The New is ALWAYS good mentality is NOT true.

Games Other Halo
1

This isn’t a thread with gameplay issues, but more common misconceptions about topics. Sorry for the structure of the post, but they are really independent thoughts, some just overlap a little.This is all I got for now, but im sure more will come.

First myth id like to tackle is the belief that veterans only want the style in h2/h3. No, they don’t. It just so happens that this is the only style of halo that they have been exposed to that ACTUALY WORKS. No, reach doesn’t work, it was a joke.

Second off, just because we want sprint/jetpack gone doesn’t mean we want a rehashed halo 3 or we “cant adapt”. <mark>It is legitimately bad for gameplay</mark>, and theres the reoccurring response to this “OMFG GO PLAY COD IF YOU WANT THE SAME GAME”.

There are several things wrong with that statement. We never said we didn’t want the game to progress, <mark>its just the progress direction 343 has taken is blatantly bad</mark>. And the response to this from people? “just because it didn’t work in the last one doesn’t mean it wont work in this one.”

That’s actualy true, but the “chance” of success from it are slim to none. <mark>If the main concept of the idea is already terrible, why not just start in a new direction? That’s like trying to go to a store to buy parts to fix a pen when its obviously easier just to buy a new pen.</mark>

Another thing wrong with the COD statement is the fact that COD doesn’t fail. It found a formula that works and STUCK WITH IT. Wanna know how I know it works? It is the <mark>best selling game in the world</mark>. That’s a fact. If you try to debate this it just makes you look like a fan boy.

Another argument from people is “you don’t know, you havent even played the game yet!” That may be true, but it isn’t a necessity to know when something is bad. We already had the core of sprint/jetpack in reach, and it BLEW. It cant change too much for the better.

Another problem with not wanting things in halo4 is people just say “go play halo3 or halo 2. Several problems with that argument.

First the obvious one, Halo 2 is offline, and halo3 is laggy/neglected.

Secondly, these “gameplay suggestions” for all we know wont affect it in the sameway. <mark>Just because halo 3 didn’t have sprint and halo 4 didn’t have sprint doesn’t mean “OFMG THEY ALL THE SAmE”. That’s like saying just because theres a ball in baseball and soccer they play the same.</mark>

Another point id like to say is, <mark>what can sprint accomplish that a uping of base movement cant?</mark>

The progression system just sounds bad…I think the only influence should be how good a person is, not how much they play. It really seems like this is a cheap way to get people to play more, as did credit system.

<mark>One of the problems with the mentality of the fans of halo is ALL new things is good. Well just because you pile new -Yoink- on a game doesn’t change the fact that its -Yoink-. Its smelly and bad.</mark>

Another thing that irks me is when people say its progress, but its really just things that have been incorporated in other games 5 years ago. Sprint? Jetpack? Im pretty sure those are all old. I want to play halo, I have only one home to call halo, if you want a game that plays nothing like halo, then theres thousands to choose from. <mark>If you want a game NOTHING LIKE THE HALOS, then go play a different game.</mark>

If you want some examples of how some things are bad for gameplay such as sprint ill tell you.

And completely seperate…

“One of the things we radically overhauled is how we message information during play,” he says.

“If you jump into a game of capture the flag in any FPS, not just Halo, it’ll say things like ‘flag captured,’ and you’re like, ‘Well, who’s flag was captured, and what do i do now?’ We took a very high level, philosophical look at that and said, ‘If something happened, just tell the player what happened and what to do.’

“Sometimes that can be a verb or tense shift, and sometimes that can just be text, or a picture of a thing. I think if you were playing a mode like capture the flag, for example, and you’ve never played it before, you’ll be aware of what just happened and roughly what you should do about that. I think that’s going to be the biggest philosophical difference.

If they are catering to the “demographic” that cant deduce that a flag was taken from “flag taken” then i have SERIOUS doubts in halo 4…

I want halo 4 to be a continuous learning experience, not something where u experience 99% of it in the first hour of playing.

They are targeting the people who play for like 2 hours a month and their 2 year old brother it seems.

