> 2533274990212593;1:
> I know this topic has been talked about a lot but I think we needed these changes. Halo 5 as everyone knows is completely different than CE, halo 2, or 3. Halo CE came out in 2001 if the player base was in high school they would be around 30 something by now. Halo 2 came out in 2004 player base would be around their mid 20s . Halo 3 came out in 2007 the player base now would be in their early 20s or late teens. These are just averages assuming the minimum age to buy halo but there are younger players I was playing halo 2 at the age of 10 but as people get older they grow out of playing xbox daily most original people who played halo ce doesn’t play anymore now it’s the new generation and if they stuck with the old way of playing other games like Titan fall, battle field, and call of duty would get these new players instead of halo because they are going to ask “would I rather jog around a map and shoot or jump across building slide in for a kill with a shot gun?” (And yes I realize the old halos took more skill I’ve played them) what I’m saying is it sounds a lot cooler and more fun to player halo 5 than previous halos and without new players halo will eventually die and some might say well at that point maybe it should and I’ve got to disagree. either way you wouldn’t play halo whether there is a new halo or not but some people enjoy the route halo is going. I’m not saying people who don’t like the way halo 5 has no right to have an opinion I’m saying no one wants to play the same game rapped in a different skin every couple of years unless for some reason you are still complaing that bungie should still be making halo but they would probably be doing the same thing I mean look at destiny so I think bungies halo 4 and 5 would be pretty similar to 343. To end this ill just say I like bungie and 343 both I’ve never judged any game based on who made it. Bungie did a good job with all the halos they have made but that era of gaming is over its time to accept and adapt if you want to continue playing future halos or accept and move on and stop blaming 343 because halo 5 is so different cause they did listen to the community with this one.
The problem I’m seeing though is if the “needed change” is what is driving the community away as shown by the concern over Halo 5’s low population then these changes are not succeeding. If they were then you’d see a much higher and sustained population accompanied by a much greater variety of playlists that this higher population supports.
> 2533274819567236;19:
> > 2533274848599184;16:
> > > 2533274819567236;15:
> > > > 2533274792820475;12:
> > > > I don’t understand how people make these threads and take themselves seroosuly. It is an undeniable fact that the halo population in halo 2, halo 3, and even halo reach is far superior than every halo game made by 343i that included all these changes. And no the core fan base getting older is just a lame excuse to try and give 343i a pass. Fact is their games just suck compared to previous halo games. Worse sales numbers, worse population stats… There is literally zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > > That’s what seems so crazy to me. Obviously people can like Halo’s current direction, that’s fine, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).
> > >
> > > There are even a few examples highlighting why it actually would’ve been better off sticking to its roots rather than “modernizing” it like they did. Examples like CoDs success despite sticking with the same basic gameplay and now with Dooms success acting as the perfect parallel to what Halo should’ve done this whole time. There is no reason whatsoever for the drastic changes, all people have are unsupported assumptions.
> >
> >
> > Ah yes, CoD is so similar to what it was in 2007. And gaming is completely the same as well.
> >
> > Doom’s success being what exactly? Decent reviews and a PC community that doesn’t really like it?
> >
> > Medal of Honor, Crysis, Tomb Raider, Assassin’s Creed. Just a list of series that either died, are dying, or had to reboot because of consistently being the same.
>
>
> CoD remained the same for about 4-5 years.
>
> Doom is considered fast and fun while doing its own thing in Campaign. Choices in the MP don’t effect that.
>
> Halo has more in common with CoD and Doom than every game you listed.
Halo remained the same for 6 years. then changed. Similar to CoD.
