[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 2533274887665513;13886:
> Just crossed my mind, why isn’t sprint a featured topic? It’s easily the biggest, most controversial game changing feature of Halo. Pretty much the entire movement, sandbox, and map design of Halo has changed drastically since its inclusion. I feel like it ought to be at the forefront of community discussion. I don’t consider this thread to be one which just spams negativity. Sure in a debate there will be the odd immature hostile exchange but overall I think this thread presents an incredibly interesting and constructive debate.
>
> I would hope that 343 could take these points seriously also as I think an understanding of them would make for greater games in the future.
The same reason the playable Elites and splitscreen threads aren’t pin threads (at least not to my knowledge), they’re controversial topics that not many people want to see discussed often in the forums. Why do you think a lot of people outside this thread want this thread to die so badly? They seem to want to shy away from controversy and prefer the forums to be all about talking positively about Halo 100% of the time. That isn’t too much of a bad thing to want, mind you, but one can’t have a constructive forum if no one pointed out the flaws in something they liked every now and then.
Im am just so confused of as to why why are having this discussion. We have had 7 years and 3 games to figure out what the hell happened to Halo. How do you not contemplate to yourself “Well something happened in reach”. “what was in reach that wasn’t in other games”? “oh that’s right, abilities”. How is that not all the evidence you need?
I am just astonished that Microsoft is allowing the game that made their Xbox go through this. You would think they would step in and say “Hey this isn’t working out, lets go back and try to be the best competitive fps on the console again”. Especially when it could be the key to catching up with PS4. Instead they are letting it happen and hiding their population numbers.
How can 343 not be thinking in there heads “instead of spending years and 2 more games on trying to balance the things that killed halo, Lets just go back and try to innovate the old formula that worked and try to be the best again”. What the worst that could happen? We get another bad Halo game? although I strongly think that would not happen. This all just blows my mind and i feel like the evidence is right there.
Movies get reboots all the time and i wish the game industry would do that once in awhile. Yes we get remasters but lets be honest. We get remasters on our most loved games because we obviously played the hell out of them. It’s fun to go back but what we really want is something that feels like our most loved games but also feel NEW.
I just think that sometimes you just have to stop debating on why the abilities broke halo and just think to yourself something obviously went wrong and what was introduced when things went downhill. Dont get me wrong I love all of you making each individual point on why these abilities broke halo so please dont stop doing it.
I’m just confused as to why this isn’t the hardest and most obvious “evidence” anyone needs?
> 2533274793560984;13888:
> I’m just confused as to why this isn’t the hardest and most obvious “evidence” anyone needs?
Because you’re viewing things through your own distorting glasses. There is little evidence that Halo became less popular because of armor abilities, only that it started to become less popular somewhere between the release of Halo 3 and Reach. In all likelihood that decrease in popularity cannot be attributed to any single cause, but is a result of many effects, both internal and external to Halo.
> 2533274825830455;13889:
> > 2533274793560984;13888:
> > I’m just confused as to why this isn’t the hardest and most obvious “evidence” anyone needs?
>
> Because you’re viewing things through your own distorting glasses. There is little evidence that Halo became less popular because of armor abilities, only that it started to become less popular somewhere between the release of Halo 3 and Reach. In all likelihood that decrease in popularity cannot be attributed to any single cause, but is a result of many effects, both internal and external to Halo.
The circumstantial evidence speaks for itself, despite having changes people were lukewarm about, the game sold fairly well since it was the first to do so. Future games that embraced this and continued to pursue it sold less and players lost interested and results in population drop, you even have a thread of that in your signature and it’s easy to see the meteorite of a drop Halo 4 had.
Given the trends (in which there isn’t really one) of FPSs lately, what Halo was would be perfect for the market today, a gameplay style that is still yet to be matched anywhere else and a style that did not even get the chance to get stale because it was short lived.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 2533274808578327;13890:
> The circumstantial evidence speaks for itself, despite having changes people were lukewarm about, the game sold fairly well since it was the first to do so. Future games that embraced this and continued to pursuit it sold less and players lost interested and results in population drop, you even have a thread of that in your signature and it’s easy to see the meteorite of a drop Halo 4 had.
