> 2533274930223782;38:
> > 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
GTA and Gears are not even the same genre. Whatever your argument is against that argument is irrelevant. Early Halo games had no competition to very little competition.
