The truth is this game franchise needs to truely evolve.
time to point out what the reality is. This game took two steps back and one step forward. The two steps being that everying is focused on on-foot combat and the maps are closed off and your pretty much playing in a box. The step forward being the response rate of the game and how it handles on current systems.
I’m not going to complain about blah blah blah boltshot blah blah ordnance drops. What I am going to point out is a few missed opportunities and why the DMR exists.
As many of you may know, Reach was the most open game in the franchise. When I say “open” I mean the maps were huge and you could go into the sky np. If you don’t see where I’m going with this by now then stay with me. The missed oppurtunity no. 1 are sky battles! Yes high in the air assaults and wars while there are still people on the ground.
It’s one of the things Reach did right by upping the game and stepping it up. Which is why the DMR was created and replaced the BR because it would have taken too long to get in a good range with the BR and would have became boring quick. In other words “this game needs the DMR for this to be possible.”
Can you imagine a small air fortress, falcons, hornets, banshees, pelicans, phantoms, and any thing else that could stay in the air while you have people with tanks, warthogs, ghosts, etc on the ground and even in the air on the air fortress flying off of the side of of man cannons and being dropped via player controled air support?It would be fun, amazing, and very innovative all while keeping to halos core on-foot gameplay.
Missed oppurtunity no. 2? Underwater battles. This is where I think the mantis would have truely shined. Fighting in water would give the game such a different pace and really give it another step up.
If you were to put all of this together? Halo would be king again and in so many ways. If not halo 4 then halo 5 and if not 5 the do this for 6 because this the only pinnacle left that halo has in terms of online play. I mean what else is there? More fighting on the ground? It’s a standard, time to truely evolve the franchise.
Personal Opinions aren’t truths or facts about the game.
I do agree, Reach had good space and massive maps. The invasion maps were awesome and the vehicular battles great. I feel like Halo4 has lost one of the positive aspects from Reach. Halo 4 feels small, enclosed an extremely limited. The combat is one dimensional.
I may have expected Halo to challenge Battlefield 3 in terms of epic-ness. The air battles, tanks battles and infantry classes. The team work involved, the sheer size of the maps, exciting combat variety of weapons.
Halo4 is nothing compared BF3.
> Personal Opinions aren’t truths or facts about the game.
True but tge truth is the franchise needs to evolve. Ya know, because arena shooters appear to be dieing.
Btw contribute more in your responses please. This is discussion board not a game to see who can get the highest post count. Thank you. 
What are you talking about? Those arent things arent halo facts. those are just your opinion. air and water battles would suck. theyve never been in a halo game, so i can see why you would like to see them. but I would be deeply appreciative if you would refrain from speaking… if you want those play another game. i dont even understand why you would post this!
> I do agree, Reach had good space and massive maps. The invasion maps were awesome and the vehicular battles great. I feel like Halo4 has lost one of the positive aspects from Reach. Halo 4 feels small, enclosed an extremely limited. The combat is one dimensional.
>
> I may have expected Halo to challenge Battlefield 3 in terms of epic-ness. The air battles, tanks battles and infantry classes. The team work involved, the sheer size of the maps, exciting combat variety of weapons.
>
> Halo4 is nothing compared BF3.
BF3 is a very good example. 343 talks about borrowing from other franchises in terms of evolving the game but they never took open worlds into account and BF3 did a great job on that.
> > Personal Opinions aren’t truths or facts about the game.
>
> True but tge truth is the franchise needs to evolve. Ya know, because arena shooters appear to be dieing.
>
> Btw contribute more in your responses please. This is discussion board not a game to see who can get the highest post count. Thank you.
I don’t care for post count and it is a discussion board yes but I can say what ever I want to say as long as I do not go against the CoC and it does pertain to the discussion, which my post did. H4 has evolved from the previous Halo’s and Invasion wasn’t a good gametype From my POV and experiences. Since 343 didn’t put elites in H4 there was no reason to have invasion.
They also have a better 6v6 playlist that fits Halo 4’s mechanics which is dominion a form of territories which I prefer and love to play.
Hmm, battlefield halo - would be Epic.
Beyond 343’s capability IMHO.
> > I do agree, Reach had good space and massive maps. The invasion maps were awesome and the vehicular battles great. I feel like Halo4 has lost one of the positive aspects from Reach. Halo 4 feels small, enclosed an extremely limited. The combat is one dimensional.
> >
> > I may have expected Halo to challenge Battlefield 3 in terms of epic-ness. The air battles, tanks battles and infantry classes. The team work involved, the sheer size of the maps, exciting combat variety of weapons.
> >
> > Halo4 is nothing compared BF3.
>
> BF3 is a very good example. 343 talks about borrowing from other franchises in terms of evolving the game but they never took open worlds into account and BF3 did a great job on that.
