Think of it this way...

Halo 4 was pretty well received with critics. 89 on Metacritic is good, even if it’s not up to Halo standards. I think that the reason that fans are so disappointed with Halo 4 is because they are judging it as a Halo game. If you look at Halo 4 and judge it as an Arena Shooter, then you’ll come out disappointed. If you look at it as an Arena/Class Crossover Shooter, than it’s not that bad.

Granted, I don’t play Halo 4 anymore because I don’t really enjoy the MP, but I think if people look at it from a different view, then they might enjoy it more.

There are tons of problems like balance and map design, but a new perspective might do a lot for this section of the forum.

Please keep the Halo 4 Forum as intelligent and clean as possible, and maybe its reputation among Waypoint forum-goers will improve.

I’m disgusted that you would call it anything other then a halo game. Halo 4 IS a halo game. Just like every other halo game that has been released.

I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.

As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.

There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.

I am NOT saying halo 4 has no issues. I am NOT saying peoples dislike is displaced. All i am saying is that this happens all the time. And believe it or not there are other reasons for the lack of population besides the changes. People have left because of them. But not only has that happened before but there is no way to prove its the biggest reason. Even if everyone who regulars the forums thought that way we are still a minority compared to the halo fanbase as a whole.

Your post has not only offended me as another halo fan but as a human being.

> I’m disgusted that you would call it anything other then a halo game. Halo 4 IS a halo game. Just like every other halo game that has been released.
>
> I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.
>
> As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.
>
> There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.
>
> I am NOT saying halo 4 has no issues. I am NOT saying peoples dislike is displaced. All i am saying is that this happens all the time. And believe it or not there are other reasons for the lack of population besides the changes. People have left because of them. But not only has that happened before but there is no way to prove its the biggest reason. Even if everyone who regulars the forums thought that way we are still a minority compared to the halo fanbase as a whole.
>
>
> Your post has not only offended me as another halo fan but as a human being.

I’d say its pretty obvious most left because of the changes. Unless you have a better reason?

> Call of duty changed

Heresy!

> I’m disgusted that you would call it anything other then a halo game. Halo 4 IS a halo game. Just like every other halo game that has been released.
>
> <mark>I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.</mark>
>
> As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.
>
> There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.
>
> I am NOT saying halo 4 has no issues. I am NOT saying peoples dislike is displaced. All i am saying is that this happens all the time. And believe it or not there are other reasons for the lack of population besides the changes. People have left because of them. But not only has that happened before but there is no way to prove its the biggest reason. Even if everyone who regulars the forums thought that way we are still a minority compared to the halo fanbase as a whole.
>
>
> Your post has not only offended me as another halo fan but as a human being.

I hope you realize that every mode in this game has gone way backwards.

The reason Halo 4 was well recieved was that all the problems are “hidden,” and take a great deal of care to notice.

Also, games aren’t reviewed for the concept, or how good it was a Halo game. Halo 4 was incredibly fun, very appealing, and it played well. We all agree that it was a bad Halo game, but it was still a good game.

Maybe the critics were bribed. Who knows.

> I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.
>
> As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.
>
> There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.

Multiplayer is what defines Halo. That’s fine if you are a big time campaign player, but most people play Halo for the multiplayer aspects.

Comparing changes in Halo to changes in Call of Duty is ridiculous. Call of Duty has stuck to the same basic formula over the years, making small changes that don’t affect the core gameplay. That is why Call of Duty is the most popular game around. Halo has made drastic changes over the last two titles, changes that completely alter the basic gameplay and even change it from an arena shooter to a class based shooter. This is why Halo is no longer the most popular game on Xbox Live, currently sitting at #8 on the Xbox Live activity charts, a disgrace is there ever was one.

You’re right that haters will always bash on the new Halo, happens every time, but this is different. When people were bashing on Halo 2 and Halo 3, those games were the best selling games on their consoles and were topping the Xbox Live activity charts, so they were still extremely popular. With Halo 4, the majority of the population has left Halo for other games because Halo no longer resembles the game they used to enjoy.

> Halo 4 was pretty well received with critics.

There’s your problem. Look at the user reviews. (You know, the people that actually play Halo and have no affiliation with Microsoft.)

> The reason Halo 4 was well recieved was that all the problems are “hidden,” and take a great deal of care to notice.
>
> Also, games aren’t reviewed for the concept, or how good it was a Halo game. Halo 4 was incredibly fun, very appealing, and it played well. We all agree that it was a bad Halo game, but it was still a good game.
>
> Maybe the critics were bribed. Who knows.

