The Importance of a Target Audience

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

If there’s one thing that makes a product successful, it’s having a target audience, a group of people in which the product is designed specifically for. When you have an established target audience, you’re 100% sure on what to do, how to make it, and if it will be successful. That’s the general consensus behind a successful product.

Each Halo game has had a target audience, although some of them were very different.

Halo’s CE through 3, catered to people who enjoyed console FPS’s. Halo Wars catered to people that enjoyed both Halo and RTS’s in an attempt to create a successful RTS on a console. Halo 4 and Halo: Reach catered specifically to casual players.

After the massive population drops in Reach and 4, more so with 4, we’ve all been split down the middle in how to address the issue. Many of us have sought out a solution: a compromise. A compromise between Infinity and Classic gameplay in order to satisfy both the competitive and casual player bases.

However, while compromises are generally a healthy eventuality, that’s simply not the case with Halo, or any product of that matter.

If we try to compromise between Infinity and Classic gameplay for Halo 5: Guardians, the end result will be a failure. Ultimately, due to how the game must be split between the two audiences that we’re catering to, the end result will fail to fully satisfy anyone. No one will fully enjoy the game, and therefore, no one will stick with the game.

It’s a lose-lose scenario. That’s about as plain as I can put it.

I consider myself an Infinity Fan. I enjoyed both Reach’s and 4’s multiplayers more than 2’s and 3’s. However, despite my preferences, I know that I’m a minority. I’ve seen the population charts. I’ve seen how both Reach and 4 FAILED to sustain a population. While BOTH of those games had a target audience, it’s pretty evident that the audience that Bungie and 343i catered to were already comfortable with what they’d previously enjoyed: games such as Call of Duty (shocker) or Battlefield.

Not only is catering to a specific audience extremely important, but choosing what audience to cater to may or may not be even more pivotal. Again, don’t get me wrong; I’m an Infinity Fan, I deeply enjoyed Reach and 4’s MP. But the problem is, there’s only one specific audience that’s seemed to prefer Halo’s original gameplay over the more lenient gameplay that CoD and the newer games offer:

The Competitive Community.

When 343i designs the multiplayer for H5G, they’ll choose an audience to cater to. (They’ve probably already established this) Forming a compromise between two audiences will result in a sub-par experience for everyone.

The question that comes to mind, at least for me, is who should they cater to?

All in life is choice. And your day to choose has come.

2

Nice post, OP. I agree with you. Compromising for Halo 5 will put the nails in the coffin.

It’s obvious that they need to focus on the Competitive Community just based on the numbers alone.
Outside of numbers, Halo should’ve always stayed within its demographic. Halo had its own identity and market. We don’t need another casual game. Casuals aren’t going to leave their game of choice for a game that somewhat mimics theirs (as you stated), so why even try that in the first place?
Halo needs to be what Halo was for the first decade, and it must do this before it loses its fanbase and becomes something without an identity or purpose.

3

Designing a game for the “casual” or “competitive” audience is bad practice anyway. All games should be accessible (parties, intuitive UI, immersion) while supporting competition (skill ranks/stats, custom matches, competitive settings). A game that fails to be accessible will not achieve mass appeal and a game that fails to support competition will lack replay value (Titanfall is a good example).

The target audience refers to game settings. No one designs a racing game for FPS fans or an FPS for platformer fans. Bungie is a good example: they are making an MMORPG-like FPS, but they are making sure that they stay true to the FPS genre. Bungie has stated over and over that Destiny “is not an MMO” because they want to reinforce the idea that the game is first and foremost an FPS for their FPS fans.

4

On a similar note, I also don’t think many people give the ‘casual’ audience enough credit.

It seems like many people just assume that the casual audience only wants one type of shooter. As if they won’t enjoy a game if it doesn’t have the same mechanics and anything else will fell ‘outdated’.

No one’s taste is quite the same and at the same time don’t want the same thing all the time. I know its a crazy idea, but maybe, just maybe, there is more overlap than people seem to believe.

I am not actually that big of a competitive player, I just want Halo to feel like Halo because that is what I came here for in the first place. If I want to play something else I will that doesn’t mean the game I am playing right now needs to transform to suit all my other needs. I also love Battlefield, I have played lots of CoD in the past, and I am enjoying Titanfall quite a bit now. I want to keep their gameplay distinct from one another because I like variety.

This notion that all new shooters need to conform to a singular ‘modern’ ideal because it is what ‘everyone’ expects seems really wrong to me.