2

I agree in principle. After Reach, I am extremely apprehensive about AAs. But there’s talk of their return in some form, and PERKS? That pretty much just lowered my expectations right there.

3

I have to agree. The community is supporting change way, way too much. I hope 343 is disregarding these forums, otherwise this game is going to end up like a piece of absolute garbage that’s worse than vanilla-Reach.

Second, we’re trying to ‘fix’ things that would be better off removed. i.e. Sprint/AAs.

We saw how the worked in Reach. We know what sprint fundamentally is, and how it affects gameplay. When something fails in one game, you don’t include it again.

4

Understand comepletly

5

> I have to agree. The community is supporting change way, way too much. I hope 343 is disregarding these forums, otherwise this game is going to end up like a piece of absolute garbage that’s worse than vanilla-Reach.
>
> Second, we’re trying to ‘fix’ things that would be better off removed. i.e. Sprint/AAs.
>
> We saw how the worked in Reach. We know what sprint fundamentally is, and how it affects gameplay. When something fails in one game, you don’t include it again.

I agree. A good phrase for halo is " dont fix wut isnt broke", but i hope 343 will adopt “Dont fix what is broke when you can get a new one”

6

That title threw me for loop for a second.

7

> <mark>One of the problems with the mentality of the fans of halo is ALL new things is good. Well just because you pile new Yoink! on a game doesn’t change the fact that its Yoink!. Its smelly and bad.</mark>

This. So much this.

In the words of AVGN,

“It’s like puking on a pile of dog -Yoink-, it doesn’t make it any better.”

8

But COD isn’t the most successful franchise, Mario cart is. Seriously look at the numbers.

9

> But COD isn’t the most successful franchise, Mario cart is. Seriously look at the numbers.

but doesnt mariocart come included with the system?

Anyways sorry if im wrong, but COD is still played way more.

10

> > <mark>One of the problems with the mentality of the fans of halo is ALL new things is good. Well just because you pile new Yoink! on a game doesn’t change the fact that its Yoink!. Its smelly and bad.</mark>
>
> This. So much this.
>
> In the words of AVGN,
>
> “It’s like puking on a pile of dog Yoink!, it doesn’t make it any better.”

lol whos avgn

11

> That title threw me for loop for a second.

how so

12

As a “Halo veteran” or “Trilogy fanboy” I would totally allow this thread to speak for me. And I think it does so very well.

Thank you OP for voicing my thoughts of several matters.

13

> First myth id like to tackle is the belief that veterans only want the style in h2/h3. No, they don’t. It just so happens that this is the only style of halo that they have been exposed to that ACTUALY WORKS. No, reach doesn’t work, it was a joke.

You can’t purport to be clearing up misconceptions and then begin by portraying your own opinion as fact. Reach is not a broken game; it is not a game that “doesn’t work”; and I don’t know how you could possibly see it as a joke. You may not liked certain aspects of the game (and that’s your prerogative), but don’t try to equate that with failure in an absolute sense.

> It is legitimately bad for gameplay

Again, that’s simply your opinion, not a “misconception”.

> Another argument from people is “you don’t know, you havent even played the game yet!” That may be true, but it isn’t a necessity to know when something is bad

Absolutely it is! All we know so far is that sprint featured in an announcement video. We don’t know how it works, which modes it will be in, whether it can be customised, etc. You cannot draw conclusions if you do not have all the facts. That was what the whole scientific revolution was about.

> Another point id like to say is, what can sprint accomplish that a uping of base movement cant?

Periodic, context-sensitive bursts of speed?

> One of the problems with the mentality of the fans of halo is ALL new things is good. Well just because you pile new Yoink! on a game doesn’t change the fact that its Yoink!. Its smelly and bad.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone on this forum claim that sprint is “good”. (To clarify, I’m not saying that no one feels that way; simply that it doesn’t come up.) There are two camps, as far as I’m aware: those who are whinging about it, and those who are trying to assuage the whinging. Am I pro-sprint? No. Am I anti-sprint? No. But when I try to convince people that their current assumptions about the mechanic are incorrect (as I’m doing in this very response), people will inevitably interpret my position as one that is in opposition to their own.

