What is "Good" Change?

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Let me start by saying I applaud 343 for at least trying to take up the mantle of Halo and add something new to the formula. This is not a bad idea and in order for Halo to thrive, changes must be made.

That being said, I simply don’t understand their intense desire to alter core gameplay features over anything else.

First it was Universal Loadouts, Universal Sprint, JIP, Instant Respawn, and Infinity in Halo 4. These changes were highly unnecessary and had mixed reception depending on what it was; Loadouts killed balance, the combination of Sprint and Insta-Spawn wrecked pacing, Infinity modes replaced traditional modes for a while and killed things like Infection.

The game overall nearly ruined 343’s rep and the Halo franchise in weeks. Were the changes they made necessarily bad? No, not all of them. However, instead of building upon the legacy of Bungie’s Halo from there, they decided to toss in everything they thought was cool, leaving out or breaking beloved features of the franchise in the process.

Fast forward to today, where this seems to be repeating itself. Mind you, Halo 5 is not nearly as sacrilegious as 4 and is thus far a massive step up. But again, making brand-new mechanics and options seems to have trumped improving the classic sandbox.

We gain things like a deeper Campaign, the return of balanced modes, and new things like Warzone, but in the process we lose Split-screen, Playable Elites, and a dedicated Co-op mode (Firefight and/or SpartOps). Then there’s Spartan Abilities, which may or may not add a new, potentially frustrating layer to Halo’s gameplay.

I feel if 343 focused on building the classic sandbox with new things thst fans had been begging for since at least Halo 3, as well as keeping in Halo’s defining features, they would be much less disliked in the community.

2

With the ability to toggle abilities on and off, I’m hoping they throw a “classic” playlist into rotation to see how popular it is. If it is, and they have some maps to accommodate no sprint (they could easily forge a few. Guardian remake, anyone?) it could be what you’re asking for.

If we’re vocal about that, I don’t see why not. At the very least, we could whip up our own in customs. Maybe if that is popular enough, they’ll introduce an official one.

3

I honestly feel like bungie perfect the trinity. Equipments could have all been special grenade types. I don’t like how they went about it in reach and 4 but halo 5 still felt different but it felt good different. They honestly (imp) enhanced some of the things we love from halo. I still looked at encounters the same way. Grenade, drop shield and head shot to clean the kill. Now melee is another part of the game not a crutch for terrible automatic weapons. The new mobility is a touch one not gonna lie. Using them felt natural during the beta like an extension to my already set “halo mentality”

4

> 2533274832335336;1:
> I feel if 343 focused on building the classic sandbox with new things thst fans had been begging for since at least Halo 3, as well as keeping in Halo’s defining features, they would be much less disliked in the community.

I think that would probably be the most sensible thing. People say Halo needs to change to remain fun/popular/whatever but, gameplay wise, it’s been changing and ever since it started changing, the population has gotten embarrassingly low.

Frankly, they should’ve focused on things like theater, forge, a filesharing system, and new gametypes. Maybe they could’ve added Firefight in addition to Warzone (Bungie managed Invasion and Firefight). I mean, the last time we had a theater or fileshare system worth using was in Reach because 343’s too focused on changing the gameplay for some reason. But the direction they took with Halo 4 really set them back and now, since they refuse to revert back to classic play, they spend time thinking of ways to change the way the game plays. That’s time that could be spent adding features and improving upon existing ones, so there’s no Firefight, no playable Elites, no BTB at launch. Bungie looked at what worked and just improved upon it and added the new things that fit along the way that. Maybe if Halo 5 works out, they’ll stick with it and be able to spend more time on improving everything else.

5

“Good” change is simply ones opinion. I like the changes, but the reason I dont argue about it is because the one thing arguing never does is convince the other side. You can change those bystanders on the fence but why try to convert someone who believes otherwise? What I’m saying is that 343 believes they are keeping the core mechanics the same.
That being said i do have to throw in a few things. 343 was yoinked if they did and yoinked if they didnt with splitscreen. If they kept it people would be angry about graphics/FPS, so they had to cut the one they felt would have less backlash. Seeing as this game is meant to sell the xbox, I can understand trying to keep pace with ps4 graphics wise, but in my opinion it was a bad call.
Second of all, playable elited were gone in halo 4. Expecting them in 5 was asking for a letdown.
Finally, although spartan abilities do have some quick KOs, they add an interesting mix to gameplay, and i nevef found them an annoying addition. Again, just stating my opinions, im not bothering to argue, but thats how the beta felt for me.