5

Good post OP. You’re very right on the nature of a target audience as well as appealing to the right audience. Very interesting thread.

6

The “competitive”, or classic community should be catered to in mainstream multiplayer matchmaking. As for the infinity fans, greatly expanding custom games and adding a custom games browser (as well as a real map editor alongside forge… cough) could be nothing but beneficial for not only them, but almost the entire community! :wink:

7

The only things that need outright removed are flinch and sprint. Other mechanics are generally “compatible” with classic settings (i.e. not tied to fundamental gameplay itself) and can be enabled/disabled with ease on a per playlist basis. As much as people hate Ordnance, it doesn’t affect player speed, it doesn’t affect map size, and so on.

I don’t think splitting the game down the middle is practical, but you could at least cater somewhat (i.e. have a small handful of niche playlists) to whatever is deemed “teh minorehtee”.

Essentially, no matter what you do, just make sure the new settings are compatible with classic settings so you don’t have to mod and break the game to get classic to work.

8

Gaah, Wish I could write Op’s like that…

Anyway I completely agree Halo isn’t the go-to mega popular FPS anymore… no, but instead of improving upon the already established solid gameplay the previous installments had to counter the upcoming innovative gameplay mechanics the competition has to offer, Bungie instead tried to copy the competition in hopes of sharing it’s consumer base which is wrong as they should have been stealing them back not sharing them, then 343 stepped this even more up, completely ignoring the fan backlash Reach had and continued the wrong approach to the decreasing consumer numbers and it not only lessen the long term population the franchise had even further but it also broke the community in half.

> I consider myself an Infinity Fan. I enjoyed both Reach’s and 4’s multiplayers more than 2’s and 3’s.

oooh that Honesty though, I know this does not mean much but you just earned my respect.

9

personally i don’t think people recognize what h4 truly impacted, while some of you weren’t part of these communities let me establish something

despite some of these things still being compatible with H4s infinity settings, there was a lot more impact than the competitive community when it came to halo 4’s changes

halo 4 changed a lot of things, not all are synonymous with infinity, despite this the changes found in h4 did have major impact infinity or not

> I deeply enjoyed Reach and 4’s MP. But the problem is, there’s only one specific audience that’s seemed to prefer Halo’s original gameplay over the more lenient gameplay that CoD and the newer games offer:
>
> The Competitive Community.

> The “competitive”, or classic community should be catered to in mainstream multiplayer matchmaking. As for the infinity fans, greatly expanding custom games and adding a custom games browser (as well as a real map editor alongside forge… cough) could be nothing but beneficial for not only them, but almost the entire community! :wink:

these two statements i heavily disagree with

despite what some may think halo 4 affected more than the competitive community, halo 4 affected all established communities

competitive
custom gamers
custom game forgers
competitive map forgers
speed runners
jumpers
photographers
montagers
completionists
stat-trackers
people with alternate playstyles
hlg
firefight
people who enjoy certain established playlists
people who try to study and experiment with the game

so lets start explaining

competitive is obvious, h4 additions meant the game was random and uncertain making the game less engaging and strategic

custom gamers want variety and fun games to play, they have very little in halo 4 due to the poor customization of settings, poor forge functions and poor forge maps, this pales in comparison to the experiences available in halo pc and halo 3 and to a lesser extent halo 2 and reach. halo 4 taken a big step back

custom game forgers also have less to work with due to the poor physics of halo 4 lacking the wacky, absurd things that could be achieved in previous iterations

competitive map forgers got a huge boost in halo reach, only to be going backwards due to the lack of precision editing, poor block parameters, an annoying and dysfunctional dynamic lighting system and blocks which don’t aesthetically work with each other

speed runners have to deal with an ultra linear and scripted campaign, no theater, dumb AI and boring AI encounters

jumpers aren’t too heavily affected in h4, however there are much less interactive items, less impactful physics and simpler map design regarding angles, paths of movement and elevation, leading to less exciting and unexpected jumps

photographers are a silently large community, of all the halo games that have photography halo 4 is by far the least aesthetically pleasing, the map designs have poor architectural design and lack the vibrant colours that could be found with halo 3, odst and even reach, there is also no bungie favourites so there is not that nice vehicle for people to view what they have done easily

despite what pro-H4 people say, there is less to do in halo 4, not more, as there are less ways to manipulate the game in your favour due to the lack in certainty and determined outcomes of anything you try to achieve, because of this montagers don’t get the insane and unexpected clips, because there is less ways to play the game

