The Halo 4 Compromise Thread
THESE POSTS WILL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY ASSUMING THE THREAD IS STILL ALIVE WHEN MORE HALO 4 DETAILS ARE ANNOUNCED. SO FAR IT IS BASED OFF OF THINGS FROM REACH AND POSSIBLY THINGS FROM HALO 4.
Did anyone ever want it to come down to this? No, but it may be neccessary.
There is an obvious argument on the forums. It is about old vs new. Changing constantly or being conservative with change. It seems like a whole lot of fuss over a video game. But for many people, Reach was broken. It was a possibility for a whole new halo experience, wasted.
But yet for others, it was fantastic. Change in a radical way. Armor abilites radically changed the way the game played, and some enjoyed it.
So this is the argument. Some believe it that Halo 4 should remain more like the first three Halo games, and practically ignore Reach, while others think that Halo 4 should build off of Halo Reach.
However, I believe there is another option.
If we can create some basic…guidelines, standards that the majority of the community can agree to, than Halo 4 may just generate its entire community back together.
So lets start by setting straight what the argument is. It is basically a online multiplayer issue on how Halo should be played. So lets take a look back and see what made previous Halo games successful and see what we can do to make the people who want change and the people that want classic halo BOTH happy.
Halo 1
The first halo. Halo Combat Evolved pretty much defined the console First Person Shooter genre. It actracted its players through a simply arcade shooter formula that was very competetive. All players started off completely even. Players fought for control of portions of the maps, often times containing a powerup or a powerful weapon. Controlling parts of the map was a very large tactial strategy. Another thing that halo: Combat evolved arguably brought to the table was the concept of vertical gameplay. It seems strange, but think about it. Did any games before halo really have an emphasis on it? players had to watch not just for people in front of them in land or in vehicles, but they had to watch the sky for banshees. And in maps like prisoner, which involved multiple “stories”, people could use their positioning above other players to their advantage. Basically, things in Halo 1 started off many of the first person shooters we know today.
Halo 2
Many people think of this as the best halo. It brought in the Battle Rifle, which quickly became a standard for starting off matches. It introduced dual wielding, melee weapons, and many other features. (I only got two weeks of halo 2 before they shut it down, so im not extremely familiar with the game). Most interesting to note here is that it brought many new things to the table without loosing the “everyone starts off even and plays strategically” base of halo Combat Evolved. More weapons and vehicles added, including the ability to destroy vehicles.
Halo 3
Introduced equipment to multiplayer. Added forge mode. Theater mode. Equipment arguably only added gameplay concepts to multiplayer, which is why many people did not have a problem with them. People still had to strategically fight over equipment and weapons, and everyone still started off even. Biggest problem really was its Netcode, many people having problems with lag and hit detection.
Halo: Reach
Introduced Armor Abilites. Replaced the BR with the DMR. changed the bloom system. What was so arguable about reach was the way its changes were implemented. Since everyone started off the match with a different ability, the general argument is that kills were unreliable. People who fired rapidly with bloom often won out over people who paced their shots. Jetpacks could be used to disrupt the control people had over sections of the map. Since there are no powerups, people have less incentive to actually use map control. People that aren’t fans of reach say that many of the changes slow down halo’s fast paced gameplay.
So basically, Lets look at the Core of the gameplay laid out by the first three Halo games:
1.) everyone starts off the match evenly.
2.) strategically placed weapons and other items make people try to control parts of the map.
3.) gameplay is fast paced.
4.) the person with more skill almost always wins (obviously).
Lets see what Halo Reach’s gameplay core was:
1.) everyone starts the match with a different ability
2.) People who were better often did not get kills they earned due to AA abuse and/or bloom
3.) map control is becoming irrelevant.
4.) gameplay is becoming slower.
Its obviously two different stories.
Does this make Halo: Reach a bad game? NO. It does NOT. It simply means it was heading in a different direction than half the community wanted.
So, if we can take the newest features halo has to offer, and put them into the core laid out by the first three halos, couldn’t everyone be happy? After all, thats what a sequel does, right? takes the core gameplay of the game before it and makes new additions?
EVERYONE STARTS OFF THE MATCH EVENLY
This one should be a no brainer. (Obviously, perks as in COD terms are a no no). The question should be, What does everyone start off with? different weapon configurations are dependant on the gametype. But should people start off with armor abilites? We don’t want to give people something that would strip others of kills they earned. Not anything like jetpack, because that would do the map control argument all over again. So what about something like armor lock? slows down gameplay. It seems like a sprint would work well. Not in the way that Reach implimented it. In reach, people could run away from dying, stripping others of earned kills. But what if a sprint was implimented that was used primarily for getting from point A to point B accross the map? Here’s my idea:
Sprint has a much longer use time, and a longer recharge time. The main difference being:
If a person is sprinting, and they get shot, the recharge time is activated.
If a person is sprinting, and they stop, the recharge time is activated.
Even if a person only uses half of their sprint meter, the recharge time is full length each time.
If sprint is shut off, whether by getting hit or stopping, there is a one second delay for firing.
This means that sprint would be used primarily as a transportation method instead as a combat technique. Also, anyone who used sprint through a combat zone, or otherwise used it unintelligently, they were penalized, usually by death.
Unlockable weapons is not a good idea. The people that play more will have different (and possibly better) weapons than the people that don’t play quite as much.
For the sake of everyone, it’s better if everyone starts off the same, regardless of with what.
