I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS MY OPINION I’m simply explaining what people mean when they say this.
You probably hear people say the gameplay of halo 5 “is not halo” allot, and the common response “yes it is”. Well let me explain what people mean when they say this.
When people say this they are referring to the complete lack of consistency in gameplay in regards to the master chief saga.
For example, halo 1 2 and 3 have consistent gameplay mechanics (lack of sprint, smart scope, spartan or armour abilities, essentially simple game play), where as halo 4 and 5 implement features which do not follow the consistency of the original trilogy. This is what people mean by halo 5 is not halo. When you make a sequel to a game you expect it to have the same level of constancy as the originals. This is not the case with halo 4 or 5 and that is why people are annoyed. You may say that halo needs to evolve and change gameplay, and everyone agrees, however that critical change should occur in a spin off game and not the sequel. Halo 5’s gameplay would have most likely received less flak had it been a spin off and not a sequel.
To better explain this look at halo wars and spartan assault, the gameplay is not remotely reminiscent of the chief saga because it is not meant to be, it is a spin off and thus can change what ever it wants. Could you imagine the uproar if halo wars (an RTS) was the sequel to halo 3, or if spartan assault was the sequel to halo 2? People would be annoyed and rightly so. Although those are extreme examples the principle remains the same. The massive gameplay changes done to halo 5 in comparison to halo 3 are not halo in the sense that it is not consistent with halo the chief saga. Reach is usually given a free pass when it comes to gameplay changes because it is a spin off game and would expect massive changes, the same applies to ODST.
In conclusion, when people say halo 5 is not halo, they mean halo 5 is not halo the chief saga
> 2533274895603860;4:
> The golden triangle is a rule where you must be able to activate the functions for weapons, melee, and grenade at any given point in the match.
>
> Halo 2 has dual-wielding.
>
> While you dual-wield you cannot melee or throw grenades.
>
> Therefore, Halo 2 broke the “golden triangle”, which is a vacant argument in and of itself.
But Halo was simple at that time. Halo did not had complexity like now.
> 2535454426512730;5:
> > 2533274895603860;4:
> > The golden triangle is a rule where you must be able to activate the functions for weapons, melee, and grenade at any given point in the match.
> >
> > Halo 2 has dual-wielding.
> >
> > While you dual-wield you cannot melee or throw grenades.
> >
> > Therefore, Halo 2 broke the “golden triangle”, which is a vacant argument in and of itself.
>
>
> But Halo was simple at that time. Halo did not had complexity like now.
It’s basically people upset cause Halo no longer has a simple gameplay. It’s something pretty much every single game has to go through; as time passes, the original fanbase ages and become parents, as such they almost no longer have any idle time to play like a hardcore fan, some of these fans eventually stop gaming altogether and some still remain, but a new fanbase needs to be built, so they make changes according to what they think it’s best for a new direction to attract new fans.
One counter-argument I hate is “it says Halo on the box so it’s Halo”.
First, you’re completely missing the point of what people actually mean when they say something isn’t Halo.
Second…it’s just asinine. By that logic you could throw the Halo label on a game that contains no Halo characters, weapons, gameplay, or even any mention of anything remotely Halo related, and to you it would still be considered “a Halo game”. You know what I would consider that? False advertisement. You could throw a Call of Duty CD into a Halo box, the moment someone starts playing it they’ll realize instantly it’s not Halo, even if the title screen itself says otherwise.
> 2533274895603860;6:
> > 2535454426512730;5:
> > > 2533274895603860;4:
> > > The golden triangle is a rule where you must be able to activate the functions for weapons, melee, and grenade at any given point in the match.
> > >
> > > Halo 2 has dual-wielding.
> > >
> > > While you dual-wield you cannot melee or throw grenades.
> > >
> > > Therefore, Halo 2 broke the “golden triangle”, which is a vacant argument in and of itself.
> >
> >
> > But Halo was simple at that time. Halo did not had complexity like now.
>
>
> My point still stands.
> 2533275005949844;7:
> It’s basically people upset cause Halo no longer has a simple gameplay. It’s something pretty much every single game has to go through; as time passes, the original fanbase ages and become parents, as such they almost no longer have any idle time to play like a hardcore fan, some of these fans eventually stop gaming altogether and some still remain, but a new fanbase needs to be built, so they make changes according to what they think it’s best for a new direction to attract new fans.
Exactly this, my friend. Halo is 15 years old. The game needs to be built around a new fanbase and looks like some people cannot see how this is important. In my opinion Halo 5 is for new and old fans. The gameplay feels like Halo to me and it is refined by new additions that makes the game fresh.
> 2533275010793662;10:
> > 2533275005949844;7:
> > It’s basically people upset cause Halo no longer has a simple gameplay. It’s something pretty much every single game has to go through; as time passes, the original fanbase ages and become parents, as such they almost no longer have any idle time to play like a hardcore fan, some of these fans eventually stop gaming altogether and some still remain, but a new fanbase needs to be built, so they make changes according to what they think it’s best for a new direction to attract new fans.
>
>
> Exactly this, my friend. Halo is 15 years old. The game needs to be built around a new fanbase and looks like some people cannot see how this is important. In my opinion Halo 5 is for new and old fans. The gameplay feels like Halo to me and it is refined by new additions that makes the game fresh.
