To put it simply, what is the logic behind Halo “purism”? I just don’t see how the game mechanics of a 20-year-old game could possibly translate well into the modern age of gaming. Any thoughts on it?
Halo is a very nostalgic community, I mean 10 years ago Halo was the biggest cultural thing in the world. People miss that, and a lot of people just want that kind of community back again.
Two perfect examples of old-school games being adapted to the modern era are DOOM and DOOM Eternal. It can be done.
I don’t see that major differences btween the Halo games and many other comparable FPS games (ex. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Minecraft). The games are pretty similar in terms of mechanics and overall design.
The only part that has truly aged in the Halo franchise are the Halo CE vehicle physics which got removed for good reasons in its sequel (Halo 2).
I’m not a Halo purist, because I believe there are interesting mechanics that could be added to the Halo sandbox. At the same time, given the way OP asks the question, I can’t help but feel like they would label me as one based on how I’ve opposed the majority of gameplay design decisions made in Halo in the past ten years.
Maybe I’m wrong about the OP, but if you humor me for a second, I think it is an issue in the Halo community that you easily get labeled as a purist if you just oppose some specific modern shooter tropes. Or indeed, if you don’t believe that classic Halo gameplay is hopelessly outdated.
The belief that game design is timeless—and that a good game design concept can have appeal regardless of if it’s 10, 20, 40 or 100 years old—is not purism. The fact that I believe that there is nothing stopping a well-designed, classic gameplay style Halo game from succeeding does in no way imply that I believe Halo should never try anything new. All ciassic Halo purists obviously believe in the viability of classic Halo, but not all people who believe in the viability of classic Halo are purists.
Why do I believe in the viability of classic Halo? A better question would be: why not? Nothing I’ve witnessed in my life gives me reason to believe that people today are somehow fundamentally different than people 10, 20, or 100 years ago. Culture changes and things go in and out of fashion, but the human brain fundamentally works the same way. Kids across the world and in different times play roughly similar games when they go outside. Games like chess and football have remained fairly stable in terms of rules far longer than video games have even been around.
Why would video games be any different from other games? Indeed, they’re not. Counter Strike—one of the most popular games on PC today—has remained largely unchanged since it first came out in 1999. Super Mario 64, despite having to endure the clunkiness that comes with basically inventing 3D platforming—is still one of the most popular games in speedrunning. 2D platformers of varying levels of complexity continue to enjoy great popularity, despite 3D games having been available since the 90’s. Why, then, would Halo be any different from other video games?
Based on experience, the belief that the same design ideas are viable regardless of what time you live in seems like a much more natural default to me than the notion that gameplay design somehow has an expiration date.
But, what about purists, actual purists who specifically want nothing to change? Well, if you know what you like, logically you’re more likely to get something you like by asking more of it than trying something new. I don’t think there’s anything particularly puzzling or deep about game purists: they’re just risk-averse people who know what they like. And if that’s what makes them happy, good for them.
I’d take the purist position, and I’m prepared to defend it.
If you’re a fan of 343 Halo, you’re basically a fan of a derivative military FPS game with some vaguely sci-fi weaponry. 343 just goes through the motions so the IP Microsoft assigned them doesn’t cease existing. Their games are not too different from some of the CoD and Battlefield titles; it exists to ape their trend.
Halo used to SET the trend, or at the very least, unapologetically do it’s own thing.
I don’t want to make assumptions about OP, new fans, or even fans that prefer the newer Halo titles, but understanding them as a gaming demographic tells you a lot about how 343 sees Halo is and why people are such ‘purists’ toward the originals.
Its more like a 10-15 year old game when most people are expecting halo 2/3/reach.
The thing is bungie halo changes felt organic. They were new features that didn’t take away from old ones, and felt like evolutions of the game. Changes happened to solve problems in the previous title. 343 tacks on fads like custom loadouts,kill streaks, squad mechanics (i wish that one worked out tbh), and now open world (one missing features of 10 year old open world games). They often don’t mesh well with the existing game, an often come at the cost of something else. They aren’t solving an issue or expanding the game, they’re often in opposition of the game or just poorly implemented.
343 changes feel like they view stuff old is bad because its old. Stuff like moving the whole UI around so its cluttered at the bottom, instead of having information nicely spaced out in easy to read areas. Replacing entire designs with different looks for some reason.
I can not call myself a purist. But I don’t understand why ”logic” needs to have anything to do with it.
People like what they like.
Do you guys think this Halo purism has something to do with the mechanics, lack of effects in combat on the campaign overview?
I see a lot of positive vibes on the social media but i am on the side who think it needs more work.