So easy to understand, so why..? A message to 343

Hello 343 staff, how are you today?

(First of all, my first language is french, so please excuse any mistakes I may include here… Secondo, this post is only about the matchmaking side of Halo, not the campaigns)

So, I checked your vid about the Halo 5 multiplayer gameplay (since you said you were listening to the Halo community), and just after the vid, I said to myself : what is so hard to understand? Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin?

Lot’s of player’s told you what to do (that is, to keep it simple), but since “the Halo community” is not something that actually exist (Player “A” says to add “X”, but player “B” says that it’s a bad idea and that we should remove “X”…), therefore I think we should just look at how great human games (not just video games) works, from historical facts and not from personal opinions… So, let’s have a very simplified history class about games…

Let’s take a quick look at the immense success of the Chess game.

In it’s earliest form, around the 6th century (and earlier), there were 4 divisions of military, instead of the 2 sides we have right now (important note here ; see, it eventually EVOLVED by having LESS STUFF, so yeah, its possible to do that and not feeling ashamed, on the contrary, seeing the immense success of the Chess game)…). When it arrived in Russia and Europe, the game EVOLVED (in the 15th century), by making the game simpler in appearance (like I said, having 2 sides attacking each other, instead of 4), but since the game was simpler, some minor changes were welcomed to add to the strategic side of the game (things like “pawns” gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move etc…).

When Chess reached THE MATURITY AND THE IMMENSE SUCCESS WE NOW KNOW (in the 15th-16th century), the game was considered to be solid, credible and replayable. So, THEY STOPPED MESSING AROUND WITH THE FOUNDATION OF THE GAME, and they let THE PLAYER’S be brilliant and good at the game, inside it’s “proven, solid, credible and replayable” parameters.

“Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no? With their hundreds of thousands of players, each one playing thousands of matches every years, during several years and never growing tired of those games, we can clearly CONFIRM that there were “proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” in those games.

Now, what happened with Halo Reach & Halo 4? Hype at first, so, good sales, build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies, high number of players in the first months after release, and after that? A rapidly declining population.

So, what happened?

Simple.

The developers though that since those were newer games, they should have MORE crazy stuffs than the previous ones.

The big mistake was right there.

Armor abilities, jet packs, THRUSTER PACKS (hello, Halo 5!), sprint, almost infinite invisibility etc… Those are the things that didn’t RESPECT the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3.

Why?

Because it’s too much annoying stuffs, and people don’t play games to be consistently annoyed, they play games to accomplish things and to get better inside “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just like the chess players do.

In the years after the Chess game reached it’s successful “proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” state (just like Halo 2 & 3 did), great Chess player’s didn’t want the game to have MORE STUFF, (exactly like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmicks) they simply wanted to get better at this great, successful, credible game. People didn’t ask the game to be changed by including more "Queen’s, more knight’s, more rooks, more bishops, dragon’s & meteorites destroying the other side in one shot. People felt the game had an awesome mechanic and they were INTERESTED in GETTING BETTER inside THIS GREAT, SIMPLE (IN APPEARANCE ONLY) MECHANIC.

"GREAT, SIMPLE (IN APPEARANCE ONLY) MECHANIC. Sounds like Halo 2 & 3.

When I was playing high level Lone wolves players (45 to 50) in H3, I can tell you that the SIMPLE (IN APPEARANCE ONLY) MECHANICS of Halo 3 was COMPLICATED ENOUGH, by HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE HIGH INTELLIGENCE & SKILLS OF THE GREAT PLAYERS I WAS FACING. It was awesome, because I was killed mostly by the skill and the intelligence of a player, not by annoying, stupid gimmicks. I had to get better and be more intelligent than my opponents, if not, I would loose. The LAST THING I NEEDED (important note here, THE LAST THING) was to deal with 50s that were in… Jet packs, sometimes constantly invisible, sometimes constantly deploying a shield or constantly seeing through walls.

This is where the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.

This is also when the matchmaking population of Halo dropped.

Coincidence?

No.

