Edited by Moderator - Please do not post flamebait.
> If you want a new game you aren’t a true Halo fan. It’s plain and simple GO PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME if you want Halo 4 to be different from the past Halo’s
>
> Don’t ruin what us…the real Halo fans love k thanks.
Are you a Reach fan?
> > If you want a new game you aren’t a true Halo fan. It’s plain and simple GO PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME if you want Halo 4 to be different from the past Halo’s
> >
> > Don’t ruin what us…the real Halo fans love k thanks.
>
> Are you a Reach fan?
that a joke?
Halo: CE → Halo 2 → Halo 3 -->* Halo 4
A continuation. I don’t want Halo 2.5 but I don’t want a “Whole new game Halo 4”, I want A CONTINUATION. Learn what worked and what didn’t from the past Halo games.
*Reach is here, and while not a very good Halo game there are definitely things to learn and take from it.
i really find it funny how bungie made 4 main halo games…and continued to cahnge that woudl did not need to be changed.
you can’t just change things and hope for the best…DERP!
i want halo to be like the old games if its not i will have to quit.
I want Halo 4 to be new. That doesn’t mean overhaul everything and make it like Reach. Reach was an ok game, but it wasn’t as fun as previous ones IMO. Do I want a Halo 2.5 or 3.5? No… I’d rather not Halo start turning into CoD or Madden with tiny, insignificant changes to the gameplay and call it a different game for 60 bucks.
> I want Halo 4 to be new. That doesn’t mean overhaul everything and make it like Reach. Reach was an ok game, but it wasn’t as fun as previous ones IMO. Do I want a Halo 2.5 or 3.5? No… I’d rather not Halo start turning into CoD or Madden with tiny, insignificant changes to the gameplay and call it a different game for 60 bucks.
why do you think cod fans STILL PLAY?
> > I want Halo 4 to be new. That doesn’t mean overhaul everything and make it like Reach. Reach was an ok game, but it wasn’t as fun as previous ones IMO. Do I want a Halo 2.5 or 3.5? No… I’d rather not Halo start turning into CoD or Madden with tiny, insignificant changes to the gameplay and call it a different game for 60 bucks.
>
> why do you think cod fans STILL PLAY?
I don’t care why CoD fans still play the same rehashed game play over and over. It’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
Stop with these "make it like insert game threads
They will never make Halo 4 like Halo 2.
They are adding a “whole different experience”
Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE argument. If Halo doesn’t innovate at all, you may as well bury it in the ground and slam a gravestone above it. Reach-style innovation was a little too extreme, but something new-ish (Like duel-wielding or equipment) worked brilliantly. Have you NOT played Halo 3!? Possibly the greatest experience to be had on the xbox 360!
Too much innovation = Bad, goodbye, Halo.
Innovation = Good, hey, cool! This is new!
No innovation = I played this five years ago… I’m bored now.
So yeah, that’s my argument.
> > > I want Halo 4 to be new. That doesn’t mean overhaul everything and make it like Reach. Reach was an ok game, but it wasn’t as fun as previous ones IMO. Do I want a Halo 2.5 or 3.5? No… I’d rather not Halo start turning into CoD or Madden with tiny, insignificant changes to the gameplay and call it a different game for 60 bucks.
> >
> > why do you think cod fans STILL PLAY?
>
> I don’t care why CoD fans still play the same rehashed game play over and over. It’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
you do that!
So you start a thread inciting an argument. That’s productive. Why not explain what you want and don’t want with examples instead of just posting your individual view without anything for other readers to understand and debate about.
Saying “don’t ruin halo for ‘us’” is also pretty arrogant. Having played every game and read every book, each multiple times, I think it is fair to say I am a “true halo fan” as you so put it. I also would like a change. I would hate to see Halo: Reach 2.0. In the same regard I would hate to say Halo 3 2.0, but I would like to feel like Halo 4 has evolved from Halo 2 and 3, not Reach. If you want the same game then you sound more like a CoD fan than a Halo fan. Do not take irate offense to this, but consider the facts:
CoD is released on an annual basis with close to no gameplay mechanic-based innovations. Each title gives a few new ways to customize your experience, some tweaks to your arsenal, and maybe a new playlist or 2 that differs from the previous title. Rarely does a new game-mode appear (zombies), and more recently this game mode has just been tweaked (the human survival mode is what I am referencing, I have no idea what it is called). You can literally pick up MW1, 2 and 3 and have close to the same experience. By saying you want Halo to have no innovations, you want it to go the way of CoD and want to shell out $60 (or more) for a new engine and maps. This is NOT what an informed, intelligent individual wants.
This is far removed from what Halo has done from Halo 2 until present day. We saw the initiation of Matchmaking and the level system in 2. In 3 we were privy to Theatre mode and Forge, along with a hybrid Ranked and Social experience, with an overlying experience-based rank. Halo: ODST was the birth of Firefight (Yes it was originally planned to be built and implemented in Halo 3 but that is irrelevant here). Reach showed us just what Firefight could become with customization and Spartan involvement, along with a much more robust Forge system and the ability to customize gametypes to a whole new level, not to mention the cR system and Arena, regardless of your opinion on either.
