What was wrong with halo's original formula?

I’m just asking an honest question. Why did we change when reach came out and now decide to go even farther down that path? Why couldn’t 343 have kept the original gameplay?

I really have no idea. After reach failed I thought that they would go back to the h2-h3 formula which was extremely popular. It makes absolutely no sense

Money and -Yoink!-, that is all its about anymore, appeal to as many people as you can and trash the game as much as you can.

Nothing was wrong with it, but apparently 343 believes in change for the sake of change. If you ask me, that’s a terrible idea, but nonetheless it’s what 343 thinks is best.

Because -Yoink!- and 343 don’t care. They just wanted to cash in on the holidays by releasing a game for CoD fans to play for a week until Blops 2 came out and that’s what happened. Halo 4 made a bazillion dollars on launch week and when Blops 2 came out it died. From 500k to 90k within weeks. CoD fans just want CoD and the rest of us don’t want to play this crappy CoD clone with aliens.

Now 343 won’t even respond to our complaints because they got their pay check and have cashed in.

Nothing was ever wrong with the formula. It should have never been changed in the first place.

The Arena style was to competitive for many of todays gamers, most of the gamers today want super easy gameplay.

> I really have no idea. After reach failed I thought that they would go back to the h2-h3 formula which was extremely popular. It makes absolutely no sense

You’d really think so wouldn’t you? I was quite surprised that 343i thought they’d just continue down the route of Reach and make Reach 2.

It does kind of make sense though. In a nutshell adding shiny things and toys and gimmicks and gadgets will help sell the game. Doesn’t really matter if they don’t work if they sell games right?

I just get the sense from H4 that, despite them telling us otherwise, the game was purely about selling units and making money. Whereas with Bungies Halo games where I get the sense that they were genuinely trying to create something wonderful and amazing (and make money) I can’t help but feel that 343 just wanted the cash.

There are just so many examples in the game of cutting corners to reach a deadline to sell units. The game had/has so much potential for greatness but its squandered by a lack of conviction by 343 to finish it properly for release.

evolution brought us halo 4 but it also brought us -Yoink!-’s. Even a game franchise drives over bumps down the road. lets hope its not permenate.

because game developers are interested in doing whatever it is that makes money. Whether that be adding features to resemble a different game, or changing the core gameplay to resemble a different game.

Unfortunately most have yet to come to the realization that originality, accessibility, and competition make money.

My response to you guys:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFBK9GhS5Q

Nothing was wrong with the Halo formula in CE-3 in my opinion. I feel like if Bungie (or rather microsoft did not force the game/changes) did not make Reach like it was Halo 4 would have basically been like Halo 2 and 3. Same general gameplay with small changes that did not break the core. Halo 4 would have been a true sequel, unfortunately we did not get that.

> The Arena style was to competitive for many of todays gamers, most of the gamers today want super easy gameplay.

It’s Halo going from an Arena-Shooter to a Class-based Shooter in order to appeal to a wider variety of players.

You can see how that worked out.

Games evolve…

> Money and -Yoink!-, that is all its about anymore, appeal to as many people as you can and trash the game as much as you can.

Even that didn’t work though. If the game had been more liek halo 3 it would’ve been more popular, h3 appealed to everyone really.

> Games evolve…

See

> evolution brought us halo 4 but it also brought us -Yoink!-’s.

Change isn’t always a good thing.

> > Money and -Yoink!-, that is all its about anymore, appeal to as many people as you can and trash the game as much as you can.
>
> Even that didn’t work though. If the game had been more liek halo 3 it would’ve been more popular, h3 appealed to everyone really.

They thought it would work, because making a game super casual and moving away from what the core fans want is always good right?

> The Arena style was to competitive for many of todays gamers, most of the gamers today want super easy gameplay.

I never understand this argument because its factually wrong. Halo 3 regularly had 700k at its peak which is just as much as CoD has ever had. Halo 4 is the most casual Halo ever and it only has 100k.

I have a hard time explaining this, but:

That’s because the reason most people played Halo is because it actually WAS Halo.
If they want CoD, they’ll just play that instead of some hybrid.

In other words, there are the people who want to play Halo, and the people who wants to play CoD.
No one really wants or likes a mix of the two.

Nothing is wrong with it. It’s why we still have it. Shields for slow kill times (compared to most other shooters) and thus more skillful play, vehicles, a variety of human and alien weapons, etc.

It’s funny, before Halo 4 came out, people were going “AAs and perks will make this game unplayable!” and list a bunch of reasons. This was, of course, before they actually played Halo 4.

Then when Halo 4 came out, all those complaints filled with large lists of why perks and AAs were going to screw the game, all formed from speculation based on very basic descriptions and no first-hand experience, disappeared. They were nearly all balanced to almost perfection, and those that weren’t were only minor.

Now all there is is a few First Trilogy Fanboys who can only come up with “Perks are copied from CoD” and “AAs are bad” in their complaints.