what makes a halo game a halo game?

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

What I am stating here is the BARE minimum that defines halo as a game. (eg. whilst I was annoyed there wasn’t a Halo flying vehicle in multi-player, it isn’t essential, although I was confused at why they didn’t add one. )
I will then compare these bullet points to what halo 4 had AT LAUNCH, to show why it wasn’t as well received as past titles.

Gameplay

  • Guns
    -Melee
    -Grenades

All 3 of these have to be present and valid options in combat.

Multiplayer

  • Each player has to start out roughly in the same state as other players.
  • Rumble pit, slayer and big team battle should be present.
  • There should be an even chance of acquiring weapons in a map for all players.

SinglePlayer

  • Master Chief
  • A Halo Ring
  • Covenant

HALO 4 COMPARISON: the ones with * next to them have a flaw which I will say below
why there was a problem.

Gameplay

  • Guns
  • Melee
  • Grenades*
    (Grenade indicators and the weakened state of grenades meant they were much less effective in Halo 4. Combine the fact that automatic resupply was taken away and assigned as a perk, they became not very useful as compared to the other two gameplay elements)

Multiplayer

  • Each player has to start out roughly in the same state as other players.*
    (This is the big one, as this was definitely not the case in Halo 4. Now I am actually not against loadouts as they give the player choice to help their personal play-style, however the load-out weapons were unbalanced at launch: eg. boltshot, DMR. However I do feel Perks have NO PLACE in a Halo game, as they further make the players different from each other and so making the playfeild uneven.)
  • Rumble pit, slayer, big team battle*
    (no rumble pit. I know there was regicide, but that is not the same. It could have easily been incorporated into the rumble pit playlist.)
  • There should be an even chance of acquiring weapons in a map for all players.*
    (random ordnance and personal ordnance break this. They make the game-play more random, and less skill driven.)

SinglePlayer

  • Master Chief
  • A Halo Ring
  • Covenant

Notice how the singleplayer has no *. It was generally received well, and though I by no means think it is perfect, it gave us everything essential to a halo game, plus some Halo staples ( vehicle missions, Cortana)

I Don’t want Halo to stay the same, on the contrary I want it to keep evolving and to surprise me. However every new addition should be checked to see that it isn’t breaking the Halo formula. They can’t make Chief start being scared and crying, because that isn’t chief. They can ,however, as they did in halo 4, make a slightly more human side to him come through.

I Don’t want halo to dissolve slowly until its gone, I want it to grow again. And it can only grow through additions and re- interpretations. As long as they keep Halo, Halo then thats fine by me. (And as long as they don’t give chief purple armour.)

2

Yeah pretty much what you said.

Multiplayer:

  • Equal starts - Guns, grenade and melee as a starting point for eveyone.
  • Map control - Anything after that has to be fought for and picked up from the map.
  • Variety of gametypes and maps to include close-up combat, large scale vehicular battles and everything in between.
  • A mixture of competitive and light hearted gametypes to choose from, making sure both extremes are catered to SEPERATELY, (as in social/infinity slayer should not feel like fiesta slayer).
  • Lots of different weapons (luckily, Halo 4 has this one).
  • Well designed, balanced and memorable maps.
3

If it’s Halo universe, then it is Halo. Just like each brick is part of the wall.

As for campaign I like Reach and ODST very much even though they have nothing to do with Halo ring or Master Chief. They extend universe by giving it’s depth and are fun to play.

As for multiplayer, I see no sense of making strict rules of what is “Halo” and what isn’t. Everyone has his own opinion on that. In Halo CE melee was basically useless so “holy” golden triangle wasn’t working that much in there. Reach on the other hand had entire class-based system in Invasion.

I’m thinking that for many people “real” or “true” Halos are basically Halo 2 and/or Halo 3. Any idea or any feature that isn’t there is wrong. Well, these are just 2 games out of entire franchise. If someone come out and tell you that Halo 4’s Infinity settings are his definition of Halo’s multiplayer or that he considers Halo Wars legitimate Halo game, you have no objective arguments against it. It’s just opinion versus opinion.