Now, I’m the millionth player telling you this (I just did it my way), but I felt the need to look in the past of games, to see what make a game great & replayable, so that the franchise that brought me back to gaming, Halo, can have a bright future again…

Now, 343, you can give thruster packs, sprint and the “earthquake jump” to everyone in the halo 5 matchmaking if you want too, but those are exactly the things that will make your game less credible, that will “turn off” your elite player’s (and even some casual ones).

Your elite player’s are your foundation.

Like Hockey is based on the NHL, not on the junior leagues.

Like the official basketball rules are made by the NBA, not by the college leagues.

Casual player’s also like to play by the rules of the professionals. Because they feel they play in something that has shown his credibility and that they can be proud of themselves if they do well in those boundaries.

Pro player’s, on the other hands, don’t like to play by casual, approximate standards.

I’m not a pro Halo player, but I like playing by the pro standards, because I know that when I get better, I get better in a CREDIBLE FRAMEWORK.

And that’s where true satisfaction come from.

And true satisfaction is fun.

… And fun is why we play games.

Thank you, and if I made you think, my mission is completed.

  • A passionate, classic Halo matchmaking player.

Funny how most people that have to say english is not their first language, they speak much better compared to main english speakers.

You touched on good points, likely the same ones most fans would bring up against change in the Halo series. But really I think it’s too early to call since the majority doesn’t have access to the beta, but also too late possibly to make sudden changes back to norm.

Still kudos for having a good heart on ya.

i agree,

they should have made this a new ip.

you dont take chess and turn it into checkers

you dont take league and turn it into dota.

you dont take halo and turn it into cod.

why they’re trying to evolve the game this way is beyond me. this should be a new ip and new game, its an insult to call this halo 5.

> 2535464782052719;3:
> i agree,
>
> they should have made this a new ip.
>
> you dont take chess and turn it into checkers
>
> you dont take league and turn it into dota.
>
> you dont take halo and turn it into cod.
>
> why they’re trying to evolve the game this way is beyond me. this should be a new ip and new game, its an insult to call this halo 5.

Much of these abilities were shown before AW was announced, not to mention these abilities work differently or already existed in previous halos(ground pound and thruster), did I forget to mention that everyone has these abilities? This isn’t to far off from halo, in fact it’s almost right on the money

> 2535443515466656;4:
> > 2535464782052719;3:
> > i agree,
> >
> > they should have made this a new ip.
> >
> > you dont take chess and turn it into checkers
> >
> > you dont take league and turn it into dota.
> >
> > you dont take halo and turn it into cod.
> >
> > why they’re trying to evolve the game this way is beyond me. this should be a new ip and new game, its an insult to call this halo 5.
>
>
> Much of these abilities were shown before AW was announced, not to mention these abilities work differently or already existed in previous halos(ground pound and thruster)

The first trailer for the mutiplayer? It wasn’t really known if that was cinematic flair or gameplay hints at the time, and I believe most of us thought it to be the former.

> 2533274808578327;5:
> > 2535443515466656;4:
> > > 2535464782052719;3:
> > > i agree,
> > >
> > > they should have made this a new ip.
> > >
> > > you dont take chess and turn it into checkers
> > >
> > > you dont take league and turn it into dota.
> > >
> > > you dont take halo and turn it into cod.
> > >
> > > why they’re trying to evolve the game this way is beyond me. this should be a new ip and new game, its an insult to call this halo 5.
> >
> >
> >
> > Much of these abilities were shown before AW was announced, not to mention these abilities work differently or already existed in previous halos(ground pound and thruster)
>
>
> The first trailer for the mutiplayer? It wasn’t really known if that was cinematic flair or gameplay hints at the time, and I believe most of us thought it to be the former.

They showcased exactly what they were going to put in the game, regardless of what we thought in was.

Was a great read. I had similar thoughts myself when Reach came out, and those thoughts amplified further when I got my hands on H4. I think there’s a reason for the trend. There is a misconception happening in the gaming industry as a whole right now, not just with the Halo series, that more = better and that change should be drastic and immediate. This misconception has driven lackluster development, which leads to assimilation. This has been apparent in most big titles these days, and the fanbases don’t seem too thrilled about it. I just went over and visited an AW thread for comparison and there is discontent all over the place, perhaps even worse than these forums.

