> 2533274830420921;16142:
>
Self righteous much?
> 2533274794648158;16144:
> Remember kids, classic Halo was successful because of anything but the gameplay, and H4 failed because of anything but the gameplay.
You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
I’d be delighted to see any evidence pointing to that conclusion, considering many here have not presented any such evidence.
> 2533274944752684;16147:
> You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
>
> I’d be delighted to see any evidence pointing to that conclusion, considering many here have not presented any such evidence.
You know that isn’t possible, but when a product’s decline in popularity correlates with it drifting further and further from its roots, it definitely is something to think about. I’m well aware that there are many factors at play here, but to claim that the gameplay, the heart of the experience, played no part in the abysmal player retention of the recent Halos would be totally dishonest.
> 2533274794648158;16148:
> > 2533274944752684;16147:
> > You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
> >
> > I’d be delighted to see any evidence pointing to that conclusion, considering many here have not presented any such evidence.
>
> You know that isn’t possible, but when a product’s decline in popularity correlates with it drifting further and further from its roots, it definitely is something to think about. I’m well aware that there are many factors at play here, but to claim that the gameplay, the heart of the experience, played no part in the abysmal player retention of the recent Halos would be totally dishonest.
Correlation is not causation, but fair enough. But I never claimed anywhere that gameplay never played a part. What I said was other factors could just as easily have played a bigger part in the decline, and that the insinuation that the gameplay changes were the major cause is baseless.
> 2533274944752684;16149:
> > 2533274794648158;16148:
> > > 2533274944752684;16147:
> > > You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
> > >
> > > I’d be delighted to see any evidence pointing to that conclusion, considering many here have not presented any such evidence.
> >
> > You know that isn’t possible, but when a product’s decline in popularity correlates with it drifting further and further from its roots, it definitely is something to think about. I’m well aware that there are many factors at play here, but to claim that the gameplay, the heart of the experience, played no part in the abysmal player retention of the recent Halos would be totally dishonest.
>
> Correlation is not causation, but fair enough. But I never claimed anywhere that gameplay never played a part. What I said was other factors could just as easily played a bigger part in the decline, and that the insinuation that the gameplay changes were the major cause is baseless.
It is true that Halo was struggling against the likes of COD towards the end of Halo 3’s life. The game had been out years and COD had a “new” game every year. But Halo Reach and Halo 4 especially sold very very well. They sold well because they were both marketed off the back of Halo 3 and people still really loved Halo. They both sold twice as much as ODST, which was a campaign only (really) experience.
upon launch you saw high numbers of players, and that quickly fell off over the launch window, again, Halo 4 especially.
My memory of the times were;
Reach: People excited for the next new big Halo, but let down by the shift in game play.
Halo 4: Marketed as the true sequel to Halo 3, and even a return to roots (something that has been done again and again now), and people were excited but worried about the new features. Then people were seriously let down by the game play.
So while yes, there were other factors, if you look at the games that Halo 3 competed against, it was the same competition as Reach and H4. Halo would have lost some of its playerbase to the growing (and extremely consistent) COD franchise. But when new people bought Halo they found a poor “modern shooter”, and when old players bought Halo, they didn’t know what they were getting, and many found the particular things they enjoyed completely ripped up. It’s true people don’t like change or things that are different (it’s the real reason people want sprint in Halo, whether they realise or not, because it is a safe constant across FPS games, the lack of sprint makes them feel like they don’t have control of their environment), so when Halo changed, it made people feel unstable in the franchise. The changes actively pushed people away.
it’s in contrast to the other titles like COD and Battlefield which saw their franchise grow, as they kept the expectations constant.
> 2533274865691662;16123:
> > 2535464451695009;16121:
> > The inclusion or lack of sprint isn’t indicative of the age of the game, just what kind of game the developers want to make. There are still games, especially shooters, that are released regularly on both consoles and PC that don’t have anything that could resemble sprint in their mechanics.
> >
> > EDIT: Also, those gameplay decisions such as flanking are based heavily on map design moreso than game mechanics.
