given the various methods for increasing your movement speed, even if only in temporary bursts, and I enjoy the hell out of that kind of game. It provides more options for the player, more tactics to master and use in a battle.
> 2533274900668879;25:
> I feel like it shouldn’t, for a number of reasons including but not limited to;
> - Homogenisation; in other words, a lack of originality in a crowded market.
Halo is currently the only major arena FPS on the console market. No need to change that for Halo Infinite, and so it wouldn’t be occupying a crowded market. On the contrary, the arena shooter as a concept is a dying breed, which may be more telling about Halo’s current status than anything specific to this franchise.
> 2533274900668879;25:
> - A lack of interest from the non-vocal majority as evidenced by declining sales and player retention of mobility shooters juxtaposed against the community response and financial success of franchises that have reverted to their core design philosophies (i.e. DOOM and CoD).
Call of Duty has shown decreasing sales figures consistently since 2011. WWII did not reinvigorate the franchise; of the modern COD games (modern referring to 2007’s Modern Warfare onward) it’s the worst selling of them all at 12.19 million, even worse than Infinite Warfare. Even its xbox live ranking is just barely beating out Black Ops III by a few positions, which is almost unheard of for a sequel. And while Doom returned to classic campaign mechanics such as no reloads and carrying all weapons, it also injected entirely new mechanics to modernize the game, and the multiplayer wasn’t even a proper arena shooter. The game was fantastic from every conceivable design angle; it wasn’t the classic mechanics alone that bought it praise.
> 2533274900668879;25:
> - The gradual decline in recurring players since Reach, the first to implement Sprint, predictably followed by a sharp spike with Halo 4 which had the steepest population drop of any Halo game to date, only marginally recovering with Halo 5.
You cannot possibly reduce the franchise’s player retention down to a single mechanic, not when player retention for a AAA game is less to do with the mechanics and more to do with marketability. If people were running away from Halo because of sprint, they wouldn’t have flocked to Call of Duty and now games like PUBG and Fortnite. But these games were the new “in” at the time; Halo plateau’d, just as Quake did. Quake hasn’t changed any of its fundamental mechanics in 20 years, but that franchise has waned into niche-hood all the same, shedding even veteran fans due to any number of reasons. Like Halo, Quake was once the go-to shooter for multiplayer. Then it was Halo, and the console market took off. Then it was Call of Duty, etc. etc. The point is, Halo peaked at a time when it had no competition to speak of. Everyone played Halo because there was nothing else to play that was well known and easy to get into. Everyone’s friends played Halo so they played Halo too. As the market became more crowded, people moved on to other, more immediately rewarding experiences.
As a rule of thumb, people will flock to the more rewarding, casual experience. It might come as a shock, but in 2007, Halo was that game. But as I said earlier, arena shooters in general are a dying breed of game. They are punishing when gamers want to be rewarded. So for a 3 year old arena shooter in 2018, one that’s exclusive to the least popular console of the generation, Halo 5 is doing well, just behind Battlefield 1 in Xbox Live ranking. All of the shooters ahead of halo 5 have something in common: none of them are arena shooters. They’re all either hero or tactical twitch shooters. The only other arena shooter on the list is Gears of War 4, and that sits far lower on the list than Halo, despite that game also staying rigorously true to its classic mechanics.
Marketability is what dominates player retention; Warframe provides the objectively better gaming experience over Destiny 2, but Destiny 2 trounces Warframe in player numbers despite Warframe also being completely free (as an aside, Halo 5 is beating Warframe as well). Halo will never win back the numbers from its glory days without something that can catch the attention of the masses, and a massive overhaul like that is something this community doesn’t want–and frankly, one this franchise doesn’t really need, no more than Halo needs to return to its glory day numbers. The reaction to Infinite is fantastic, but I feel Halo is at a comfortable place with its gameplay; if it becomes the next big thing all over again, sprint will have very little to do with it either way.