> 2533274808666777;7:
> Was a great read. I had similar thoughts myself when Reach came out, and those thoughts amplified further when I got my hands on H4. I think there’s a reason for the trend. There is a misconception happening in the gaming industry as a whole right now, not just with the Halo series, that more = better and that change should be drastic and immediate. This misconception has driven lackluster development, which leads to assimilation. This has been apparent in most big titles these days, and the fanbases don’t seem too thrilled about it. I just went over and visited an AW thread for comparison and there is discontent all over the place, perhaps even worse than these forums.

If you think about though, the new halo isn’t very complex. You just join a match and play with what is given to you, there are no loadouts or weapon attachment or kill streaks. It’s just you, your gun and a handful of abilities that everyone else has.

Thank you for proving this guy right.

> 2535443515466656;8:
> > 2533274808666777;7:
> > Was a great read. I had similar thoughts myself when Reach came out, and those thoughts amplified further when I got my hands on H4. I think there’s a reason for the trend. There is a misconception happening in the gaming industry as a whole right now, not just with the Halo series, that more = better and that change should be drastic and immediate. This misconception has driven lackluster development, which leads to assimilation. This has been apparent in most big titles these days, and the fanbases don’t seem too thrilled about it. I just went over and visited an AW thread for comparison and there is discontent all over the place, perhaps even worse than these forums.
>
>
> If you think about though, the new halo isn’t very complex. You just join a match and play with what is given to you, there are no loadouts or weapon attachment or kill streaks. It’s just you, your gun and a handful of abilities that everyone else has.

Whether or not the changes themselves are drastic is subjective, but that there are indeed numerous changes is objective. I never stated that H5 seems complex to me. I do, however, agree with the OP in that adding more features does not inherently imply that the game is improving, as these new features may inadvertently work to take away from what made earlier Halo titles so statistically popular.

> 2533274973373704;9:
> Thank you for proving this guy right.

Depends on the change, there doesn’t have to be drastic ones in order for things to feel fresh and fun.

> 2533274973373704;9:
> Thank you for proving this guy right.

You’ve oversimplified this person’s post, which is disrespectful. Stating that change for the sake of change doesn’t guarantee productivity doesn’t mean that change is inherently flawed or unwelcome. Healthy change is always welcome, ie, forge, firefight, vehicle boarding, dual wielding, playable elites, weapon expansion (sword, laser, etc), and imo, thrusters. You cannot blanket all change as good or bad, or welcome or unwelcome, nor can you blanket all people who are against X change as haters of change. It is logically flawed and socially irresponsible.

> Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin

> “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?

> build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies

> like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick

> the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.

What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.

> 2533274973373704;13:
> > Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin
>
>
>
>
> > “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?
>
>
>
>
> > build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies
>
>
>
>
> > like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick
>
>
>
>
> > the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.
>
>
> What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.

And why do I praise Halo 2 & 3 again? Because of this (maybe you missed it) —> “With their hundreds of thousands of players, playing thousands of matches every years, during several years with never growing tired of those games, we can clearly CONFIRM that there were “proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” in those games.”

I think it deserve praise, don’t you think? :slight_smile:

> 2533274973373704;13:
> > Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin
>
>
>
>
> > “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?
>
>
>
>
> > build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies
>
>
>
>
> > like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick
>
>
>
>
> > the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.
>
>
> What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.

If we are going to reference Halo’s success, HCE through H3 are the obvious candidates.

Halo 4’s population plummet

This time with Reach’s population plummet added in for visual flair

Altogether now (notice that it took 3 years for H3 to significantly drop)

A nice Halo 2 population demonstration

I don’t understand how correctly referencing the most succesful titles of the series is an issue with you. Care to explain?