The PC community does not care about Doom. and apparently neither do console players.
you still failed to grasp that all those games died out because they stayed the same. so much for your “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).”. all of the franchises i mentioned are large, well known franchises
> 2533274826434697;99:
> > 2533274819567236;74:
> > > 2533274826434697;71:
> > > > 2535421216150630;70:
> > > > > 2533274873954403;62:
> > > > > > 2533274826434697;54:
> > > > > > > 2533274921821201;21:
> > > > > > > Yeah because Halo 4 and 5 are defiantly the best in everyone’s eyes, not to mention Halo 5 didn’t sell great. Look at games like CS:GO and the new DOOM, Halo doesn’t need sprint or obnoxious abilities to be popular. This kind of stuff is driving away a BIG chunk of the community, exactly what CoD is going through right now with Infinite Warfare. I don’t know why you’re bringing age into this, Halo had a perfect formula, it set standards, it made trends.
> > > > > > > Now Halo hides in the shadows and follows formulas and trends from other shooters. Just because there’s equal starts in multiplayer doesn’t exactly mean it feels like Halo.
> > > > > > > If that were the case, Gears of War and Unreal Tournament also “FEEL JUST LIKE CLASSIC HALO MULTIPLAYER :D”
> > > > > > > Halo at this point is pretty much Call of Duty with precision reticles and longer TTK.
> > > > > > > People like you keep making the argument “Halo needs to change/evolve, or it will die.” It kills me when people say that, you know why? Because THAT’S when the downfall of Halo started, when it changed. Ever since Reach, Halo has lost A TON of popularity and no longer has the golden, respected throne it once had.
> > > > > > > Ever since Halo started “evolving” it also keeps losing casuals and fans.
> > > > > > > I love Halo, and that’s why I criticize it. You can’t love something and not criticize it, right?
> > > > > > > Halo’s never going to go back to it’s golden state until it gets a hold of itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Halo gained popularity with Reach, which is one of the reasons why the terrible Halo 4 sold so well. Halo 5 sold poorly because the xbox one isn’t as popular as the xbox and xbox 360 were back when the older games were released and also because Halo 4 was very bad. #Facts
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lmao at your “facts”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lol you know why Halo Reach sold well? Because of the popularity of H3. #Facts
> > > > Halo started going downhill with their cookie cutter “evolving” gamplay.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Halo Reach sold well because of H3, never denied that, but while Halo gained most of its popularity with each of the first three games, it undeniably continued to gain popularity after the release of Halo Reach, albeit to a much lesser extent than any of the first three.
> > >
> > > Also do you know why Halo 4 sold so well? (Somehow better than Halo 2) Because of the popularity of Reach. #Facts
> > > The main reason for the drop of Halo’s popularity has been the past two games have been on an unpopular console. I believe Halo 4 and MCC also contributed to its harsh downfall.
> >
> >
> > Reach sold less - at launch and overall - than Halo 3 (despite many more 360’s being sold), it was received not as well critically and had a massive population drop off within the first year (7th place in activity behind THREE CoD games). What makes you think Reach was more popular than Halo 3?
> >
> > I’m starting to think you’re a Reach kid that wasn’t aware of any of this and is just making assumptions.
>
>
> I never said Reach was more popular than Halo 3, but I said it gained popularity because it outsold the two titles that came before it as well as every other Halo game besides Halo 3.
>
> Halo Reach did have a population drop off after the first year, but most games have much larger dropoffs than Halo Reach.
>
> Halo Reach was more critically acclaimed than Halo 3, sorry but it’s true, get your facts straight and stop spewing bullYoink! to get get your point across.
>
> P.S. if you read my previous posts in this topic you would’ve seen me state Halo 3 was my favourite of the entire series.
-
Halo 3 has a higher metacritic rating than Reach, so Halo 3 was received better critically. Sorry. Do you even attempt to look up things you claim as fact?
-
You said Halo gained more popularity after Reach. Nothing about Reach suggests that. Not sales, not population and not critical acclaim. So why specifically do you think Halo gained popularity after Reach’s release.
> 2533274848599184;102:
> > 2533274819567236;19:
> > > 2533274848599184;16:
> > > > 2533274819567236;15:
> > > > > 2533274792820475;12:
> > > > > I don’t understand how people make these threads and take themselves seroosuly. It is an undeniable fact that the halo population in halo 2, halo 3, and even halo reach is far superior than every halo game made by 343i that included all these changes. And no the core fan base getting older is just a lame excuse to try and give 343i a pass. Fact is their games just suck compared to previous halo games. Worse sales numbers, worse population stats… There is literally zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That’s what seems so crazy to me. Obviously people can like Halo’s current direction, that’s fine, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).
