So the Warzone Firefight Beta has been out for a day or two. Looking at its feedback thread I’ve noticed a bit of a pattern: Some people love it, and other hate it. So naturally, I have to psychoanalyze this and try and figure out just why there is such a large divide. I’m gonna throw ideas out and see what sticks.
My belief is that each player has a different concept of Firefight. Some are for a strict “arcade style” PvE game, while others are more lenient so long as they get to shoot alien enemies. So this begs the question, “what really is Firefight”?
The first Firefight in ODST has a simple arcade arena that pitted 4 ODST unites against endless waves of Covenant. The second in Halo Reach was slightly more refined. It had larger maps and several gametypes, like snipers. In Reach Firefight you essentially played as a copy of Noble Six.
Halo 4 “transformed” Firefight into an interactive story. Players were now a canon Spartan IV and part of Fireteam Crimson. This turned away from the arcade style and gave a more linear campaign style, though there were still PLENTY of baddies to shoot up. As most people know, 343i wants to give multiplayer a piece of canon in the Halo lore. This makes sense as the concept of humans essentially “evolving” is core to the Reclaimer Trilogy.
While there are no two Firefights alike, there is a single core ideal that I personally keep on seeing. It is always a canon(ish) model of a main character fighting against hoards of alien enemies. ODST lets you play like an ODST. Reach let you play like a fully equipped Spartan III. Halo 4 let you play as a Spartan IV. Now Halo 5 lets you play again as a Spartan IV, BUT while running a training course.
I honestly don’t see the big issue, so long as I get to mow down hoards of Covies it looks like Firefight to me; though I’m totally open to interpretation.
Simple. Old players want nostalgic firefight. New players want a new and “reinvented” firefight
> 2533274874817568;1:
> So the Warzone Firefight Beta has been out for a day or two. Looking at its feedback thread I’ve noticed a bit of a pattern: Some people love it, and other hate it. So naturally, I have to psychoanalyze this and try and figure out just why there is such a large divide. I’m gonna throw ideas out and see what sticks.
>
> My belief is that each player has a different concept of Firefight. Some are for a strict “arcade style” PvE game, while others are more lenient so long as they get to shoot alien enemies. So this begs the question, “what really is Firefight”?
> The first Firefight in ODST has a simple arcade arena that pitted 4 ODST unites against endless waves of Covenant. The second in Halo Reach was slightly more refined. It had larger maps and several gametypes, like snipers. In Reach Firefight you essentially played as a copy of Noble Six.
> Halo 4 “transformed” Firefight into an interactive story. Players were now a canon Spartan IV and part of Fireteam Crimson. This turned away from the arcade style and gave a more linear campaign style, though there were still PLENTY of baddies to shoot up. As most people know, 343i wants to give multiplayer a piece of canon in the Halo lore. This makes sense as the concept of humans essentially “evolving” is core to the Reclaimer Trilogy.
>
> While there are no two Firefights alike, there is a single core ideal that I personally keep on seeing. It is always a canon(ish) model of a main character fighting against hoards of alien enemies. ODST lets you play like an ODST. Reach let you play like a fully equipped Spartan III. Halo 4 let you play as a Spartan IV. Now Halo 5 lets you play again as a Spartan IV, BUT while running a training course.
>
> I honestly don’t see the big issue, so long as I get to mow down hoards of Covies it looks like Firefight to me; though I’m totally open to interpretation.
Exactly how I feel. Waves of enemies to hunt me or I hunt them, no PVP, able to use toys. Sounds like firefight to me. The rest is just fluff.
I think its important to note that no Firefight has ever been the same. Below is a lit of each firefight with how they played by default.
FF 1.0 = Classic life based survival combat with skulls
FF 2.0 = Arcade style survival combat with skulls and infinite lives
FF 3.0 = Objective based survival combat with infinite lives and bosses
Its important to note that FF 3.0 is what H4s Spartan ops was originally meant to be, this potentially had years of investment and planning put into it before 5 was even being developed. Plus its still a Beta I doubt 343 has revealed everything they have in store.
EDIT : I think the main issue is that in FF your meant to feel like your in an almighty last stand struggling to survive, in FF 3.0 you are not surviving you are just dropping into battle and eliminating what ever you run into.
> 2533274861813747;2:
> Simple. Old players want nostalgic firefight. New players want a new and “reinvented” firefight
That’s one explanation, though its kinda weak that people would riot over it not being purely arcade style. There has to be some finer details.
You’re exactly right. The two competing conceptions of Firefight are the survival based ODST version and the ramped up Reach version.
Frankly, I think H5’s is an improvement on the Reach style but can integrate the survival aspects of ODST’s by implementing some real costs to dying.