The force pushed Halo change...

There seems to be a consensus at 343 Industries that Halo’s gameplay needs a change. That things need to be added to the Halo gameplay list of mechanics to compete with the ‘modern’ titles. This is prevalent in the design choices they have incorporated this far with the beta footage. For example the thrust, aim-down sight (iron sights), and and it looks like vaulting also exists. The main question that is in my mind as a Halo fan from 2001 all the way to Halo Reach is why? Does Halo really need a drastic ‘evolution’ in change? If we look at the recent features of Halo that many players, especially intelligent players in terms of multiplayer, we can find what defines Halo in a modern context. You don’t even have to go, in terms of title releases, that far back.

Halo 3 is a prime example of what a lot of players wanted, and loved. You had the balance of all the weapons working in their own respect range, and scenario. The shotgun was definitely an up close and surprise weapon. There was no question whether or not someone with a shotgun could reach you from one end of Guardian, to the other side. The BR was the weapon of choice for most scenarios, it was the reliable choice that could potentially beat any weapon if the player was smart. Smart being the word choice, you had many community learned techniques, like strafing, knowing the map and being able to successfully back peddle, or “ghandi jump” around corners to beat a sniper, or a average shotgun wielder. The other fray of weapons worked as last resort type of guns, like the spiker, SMG, plasma rifle and so on depending on map variant or gamemode. They didn’t need to push a bunch of weapons into a working field. Tons of weapons in Halo 4 work as stand alone weapons, some better than others due to ammo and functionality, but none of them were too restricted. This was increased by the aspect of armor abilities.

Introduced in Halo Reach as a compliment to the golden triangle that makes up Halo (Guns, Melee, Grenades) you would compliement one, or some of the many styles of gameplay. It was subtle, but even still had problems among the community like armor lock preventing smooth and seamless gameplay.
Sprint also tried to compliment this golden triangle, but in the end really didn’t work for Halo due to map design choices, as well as weapon balance. A player with a shotgun could sprint lunge towards a DMR player and destroy the purpose of their weapon. This was one of the major reasons why Halo 4 was a failure in terms of multiplayer. Everything was trying to work which resulted in a bunch of features trying to fit together.

It seems like this is one of the problems that is foreseen in Halo 5. It looks like a game with a bunch of features that don’t even try to compliment one another, nor make a connection with the golden triangle of Halo. The reason it slightly works for games like Call of Duty to have a bunch of features that are loosely developed and not well thought about in the long run is because of the wild and crazy gameplay mechanics already there. There is no nuance, there is no subtly or much technique involved, just whoever is quickest and has the best perks and guns. This is not what Halo was supposed to be about. Plenty of times people could best a really good BR when they’re a really good AR user. This is being taken away, and almost everything is becoming like a game of Slap Jack where everyone is just throwing a bunch of stuff in a pile and waiting to see what works.

Yes, the ~200,000 hardcore fans would lik it if Halo lingered around H3 without changing anything significant. No, that is not economically viable for Microsoft’s flagship game franchise.

> 2533274794407851;1:
> Halo 3 is a prime example of what a lot of players wanted, and loved.

In hindsight, the fans loved it. At the time? I still remember how crazy the Halo 3 and Optimatch forums were. So much less skill than Halo 2. Too many gimmicks with equipment and dual-wielding. The maps sucked, especially when Blackout was released and fans were convinced Bungie killed Lockout. I liked Halo 3, don’t get me wrong, but Halo can’t just release the same game over and over again. From what I’ve seen of Halo 5’s footage, the fundamentals of classic Halo game is there, but we have more things to work with. Will they work? We’ll see in the beta.

Honestly I found every halo tittle has radically changed. Halo 4 being the low point because of its loadouts, perks, and personal ordinance drops.

The game only has ‘little change’ if you focus on the h2/h3 bubble, and even then they have a number of distinct differences that you see debated.

> 2533274932540799;2:
> Yes, the ~200,000 hardcore fans would lik it if Halo lingered around H3 without changing anything significant. No, that is not economically viable for Microsoft’s flagship game franchise.