Halo 5’s gameplay feels really cluttered with buttons and overly dependent on the mobility system to function, imo. Ideally, that’s addressed QUICKLY in Halo Infinite. Regardless of what happens, what needs to happen for me personally to enjoy it is a couple things:
- Thrust is now the left thumbstick, the same way that clicking the right thumbstick makes you crouch. - Jump height is increased/height of ledges is decreased to make the majority of jumps not dependent on Clamber. - Strafe acceleration is increased 20% from Halo 5. Gives strafing and base movement better interplay with Sprint, if it’s going to remain. - De-sprint stays, it works really well at stopping escapes. Shield recharge delay does not (because now you have a mechanic that’s supposed to speed up the game, slowing it down). - Unlikely, but the ability to shoot during sprint, either in base gameplay or custom game options, along with the ability to change sprint to limited use again.All that really needs to happen for Sprint or any of the Spartan Abilities, really, to be more liked by those who prefer not to have them, they need to offer good interplay with the classic Halo gameplay underneath it.
They better have classic gameplay or Halo will die. This is 343i’s last chance to make a good Halo game.
i dont like the idea of a map because it makes spartans too op and makes no sense if you have a map for an area you haven’t explored. motion sensors are cool
> 2535416198868046;30:
> They better have classic gameplay or Halo will die. This is 343i’s last chance to make a good Halo game.
Completely agree. Classic Halo gameplay or Halo’s dead forever. I LOVE Halo and it’s my favorite franchise… but I don’t play it anymore and that really sucks. I hope Halo Infinite is everything I imagined Halo could be. In the words of the internet: I C O N I C.
> 2533274876631466;4:
> People can complain about how Halo 5’s multiplayer “wasn’t classic enough,” but it did retain the most steady population since Halo 3 (According to Bravo). One could argue that the stream of content updates had a role in that, but it’s important to recognize that new content won’t make players come back if the gameplay isn’t good.
“The most steady population” you’re joking right? H5 was probably hot stuff for like a week. And people dropped off when they realized the -Yoink- campaign and the lack of features. Forge and theater were no where to be found at launch. And when theater did show up it was broken as -Yoink-. Lack of big team battle and waiting 3 months for infection? Not to mention due to all of this h5 was the worst selling halo game in history. Now if you mean steady as in it’s contastntly Around the number 20 for most played game? Sure but it was no where NEAR halo 3.
EDIT: also forgot to mention that halo 5 had to go on game pass because they realized they -Yoinked!- up.
> 2535416198868046;30:
> They better have classic gameplay or Halo will die. This is 343i’s last chance to make a good Halo game
>
>
> > 2535416198868046;30:
> > They better have classic gameplay or Halo will die. This is 343i’s last chance to make a good Halo game.
>
> Amen, in Jesus name
There are multiple reasons I think Halo Infinite should not continue with the gameplay style of Halo 5.
The first bunch of reasons are the reasons I personally disliked it. First, the Spartan Abilities were an absurdly complex system for something that added very little depth to gameplay. If Halo Infinite is to retain parts of it, it should ditch the idea of numerous abilities, and concentrate on having a single, well thought out and implemented movement ability that the game builds around. Secondly come all the issues with these Spartan Abilities that negatively impacted gameplay, the listing of which would bloat this post too much, but feel free to ask for details. These issues vary from ones related to depth, all the way to purely philosophical ones.
The other reasons relate to the place of Halo in in the FPS genre, and the success of Halo 5. It failed to set itself apart as a unique game, with many other major triple-A games coming out with similar ideas at the same time, not to mention the inclusion mechanics purely intended to make it feel more similar to other popular shooters, such as sprint and ADS. I believe Halo should find its unique niche, because I believe every game should seek to have their unique niche, since that makes the medium altogether more diverse, richer, and ultimately more interesting.
The matter of uniqueness nicely rolls in to the topic of success. First of all, we don’t know very accurately how successful Halo 5, because 343i and Microsoft have been very tight lipped about its success (which some people have used as evidence that it likely hasn’t been very successful). However, from rough estimates of its population. However, on the basis of discussion in the Halo 5 population discussion thread, it seems like it was peaking around 40,000 three months after release [1]. While not staggeringly low, that would put it below Halo 4 at the 100 day mark [2, see figure 7]. Conservatively we can say that if the above estimate of 40,000 low-balls it, Halo 5 can’t have been significantly more populated than Halo 4, because low-balling it by more than a factor of two seems unlikely. The popularity of Halo 4, on the other hand, is rather well documented [3]. Therefore it seems like the current style of gameplay hasn’t worked well for Halo. I personally believe this is due to general lack of uniqueness, and pushback from fans, but those are just my beliefs based on anecdotal evidence, not hard data.
