> 2535430289047128;1148:
> > 2533274798957786;1099:
> > > 2535430289047128;1097:
> > >
> >
> > Halo was supposed to be an RTS game.
> > I think you are making an assertion that the original game (Halo CE) was purposely built to play the way it did. If you research you will find that the original game, as was every Halo game Bungie produced, was heavily influenced by Microsoft timetables. Things they didn’t have time to put into CE went into 2, Same with 3. Reach was the one that got most of what Bungie wanted in the game. This is why every new release was different. No one was satisfied with CE, or 2, or 3. The “classic formula” never went away. It just got buried. The zeal for “new” trumped the zeal for “improve”. I’m not saying it was a good thing. It certainly wasn’t necessary. There’s no way we would never have seen the changes, though. They are inevitable. Halo is not supposed to be anything. It is what it is.
>
> Just like Star Wars the Last Jedi…
> You have a point with Microsoft and all, but they ALSO were the ones intervening HEAVILY in Halo 5. And although slightly less still STRONGLY with Halo 4 and it’s CoD like mechanics. But, if they were to bring back the old mechanics… it’d get a DOOM (2016)-like reaction. Which would mean a gud one.
Well, I think the idea of “bringing back the old mechanics” is based on a misconception that the old mechanics went away. We are now at 58 pages and although the focus has been on Sprint for a few pages, what I am still getting from what I read here is that it’s not so much that classic mechanics should return, but more along the lines of, “mechanics introduced in Reach and every game afterwards should be eliminated, except for the one or two that I like.” The most vocal critics are the ones that actually played the pre-Reach games. Given that movement mechanics in MCC have been declared “broken”, the only true assessment that can be made is playing the original games on the consoles they were written for, and then comparing that experience to Halo 4 and Halo 5.
I purposely left Reach out of that equation because Reach was a spinoff and there can be no direct correlation between the movement mechanics of Spartan II’s and Spartan III’s. The Spartan IV program came as a complete surprise to me and I have trouble reconciling it with the previous Spartan programs with respect to the inherent capabilities of the armor and the degree of augmentation Spartan IV’s are required to undergo. I get the impression from Halo 5 that Spartan IVs can hang with Spartan II’s, but I’m not convinced. Spartan II training was obviously more… intense. This is, however where lore meets multiplayer. The Spartan III program was much different from the Spartan II program, and the Spartan III game (Reach) was different from the Spartan II games (CE-3), and the Spartan IV games (4,5) are different from both the others. It has as much to do with lore as it does with gameplay because the franchise has to be coherent.
So yes, playing CE on the original Xbox with it’s giant controllers against friends that are in the same room is a different experience from playing 5 online on an Xbox One or Xbox X using an Elite controller set up just the way you like, with opponents/teammates spread all across the planet. That experience (original CE experience) would be difficult to duplicate, and having your opponent/teammate in the same room does make the experience different (don’t forget, dual screen comes back with Halo: Infinite. At least you can have one friend play with you on the same machine).
I believe it’s pretty clear that Halo 4 was more a direct result of Reach than any of the previous games, and that is what fuels the misconception that classic movement mechanics went away. Either MicroSoft or 343i (or both) came to the conclusion that Halo would be more fun if it was more like Reach than the previous games. The problems between MS and Bungie were that MS would want something to happen, and Bungie wanted their game to be good, and MS didn’t buy Bungie’s argument that good games take time to make. Believe it or not, back in those days people learned in their video game production classes that it was more important (if you want to keep any job you get) to get your product into the stores, and any problems could be fixed later with DLC. MicroSoft’s solution was to shoo Bungie out the door and create their own development company that did what it was told and wouldn’t be allowed to come up with any lame excuses like, “We need more time!” I present Halo 4 as “Exhibit A” for what happens when getting a product on the shelves is more important than making a good product. I blame 343i for sloppy work, but I blame Microsoft more for Corporate Meddling.
So, two problems with “classic movement mechanics” is that the concept itself is lost on anyone that never played CE on the original xbox, or never played the other games made for the 360. Unless they can find those old consoles they can’t possibly compare the old games to what they’re used to now. No amount of tweaking will convince older players that the game on the Xbox X plays exactly like it did on the old consoles using the old controllers, and younger players simply won’t care. This is why “bringing back” the old mechanics won’t amount to anything, because changing the movement mechanics doesn’t address the real issues regarding online multiplayer popularity. Yes, it will make some people happy. Not enough to matter, though. At best, removing post-Reach mechanics entirely in both the campaign and multiplayer would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now, but not more so, in my opinion. In a world where offering more or different seems to attract players, offering less seems like a bad idea. The most logical option as I see it, is to have every single current movement mechanic return, but tweaked so that they don’t overwhelm the “classic” mechanics. Most people tend to suggest equipment and pickups. I don’t agree but it’s a way, and I would accept it.
More to the point, it appears that aversion towards enhanced abilities has more to do with a weakened opponent’s ability to “cheat death” or “get out of jail free” than it does being able to get around a map like you used to. There are a number of players out there (perhaps older players used to host advantage) that believe when they aim at you and pull a trigger, you should die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed. Being where I tossed a grenade means you have to die from the grenade. No getting out of its way. How many times have I heard the phrase, “I had to waste a grenade in order to kill him” because the opponent avoided the first one but every grenade tossed is supposed to result in a kill. All of the post-Reach mechanics are regarded as ways to avoid being killed and, therefore, have no place in Halo where old school mechanics made it unlikely you would survive a close-quarters engagement if you didn’t shoot first. If you are not currently a beast at the game, stripping away the abilities won’t make you a better player but, more importantly, it will be even more difficult to stand out. If you are the type of player that believes abilities force you to chase down players to get the kill, then perhaps you should examine the wisdom of using that old strategy in a new game instead of trying to get the developer to remove the things that make it harder for you to get a kill.
It is taxing as you say, I agree. You guys had a really good, pretty in depth talk. I’ve been reading your back and forth and I think for now on I’m going to let Celestis explain things for me because he does an incredible job at it…unlike me sometimes (I do have my moments though lol) where i can have a hard time getting my point/thoughts across…and it seems like we share the same, if not VERY similar views on a lot of things so why not? LoL 