14

> > Another point id like to say is, what can sprint accomplish that a uping of base movement cant?
>
> Periodic, context-sensitive bursts of speed?

Care to elaborate on that. What does the game benefit from having these speed bursts? In othere words, are there any benefits that are exclusive to sprint.

15

> > First myth id like to tackle is the belief that veterans only want the style in h2/h3. No, they don’t. It just so happens that this is the only style of halo that they have been exposed to that ACTUALY WORKS. No, reach doesn’t work, it was a joke.
>
> You can’t purport to be clearing up misconceptions and then begin by portraying your own opinion as fact. Reach is not a broken game; it is not a game that “doesn’t work”; and I don’t know how you could possibly see it as a joke. You may not liked certain aspects of the game (and that’s your prerogative), but don’t try to equate that with failure in an absolute sense.
>
>
>
> > It is legitimately bad for gameplay
>
> Again, that’s simply your opinion, not a “misconception”.
>
>
>
> > Another argument from people is “you don’t know, you havent even played the game yet!” That may be true, but it isn’t a necessity to know when something is bad
>
> Absolutely it is! All we know so far is that sprint featured in an announcement video. We don’t know how it works, which modes it will be in, whether it can be customised, etc. You cannot draw conclusions if you do not have all the facts. That was what the whole scientific revolution was about.
>
>
>
> > Another point id like to say is, what can sprint accomplish that a uping of base movement cant?
>
> Periodic, context-sensitive bursts of speed?
>
>
>
> > One of the problems with the mentality of the fans of halo is ALL new things is good. Well just because you pile new Yoink! on a game doesn’t change the fact that its Yoink!. Its smelly and bad.
>
> I don’t think I’ve heard anyone on this forum claim that sprint is “good”. (To clarify, I’m not saying that no one feels that way; simply that it doesn’t come up.) There are two camps, as far as I’m aware: those who are whinging about it, and those who are trying to assuage the whinging. Am I pro-sprint? No. Am I anti-sprint? No. But when I try to convince people that their current assumptions about the mechanic are incorrect (as I’m doing in this very response), people will inevitably interpret my position as one that is in opposition to their own.

Reach isnt broken? So AL, no map control, divided playerbase, bloom that encourages spamming, etc. are all a part of my imagination?

Sprint is bad, although im not going to post an arguement, plenty in other posts have been made.

Part of the scientific process is also the hypothesis, which is just as important.

and periodic bursts of speed do what for the game that constant speed couldnt do?

And in all honesty if they CAN balance sprint (which i personnaly doubt they can do properly) i wouldnt mind.

16

> Reach isnt broken? So AL, no map control, divided playerbase, bloom that encourages spamming, etc. are all a part of my imagination?

I apologise; if by “broken” you meant “has armour and bloom”, then yes, Reach is broken.

> Sprint is bad, although im not going to post an arguement, plenty in other posts have been made.

Still waiting on a good one, though.

> Part of the scientific process is also the hypothesis, which is just as important.

Er… what?

> What does the game benefit from having these speed bursts? In othere words, are there any benefits that are exclusive to sprint.

I’m not talking about which one is better; I haven’t even played the game, so I can’t draw that conclusion. I’m simply trying to point out the difference between including sprint and upping the movement speed. In the case of the former, I can choose when to increase my movement speed for a transient period of time, and I’m forced to weigh the need to do so against the time available to for doing so. In the case of the latter, I have no direct control over my movement. Yes, I could run at sub-maximal speeds for the most part, but we both know that that would never happen.

Honestly, the difference between the two should be self-explanatory. As for which one is better: that’s a meaningless question. As for which one I prefer: again, I couldn’t tell you that unless I had already played the game both with and without the sprint mechanic.

17

> <mark>If you want a game NOTHING LIKE THE HALOS, then go play a different game.</mark>

this, definitely this. THIS IS HALO IF YOU WANT THINGS FROM OTHER GAMES(COD) THEN GO PLAY THOSE OTHER GAMES. I agree with you on this statement OP.

18

@sillypsis

When i find a good one ill post it in here