> 2533274876631466;4:
> People can complain about how Halo 5’s multiplayer “wasn’t classic enough,” but it did retain the most steady population since Halo 3 (According to Bravo). One could argue that the stream of content updates had a role in that, but it’s important to recognize that new content won’t make players come back if the gameplay isn’t good.
That comment has always been somewhat dubious, since we don’t know how Bravo in this case judged “steadiness”, not to mention that the steadiness doesn’t tell much about the absolute popularity of a game. A game that starts with a small initial population can retain a very steady population of, say, around a thousand players throughout its lifetime, but one would be hard pressed to say that the game is doing well compared to a game that has a large initial drop, but still gets 10,000 players every day after many years. Bravo’s comment is a curiosity that tells us nothing useful about the popularity of Halo 5.
> 2533274820791741;11:
> Hello, I have been a Halo fan since Halo first came out. I have loved it’s gaming essence, both campaign and multi-player. I feel that things need to change in multi-player. Many of my friends and myself find that there should be running, customize your load out’s, similar to COD. I feel certain that if changes such as these came to be reality, a newborn surge for Halo will be evident.
Guess what. That game already exists. you know what it’s called? Halo 4. And guess what? That games population base was INFAMOUS for dying out. Directly BECAUSE of customizable load outs and that cod feeling. This is exactly why halo is in the situation it’s in now. Because they keep trying to follow trends instead of focusing on what made halo great.
Yes it should but way more maps
> 2533274798011936;28:
> With the increased tech skill of Halo 5’s movement, yes. I find it more satisfying to play than the ponderous nature of the previous games; I’ve been going back and forth between the MCC and Halo 5, and I find the old games to be enjoyable, but also boring by comparison. Simple can be good, but I don’t feel as engaged as I do in a round of Halo 5. Halo 5 is the closest the franchise has come to playing like Quake, given the various methods for increasing your movement speed, even if only in temporary bursts, and I enjoy the hell out of that kind of game. It provides more options for the player, more tactics to master and use in a battle.
>
>
> > 2533274900668879;25:
> > I feel like it shouldn’t, for a number of reasons including but not limited to;
> > - Homogenisation; in other words, a lack of originality in a crowded market.
>
> Halo is currently the only major arena FPS on the console market. No need to change that for Halo Infinite, and so it wouldn’t be occupying a crowded market. On the contrary, the arena shooter as a concept is a dying breed, which may be more telling about Halo’s current status than anything specific to this franchise.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274900668879;25:
> > - A lack of interest from the non-vocal majority as evidenced by declining sales and player retention of mobility shooters juxtaposed against the community response and financial success of franchises that have reverted to their core design philosophies (i.e. DOOM and CoD).
>
> Call of Duty has shown decreasing sales figures consistently since 2011. WWII did not reinvigorate the franchise; of the modern COD games (modern referring to 2007’s Modern Warfare onward) it’s the worst selling of them all at 12.19 million, even worse than Infinite Warfare. Even its xbox live ranking is just barely beating out Black Ops III by a few positions, which is almost unheard of for a sequel. And while Doom returned to classic campaign mechanics such as no reloads and carrying all weapons, it also injected entirely new mechanics to modernize the game, and the multiplayer wasn’t even a proper arena shooter. The game was fantastic from every conceivable design angle; it wasn’t the classic mechanics alone that bought it praise.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274900668879;25:
> > - The gradual decline in recurring players since Reach, the first to implement Sprint, predictably followed by a sharp spike with Halo 4 which had the steepest population drop of any Halo game to date, only marginally recovering with Halo 5.