> > > >
> > > > There are even a few examples highlighting why it actually would’ve been better off sticking to its roots rather than “modernizing” it like they did. Examples like CoDs success despite sticking with the same basic gameplay and now with Dooms success acting as the perfect parallel to what Halo should’ve done this whole time. There is no reason whatsoever for the drastic changes, all people have are unsupported assumptions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah yes, CoD is so similar to what it was in 2007. And gaming is completely the same as well.
> > >
> > > Doom’s success being what exactly? Decent reviews and a PC community that doesn’t really like it?
> > >
> > > Medal of Honor, Crysis, Tomb Raider, Assassin’s Creed. Just a list of series that either died, are dying, or had to reboot because of consistently being the same.
> >
> >
> > CoD remained the same for about 4-5 years.
> >
> > Doom is considered fast and fun while doing its own thing in Campaign. Choices in the MP don’t effect that.
> >
> > Halo has more in common with CoD and Doom than every game you listed.
>
>
> Halo remained the same for 6 years. then changed. Similar to CoD.
>
> The PC community does not care about Doom. and apparently neither do console players.
>
> you still failed to grasp that all those games died out because they stayed the same. so much for your “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).”. all of the franchises i mentioned are large, well known franchises
You misunderstood the intent of my response. I was clarifying what I meant for you. I wasn’t arguing. Sorry bro.
> 2533274873267862;14:
> No, the community can’t accept unnecessary change. Adding new features to the game such as new gametypes and a revamped Forge are examples of good, reasonable change. Locking nearly everything in REQ packs and severely cutting the number of matchmaking playlists are examples of unnecessary or bad change.
> People want change, but they also want the games they like to stay consistent with every installment. Nobody wants another Halo 3 every few years, but people do want each new game to feel like a Halo. Taking features from other successful games and thinking they will work in Halo and simply changing things for the sake of change are two philosophies that do nothing but harm Halo.
> This is the only game series I know of wherein each title is becoming drastically different than the last. Reach plays nothing like Halo 3, Halo 4 plays nothing like Reach, and Halo 5 plays nothing like Halo 4. Metroid always had a consistent feel in its first-person games until Other M, and look what that did to the series’ reputation.
Metroid. A side scrolling adventure game since the first on the NES, expanded brilliantly on the SNES.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Because we are not currently equipped to provide moderation in other languages, we ask that all messages be posted in English. Feel free to use an online language translation service, and then create a new thread with the translated text.</mark>
Bienvenidos sean los cambios, no obstante, fueron demasiados a mi parecer; más malos que buenos, quizás 343 nos lleno de expectativas y al final la entrega no fue lo que esperábamos.
I’ve said this countless other times in many other threads, but Halo 5’s core gameplay is the closest thing we’ve had to Halo 3’s gameplay in years. Everyone has equal starts, a universal set of abilities to master, and the focus has returned to controlling the map and its weapons. People act like Sprint, clamber, and Spartan Charge ruin Halo when Reach’s Armor Abilites and 4 with its loadouts that consisted of unlockable weapons and perks already did a huge amount of damage.
The reason why Halo’s been on the decline since 3 is because of a combination of an expanded games market and the slow march of time. In the interim period between 3 and Reach, a couple things happened:
-CoD and other FPS games started gaining footholds on console. Halo was no longer the only big shot in its category.
-Steam started becoming a proper games marketplace after a rough few years. This helped to make PC as a gaming platform more viable than it had been in a good while.
Expanding markets for FPS games and games in general led to even more competition for people’s money and attention. Halo was going to start losing out eventually. Adding to that is the fact that fans were getting older and started taking on more important responsibilities, like college, a career, raising a family, etc.