>
> There are still games like that but most mainstream games today have it. Again that doesn’t mean they’re bad because they lack sprint. And that’s true about flanking, but the speed of which you can maneuver helps.
So what if most mainstream games have it? Following an imaginary bucket list of “mainstream requirements” just lead to the product being nothing more than shovelware madiocre at that.
There were MMOs before WoW, but that game hit it big, and why is it big? Because most other MMOs to compete against WoW has done so by trying to be WoW.
A major complaint about DN:F was that it took heavy inspiration from other games, while at the same time mocking the games it took gameplay inspiration from.
“Power armor is for *****”, right?
Yeap, let’s have regenerating health and a two weapon limit.
“I hate valve puzzles”, let’s have and do them either way.
DN:F is only on the big gaming radar because the massive development limbo it was in, and the critical failure it was, both from a gameplay perspective as well as technical standpoint.
Had that been done properly, like Doom 2016 did, it could have had the same success Doom 2016 got. Long story short regarding Doom 2016; It had been in development for a while, the work done was jokingly called “Call of Doom” because it was like Call of Duty, with demons. Things were scrapped, people replaced and work restarted.
Quake Champions then? Pretty much dropped off, as far as I’m concerned it copies Overwatch, Paladins and whatever other hero shooters out there
As for flanking.
The speed you normally use to traverse a map helps to flank on a map designed with said speed in mind?
> 2547348539238747;16150:
> > 2533274944752684;16149:
> > > 2533274794648158;16148:
> > > > 2533274944752684;16147:
> > > > You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
> > > >
> > > > I’d be delighted to see any evidence pointing to that conclusion, considering many here have not presented any such evidence.
> > >
> > > You know that isn’t possible, but when a product’s decline in popularity correlates with it drifting further and further from its roots, it definitely is something to think about. I’m well aware that there are many factors at play here, but to claim that the gameplay, the heart of the experience, played no part in the abysmal player retention of the recent Halos would be totally dishonest.
> >
> > Correlation is not causation, but fair enough. But I never claimed anywhere that gameplay never played a part. What I said was other factors could just as easily played a bigger part in the decline, and that the insinuation that the gameplay changes were the major cause is baseless.
>
> It is true that Halo was struggling against the likes of COD towards the end of Halo 3’s life. The game had been out years and COD had a “new” game every year. But Halo Reach and Halo 4 especially sold very very well. They sold well because they were both marketed off the back of Halo 3 and people still really loved Halo. They both sold twice as much as ODST, which was a campaign only (really) experience.
>
> upon launch you saw high numbers of players, and that quickly fell off over the launch window, again, Halo 4 especially.
>
> My memory of the times were;
>
> Reach: People excited for the next new big Halo, but let down by the shift in game play.
>
> Halo 4: Marketed as the true sequel to Halo 3, and even a return to roots (something that has been done again and again now), and people were excited but worried about the new features. Then people were seriously let down by the game play.
>
> So while yes, there were other factors, if you look at the games that Halo 3 competed against, it was the same competition as Reach and H4. Halo would have lost some of its playerbase to the growing (and extremely consistent) COD franchise. But when new people bought Halo they found a poor “modern shooter”, and when old players bought Halo, they didn’t know what they were getting, and many found the particular things they enjoyed completely ripped up. It’s true people don’t like change or things that are different (it’s the real reason people want sprint in Halo, whether they realise or not, because it is a safe constant across FPS games, the lack of sprint makes them feel like they don’t have control of their environment), so when Halo changed, it made people feel unstable in the franchise. The changes actively pushed people away.
>
> it’s in contrast to the other titles like COD and Battlefield which saw their franchise grow, as they kept the expectations constant.
I can’t speak about Reach as I’ve never played it, but 4 had a terribly short progression system and not much reason to keep you playing for most people. A lot of people get sick of stuff really quickly, and with a short progression system like 4’s, it’s only inevitable people would leave. Progression didn’t even feel all that meaningful, I personally stopped playing it because I felt like all my time invested was going nowhere. Without a good progression system, no matter how fun the gameplay, you get sick of it after a while and you drop it.
The rest of the reply is your own unfolding of a timeline that supposedly happened during the H4 days.
