> Some of this is true, depending on what your standpoint is.
>
> I think that 343i’s method of changing for the sake of change is neither inherently good nor bad. Depends on what you’re changing, why, and how. Halo’s simple to-the-point Multiplayer (up until Halo 3, Reach’s gameplay was flawed and misguided in a competitive sense) is going to get stale, fast because of its basic nature.
>
> The changes added are not to differentiate from Bungie. That approach is pointless and makes no sense from a development or business standpoint. The changes are there for the sake of change, but only because 343i knows Halo’s simple gameplay will not hold up for much longer. The changes are there to spice it up.
The model of thinking that change is always needed in order to not lose appeal is flawed. Eventually, a game that keeps adding new mechanics is going choke on its own complexity. Of course, mechanics can be removed, but there’s just so much the game can do. However, in contrary to what you said, a game doesn’t need to change in order to appeal to people.
If games really needed change all the time, games such as chess wouldn’t exist. There are lots of games that have went through little to no change overtime and have still remained popular. Instead of changing them in an attempt to appeal people’s need of something new, they have improved and refined their gameplay in many ways.
The point I’m making here is that Halo should’ve done what it’s good at since the beginning: competition, customizability and story. Developing these attributes, instead of changing the gameplay could’ve provided and would provide at least as much popularity and a less shattered community.
A game has options: it may try to change itself everytime, either becoming something it wasn’t meant to be or using all the possible directions of change within its own boundaries. It may try to keep the original gameplay intact while add some imaginary depth with ever increasing complexity of mechanics, essentially chocking to its own complexity. It may also stay completely without change, without any kind of optimization, frozen to what it was and eventually starve to death. Or… it may take what it does very well, improve on that while going through minor changes with each iteration and adding in features outside of gameplay. The last method won’t quarantee it to last forever, but will give it long life due to consistency and continuous improvement of existing gameplay.
A game doesn’t need to be complex to be fun. There are two aspects that are often getting mixed in game development: depth and complexity. It is often thought that more complexity means more depth. And I can completely see the reasoning behind that as logically thinking, a higher amount of mechanics means more for the player to do and learn. Still, it really doesn’t work that way. Complexity doesn’t quarantee depth, nor does depth mean complexity. A better depth is often achieved with simple gameplay, because it allows the developer to concentrate on what’s essential and allows the player to have full control over the mechanics, after which they can start thinking about them in deeper depth.
Making a game too complex prevents any kind of real depth, or at least, any kind of depth the player will ever see. First of all, when a developer concentrates on a huge amount of mechanics, individual mechanics will naturally be less deep. the second thing hidering depth in very complex game is the player’s inability to know everything they needed to. They can either take the approach of delving deeper into a few mechanics or trying to grasp the whole game, but never be able to delve deeper into the mechanics. on top of that, the player can’t really control all this even if they wanted to. In an extreme scenario, this may translate to player getting bored because of the feeling of inferiority in face of all the mechanics.
In the end, simple, well defined, deep and polished mechanics are much better for the player and the game than complex, boring and maybe even bad mechanics. That’s why keeping simplicity is a good idea. But as I hinted, simplicity doesn’t mean zero tolerance for change. Changes can be made and even new, minor mechanics can be added. But all that has to have a good reason that benefits the game as it is.
P.S. I’m willing to bet that 343i are trying to be different from Bungie. After all, they have hinted at it. For example, in the First Look ViDoc when Neil Harrison said “Equally, we want this to be our Halo game…”. Another thing also hinting at this the new appearance of the Grunts. There is absolutely no other justificiation for it than trying to make it look different, otherwise it could’ve just been a high fidelity version of the Reach Grunt. You sure are right that the approach makes no sense, but that’s what they’re doing. And it’s evident everywhere.
