Just curious on who the Waypoint community blames (or credits) for the current state of Halo.
Bungie:
Halo: Combat Evolved
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo 3: ODST
Halo: Reach
343i:
Halo 4
The only constant variable in all of this is Microsoft. It wasn’t until shortly after Halo 3 that Call of Duty became a competitor, with the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. This is where we begin to see the transition of Halo from an Arena shooter to an Arcade shooter, with elements like Custom Classes (Loadouts), Perks (Armor Abilities), and Sprint introduced into the sandbox.
I would speculate further, but anything more is just that. So, who is to blame (or credit)?
Bungie, for leaving 343i with Reach as an example to follow.
343i, for following in Bungie’s footsteps instead of sticking to Halo’s roots.
Microsoft, because…
Well, look at what happened to Infinity Ward. It is but a shell of its former self after refusing to be bullied by Activision into pooping out less-than-worthy Call of Duty titles every other year.
Modern Warfare 3 was pretty much a crappier version of Modern Warfare 2 with new maps, and the campaign wasn’t that great, either.
I feel like Microsoft put the pressure on Bungie and instead of letting what happened to IW happen to them, they gracefully bowed out, and 343i was eager to take their place.
> Well, look at what happened to Infinity Ward. It is but a shell of its former self after refusing to be bullied by Activision into pooping out less-than-worthy Call of Duty titles every other year.
>
> Modern Warfare 3 was pretty much a crappier version of Modern Warfare 2 with new maps, and the campaign wasn’t that great, either.
>
> I feel like Microsoft put the pressure on Bungie and instead of letting what happened to IW happen to them, they gracefully bowed out, and 343i was eager to take their place.
>
> But at what cost?
A great game with high ratings, active population, but is in dire need of a TU?
I think a lot of players, including yourself OP, are just upset that halo 4 isn’t an arena shooter. I hate to break it to you though, arena shooters are kind of dead.
Most of it has to go to MS. Just like EA and activision they seem like they really pressure all their studios into trying to make the most popular game possible instead of just letting them make a great, unique game.
Sony seems to be the only shining beacon of integrity and innovation left out there.
I’d say credit goes to everyone who has had a hand in Halo since its inception. That spans Bungie, Microsoft, 343, everyone that has produced something “Halo”, and every person that’s played the game or done other things with it.
> Most of it has to go to MS. Just like EA and activision they seem like they really pressure all their studios into trying to make the most popular game possible instead of just letting them make a great, unique game.
>
> Sony seems to be the only shining beacon of integrity and innovation left out there.
Gears of War has been pretty good for the duration.
> > arena shooters are kind of dead.
>
> Only because nobody is making them.
>
> People said the same thing about class based shooters when Halo was on top. Then COD4 came out and it was a breathe of fresh air.
Team fortress 2? Why do people keep forgetting this game? What about Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2?
> > Well, look at what happened to Infinity Ward. It is but a shell of its former self after refusing to be bullied by Activision into pooping out less-than-worthy Call of Duty titles every other year.
> >
> > Modern Warfare 3 was pretty much a crappier version of Modern Warfare 2 with new maps, and the campaign wasn’t that great, either.
> >
> > I feel like Microsoft put the pressure on Bungie and instead of letting what happened to IW happen to them, they gracefully bowed out, and 343i was eager to take their place.
> >
> > But at what cost?
>
> A great game with high ratings, active population, but is in dire need of a TU?
>
> I think a lot of players, including yourself OP, are just upset that halo 4 isn’t an arena shooter. I hate to break it to you though, arena shooters are kind of dead.
But, Reach was better then 3. A step in the right direction.
Four, hrm, not bad, but seemed to take a step back and tried to have too much that, and didn’t entirely think everything through. But nothing is lolworthy broken, so good job there. Just a bit of tweaking and 4 will be fine.
> > > arena shooters are kind of dead.
> >
> > Only because nobody is making them.
> >
> > People said the same thing about class based shooters when Halo was on top. Then COD4 came out and it was a breathe of fresh air.
>
> Team fortress 2? Why do people keep forgetting this game? What about Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2?
Good games, but Battlefront never reach the popularity of Halo or Call of Duty.
I do not blame Microsoft, I blame the 300+ people who work for 343i, the ones actually developing the game and the ones who knew better than to do what they have done.
I also blame Bungie for ever straying from its own formula with Halo Reach, they left Halo in a -Yoink- place, and did not care in the slightest.
The developers, the ones who supposedly had all this experience making games, are the ones I will always blame, I just see Microsoft as the publisher and the one who hands out the money, and attempts to cover 343i’s and even Bungie’s rear when they have messed up.
I like the way Halo 4 “feels” more than I did Reach. In fact, there are a lot of things I like about 4, but my dislikes far outweigh my likes, unfortunately. With some weapon balancing and playlist/game type updates, Halo 4 could easily have the best multiplayer in the series.
> > > > arena shooters are kind of dead.
> > >
> > > Only because nobody is making them.
> > >
> > > People said the same thing about class based shooters when Halo was on top. Then COD4 came out and it was a breathe of fresh air.
> >
> > Team fortress 2? Why do people keep forgetting this game? What about Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2?
>
> Good games, but Battlefront never reach the popularity of Halo or Call of Duty.
Games don’t have to reach a certain number to be considered a success. As long as they were well received among fans, received good ratings, and made a profit it’s a success. I bet if you Lucas Arts announced they were working on Battlefront 3, the internet would lose it’s mind.
> Most of it has to go to MS. Just like EA and activision they seem like they really pressure all their studios into trying to make the most popular game possible instead of just letting them make a great, unique game.
>
> Sony seems to be the only shining beacon of integrity and innovation left out there.
Playstation Team Ten and Move seems to disagree with you.
But let’s not get into that now, Halo’s a collaborative project that I think is impossible to attribute to any one group. Bungie made it, but it was microsoft who brought it to the xbox and gave it a lot of support when Bungie had quite nearly nothing to show for the game (see. the story of CE’s development.) And then they went on to create 343 after Bungie left the franchise, so whatever 343 has done right or wrong is attributable to MS and the parameters they set for 343 to operate within.
But all in all you have one thing, us. The people who buy the game and to whom the devs and publishers are trying to appeal to. We are ultimately responsible for the way in which Halo’s been developed because every change (that’s been thought through at all) has been done to try to get us to play more. Whether done competently or not really isn’t that important, what’s much more impactful is the selection we apply to the game.
So it’s all our fault really. We wanted something more consistent than equipment and we got armor abilities. We’ve categorically refused to accept almost any major change made to gameplay since Halo 2, and Halo 4’s turned out to be rather stagnant or at least limp-willied because the only reasonable response in that sort of situation is to tip-toe around core gameplay with accessory gimmicks like Ordnance. I would almost go so far to say that those changes were innevitable, that regardless of who made Halo the same or similar features would have been added given how we’ve responded to previous Halos.
> > > > arena shooters are kind of dead.
> > >
> > > Only because nobody is making them.
> >
> > Somebody hates the free market.
>
> I do when it creates an industry of cowards too afraid to try anything except for what the industry leader is currently doing.
Are you the guy calling people who sprint out of combat cowards?
You can have all the bravery you want. Until you pair it with intelligence, you got nothing. I’m sure plenty of developers have considered making arena shooters in this environment. I wonder how many think that’s a sustainable way of going about their business…I’m leaning the answer to that is very, very small.