The fact is, the vast majority of gamers don’t commit to a franchise and continue to just drift through games and franchises. Even a game that they thought was good isn’t going to keep them playing for the rest of the game’s lifetime. That’s why games fall off. The more a game ages, the more the saturation of only the dedicated increases, which is a minority, meaning population decreases too.
And let’s suppose that your theory about H4’s gameplay was correct and the decline was caused by gameplay. That’s yet another factor that could conceivably have led to a sales tank of Halo 5. Not because H5’s gameplay was bad in and of itself, but because H4 and MCC were so disliked (MCC had some extremely broken matchmaking) that people lost faith and didn’t bother with H5.
Also, CoD and Battlefield continue to grow because they have constant hype trains, no matter how bad and how much hate comes at the franchises. CoD in particular isn’t really a virtuous game anymore, and people’s standards lower with every one that comes out, so they have this constant base and stream of new players that continues to buy no matter how many times they sell out (first the duplicate loot boxes, removal of the campaign, adding loot boxes to a remaster, and now a battle royale mode). CoD and is now a pitiful cash cow shell of what it once was, and Battlefield… actually, it’s still ok.
> 2533274794648158;16148:
> > 2533274944752684;16147:
> > You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
>
> You know that isn’t possible…
I’m proud of you for being willing to admit that.
With that out of the way, I’d like to offer some legitimate reasons Halo 5 wasn’t as well received as previous Halo titles. I’m assuming that you’ve heard of Act Man? He put together six clips here which were all based around why Halo 5’s campaign was so bad, including: Marketing, broken plot, technical problems, character development/interaction failures, depth, theme, and tone issues, boring conflicts, ruining Cortana, reliance upon expanded lore to understand the story, music decisions, poorly choreographed action scenes, etc… (Also relevant- Nowhere in this comprehensive list of reasons was sprint even mentioned).
If interested, he also made a shorter, one clip list of issues behind why Halo 4’s campaign was so polarizing (Good and bad in different ways).
[deleted]
> 2535464451695009;16154:
> > 2535444702990491;16153:
> > > 2533274794648158;16148:
> > > > 2533274944752684;16147:
> > > > You seem confident. Present your absolute evidence that sprint and EM were responsible for the decline.
> > >
> > > You know that isn’t possible…
> >
> > I’m proud of you for being willing to admit that.
> >
> > With that out of the way, I’d like to offer some legitimate reasons Halo 5 wasn’t as well received as previous Halo titles. I’m assuming that you’ve heard of Act Man? He put together six clips here which were all based around why Halo 5’s campaign was so bad, including: Marketing, broken plot, technical problems, character development/interaction failures, depth, theme, and tone issues, boring conflicts, ruining Cortana, reliance upon expanded lore to understand the story, music decisions, poorly choreographed action scenes, etc… (Also relevant- Nowhere in this comprehensive list of reasons was sprint even mentioned).
> >
> > If interested, he also made a shorter, one clip list of issues behind why Halo 4’s campaign was so polarizing (Good and bad in different ways).
>
> Why cut off the quote by BenTennysonOMNI? You weren’t responding to them, and you still had plenty of space left for your text. I know why you cut off TeeJaY ChArMs quote, but why BenTennysonOMNI’s? What’s your goal here?
To sharpen the focus to this specific point. My “goal here,” was to present a succinct post which would be easier to digest and understand.
> 2535444702990491;16153:
> I’m proud of you for being willing to admit that.
>
> With that out of the way, I’d like to offer some legitimate reasons Halo 5 wasn’t as well received as previous Halo titles. I’m assuming that you’ve heard of Act Man? He put together six clips here which were all based around why Halo 5’s campaign was so bad, including: Marketing, broken plot, technical problems, character development/interaction failures, depth, theme, and tone issues, boring conflicts, ruining Cortana, reliance upon expanded lore to understand the story, music decisions, poorly choreographed action scenes, etc… (Also relevant- Nowhere in this comprehensive list of reasons was sprint even mentioned).
>
> If interested, he also made a shorter, one clip list of issues behind why Halo 4’s campaign was so polarizing (Good and bad in different ways).
