You know, it always amused when people use the word “nostalgia” as it was some sort of addicted drug that makes people bias to change. Seriously, if you use the “nostalgia” card when someone wants something removed from Halo (Sprint, for example), then grow up. No one wants another Halo 1-3, that is a stupid implication. I read all the forums on this website and when I see “halo shouldn’t change, derp herr” threads, they are mostly obvious trolls because of the terrible grammar and spelling. Just because someone does not like a certain mechanic of the newer titles, does not mean they are opposed to change. I think the beta turned this website into “The Flood forums” from Bungie.net.
There are other things that piss me off about this community, but right now, I am sick of people using the nostalgia argument to invalidated someone’s opinion on Halo 5’s new mechanics. Just absolute silliness.
Its pretty obvious a community is opposed to change when they object any new additions without constructively adding changes of their own to evolve the franchise. All old vets talk about is “remove enough so it looks like Halo 2” Remove, remove, remove. Well Halo 2 was already pretty barebones and basic, you can’t remove any further, you need to add, add, add, build, build, build. Until you get something like Halo 5 which respects the foundations while making the gameplay feel fresh and modern, and immersive and fluid.
But no, lets remove, remove remove until it becomes similar to Halo 2 again. Halo is in a similar situation to Tomb Raider, the originals were awesome back in the day but now they play like sluggish dinosaurs. The reboot came and made lots of old vets angry, but ultimately it was a better game and it got new fans. Sometimes you need to leave the old behind to make way for better things.
That is a defense mechanism I think. We are lucky sprint is being nerfed at all with these types of people.
it’s ok for something to not work “Bloom” “Sprint” “dual wielding” “assassinations” “boarding”
I like some of these features. And I’ve lost ones I like too. Some have stayed. If we aren’t allowed to be vocal about the ones that don’t work then I’m very upset with the “evolutionists” because they allowed features to be removed without a whimper.
I agree. The people who use nostalgia as an argument against a bad mechanic usually are out of ideas and don’t know what to say. They have to realize that we can all accept change (with the exception of a few people on this website) but some changes aren’t good. I for one am enthusiastic about what 343 is doing, but to make a final judgement, I will have to play the beta, and if some people already feel certain abilities are not up to par/ should be removed then that’s fine. Just play the beta before making your final judgement.
> 2533274873910058;2:
> Its pretty obvious a community is opposed to change when they object any new additions without constructively adding changes of their own to evolve the franchise. All old vets talk about is “remove enough so it looks like Halo 2” Remove, remove, remove. Well Halo 2 was already pretty barebones and basic, you can’t remove any further, you need to add, add, add, build, build, build. Until you get something like Halo 5 which respects the foundations while making the gameplay feel fresh and modern, and immersive and fluid.
>
> But no, lets remove, remove remove until it becomes similar to Halo 2 again.
The fact that you think a large portion of people are opposed to change without giving any source is hilarious. Yes, those people DO exist, but I rarely take them seriously because most of the time they are trolling people. It is not that hard to detect trolls on the internet.
Saying people just want Halo 5 to be similar to Halo 2 just because they want something to be removed is also silly. I could agree with you if someone just said they hated all the new mechanics and abilities that were NOT in Halo before, but to imply that a community refuses to acknowledge that Halo is changing (ever since 2004) just because they hate someone thing that were in previous installments makes no sense.
If people should not criticize something they never played before, others should not mindless praise the game either.
> 2533274873910058;2:
> Halo is in a similar situation to Tomb Raider, the originals were awesome back in the day but now they play like sluggish dinosaurs. The reboot came and made lots of old vets angry, but ultimately it was a better game and it got new fans. Sometimes you need to leave the old behind to make way for better things.
You keep saying they play sluggish when you have not given a reason why they are. You are basically implying that newer always means better, which is hilariously false.
Its merely observation from this forum, almost every day a new thread is made asking to remove something. Countless times i see people saying take this away, this isn’t Halo.- And by Halo, they mean Halo 2.
What i never saw was a thread saying things 343 should add to the formula, i tried once with a thread asking what would you change about Halo to make it evolve. It died pretty quickly. People just don’t know, the community doesn’t know what to add, they just know what they don’t want to see in.
> 2533274873910058;2:
> Its pretty obvious a community is opposed to change when they object any new additions without constructively adding changes of their own to evolve the franchise.
You know what? Heck with this argument in particular. You don’t want us to suggest changes, you want to use the lack of suggestions as “proof” to support your argument. Several times people have said “oh well you don’t want change, if you want change offer some change!” but the moment I actually do offer some of my own ideas, suddenly nobody is paying attention. Or suddenly “those changes aren’t big enough to be worth anything.” as though we have to fundamentally change the game every year in order for it to be “enough change.” I’ve had one person, one, reply to my suggestions in any thoughtful way.
