Stuck.in.the.past

Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
Can’t accept change.
Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
Only want Halo 3.5.
Prevent evolution.
Backtracking.
Nostalgia blinded.

With the influx of new people, and older ones re-using these rethorics, I thought I have some stuff to clear out, and have something to link back to, and maybe for others to use as well.

I could easily retort with a range of different disrespectful retorts which reduce and simplify what you want into a sentence or two, which in reality have no ground on which to stand. But I don’t, because you would surely be playing CoD if all you wanted was CoD.

Very, very few argue that change isn’t needed, you won’t find many who think games don’t need to “evolve”.
The issue is when people who disagree with the current direction, or even just a single mechanic, are categorised as “hater”, or “change opponent”, as if an opinion of one single mechanic, somehow is a reflection of that entire person. And yes, that goes for you too, those of you who stick with “all you want is CoD” against those who are in favour of the current Halo mechanics.

I’m no opponent of change, I want to see a Halo I enjoy to its fullest.
Just because I disagree with Sprint, doesn’t mean I disagree with thrusters. If I was against change I would be against thrusters.

Here’s the thing though, I don’t know if it’s a misconception or simply just something forgotten, but games aren’t just about what a player can do, it’s not just player mechanics that can change which alter how the game plays. This, I think is the biggest obstacle between the two camps.

There are plenty of things I’ve thought of, suggested and discussed, when it comes to “Change in Halo”.

There’s what we already have which is getting new stuff:
-New story and campaign missions
-Multiplayer maps and game modes
-Weapons
-Vehicles
-Items in Forge

After that we’ve got things which could improve for these modes:
-Campaign: optional side missions which can alter encounters later on in the campaign
-Theatre: new functions that make it better to record consistent action clips.
-Forge: deeper scripting possibilities, nav points or nav mesh capabilities for bots.
-Firefight: mombada sized levels with AI learning and counteracting player tactics.

Now of course, these offer new ways of playing in how we’ve been playing before.
However, here’s some newer stuff:
-Recharging health based on stored biofoam.
-Multigravitation and Zero-gravity
-Modular promethean weapons, pick up modules and get different weapon effects.
-Secondary fire mode for Covenant/Banished weapons, think plasma pistol normal and charged fire.
-Alternative fire mode for Human weapons.
-wall jumping
-Portals utilised in different ways, portals as in the Portal game.
-Equipment as a special grenade instead of its own mechanic.
-New types of map transportation utilities, such as arms grabbing players and transporting them along a specific route.
-Interactivity on the maps, especially multiplayer maps.
-Campaign special difficulty using learning AI which learn from all connected players on the difficulty, and which learn how to do better, reset at intervals in order to not become too difficult.
-Multiplayer bots learning how a player behaves and plays, which can take over if that player drop for some reason.

You can think all of these seem great, or not. Neither am I thinking any of these will get implemented so there’ll be no discussion on these specific suggestions, they serve as an example of different things I’m in favour of trying out in Halo. So, if I’m a nostalgia blinded Bungie Halo Fanboy opposed of all change because I dislike sprint, how can I think these sound like fun ideas to test out? I do imagine that these change Halo on a significant level.

Halo Infinite has concepts I think will be fun, it has things I’m cautious of, and things I dislike.
My opinion of a single mechanic does not warrant an all encompassing label on how I treat everything in Halo. There’s no serious discussion to be had after that.

Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?

> 2535412226505972;2:
> Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?

I don’t think that’s what he was trying to say.

yea i wouldve loved thrusters instead of sprint. i think 343 should expand on halo’s sandbox without it efecting the core mechanics, equipment like the grapple hook is a great example of innovation.

> 2533274795123910;1:
> My opinion of a single mechanic does not warrant an all encompassing label on how I treat everything in Halo. There’s no serious discussion to be had after that.