It all looks so shiny and new…but then, the beats of the story the MP and custom games and Forge are telling, all stopped short of prior Halo games…it’s like a beautifully souped-up car, and they switched all the parts on the inside to something cheap. The campaign is beautiful, but the moments that they advertised, ie the Mammoth, the villain, fights against Prometheans, all feel like they fall short.

You start playing custom games…and the UI is pretty but stupid in function. You start up Forge and half the interface looks like we got more options, but is actually a step back in execution of the task you were trying to perform. You go into MP, and expect a certain ebb and flow in battle, but you get a bunch of “WTF?” momments.

With a bunch of micro-rewards and points for each step you take…it’s like the victory or defeat message at the end hardly matters, you have been given an overload of info and feedback and perks and ordinance and rewards all through the game.

The reviewers would not have got this straight off the bat.

Halo 4 is still a Halo game, of course, so it’s still fun. It’s still built on the same gameplay of Halo 1 through Reach. But most of 343i’s success with Halo 4 was due to what Bungie had already built. Halo 4 was going to do well no matter what 343i did with it.

It is a great game, but compared to multiplayer of previous Halo games, I don’t find it as fun. The Campaign story was easily the best since CE though. They did very well on that.

> Halo 4 is still a Halo game, of course, so it’s still fun. It’s still built on the same gameplay of Halo 1 through Reach. But most of 343i’s success with Halo 4 was due to what Bungie had already built. Halo 4 was going to do well no matter what 343i did with it.
>
> It is a great game, but compared to the previous Halo games, I don’t find it as fun. The Campaign story was easily the best since CE though. They did very well on that.

I’d like to disagree on the point of Campaign, and agree at the same time. The repetitive button pushing was a bit annoying but each halo game has had parts where it was repetitive. But that doesn’t make it a bad game. Or a good or bad halo game in comparison to the HALO Franchise. It’s different and similar in the ways it should be. But older fans, might find that the changes and the addition of AA from REACH was a bit… Weird to them, as many didn’t like the AA of REACH for the reason that it was a major game changer.

> I’d like to disagree on the point of Campaign, and agree at the same time. The repetitive button pushing was a bit annoying but each halo game has had parts where it was repetitive.

I agree with that, which is why I said the Halo 4 campaign had a good story, not good gameplay. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

> But older fans, might find that the changes and the addition of AA from REACH was a bit… Weird to them, as many didn’t like the AA of REACH for the reason that it was a major game changer.

I really disliked Reach’s AAs, but they’re a lot more balanced in Reach because they are preconfigured per gametype with certain weapons. For example, most gametypes don’t allow you to spawn with a Jet Pack and DMR, or Sprint and shotgun. That said, I didn’t mind it that much; what killed Reach for me was the DMR bloom.

If they cared enough to look at how awful Custom Games/Forge are and how horrendously random and unbalanced the multiplayer is, their opinions would be different.

They don’t see the things that the everyday people who play the game do. They jump into a game, formulate an opinion and jump right out again.

How many of the critics who gave this game a good review are actually playing it on a regular basis right now? I’d say, uh, none of them are.

How are people supposed to not judge it as a Halo game? It’s the first entry into the core series since 2007. People waited for this game, they got hyped, asking them to see it and judge it as something other than a Halo game is unfair.

> I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.

Frankly, unless you happen to have a source at hand, I have to say multiplayer wasn’t something put into the game at the last minute. Bungie games have had competitive multiplayer since Marathon. All I ever remember them saying was that they didn’t expect the multiplayer to become the phenomenon it became, and that they had debates whether they would support 16 players because they didn’t expect people to plug their Xboxes together in LAN. But discrediting their effort at the multiplayer by saying it was just thrown in without much thought is wrong.

The reality of it is that whether you want it or not, the multiplayer most likely constitutes a large majority of the play time put into the game. Halo has a reputation of a competitive multiplayer shooter, just like every first person shooter these days, and therefore most people will judge the game based on the multiplayer. Not out of any disrespect towards single player, but because the multiplayer simply has much more replay value.

Nonetheless, it’s silly to say “______ defines Halo, and nothing else”. There are many things that define Halo, and some, if not most, are a matter of personal preference.

> As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.

