> 2533274870445963;16166:
> Halo returning to its roots wouldn’t save it, trust me. True, the current state of Halo is unhealthy but the factors involved are more expanse than simple gameplay gimmicks like sprint, or the artstyle. Recognize that Halo as a franchise will be 17 years old November this year. Halo is very old.
>
> Halo’s decline is more a result of fatigue of a franchise that’s had it’s glory days come and gone. 343i’s innovations and additions are not to blame, rather it’s the communal desire to go nearly a decade back in time amongst the peak of Halo 3. Everyone had an Xbox. Games were very limited in quantity. Halo stood on top for a long time because it was one of those games that were funded and developed the most. Halo sold the Xbox. Today, any game can do that. The standard previously set by classic Halos is constantly superceded and frequented that the milestone isn’t something so redeeming anymore. Today, even Indie developers can create small-time games with more fidelity and intricacies that outclass those of a decade ago. Every developer seems to have the money they need. This doesn’t necessarily mean Halo has declined, just that other games have caught up. This illustrates the illusion that Halo has become “generic” or “soulless”, just because new games are capable of competing. Halo still has a huge surplus of funding from Microsoft and it definitely shows; the most recent FPS installment, Halo 5, has so much intricate attention to detail, tuning, and collaborative efforts that regardless of whether you would identify it to be Halo whatsoever, it’s a great, well-rounded, meticulous game. The idea that Halo has become “generic” is the modern fundamentalism of First-Person-Shooters. As much as you want to say that it’s unique, it’s still an FPS. Halo isn’t “special” anymore, but it’s not like its lost that status, it’s because everything else has caught up.
“Halo returning to it’s roots wouldn’t save it” this is something I won’t hear as true untill it’s been done. If we’re aware that current Halo isn’t producing good numbers then what’s the harm in trying an old school approach to see what happens? If it fails then go back to what you was doing before. I also noticed someone mentioning that in going back to classic gameplay, you risk alienating the newer players, something that is true, but it also works both ways. You can also bring in other players in doing so, I’d be curious on who outnumbers who and that question would finally be answered. What I will say Is it makes absolutely no sense to continue doing what isn’t working, so something HAS to change be it doing an old school approach or something entirely new.
Regarding franchise fatigue: i’d put that on the developers not doing anything new to keep people interested. When you’re doing the same thing as everyone else, hence people calling the industry generic, people aren’t going to be enticed or interested enough to keep playing. There are franchises older than Halo like Zelda or Mario that still sell a ton and has the interest to keep churning them out. You’ll find various games in said franchises will have different eras where they’re different to what was done before. Halo can have the same outcome if it too did something new but also something that doesn’t agitate the playerbases. Essentially do the correct change, change itself isn’t the issue, it’s what you change that will fire people up. Franchise fatigue can definitely be an issue, but it’s something that can be limited if the devs go about shrinking it’s impact.
Lastly: “games were limited in quantity” (quoted from you going on why H3 did so well) is something developers have stated as false. Since games have become more expensive to make now compared to the past, you see less games made as a result. So there being less competition in the past isn’t true, there was more of it.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/82-video-games-general/1530832-why-there-less-games-ps3-ps4-compared-ps1-ps2.html#/topics/1530832This link will show graphs comparing just the PlayStation games (emphasis on GAMES, not consoles) by generation. You’ll see ps1 start out low, then the ps2 skyrockets, the PS3 drops and the PS4 is even lower. If you look at the Xbox you’ll see the same thing in generational comparison, it starts slow with the OG Xbox, skyrockets with the 360 and now it’s dropping quite a bit, it’s also pretty clear the Xbox one itself has issues on having exclusives which is probably the most brought up issue with it. There are less games out today than the past, so I don’t view competition in quantity as an issue but by quality. What shooter does X better than the others? That’s where most players will go towards.
Outside of development costs rising, you also have the bigger brands trying to shovel out 3rd party games (Indie devs, which is funny cause years ago people were on about the rise of indie games but in reality they’re being more limited) which is also contributing to less games than before. In relation to this, (and I can link indie devs on subreddit saying exactly what I’ll say) Indie games and free to play stuff simply doesn’t grab an audiences attention compared to your average AAA game, they don’t have the marketing power to hold people’s interest and that marketing requires money (I could’ve sworn you said every dev has money? Indie devs really don’t, they have to rely on kick starter funds just for the games themselves), something AAA devs don’t lack as much, especially with publisher support. So when you have little interest, you start seeing various projects get shelved as the inspiration to continue working on a game no one cares about drops. Quantity wise this shows as you only have a few standouts like the very popular fortnite right now or a 5 year old Warframe that still gets so much interest that it still sits on steams top ten most played games for PC (and PC has more options than anything), or the F2P smite being the only viable console MOBA to play.