I’m aware that H4 & H5’s campaign had negative reception, but that still doesn’t explain the abysmal player retention. I’m sure there are still many gamers who buy games exclusively for single player and then shelf it, but a mediocre campaign doesn’t stop people from checking out the multiplayer. It certainly didn’t stop us. To imply that the campaign is responsible for keeping players coming back is silly. The online multiplayer holds that burden.
Not sure if you’re familiar with R6: Siege, but it had a very similar start to H5. It had a very bare bones launch, was buggy, and didn’t even have a campaign. Ubisoft decided to release free DLC updates just like H5, and slowly but surely the population kept rising to a height that Ubisoft never even imagined, and is still flourishing to this day (three years later). R6: Siege offers nothing but its gameplay. It’s still pretty bare bones to this day. No campaign, not really much features, just gameplay. And its population is flourishing because the gameplay is solid and full of depth.
Gameplay matters.
> 2533274794648158;16156:
> > 2535444702990491;16153:
> > I’m proud of you for being willing to admit that.
> >
> > With that out of the way, I’d like to offer some legitimate reasons Halo 5 wasn’t as well received as previous Halo titles. I’m assuming that you’ve heard of Act Man? He put together six clips here which were all based around why Halo 5’s campaign was so bad, including: Marketing, broken plot, technical problems, character development/interaction failures, depth, theme, and tone issues, boring conflicts, ruining Cortana, reliance upon expanded lore to understand the story, music decisions, poorly choreographed action scenes, etc… (Also relevant- Nowhere in this comprehensive list of reasons was sprint even mentioned).
> >
> > If interested, he also made a shorter, one clip list of issues behind why Halo 4’s campaign was so polarizing (Good and bad in different ways).
>
> I’m aware that H4 & H5’s campaign had negative reception, but that still doesn’t explain the abysmal player retention. I’m sure there are still many gamers who buy games exclusively for single player and then shelf it, but a mediocre campaign doesn’t stop people from checking out the multiplayer. It certainly didn’t stop us. To imply that the campaign is responsible for keeping players coming back is silly. The online multiplayer holds that burden.
>
> Gameplay matters.
Sure gameplay matters, I wasn’t contesting that. And sure campaign isn’t necessarily the driving force keeping players around… A variety of factors have to be taken into consideration: micro transactions debuted in Halo 5, competition from other premier Xbox and PlayStation titles, fans getting franchise fatigue, generational differences in the fan base, etc etc - the list goes on and on… But campaign does indeed matter to an extent- especially if you were previously a fan of the franchise and the story takes a turn for the worse and/or you felt like you were lied to by the developers. I.E. If Cortana was one of your favorite characters and you feel they destroyed her character in the game then why couldn’t that lead you to quit playing the game altogether? If you were super hyped due to the marketing and felt that you were deceived because the entire marketing campaign completely lied to you, then it’s completely understandable if you wanted to quit playing Halo 5. The bitterness that fans feel from a failed campaign can indeed affect player population.
My point is that all those other negative factors in Halos 4 and 5 would all been there just the same with or without sprint. Regardless on how you personally feel about advanced movement in Halo, you’re attempting to compile an unfair and (more importantly as you admitted) unprovable amount of blame against sprint when you try to pin it as a scapegoat for the perceivable failures you see in Halos 4 and 5. Those games have still performed quite well regardless.
> 2535444702990491;16157:
> Sure gameplay matters, I wasn’t contesting that.
Neither of us can prove exactly why these things happened, and we can name dozens and dozens of reasons. But as long as you’re aware of this fact, that’s really the only point I was trying to make.
[deleted]
> 2533274794648158;16156:
> > 2535444702990491;16153:
> > I’m proud of you for being willing to admit that.
> >
> > With that out of the way, I’d like to offer some legitimate reasons Halo 5 wasn’t as well received as previous Halo titles. I’m assuming that you’ve heard of Act Man? He put together six clips here which were all based around why Halo 5’s campaign was so bad, including: Marketing, broken plot, technical problems, character development/interaction failures, depth, theme, and tone issues, boring conflicts, ruining Cortana, reliance upon expanded lore to understand the story, music decisions, poorly choreographed action scenes, etc… (Also relevant- Nowhere in this comprehensive list of reasons was sprint even mentioned).