You’re using the lack of suggestions from people as a way to justify a mechanic instead of, oh, I don’t know, actually justifying the mechanic.
And then people go on and on about “competitive” players being toxic, meanwhile I’m getting called an ignorant derptard hater for putting forward arguments against a mechanic I don’t like, and the people who do like the mechanic seem pretty content to say “IT MAKES THE GAME BETTER.” without actually explaining how or why it makes the game better in any conceivable way.
Yes, I am a little bit peeved, and yes, I’m sorry for ranting, but this has been really getting on my nerves lately. If you want to discuss things, fine, I’m all ears, but remember your argument isn’t with me as a person, it’s over the mechanic of the game. Stop fighting me like I’m an enemy and discuss with me like I’m a friend.
> 2533274873910058;2:
> Its pretty obvious a community is opposed to change when they object any new additions without constructively adding changes of their own to evolve the franchise.
That’s probably because they know enough to understand when their ideas are bad. Frankly, if 343i can’t come up with good changes, I don’t expect many of the community members to be capable of anything better. Majority of the community suggestions for new gameplay mechanics I’ve seen over the years haven’t been very good. A substantial portion of them have also been directly borrowed from other games without much thought put into whether they fit Halo or not (or whether they were good mechanics in the original game, to begin with).
That’s not to say there haven’t been feasible suggestions, but you need to tone down your expectations that anyone who wants a mechanic removed should have another mechanic in mind to replace it. The pool of viable mechanics is much smaller than the pool of nonviable mechanics.
You’re seriously underestimating the difficulty of good gameplay design. Good design comes from simplicity. If a mechanic doesn’t manage to introduce a significant amount of depth to the game, then you need a second thought whether it’s worth implementing the mechanic. If you just haphazardly add mechanics, you’ll end up with a bloated game with a thousand pages long rule book.
> 2533274873910058;7:
> Its merely observation from this forum, almost every day a new thread is made asking to remove something. Countless times i see people saying take this away, this isn’t Halo.- And by Halo, they mean Halo 2.
>
> What i never saw was a thread saying things 343 should add to the formula, i tried once with a thread asking what would you change about Halo to make it evolve. It died pretty quickly. People just don’t know, the community doesn’t know what to add, they just know what they don’t want to see in.
When redecorating my house the first thing I do is remove the unwanted stuff.
> 2533274806427910;6:
> > 2533274873910058;2:
> > Halo is in a similar situation to Tomb Raider, the originals were awesome back in the day but now they play like sluggish dinosaurs. The reboot came and made lots of old vets angry, but ultimately it was a better game and it got new fans. Sometimes you need to leave the old behind to make way for better things.
>
>
> You keep saying they play sluggish when you have not given a reason why they are. You are basically implying that newer always mean better, which is hilariously false.
Something sluggish means lack of control and maneuverability options. It also means something carries a lot of weight. That is how classic plays, no sprint, aiming is kinda jerky with jarring transitions between hip fire and scope-in and jumps are floaty. Sluggish can also be applied to how long it takes to kill a spartan, how Halo 2 requires 3 melee strikes to bring someone down. And just like old Tomb Raider fans, you claim that all of that is because it demands skill to master. And its true in a sense, you can be really skillful and master a turd, but it will still be a turd. It will still be outdated and players will move on to other franchises that frankly don’t make their mission piss people off with elitist game design.
> 2547348539238747;10:
> > 2533274873910058;7:
> > Its merely observation from this forum, almost every day a new thread is made asking to remove something. Countless times i see people saying take this away, this isn’t Halo.- And by Halo, they mean Halo 2.
> >
> > What i never saw was a thread saying things 343 should add to the formula, i tried once with a thread asking what would you change about Halo to make it evolve. It died pretty quickly. People just don’t know, the community doesn’t know what to add, they just know what they don’t want to see in.
>
>
>
> When redecorating my house the first thing I do is remove the unwanted stuff.
When you are redecorating your house you have (or should have) a general idea of what to add next. Like i said, Halo 2’s formula was basic, empty, simple. You can’t take away from that, you need to add. Just like when you live in a house that is practically empty you will add more than you will remove.
> 2533274873910058;11:
> > 2533274806427910;6:
> > > 2533274873910058;2:
> > > Halo is in a similar situation to Tomb Raider, the originals were awesome back in the day but now they play like sluggish dinosaurs. The reboot came and made lots of old vets angry, but ultimately it was a better game and it got new fans. Sometimes you need to leave the old behind to make way for better things.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You keep saying they play sluggish when you have not given a reason why they are. You are basically implying that newer always mean better, which is hilariously false.
