"Things need to change." Not Necessarily

Not quite.

Bear with me for a moment, I’m about to refer to Halo 3.

As a sequel to Halo 2, what did Halo 3 particularly change?

Nothing, really.

It preserved all of the core gameplay people were hooked on in Halo 2(except hitscan BR), but gave us so much more to do with the gameplay. Forge Mode, Theater, a slew of new vehicles, weapons, items, etc.

Halo 3 gave us so much more content than Halo 2. So much so, that calling it a true sequel was justified. It was worth of the ‘3’.

A good sequel doesn’t necessarily have to ‘change’ what made its predecessor great. It just needs to give us more to do with it. Much like a film SEQUEL, we want more of the same characters. You can’t really make something like Toy Story 4, and NOT have Buzz, Woody, and the gang. Anything else wouldn’t render it a sequel, correct?

Is it too far-stretched to ask for another Halo 3 of sorts? The gameplay is near-flawless. Why the urgency to ‘fix’ what isn’t broken? And before you start drawing comparisons to Call of Duty in the reply section, I’ll make my own comparison first.

Modern Warfare 2 is, at its most fundamental core(the gameplay), the exact same game as Call of Duty 4. But how did it differ? It gave us so much more to do with the gameplay. MORE Killstreaks. MORE Perks. MORE Maps. MORE Modes. MORE Everything. And look at its success. It’s widely played to this day, even I play it! It was a sequel done right.

Now, Call of Duty got to a point where it fell into a cycle of just mixing and matching, more so MODIFYING these things rather than give us particularly ‘new’ content. Alas, everyone’s feeling the fatigue now.

That is exactly what Halo 4 has done. There’s nothing particularly ‘new’. It just played with weapon stats, tweaked this and that, but more importantly, it REMOVED much content that could be found in its predecessors. Most importantly, it COMPROMISED the core gameplay.

Why do you think Call of Duty is so popular and continues to thrive to this day? The gameplay’s the same. People love the gameplay, very much like people loved the classic Halo gameplay. That’s what people want. More of the same. A franchise like Halo simply doesn’t need to ‘adapt’ to the new market. It needs to hold its own and provide what people expect of it.

There WAS a reason why many played Halo over Call of Duty or any other franchise. It was different. Hell, that’s why I played it. But now, where’s the motive to do so, when there’s already a franchise out there that executes such a formula even better?

Halo is NOT a twitch shooter. Halo 4 comes off as a pathetic attempt to mold a franchise into something it simply is not. So for Halo 5, cut all of the crap, and give us what we WANT and EXPECT: More of the SAME. And why not throw in some creative new weapons, vehicles, an items? Halo 3 did just fine in that respect. Hell, some of the new content in Halo 3 had me intrigued for years. Nothing in Halo 4 screams brilliance like a Brute Chopper or Spartan Laser. Promethean Weapons are mostly lazy re-skins of old weapons.

Shall we change that?

Bravo, Bravo!

Don’t give something new while taking away the tried and true!

I completely agree with you OP.

Halo 3 did not change, it added…
Halo 4 did change, and it removed…

I disagree that all change is bad, the bad thing is when you change into something that conflicts with the core rules of what you had before (like Loadout in Halo Reach and their turn for the worse in Halo 4). Look at the change from Halo CE to Halo 2- that was truly awesome change (dual wielding, hijacking, tons of new enemies, vehicles and weapons, online Multiplayer and many new CG modes, a story split in the campaign and countless other things). Halo 2 was very different from Halo CE but it was still Halo. And a damn good one at that.

> Is it too far-stretched to ask for another Halo 3 of sorts?

Yes. Fact of the matter is Halo 3 was made (6 years ago, mind you) by an entirely different developer. New developer wants to leave its own stamp on the gameplay, so it will change. Asking for another Halo 3 is a bit too much to ask for.