4

> If it’s Halo universe, then it is Halo. Just like each brick is part of the wall.
>
> As for campaign I like Reach and ODST very much even though they have nothing to do with Halo ring or Master Chief. They extend universe by giving it’s depth and are fun to play.
>
> As for multiplayer, I see no sense of making strict rules of what is “Halo” and what isn’t. Everyone has his own opinion on that. In Halo CE melee was basically useless so “holy” golden triangle wasn’t working that much in there. Reach on the other hand entire class-based system in Invasion.
>
> <mark>I’m thinking that for many people “real” or “true” Halos are basically Halo 2 and/or Halo 3. Any idea or any feature that isn’t there is wrong.</mark> Well, these are just 2 games out of entire franchise. If someone come out and tell you that Halo 4’s Infinity settings are his definition of Halo’s multiplayer or that he considers Halo Wars legitimate Halo game, you have no objective arguments against it. It’s just opinion versus opinion.

I hate people like that, there are more games which are different, I could say “4 and Reach are my 2 and 3, I think halo should be like that” and apparently I’d be wrong and not a ‘true’ Halo fan

Anyway there is no certain thing that makes up a Halo game, each game can be different and should be allowed to be different, people saying they don’t like CoD because it never changes then saying they don’t want Halo to change annoys me, it all comes down to opinion of what makes a Halo game a Halo game, if Halo didn’t have multiplayer, I’d be happy, they could 110% focus on making a much better campaign (Halo 4’s was the best the series next to ODST)

5

> If it’s Halo universe, then it is Halo.

I totally agree with this, although I would put a few other restrictions to it, because realistically, you could make anything and claim it to be in the Halo universe, but aside from that claim, it would have nothing in common with Halo. So, a distinct art style, certain species and their architecture, and so on is needed to assure the player that they truly are in the Halo universe, not just some universe that just claims to be the Halo universe.

That said…

> If someone come out and tell you that Halo 4’s Infinity settings are his definition of Halo’s multiplayer or that he considers Halo Wars legitimate Halo game, you have no objective arguments against it. It’s just opinion versus opinion.

Obviously, you can’t say what he should like or force him to like what you like. However, that’s not to say you shouldn’t have a discussion on why you both think that particular experience is the definitive Halo multiplayer experience. Differing opinions doesn’t mean you should both just walk away and not criticize opinions of each other. If there are differing opinions, there’s room for discussion.

6

Right so a Halo game can have no identifiable Halo features, but as long as it has Halo in the title, then it is a Halo game?

Never heard such nonesense in my life.

Ofcourse there are certain things that need to remain intact.

Imagine if the next Halo was a racing game where you play as a racist dinosaur who has an addiction to cottage cheese and has to destroy all the flowers in the galaxy.
But it takes place within the Halo universe somewhere far from the events of the previous games, would something not seem a little… off?

Something tells me you guys aren’t being completely honest with yourselves…

7

> Obviously, you can’t say what he should like or force him to like what you like. However, that’s not to say you shouldn’t have a discussion on why you both think that particular experience is the definitive Halo multiplayer experience. Differing opinions doesn’t mean you should both just walk away and not criticize opinions of each other. If there are differing opinions, there’s room for discussion.

Of course. Right to dispute in undisputable. That’s what pushing free world forward.

> Right so a Halo game can have no identifiable Halo features, but as long as it has Halo in the title, then it is a Halo game?
>
> Never heard such nonesense in my life.
>
> Ofcourse there are certain things that need to remain intact.

Actually -Yoink!- has rights to Halo franchise and when they decide to make racing game, no one else can do anything about it. However Halo fans different from Mario fans and -Yoink!- probably knows it. After they tried Halo Wars, there will be probably no other full-price title called Halo that isn’t fps.

However it’s ridiculous when someone’s making list of differences between Halo 3 and Halo 4 and is using it to prove that because it these differences Halo 4 is less Halo. I could go out with similar list of changes between Halo CE and Halo 3 where I could prove that Halo 3 isn’t Halo game either. IMO perks for sure aren’t bigger game-changer than e.g. dual wielding or items.

Halo CE was game of it’s times and it’s multiplayer was played by very few nerds who were detemined enough to play it on lan parties. It’s default loadout was plasma pistol and frag so it was up to these few nerds to decide with what they want to spawn. When there are thousands random people playing game online it’s more complicated. I will be completely honest when I tell you that first time I played Halo 3 online I thought to myself “this game would be perfect if anynone could adjust his own equipment”.

