My favorite argument that people pose is “Halo needs to evolve and that’s why we need sprint and armor that effects gameplay.”
That argument would have worked in 2007 when CoD4 came out and the ideas of having perks (or armor that effects gameplay in this situation) would have been relevant. Adding something like this almost 5 years after the idea had blown up is not “innovation” it’s called being late to the party. This isn’t a debate whether perks will ruin balance or competitive gameplay, it’s a debate saying that it’s too late to add these features to halo.
The idea of perks, sprints, custom classes (gimmicks) have been done, and at this poInt in time is essentially beating a dead horse. Halo: CE didn’t allow you to carry 50 weapons because that was “FPS norm.” Halo: CE had regenerating shields, and more then just a punch for a melee, not because it was the “FPS norm” but because it was something new.
What this community needs to understand is, people don’t remember Halo:CE for conforming to the normal FPS game. It was out of the box. If you want a forgettable game (Reach) then do what the other 63757383 FPSs are doing and make a generic game.
I personally don’t mind Sprint in most cases, but leave all Armor Abilities in Custom Games and specific gametypes. Keep Halo like a chess game, not whoever has the high rank and better armor.
Exactly. Halo has it’s own formula that formula was damn popular.
If we go the way that Reach did with big, unsubtle changes to the formula for Halo 4, well… You only need to look at how Reach was embraced by the community.
But yeah, some people really love Halo 1’s tagline.
> Exactly. Halo has it’s own formula that formula <mark>was</mark> damn popular.
>
> If we go the way that Reach did with big, unsubtle changes to the formula for Halo 4, well… You only need to look at how Reach was embraced by the community.
>
> But yeah, some people really love Halo 1’s tagline.
Was. It’s changed. Things change. The times change.
Everyone deals with it. This should be no different. As usual, Halo is being lauded as though it’s in it’s own class - last time I checked, it fell under First Person Shooter with every other game that gasp Shoots in First Person!!!
OP: I wouln’t call it regressive. Turning Halo into Quake or Unreal Tournament would be regressive.
> Exactly. Halo has it’s own formula that formula was damn popular.
Key word there.
Was.
The times changed.
The absolutely most hilarious thing about all of this? Nobody, not either “side,” wants to actually innovate. They just want to put their gameplay on the pedestal, and never tinker with it, and remake the game over and over again.
> > Exactly. Halo has it’s own formula that formula <mark>was</mark> damn popular.
> >
> > If we go the way that Reach did with big, unsubtle changes to the formula for Halo 4, well… You only need to look at how Reach was embraced by the community.
> >
> > But yeah, some people really love Halo 1’s tagline.
>
> Was. It’s changed. Things change. The times change.
>
>
>
> Everyone deals with it. This should be no different. As usual, Halo is being lauded as though it’s in it’s own class - last time I checked, it fell under First Person Shooter with every other game that gasp Shoots in First Person!!!
>
>
> It’s sad but what’re ya gonna do?
It hasn’t been in a class of it’s own since Halo 2. The main reason is because it’s fell in line with every other FPS game.
It doesn’t bother me really, I’d just love to see a Halo that plays like Halo. If it doesn’t, then never mind, I’ll get it to enjoy the campaign once the price goes down.
> Halo: CE didn’t allow you to carry 50 weapons because that was “FPS norm.” Halo: CE had regenerating shields, and more then just a punch for a melee, not because it was the “FPS norm” but because it was something new.
I agree with you, OP, except for this point: these features were added because they made gameplay better in some way, whether faster, more fun or more tactical.
New features that are thrown in for innovation’s sake are a bad idea.
Second of all, halo will change, but i liked the change they used to have. They used to bring in things that no one has ever seen beofre… now they are writing other companies.
> > Halo: CE didn’t allow you to carry 50 weapons because that was “FPS norm.” Halo: CE had regenerating shields, and more then just a punch for a melee, not because it was the “FPS norm” but because it was something new.
>
> I agree with you, OP, except for this point: these features were added because they made gameplay better in some way, whether faster, more fun or more tactical.
>
> New features that are thrown in for innovation’s sake are a bad idea.