>
> You cannot possibly reduce the franchise’s player retention down to a single mechanic, not when player retention for a AAA game is less to do with the mechanics and more to do with marketability. If people were running away from Halo because of sprint, they wouldn’t have flocked to Call of Duty and now games like PUBG and Fortnite. But these games were the new “in” at the time; Halo plateau’d, just as Quake did. Quake hasn’t changed any of its fundamental mechanics in 20 years, but that franchise has waned into niche-hood all the same, shedding even veteran fans due to any number of reasons. Like Halo, Quake was once the go-to shooter for multiplayer. Then it was Halo, and the console market took off. Then it was Call of Duty, etc. etc. The point is, Halo peaked at a time when it had no competition to speak of. Everyone played Halo because there was nothing else to play that was well known and easy to get into. Everyone’s friends played Halo so they played Halo too. As the market became more crowded, people moved on to other, more immediately rewarding experiences.
>
> As a rule of thumb, people will flock to the more rewarding, casual experience. It might come as a shock, but in 2007, Halo was that game. But as I said earlier, arena shooters in general are a dying breed of game. They are punishing when gamers want to be rewarded. So for a 3 year old arena shooter in 2018, one that’s exclusive to the least popular console of the generation, Halo 5 is doing well, just behind Battlefield 1 in Xbox Live ranking. All of the shooters ahead of halo 5 have something in common: none of them are arena shooters. They’re all either hero or tactical twitch shooters. The only other arena shooter on the list is Gears of War 4, and that sits far lower on the list than Halo, despite that game also staying rigorously true to its classic mechanics.
>
> Marketability is what dominates player retention; Warframe provides the objectively better gaming experience over Destiny 2, but Destiny 2 trounces Warframe in player numbers despite Warframe also being completely free (as an aside, Halo 5 is beating Warframe as well). Halo will never win back the numbers from its glory days without something that can catch the attention of the masses, and a massive overhaul like that is something this community doesn’t want–and frankly, one this franchise doesn’t really need, no more than Halo needs to return to its glory day numbers. The reaction to Infinite is fantastic, but I feel Halo is at a comfortable place with its gameplay; if it becomes the next big thing all over again, sprint will have very little to do with it either way.
The reason cod WWII died out is because of -Yoink- streaks and snipers not being balanced. On top of that the infinite warfare trailer had a -Yoink- ton of dislikes and sledgehammer saw that so the time had to scrap advanced warfare 2 and make COD WWII. Sprint isn’t the reason halo is the way it is now? Yeah I agree it’s a collection of things. Adding sprint changed up the gameplay and halo kept missing things that halo should have day 1. H5 infection and big team battle were gone. Forge and theater mode were gone. H5 had a 6 month wait time for forge. And when h5 DID get theater it was broken as all -Yoink-. Also h4 added loadouts and gave EVERYONE sprint and that game is known for how quick the population died. It’s not just sprint no. But it’s PART of the reason. Lastly, halo had no competition? Are you -Yoinking!- kidding me? So in you’re mind no game from 2006-2009 was good enough to give halo competition? Grand theft auto 4 and gears of war weren’t good enough? Battlefield bad company wasn’t good enough? I can’t believe people are using that arguement ಠ_ಠ I even have a video lined up and ready to go to destroy that argument "Halo was only REALLY POPULAR Because it had No Competition" is a BS Argument - YouTube
Yes.
Halo 6 should focus mainly on Halo 5’s smooth and fluid mechanics. Keep what is good like clamber, smart link, ground pound, slide and trusted pack and then look what is most debatable like sprint and Spartan change, tweak them or remove them.
Anyone who says that the Spartan abilities dont add a layer of depth has not played enough of halo 5. Halo 5 has even starts and that is what makes it halo to me. As long as I start on an even playing field then I can say it is an arena shooter as halo is meant to be. The Spartan abilities only made the skill gap bigger. Anyone who took the time to master the Spartan abilities would be rewarded but would also play people just as good with them.
Also Sprint is not a problem playing halo 5. You cannot just Sprint away in the middle of a fight. Trying to Sprint while being shot at cancels your Sprint. If someone sprints there way into a bad position then they are done for.
Many people didn’t really try to master the Spartan abilities and judge it off that. I’m not saying the classic movement is bad, to me it’s just a different way to do the same things. What I mean is that the movements mechanics are not what make halo a halo game.