It would be against the norm to see Halo 4 be one in the same with a previous title. By the standards set forth over close to a decade now, your ignorant thoughts on how “true halo fans” want that game to be is both unfounded and opposes everything that has happened since the arrival of the Halo Universe.
Now, I fully welcome a counter-argument beyond “you’re wrong, this is how fans like halo”, because there is a debate to be had here, though it has been hashed out many times in close to identical threads.
> Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE argument. If Halo doesn’t innovate at all, you may as well bury it in the ground and slam a gravestone above it. Reach-style innovation was a little too extreme, but something new-ish (Like duel-wielding or equipment) worked brilliantly. Have you NOT played Halo 3!? Possibly the greatest experience to be had on the xbox 360!
>
> Too much innovation = Bad, goodbye, Halo.
>
> Innovation = Good, hey, cool! This is new!
>
> No innovation = I played this five years ago… I’m bored now.
>
> So yeah, that’s my argument.
honestly…if they never made a halo 3…i’d still be playing halo 2 and loving it.
> So you start a thread inciting an argument. That’s productive. Why not explain what you want and don’t want with examples instead of just posting your individual view without anything for other readers to understand and debate about.
>
> Saying “don’t ruin halo for ‘us’” is also pretty arrogant. Having played every game and read every book, each multiple times, I think it is fair to say I am a “true halo fan” as you so put it. I also would like a change. I would hate to see Halo: Reach 2.0. In the same regard I would hate to say Halo 3 2.0, but I would like to feel like Halo 4 has evolved from Halo 2 and 3, not Reach. If you want the same game then you sound more like a CoD fan than a Halo fan. Do not take irate offense to this, but consider the facts:
>
> CoD is released on an annual basis with close to no gameplay mechanic-based innovations. Each title gives a few new ways to customize your experience, some tweaks to your arsenal, and maybe a new playlist or 2 that differs from the previous title. Rarely does a new game-mode appear (zombies), and more recently this game mode has just been tweaked (the human survival mode is what I am referencing, I have no idea what it is called). You can literally pick up MW1, 2 and 3 and have close to the same experience. By saying you want Halo to have no innovations, you want it to go the way of CoD and want to shell out $60 (or more) for a new engine and maps. This is NOT what anyone wants.
>
> This is far removed from what Halo has done from Halo 2 until present day. We saw the initiation of Matchmaking and the level system in 2. In 3 we were privy to Theatre mode and Forge, along with a hybrid Ranked and Social experience, with an overlying experience-based rank. Halo: ODST was the birth of Firefight (Yes it was originally planned to be built and implemented in Halo 3 but that is irrelevant here). Reach showed us just what Firefight could become with customization and Spartan involvement, along with a much more robust Forge system and the ability to customize gametypes to a whole new level.
>
> It would be against the norm to see Halo 4 be one in the same with a previous title. By the standards set forth over close to a decade now, your ignorant thoughts on how “true halo fans” want that game to be is both unfounded and opposes everything that has happened since the arrival of the Halo Universe.
>
> Now, I fully welcome a counter-argument beyond “you’re wrong, this is how fans like halo”, because there is a debate to be had here, though it has been hashed out many times in close to identical threads.
did you seriously just type all that? LOL
> > So you start a thread inciting an argument. That’s productive. Why not explain what you want and don’t want with examples instead of just posting your individual view without anything for other readers to understand and debate about.
> >
> > Saying “don’t ruin halo for ‘us’” is also pretty arrogant. Having played every game and read every book, each multiple times, I think it is fair to say I am a “true halo fan” as you so put it. I also would like a change. I would hate to see Halo: Reach 2.0. In the same regard I would hate to say Halo 3 2.0, but I would like to feel like Halo 4 has evolved from Halo 2 and 3, not Reach. If you want the same game then you sound more like a CoD fan than a Halo fan. Do not take irate offense to this, but consider the facts:
> >
> > CoD is released on an annual basis with close to no gameplay mechanic-based innovations. Each title gives a few new ways to customize your experience, some tweaks to your arsenal, and maybe a new playlist or 2 that differs from the previous title. Rarely does a new game-mode appear (zombies), and more recently this game mode has just been tweaked (the human survival mode is what I am referencing, I have no idea what it is called). You can literally pick up MW1, 2 and 3 and have close to the same experience. By saying you want Halo to have no innovations, you want it to go the way of CoD and want to shell out $60 (or more) for a new engine and maps. This is NOT what anyone wants.