I’m glad you think this way. It’d be nice if most people could discuss their preferences like this. Unfortunately a lot of people like mechanics without understanding why, or whether it’s actually good for the long term health of the game. And then they maintain a closed mind on the subject and take any criticism personally. Once you’re at that point, the only thing to do is to denigrate the other side instead of engaging in rational debate. “I think sprint should/should not be in Halo because XYZ” is replaced with “Go back to Fortnite kid” or “If you want old games play old Halos”.

Then again, this is the internet so…

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again here. Look at the differences between Halo CE and 3. Clear evolution, but it’s still unmistakably Halo.

Halo can, and should evolve over time. But it should NOT evolve into a bastardized version of something else. If I want to play [insert popular game of the week], I’ll just play that instead.

> Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
> Can’t accept change.
> Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
> Only want Halo 3.5.
> Prevent evolution.
> Backtracking.
> Nostalgia blinded.

So I’m blind nostalgic when I want real military ranks instead of just numbers?
When I want a game which fits in first for casual/lore-Halo loving players, is it just blind nostalgia when I say I hate how Halo 4 messed up with the MP [look at the population counter] or, saying better, when I hate Halo 5 because the MP was so hardly focussed on Arena and competition? I don’t say Halo 5’s Gameplay was bad, it’s just an Hardcore-Arena-Shooter with an Halo setting. Yes, there were also many tryhards in Halo 2 but as I said, look at the population counter - for Halo 5 there is even no population counter [wonder why, cause every developer love to show the numbers of the many players].

> Prevent evolution.

Do you call it evolution from Halo Reach to Halo 4 and Halo 5 when there are less costumization options? Or when the forge is not there on the release date?
There is no evolution when Spartans became kinda Power-Rangers instead of legendary Supersoldiers. Is it evolution to give your soldiers less armor? Don’t think so.
Is it - like I already wrote - evolution when for the MP there are no military ranks? This is a sci-fi military shooter.

Halo 5 was just a big scary Twitchshooter what I hate the most.
Do you call it evolution when Halo 5’s Warzone “Firefight” came? That was everything but hell, that was not Firefight.
Do you call it evolution when there are pommes and pizza skins for your weapon? Why isn’t there real camouflage skins for weapons? Or in general, why went the costumization so bad? Why are there no playable Elites in Halo 4 and Halo 5? Ah yes, less content means evolution.
Also - it is no evolution when you give “free” content to the players which should belong to the maingame we bought with our money.

When people get upset with the Gameplay demo - why are people wondering?
The demo graphic/engine was kinda nice but it looks like an Halo 5 Update, not like something that was in developement for years.

In general I had less hope for Halo Infinite and the demo was really worse.

Coming to the things that should improve, I make it short:
Everything the majority loves, like real costumization, campaign etc should evolve. But saying now what I, you we all want to have in the game - well it’s too late to say. The way the wanted to develope the game, it will be released. A discussion of what is looking nice or will be nice is good years before they seriously start to evolve a game or, when they publish more things like what the campaign, costumization, MP, Forge everything in general will be.

> 2535412226505972;2:
> Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?

> 2533274861263132;7:
>

If there’s anything unclear with the OP, please specify so I can correct it and make it more simple to understand.
It is not about screwing over old Halo gamers, it’s not about insulting those who came before, it’s about not having ones entire opinion judged over a preference on a single mechanic.

I won’t deny that there are people that are stuck in the past.

> 2533274832784144;6:
> I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again here. Look at the differences between Halo CE and 3. Clear evolution, but it’s still unmistakably Halo.
>
> Halo can, and should evolve over time. But it should NOT evolve into a bastardized version of something else. If I want to play [insert popular game of the week], I’ll just play that instead.

This. A fair argument.
Halo shouldn’t have chased trends and definitely not copied from others. Others should copy from Halo.

> 2533274795123910;8:
> > 2535412226505972;2:
> > Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?
>
>
>
> > 2533274861263132;7:
> >
>
> If there’s anything unclear with the OP, please specify so I can correct it and make it more simple to understand.
> It is not about screwing over old Halo gamers, it’s about not having ones entire opinion judged over a preference on a single mechanic.