The problem with this argument is the assertion that young people won’t like classic Halo lacks any solid basis.
The fact that there are franchises older than Halo that still maintain mass appeal without completely redefining themselves makes this statement very questionable.
I mean, I don’t question their reasons for being upset, I for one throw a tantrum every single MS releases a new Office Suit because they muck up the GUI every single time, so I kinda understand what the old-school fans mean. They’re also terrified of this game’s community being “infected” with Call of Duty players.
> 2533274819302824;11:
> > 2533275010793662;10:
> > > 2533275005949844;7:
> > > It’s basically people upset cause Halo no longer has a simple gameplay. It’s something pretty much every single game has to go through; as time passes, the original fanbase ages and become parents, as such they almost no longer have any idle time to play like a hardcore fan, some of these fans eventually stop gaming altogether and some still remain, but a new fanbase needs to be built, so they make changes according to what they think it’s best for a new direction to attract new fans.
> >
> >
> > Exactly this, my friend. Halo is 15 years old. The game needs to be built around a new fanbase and looks like some people cannot see how this is important. In my opinion Halo 5 is for new and old fans. The gameplay feels like Halo to me and it is refined by new additions that makes the game fresh.
>
>
> The problem with this argument is the assertion that young people won’t like classic Halo lacks any solid basis.
>
> There fact that there are franchises older than Halo that still maintain mass appeal without completely redefining themselves makes this statement very questionable.
I can’t think of any, but my brain has clocked off for the rest of the day. Can you give me some examples?
And remember my point isn’t that they haven’t changed at all. It’s that the change has been relatively minor.
I’m sure I can think of franchises that have changed radically and died because of it as well. Sonic for example isn’t doing so well and there’s always a constant demand for a new 2D sonic game.
> 2533274845527107;1:
> Reach is usually given a free pass when it comes to gameplay changes because it is a spin off game and would expect massive changes, the same applies to ODST.
> 2533274819302824;11:
> > 2533275010793662;10:
> > > 2533275005949844;7:
> > > It’s basically people upset cause Halo no longer has a simple gameplay. It’s something pretty much every single game has to go through; as time passes, the original fanbase ages and become parents, as such they almost no longer have any idle time to play like a hardcore fan, some of these fans eventually stop gaming altogether and some still remain, but a new fanbase needs to be built, so they make changes according to what they think it’s best for a new direction to attract new fans.
> >
> >
> > Exactly this, my friend. Halo is 15 years old. The game needs to be built around a new fanbase and looks like some people cannot see how this is important. In my opinion Halo 5 is for new and old fans. The gameplay feels like Halo to me and it is refined by new additions that makes the game fresh.
>
>
> The problem with this argument is the assertion that young people won’t like classic Halo lacks any solid basis.
>
> The fact that there are franchises older than Halo that still maintain mass appeal without completely redefining themselves makes this statement very questionable.
well, the point is not young people dislikes classic halo, but for my personal taste, I like Classic Halo gameplay, but I prefer much more Halo 5’s gameplay, which still feel classic to me. The advantage is that I can do more than the “golden triangle” allows me to do.
People complain that Nintendo is playing safe and and are rehashing.
Or people complain that they’re changing too much and it’s bad.
It reminds me of certain Halo arguments.
I think those complaints have less to do with IP’s remaining consistent and more with how Nintendo hasn’t had any brand new IP’s in a long time, or how they’ve done practically nothing with their more obscure IP’s.
> 2533274845527107;1:
> I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS MY OPINION I’m simply explaining what people mean when they say this.
>
> You probably hear people say the gameplay of halo 5 “is not halo” allot, and the common response “yes it is”. Well let me explain what people mean when they say this.
> When people say this they are referring to the complete lack of consistency in gameplay in regards to the master chief saga.
> For example, halo 1 2 and 3 have consistent gameplay mechanics (lack of sprint, smart scope, spartan or armour abilities, essentially simple game play), where as halo 4 and 5 implement features which do not follow the consistency of the original trilogy. This is what people mean by halo 5 is not halo. When you make a sequel to a game you expect it to have the same level of constancy as the originals. This is not the case with halo 4 or 5 and that is why people are annoyed. You may say that halo needs to evolve and change gameplay, and everyone agrees, however that critical change should occur in a spin off game and not the sequel. Halo 5’s gameplay would have most likely received less flak had it been a spin off and not a sequel.
>
> To better explain this look at halo wars and spartan assault, the gameplay is not remotely reminiscent of the chief saga because it is not meant to be, it is a spin off and thus can change what ever it wants. Could you imagine the uproar if halo wars (an RTS) was the sequel to halo 3, or if spartan assault was the sequel to halo 2? People would be annoyed and rightly so. Although those are extreme examples the principle remains the same. The massive gameplay changes done to halo 5 in comparison to halo 3 are not halo in the sense that it is not consistent with halo the chief saga. Reach is usually given a free pass when it comes to gameplay changes because it is a spin off game and would expect massive changes, the same applies to ODST.
>
> In conclusion, when people say halo 5 is not halo, they mean halo 5 is not halo the chief saga
That ticks me off, because people don’t understand. New year, new tech. Halo is set in 2530’s and up. I like the new abilities for halo 5. Plus, the Unggoy and Sangheili actually talk English, like they did in the original 3.