8

> > > Right so a Halo game can have no identifiable Halo features, but as long as it has Halo in the title, then it is a Halo game?
> > >
> > > Never heard such nonesense in my life.
> > >
> > > Ofcourse there are certain things that need to remain intact.
> >
> > Actually -Yoink!- has rights to Halo franchise and when they decide to make racing game, no one else can do anything about it. However Halo fans different from Mario fans and -Yoink!- probably knows it. After they tried Halo Wars, there will be probably no other full-price title called Halo that isn’t fps.
>
> Had a feeling someone would get confused with the meaning of what makes Halo, Halo lol.
>
> They could make a game like the one I described and put Halo in the title, and offically it would be a Halo game, whether we like it or not.
> No one is claiming 343/Microsoft don’t have the power to do that. It goes without saying.
>
> For the purposes of this thread, we are are talking about what makes Halo, Halo for us personally.

9

> For the purposes of this thread, we are are talking about what makes Halo, Halo for us personally.

Personaly and entirely, I think best idea is just to make a good fps in Halo universe with vehicles, grenades, melees and, of course, tons of weapons. If game is good and it’s called Halo then it’s better Halo for all of us than just repeated, aged ideas. I’ve seen too many franchises dying this way.

10

> Gameplay
> - Guns
> -Melee
> -Grenades
>
> All 3 of these have to be present and valid options in combat.

Meh.

What annoys me is the insistence that anything else (such as equipment, dual wielding or abilities) are not Halo because they do not conform to this triangle.

This triangle wasn’t even present in Halo CE. Melee was an after-thought at best. It’s an arbitrary triangle thought up by Halo 2 fans.

Here is my triangle
-Balanced Competition
-Focus on Map Items
-Evenness in traits

These apply to the vast majority of Halo games, and are thus a more suitable triangle.

Halo Reach only violated the last one, and only slightly at that. In most game types, the only difference in traits was the armor ability chosen.

Furthermore, added gamemodes are irrelevant to the argument. Invasion and Flood are different from the core, but they do not replace the core and thus do not detract from the game being a “Halo” game.

> Halo for all of us than just repeated, aged ideas.

I’m getting highly annoyed.

The insistence that anything added to Halo 4 is “new” is a fallacy. Everything in Halo 4 was ripped from other titles on the market.

Just because I dislike the new direction the game is taking does not mean I want to stick with the same ideas over and over.

What if button combos were implemented in-game and expanded on?
What if thruster was a base trait?
What if ordnance was rewarded for optional objectives?

There’s more ways to innovate than half-yoinkedly copying mechanics and claiming it’s innovative when it’s not.

11

> > Halo for all of us than just repeated, aged ideas.
>
> I’m getting highly annoyed.
>
> The insistence that anything added to Halo 4 is “new” is a fallacy. Everything in Halo 4 was ripped from other titles on the market.
>
> Just because I dislike the new direction the game is taking does not mean I want to stick with the same ideas over and over.
>
> What if button combos were implemented in-game and expanded on?
> What if thruster was a base trait?
> What if ordnance was rewarded for optional objectives?
>
>
> There’s more ways to innovate than half-yoinkedly copying mechanics and claiming it’s innovative when it’s not.

Random ordnance are 100% original idea. Despite being unpopular it’s something that actually works on it’s own. Now it’s not just what points of map you’re controling. It’s how much % of map you are controlling if you want to enhance your chances of getting powerweapon. Camping for weapons is omitted this way. Also it’s making rushing for weapons much less predictable and, well, repetitive. I cannot recall any other game that gives us similar mechanics.

As for other, ripped ideas, I’m just calling it returning of favor. Entire genre ripped so much from Halo, it’s ok when Halo is incorporating ideas that proved to be good. There’s no reason for reinventing the wheel when someone already invented it before.

12

> I cannot recall any other game that gives us similar mechanics.

Call of Duty and Care Packages.

Boy was that hard.

> Camping for weapons is omitted this way

Camping for kills is any better? Not to mention people didn’t camp weapons if they were competent.

> There’s no reason for reinventing the wheel when someone already invented it before.

Yes, there is. To avoid homogenization in gaming.

Of course when all games are adopting features people like, they don’t care. Quite selfish.

13

Ok your hearing this from a halo fan that’s been around sense halo CE. What makes halo a halo game is story and gameplay. The story have to be rich,interesting and good (all halo so far have done that. The gameplay has to be smooth and feels right.(again all halo have good gameplay). Multiplayer,graphics,weapons, and weapon sounds don’t matter. Not saying they shouldn’t focus on those but that’s what halo is.

14

> Call of Duty and Care Packages.
>
> Boy was that hard.

I believe you’re thinking about personal ordnace. Yes, this one isn’t entirely fresh idea like random ordnance instead of (re)spawn points.