6

> 2533274832335336;1:
> Let me start by saying I applaud 343 for at least trying to take up the mantle of Halo and add something new to the formula. This is not a bad idea and in order for Halo to thrive, changes must be made.
>
> That being said, I simply don’t understand their intense desire to alter core gameplay features over anything else.
>
> First it was Universal Loadouts, Universal Sprint, JIP, Instant Respawn, and Infinity in Halo 4. These changes were highly unnecessary and had mixed reception depending on what it was; Loadouts killed balance, the combination of Sprint and Insta-Spawn wrecked pacing, Infinity modes replaced traditional modes for a while and killed things like Infection.
>
> The game overall nearly ruined 343’s rep and the Halo franchise in weeks. Were the changes they made necessarily bad? No, not all of them. However, instead of building upon the legacy of Bungie’s Halo from there, they decided to toss in everything they thought was cool, leaving out or breaking beloved features of the franchise in the process.
>
> Fast forward to today, where this seems to be repeating itself. Mind you, Halo 5 is not nearly as sacrilegious as 4 and is thus far a massive step up. But again, making brand-new mechanics and options seems to have trumped improving the classic sandbox.
>
> We gain things like a deeper Campaign, the return of balanced modes, and new things like Warzone, but in the process we lose Split-screen, Playable Elites, and a dedicated Co-op mode (Firefight and/or SpartOps). Then there’s Spartan Abilities, which may or may not add a new, potentially frustrating layer to Halo’s gameplay.
>
> I feel if 343 focused on building the classic sandbox with new things thst fans had been begging for since at least Halo 3, as well as keeping in Halo’s defining features, they would be much less disliked in the community.

Halo DOES NOT NEED CHANGES TO THRIVE. My example for this is CS:GO. CS hasn’t changed in years and is to this day the largest and most successful shooter. Halo is one of those unique games that could and should have kept the same formula of Halo 2/3. It should have built and improved upon the success of Halo 2/3. Don’t fix what isn’t broken! Only blind people will say Halo hasn’t gotten away from the gameplay and mechanics that made it successful.

7

> 2535452061157766;6:
> > 2533274832335336;1:
> > Let me start by saying I applaud 343 for at least trying to take up the mantle of Halo and add something new to the formula. This is not a bad idea and in order for Halo to thrive, changes must be made.
> >
> > That being said, I simply don’t understand their intense desire to alter core gameplay features over anything else.
> >
> > First it was Universal Loadouts, Universal Sprint, JIP, Instant Respawn, and Infinity in Halo 4. These changes were highly unnecessary and had mixed reception depending on what it was; Loadouts killed balance, the combination of Sprint and Insta-Spawn wrecked pacing, Infinity modes replaced traditional modes for a while and killed things like Infection.
> >
> > The game overall nearly ruined 343’s rep and the Halo franchise in weeks. Were the changes they made necessarily bad? No, not all of them. However, instead of building upon the legacy of Bungie’s Halo from there, they decided to toss in everything they thought was cool, leaving out or breaking beloved features of the franchise in the process.
> >
> > Fast forward to today, where this seems to be repeating itself. Mind you, Halo 5 is not nearly as sacrilegious as 4 and is thus far a massive step up. But again, making brand-new mechanics and options seems to have trumped improving the classic sandbox.
> >
> > We gain things like a deeper Campaign, the return of balanced modes, and new things like Warzone, but in the process we lose Split-screen, Playable Elites, and a dedicated Co-op mode (Firefight and/or SpartOps). Then there’s Spartan Abilities, which may or may not add a new, potentially frustrating layer to Halo’s gameplay.
> >
> > I feel if 343 focused on building the classic sandbox with new things thst fans had been begging for since at least Halo 3, as well as keeping in Halo’s defining features, they would be much less disliked in the community.
>
>
> Halo DOES NOT NEED CHANGES TO THRIVE. My example for this is CS:GO. CS hasn’t changed in years and is to this day the largest and most successful shooter. Halo is one of those unique games that could and should have kept the same formula of Halo 2/3. It should have built and improved upon the success of Halo 2/3. Don’t fix what isn’t broken! Only blind people will say Halo hasn’t gotten away from the gameplay and mechanics that made it successful.

Bruh, did you even read OP?

8

the classic sandbox for halo is gone, the game has to change and people do not like that!!

9

Here’s the problem with Good and Bad:
They re merely perspectives.
No matter what, there is ALWAYS someone who disagrees.

10

> 2635141924832173;8:
> the classic sandbox for halo is gone, the game has to change and people do not like that!!

