>> TheCelticDragon
> There is no such thing as an idealistic halo, if you read the often ignored, perhaps uncomfortable points that the ‘classic’ community argue is that there are certain game mechanics and design decisions which have not changed in any of the games, but that many of the design decisions in reach/post-reach games undermine some of these fundamental decisions (which i’ll elaborate on later)
Obviously there is but I suppose I’ll address that when you do in your post.
> No H2a is just H2 with refinements hence H2 in the name, it also has a limited map pool and like 1 playlist, the MCC is not a good indicator when everything is bundled up and split apart. It’s like wanting a 3 course meal and getting a sampler.
Then Halo 2 with refinements would fit my criteria for a classically idea Halo. And since we’re talking about gameplay, I don’t know why map pool and playlist even factors here. But that’s neither here nor there, since that point was merely a set-up for what I know now was an ignored or too abstract a metaphor when I wrote it. So going forward I’ll spell it out; me and my bud were metaphors for the distinction between two generations of Halo players.
> Halo 4 wasn’t a very functional game for the first year (most crucial year) of its lifespan and died due to being both a glitchy mess and not knowing what it wanted to be. Stimulating is in the eye of the beholder, a game aims to be stimulating, a poor VR game or indie game is stimulating it’s not hard.
This is one of the uncomfortable things I was talking about that you guys take issue with.
Halo 4, again, was far more functional and fun than what a great deal of you are willing to accept. It was not a “glitchy mess”, and its gameplay identity wasn’t quite as ambiguous as you’d want to believe. Now I’m not gonna sit here and pretend it was some definitive Halo title or even that I liked every decision made in the game (many decisions that undermined its own potential, 343 mishandled their own Ordinance and scoring system), but Halo 4 had a healthy enough population right up until X1 dropped. I’m sure that’s an affront to the “Millions need to be online for a game to be considered alive” mantra, but in the modern age of much larger selection pool of games each vying for maximum player attention, it was well enough.
> So because you and your friend don’t mind it negates anyones concerns? Reach is nearly my favourite, however like all games had holes, reach is only armour abilities away from being a classic Halo game, it largely functions the same otherwise. Bloom and a large chunk of the maps being forge are negatives though.
Yes. After all somebody is going to have to eat dirt when Haloi launches, and all this ballyhoo on the forums are people desperately trying to not be that player as another gets exactly what he wants. I can finally accept that I’ll be dealing with things I don’t like. I’m not gonna do the thing where I pretend my concerns are “good for everybody”. We’re all trying to get exactly what we want.
> If we’re only talking about game mechanics not online presence or anything like that, and mainly talking small team (4v4 or less) then H4 infinity settings (the default game), default reach, H5 and H3 have weaker mechanics.
This ‘default settings’ pre-empt you’re doing is a cop out. I can’t think of too many games that were fine in its vanilla settings. I believe H4 sans personal ordinance, with an improved scoring system, and re-balanced/regulated pre-set loadouts is a better game than both H3 and H5.
> Good roster of weapons, all useful, solid map lineup, crisp gameplay bar any delay. Purely from a mechanics / fundamentals perspective and not the full package CE got far more right than wrong than most other games, including future titles.
- Halo CE is 3-Tap and it’s absurd to even joke that it’s weapon sandbox is anything near balanced. If you’re not running pistols you better be sniping. Any modern game with that state of weapon balance would be ripped apart.
- CE’s arena maps only barely worked for the game’s core mechanics. The BTB maps couldn’t even allow for tanks to be allowed seriously (the effect of which greatly influenced BTB map design in H2 and H3 to value segmented regions in the first place). So if we’re talking H1 MP, we’re really talking arena maps and nothing more.
> the fervor comes from the minimal requirement to make it a ‘classic’ experience for people who want it, isn’t being met.
Other people want something else. You’re going to have to square with that.
> - ability to move and shoot at all times, only time you cant shoot is to reload / switch / nade, key momentary actions which offer a pause and point of temporary weakness for the player
I’m not so sure this has been too subverted in any Halo title, actually
> - mechanics which work well with the (rather) established Halo map design,
See now you’re running into the dissonance that I often see from this kind of argument. First you started this post off by saying there isn’t an idealistic Halo, then you literally list out your idealist Halo. Second you speak of mechanics that work with established (ideal) Halo map design, but rather than consider updated map design that fits the evolving mechanics, you rather the mechanics be stripped to serve not even the current map philosophy, but a past game’s philosophy.
> - the power is on the map not off spawn
Pre-set loadouts in Halo 4 never had power weapons, and even if they did it’s as simple as removing it.
> - all weapons serve a unique / distinct purpose, Halo has always kept to the essentials, not a cod clone with 5 shades of the same thing.
Agreed, though I don’t know why any little convention Halo adds is attributed to CoD. The ‘just like CoD’ thing is a dismissive tactic that also displays the Halo community’s arrogance ignoring how much crossover there actually is between Halo players and other FPS communities. CoD has arguably a larger player base than Halo, and a far more consistent population within past titles. Who exactly is the joke on by dismissing certain mechanics as CoD in the negative?
> Much like ‘stimulating’ functional is an exceptionally low bar. Many arguements against 4 and 5 is that is has a skewed and unfair reward for defensive play due to H4 additions and H5 movement, i don’t feel those games proportionally reward good decision making.
The ability to finish encounters is not important.
> Those that are pro-classic dont want it to be X-men again because we want it to be Halo, that in turn will find some level of success,
You mean pleasing those particular fans? Sure, they’d be happy. But as I said in the thread; pleasing you and being a successful game are two different things.
> What if you feel that silly mechanic cheapens or alters the game so majorly that it doesn’t feel like Halo…or at least not one worth playing?
I play another game.
> I liked Spyro for its platforming, i don’t care about the brand or the franchise, i liked the experience and would like to play more of that experience. When the legend of spyro games released i had no interest, was it due to the nostalgia or the lack of something i enjoyed?
Probably both but you need to remember you live in a world where people love those games.