> >
> > If interested, he also made a shorter, one clip list of issues behind why Halo 4’s campaign was so polarizing (Good and bad in different ways).
>
> I’m aware that H4 & H5’s campaign had negative reception, but that still doesn’t explain the abysmal player retention. I’m sure there are still many gamers who buy games exclusively for single player and then shelf it, but a mediocre campaign doesn’t stop people from checking out the multiplayer. It certainly didn’t stop us. To imply that the campaign is responsible for keeping players coming back is silly. The online multiplayer holds that burden.
>
> Not sure if you’re familiar with R6: Siege, but it had a very similar start to H5. It had a very bare bones launch, was buggy, and didn’t even have a campaign. Ubisoft decided to release free DLC updates just like H5, and slowly but surely the population kept rising to a height that Ubisoft never even imagined, and is still flourishing to this day (three years later). R6: Siege offers nothing but its gameplay. It’s still pretty bare bones to this day. No campaign, not really much features, just gameplay. And its population is flourishing because the gameplay is solid and full of depth.
>
> Gameplay matters.
Aside from the slight shot in the foot that is R6 Siege’s “depth-filled” gameplay including sprint, R6 is by far and absolutely the exception, not the rule, in all of this.
For example, let’s take Titanfall 2. Titanfall 2 has some incredibly good gameplay that caters nicely to a casual audience with a low skill floor while still having an incredibly high skill ceiling for the more competitive. It offers a ton of game modes that each work great in their own right, and discourages cheap gameplay (camping) with the fast option-filled mechanics. The maps are distinct and memorable, requiring different tactics with the change in the background.
Yet Titanfall 2 is a financial travesty, has a complete joke of a population count at only 2 years old, all that with free dlc with no lootboxes.
Titanfall 2 died because of infamous external factors, which is common knowledge among those in the EA (or even just FPS) sphere. Its great gameplay couldn’t save it.
Siege is such an example because it’s such an exception from the norm of weak launches. Gameplay alone cannot save all games. Even the most virtuous of games are doomed by the background they were born in.
Gameplay matters. But it is not the all-deciding factor, and it is for sure in many cases a minor cause of decline.
> 2533274944752684;16152:
> I can’t speak about Reach as I’ve never played it, but 4 had a terribly short progression system and not much reason to keep you playing for most people. A lot of people get sick of stuff really quickly, and with a short progression system like 4’s, it’s only inevitable people would leave.
Reach’s progression system was very long. That being said, I don’t think even a shorter system would cause people to leave in droves early on in the game’s life. Here is a writeup about H4’s population with detailed charts which include when updates dropped. Obviously, it’s not the guaranteed reasoning, but it is in the realm of possibility.
> 2533274944752684;16160:
> Aside from the slight shot in the foot that is R6 Siege’s “depth-filled” gameplay including sprint,
Don’t be dense. We’re arguing about sprint in Halo, not sprint in general.
> 2533274944752684;16160:
> For example, let’s take Titanfall 2. Titanfall 2 has some incredibly good gameplay that caters nicely to a casual audience with a low skill floor while still having an incredibly high skill ceiling for the more competitive. It offers a ton of game modes that each work great in their own right, and discourages cheap gameplay (camping) with the fast option-filled mechanics. The maps are distinct and memorable, requiring different tactics with the change in the background.
>
> Yet Titanfall 2 is a financial travesty, has a complete joke of a population count at only 2 years old, all that with free dlc with no lootboxes.
>
> Titanfall 2 died because of infamous external factors, which is common knowledge among those in the EA (or even just FPS) sphere. Its great gameplay couldn’t save it.
>
> Siege is such an example because it’s such an exception from the norm of weak launches. Gameplay alone cannot save all games. Even the most virtuous of games are doomed by the background they were born in.
>
> Gameplay matters. But it is not the all-deciding factor, and it is for sure in many cases a minor cause of decline.