Why the heck did you

  • wrote that title - wrote that

> Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
> Can’t accept change.
> Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
> Only want Halo 3.5.
> Prevent evolution.
> Backtracking.
> Nostalgia blinded.

Before you go now saying I missunderstood something, go to my arguments and show me where I’m wrong.

> 2533274861263132;10:
> > 2533274795123910;8:
> > > 2535412226505972;2:
> > > Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274861263132;7:
> > >
> >
> > If there’s anything unclear with the OP, please specify so I can correct it and make it more simple to understand.
> > It is not about screwing over old Halo gamers, it’s about not having ones entire opinion judged over a preference on a single mechanic.
>
> Why the heck did you
> - wrote that title - wrote that
>
> > Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
> > Can’t accept change.
> > Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
> > Only want Halo 3.5.
> > Prevent evolution.
> > Backtracking.
> > Nostalgia blinded.
>
> Before you go now saying I missunderstood something, go to my arguments and show me where I’m wrong.

1: Stuck in the past is part clickbait, and then part what’s been out and about on this forum quite a lot recently since the gameplay reveal.
2: Those too are other variants of “stuck in the past” or otherwise sentences that are directed at people who aren’t all too happy with some mechanics, or all for that matter.

You like the games you like, dislike whatever mechanic you dislike, and should not be judged as anything else than a gamer with a preference.
No, you’re not blinded by nostalgia for wanting numbers over military grades.

Therefore, if there’s anything unclear with the rest of the thread, other than the first examples of insults, which I hope you read past, please tell so I can correct, or specify.

> 2533274795123910;11:
> > 2533274861263132;10:
> > > 2533274795123910;8:
> > > > 2535412226505972;2:
> > > > Yeah screw those who liked old Halo games that made it popular and lots of money, what do they know right?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274861263132;7:
> > > >
> > >
> > > If there’s anything unclear with the OP, please specify so I can correct it and make it more simple to understand.
> > > It is not about screwing over old Halo gamers, it’s about not having ones entire opinion judged over a preference on a single mechanic.
> >
> > Why the heck did you
> > - wrote that title - wrote that
> >
> > > Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
> > > Can’t accept change.
> > > Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
> > > Only want Halo 3.5.
> > > Prevent evolution.
> > > Backtracking.
> > > Nostalgia blinded.
> >
> > Before you go now saying I missunderstood something, go to my arguments and show me where I’m wrong.
>
> 1: Stuck in the past is part clickbait, and then part what’s been out and about on this forum quite a lot recently since the gameplay reveal.
> 2: Those too are other variants of “stuck in the past” or otherwise sentences that are directed at people who aren’t all too happy with some mechanics, or all for that matter.
>
> You like the games you like, dislike whatever mechanic you dislike, and should not be judged as anything else than a gamer with a preference.
> No, you’re not blinded by nostalgia for wanting numbers over military grades.
>
> Therefore, if there’s anything unclear with the rest of the thread, other than the first examples of insults, which I hope you read past, please tell so I can correct, or specify.

In this case don’t wonder if you get kinda “-Yoink!-” for writing something stupid like that clickbaiting.

The rest is not unclear, I mean, I wrote something about that too.

> 2533274861263132;12:
> In this case don’t wonder if you get kinda “-Yoink!-” for writing something stupid like that clickbaiting.

I do things for my own reasons and I know many of the outcomes, I am not surpised by any reaction that can come from this title or post.
Well, there’s one outcome I’d be surprised with.

> 2533274861263132;12:
> The rest is not unclear, I mean, I wrote something about that too.

I’m not really certain what the rest of your post touched up on in the OP, but it’s not that important either way.

> 2533274832784144;6:
> I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again here. Look at the differences between Halo CE and 3. Clear evolution, but it’s still unmistakably Halo.
>
> Halo can, and should evolve over time. But it should NOT evolve into a bastardized version of something else. If I want to play [insert popular game of the week], I’ll just play that instead.