>
>
>
> Something sluggish means lack of control and maneuverability options. It also means something carries a lot of weight. That is how classic plays, no sprint, aiming is kinda jerky with jarring transitions between hip fire and scope-in and jumps are floaty. Sluggish can also be applied to how long it takes to kill a spartan, how Halo 2 requires 3 melee strikes to bring someone down. And just like old Tomb Raider fans, you claim that all of that is because it demands skill to master. And its true in a sense, you can be really skillful and master a turd, but it will still be a turd. It will still be outdated and players will move on to other franchises that frankly don’t make their mission piss people off with elitist game design.
There was not lack of control in the previous games, and there were maneuverability options (you do not need Sprint to have those options). I would argue Halo 1 carries a lot of weight because of its jump height. Halo 2’s melee system was based on movement, how can something that takes skill be sluggish (It was possible to kill people with two melee strikes by pushing the left analog stick to extents and jumping)? I hardly see why transitions between hip-fire and zoom are jarring, and I do not see how jumping was floaty in Halo. Using Tomb Raider is not a good example as that series is on a different league than Halo.
> 2533274873910058;14:
> Of course you don’t see any of that, and that is exactly the problem. And that is why people evoke nostalgia to describe these situations.
When you lack counter arguments, you blame nostalgia? If you put a little with more thought into what you say, there could maybe be a reasonable discussion. Instead you choose to dive back to your imagination where you’re right and everyone else is just being nostalgic. If you don’t have anything constructive to say, you really don’t need to say anything.
Having an emotional connection to a high qaulity artistic franchise is nothing to shrug at, but I agree it shouldn’t be totally used to validate a change in a game. I think that Halo 3’s gameplay didn’t need to be changed at all, but was Halo 4’s gameplay good? Yes. Hell yes. I’ll admit Halo 4’s gameplay was damn good, but the problem was you could play it like COD or any other generic shooter, BUT you could play it like Halo 3 or Reach. I respect 343 for giving people options in the game.
Now, I see that what once were “options” are now tighter woven in the Halo experience for Halo 5, but that doesn’t make it bad. I hail from the Flood. I am member of the 7th column first so please, don’t disrespect Halo’s history. This is a franchise so rooted into people’s hearts that it is Star Wars calibre, if not greater on a different level. Bungie started Halo. The universe, the reason why it is here, it belongs to them and I find it silly that people tend to forget that. The franchise is “young” in 343’s hands and that is awesome. The Flood was and is one of the first communities spawned from this franchise everyone here is proud to claim so respect that, respect the fact we can all be here and talk about a monumentally nostalgic story.
343 doesn’t have to appeal to any new type of consumer, they just have to make a good game. Halo 5 looks fun and I hope we all calm down here so we can relish in a new experience on 12/29. Only at that time should the emotions change the game and change it will.
> 2533274825830455;15:
> > 2533274873910058;14:
> > Of course you don’t see any of that, and that is exactly the problem. And that is why people evoke nostalgia to describe these situations.
>
>
> When you lack counter arguments, you blame nostalgia?
The arguments have been made time and time again, from me and many other people. Its the inability from old fans to see what’s in front of them that makes them blinded by nostalgia. When you purposefully decide to ignore basic flaws and “see nothing wrong” with them, then you deserve to be called out for nostalgia.
> 2533274873910058;14:
> Of course you don’t see any of that, and that is exactly the problem. And that is why people evoke nostalgia to describe these situations.
BS, I did not play Halo 2 until 2011. You keep throwing in that “nostalgia” rubbish at me because I have different opinions.
How about you address how people use terms like “traditional halo” or say things like “the glory days of H2/H3” or " if you were real fans" so often in their arguments to validate their opinion…We see a lot more of that than any “constructive criticism” (that is only founded on 2nd hand knowledge atm) on these forums. I bet if these things didn’t exist the whole nostalgia thing wouldn’t come up so frequently.
> 2533274873910058;17:
> The arguments have been made time and time again, from me and many other people. Its the inability from old fans to see what’s in front of them that makes them blinded by nostalgia. When you purposefully decide to ignore basic flaws and “see nothing wrong” with them, then you deserve to be called out for nostalgia.
That you think you’ve already made all the necessary arguments, and you don’t need to say anything more, is not a good argument. You think you’ve said enough to afford to resort to blaming nostalgia? Does that mean I’ve said enough to afford to resort to calling you a blind fanboy?
As I already said, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, don’t say anything. It’s fine. I’ve taken multiple hiatuses from the sprint debate because I’ve been too tired to say anything constructive. But just because I’m too tired of debating with people, I don’t have the right to call them “blind fanboys” for their “inability to see what’s in front of them”. That’s nothing more than a lousy excuse for you to rationalize the actions of other people to yourself when you’re too bored to use your brain.