> 2533274808666777;15:
> > 2533274973373704;13:
> > > Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.
>
>
> If we are going to reference Halo’s success, HCE through H3 are the obvious candidates.
>
> Halo 4’s population plummet
> Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
>
> This time with Reach’s population plummet added in for visual flair
> Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
>
> Altogether now (notice that it took 3 years for H3 to significantly drop)
> http://i.imgur.com/4qZTvWe.png
>
> A nice Halo 2 population demonstration
> http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o165/fyrewulff/halo2_gpd.jpg
>
> I don’t understand how correctly referencing the most succesful titles of the series is an issue with you. Care to explain?

Ugh, that Halo 4 line is sooo depressing to look at…

> 2533274816948573;14:
> > 2533274973373704;13:
> > > Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.
>
>
> And why do I praise Halo 2 & 3 again? Because of this (maybe you missed it) —> “With their hundreds of thousands of players, playing thousands of matches every years, during several years with never growing tired of those games, we can clearly CONFIRM that there were “proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” in those games.”
>
> I think it deserve praise, don’t you think? :slight_smile:

Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair to compare 4’s multiplayer popularity to 2-3’s? Back when 2-3 released, there wasn’t much of a competition (beside CoD MW, which was the first CoD game to achieve such success). Halo 4 on the other hand, had CoD BO 2 (A game which sold 24.2 million copy), CoD Ghost (19 million copy) and BF 3 . That’ll sure keep a lot of people busy from playing any other games. Also, 4 didn’t have any MLG support, which was, imo, the biggest mistake with this game. Keep in mind the very, very bad community reaction, or, may I say, OVER-reaction. A lot of casual players I personally know told me how Halo 4 sucks, and when I asked why, they said that this’s what everyone’s saying on the internet.

> If we are going to reference Halo’s success, HCE through H3 are the obvious candidates.
> Halo 4’s population plummet
> Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
> This time with Reach’s population plummet added in for visual flair
> Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
> Altogether now (notice that it took 3 years for H3 to significantly drop)
> http://i.imgur.com/4qZTvWe.png
> A nice Halo 2 population demonstration
> http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o165/fyrewulff/halo2_gpd.jpg
> I don’t understand how correctly referencing the most succesful titles of the series is an issue with you. Care to explain?

Sorry, but these images don’t seem legit to me. Maybe the first 2, but not the rest. I can easily photoshop similar ones.

> 2533274973373704;17:
> > 2533274816948573;14:
> > > 2533274973373704;13:
> > > > Why can’t they grasp the simple concepts that made the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayers as addictive as heroin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters”, just sound like the Halo 2 & 3 matchmakings, no?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > build from the Halo 2 & 3 multiplayer legacies
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > like the H2 & H3 player’s didn’t ask for more gimmick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > the “Proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” of Halo 2 & 3 were completely crushed in halo Reach & Halo 4.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What did you guys say again? Can’t hear you over the loud Halo 2-3 praise.
> >
> >
> >
> > And why do I praise Halo 2 & 3 again? Because of this (maybe you missed it) —> “With their hundreds of thousands of players, playing thousands of matches every years, during several years with never growing tired of those games, we can clearly CONFIRM that there were “proven, solid, credible and replayable parameters” in those games.”
> >
> > I think it deserve praise, don’t you think? :slight_smile:
>
>
>
>
> Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair to compare 4’s multiplayer popularity to 2-3’s? Back when 2-3 released, there wasn’t much of a competition (beside CoD MW, which was the first CoD game to achieve such success). Halo 4 on the other hand, had CoD BO 2 (A game which sold 24.2 million copy), CoD Ghost (19 million copy) and BF 3 . That’ll sure keep a lot of people busy from playing any other games. Also, 4 didn’t have any MLG support, which was, imo, the biggest mistake with this game. Keep in mind the very, very bad community reaction, or, may I say, OVER-reaction. A lot of casual players I personally know told me how Halo 4 sucks, and when I asked why, they said that this’s what everyone’s saying on the internet.
>
>
>
> > If we are going to reference Halo’s success, HCE through H3 are the obvious candidates.
> > Halo 4’s population plummet
> > Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
> > This time with Reach’s population plummet added in for visual flair
> > Raptr Makes Gaming Manuals in PDF | The gogopdf Blog
> > Altogether now (notice that it took 3 years for H3 to significantly drop)
> > http://i.imgur.com/4qZTvWe.png
> > A nice Halo 2 population demonstration
> > http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o165/fyrewulff/halo2_gpd.jpg
> > I don’t understand how correctly referencing the most succesful titles of the series is an issue with you. Care to explain?
>
>
> Sorry, but these images don’t seem legit to me. Maybe the first 2, but not the rest. I can easily photoshop similar ones.