Yes I worded that poorly. I meant that only 2 weapons would require a strategy. Not that halo decided on only 2 weapons because bungie liked the number 2
> It hasn’t been in a class of it’s own since Halo 2. The main reason is because it’s fell in line with every other FPS game.
>
> It doesn’t bother me really, I’d just love to see a Halo that plays like Halo. If it doesn’t, then never mind, I’ll get it to enjoy the campaign once the price goes down.
It was bound to happen. Again, there was just nothing superior or magnanimous that set Halo apart. Had it been the first to build new bridges used in FPS from then on and support that, I’d be on the bandwagon. The differences are minor at best and as said, when you strip it down bare, it’s just another FPS.
If 343 were just stright copying stuff form other games then ya i would agree but we do not know how they are being used in this game yet. Times have changed look at cod nothing ever changes or is inovited and it sells millions. Sadly gamers dont realy want change. Also you cant expect something to always be the invoater. People who use halo reach as a example makes no since because it was made by a different studio.
Im not saying halo needs any of those but im willing to give 343 a chance
> My favorite argument that people pose is “Halo needs to evolve and that’s why we need sprint and armor that effects gameplay.”
>
> That argument would have worked in 2007 when CoD4 came out and the ideas of having perks (or armor that effects gameplay in this situation) would have been relevant. Adding something like this almost 5 years after the idea had blown up is not “innovation” it’s called being late to the party. This isn’t a debate whether perks will ruin balance or competitive gameplay, it’s a debate saying that it’s too late to add these features to halo.
>
> The idea of perks, sprints, custom classes (gimmicks) have been done, and at this poInt in time is essentially beating a dead horse. Halo: CE didn’t allow you to carry 50 weapons because that was “FPS norm.” Halo: CE had regenerating shields, and more then just a punch for a melee, not because it was the “FPS norm” but because it was something new.
>
> What this community needs to understand is, people don’t remember Halo:CE for conforming to the normal FPS game. It was out of the box. If you want a forgettable game (Reach) then do what the other 63757383 FPSs are doing and make a generic game.
Oh for God sake! lay of sprint, you haven’t even seen how these things are going to work, you’re just assuming the worst. I thought the sprint hate had subsided because people actually employed their brains and decided it was too early to be slagging of something that they hadn’t even seen properly.
> > Exactly. Halo has it’s own formula that formula <mark>was</mark> damn popular.
> >
> > If we go the way that Reach did with big, unsubtle changes to the formula for Halo 4, well… You only need to look at how Reach was embraced by the community.
> >
> > But yeah, some people really love Halo 1’s tagline.
>
> Was. It’s changed. Things change. The times change.
>
>
>
> Everyone deals with it. This should be no different. As usual, Halo is being lauded as though it’s in it’s own class - last time I checked, it fell under First Person Shooter with every other game that gasp Shoots in First Person!!!
>
>
> It’s sad but what’re ya gonna do?
where is your evidence that CE-3 playstyle was out of fashion? Last I check Halo 3 constantly beat MW1 and stayed right at the heels of MW2 at #2. Reach with all of its “advancements” and “evolution” couldnt even stay behind MW2 for a while and is the least popular halo game to date! times change yes but games dont have to, they are not some ambiguous social phenomena they are made by a group of 50-400 ppl all making concious decisions.
pro tip: go get facts to back up the nonsense you spew
Totally agree. I just don’t get it, even the CoD audience didn’t like Reach because it wasn’t Halo. Making Reach a Battlefield/CoD/Halo crossover is what made it fail, it didn’t increase sales, it didn’t make anyone happy, it just scared away a lot of Halo fans. It doesn’t make sense from a business standpoint and it doesn’t make sense from a Halo developer standpoint.
After that, 343 could have said, “yeah Reach was this weird spin-off with the Loadouts and stuff, the same as ODST was a spin off with Visor and no shields”, but now they’re just going even further away from what made halo great. Evolving the game is great, taking it to another level and being creative, F YEAH!
Im all for sprint. but lets just sprint in every direction all the time and be able to shoot while we sprint. 120 movement does everything sprint does and more.