The days where everybody and their grandma’s dog was playing Halo are long gone and never coming back. 343i managed to do a good job with Halo 5’s gameplay, mixing old focus on map and weapon control with newer features that allow it to stay competitive in the modern market. That’s something that should be celebrated.
It needs to change to stay current while having classic game modes to keep veteran players happy.
> 2533274873267862;14:
> No, the community can’t accept unnecessary change. Adding new features to the game such as new gametypes and a revamped Forge are examples of good, reasonable change. Locking nearly everything in REQ packs and severely cutting the number of matchmaking playlists are examples of unnecessary or bad change.
> People want change, but they also want the games they like to stay consistent with every installment. Nobody wants another Halo 3 every few years, but people do want each new game to feel like a Halo. Taking features from other successful games and thinking they will work in Halo and simply changing things for the sake of change are two philosophies that do nothing but harm Halo.
> This is the only game series I know of wherein each title is becoming drastically different than the last. Reach plays nothing like Halo 3, Halo 4 plays nothing like Reach, and Halo 5 plays nothing like Halo 4. Metroid always had a consistent feel in its first-person games until Other M, and look what that did to the series’ reputation.
Yeah and cod community love the fact that their games never change. ironically what they want is the change back to basic cod. Also what you just describe is halo 3 formula for every halo. Halo 1-3 was basically the same without including the few differences. For me, gameplay changes are fine. There is no correct way of determine what changes in gameplay are unessary because it’s subjective.
> 2533274990212593;1:
> I know this topic has been talked about a lot but I think we needed these changes. Halo 5 as everyone knows is completely different than CE, halo 2, or 3. Halo CE came out in 2001 if the player base was in high school they would be around 30 something by now. Halo 2 came out in 2004 player base would be around their mid 20s . Halo 3 came out in 2007 the player base now would be in their early 20s or late teens. These are just averages assuming the minimum age to buy halo but there are younger players I was playing halo 2 at the age of 10 but as people get older they grow out of playing xbox daily most original people who played halo ce doesn’t play anymore now it’s the new generation and if they stuck with the old way of playing other games like Titan fall, battle field, and call of duty would get these new players instead of halo because they are going to ask “would I rather jog around a map and shoot or jump across building slide in for a kill with a shot gun?” (And yes I realize the old halos took more skill I’ve played them) what I’m saying is it sounds a lot cooler and more fun to player halo 5 than previous halos and without new players halo will eventually die and some might say well at that point maybe it should and I’ve got to disagree. either way you wouldn’t play halo whether there is a new halo or not but some people enjoy the route halo is going. I’m not saying people who don’t like the way halo 5 has no right to have an opinion I’m saying no one wants to play the same game rapped in a different skin every couple of years unless for some reason you are still complaing that bungie should still be making halo but they would probably be doing the same thing I mean look at destiny so I think bungies halo 4 and 5 would be pretty similar to 343. To end this ill just say I like bungie and 343 both I’ve never judged any game based on who made it. Bungie did a good job with all the halos they have made but that era of gaming is over its time to accept and adapt if you want to continue playing future halos or accept and move on and stop blaming 343 because halo 5 is so different cause they did listen to the community with this one.
Change is good, and necessary, but I don’t know if you’ve noticed this OP, but this is absolutely NOT the change that Halo needs.
> 2533274819567236;104:
> > 2533274848599184;102:
> > > 2533274819567236;19:
> > > > 2533274848599184;16:
> > > > > 2533274819567236;15:
> > > > > > 2533274792820475;12:
> > > > > > I don’t understand how people make these threads and take themselves seroosuly. It is an undeniable fact that the halo population in halo 2, halo 3, and even halo reach is far superior than every halo game made by 343i that included all these changes. And no the core fan base getting older is just a lame excuse to try and give 343i a pass. Fact is their games just suck compared to previous halo games. Worse sales numbers, worse population stats… There is literally zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That’s what seems so crazy to me. Obviously people can like Halo’s current direction, that’s fine, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).