No, it’s not unfair, because right now, with even greater competition than what Halo 4 had to deal with, some games do a lot better than Halo 4 did back then. Give people great, brillant games (like Halo 2 & 3 were) and undreads of thousands of people will play them, despite the fierce competition…

> No, it’s not unfair, because right now, with even greater competition than what Halo 4 had to deal with, some games do a lot better than Halo 4 did back then. Give people great, brillant games (like Halo 2 & 3 were) and undreads of thousands of people will play them, despite the fierce competition…

Mind naming some? I’d like to know what games do well compared to CoD’s insanely high population.

Telling this message specifically to the OP.

And Halo 5 will be competitive like Halo 2 and 3 again. It’s closer to H2 and H3 than it is to Reach and H4.

343i brought back MANY elements from H2 and H3 to H5. Like ranking system, no ordinance, no loadouts, equal starting, no armor abilities, and etc.

Halo 5 atm is far more balanced than H4… and it’s only at its beta stage.

You also have to take into account that MANY people will complain if Halo 5 and future Halo games remained the same for another 10 years. People will say how it’s a copy and paste from previous Halos. They will say how it’s not innovative anymore.

They will say “I’ve played similar games like H5 called H2 and H3. This is getting boring and old.”

It’s NOT like comparing it to chess. Human beings during this time period know more than they did centuries ago. And we have access to parts of the media that catches our attention… which is violence. And bunch of other stuff…

In a video game world, people are far more aggressive and biased. AND this generation of humanity is far more violent than centuries ago.

During the time period in which chess was invented, the human race was very limited to what they could do (compared to now). There was no media. No video games. No movies. No TV shows. And etc. The human population was FAR less than it is now. And was just overall less violent.

Then as humanity began to expand, as governments began to rise, as population grew, as each human individual interact more often due to population size, we as humans began to abuse our rights. The innovation of movies and video games caused us act more aggressive. And IIRC, America in the 1960s was when people really started getting into drugs and alcohols.

Chess was invented during a non violent time period. Non violent compared to what we’re dealing with now. The rules of Chess has remained the same. Because there was not much interaction about chess (no media) and therefore not much hate. And… chess was not a violent game.

Then as technology improves, we began gain knowledge about outside world at an accelerating rate.
<div>
And like I said, media also causes many people to act rampant. Movies and video games are just parts of it.

Human beings are naturally violent. We enjoy watching fights in media. Part of the reason why we love video games. Chess is NOT violent compared to COD, Halo, Titanfall. How about Dead Space, Gears of War, Doom, The Evil Within, and etc. And then there’s movies…

Comparing Chess to Halo is uneven. That world in which chess was invented is long gone. Just because chess stayed the same, doesn’t mean Halo can. The human community and media is what swayed 343i to make the decisions they made.

I can invent chess in America during the 15th century. While someone in China can invent another board game during the SAME time period. But will I ever know??? Nope… because media doesn’t exist that time. So chances are, I won’t combine the rules of MY game… chess and HIS game to form a new “Chess 2” game.

Halo is violent. Chess isn’t. Therefore the fans/community between the two games is not comparable. Chess was also known for being one of the FIRST strategy games ever made. So it’s ICONIC and therefore the rules will never change.

Moral of what I am saying… It’s not comparable as the world has changed. Same goes to basketball… The fans of basketball are far less violent than video game fans.

P.S.
I’m not too worried about Halo 5. Like I stated earlier, it retains the core elements from Halo 2 and 3. The formula is the same. They just added more variations. It’s faster paced. More intense. And I encourage you to try it out before making a final judgment. I, for one, am definitely looking forward to it. I’m also glad to say that 343i decided to take a “leap of faith.” It’s risky… but has the potential to be the biggest Halo game…</div>