I actually don’t think that number is accurate, but we will argue from that point. I do understand we are at a point where a game industry likes to focus on what brings in more people for a short amount of time, opposed to the numbers of people who consistently support a game. It’s why Call of Duty games tend to come out yearly, and not develop their games for the long run. Just keep the viscous circle of make a problem, fix a problem in the next game, make a new problem. The problem is Halo was never that kind of game, and Halo 3 consistently keep their 200,000 hardcore fans longer than most games do nowadays. In fact Halo 3 consistently kept their numbers and support (even financially I’d argue) more than Halo 4. Wouldn’t it make more sense to milk the hardcore and guaranteed players of a franchise opposed to alienating the actually community who shows real support? Develop a game that can be worked on and can garner in more money over time opposed to money in short bursts.

But I’m not sure why we are talking about the economics of a Halo release title, it has little to do with my topic although an interesting point nonetheless.

> 2533274812652989;3:
> > 2533274794407851;1:
> > Halo 3 is a prime example of what a lot of players wanted, and loved.
>
>
> In hindsight, the fans loved it. At the time? I still remember how crazy the Halo 3 and Optimatch forums were. So much less skill than Halo 2. Too many gimmicks with equipment and dual-wielding. The maps sucked, especially when Blackout was released and fans were convinced Bungie killed Lockout. I liked Halo 3, don’t get me wrong, but Halo can’t just release the same game over and over again. From what I’ve seen of Halo 5’s footage, the fundamentals of classic Halo game is there, but we have more things to work with. Will they work? We’ll see in the beta.

Of course, and excellent point. I think it brings back to what I was saying in my response to Shurifire. All game communities are going to complain it’s part of the relationship of the player and the community. The difference being is that you have a backlash of people complaining about a game that isn’t even released yet for 343. It’s part of the problem with the disconnect of the relationship with the developer. It’s what happening to Bungie right now in fact. Halo 3 wasn’t perfect, nowhere near and people did have issues with the game, but Bungie did listen and supported their game for a long time trying to cater to the community. I don’t want Halo 3 over and over again I want the golden triangle of what makes Halo to be untainted by useless features that aren’t new to any other game. They’re just adding features we have before that don’t even go with Halo. It’s not progress, it’s confirming to the status quo of the generic gaming industry. We will see in the beta, but even in the footage I can see where many things didn’t work. For instance the pistol and the DMR being used as the same role. What’s the point? That’s already a large issue seeing how the pistol was, and is trying to still become one of the top primary weapons of Halo. It already was in Halo 4 as well.

> 2533274794407851;5:
> > 2533274932540799;2:
> > Yes, the ~200,000 hardcore fans would lik it if Halo lingered around H3 without changing anything significant. No, that is not economically viable for Microsoft’s flagship game franchise.
>
>
> I actually don’t think that number is accurate, but we will argue from that point. I do understand we are at a point where a game industry likes to focus on what brings in more people for a short amount of time, opposed to the numbers of people who consistently support a game. It’s why Call of Duty games tend to come out yearly, and not develop their games for the long run. Just keep the viscous circle of make a problem, fix a problem in the next game, make a new problem. The problem is Halo was never that kind of game, and Halo 3 consistently keep their 200,000 hardcore fans longer than most games do nowadays. In fact Halo 3 consistently kept their numbers and support (even financially I’d argue) more than Halo 4. Wouldn’t it make more sense to milk the hardcore and guaranteed players of a franchise opposed to alienating the actually community who shows real support? Develop a game that can be worked on and can garner in more money over time opposed to money in short bursts.
>
> But I’m not sure why we are talking about the economics of a Halo release title, it has little to do with my topic although an interesting point nonetheless.

The economics are important because of the fact that, Halo, being MS’s biggest exclusive, is relied upon to flog X1s by the million. Appealing to a smaller audience (whatever the no. is, it’s not huge) is not what MS wants. CoD was in decline before AW, which evolved the mechanics. The same thing would happen with Halo, only with a much more distinct drop, as the games are less frequent. The majority of gamers these days expect a specacle, with loads of outlandish and exciting things. Old CoD and Halo MP’s no longer provide that. Ask a casual gamer (most gamers) whether they would prefer to play a game with a set movement speed and no distinct mechanics, or one that does something new and exciting, and it’s no feat guessing which they’ll want.

On another note, why would a developer want a console game with limited DLC expansion capacity to keep its population far beyond its intended lifespan? It would reduce profits overall. Planned obsolescence is an industry standard.