> >
> > This is far removed from what Halo has done from Halo 2 until present day. We saw the initiation of Matchmaking and the level system in 2. In 3 we were privy to Theatre mode and Forge, along with a hybrid Ranked and Social experience, with an overlying experience-based rank. Halo: ODST was the birth of Firefight (Yes it was originally planned to be built and implemented in Halo 3 but that is irrelevant here). Reach showed us just what Firefight could become with customization and Spartan involvement, along with a much more robust Forge system and the ability to customize gametypes to a whole new level.
> >
> > It would be against the norm to see Halo 4 be one in the same with a previous title. By the standards set forth over close to a decade now, your ignorant thoughts on how “true halo fans” want that game to be is both unfounded and opposes everything that has happened since the arrival of the Halo Universe.
> >
> > Now, I fully welcome a counter-argument beyond “you’re wrong, this is how fans like halo”, because there is a debate to be had here, though it has been hashed out many times in close to identical threads.
>
> did you seriously just type all that? LOL
Yes, because it is informative and factual. More to the point it provides substance to an otherwise bare-bones thread. I prefer to read thought-out ideas and opinions rather than 20 1-line posts contributing nothing, much like the one you wrote here. My desire still stands; reply with a counter-argument that provides insight into your opinion.
> > Sorry, but this is a TERRIBLE argument. If Halo doesn’t innovate at all, you may as well bury it in the ground and slam a gravestone above it. Reach-style innovation was a little too extreme, but something new-ish (Like duel-wielding or equipment) worked brilliantly. Have you NOT played Halo 3!? Possibly the greatest experience to be had on the xbox 360!
> >
> > Too much innovation = Bad, goodbye, Halo.
> >
> > Innovation = Good, hey, cool! This is new!
> >
> > No innovation = I played this five years ago… I’m bored now.
> >
> > So yeah, that’s my argument.
>
> honestly…if they never made a halo 3…i’d still be playing halo 2 and loving it.
Same here Halo 2 kept me playing with never ever getting board of the game play more then any other Halo. I was board of Reach with in the first 4 months and I didnt understand why.
> > > So you start a thread inciting an argument. That’s productive. Why not explain what you want and don’t want with examples instead of just posting your individual view without anything for other readers to understand and debate about.
> > >
> > > Saying “don’t ruin halo for ‘us’” is also pretty arrogant. Having played every game and read every book, each multiple times, I think it is fair to say I am a “true halo fan” as you so put it. I also would like a change. I would hate to see Halo: Reach 2.0. In the same regard I would hate to say Halo 3 2.0, but I would like to feel like Halo 4 has evolved from Halo 2 and 3, not Reach. If you want the same game then you sound more like a CoD fan than a Halo fan. Do not take irate offense to this, but consider the facts:
> > >
> > > CoD is released on an annual basis with close to no gameplay mechanic-based innovations. Each title gives a few new ways to customize your experience, some tweaks to your arsenal, and maybe a new playlist or 2 that differs from the previous title. Rarely does a new game-mode appear (zombies), and more recently this game mode has just been tweaked (the human survival mode is what I am referencing, I have no idea what it is called). You can literally pick up MW1, 2 and 3 and have close to the same experience. By saying you want Halo to have no innovations, you want it to go the way of CoD and want to shell out $60 (or more) for a new engine and maps. This is NOT what anyone wants.
> > >
> > > This is far removed from what Halo has done from Halo 2 until present day. We saw the initiation of Matchmaking and the level system in 2. In 3 we were privy to Theatre mode and Forge, along with a hybrid Ranked and Social experience, with an overlying experience-based rank. Halo: ODST was the birth of Firefight (Yes it was originally planned to be built and implemented in Halo 3 but that is irrelevant here). Reach showed us just what Firefight could become with customization and Spartan involvement, along with a much more robust Forge system and the ability to customize gametypes to a whole new level.
> > >
> > > It would be against the norm to see Halo 4 be one in the same with a previous title. By the standards set forth over close to a decade now, your ignorant thoughts on how “true halo fans” want that game to be is both unfounded and opposes everything that has happened since the arrival of the Halo Universe.
> > >
> > > Now, I fully welcome a counter-argument beyond “you’re wrong, this is how fans like halo”, because there is a debate to be had here, though it has been hashed out many times in close to identical threads.
> >
> > did you seriously just type all that? LOL
>
> Yes, because it is informative and factual. More to the point it provides substance to an otherwise bare-bones thread. I prefer to read thought-out ideas and opinions than 20 1-line posts contributing nothing, much like the one you wrote here. My desire still stands; reply with a counter-argument that provides insight into your opinion.
tl;dr …if you can’t make your point in 2 or 3 sentences there’s something wrong.
Wait. Let me ask you if I understood you right. OK? So, basically, you say that the people who don’t have the same opinion as you, are not true Halo fans?
Huh…
> Wait. Let me ask you if I understood you right. OK? So, basically, you say that the people who don’t have the same opinion as you, are not true Halo fans?
>
> Huh…
people who dont want halo to be halo arn’t true halo fans…
Edited by Moderator - Please do not flame others.