> Camping for kills is any better? Not to mention people didn’t camp weapons if they were competent.

You haven’t seen anyone camping for kills in Halo 3?

> Yes, there is. To avoid homogenization in gaming.
>
> Of course when all games are adopting features people like, they don’t care. Quite selfish.

If something works, it works. CoD 4 didn’t had any original ideas, but because everything worked fine people could just play it. When I play Halo 4 I don’t play CoD 4 in space. I play game most similar to Halo 3, but without boring parts when I have to walk (instead of run) from one point on the map where nothing is happening to another, where I hope to find some enemies. When I find enemy it’s about throwing grenade on him, shooting til his shield is weaker and hitting him with my elbow. Essence of Halo’s gameplay is all here. No other game have it, no matter if my weapon is AR or Suppressor and if my enemy got his Needler from spawn point or ordnance and if I was JIPed into match or I was there from the beginning.

15

> What I am stating here is the BARE minimum that defines halo as a game. (eg. whilst I was annoyed there wasn’t a Halo flying vehicle in multi-player, it isn’t essential, although I was confused at why they didn’t add one. )
> I will then compare these bullet points to what halo 4 had AT LAUNCH, to show why it wasn’t as well received as past titles.
>
> Gameplay
> - Guns
> -Melee
> -Grenades
>
> All 3 of these have to be present and valid options in combat.
>
> Multiplayer
> - Each player has to start out roughly in the same state as other players.
> - Rumble pit, slayer and big team battle should be present.
> - There should be an even chance of acquiring weapons in a map for all players.
>
> SinglePlayer
> - Master Chief
> - A Halo Ring
> - Covenant
>
> HALO 4 COMPARISON: the ones with * next to them have a flaw which I will say below
> why there was a problem.
>
> Gameplay
> - Guns
> - Melee
> - Grenades*
> (Grenade indicators and the weakened state of grenades meant they were much less effective in Halo 4. Combine the fact that automatic resupply was taken away and assigned as a perk, they became not very useful as compared to the other two gameplay elements)
>
> Multiplayer
> - Each player has to start out roughly in the same state as other players.*
> (This is the big one, as this was definitely not the case in Halo 4. Now I am actually not against loadouts as they give the player choice to help their personal play-style, however the load-out weapons were unbalanced at launch: eg. boltshot, DMR. However I do feel Perks have NO PLACE in a Halo game, as they further make the players different from each other and so making the playfeild uneven.)
> - Rumble pit, slayer, big team battle*
> (no rumble pit. I know there was regicide, but that is not the same. It could have easily been incorporated into the rumble pit playlist.)
> - There should be an even chance of acquiring weapons in a map for all players.*
> (random ordnance and personal ordnance break this. They make the game-play more random, and less skill driven.)
>
> SinglePlayer
> - Master Chief
> - A Halo Ring
> - Covenant
>
> Notice how the singleplayer has no *. It was generally received well, and though I by no means think it is perfect, it gave us everything essential to a halo game, plus some Halo staples ( vehicle missions, Cortana)
>
> I Don’t want Halo to stay the same, on the contrary I want it to keep evolving and to surprise me. However every new addition should be checked to see that it isn’t breaking the Halo formula. They can’t make Chief start being scared and crying, because that isn’t chief. They can ,however, as they did in halo 4, make a slightly more human side to him come through.
>
> I Don’t want halo to dissolve slowly until its gone, I want it to grow again. And it can only grow through additions and re- interpretations. As long as they keep Halo, Halo then thats fine by me. (And as long as they don’t give chief purple armour.)

So what if Master Chief dies in Halo 6? There shouldn’t be ever be a halo game after that? So Halo 3 ODST isn’t a real Halo game ? If there was a game set during the Forerunner- Flood War , or one where you play as a marine or a Covenant soldier , etc those games are not halo games?

Anyway what are the new things that will evolve halo ? New maps? Some new weapons? If they are they don’t seem to evolve halo.

16

Everything in Halo CE, Halo 2 and Halo 3.

17

> [
> I believe you’re thinking about personal ordnace. Yes, this one isn’t entirely fresh idea like random ordnance instead of (re)spawn points.

I was refering to personal ordnance, yes.

Global Ordnance is an original concept, but imbalanced.

By ‘controlling percentages of the map’ I thought you were saying “personal ordnance puts more of an emphasis on map control”. I misinterpreted what you said.

> You haven’t seen anyone camping for kills in Halo 3?