a completionist has one goal, to complete, if it is too easy(SR) or VERY tedious or un-fun (plasma pistol kill commendation + others like it anyone?) then there will be less to achieve, reducing just how much interaction they have with the game

stat-trackers doesn’t just mean a stat-padder, these people may want laser kills in a playlist or a win ratio in another playlist, when you have random weapons spawns, JiP etc, things that make the data inconsistent there is no point or need to want a stat that can’t be achieved through a certain method

people that have alternate playstyles can’t if the game is boring and doesn’t support many alternate ways to play. infinity settings force you in many ways to be limited to what the game decides, limiting free will and the ability to do these things consistently

while hlg can be annoying, these people help test and fix broken elements of the game, and while it is tedious to face it very much is/was the largest alternate way to play the game, which doesn’t really exist anymore due to the map design and the crutches off spawn

firefight was amazing in odst because there was a challenge, reach wasn’t challenging however it did bring in a lot more customization, spartan-ops as not a good idea gone bad, it was just a bad idea regarding gameplay, especially due to the boring enemies found within H4

people who enjoyed, snipes, btb, living dead/infection, etc for the past many years, had their experience ruined or altered due to the additions of halo 4, yes change is good, fundamental change is not. infection was boring as the entire point of that playlist was to hold out, it was poorly implemented in h4, the majority of snipes maps were small in reach because it was the favoured way to play, all maps are really big and have dynamic spawns, resulting in the slowest gameplay i’ve ever played in MM and btb changed for people who liked non-infinity BTB play

there is less ways to experiment with the game because the game is random, the physics are bland and not over the top, the maps aren’t of a high quality and there are no cool glitches or functions which allow this to happen

look at all major media outlets, what are they discussing? these activities

why? because they are the enjoyable activities which people have found replay value in, a reason why they enjoyed the game, most of these communities are barren in comparison to what they once were, and that is simply due to lack of activity found withing the game that players can attach themselves to

these things were the bread and butter for content creators and people who played often.

> The “competitive”, or classic community should be catered to in mainstream multiplayer matchmaking. As for the infinity fans, greatly expanding custom games and adding a custom games browser (as well as a real map editor alongside forge… cough) could be nothing but beneficial for not only them, but almost the entire community! :wink:

i dislike this as it assumes the position of classic = competitive and infinity = casual and customs, this is not the case

halo 4 has the least casual traffic out of any halo game, and infinity settings don’t affect custom games as custom games were entirely about playing the game unlike what is found in MM

also H4 lacks the wackyness, variety, absurdity and manipulation of physics which made the social experience so fun to begin with

halo 5’s goal should be to establish and revive the community, not to cater

/endrant

andycu5 and lenharu this wasn’t aimed at you, just a standpoint on commonly used posts

10

the poor decisions of halo 4

  • map design
  • poor enemies
  • bland aesthetics
  • minimal gametype customization
  • poor UI
  • some boring sandbox elements
  • tens based scoring system
  • objective mechanics

these things aren’t locked in or wanted, they don’t need to be catered to, they are just poor decisions, they didn’t happen to improve or benefit the game

the only split difference is the infinity settings that would clash with the revitalization of these communities and activities.

  • PoDs
  • global ordnance
  • perks
  • flinch
  • universal sprint
  • AA’s off spawn
  • customizable loadouts
  • JiP

that’s it, the rest are just poor by design and aren’t suggested to be improvements in any way shape or form, nor synonymous with “infinity” settings

so lets analyse what they’re actually achieving, what is different and if there are other solutions.

PODS

there was a discussion on if map pick-ups are needed, aside from the main argument the point is that neutral objectives are engaging, predictable and manipulatable, this allows for a variety of ways in which they can be used based on the certainty of how to use them, PODS create passive play by not knowing when someone has them and what they have, because of this there are a lot of random events that occur because they are not static.

so why is it integral for “modern” halo to have them in?
what makes it more useful than traditional weapon spawns?
what makes gameplay so much better?

personally i don’t think it does, it doesn’t force you to contest, if you cannot use it as a countermeasure to something else (eg i’ll use this because i KNOW they’ll have this) due to the unknown nature of who gets what then there are less ways to play with it than something you can manipulate and counter more efficiently.

global ordnance

this also is something that could not be implemented correctly because the only difference between global ordnance and normal weapon spawns is that with global ordnance

you may not know where it spawns
you may not know when it spawns
you may not know what spawns

it’s just naturally inferior to normal weapon spawns, there’s no bonus of using this system only limitations.

what would make this more desirable?

