What is "classic Halo"?

Community General Discussion
1

Edit - Thanks for all the replies! Most of what I read was all thought out reasons to what the difference is and why it worked, rather than ‘I like this because this is how it was’. Originally posted this to work out for myself what I wanted to see out of the next Halo game and what should be at the core of it.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t care what 343 do. To be more specific I do care, but I’m confident they’ll make the right decision. As I’ve said previously I feel H5 is the first step in the right direction since H3. Since being pressured into making a Halo game understaffed and in a ridiculous amount of time more than 6 years ago, I feel they’ve finally found a groove. Combined with how well they’ve proven to listen to the community I’m sure they’ve got everything they need to move forward. So whether they tweak what Halo 5 brought or bring it all back to basics I don’t care, I’ve decided I’m just excited.

Making this because I’m lost in a sea of multiple answers to what is classic Halo.

Personally I believe a Halo game comes under the category of ‘Arena FPS’. The baseline for this is even starts with advantages gained through map control and weapon control. Many also consider a solid ranking system important. For me Halo 5 does this better than any game since Halo 3.

Many consider Halo Reach to be classic Halo. The game offers loadouts, interchangeable armour abilities and a single ranked playlist.

Is Halo 3 classic Halo? It offers an experience slightly slower to its predecessor and includes deployable equipment.

Is Halo 2 classic Halo? Faster than the original but not compared to the new games. Both Halo 2 and Halo 3 offer a similar ranking experience.

Or is CE classic Halo? Its 16 years old but by right it is the original

I’ve loved every Halo (except 4) and I’ve enjoyed watching the games evolve. And as much as I loved Reach, it was a step in the wrong direction while Halo 4 was a massive leap. For me Halo 5 isn’t perfect, but its a step on the right path. People say they want to remove sprint and armour abilities but it makes me think if Reach would have had no loadouts, would there still have been a problem. It makes me think if every next Halo didn’t add modern elements like sprint to its games, would we not have just moved on to other modern games. And people compare new ranking systems to old ones and request for their return even though we know they are broken themselves.

I believe sprinting and armour abilities have their place in Halo, they have for almost a decade. Perhaps some need to go and some need changing but they make sense to me. It makes sense that a Spartan can do these thing and it makes sense that a game should look to improve. Maybe though there is too much of it and the game is a couple of paces too fast, I don’t know. But I will say Halo 5 is encouraging to me that the next game will definitely be better.

If you managed to read all this I’m not kicking off, but maybe you can help me answer what makes Halo Halo?

2

In my opinion classic Halo is the first trilogy.
The Art Design the Music the eoicness…

3

I’m under the impression that the most common definition is that the original trilogy is “classic Halo”, and everything beginning from Halo Reach is not. Some people may have different ideas, but my observation is that this is the most common usage.

As far as gameplay is considered, “classic gameplay” is gameplay without any extra abilities, i.e., with only running, jumping, crouching, shooting, melee, and throwing grenades. Equipment is excepted, honestly just by arbitrary convention, but the argument can also be made that they’re not abilities, but map pick-ups.

4

I agree that, in the lore, Spartans should be able to do things like: Sprinting, sliding, dodging, etc. I’m willing to accept that, in campaign environments, maybe Spartan Abilities and armor abilities are not a bad thing. But, in the competitive multiplayer side of things, I just do not believe that these things should exist. They add what is in my opinion an unnecessary and unneeded fourth dimension to the already perfect 3-dimensional gameplay of Halo.

I’ve always seen the H3 equipment as map pickups and not an unbalanced ability like AA or SA, therefore not adding another dimension to the gameplay.

All of the classic Halos generally play similarly, vs the new Halo games change their style of gameplay with every game, which creates inconsistencies for me, as I like to go back and play the older games. Halo Reach does not play similarly to Halo 4 or the original games, and Halo 5 definitely doesn’t play like Reach or 4.

That’s all I got right now.

5

Well I consider halo 1-3 (including ODST) classic halo and halo reach without the loadouts classic halo but halo 4 and 5 just aren’t classic halo they are fun if they were their own title they would be some extremely fun games (extremely competitive in halo 5s case Also) but they are halo games so you don’t just change the entire gameplay I think thruster and maybe clamber have a place in halo but not Sprint Spartan charge and ground pound (I’m iffy on stabilize) but 343 have halo 6 to get it right so let’s hope they can

6

I guess the more important question then is 'can new Halo work?

Let’s say we take away ground pound and Spartan charge. I don’t think they’re OP really because they can be dodged and countered easily, but I guess there is already a lot going on and they are unnecessary. Keep sprint and thruster pack but possibly turn them down a bit to lower the pace. Keep stabilizers because they create interesting map movement.

