> I think the issue is that Halo has never really seen actual advancement upon its core but it was more and more stuff simply added to it.
Right. Since CE, the game itself hasn’t changed that much, but it’s been muddled down with all kinds of features, from assassinations to loadouts to an overabundance of weapons.
Let me ask you this, OP: why do sequels have such a hard time maintaining the amazingness of the original? I’m not just talking about video games, but books, movies, even some music. If you take successful, long-running stories like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars, the reason they have been so successful is that they can just make stuff up. The fictional universe is so expansive that whenever an author wants to tell another story, he can just invent more characters or another location and bam, you’ve got fuel for a story. In this way, people get to experience the same characters and settings in many different ways. This is also why the Matrix sequels failed: the original movie also provided a complete picture of the universe instead of leaving it open, and so the writers of Reloaded and Revolutions were limited in what they could come up with.
Now, the problem we face is that this doesn’t translate well to game mechanics. When you make a sequel to a game, you can’t just add more on. It’s not like a story where you can just come up with more “cool stuff,” add it on, and everything be great. You can’t change Halo too much because then it’s not really Halo anymore, but you also shouldn’t just add stuff until the game becomes so muddled down by its features that you forget why you even liked it in the first place.
If you personally are getting tired of Halo’s core, I would advise you to switch games. That’s what I do when I get tired of games. Halo has nothing to gain from changing unless the majority of its fan base wants it, and considering how much hate Halo 4 has received in comparison to other Halo games, I don’t think that’s the case.
> The problem for Halo, or any other arena shooter I feel is the fact that the bulk of consumers have no desire for arena shooters anymore.
> I mean: where is Quake? Where is Unreal Tournament? Where have those classic big Arena shooters gone?
Where are all the military shooters like CoD and Battlefield?
The reason no other arena shooters exist is because they all realized that they can’t compete with Halo. Halo is the best at what it does and shooters tried and failed to beat it for several years. Then CoD came along and was successful as well. Developers tried and failed to beat it at its own game.
This is why the next big shooters, Titanfall and Destiny, are finally innovative. Even if the core mechanics (move, jump, ADS, etc.) are similar to other shooters, the gameplay isn’t. Developers realized that they can’t beat Halo and CoD by being the same as them, so they are trying to be different.
> What I’m getting at is this: return to arena styled gameplay is probably only going to keep a small amount of more players attached
You mean, smaller than the percentage of Halo fans who are playing Halo 4?
> I just wonder how Halo X1, X2, X3 will keep the core mechanics intact without becoming stagnated.
> I think it’s more of a question if Halo’s core mechanics are still wanted by consumers these days.
It’s difficult to tell whether or not their is a demand for Halo’s conventional gameplay because there hasn’t been conventional Halo gameplay since pre-2010. The only way we can know how the gaming market reacts to a classic Halo game is to release one. Until then, there’s no more evidence to support the claim that classic Halo is not in demand than there is evidence to support the claim that it is.
