That old argument.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

An argument that has been raging on these forums is one between the old school Halo players and the Nu Halo players, on one hand old school Halo players want to have the old school Halo feel, maps and game types. The Nu Halo players are quite happy with the maps, abilities and overall feel.

I am on the side of old school Halo, for me Halo 2 & 3 are the pinnacle of Halo gaming, and I honestly feel that the new mechanics don’t add anything to the game and if anything, detract from the Halo feel and gameplay that a lot of the community miss.

Now, Nu Halo players will argue that Halo needed to change, it needed to have the new mechanics to keep the game alive. To this I say no, in 2016 id software released DOOM, a game that still uses the exact same concept for the original 90’s game. It looks better, it moves faster but at it’s core it is still the same game from when it first released. Back when the new DOOM was being developed id software tried to change the DOOM experience and even the studio called the first iteration “Call of DOOM” as it was more cinematic and played more like COD than what a DOOM game should, they stopped production of the game scrapped the project and restarted with the philosophy that at it’s core DOOM should have the original DOOM feel or it’s not a DOOM game.

For me personally Halo 5 feels more like a me too game, it feels like 343i and Microsoft are shouting out hey look our game has all the new features the cool kids want, and I feel it detracts from the Halo experience. I know a lot of players enjoy Nu Halo and I’m glad you do, but I believe 343i have the wrong design philosophy, instead of using Halo Reach and Halo 4 as their starting point they should’ve looked at the golden age of Halo, when it was the king of Xbox FPS and used that as it’s foundation to build the new Halo.

As of right now 343i have said it is going to be a while until we hear anything about Halo 6, and I am happy to hear this as I hope that they have and are still listening to both sides of the community and trying to find the perfect balance between old school Halo and Nu Halo. Like every Halo player out there I want Halo to rise like a phoenix from the ashes of past mistakes and restore Halo to the grand FPS it once was.

2

It’s interesting that you chose Doom as a counter example to the argument “games need to change to be successful”, because Doom was neither highly successful, nor did it retain its original gameplay. Sure, everyone liked it, and I think it’s very true to the spirit of Doom, but it didn’t do any better than Halo 5 did, and Halo 5 isn’t a highly successful game either. On the other hand, even if it is made in the spirit of Doom, the gameplay is completely different from the original games. And it had to be, because a first person shooter where you can’t even jump probably wouldn’t be accepted in today’s market. id could never have successfully brought gameplay of a 90’s shooter to the modern market, so they modernized the gameplay, drastically changing it. However, unlike with Halo, people accepted it.

So, in a way, rather than being example of gameplay that has successfully endured through the years, Doom is really more of an example of a game that modernized itself in a way that it didn’t end up rejected by fans of the originals. It’s an example of a game that made drastic changes that managed to be in the spirit of the original games.

If you want to make the argument that games don’t need to change drastically to be successful, you’d be better off with CS:GO as an example. This game is both an example of a game where all changes in gameplay over the years have been relatively subtle, the franchise is almost twenty years old, but still it’s one of the most popular games today.

However, at the end of the day, neither of these games is Halo. In fact, neither of these games is even comparable to Halo. Doom’s golden era ended twenty years ago, and the franchise was on a break for well over ten years. Counter Strike, on the other hand, has consistently enjoyed a relatively high popularity throughout the years with sparse releases, and is now more popular than it ever was. Halo, in turn, has had games churned out at least every three years (in the later years more often than that), and started slowly declining since it peaked in popularity ten years ago.

Halo is not an old enough game that its original gameplay definitely can’t work in today’s market. Neither have changes made to gameplay managed to keep Halo as relevant as it once was, and it has changed significantly more over the past seven years than CS has in its lifetime. Whether one considers Doom or CS:GO a success or not, that success tells us nothing about what Halo needs to do to be successful. Frankly, I don’t believe anyone knows what Halo needs to become as successful as it once was, or even if it can be as successful as it once was.

3

I might be oversimplifying it, but I feel that 1 reason Halo became so popular, was because it had new technology, the original xbox. Halo 2 became so popular because it came with xbox live, which brought a level of competitiveness to the franchise that was unmatched, and it came with the fan base from Halo CE. Halo 3 was with the 360, which brought better online play and equally competitiveness as Halo 2, but with less cheaters (at least in my experience). Halo 4 and beyond, I feel, don’t bring anything too new to the table. Yes, it might be on a new system, but better graphics is not what is going to make Halo more popular.