Debatable. Counter Strike is still fairly succesful, still plays very much the same as ten years ago. Call of Duty has barely changed since it really became popular with Modern Warfare. Really, there are examples either way. It’s a matter of how the designer sees the game. If they have an emphasis on competitive play, the game won’t be changed because it’s defined by its rule set, and the rules need to stay consistent like in any competitive game. Nonetheless, success doesn’t demand drastic changes with every iteration.

Either I didn’t word it right, or some of you didn’t see my point. The main point of this thread is to persuade people to maybe take a different perspective when it comes to Halo 4. I never said the campaign was bad or that it’s not Halo. And when I said it got 89 on Metacritic, I didn’t mean that’s what the fans think of it.

> The reason Halo 4 was well recieved was that all the problems are “hidden,” and take a great deal of care to notice.
>
> Also, games aren’t reviewed for the concept, or how good it was a Halo game. Halo 4 was incredibly fun, very appealing, and it played well. We all agree that it was a bad Halo game, but it was still a good game.
>
> Maybe the critics were bribed. Who knows.

Exactly.

> > The reason Halo 4 was well recieved was that all the problems are “hidden,” and take a great deal of care to notice.
> >
> > Also, games aren’t reviewed for the concept, or how good it was a Halo game. Halo 4 was incredibly fun, very appealing, and it played well. We all agree that it was a bad Halo game, but it was still a good game.
> >
> > Maybe the critics were bribed. Who knows.
>
> It all looks so shiny and new…but then, the beats of the story the MP and custom games and Forge are telling, all stopped short of prior Halo games…it’s like a beautifully souped-up car, and they switched all the parts on the inside to something cheap. The campaign is beautiful, but the moments that they advertised, ie the Mammoth, the villain, fights against Prometheans, all feel like they fall short.
>
> You start playing custom games…and the UI is pretty but stupid in function. You start up Forge and half the interface looks like we got more options, but is actually a step back in execution of the task you were trying to perform. You go into MP, and expect a certain ebb and flow in battle, but you get a bunch of “WTF?” momments.
>
> With a bunch of micro-rewards and points for each step you take…it’s like the victory or defeat message at the end hardly matters, you have been given an overload of info and feedback and perks and ordinance and rewards all through the game.
>
> The reviewers would not have got this straight off the bat.

Yeah, some of the problems with the game were revealed as time went on.

> Halo 4 is still a Halo game, of course, so it’s still fun. It’s still built on the same gameplay of Halo 1 through Reach. But most of 343i’s success with Halo 4 was due to what Bungie had already built. Halo 4 was going to do well no matter what 343i did with it.
>
> It is a great game, but compared to multiplayer of previous Halo games, I don’t find it as fun. The Campaign story was easily the best since CE though. They did very well on that.

Amen.

> If they cared enough to look at how awful Custom Games/Forge are and how horrendously random and unbalanced the multiplayer is, their opinions would be different.
>
> They don’t see the things that the everyday people who play the game do. They jump into a game, formulate an opinion and jump right out again.
>
> How many of the critics who gave this game a good review are actually playing it on a regular basis right now? I’d say, uh, none of them are.
>
> How are people supposed to not judge it as a Halo game? It’s the first entry into the core series since 2007. People waited for this game, they got hyped, asking them to see it and judge it as something other than a Halo game is unfair.

I never said not to judge it as a Halo game, I said to not judge it as a vanilla arena shooter.

> I’m disgusted that you would call it anything other then a halo game. Halo 4 IS a halo game. Just like every other halo game that has been released.

I never said that.

> I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.

Again, never said that. I prefer campaign actually. Please quote the part of my post where I said I prefer MP.

> There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.

Like others have said, the other games HAD populations. Again, I never said they were wrong.

> I am NOT saying halo 4 has no issues. I am NOT saying peoples dislike is displaced. All i am saying is that this happens all the time. And believe it or not there are other reasons for the lack of population besides the changes. People have left because of them. But not only has that happened before but there is no way to prove its the biggest reason. Even if everyone who regulars the forums thought that way we are still a minority compared to the halo fanbase as a whole.

And neither am I.

> Your post has not only offended me as another halo fan but as a human being.

Sorry for trying to bring about a better attitude around here.

I’m not trying to undermine you, I’m just trying to have a healthy discussion. I’m trying to see your view on this, but your “putting words into other peoples’ mouths” strategy isn’t really helping.

There was a reason I bolded/italicized/underlined this in the OP:
Please keep the Halo 4 Forum as intelligent and clean as possible, and maybe its reputation among Waypoint forum-goers will improve.