Even if Halo were still in Bungie’s hands, look what they did with Reach. Developers are creators. That type of personality doesn’t want to be doing the same thing forever (and yes, in this industry, 6 years is forever). Some developers are cool with pumping the same old thing out year after year (see: COD), but they’ll get knocked for that too. Opinions are like hineys, everybody has one.

If Halo 3 really is as near flawless and loved by everyone as it’s made out to be, people would still be playing. It is just as available and playable as it was the day it was released. Yet, nobody ever has an answer for why people aren’t still playing that game.

> > Is it too far-stretched to ask for another Halo 3 of sorts?
>
> <mark>Yes. Fact of the matter is Halo 3 was made (6 years ago, mind you)</mark> by an entirely different developer. New developer wants to leave its own stamp on the gameplay, so it will change. Asking for another Halo 3 is a bit too much to ask for.
>
> Even if Halo were still in Bungie’s hands, look what they did with Reach. Developers are creators. That type of personality doesn’t want to be doing the same thing forever (and yes, in this industry, 6 years is forever). Some developers are cool with pumping the same old thing out year after year (see: COD), but they’ll get knocked for that too. Opinions are like hineys, everybody has one.
>
> <mark>If Halo 3 really is as near flawless and loved by everyone as it’s made out to be, people would still be playing. It is just as available and playable as it was the day it was released. Yet, nobody ever has an answer for why people aren’t still playing that game.</mark>

You just answered your own question.

And it’s quite clear that 343’s ideas aren’t for the greater good of the series. Can you explain why Halo 4 is so unpopular right now?

And who are you to know whether or not straight-up Halo would survive to this day? You simply can’t.

> If Halo 3 really is as near flawless and loved by everyone as it’s made out to be, people would still be playing. It is just as available and playable as it was the day it was released. Yet, nobody ever has an answer for why people aren’t still playing that game.

There comes a point where the game has no life in it because it isn’t marketed any more, the developers aren’t paying attention to it, nothing new is appearing in Matchmaking, the community isn’t inspired to create anything because they are appealing to a smaller demographic, etc… because there are newer iterations in the series for people to pay attention to.

> > If Halo 3 really is as near flawless and loved by everyone as it’s made out to be, people would still be playing. It is just as available and playable as it was the day it was released. Yet, nobody ever has an answer for why people aren’t still playing that game.
>
> There comes a point where the game has no life in it because it isn’t marketed any more, the developers aren’t paying attention to it, nothing new is appearing in Matchmaking, the community isn’t inspired to create anything because they are appealing to a smaller demographic, etc… because there are newer iterations in the series for people to pay attention to.

Exactly.

I don’t know how this guy could possibly claim that a six year old game(like he even stated himself) could continue to thrive off a healthy population despite the existence of FIVE Halo games(if you want to get technical) after its release.

Agreed. Bungie took Reach in a bad direction from the start. Their goal was to make the game as easy as possible that tailored to gamers with no skill who couldn’t get kills. This obviously did not work because it went against the original Halo formula that had worked for a decade, and while Reach had higher numbers than Halo 3 theres many reasons why it was still a disaster. 343 had the chance to fix this and learn from Reach, but instead tried to take the easy way out and build upon the very thing they should’ve ignored: Reach.

> > Is it too far-stretched to ask for another Halo 3 of sorts?
>
> Yes. Fact of the matter is Halo 3 was made (6 years ago, mind you) by an entirely different developer. <mark>New developer wants to leave its own stamp on the gameplay, so it will change.</mark> Asking for another Halo 3 is a bit too much to ask for.

343 Industries implemented change for the sake of change. This is bad. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. If you’re going to change core mechanics, then market it as such. Don’t call it what it’s not, a Halo game.

If Microsoft announced a classic Halo experience launching alongside Xbox One it would’ve sold out immediately. Throw in the dedicated servers and I would never touch another FPS again.

Well said.

Call of Duty and Halo are different. That’s why they are the best. Halo can never be as good at Call of Duty as Call of Duty is, which is why 343i needs to be innovative without attempting to copy Call of Duty’s success.

