> 2533274846988418;8820:
> . . . .
>
> As you can see, huge interest died after Halo 4 and even before at CE Anniv, judging by sales, then went up again with 5.
> The numbers don’t lie. Sorry.
>
> The problem that came to light with Halo 4, and even Reach by extension, was that Halo fans were terrified their precious IP was turning into CoD or Battlefield.
> The thing is this, people don’t understand that in order for anyone to gain funds to do any other games they have to get money from their existing IP, this applies to everything, not only video games, and in this case people don’t understand that you can’t just make the same game over and over again.
> I realise its nice for people to sit in their comfort zone and play Halo CE for several hours but you can’t expect the games not to change because not everyone is going to enjoy sitting with the same game for a decade. The good changes made to Halo 5’s MP make it some of the best in the series in my opinion.
>
> Sprint makes for more fast paced combat, the different abilities are a great addition in terms of tactical gameplay and some of the weapons that are new are also incredibly well implemented, Halo is at its peak again. Not storywise but MP. The lack of story can only be blamed on the people who hated Halo 4 and its more interesting story.
> 343 tried something new, enough “hardcore” players hated it and ruined it for everyone who enjoys that kind of thing.
> Think of it like with Mega Man and Mega Man X, wall jumping and sliding radically changed the gameplay for the better, and its the same with what they have added for Halo 5.
>
> You can’t expect a game to stay the same forever.
> The best game series are the ones that use each installment as a jumping off point to explore new depths and heights in terms of story and gameplay, I.e Silent Hill for example.
>
> Normally its like this in a good series:
> First game sets the scene, lays down the core rules and establishes main lore.
> Second game uses the first game as a jump point to explore deeper terms, more interesting gameplay and narrative
> Third game tries to innovate but fails
> Fourth game and forwards are normally just cash grabs
>
> Perhaps this is a cynical position to take but its hard, really hard, to keep something really good for a long period of time.
> If I could pick 3 games out of the series I would say pertain to this notion, it would be ODST, 3 and 4. 3 laid the ground rules, ODST explored it in a different manner but used the established lore to shine all on its own, and 4 tried to innovate but was hated.
>
> Most people are such hypocrites because they like one of these games but refuse to even acknowledge that the others could be any good. People also go “CoD is always the same, never evolving, just reskinning guns and maps” (this happens with Halo as well)
> then when they do evolve and try to innovate it gets hated because “it is not the same thing, it is not even CoD anymore” and truth is that you can’t ever satisfy these people because they thrive on the conflict between the games and games in the series.
> You can never satisfy fans completely because they are never satisfied with anything you make.
>
> Despite the fact that many people liked the changes, even more people hated Halo 4 because it was different enough to step out of people’s comfort zone and that is what kills innovation in gaming in my opinion.
> Companies are too afraid to try something new or to innovate because they know that “die-hard” fans or “hardcore” fans will hate them and they need that player base because unfortunately the games would die without the investment made by the people who get them yearly.
>
> A bigger issue is that either way people will always make excuses to why they are better than others because at core, humans have an instinct to prove themselves better at something to feel accomplished and feel like their existence is meaningful. “I like Halo CE, that makes me a TRUE fan” etc.
> It is just a shame that the will to be better doesn’t contribute to actually becoming a better person, but rather fuels the toxicity of the communities of all games respectively.
> Another issue is that people are starting to get worse in general, they hate everything they deem as “PC” and think that they have a right to choose their own path by rejecting all the notions they find stupid. Which is true but the problem that arises with the rejection of that based on their common lack of knowledge or research is that they turn into people like racists. Because all they ever do due to that rejection is talk to people who think the same and since all of those people who think the same are so convinced of their point, they wont even take the time to listen or understand someone else’s viewpoint, whether it be about games or politics.
> People are just inherently afraid of change.
>
> But you likely didn’t even read all of this so I don’t even know why I bother.
You thought that Halo 4’s story was better than CE’s and ODST’s stories? I’ll give you that Cortana’s rampancy was done really well, but Chief learns that he’s part Forerunner, which means that he’s not fully human. What were the Forerunner like? Sure, Halo 4 was about character development, but its gameplay was–subpar. I was annoyed by the Prometheans more than I was intrigued by them.
Maybe not many people wanted to pay $560+ just to play the MCC? I know that I sure didn’t. There are a lot of people who still don’t have XBox Ones, for a variety of reasons.
lolwut? Halo 5’s story was bad because people didn’t care about the story in Halo 4? How exactly does that follow? I buy a video game for its gameplay, it has to be something really special for me to buy a video game because of its story. If I just want a good story, then I’ll read a good book, or watch a good movie. Anyway, Halo 4 and 5 have set up what could be a very good story in Halo 6, so hopefully 343i delivers there.
Silent Hill for example? Dude, there hasn’t been a good Silent Hill game since SH3–Origins aside–and that’s because the original development team broke up. I’m not sure that there was a scarier moment in the Silent Hill franchise than the mirror room in Silent Hill 3 (well, the riot in Downpour was actually pretty good, I suppose). Besides that, there’s the rape and -Yoink!- undertones, but that’s getting into speculation by the Silent Hill community. Silent Hill 4 would’ve been better if I lived in an apartment, and if its story wasn’t so contrived. I just couldn’t get into it, the only time that I was ever frightened while playing SH4 was from a simple jump scare. As for cash grabs, is Civilization VI going to be another cash grab? Sid Meier’s Civilization has been a quality strategy game for some time now, hasn’t it?
Halo 4 was developed by people who didn’t like Halo. To call what was done innovation would be to call mimicry originality. Anyway, where does Reach fit into your model?
CoD is a twitch shooter, most twitch shooters don’t have the same level of depth as classic Halo did.
A loadout system, with unequal starts, and no weapon pickups on the map (not even GRENADES), isn’t how you innovate.
Wow, what a broad, sweeping generalization of this entire thread. How are you contributing, again?
“Don’t like sprint? Don’t use it.” “Go play the MCC.” “get gud scrub” Yeah, the anti-sprint crowd is definitely the most toxic.
Man, that’s some armchair psychology there. Truly remarkable.
Why did you bother?