Don’t you also see the fact that Halo 3 also lost players faster than Halo 2 did, relative to its initial population? Based on the available data there is nothing to rule out the suggestion that a significant part of the population decrease could be caused by aging, and not being the trendy game anymore. Rather than claiming that Halo became less popular solely because it introduced certain features, why not accept the explanation that it was already an aging game, and the changes made failed to attract enough new players while a portion of the old players did not like this change, which accelerated this decrease in popularity? Is there any evidence that makes this not a likely scenario?
I’m not saying changes have played no part in the decrease of popularity, but that there is no evidence to suggest that they were the only significant part. Moreover, it’s really easy to judge decisions in retrospect. Obviously we know now that features popularized by CoD did not attract enough new players to Halo to displace to displace the amount of players becoming less interested in Halo. But in 2009, could you have made a strong case that introducing these mechanics to Halo would not bring in enough new players? Moreover, can you even today make the case that going back to old gameplay would make halo more popular? In other words, is there evidence to support that part of the decrease in popularity isn’t caused Halo simply becoming old?
> 2533274808578327;13890:
> Given the trends (in which there isn’t really one) of FPSs lately, what Halo was would be perfect for the market today, a gameplay style that is still yet to be matched anywhere else and a style that did not even get the chance to get stale because it was short lived.
But is it really? What multiplayer shooters are popular these days? Well, CoD still is, so is Overwatch, CS, Battlefield. Predominantly class based shooters, and CS whcih is in its own way nothing like Halo. The trends of shooters today seems to be slowly gravitating towards the class based, and movement oriented based on what I’ve seen. And while classic Halo does fall in the latter category, I haven’t got the slightest of idea whether there is a significant market for such a barebones shooter in terms of mechanics.
> 2533274887665513;13891:
> I doubt distorting glasses have anything to do with this. They hype for MCC was too huge to ignore. There is a massive audience that loved classic Halo and damn near everyone I speak to left because they game does not play like Halo anymore. Most of my friends moved to PC because of Halo 4 managing to make a game even less Halo than Reach. I have heard the same from countless others. I think the more competition in today’s market argument is BS. It went head to head with COD 4! COD had its own audience, Halo had its own audience. Look what happened when either series tried to appeal to fans of the other, they both declined. Halo has been in decline because it forgot its audience. MCC was a chance for redemption and the result was tragic. Now there is no complete working classic Halo experience to be had on Xbox and this is insane considering what Halo did for Xbox.
And isn’t it really convenient for your argument that when asked why MCC didn’t succeed, you can point at all the bugs and say that if it had released in a better state, it totally would’ve been the number one game on the Xbox One? We can only speculate what would’ve happened if MCC had had a more successful launch, but because things turned out as they did, we’ll never know whether classic Halo is more or less viable in today’s market than Halo 5.
> 2533274825830455;13893:
> Don’t you also see the fact that Halo 3 also lost players faster than Halo 2 did, relative to its initial population? Based on the available data there is nothing to rule out the suggestion that a significant part of the population decrease could be caused by aging, and not being the trendy game anymore. Rather than claiming that Halo became less popular solely because it introduced certain features, why not accept the explanation that it was already an aging game, and the changes made failed to attract enough new players while a portion of the old players did not like this change, which accelerated this decrease in popularity? Is there any evidence that makes this not a likely scenario?
Look at the numbers themselves however, the amount is leagues above what is even possible in current Halo games. Let’s not forget H3 had fierce competition not just among shooters but games in general, those were fantastic times indeed. Even as time progressed including after the release of Reach, 3 still had commendable population. Halo 3 was the peak of innovation as well, so it’s near impossible to say there was lack of change, it’s the high polish of the final game in the trilogy that brought in players and money.
> 2533274825830455;13893:
> I’m not saying changes have played no part in the decrease of popularity, but that there is no evidence to suggest that they were the only significant part. Moreover, it’s really easy to judge decisions in retrospect. Obviously we know now that features popularized by CoD did not attract enough new players to Halo to displace to displace the amount of players becoming less interested in Halo. But in 2009, could you have made a strong case that introducing these mechanics to Halo would not bring in enough new players? Moreover, can you even today make the case that going back to old gameplay would make halo more popular? In other words, is there evidence to support that part of the decrease in popularity isn’t caused Halo simply becoming old?