I’m merely saying it doesn’t prevent anymore camping than it encourages. And as I said above, no one competent camps weapon spawns, people time them.

Random Global Ordnance encourages camping. If I do not know when a weapon respawns because the respawn time is random, I have to stay there to make sure the enemy doesn’t get lucky.

> If something works, it works. CoD 4 didn’t had any original ideas, but because everything worked fine people could just play it.

Perks were an original idea.
A few games might’ve had custom loadouts beforehand.
CoD was one of the first games to have the sprinting feature, possibly the first.

Wolfenstein and Doom had sprint, but they did not have forced weapon lowering.

> When I play Halo 4 I don’t play CoD 4 in space. I play game most similar to Halo 3, but without boring parts when I have to walk (instead of run) from one point on the map where nothing is happening to another, where I hope to find some enemies.

I absolutely despise this argument.

We all know Halo 3 was slow. No one disagrees there. The maps were large, the weapons had long killtimes and limited range, and the movement speed was inadequate.

This does not warrant the inclusion of sprint. You played Quake. You should know this to be true. You quite literally know better than to make this argument.

> When I find enemy it’s about throwing grenade on him, shooting til his shield is weaker and hitting him with my elbow. Essence of Halo’s gameplay is all here. No other game have it, no matter if my weapon is AR or Suppressor and if my enemy got his Needler from spawn point or ordnance and if I was JIPed into match or I was there from the beginning.

You keep insisting the combat itself is the only part of the game that matters.

> Anyway what are the new things that will evolve halo ? New maps? Some new weapons? If they are they don’t seem to evolve halo.

Sigh.

I will make a thread full of ideas if that is what it takes.

18

Personally, i don’t really know what makes a Halo game a Halo game.

I say that for the soul purpose of Halo Wars. It’s an RTS game and I think its a fantastic Halo game and has that “Halo feel” to go with it.
Halo 4 on the other hand doesn’t have that Halo feel ans I don’t think its a very good Halo game… hard to explain for me.

19

If it’s set in the Halo universe. Gameplay is too imperfect of a category to define a franchise by. Otherwise Halo Wars would definitively not be a Halo game, the same way Super Mario 64 isn’t a Mario game because it’s a different genre from the original Donkey Kong. Halo in particular has always been versatile in its gameplay, and has always been many different things to many different people, so trying to define Halo by its gameplay is futile.

20

> Global Ordnance is an original concept, but imbalanced.

Concept is original and it works if you think about it. Even with team play, you must decide is it better to spread your team across the map to increase chances of getting powerweapon or keep tight when chances are lesser, but whole team is stronger. It brings very original elements to the game and I’m sure that if it was introduces around Halo 2 there would be whole generation of gamers who couldn’t live without it.

Personaly, I could live without it in Halo, but I don’t understand the hate.

> Random Global Ordnance encourages camping. If I do not know when a weapon respawns because the respawn time is random, I have to stay there to make sure the enemy doesn’t get lucky.

That’s where personal ordnance is coming to action. Active players will get their hands on better weapons sooner.

> Perks were an original idea.
> A few games might’ve had custom loadouts beforehand.
> CoD was one of the first games to have the sprinting feature, possibly the first.
>
> Wolfenstein and Doom had sprint, but they did not have forced weapon lowering.

Perks indeed might be CoD4 original idea. Probably only one. As for sprint, I remember Killzone from 2004 had it just like it’s now.

> We all know Halo 3 was slow. No one disagrees there. The maps were large, the weapons had long killtimes and limited range, and the movement speed was inadequate.
>
> This does not warrant the inclusion of sprint. You played Quake. You should know this to be true. You quite literally know better than to make this argument.

Reason why so many people liked Halo 3 is because fighting itself felt right. When you try to play UT3 with joypad it’s not nearly as enjoyable as playing it with a mouse because fights are turning into chaotic mess pretty easy. Halo 3 had it much better in my opinion with slower killtimes and slower moving while fighting. Only issue with this are boring parts when nothing is happening, and sprint cuts them down just right.

> You keep insisting the combat itself is the only part of the game that matters.

For sure in case of online fps it’s the most important part and core of the game. When fighting isn’t fun, then whole game is meaningless.

Sure, if you play competitively, then tactic is more important, and so differences between spawn points system and loadout/ordnance system. But even then, system from Halo 1 or 2 or 3 is the same system from hundreds older shooters, while ordnance is something original and unique. What is more “Halo” then?