Halo: CE revolutionized FPS, especially in the multiplayer aspect. Halo 2 added boarding and dual-wielding, among others. Halo 3 added Theater and Forge mode, among others. Except for Prometheans and stances, Halo 4 didn’t add anything that didn’t already exist in previous Halo and Call of Duty games.

> Exactly. People give Call of Duty a lot of crap for being a direct copy + paste, <mark>but notice how it is still on top of the population charts at all times</mark>. Notice how tons of people were excited for Halo 4 when they were promised classic Halo gameplay and then left when it was drowned in custom classes, “accessible” gameplay, ridiculous aim assist, armor abilities, removal of a ton of features, perks, etc…
>
> Halo 3 was the last successful Halo in terms of maintaining a steady population, and it’s funny how no one thinks to model it or build off of it because it’s apparently too late to backtrack.

It is on top, because it is easy to play, easy to get kills, and get killstreaks. CoD Kids can’t play halo because they are too used to getting a one shot kill all the time or a 2 shot kill. In halo all most every weapon you have to put in effort to use and to get kills. In CoD it is camp, head glitch, 2 or 3 shots into someones chest and you get a kill.

thread faved
OP I think you just summarized all of the arguments against these changes to Halo in one clear and concise post. A game can have the same core gameplay but still add more features to it and make it a successful sequel.

What did we get from CE-2? More weapons, dual-wielding, more gametypes…
From 2-3? Exactly what you said.
From 3 to Reach? Firefight, better Forge, even more gametypes, and so on.
From 3+Reach(included because Reach still feels like Halo) to 4? Butchered gameplay, gutted customs, custom loadouts, JIP…

Games can have the same core gameplay as the prequel and still not be considered rehashes. When things get changed for the sake of change, though, everything seriously goes wrong.

I agree 100%. I haven’t played Halo since January, came to the forum just to check up, and I feel you’ve explained exactly what drove me away from this game.

I feel like there were places that 343 did actually improve on this game. Oddball tossing, for example, was a great feature. It needed improvement, but it actually made oddball much more playable.

I feel like were all waiting for the true sequel to Halo 3. But man if that’s ever made…

> > > Exactly. People give Call of Duty a lot of crap for being a direct copy + paste, <mark>but notice how it is still on top of the population charts at all times</mark>. Notice how tons of people were excited for Halo 4 when they were promised classic Halo gameplay and then left when it was drowned in custom classes, “accessible” gameplay, ridiculous aim assist, armor abilities, removal of a ton of features, perks, etc…
> > >
> > > Halo 3 was the last successful Halo in terms of maintaining a steady population, and it’s funny how no one thinks to model it or build off of it because it’s apparently too late to backtrack.
> >
> > It is on top, because it is easy to play, easy to get kills, and get killstreaks. CoD Kids can’t play halo because they are too used to getting a one shot kill all the time or a 2 shot kill. In halo all most every weapon you have to put in effort to use and to get kills. In CoD it is camp, head glitch, 2 or 3 shots into someones chest and you get a kill.
>
> Notice how Halo modeled it and how much worse off it is for doing so. I’m not denying why CoD is so popular, but Halo had a fighting chance when it was a polar opposite.

What did Halo copy off of CoD?

OD’s? Killstreaks are very different from OD’s other than how you acquire them.
Loadouts? Loadouts have been in many games before Call of duty.

Halo is still a game where it takes more than one or two bullets to kill someone, CoD Players are too used to killing another player with only a few rounds put into them. There is no effort in playing CoD and you still need to put effort into playing Halo.

There aren’t any Killstreaks in Halo that can break the game by spawn killing the entire enemy team. What we have in Halo are OD’s that give you access to Power weapons, power ups, and grenades. They aren’t game breaking like what killstreaks do to CoD IMO.

Loadouts are a good addition to Halo IMO, allows me to use the weapon I really want to use not what people choose from a map selection before the game starts.