People’s main issue with the end of the classic sandbox is that we never saw it truly perfected.

They almost had it with Reach, but I think Bungie was trying to toss in all their ideas real quick before the handoff to 343, and thus many of the ideas were unfinished or just didn’t work.

343 had the opportunity to come in, build off of Reach’s successes and not worry about what to add in because they had endless lists of popular ideas to put in, yet they started stripping and changing Halo into their vision right off the bat.

It’s the idea of Bungie’s sandbox, 10 years of hard work and community feedback, being so close to being realized yet got almost completely ignored for 343’s desire to distance Halo from what it was.

11

I think what 343 is trying to do at this point is experiment and see what works and what doesn’t work, as well as make their own Halo. They aren’t trying to be the Halo that Bungie made, and this is of course, causing back lash from the people who enjoyed those Halo games a whole lot. The problem with 343 is that no matter what they do, they will never please everyone, and they are going to have to deal with a very loud community, due to the massive legacy that Bungie left behind. However, here is the thing. Microsoft owns Halo, and they want to see Halo last. After all, this is one of the few exclusives that they own themselves, so it makes sense to try to keep Halo ticking, especially if they want to stay in the gaming industry. (Exclusives sell consoles.)

This of course means that Halo at some point in time is going to have to go through changes. The people who enjoyed the original Halo trilogy are getting older, and are slowly dying off over the years. (Not literally dying, but less and less people from the good 'ol days are going to be playing Halo as they grow up and get more responsibilities, families, etc.) So you have to start reaching out to a new audience, while also trying to keep the older audience interested. This is what leads to the drastic changes to the formula. Halo 4 was pretty obvious in what kind of audience they were trying to reach out for, and it didn’t pay off for obvious reasons. So, that didn’t work out too well, so they needed to go back to the drawing board. Make Halo 5 more like Halo once more for the older audience, and add something new for a newer audience. It is all about finding that balance between the two audiences. Halo 4 didn’t have that balance. Halo 5 does look like it will have that balance, which isn’t bad. If Halo 5 ends up being successful, then 343 should basically stick with what they have here, and improve upon it, just like how Bungie made improvements to their Halo.

12

> 2533274826467332;11:
> I think what 343 is trying to do at this point is experiment and see what works and what doesn’t work, as well as make their own Halo. They aren’t trying to be the Halo that Bungie made, and this is of course, causing back lash from the people who enjoyed those Halo games a whole lot. The problem with 343 is that no matter what they do, they will never please everyone, and they are going to have to deal with a very loud community, due to the massive legacy that Bungie left behind. However, here is the thing. Microsoft owns Halo, and they want to see Halo last. After all, this is one of the few exclusives that they own themselves, so it makes sense to try to keep Halo ticking, especially if they want to stay in the gaming industry. (Exclusives sell consoles.)
>
> This of course means that Halo at some point in time is going to have to go through changes. The people who enjoyed the original Halo trilogy are getting older, and are slowly dying off over the years. (Not literally dying, but less and less people from the good 'ol days are going to be playing Halo as they grow up and get more responsibilities, families, etc.) So you have to start reaching out to a new audience, while also trying to keep the older audience interested. This is what leads to the drastic changes to the formula. Halo 4 was pretty obvious in what kind of audience they were trying to reach out for, and it didn’t pay off for obvious reasons. So, that didn’t work out too well, so they needed to go back to the drawing board. Make Halo 5 more like Halo once more for the older audience, and add something new for a newer audience. It is all about finding that balance between the two audiences. Halo 4 didn’t have that balance. Halo 5 does look like it will have that balance, which isn’t bad. If Halo 5 ends up being successful, then 343 should basically stick with what they have here, and improve upon it, just like how Bungie made improvements to their Halo.

That’s absolutely true, but what I’m saying is that Halo 4 shouldn’t have happened the way it did. I know saying that is like beating a dead horse, but hear me out.

If they had just added on to Reach’s template; Campaign, Classic Customs, Matchmaking with some kind of Equal Starts mode, Firefight, Invasion, and Forge World, then they could have easily made the closest thing to a perfect Halo with a little of everything that ever made the series great. THEN, when Halo 5 rolled around (new generation, new hardware, and pretty much everything they could have done with the old sandbox has been exhausted), they could start experimenting with the formula however they saw fit.

However, they’ve been experimenting since they picked up the license, so it just comes off as them throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks rather than carefully crafting worthy successors to the pre-established franchise.