Bungie did a great job creating these games, but I don’t feel that Bungie did a great perfectly job balancing these games. I’m mainly referring to the weapons. I felt if you didn’t have the BR or DMR as your default weapon, then you would typically not do as well compared to a player who did use those guns. The assault rifle, did not have much of an impact as it does in Halo 5. It’s still not as good as a BR, but 343i has dramatically reduced the gap between these weapon abilities, which I feel is a good thing because it makes these weapons relevant again. 343i has polished the balance in gameplay much more than Bungie did. Perhaps maybe that’s why it feels so different though. Sometimes imbalance is what makes the game more fun.

Personally, I like Halo 5 the most right now, but my most fondest memories are from Halo 2 and 3, but ironically, my worst memories are from these games too.

What do you like more about Halo 2 and 3 compared to the newer ones? Is it the way you move/jump? Or is it the guns and how they are balanced?

4

I am the rare player that loves Halo both ways. Every Halo game has had stuff I loved and hated. H5 mechanics are solid although I hate Spartan charge (you shouldn’t be able to charge while being shot). Also doom wasn’t a success IMO. It has never even made the Xbox most played list so not many must be playing it. I will say had 343 did the right thing and made H2A as a stand alone game and it was basically H2 just remastered from top to bottom I would more likely be playing it more. H2A was the best playing and looking Halo made to date. It’s sad that it was in the botch of MCC and not many multiplayer maps where made.

5

Get this… I loved Halo reach but Hate Halo 5 LMAO! go figure…

I loved armour abilities and sprint but Halo 5 has made the game way too chaotic and seemingly to fast paced for my liking.

In reach I could just sit back, relax, chill and not hand to kill my fingers.

In halo 5 if I’m not nose to screen paying attention to every single movement on the map then I’ll get triple teamed by the time I blink.

Personally I think a happy medium is needed.

Also Halo 4/ 5 died on me the second I saw the previews went back to that cartoony look as opposed to Halo reaches more realistic and gritty look. Still have no idea why they did this.

6

But doom isnt that popular on Xbox. Might be because of the new gen or players who knows. Don’t get me wrong I prefer the older titles but I don’t see much wrong with the new one as well

7

> 2533274825830455;2:
> It’s interesting that you chose Doom as a counter example to the argument “games need to change to be successful”, because Doom was neither highly successful, nor did it retain its original gameplay. Sure, everyone liked it, and I think it’s very true to the spirit of Doom, but it didn’t do any better than Halo 5 did, and Halo 5 isn’t a highly successful game either. On the other hand, even if it is made in the spirit of Doom, the gameplay is completely different from the original games. And it had to be, because a first person shooter where you can’t even jump probably wouldn’t be accepted in today’s market. id could never have successfully brought gameplay of a 90’s shooter to the modern market, so they modernized the gameplay, drastically changing it. However, unlike with Halo, people accepted it.
>
> So, in a way, rather than being example of gameplay that has successfully endured through the years, Doom is really more of an example of a game that modernized itself in a way that it didn’t end up rejected by fans of the originals. It’s an example of a game that made drastic changes that managed to be in the spirit of the original games.
>
> If you want to make the argument that games don’t need to change drastically to be successful, you’d be better off with CS:GO as an example. This game is both an example of a game where all changes in gameplay over the years have been relatively subtle, the franchise is almost twenty years old, but still it’s one of the most popular games today.
>
> However, at the end of the day, neither of these games is Halo. In fact, neither of these games is even comparable to Halo. Doom’s golden era ended twenty years ago, and the franchise was on a break for well over ten years. Counter Strike, on the other hand, has consistently enjoyed a relatively high popularity throughout the years with sparse releases, and is now more popular than it ever was. Halo, in turn, has had games churned out at least every three years (in the later years more often than that), and started slowly declining since it peaked in popularity ten years ago.
>
> Halo is not an old enough game that its original gameplay definitely can’t work in today’s market. Neither have changes made to gameplay managed to keep Halo as relevant as it once was, and it has changed significantly more over the past seven years than CS has in its lifetime. Whether one considers Doom or CS:GO a success or not, that success tells us nothing about what Halo needs to do to be successful. Frankly, I don’t believe anyone knows what Halo needs to become as successful as it once was, or even if it can be as successful as it once was.