perks

obvious one, doesn’t need to be discussed, already has major negative feedback

flinch

same with flinch

customizable loadouts

take away perks, AA’s, grenades and secondary weapons and it wouldn’t be anywhere near as controversial or game-breaking as what it has been

what is so important about this?

wouldn’t two weapon slots, one for precision and one for automatic be more efficient?

other than AA’s the rest have proven to be undesirable anyway

JiP

yes it’s nice that people join after leaving to curb the quitting problem

but thinking logically is this the most efficient system?

look at league of legends for how they curb this issue. start the game, if someone leaves the game, they can’t play anything until their current game is finished, harsh penalty if you don’t join back, a resign system where if the majority vote to resign then the game ends.

what makes JiP more efficient than the system i just mentioned?

now here are the big two

AA’s off spawn

any new set of objects is welcomed, however from h3’s equipment onward there have been two major issues

implementation
fundamental functionality

in h3 the power drain, regen, flare and radar jammer were all poor functions

many armour abilities also have poor functions, camo (not a power-up), pro-vision, sentry, armour lock etc

the main issue some people have is a variety of choice off spawn, if you choose armour lock or jetpack what indicates to me that i know that, how do i play with and around that until it happens

that style of play was not what halo was for 8 years

the game was understandable and certain

many armour abilities are great, but what makes it bad if they were to be placed on map?

it allows players who may want or dislike them to control them and use them without the random elements that halo was not known for.

despite it seeming too easy to fix if it was placed on map here are the advantages

  • when you don’t know what they have you need to accommodate for any situation which makes you play more passive, placing it on the map would reduce the passive play and make the game less reliant on choosing the right armour ability at the right time and make it consistent.

  • placing it on map makes it more scarce, this allows you to control it, as well as making the ability stronger due to its limitation

why does the off spawn implementation have to be the way it is conveyed?

last one sprint

tbh despite my entire dislike for it at a fundamental level, if it was a pick-up it wouldn’t be the most causal issue in the game, it being an armour ability was bad enough, being a scape goat and the biggest causal reason for the pace slowing down.

despite the nerfs it being universal has just made it worse, as it has just allowed for more stop/start escapist behaviour

why is it so important to sacrifice so many elements just for this one addition?

so despite my opinion, how much change has infinity really brought on? what difference has it made? good changes? evolving changes? i may be biased as everyone with an opinion is.

however aside from sprint and AA’s do any of the other infinity additions have any major following to constitute it staying in?

do they add to the games depth and/or variety?

do they work with the rest of the games fundamentals effectively enough to want to keep them even if they were implemented differently?

what makes them so much better to want to keep them, strike a common ground or replace the traditional system?

because i can’t think of a reason

11

> The question that comes to mind, at least for me, is who should they cater to?

To people who enjoy to play (sci-fi) FPSs?

What does catering to “competitives” or “casuals” even mean?
What kind of goal is that?
Designing the game for a stereotypical sub-group?
Good luck with that.

Products get successful either because they offer something similar like other successful products but better or because they offer something new and unique which is able to compete and convince or even to trump because it is simply better or rather more entertaining than the competition in this regard.

Like I see it, Halo has always had a target audience and always will have. It is the FPS market itself.
The current task is that Halo has to convince/inspire said audience again with Halo 5.
So, the actual question isn’t “to who should we cater to?” but “how can we inspire the people/market for Halo?”.

12

You got a thank from me, OP.

I would add that I think the “competitive” community - by which people usually mean the high-skill players - is a bit of a misnomer. It excludes a large number of people who, if presented a game that satisfied those high-skill players, would agree that it is more enjoyable to play than Infinity.

Most people wouldn’t think of me as “competitive”. My service record is unimpressive (except for total play time). I do ridiculous things sometimes. My aim is subpar. I only know the most basic of callouts (since few at my level play with mics). Halo 4 is my first Halo, and my first console FPS. And I do like to play Infinity sometimes, along with other more traditional settings. Presented with just that, I think most would consider me “casual”.

But I’m not. I want to win. I hate being the weak link. I don’t like looking like an idiot. And the only reason I don’t play Proving Grounds or Throwdown when it existed is because I’m simply not good enough to compete. But I actually like playing those settings more than I like playing Infinity - as long as I can play with others who are close to my skill level. I have a competitive mindset . . . just sans competitive skills.