> Call of duty changed

I doubt this very much. We will have the same boring Campaign, same multiplayer where 11 year-olds swear over their mics. Call of Duty will never change. Ever.

> The reason Halo 4 was well recieved was that all the problems are “hidden,” and take a great deal of care to notice.
>
> Also, games aren’t reviewed for the concept, or how good it was a Halo game. Halo 4 was incredibly fun, very appealing, and it played well. We all agree that it was a bad Halo game, but it was still a good game.
>
> Maybe the critics were bribed. Who knows.

I quit playing H4 on June 6 because of the Lag and went back to Halo Reach for multiplayer and Co-Op play. I can deal with the most of the other crap, but being lagged by 0.5+ seconds 70% of the time is unacceptable and ZERO FUN. I suspect the lag is main reason why 343 lost 180,000 multiplayers in the first week and lost 320,000 players by end of the first month:

http://halocharts.com/2013/playlists_halo4.php

The Critics NEVER played over typical network conditions - they were always playing over intranet / locally host games. That competelet hides the terrible Lag due to the biased host selection methodology in H4, as I explained here:

https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postsm2567780_Is-Halo-4-s-Netcode-Bogging-Down.aspx#post2567780

The Host selection issues can be addressed without changing the game code too, because the set up servers decide who is added to a game, who will be host too and what search options are used to match people up.

They could implement “Best Connection” (as in Reach) or “Local Only” or “No JIP” user selectable filters if they wanted too WITHOUT changing the Game code - and avoiding the lame excuse that “they can’t change the Game GUI” to add in something like visible CSR. Basically you would log into Halo WayPoint, click on the “Career” tab, add a tab named “H4 Settings” and you can turn on off network options there. Those changes get sent to the game set up servers and are used to set up your next game. It’s that simple to address if 343 cares about the Halo Franchise and the Fan base - but in 343’s universe it’s much more important that we have new stances or Armour we can’t wear to play Spartan Ops, or DLC content we could never get to play (no dedicated DLC play lists - just whatever whim 343 has is what you can play).

And before someone chants the 343 mantra “It’s your connection”, that is not the problem. I play 4 other multiplayer titles and NONE of them EVER LAG like H4 does 70% of the time.

> > I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else.
>
> Unfortunately, a lot of us only play a game past the first week of its release because of its multiplayer.
>
>
>
> > Call of duty changed
>
> That’s hilarious.
>
>
>
> > and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way…
>
> Seriously, too much. You should do stand up.

If you are going to quote me atleast put an argument in. Call of duty has changed. But most people are biased here and probably havent played a majority of the call of duty titles and put over a year in each like i have. If you want me to list changes and how they effected the MP please do ask.

Competitive means to play seriously over playing just to play. Again your term view of competitive is biased.

> > I’m disgusted that you would call it anything other then a halo game. Halo 4 IS a halo game. Just like every other halo game that has been released.
> >
> > I also find it rather gut wrenching that a games multiplayer determines it’s status of itself. The story is what defines halo and nothing else. The multiplayer was a side project that was put in at the last minute and happened to come out a success. To you halo might all be about MP and that’s fine. But don’t go around acting like that is a legit fact. That is your preference and nothing more.
> >
> > As for multiplayer it changes over time. Every successful MP changes over the years. Battlefield changed from a very defined role per class to having more flexible classes that can do more then one job. Call of duty changed from having a very defined way to play or “how to correctly play” to a very open shooter that serves pretty much any style of play and allows those people to play on a competitive level their own way. I could give you more examples if needed.
> >
> > There are plenty of older players like I who have been around since the beginning and still enjoys todays MP. People are not wrong for not enjoying these new changes. But everyone keeps forgetting that NONE OF THIS IS NEW Every halo installment after CE has been hate bashed for its new elements. This happens in almost any multiplayer game that sticks around for a decade or more.
> >
> > I am NOT saying halo 4 has no issues. I am NOT saying peoples dislike is displaced. All i am saying is that this happens all the time. And believe it or not there are other reasons for the lack of population besides the changes. People have left because of them. But not only has that happened before but there is no way to prove its the biggest reason. Even if everyone who regulars the forums thought that way we are still a minority compared to the halo fanbase as a whole.
> >
> >
> > Your post has not only offended me as another halo fan but as a human being.
>
> I’d say its pretty obvious most left because of the changes. Unless you have a better reason?

Can you prove a majority of people left due to changes?