There would have been no reason to try to bring in features that were popular in CoD to attract them to Halo 3, 343 have shown that with 4 and we all know how well that went. Those two franchises lived side by side with their own devote fanbases, and one of them was muti platform and had 2 releases in a short time that made an impact to H3’s population. It’s ironic as well that both of these series are in decline for pretty much the same reasons eh?
The evidence is the market itself and I’ll try and explain in your other point.
> 2533274825830455;13893:
> But is it really? What multiplayer shooters are popular these days? Well, CoD still is, so is Overwatch, CS, Battlefield. Predominantly class based shooters, and CS whcih is in its own way nothing like Halo. The trends of shooters today seems to be slowly gravitating towards the class based, and movement oriented based on what I’ve seen. And while classic Halo does fall in the latter category, I haven’t got the slightest of idea whether there is a significant market for such a barebones shooter in terms of mechanics.
- Battlefield 1 is a popular shooter, and that looked back and doesn’t have enhanced mobility. - Rainbow 6 Siege is doing well as well, it’s a slow paced game overall as well, with really intense moments - I’m sure Overwatch really needs no introduction I’m sure, it’s a quite one of a kind shooter, plays nothing like the others listed here. - DOOM has an influencial camapgin for a shooter that deliberately defies convention, to be different. - CSGO is a game that refuses to dratically change and it’s stupidly popular, almost always being one of the top games being streamed as we speak. - Titanfall 2 and it’s predessor are the FPS games that have done the enhanced mobility thing and have refined it to be the best it can offer, sales were not as expected. - The COD series falling from grace pretty much around the same time as Halo, when they keep introducing and changing things and fans are really pissed off, even COD is starting to look back although I hope they realize that newspaper tease about jetpacks is a bad move.There are other shooters out there as well, like Destiny and I hear things about ARMA but I can gurantee you the trend is that the games people want to play are all unique from each other, offering geniune experiences that are different. The mobility “fad” I’d argue, not trend has never taken off well at all and class based is a possiblity due to the success of Overwatch but I don’t think companies will really try to compete with Blizzard quality unless it’s free coughPaladinscough. Other shooters will continue to do their own thing however.
It makes perfect sense then for Halo, the classic style that was very simple and intricate, very customizable and modular in a way. Played like no other, a semi arena shooter that isn’t quite an arena shooter but it has some of the hallmarks of it would do just fine in the eyes of gamers today. The real proof would be if 343 could create a game like that, but I have doubts they truly can given the track record and their stubborn vision to make Halo the way they want to.
I can only hope when Halo 6 fails, despite it being polished to a T, is bug free and comes with lots of content, people will still be critical about the game play and that it just isn’t Halo. Then they can come up with no more excuses for it.
[deleted]
> 2533274887665513;13896:
> I don’t want Halo 6 to fail but I am incredibly skeptical. Then again most modern games suck. Despite all my issues with Halo 5, I still play it over games like CoD any day. Class based games don’t interest me so I still stick with Halo. I am damn sure it would do incredibly well if Halo returned to its roots but who knows what will happen. I we could get a working H3A or some kind of classic game then I couldn’t care less what they do with H6.
H3A wouldn’t be the best way to example the desire for the classic game play style because it’s a remaster, not a new new game. And we can’t really have 343 make two games to cater to the two sides, it’s a risk and it’ll cement the split in the community.
And also just 343 being at the helm doesn’t give me much confidence they can do a classic game anyway.
> 2533274808578327;13895:
> - Battlefield 1 is a popular shooter, and that looked back and doesn’t have enhanced mobility. - Rainbow 6 Siege is doing well as well, it’s a slow paced game overall as well, with really intense moments - I’m sure Overwatch really needs no introduction I’m sure, it’s a quite one of a kind shooter, plays nothing like the others listed here. - DOOM has an influencial camapgin for a shooter that deliberately defies convention, to be different. - CSGO is a game that refuses to dratically change and it’s stupidly popular, almost always being one of the top games being streamed as we speak. - Titanfall 2 and it’s predessor are the FPS games that have done the enhanced mobility thing and have refined it to be the best it can offer, sales were not as expected. - The COD series falling from grace pretty much around the same time as Halo, when they keep introducing and changing things and fans are really pissed off, even COD is starting to look back although I hope they realize that newspaper tease about jetpacks is a bad move.