Probably because DICE’s game engine can handle open worlds like BF3’s maps and that game is set for 12 v 12, halo is only 8v8. they need maps to fit the player server slot size.
> > > Personal Opinions aren’t truths or facts about the game.
> >
> > True but tge truth is the franchise needs to evolve. Ya know, because arena shooters appear to be dieing.
> >
> > Btw contribute more in your responses please. This is discussion board not a game to see who can get the highest post count. Thank you.
>
> I don’t care for post count and it is a discussion board yes but I can say what ever I want to say as long as I do not go against the CoC and it does pertain to the discussion which it does. H4 has evolved from the previous Halo’s and Invasion wasn’t a good gametype From my POV and experiences. Since 343 didn’t put elites in H4 there was no reason to have invasion.
Yes but you need to contribute to the post by giving an explanation to the core idea of the subject not the “flaw”. Btw I accidentally deleted the first part of my post and have now posted the reason. The game needs to evolve.
The only it’s actually evolved was better on foot gameplay. That’s it and that’s pretty much whats been the focus. I’m not saying throw all of it out the window but they need to create more possibilities and to do that they need to expand.
> > > I do agree, Reach had good space and massive maps. The invasion maps were awesome and the vehicular battles great. I feel like Halo4 has lost one of the positive aspects from Reach. Halo 4 feels small, enclosed an extremely limited. The combat is one dimensional.
> > >
> > > I may have expected Halo to challenge Battlefield 3 in terms of epic-ness. The air battles, tanks battles and infantry classes. The team work involved, the sheer size of the maps, exciting combat variety of weapons.
> > >
> > > Halo4 is nothing compared BF3.
> >
> > BF3 is a very good example. 343 talks about borrowing from other franchises in terms of evolving the game but they never took open worlds into account and BF3 did a great job on that.
>
> Probably because DICE’s game engine can handle open worlds like BF3’s maps and that game is set for 12 v 12, halo is only 8v8. they need maps to fit the player server slot size.
Very true. I would hope they would do 20 v 20 if they were to touch on this idea or more if they have to. Straight out doubling the player count wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Why would I want Halo to become a Battlefield clone?
If I wanted to play Battlefield, I’d play Battlefield.
I want to play Halo, the Arena shooter, not Halo the clone. Even though there are a lot of similarities between modern FPS’s and Halo.
This game is centred around BTB, and that’s part of the reason why it isn’t enjoyable.
20 v 20 is hard on the 360 in the next xbox title it might happen, not as of now no game will ever go above 24 slots.
air battles umm they got banshees it qualifies as limited as it is but thank you i have a new map and game type idea should be just what your looking for probably take me about a month but ill post to forum when its ready
> Hmm, battlefield halo - would be Epic.
>
> Beyond 343’s capability IMHO.
I dought it 343 could probably pull it off but then we would have so many more hate threads and people going like theres too many people and stuff liek that and then arguments over maps being to large i mean its already like that just imagine it on a battle field scale plus the comparison arguments between the 2 i mean my GOD!!! There capable of doing it they have top of the line developers some may have even worked on a battlefield title but really it wouldnt go down well with the community.
> Why would I want Halo to become a Battlefield clone?
> If I wanted to play Battlefield, I’d play Battlefield.
> I want to play Halo, the Arena shooter, not Halo the clone. Even though there are a lot of similarities between modern FPS’s and Halo.
>
> This game is centred around BTB, and that’s part of the reason why it isn’t enjoyable.
I’m sure the option to play to play basic arena games would still be there. They’ve focused on it so much it’s an inevitability. But in order to create a halo game in this current gen and keep it on top and keep popularity is to expand the game’s experience. As much as you love closed spaces, the majority of players who have stopped playing because there’s nothing new does not.
My philosophy is if their going to cop something, you make it bigger than the original not straight out copy and paste. I’m saying a slightly wider scale than BF3 and more going on with air ships.
> > Hmm, battlefield halo - would be Epic.
> >
> > Beyond 343’s capability IMHO.
>
> I dought it 343 could probably pull it off but then we would have so many more hate threads and people going like theres too many people and stuff liek that and then arguments over maps being to large i mean its already like that just imagine it on a battle field scale plus the comparison arguments between the 2 i mean my GOD!!! There capable of doing it they have top of the line developers some may have even worked on a battlefield title but really it wouldnt go down well with the community.
Here’s the thing, the community is going to complain no matter what. That’s what I’ve learned from lurking these forums and what I’ve read so far. Your never going to please everyone right away and it’s gotten worse over the years to the point that I think 343 is actually intimidated by them which is rediculous. Forums are becoming more and more unreasonable because people’s individual expect ions arnt being met so their angry.
I think 343 could really pull it off if they wanted to.