> > > > >
> > > > > There are even a few examples highlighting why it actually would’ve been better off sticking to its roots rather than “modernizing” it like they did. Examples like CoDs success despite sticking with the same basic gameplay and now with Dooms success acting as the perfect parallel to what Halo should’ve done this whole time. There is no reason whatsoever for the drastic changes, all people have are unsupported assumptions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, CoD is so similar to what it was in 2007. And gaming is completely the same as well.
> > > >
> > > > Doom’s success being what exactly? Decent reviews and a PC community that doesn’t really like it?
> > > >
> > > > Medal of Honor, Crysis, Tomb Raider, Assassin’s Creed. Just a list of series that either died, are dying, or had to reboot because of consistently being the same.
> > >
> > >
> > > CoD remained the same for about 4-5 years.
> > >
> > > Doom is considered fast and fun while doing its own thing in Campaign. Choices in the MP don’t effect that.
> > >
> > > Halo has more in common with CoD and Doom than every game you listed.
> >
> >
> > Halo remained the same for 6 years. then changed. Similar to CoD.
> >
> > The PC community does not care about Doom. and apparently neither do console players.
> >
> > you still failed to grasp that all those games died out because they stayed the same. so much for your “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Halo wouldn’t have continued on being just about as popular as it was (or maybe slightly less so).”. all of the franchises i mentioned are large, well known franchises
>
>
> You misunderstood the intent of my response. I was clarifying what I meant for you. I wasn’t arguing. Sorry bro.
It’s fine if you dont want to argue with me specifically. It’s key for you to understand you are leaving out a large counter argument when you say “there is literally zero evidence to suggest that Halo staying exactly how it was means it wouldve failed”. There is as much evidence to suggest that it would succeed as there is to suggest it would fail. For every game series that succeeds by staying the same (personally I see none in the industry today), there are countless series that become unprofitable and lifeless.
Your CoD argument is incredibly weak, especially because even going from MW2 to Black Ops to MW3 feels incredibly different. Saying that CoD “stayed the same for 5 years” after it changed once only leads credibility to the idea that franchises have to change. CoD was historical, it became “modern”, now it’s looking futuristic. All this has changed CoDs gameplay. What killstreaks to choose, what perks to use, what weapon class was the best all changed from game to game. That to me is more jarring than slightly buffing automatics and making advanced version of previous loadouts (Reach to 4). Technically, Halo is following that path. From 2001 to 2007 it was the same, from 2010 to 2015 it was the same, maybe the next game makes an even larger change.
By all means, please continue arguing with everyone else and assuming all your points are valid. Ignoring an entire side of information about a certain argument doesn’t make you seem more intelligent.
Los cambios son muy necesarios para poder explorar nuevas formas de entretenimiento y salir de esa zona de confort donde solo terminaremos en la monotonía a final de cuenta
> 2533274808386392;9:
> Change is good, but not change that completely reinvents the game. Halo 1-Reach had change, but asides from Reach (to a certain extent), they never tried to reinvent Halo. 343i have reinvented the game twice already.
>
> 343i just needed to build off of Halo 2 or 3, and we would have been good.
4 did a good job keeping somewhat in touch with the original games, and I am someone who likes 4 the least (well…until 5 came out which I really hate.) But Halo 5 just doesn’t feel like Halo and I would forget I was playing it if certain signature Halo information wouldn’t keep getting mentioned every 5 minutes.
On a slightly related note, since when were the enemies called by their species names like “Sangheili”, “Unggoy,” “Kig-Yar” in the games instead of their original terms we have used sense the Bungie era like “Elite” “Grunt” and “Jackal”? I’ll give the Elites a pass, since they are respectable allies now, but why the other two changing names? We get it 343i, you read the books more than Bungie did. Now stop over cramming terminology down our throats.