13

Good “change” is not change at all. It’s creating and implementing new additions that complement an already established and great game (or “formula”). In other words, if implementing an addition requires fundamental changes then you’re doing it wrong. If you want to create a new game, then create a new game. If you want to continue a particular game, especially one as well established as Halo was, then continue making that game.

343i was not created to change the Halo franchise. They were created to continue the Halo franchise. Add to Halo…don’t change it!

14

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s easy to say what 343i should have done after they did it. It’s also easy to write on a forum and criticize changes when we’re not the ones having to make the decisions.

15

> 2533274906745123;14:
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s easy to say what 343i should have done after they did it. It’s also easy to write on a forum and criticize changes when we’re not the ones having to make the decisions.

People were already saying this long before Halo 4 came out, just like they are right now, prior to H5G’s release. This is not hindsight, this is “I told you so”.

16

> 2533274801176260;15:
> > 2533274906745123;14:
> > Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s easy to say what 343i should have done after they did it. It’s also easy to write on a forum and criticize changes when we’re not the ones having to make the decisions.
>
>
> People were already saying this long before Halo 4 came out, just like they are right now, prior to H5G’s release. This is not hindsight, this is “I told you so”.

You and I remember the forums very differently.

17

> 2533274906745123;14:
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s easy to say what 343i should have done after they did it. It’s also easy to write on a forum and criticize changes when we’re not the ones having to make the decisions.

I’d go lighter on 343 if they didn’t make it so clear that they had gone in with the wrong mentality long before H4 came out. I think the very first ViDoc had a guy saying something to the effect of “We want to make sure that this is OUR Halo…” or something.

I’m pretty sure making drastic changes to the core gameplay is something any sane developer tries to avoid when taking on a another team’s work for the first time, especially something with the far-reaching influence of Halo.

18

When anything work right dont need changes.

19

> 2533274906745123;16:
> > 2533274801176260;15:
> > > 2533274906745123;14:
> > > Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it’s easy to say what 343i should have done after they did it. It’s also easy to write on a forum and criticize changes when we’re not the ones having to make the decisions.
> >
> >
> > People were already saying this long before Halo 4 came out, just like they are right now, prior to H5G’s release. This is not hindsight, this is “I told you so”.
>
>
> You and I remember the forums very differently.

I didn’t fequent here very much pre-Halo4, but are you saying people here were happy with what was being revealed for Halo 4? Because I remember much of the internet literally thinking it was a joke when the first information leaked and then became furious when finding out it was real.

20

> 2535452061157766;6:
> > 2533274832335336;1:
> > Let me start by saying I applaud 343 for at least trying to take up the mantle of Halo and add something new to the formula. This is not a bad idea and in order for Halo to thrive, changes must be made.
> >
> > That being said, I simply don’t understand their intense desire to alter core gameplay features over anything else.
> >
> > First it was Universal Loadouts, Universal Sprint, JIP, Instant Respawn, and Infinity in Halo 4. These changes were highly unnecessary and had mixed reception depending on what it was; Loadouts killed balance, the combination of Sprint and Insta-Spawn wrecked pacing, Infinity modes replaced traditional modes for a while and killed things like Infection.
> >
> > The game overall nearly ruined 343’s rep and the Halo franchise in weeks. Were the changes they made necessarily bad? No, not all of them. However, instead of building upon the legacy of Bungie’s Halo from there, they decided to toss in everything they thought was cool, leaving out or breaking beloved features of the franchise in the process.
> >
> > Fast forward to today, where this seems to be repeating itself. Mind you, Halo 5 is not nearly as sacrilegious as 4 and is thus far a massive step up. But again, making brand-new mechanics and options seems to have trumped improving the classic sandbox.
> >
> > We gain things like a deeper Campaign, the return of balanced modes, and new things like Warzone, but in the process we lose Split-screen, Playable Elites, and a dedicated Co-op mode (Firefight and/or SpartOps). Then there’s Spartan Abilities, which may or may not add a new, potentially frustrating layer to Halo’s gameplay.
> >
> > I feel if 343 focused on building the classic sandbox with new things thst fans had been begging for since at least Halo 3, as well as keeping in Halo’s defining features, they would be much less disliked in the community.
>
>
> Halo DOES NOT NEED CHANGES TO THRIVE. My example for this is CS:GO. CS hasn’t changed in years and is to this day the largest and most successful shooter. Halo is one of those unique games that could and should have kept the same formula of Halo 2/3. It should have built and improved upon the success of Halo 2/3. Don’t fix what isn’t broken! Only blind people will say Halo hasn’t gotten away from the gameplay and mechanics that made it successful.

Actually Destiny is.