> 2533274902478287;4461:
> > 2535441318347302;4456:
> > > 2533274902478287;4432:
> > > Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?
> > >
> > > This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
> >
> > Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.
> >
> > The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.
> >
> > In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
>
> What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?
>
> I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the ‘I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay’ argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it’s certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
Not the guy you quoted, but this was part of a post I made a few pages back:
> I know Naqser has proposed new mechanics like modular Forerunner weapons (with different component combos giving different results), alternate firing modes for weapons (similar to the Plasma Pistol and Light Rifle), exploring the potential for “zero-gravity” areas (which were hardly utilized in Reach), more dynamic maps (with map layouts/effects changing by timers, buttons/triggers, or both). Imagine playing Slayer on a space station where the artificial gravity is on the fritz or can be sabotaged by players. Imagine a match of CTF where the paths and sight lines transition as Forerunner architecture rearranges itself. These are the kinds of ideas that excite and inspire.