Could this possibly be something more Halo? Also what about ADS and clamber. I know people don’t like them but what’s wrong with them?

Alternatively through discussing this on here and in my own head, perhaps Halo can advance but maybe it needs to go back to basics first. Maybe it’s strayed too far that it needs to go back before it can go forward?

So many people want so many different things, the devs must find it just as confusing.

7

Classic Halo to me primarily equates to a lack of fancy spartan abilities. Take these away and we’re already 50% there!

8

> 2533274807351567;6:
> Also what about ADS and clamber. I know people don’t like them but what’s wrong with them?

Clamber lets people get away with sloppy movement. Timing and precision of jumps is less important, and it’s difficult to really fail a jump, which de-emphasizes movement skills.

Additionally, neither of these mechanics introduces anything of value to gameplay. They’re just attempts to pander to an audience that probably never cared for Halo, and they erode the uniqueness of Halo’s gameplay, which people value. They signify a lack of creativity and boldness on the developer’s part, and act as a stark reminder of the fact that triple-A development isn’t about creating something unique and interesting, but about creating something safe that many people will buy, even if they’ll probably forget it as years pass.

While there are gameplay reasons to oppose Clamber in particular, one can’t ignore what these mechanics stand for as part of the reason why people dislike them.

9

> 2533274825830455;8:
> > 2533274807351567;6:
> > Also what about ADS and clamber. I know people don’t like them but what’s wrong with them?
>
> Clamber lets people get away with sloppy movement. Timing and precision of jumps is less important, and it’s difficult to really fail a jump, which de-emphasizes movement skills.
>
> Additionally, neither of these mechanics introduces anything of value to gameplay. They’re just attempts to pander to an audience that probably never cared for Halo, and they erode the uniqueness of Halo’s gameplay, which people value. They signify a lack of creativity and boldness on the developer’s part, and act as a stark reminder of the fact that triple-A development isn’t about creating something unique and interesting, but about creating something safe that many people will buy, even if they’ll probably forget it as years pass.
>
> While there are gameplay reasons to oppose Clamber in particular, one can’t ignore what these mechanics stand for as part of the reason why people dislike them.

Fair points, but those aside do you think the rest could work. Or would you prefer to see a back to basics strategy

10

It’s crazy to think that Reach is getting near the ten year mark and we’ve had abilities for almost as long as the time between CE and Reach. I guess in that sense Reach could be considered a classic game in the abilities era of Halo, but the original trilogy will always be the basis for classic Halo with no abilities.

Comparing the originals though, CE will always be the true classic game since there are actually a lot of differences between the three games. For me, I think they should base the new game off of CE while incorporating some modern aspects to enhance it.

11

‘Classic Halo’ generally refers to the core gameplay of the original trilogy, but given that the gameplay of these three titles differs as well, I think it tends to be more helpful to describe it as a design philosophy rather than a set of mechanics, and there is actually a very clear, identifiable difference between the way Halo CE through 3 innovated compared to how Halo Reach through 5 innovated.

To use an example made in this video, when mechanics where added to Halo 2 and 3, they were added through interactables and the sandbox. They’re inclusion didn’t alter the core gameplay and their use could be effectively managed by the developers post-launch. This is not the case with Abilities, as they are added to the players themselves and fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay.

This distinction is why I often get irritated when supporters of the modern style handwave the discussion on the basis that we ‘just want another Halo 3’, which is generally untrue.
Though I’m sure there are players who would love nothing more than to have a clone of their favourite Halo game, I’m of the mindset that Halo can continue to strive and improve using the ‘classic’ formula as a foundation, in other words, innovating through the sandbox (the weapons, vehicles, equipment and map design) rather than relying on flashy abilities and industry standard mechanics like Sprint and ADS.

12

> 2533274825830455;8:
> > 2533274807351567;6:
> > Also what about ADS and clamber. I know people don’t like them but what’s wrong with them?
>
> Clamber lets people get away with sloppy movement. Timing and precision of jumps is less important, and it’s difficult to really fail a jump, which de-emphasizes movement skills.
>
> Additionally, neither of these mechanics introduces anything of value to gameplay. They’re just attempts to pander to an audience that probably never cared for Halo, and they erode the uniqueness of Halo’s gameplay, which people value. They signify a lack of creativity and boldness on the developer’s part, and act as a stark reminder of the fact that triple-A development isn’t about creating something unique and interesting, but about creating something safe that many people will buy, even if they’ll probably forget it as years pass.
>
> While there are gameplay reasons to oppose Clamber in particular, one can’t ignore what these mechanics stand for as part of the reason why people dislike them.