There are a lot of players like me out there. I used to have a regular crowd. All would be considered “casual”, but all complained about POD. And DMRs. And Jetpacks. And AC. Not so much loadouts or sprint, but you really have to think more deeply about the game to worry about those, and they didn’t quite share my interest there. Regardless, even casual players who just wanted to have fun were frustrated by the things that frustrated the “competitive” community. Casuals may not be able (in general) to accurately explain why they don’t like something - but they do know when a feature “feels” unfair.

I think that much of the desire by some “casuals” to maintain these items in future titles is not necessarily because they would fail to enjoy the game without them, but because they fear that without them every list will play like Proving Grounds. They have an impression that the so-called “competitive” settings equates to games full of “tryhards”. Reinforcing this was when Pro was added to Infinity. Generally, the higher-skilled players in the lobby (where the skill mismatch was due to poor ranking/matching implementation) would choose Pro and the rest of the people would get waxed. That leaves the impression that Pro = waxed = no fun.

But many of us here realize that is a false conclusion. The reason Proving Grounds grows more exclusive by the day is not a problem with settings; it’s a problem with skill ranking and matching (a problem that is made worse by splitting the population into lists with different settings). Were “Infinity Slayer” to have used Proving Grounds settings and there was no split, the casuals would have been matched against the same players they were currently matched against, but without the frustrating game elements even the casuals complained about in Infinity.

I hope 343i realizes that while the group implied by the term “competitive community” is small, the group that would enjoy the types of games the competitives want is much larger. They really need to stop artificially splitting the communities. H4 split them by having playlists with radically different settings. H2/3 split them by replicating ranked playlists in unranked form. Both are bad . . . though empirical evidence indicates the H4 way was worse.

One 4v4 slayer playlist. Ranked. One CTF playlist. Ranked. No duplicates in unranked form. Unranked should be synonymous with Action Sack. If we all play together, I think we will find there is much more common ground than we previously thought.

I have no real data to back that up. Just anecdotes. So maybe I’m wrong . . . but I really don’t think so.

13

I would never want a compromise split 50-50. That would be stupid and would basically be what we have with Halo 4 right now. Halo 5 does not need to have both Halo 3 and Halo 4 in it in their current states. When I want compromise, I mean a blend of the settings so that “casual” players don’t feel waxed by “competitive” players and “competitive” players feel like there is enough structure to be able to be skilled. Being skilled is different than dominating though. Domination is near invincibility while skill is an significant edge on your competition.

14

> When I want compromise, I mean a blend of the settings so that “casual” players don’t feel waxed by “competitive” players and “competitive” players feel like there is enough structure to be able to be skilled.

> Generally, the higher-skilled players in the lobby (where the skill mismatch was due to poor ranking/matching implementation) would choose Pro and the rest of the people would get waxed. That leaves the impression that Pro = waxed = no fun.

This is exactly what I mean (sorry to use you, Hoosier, as the guinea pig for this).

Because the population has been split - either into ranked/unranked lists or lists with “casual” vs. “competitive” settings, it leaves the impression that the settings are to blame for casuals getting waxed. But that’s not actually the cause.

The cause in H2/3 is that higher-skilled players dominated the ranked population, so the odds of a casual getting matched against much more highly skilled players was greater when playing ranked vs. unranked. The settings were the same - so they cannot be the cause. The cause in H4 is that the low population - exacerbated by splitting lists into the same game with different settings - and poor implementation of skill ranking results in lobbies with players of very different skill levels. The higher skill levels predominantly vote for the more traditional settings, proceed to wax the lower skill players, and leave the impression that the traditional settings are “hard”.

But they’re not. If the skill match were properly done, the low-skill guys would be playing against other low-skill guys and the game would be equally as hard on Infinity or Pro settings.

Splitting playlists and having different settings does not address the cause. It just temporarily hides the symptoms and perpetuates a misunderstanding that needlessly fractures the community.

15

> After the massive population drops in Reach

I have a point of contention to make.

Bungie, specifically Urk, said otherwise. That Reach was doing better than H3 in player count and attrition rate.

> I’ve seen the population charts.

And you saw how MW2 launched and took H3’s population right?

The people that jumped ship were the “casuals.” Leaving the “hardcore” population behind.

Catering to the Competitive/Hardcore community is a slow death in my mind. They don’t have the numbers, going by how well the playlists even aiming at their general area have excelled, to buy enough games to justify MS continuing the franchise because costs will exceed profits. Sure they could go back into the black by jettisoning content and scope but at that point I think people would be far too disappointed with the remaining product and would reject it.