While this list does show that the shooter market is perhaps more healthy than it was six years ago when there appeared to be a reason to be afraid of homogenization of the market, it doesn’t really tell anything about how well classic Halo would fit in. Certainly, I don’t see any evidence here that classic Halo would succeed better in this landscape than Halo 5.
> 2533274825830455;13898:
> > 2533274808578327;13895:
> > - Battlefield 1 is a popular shooter, and that looked back and doesn’t have enhanced mobility. - Rainbow 6 Siege is doing well as well, it’s a slow paced game overall as well, with really intense moments - I’m sure Overwatch really needs no introduction I’m sure, it’s a quite one of a kind shooter, plays nothing like the others listed here. - DOOM has an influencial camapgin for a shooter that deliberately defies convention, to be different. - CSGO is a game that refuses to dratically change and it’s stupidly popular, almost always being one of the top games being streamed as we speak. - Titanfall 2 and it’s predessor are the FPS games that have done the enhanced mobility thing and have refined it to be the best it can offer, sales were not as expected. - The COD series falling from grace pretty much around the same time as Halo, when they keep introducing and changing things and fans are really pissed off, even COD is starting to look back although I hope they realize that newspaper tease about jetpacks is a bad move.
>
> While this list does show that the shooter market is perhaps more healthy than it was six years ago when there appeared to be a reason to be afraid of homogenization of the market, it doesn’t really tell anything about how well classic Halo would fit in. Certainly, I don’t see any evidence here that classic Halo would succeed better in this landscape than Halo 5.
The tell that classic Halo would succeed is because it is just as different as the others, it’s a goldmine formula that hasn’t yet been exhausted.
Not to say just bringing back what was in Halo 3 will be enough, there will have to be additions, good ones that embrace style of gameplay Halo has had while improving on it and making it fun.
> 2533274808578327;13899:
> > 2533274825830455;13898:
> > > 2533274808578327;13895:
> > > - Battlefield 1 is a popular shooter, and that looked back and doesn’t have enhanced mobility. - Rainbow 6 Siege is doing well as well, it’s a slow paced game overall as well, with really intense moments - I’m sure Overwatch really needs no introduction I’m sure, it’s a quite one of a kind shooter, plays nothing like the others listed here. - DOOM has an influencial camapgin for a shooter that deliberately defies convention, to be different. - CSGO is a game that refuses to dratically change and it’s stupidly popular, almost always being one of the top games being streamed as we speak. - Titanfall 2 and it’s predessor are the FPS games that have done the enhanced mobility thing and have refined it to be the best it can offer, sales were not as expected. - The COD series falling from grace pretty much around the same time as Halo, when they keep introducing and changing things and fans are really pissed off, even COD is starting to look back although I hope they realize that newspaper tease about jetpacks is a bad move.
> >
> > While this list does show that the shooter market is perhaps more healthy than it was six years ago when there appeared to be a reason to be afraid of homogenization of the market, it doesn’t really tell anything about how well classic Halo would fit in. Certainly, I don’t see any evidence here that classic Halo would succeed better in this landscape than Halo 5.
>
> The tell that classic Halo would succeed is because it is just as different as the others, it’s a goldmine formula that hasn’t yet been exhausted.
>
> Not to say just bringing back what was in Halo 3 will be enough, there will have to be additions, good ones that embrace style of gameplay Halo has had while improving on it and making it fun.
Yes, you say that, but just saying it doesn’t make it true. Desiging a classic Halo would inevitably be running blind into the modern market with a game that worked ten years ago. It might work out well, but it also might not, and there’s no evidence in favor of either of these outcomes.