Wow tsassi …You amaze me sometimes! We don’t agree on a lot of our opinions but when you are right , you are right.

13

> 2533274900668879;11:
> screwed up some how sorry

14

> 2533274900668879;11:
> ‘Classic Halo’ generally refers to the core gameplay of the original trilogy, but given that the gameplay of these three titles differs as well, I think it tends to be more helpful to describe it as a design philosophy rather than a set of mechanics, and there is actually a very clear, identifiable difference between the way Halo CE through 3 innovated compared to how Halo Reach through 5 innovated.
>
> To use an example made in this video, when mechanics where added to Halo 2 and 3, they were added through interactables and the sandbox. They’re inclusion didn’t alter the core gameplay and their use could be effectively managed by the developers post-launch. This is not the case with Abilities, as they are added to the players themselves and fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay.
>
> **This distinction is why I often get irritated when supporters of the modern style handwave the discussion on the basis that we ‘just want another Halo 3’, which is generally untrue.**Though I’m sure there are players who would love nothing more than to have a clone of their favourite Halo game, I’m of the mindset that Halo can continue to strive and improve using the ‘classic’ formula as a foundation, in other words, innovating through the sandbox (the weapons, vehicles, equipment and map design) rather than relying on flashy abilities and industry standard mechanics like Sprint and ADS.

This was me after Halo 2 and 3…(honestly I think if you had given a lot of us new maps and updated graphics with Halo 3 instead of trying to reinvent the wheel we still would have played it for another ten years , same with Halo 3 after playing it for so long)…but i recognize that Halo had to innovate some how. And I readily admit that I am far from the person who could or should decide how. I can say however , " I fundamentally disagree with every decision that has been made " * since Halo 3 O.D.S.T. (Yes I know Bungie made Reach). * (Mark Hammel to Rian Johnson about Luke Skywalker)

15

I feel most of the answers you are going to get will revolve (obviously) around the original trilogy. Some newer players (my son for example) started on Reach and it is by far his/their favorite game in the series. I agree with the idea of an Arena shooter at its’ core , and all that that entails , but I also feel that the slow strategic movement was/is an integral part of Halos’ equation. When you make a mistake in movement or accuracy you are punished for it. Slower movement speed ensures this mostly (situational factors apply in any fire fight obviously).

I get that players want to feel like a “super soldier” but the slower movement of the games was never intended to be indicative of Chiefs actual experience. The whole game , campaign included , was slowed down so that the player could comprehend what is going on. He is moving at what ever speed the situation calls for. (Honestly try to imagine an infantry based “boots on the ground” conflict at 60 MPH ; so much happens at that speed the human mind barely has time to catch it all , much less make sense of it). TL;DR for that last part : Game play trumps immersion (or should IMO).

Speaking of immersion , why would a soldier with a HUD that is smart linked to his weapon so that it displays what his gun sees directly to his visor (what happened in every game in the original trilogy when scoped with any weapon that isn’t a sniper or covenant based tech) need with ADS? It is redundant.
Ground pound , although I dislike it , has no real argument against it as far as its’ inclusion.
Sprint I don’t feel is necessary for the reasons stated previously.
Thrusters are a fine addition to the sandbox , IMO (adds a layer of strategic movement while not allowing for complete escape from a fight).
Shoulder charge and Slide I have no real argument against other than the need for Sprint to activate them. Maybe if they were options based on the thrusters they could work?
Clamber I have issue with , because much like Sprint , it changes the way skill has to be evaluated and closes the “skill gap” because they either make it easier to traverse the map , escape bad situations , and/or minimize the advantage of map knowledge.

16

> 2727626560040591;10:
> It’s crazy to think that Reach is getting near the ten year mark and we’ve had abilities for almost as long as the time between CE and Reach. I guess in that sense Reach could be considered a classic game in the abilities era of Halo, but the original trilogy will always be the basis for classic Halo with no abilities.
>
> Comparing the originals though, CE will always be the true classic game since there are actually a lot of differences between the three games. For me, I think they should base the new game off of CE while incorporating some modern aspects to enhance it.

This is what Reach tried , Why they brought back health packs and I can’t remember what else (useful pistol Maybe?) Innovating from the “Classic”. IDK, not a bad concept , just made another point of contention , only one player essentially gets an extra life (I.E. the one next to the health pack).

17

I believe classic Halo would be the original trilogy made by Bungie

18

Classic Halo: the original trilogy
Modern Halo: Reach, 4, 5

19

Classic Halo = Halo CE and Halo 2.

20

A game that utilizes the golden halo triangle