> 2533274978822955;112:
> Los cambios son muy necesarios para poder explorar nuevas formas de entretenimiento y salir de esa zona de confort donde solo terminaremos en la monotonía a final de cuenta
solo ingles
> 2533274990212593;1:
> I know this topic has been talked about a lot but I think we needed these changes. Halo 5 as everyone knows is completely different than CE, halo 2, or 3. Halo CE came out in 2001 if the player base was in high school they would be around 30 something by now. Halo 2 came out in 2004 player base would be around their mid 20s . Halo 3 came out in 2007 the player base now would be in their early 20s or late teens. These are just averages assuming the minimum age to buy halo but there are younger players I was playing halo 2 at the age of 10 but as people get older they grow out of playing xbox daily most original people who played halo ce doesn’t play anymore now it’s the new generation and if they stuck with the old way of playing other games like Titan fall, battle field, and call of duty would get these new players instead of halo because they are going to ask “would I rather jog around a map and shoot or jump across building slide in for a kill with a shot gun?” (And yes I realize the old halos took more skill I’ve played them) what I’m saying is it sounds a lot cooler and more fun to player halo 5 than previous halos and without new players halo will eventually die and some might say well at that point maybe it should and I’ve got to disagree. either way you wouldn’t play halo whether there is a new halo or not but some people enjoy the route halo is going. I’m not saying people who don’t like the way halo 5 has no right to have an opinion I’m saying no one wants to play the same game rapped in a different skin every couple of years unless for some reason you are still complaing that bungie should still be making halo but they would probably be doing the same thing I mean look at destiny so I think bungies halo 4 and 5 would be pretty similar to 343. To end this ill just say I like bungie and 343 both I’ve never judged any game based on who made it. Bungie did a good job with all the halos they have made but that era of gaming is over its time to accept and adapt if you want to continue playing future halos or accept and move on and stop blaming 343 because halo 5 is so different cause they did listen to the community with this one.
the changes in the previous games were extremely subtle by comparison to halo 5…halo 5’s changes are so drastic…it doesnt even feel like halo anymore…you can make changes without changing what makes the game feel like halo, feel unique, feel like what its supposed to be (and yes im aware not everyone agrees on exactly what that is) …i really dont think people bought and continue to play halo 5 because they can…what…thrust…i mean come on man…gimmicks get old…what if for example the only thing in halo 6 movement wise was sprint and slide…would you play that? i know some people wouldnt like even having those (myself included) but i feel like it would be the best middle ground…you have your “modern” mechanics…but it doesnt drastically and fundamentally change the way the game is played…well sprint kind of does but…whatever…im a reasonable man
> 2533275007449996;115:
> > 2533274990212593;1:
> > I know this topic has been talked about a lot but I think we needed these changes. Halo 5 as everyone knows is completely different than CE, halo 2, or 3. Halo CE came out in 2001 if the player base was in high school they would be around 30 something by now. Halo 2 came out in 2004 player base would be around their mid 20s . Halo 3 came out in 2007 the player base now would be in their early 20s or late teens. These are just averages assuming the minimum age to buy halo but there are younger players I was playing halo 2 at the age of 10 but as people get older they grow out of playing xbox daily most original people who played halo ce doesn’t play anymore now it’s the new generation and if they stuck with the old way of playing other games like Titan fall, battle field, and call of duty would get these new players instead of halo because they are going to ask “would I rather jog around a map and shoot or jump across building slide in for a kill with a shot gun?” (And yes I realize the old halos took more skill I’ve played them) what I’m saying is it sounds a lot cooler and more fun to player halo 5 than previous halos and without new players halo will eventually die and some might say well at that point maybe it should and I’ve got to disagree. either way you wouldn’t play halo whether there is a new halo or not but some people enjoy the route halo is going. I’m not saying people who don’t like the way halo 5 has no right to have an opinion I’m saying no one wants to play the same game rapped in a different skin every couple of years unless for some reason you are still complaing that bungie should still be making halo but they would probably be doing the same thing I mean look at destiny so I think bungies halo 4 and 5 would be pretty similar to 343. To end this ill just say I like bungie and 343 both I’ve never judged any game based on who made it. Bungie did a good job with all the halos they have made but that era of gaming is over its time to accept and adapt if you want to continue playing future halos or accept and move on and stop blaming 343 because halo 5 is so different cause they did listen to the community with this one.