What are you referring to? “a bastardisation of something else” what is this something else?
The evolution of ce to 3 was what? aside from graphics, vehicles, weapons, maps, sounds, story which is usually the norm or “trend” all games follow. Halo 2 had duel wielding you could play as the arbiter and 3 laid out the ground work for matchmaking across the board and it had some items like the bubble shield ect.
Now take into account it was during halo 3s lifetime that the franchise was dethroned by call of duty. People were moving away because halo was becoming outdated, they wanted something new. The evolution they had was normal trending things at the time because technology was progressing with the games(ce-3). So how are they supposed to evolve if they’re locked into not changing anything major apart from the normal usual “trending” things, but at the same time stay relevant when the palettes of the fans were clearly changing?

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.</mark>

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

boooooo

What I don’t like about the toxic nostalgist crowd is that they have massive overreactions to minor changes that seem very weirdly personal. So many of their arguments over the years were nitpicks blown out of proportion and have a massive bias against 343 simply because they aren’t Bungie. They want the old feelings back and they pin all the woes of unenjoyment on a new company taking over instead of simply getting older and having the magic wear off. When Halo 4 came out I was thrilled to have the biggest cliffhanger of the series solved and so many mysteries finally brought to life and new ground being given flesh and blood. I knew it wouldn’t be the same as Bungie, and a change of developers always brings new vibes. I was already prepared for and accepting of change, and was happy that Halo was simply continuing at all. Halo 4 was a game for the lore fans who still understood there was way more to be told, and so it didn’t really matter if it wasn’t as big as 3 or Reach. Halo was “over”, and everything else was just a drip for the dedicated. A different contingent of fans just didn’t have the same mindset, and didn’t understand what the post-Reach content was all about. They thought it was still for them, despite the fact that they had already moved on. They weren’t concerned with advanced post-war tech, Forerunners, or a detailed/realistic interpretation of the style, so all of these things just confused them and made them angry. They perceived it as 343 being incompetent.

> 2533274801472802;16:
> What I don’t like about the toxic nostalgist crowd is that they have massive overreactions to minor changes that seem very weirdly personal. So many of their arguments over the years were nitpicks blown out of proportion and have a massive bias against 343 simply because they aren’t Bungie. They want the old feelings back and they pin all the woes of unenjoyment on a new company taking over instead of simply getting older and having the magic wear off. When Halo 4 came out I was thrilled to have the biggest cliffhanger of the series solved and so many mysteries finally brought to life and new ground being given flesh and blood. I knew it wouldn’t be the same as Bungie, and a change of developers always brings new vibes. I was already prepared for and accepting of change, and was happy that Halo was simply continuing at all. Halo 4 was a game for the lore fans who still understood there was way more to be told, and so it didn’t really matter if it wasn’t as big as 3 or Reach. Halo was “over”, and everything else was just a drip for the dedicated. A different contingent of fans just didn’t have the same mindset, and didn’t understand what the post-Reach content was all about. They thought it was still for them, despite the fact that they had already moved on. They weren’t concerned with advanced post-war tech, Forerunners, or a detailed/realistic interpretation of the style, so all of these things just confused them and made them angry. They perceived it as 343 being incompetent.

Because calling the opposition " the toxic nostagist crowd" definitely isn’t toxic right? Constantly trotting out dismissive straw-men to represent the people you disagree with is definitely the sign of having a “reasonable” mindset.

It can’t be that many folks are honestly disappointed for the 3rd time in a row, they must be Bungie fanboys or “nostalgists” looking to get their old feelings back.

The funny thing about this type of tired deflection of criticism directed at 343 is that I can tell you I had very positive impressions of 343 right of the bat. After having our feedback ignored by Bungie for years, it was amazing to see that 343’s first act as stewards of the Halo franchise was the Reach title update that addressed many of the biggest issues with Reach. Sure it wasn’t perfect, but it was more than the community had ever gotten from Bungie.