> 2533274825830455;13900:
> > 2533274808578327;13899:
> > > 2533274825830455;13898:
> > > > 2533274808578327;13895:
> > > > - Battlefield 1 is a popular shooter, and that looked back and doesn’t have enhanced mobility. - Rainbow 6 Siege is doing well as well, it’s a slow paced game overall as well, with really intense moments - I’m sure Overwatch really needs no introduction I’m sure, it’s a quite one of a kind shooter, plays nothing like the others listed here. - DOOM has an influencial camapgin for a shooter that deliberately defies convention, to be different. - CSGO is a game that refuses to dratically change and it’s stupidly popular, almost always being one of the top games being streamed as we speak. - Titanfall 2 and it’s predessor are the FPS games that have done the enhanced mobility thing and have refined it to be the best it can offer, sales were not as expected. - The COD series falling from grace pretty much around the same time as Halo, when they keep introducing and changing things and fans are really pissed off, even COD is starting to look back although I hope they realize that newspaper tease about jetpacks is a bad move.
> > >
> > > While this list does show that the shooter market is perhaps more healthy than it was six years ago when there appeared to be a reason to be afraid of homogenization of the market, it doesn’t really tell anything about how well classic Halo would fit in. Certainly, I don’t see any evidence here that classic Halo would succeed better in this landscape than Halo 5.
> >
> > The tell that classic Halo would succeed is because it is just as different as the others, it’s a goldmine formula that hasn’t yet been exhausted.
> >
> > Not to say just bringing back what was in Halo 3 will be enough, there will have to be additions, good ones that embrace style of gameplay Halo has had while improving on it and making it fun.
>
> Yes, you say that, but just saying it doesn’t make it true. Desiging a classic Halo would inevitably be running blind into the modern market with a game that worked ten years ago. It might work out well, but it also might not, and there’s no evidence in favor of either of these outcomes.
Consider this, some people are saying Halo needs or needed to change in order to be relevant, when in reality’s it’s been like that since Reach and it’s only gone downhill. That was near 7 years ago yet people still pull out that card. Isn’t it baffling that people can still claim Halo needs this kind of change?
We’ve only had 3 numbered games that follow the classic style, this is when Halo was truly different from the others, just by doing it’s own thing. The problem is this kind of Halo didn’t even get the chance to feel remotely stale amongst gamers as things began changing and have remained so in more games than the old, or about to be very soon with 6.
Player have left the series for good because it’s different, the fanbase we have now is not a true recollection of our strength as a community. If a classic game could be put together with true love, care and respect for it’s roots and it was advertised as such to these people on top of being an experience to any newcomers, I have little doubt it’ll blow up in a good way.
> 2533274825830455;13853:
> Interesting. That spreadsheet is pretty convincing even with such a little amount of data, because the differences are so drastic. Keep up the good work. More data to test our beliefs is what we always need.
I thought you might like to see the final product:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BkmA26fzSDaq4DFcAiKvXf3PazW4aAEoUZewlUm0trw/edit?usp=sharing
I’ll make a full post later, but the basics are this:
Halo 3’s matches last, on average, 2 minutes and 36.05 seconds less than Halo 5’s matches.
The average time between kills in Halo 3 is 3.44 seconds. The average time between kills in Halo 5 is 5.04 seconds.
Side note: While skimming through Halo 5 Truth matches, I caught a funny quote by Strongside describing Truth as “Midship on steroids, because Halo 5 is so fast paced.” It’s actually the opposite.
> 2533274913398097;13902:
> > 2533274825830455;13853:
> > Interesting. That spreadsheet is pretty convincing even with such a little amount of data, because the differences are so drastic. Keep up the good work. More data to test our beliefs is what we always need.
>
> I thought you might like to see the final product:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BkmA26fzSDaq4DFcAiKvXf3PazW4aAEoUZewlUm0trw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I’ll make a full post later, but the basics are this:
>
> Halo 3’s matches last, on average, 2 minutes and 36.05 seconds less than Halo 5’s matches.
>
> The average time between kills in Halo 3 is 3.44 seconds. The average time between kills in Halo 5 is 5.04 seconds.
>
> Side note: While skimming through Halo 5 Truth matches, I caught a funny quote by Strongside describing Truth as “Midship on steroids, because Halo 5 is so fast paced.” It’s actually the opposite.
The average kill time is a combination of various different scenarios yes?