>
>
> the changes in the previous games were extremely subtle by comparison to halo 5…halo 5’s changes are so drastic…it doesnt even feel like halo anymore…you can make changes without changing what makes the game feel like halo, feel unique, feel like what its supposed to be (and yes im aware not everyone agrees on exactly what that is) …i really dont think people bought and continue to play halo 5 because they can…what…thrust…i mean come on man…gimmicks get old…what if for example the only thing in halo 6 movement wise was sprint and slide…would you play that? i know some people wouldnt like even having those (myself included) but i feel like it would be the best middle ground…you have your “modern” mechanics…but it doesnt drastically and fundamentally change the way the game is played…well sprint kind of does but…whatever…im a reasonable man
Exactly. As a life long player of Halo who used to read all the books, watch the shows, and play all the games, I can tell you if Halo 6 is like Halo 5, I am officially done. And I don’t mean “stomp my feet on the ground” type of done where I am obviously going to keep buying the games and am just saying this to hear myself talk and seem important. I mean I literally don’t have the time or money to buy a crap game. I, as of now, only have about four games for my Xbox One. I am to busy with real life to play bad games. I am and have always been a casual gamer.
343i does not need to go completely back to pre-Halo 4 in terms of content. But they need to at least make it FEEL like Halo. The biggest issue for me is slow the friggen plot down. Halo 5 was way to fast. Halo isn’t about running and gunning, it is about lore. Lots and lots of lore.
Hell, I would buy the crap out of that non shooting Halo game that I believe Frank O’Connor talked about a while ago. At least that may feel somewhat like Halo because it would focus on lore.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
> 2533274819567236;3:
> Yeah, Halo needed change. It was making way too much money and people were playing it way too much.
i dont know why but this post made me laugh…hysterically…
> 2533275034067023;116:
> > 2533275007449996;115:
> > > 2533274990212593;1:
> > >
>
>
> Exactly. As a life long player of Halo who used to read all the books, watch the shows, and play all the games, I can tell you if Halo 6 is like Halo 5, I am officially done. And I don’t mean “stomp my feet on the ground” type of done where I am obviously going to keep buying the games and am just saying this to hear myself talk and seem important. I mean I literally don’t have the time or money to buy a crap game. I, as of now, only have about four games for my Xbox One. I am to busy with real life to play bad games. I am and have always been a casual gamer.
>
> 343i does not need to go completely back to pre-Halo 4 in terms of content. But they need to at least make it FEEL like Halo. The biggest issue for me is slow the friggen plot down. Halo 5 was way to fast. Halo isn’t about running and gunning, it is about lore. Lots and lots of lore.
>
> Hell, I would buy the crap out of that non shooting Halo game that I believe Frank O’Connor talked about a while ago. At least that may feel somewhat like Halo because it would focus on lore.
Pretty much the same, I’m at a point where I don’t even think I’ll pre-order Halo 6 but might if 343i proof they haven’t botched it up like Halo 4,5. Sure the lore is what got me into Halo, now the game is mostly becoming a twitch shooter, story is becoming more about rehashing boss’s. At the moment I’m more interested in seeing Halo Wars 2 than Halo 6 since I have serious doubts about Halo 6 after what they’ve done with Halo 5 since I have little faith in Halo 6.
> 2533274819567236;103:
> > 2533274826434697;99:
> > > 2533274819567236;74:
> > > > 2533274826434697;71:
> > > > > 2535421216150630;70:
> > > > > > 2533274873954403;62:
> > > > > > > 2533274826434697;54:
> > > > > > > > 2533274921821201;21:
> > > > > > > > Yeah because Halo 4 and 5 are defiantly the best in everyone’s eyes, not to mention Halo 5 didn’t sell great. Look at games like CS:GO and the new DOOM, Halo doesn’t need sprint or obnoxious abilities to be popular. This kind of stuff is driving away a BIG chunk of the community, exactly what CoD is going through right now with Infinite Warfare. I don’t know why you’re bringing age into this, Halo had a perfect formula, it set standards, it made trends.