And even when I loathed the multiplayer of Halo 4, I was genuinely excited to see where things go next, I only hoped that 343 would address some of the relatively minor issues I had with the gameplay and narrative that I attributed to them being a new studio. Then MCC was a disaster. Then the Halo 5 campaign was a disaster. Not to mention the mess that became of the extended universe. We had a brief bright spot with Halo Wars 2. Now we get to Infinite and it just feels like it has the same problems every 343 game has had and everything that I had been genuinely excited about at the beginning of 343’s tenure is gone.

343 had my trust and lost it all on their own. Miss me with this toxic dismissive nonsense.

> 2533274813946507;14:
> What are you referring to? “a bastardisation of something else” what is this something else?
> The evolution of ce to 3 was what? aside from graphics, vehicles, weapons, maps, sounds, story which is usually the norm or “trend” all games follow. Halo 2 had duel wielding you could play as the arbiter and 3 laid out the ground work for matchmaking across the board and it had some items like the bubble shield ect.

Halo 2 removed health packs, introduced dual wielding, vehicle boarding for the player.
Halo 3 added theatre and forge, and introduced equipment.

What Entropy91 most likely is refering to, is how Halo 4 was handled.
You can’t deny that every single addition and change in that game, could be found in Call of Duty. Yes, I know, CoD didn’t invent close to all of those changes, but it was extremely popular at that time…

> 2533274813946507;14:
> Now take into account it was during halo 3s lifetime that the franchise was dethroned by call of duty. People were moving away because halo was becoming outdated, they wanted something new.

You do realise Halo 3 did fairly well on the most played leaderboards against CoD which got a yearly release plan.

> 2533274813946507;14:
> The evolution they had was normal trending things at the time because technology was progressing with the games(ce-3).

What technological progress? I’m fairly certain there’s not a single mechanic that has been introduced during the entirety of Halo’s life span, which would have been impossible to implement mechanically in Halo CE, in 2001.
Clamber was introduced in Halo 5 ( 2015 ), yet Lara Croft is doing that exact same thing in her first appearance in 1996.

> 2533274813946507;14:
> So how are they supposed to evolve if they’re locked into not changing anything major apart from the normal usual “trending” things

I’m not really certain I follow this.
How are they supposed to evolve if they’re not allowed to do “trending” things?

> 2533274813946507;14:
> but at the same time stay relevant when the palettes of the fans were clearly changing?

This would assume fans primarily stay within one genre, and only prefer a very specific setup in that genre.

But to answer that question, there are plenty of different ways to innovate, change and add without following specific trends, just because they’re popular.
Just read a selection of those ways in the OP, one of the reasons I actually created this thread.