Not to mention that catering to that one specific community ignores how CE through H3 made their success: By hitting as wide of a target audience as possible with new standout features. CE was the first FPS on a console to really nail the controls. It was also a break from the current trend at the time of WW2 shooters. H2 was the foundation of online MP. H3 brought Forge and Theater.

I’m also aware of at least one review, believe it was XBM, that commented how “the dinosaur that is Halo is finally lumbering into the modern era.” Doing a complete 180 with the direction is going to look bad and the classic settings are going to be held against the game.

And surely you’re also aware of the myriad of problems that plagued H4 that make a direct link between it’s MP settings and it’s population drop vague and hazy at best correct?

16

> Stuff

There’s a difference between catering to the “hardcore” players and satisfying them by ensuring that whatever you produce can be played competitively.

The former gives them exactly what they ask for - which may not actually be what they need in order to continue feeling excited about playing the game.

The latter gives them what they need - while still allowing the developer to modernize or revolutionize the game in ways they did not specifically request. I believe this to be the OP’s intent (he can correct me if I am wrong), with which I agree.

Many of the threads - including my own - call for specific solutions. I would hope that 343i takes all of those with a grain of salt (and I imagine that they will). They should look less at the specific suggestion itself and more at the undesirable result that the suggestion is meant to prevent.

Every feature that is added or retained must pass two tests:

  1. The casual Halo fan must think it is cool and adds to his/her enjoyment.
  2. The competitive Halo player must think it is fair.

With H4, 343i did #1 (they miscalculated the coolness and enjoyment factors - but that was their intent, anyway). They failed to do #2 at all for many of the new features - including ones as fundamental as weapons balancing.

Satisfying the competitive community - as you point out - cannot result in the exclusion of the casual players without making Halo die a slow death. On the other hand, failing to satisfy the competitive community will result in failing to satisfy a portion of the casual community . . . and ultimately yield the same outcome. This is because casuals, too, will be frustrated with unfairness . . . even if they don’t visit Waypoint to complain about it. They’ll simply pop in CoD and move on.

Both casuals and competitives alike recognize unfairness. The only real difference is their ability and willingness to put it into words.

17

Can you please give me your definition of “casual” so that I can get some context into what you are saying?

Especially considering I think Halo 2 and 3 catered to the wrong audience and that ODST and Reach catered to the audience that loved Halo 1.

18

> Can you please give me your definition of “casual” so that I can get some context into what you are saying?

Probably the easiest would be casual = those playing social lists instead of ranked ones. Which means most people, since even the competitive players sometimes played social in H2/3. While they played social, they were “casual”.

19

The biggest problem was that Halo: Reach and Halo 4 both catered to a playerbase who’s majority switches from game to game. This caused a population drop as soon as another game came out, leaving people who didn’t particularly enjoy the new style of Halo. Then they left and the only people who stayed were Halo fans that enjoyed Infinity style multiplayer.

Halo probably won’t have the audience it had around Halo 2 or 3 again. Those times are gone. However I’d really rather they cater to the fanbase that will stay. Who cares if 400,000 people who switch from game to game don’t like it. I’d much rather play with the 100,000 that love Halo and love competitive gameplay because we share common interests.

However Halo does need to evolve a little bit. A Halo 2/3 clone is boring. Why play a clone when I can just play those games? They’d be better than a clone anyway. Instead keep the base gameplay from 2/3 and give the game some added edge, while retaining to the balanced competitive nature of the base gameplay. For example Armor Abilities can work competitively, as long as they’re placed similarly to weapons. This can allow an unbalancing of the AA’s as they can be used similarly to power weapons. You want that really good AA? Well you’ll have to fight to gain control of it.

20

> I would never want a compromise split 50-50. That would be stupid and would basically be what we have with Halo 4 right now. Halo 5 does not need to have both Halo 3 and Halo 4 in it in their current states. When I want compromise, I mean a blend of the settings so that “casual” players don’t feel waxed by “competitive” players and “competitive” players feel like there is enough structure to be able to be skilled. Being skilled is different than dominating though. Domination is near invincibility while skill is an significant edge on your competition.

Honestly though, Halo 4 wasn’t even a 50/50 split, especially in the beginning when Infinity settings were dominant. It was too little too late to try and fix the core of Halo 4. The natural gameplay of Halo 4 is just too easy and random to try and fix. Dumb-downed equal and fair gameplay should have been spread across the majority of the playlists. Instead, it feels like we get a Hybrid Fiesta Slayer.

Halo 3 is what you call Halo game with enough things to please every part of the community. From competitive, Casual, theater and to Forge/Custom games community. Halo 3 had replayable Campaign