> > > > > > > > Now Halo hides in the shadows and follows formulas and trends from other shooters. Just because there’s equal starts in multiplayer doesn’t exactly mean it feels like Halo.
> > > > > > > > If that were the case, Gears of War and Unreal Tournament also “FEEL JUST LIKE CLASSIC HALO MULTIPLAYER :D”
> > > > > > > > Halo at this point is pretty much Call of Duty with precision reticles and longer TTK.
> > > > > > > > People like you keep making the argument “Halo needs to change/evolve, or it will die.” It kills me when people say that, you know why? Because THAT’S when the downfall of Halo started, when it changed. Ever since Reach, Halo has lost A TON of popularity and no longer has the golden, respected throne it once had.
> > > > > > > > Ever since Halo started “evolving” it also keeps losing casuals and fans.
> > > > > > > > I love Halo, and that’s why I criticize it. You can’t love something and not criticize it, right?
> > > > > > > > Halo’s never going to go back to it’s golden state until it gets a hold of itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Halo gained popularity with Reach, which is one of the reasons why the terrible Halo 4 sold so well. Halo 5 sold poorly because the xbox one isn’t as popular as the xbox and xbox 360 were back when the older games were released and also because Halo 4 was very bad. #Facts
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lmao at your “facts”
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lol you know why Halo Reach sold well? Because of the popularity of H3. #Facts
> > > > > Halo started going downhill with their cookie cutter “evolving” gamplay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes Halo Reach sold well because of H3, never denied that, but while Halo gained most of its popularity with each of the first three games, it undeniably continued to gain popularity after the release of Halo Reach, albeit to a much lesser extent than any of the first three.
> > > >
> > > > Also do you know why Halo 4 sold so well? (Somehow better than Halo 2) Because of the popularity of Reach. #Facts
> > > > The main reason for the drop of Halo’s popularity has been the past two games have been on an unpopular console. I believe Halo 4 and MCC also contributed to its harsh downfall.
> > >
> > >
> > > Reach sold less - at launch and overall - than Halo 3 (despite many more 360’s being sold), it was received not as well critically and had a massive population drop off within the first year (7th place in activity behind THREE CoD games). What makes you think Reach was more popular than Halo 3?
> > >
> > > I’m starting to think you’re a Reach kid that wasn’t aware of any of this and is just making assumptions.
> >
> >
> > I never said Reach was more popular than Halo 3, but I said it gained popularity because it outsold the two titles that came before it as well as every other Halo game besides Halo 3.
> >
> > Halo Reach did have a population drop off after the first year, but most games have much larger dropoffs than Halo Reach.
> >
> > Halo Reach was more critically acclaimed than Halo 3, sorry but it’s true, get your facts straight and stop spewing bullYoink! to get get your point across.
> >
> > P.S. if you read my previous posts in this topic you would’ve seen me state Halo 3 was my favourite of the entire series.
>
>
> 1. Halo 3 has a higher metacritic rating than Reach, so Halo 3 was received better critically. Sorry. Do you even attempt to look up things you claim as fact?
>
> 2. You said Halo gained more popularity after Reach. Nothing about Reach suggests that. Not sales, not population and not critical acclaim. So why specifically do you think Halo gained popularity after Reach’s release.
-
That’s a single site and the overall rating is 4.5 for both games, every other site favours Halo Reach, do you even attempt to look up your arguements?
-
Halo 4 sold more than a combination of the sales of the two games that followed Halo 3. Hmm… Not to mention the HUGE drop off in sales directly after Halo 3.
Halo 3 to Halo Reach lost 2.3 MILLION sales while Halo Reach to Halo 4 didn’t even lose a quarter of million. There’s you facts, I can’t wait for another pathetic response.