> 2533274795123910;1:
> Or, living in 2001-2007, or stuck in 2007.
> Can’t accept change.
> Want carbon copy of Halo CE, 2 or 3.
> Only want Halo 3.5.
> Prevent evolution.
> Backtracking.
> Nostalgia blinded.
>
> With the influx of new people, and older ones re-using these rethorics, I thought I have some stuff to clear out, and have something to link back to, and maybe for others to use as well.
>
> I could easily retort with a range of different disrespectful retorts which reduce and simplify what you want into a sentence or two, which in reality have no ground on which to stand. But I don’t, because you would surely be playing CoD if all you wanted was CoD.
>
> Very, very few argue that change isn’t needed, you won’t find many who think games don’t need to “evolve”.
> The issue is when people who disagree with the current direction, or even just a single mechanic, are categorised as “hater”, or “change opponent”, as if an opinion of one single mechanic, somehow is a reflection of that entire person. And yes, that goes for you too, those of you who stick with “all you want is CoD” against those who are in favour of the current Halo mechanics.
>
> I’m no opponent of change, I want to see a Halo I enjoy to its fullest.
> Just because I disagree with Sprint, doesn’t mean I disagree with thrusters. If I was against change I would be against thrusters.
>
> Here’s the thing though, I don’t know if it’s a misconception or simply just something forgotten, but games aren’t just about what a player can do, it’s not just player mechanics that can change which alter how the game plays. This, I think is the biggest obstacle between the two camps.
>
> There are plenty of things I’ve thought of, suggested and discussed, when it comes to “Change in Halo”.
>
> There’s what we already have which is getting new stuff:
> -New story and campaign missions
> -Multiplayer maps and game modes
> -Weapons
> -Vehicles
> -Items in Forge
>
> After that we’ve got things which could improve for these modes:
> -Campaign: optional side missions which can alter encounters later on in the campaign
> -Theatre: new functions that make it better to record consistent action clips.
> -Forge: deeper scripting possibilities, nav points or nav mesh capabilities for bots.
> -Firefight: mombada sized levels with AI learning and counteracting player tactics.
>
> Now of course, these offer new ways of playing in how we’ve been playing before.
> However, here’s some newer stuff:
> -Recharging health based on stored biofoam.
> -Multigravitation and Zero-gravity
> -Modular promethean weapons, pick up modules and get different weapon effects.
> -Secondary fire mode for Covenant/Banished weapons, think plasma pistol normal and charged fire.
> -Alternative fire mode for Human weapons.
> -wall jumping
> -Portals utilised in different ways, portals as in the Portal game.
> -Equipment as a special grenade instead of its own mechanic.
> -New types of map transportation utilities, such as arms grabbing players and transporting them along a specific route.
> -Interactivity on the maps, especially multiplayer maps.
> -Campaign special difficulty using learning AI which learn from all connected players on the difficulty, and which learn how to do better, reset at intervals in order to not become too difficult.
> -Mulyiplayer bots learning how a player behaves and plays, which can take over if that player drop for some reason.
>
> You can think all of these seem great, or not. Neither am I thinking any of these will get implemented so there’ll be no discussion on these specific suggestions, they serve as an example of different things I’m in favour of trying out in Halo. So, if I’m a nostalgia blinded Bungie Halo Fanboy opposed of all change because I dislike sprint, how can I think these sound like fun ideas to test out? I do imagine that these change Halo on a significant level.
>
> Halo Infinite has concepts I think will be fun, it has things I’m cautious of, and things I dislike.
> My opinion of a single mechanic does not warrant an all encompassing label on how I treat everything in Halo. There’s no serious discussion to be had after that.

Imma take a wild guess and say your first Halo game was Reach? Would explain alot.

> 2533274801472802;16:
> What I don’t like about the toxic nostalgist crowd is that they have massive overreactions to minor changes that seem very weirdly personal. So many of their arguments over the years were nitpicks blown out of proportion and have a massive bias against 343 simply because they aren’t Bungie.

Did you read, or not understand the OP? If it’s unclear, I’d want to know so I can clear it up for your convencience.
Because that “toxic nostalgist crowd”, is exactly the mentality I want to get removed from this forum.

The sooner you understand that people are different, the sooner you understand that a minor thing for you can be something entirely different for someone else.
You value a change differently than someone else, but you apply what you think is an acceptable reaction on it, and you think everyone should react the same way, and they don’t follow your lead. Then we get this “toxic nostalgic crowd” speech because you don’t agree with their opinion and how they feel they should be allowed to react. You make the difference in opinion, and their reaction your own personal greviance.

Not only this, but Bungie pretty much only come up on “your side”.
Whenever I see Bungie come up, it’s been in the context of:
“You’re blinded by nostalgia, and you only want it to be Bungie to create Halo”.
You are the first person in this thread to genuinely bring up Bungie and mean it, think about that.
I’m pretty certain that atleast 7/8 or 9/10 times when Bungie comes up in that manner, it’s in the same context you just did.

> 2533274828347929;15:
> boooooo

You don’t think judging other forum goers based on a single opinion should be something that we shouldn’t do?

> 2533274793248262;19:
> Imma take a wild guess and say your first Halo game was Reach? Would explain alot.

Please do explain your train of thought on that.