With doom I feel like the changes weren’t major. When I first played halo 5 it didn’t feel like halo to me. It took a little bit to connect halo with halo 5. Doom I never had that problem due to perhaps they changes weren’t that major? Who knows it’s just something I’ve experienced. Granted I still love halo

8

> 2533274816788253;4:
> I am the rare player that loves Halo both ways. Every Halo game has had stuff I loved and hated. H5 mechanics are solid although I hate Spartan charge (you shouldn’t be able to charge while being shot). Also doom wasn’t a success IMO. It has never even made the Xbox most played list so not many must be playing it. I will say had 343 did the right thing and made H2A as a stand alone game and it was basically H2 just remastered from top to bottom I would more likely be playing it more. H2A was the best playing and looking Halo made to date. It’s sad that it was in the botch of MCC and not many multiplayer maps where made.

I agree with everything you just said.

My main concerns with 343 are with how reliable (MCC) and consistent (taking out play modes like its overwatch etc) they are with delivering things that we want. Sometimes they really impress me like with the customs browser but then we don’t really hear anything from about they game for over 6 months.

Just my opinion, some may find that stuff petty, and he that’s fine, but these things are really important to me in a Halo.

9

> 2533274808548675;3:
> I might be oversimplifying it, but I feel that 1 reason Halo became so popular, was because it had new technology, the original xbox. Halo 2 became so popular because it came with xbox live, which brought a level of competitiveness to the franchise that was unmatched, and it came with the fan base from Halo CE. Halo 3 was with the 360, which brought better online play and equally competitiveness as Halo 2, but with less cheaters (at least in my experience). Halo 4 and beyond, I feel, don’t bring anything too new to the table. Yes, it might be on a new system, but better graphics is not what is going to make Halo more popular.
> Bungie did a great job creating these games, but I don’t feel that Bungie did a great perfectly job balancing these games. I’m mainly referring to the weapons. I felt if you didn’t have the BR or DMR as your default weapon, then you would typically not do as well compared to a player who did use those guns. The assault rifle, did not have much of an impact as it does in Halo 5. It’s still not as good as a BR, but 343i has dramatically reduced the gap between these weapon abilities, which I feel is a good thing because it makes these weapons relevant again. 343i has polished the balance in gameplay much more than Bungie did. Perhaps maybe that’s why it feels so different though. Sometimes imbalance is what makes the game more fun.
> Personally, I like Halo 5 the most right now, but my most fondest memories are from Halo 2 and 3, but ironically, my worst memories are from these games too.
> What do you like more about Halo 2 and 3 compared to the newer ones? Is it the way you move/jump? Or is it the guns and how they are balanced?

I think you are correct. To use a car analogy I remember when the 5.0 Mustang was king in the early 90’s. It was the car we all wanted. Now I can look back and realize the car wasn’t really great. It handled poorly and there are modern family cars that can outrun it. It was just better than everything else at the time. So maybe we have to acknowledge the unthinkable, that those old Halo games weren’t that great, they were just the best thing in their day. The consoles and the concept of online multiplayer were still new and amazing, and those games hit at the perfect time. A new car can never give me the feeling I had cruising through town in my 5.0 back in the day. That doesn’t mean the old 5.0 is better than a new car though. It has more to do with the time period in my life than the car. It’s gone and can’t be experienced again. Same for a new Halo. Someday one of the kids playing warzone with his friends is going to look back and talk about how great Halo 5 was, and how Halo 9 just doesn’t feel like Halo.

10

While I agree that Halo was better in its classic iterations, I don’t believe that Halo 5 is ‘me too’ game of 343 trying to copy other popular shooter games. I believe that 343’s intention is to create a version of Halo that’s more intertwined with the lore. By adding new abilities, they’re trying to make playing as a Spartan feel closer to how they’re described in lore. In that aspect, I believe that they’re successful at least to a degree.

I thought these would be good changes, but now, I don’t believe so. Halo’s multiplayer is its life blood, the reason why people want to play it regularly. And the quality of that multiplayer should have priority over how ‘immersive’ it is. 343 should take a moment to analyze Halo 5’s multiplayer, and the mechanics that make it up and set it apart from other Halo games, and with the community’s help, assess what enhances the multiplayer and what does not. Nothing should be off the table in terms of the possibility of removal in Halo 6, not even sprint.

11

I know a lot of people hated Doom’s multiplayer…