I never claimed gameplay was the all-deciding factor - I was simply pointing out that it matters and should not be disregarded. I know a game with amazing gameplay can be bogged down by other factors. I don’t have to look any further than the travesty that was MCC’s launch. No one can really be “right” here, unless 343 releases a classic Halo experience in today’s climate that isn’t a total train wreck. Then we’d finally be able to get a clearer picture of what the hell is going on. Incurable franchise fatigue, or something else entirely?
> 2727626560040591;16161:
> > 2533274944752684;16152:
> > I can’t speak about Reach as I’ve never played it, but 4 had a terribly short progression system and not much reason to keep you playing for most people. A lot of people get sick of stuff really quickly, and with a short progression system like 4’s, it’s only inevitable people would leave.
>
> Reach’s progression system was very long. That being said, I don’t think even a shorter system would cause people to leave in droves early on in the game’s life. Here is a writeup about H4’s population with detailed charts which include when updates dropped. Obviously, it’s not the guaranteed reasoning, but it is in the realm of possibility.
I was pretty much just talking about 4. Like I said, I can’t responsibly speak about Reach. Reach’s progression system has piqued my interest in the past, and I have considered dipping my toes into the multiplayer for a little while to see what it’s like. That, and I haven’t played the Reach campaign.
The progression system point was to establish a credible alternate cause for the decline. From what I understand, H4’s progression system can be completed in under 2 days of playtime, which is still pitifully early in the game’s lifetime. With no progression system, people get bored because their time doesn’t go into a reward.
That writeup for sure puts it in the realm of possibility. Thanks for that link, it was pretty good. It’s not a bulletproof piece of evidence, but it is fascinating.
Yeah, I just pointed out Reach’s system since you said you never played it, but I knew you were mainly talking about H4.
> 2533274794648158;16162:
> > 2533274944752684;16160:
> > Aside from the slight shot in the foot that is R6 Siege’s “depth-filled” gameplay including sprint,
>
> Don’t be dense. We’re arguing about sprint in Halo, not sprint in general.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274944752684;16160:
> > For example, let’s take Titanfall 2. Titanfall 2 has some incredibly good gameplay that caters nicely to a casual audience with a low skill floor while still having an incredibly high skill ceiling for the more competitive. It offers a ton of game modes that each work great in their own right, and discourages cheap gameplay (camping) with the fast option-filled mechanics. The maps are distinct and memorable, requiring different tactics with the change in the background.
> >
> > Yet Titanfall 2 is a financial travesty, has a complete joke of a population count at only 2 years old, all that with free dlc with no lootboxes.
> >
> > Titanfall 2 died because of infamous external factors, which is common knowledge among those in the EA (or even just FPS) sphere. Its great gameplay couldn’t save it.
> >
> > Siege is such an example because it’s such an exception from the norm of weak launches. Gameplay alone cannot save all games. Even the most virtuous of games are doomed by the background they were born in.
> >
> > Gameplay matters. But it is not the all-deciding factor, and it is for sure in many cases a minor cause of decline.
>
> I never claimed gameplay was the all-deciding factor - I was simply pointing out that it matters and should not be disregarded. I know a game with amazing gameplay can be bogged down by other factors. I don’t have to look any further than the travesty that was MCC’s launch. No one can really be “right” here, unless 343 releases a classic Halo experience in today’s climate that isn’t a total train wreck. Then we’d finally be able to get a clearer picture of what the hell is going on. Incurable franchise fatigue, or something else entirely?
First part: I was pointing out a small irony. I know what we’re discussing (arguing is a bit of a strong term, in the end this is a simple conversation, no hostility), don’t worry. “Slight shot in the foot” after all, not “all ending mistake”.
Secondly, your post definitely seemed to bloat gameplay’s supposed importance as a life saving factor far more than how much of a factor it actually is, especially with the use of Siege as your example.
On the last remarks, that’s risky, because you risk alienating some of the modern player base that is still playing by releasing a flagship Halo title with full classic after a game like H5. I guess we’ll have to see what 343i does to see if we get an answer to this important question.