Why add so much....

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Why do people feel the need to add so much to halo?
You guys want everything… No matter the cost, you guys want anything and everything.
Do you people not realize that you can only add so much to a game before you ruin it? People today have no respect for a good game. They want what everyone else has. You people are like little kids. You don’t want candy from the candy store… You guys want the candy store.
Why can’t bf be bf cod be cod ac be ac gears be gears crisis be crisis and halo be halo. Like why can’t you guys just play a different game for a different gaming experience. The whole point of having different games is because they each got there own thing.

You guys claim that a game gets old if they only do little changes because its like a new game with better graphics. And yet you guys want all of your games to be the same. If one game has it you guys want halo to have it to. Saying this game has it why can’t we, is like saying why can’t I score a touchdown in basket ball. Why? Because its not football. Everybody here will agree that if you go to long without playing halo, you get this big desire to get on and start playing again.

I’m mean come on guys… Are we halo fans or not??..
Star Wars has had so many different games movies and tv shows and they still stick to what makes Star Wars well Star Wars.
I mean in all honesty would you guys really be mad if halo stayed halo classic? The game that made you a fan of this franchise. The version of halo that are the only reason you and Microsoft are here right now?
It isn’t just about who wants what. It’s about respect for this franchise, and doing what’s best.
I mean halo 4’s population is low as hell, and is only gonna get worse after destiny and Titan fall.
All the complaining on waypoint twitter and Facebook.
People are mad because there positive post get buried in angry ones. Don’t you think there’s a reason for that?
Like really halo’s population is at a all time low, and complaining like never before, all about the same thing.
And you’re gonna sit there and pretend that it’s nothing.
I think people know its true, they just don’t like what it means for halo.

Ps no flame wars. Disagree with constructive feedback.

2

Amen. Sing it from the rooftops! More does not always mean better. Options for custom games, more could always mean better, but for the base game I think more simplicity and balance is needed like before.

3

> Amen. Sing it from the rooftops! More does not always mean better. Options for custom games, more could always mean better, but for the base game I think more simplicity and balance is needed like before.

Exactly man. You can improve a game without taking away from classic gameplay.

4

Well, deep down those people aren’t bad people. They simply worry about a game they love getting stale or stagnating in the market. After all, if people get bored with Halo and fewer people buy it, then good-bye to a franchise they love. The problem, however, is that simply throwing in things from other games isn’t going to do Halo any favors. All you’re going to do is turn off fans of the franchise who liked traditional Halo concepts. You might get the attention of Call of Duty and Battlefield fans, but why would they want to play a pale imitation of their respective games under the Halo name when they can just keep playing their respective games?

It’s fine to worry about Halo falling behind, but the claim that people got bored of the franchise because it didn’t have perks, loadouts and so on isn’t true. If it were, then Reach and Halo 4 should’ve been overwhelmingly enjoyed by the masses, but a shrinking population and overwhelmingly negative responses to threads asking for MORE perks and abilities and disagreements with the notion that they are skillful say otherwise.

5

After playing Fable Anniversary, I can say with absolute certainty that it is more fun than its successors. Fable II and III were okay, but I felt more like I was trudging through the game only because I liked the original. I’m re-addicted to Fable all over again simply because it’s more fun. The controls, quests, and things to do are more simple.

And I think that’s exactly how it should be. IMO, what eventually kills good franchises is the developer’s ideas to “top” their last game by, yep, adding more stuff. But “stuff” doesn’t make good gameplay. “Stuff” doesn’t provide replay value like good gameplay. So if people are only playing your game for the “stuff,” they’re not going to play it for long.

To be honest, I think Fable would’ve been better off if they kept nearly everything the same and just created a different Hero for a different story. Perhaps add a weapon class or two, add or change some collectibles, but keep the same gameplay… just like CoD.

There are people who want something different all the time, and that’s fine, but developers shouldn’t design their sequels for these people. Why? Because these people are not guaranteed to continue buying the games every time you release a new one. When creating a sequel, developers shouldn’t ask themselves, “what can we change so this new game is different from the last one?” Developers should ask themselves, “what do our fans like about our game?” and keep doing that. Developers should ask themselves, “what can we add that complements these things that our fans like?” and add those things. CoD does this and they have been immensely successful with it. Halo should do the same.

6

> After playing Fable Anniversary, I can say with absolute certainty that it is more fun than its successors. Fable II and III were okay, but I felt more like I was trudging through the game only because I liked the original. I’m re-addicted to Fable all over again simply because it’s more fun. The controls, quests, and things to do are more simple.
>
> And I think that’s exactly how it should be. IMO, what eventually kills good franchises is the developer’s ideas to “top” their last game by, yep, adding more stuff. But “stuff” doesn’t make good gameplay. “Stuff” doesn’t provide replay value like good gameplay. So if people are only playing your game for the “stuff,” they’re not going to play it for long.
>
> To be honest, I think Fable would’ve been better off if they kept nearly everything the same and just created a different Hero for a different story. Perhaps add a weapon class or two, add or change some collectibles, but keep the same gameplay… just like CoD.
>
> There are people who want something different all the time, and that’s fine, but developers shouldn’t design their sequels for these people. Why? Because these people are not guaranteed to continue buying your games every time you release a new one. When creating a sequel, developers should ask themselves, “what do our fans like about our game?” and keep doing that. Developers should ask themselves, “what do our fans want more of?” and do more of that. CoD does this and they have been immensely successful with it. Halo should do the same.

I’m gonna have to 100% agree with you on that. In 343i’s efforts to make halo more popular there killing it.
I just hope those h2A rumors are true.
I’ve heard Microsoft is looking to sue whoever leaked the rumors, so there might be truth behind it.

7

This. Halo is an arena shooter, yet people want 64 players and destructible enviroments

8

I don’t know who “you guys” are, but I personally don’t see the changes as a threat, nor do I attribute the changes to what’s going on in other games. It’s just where things are headed generally.

Reach did not provide the “classic” experience for the same reason ODST wouldn’t have. The characters were not Spartan IIs. It was a mistake to not have a “classic” experience with Halo 4 for those that enjoyed it, and it’s too bad they could not come up with a viable visible-in-game rank system for players that liked that.

I don’t disagree with the notion that 343i went a bit overboard with the changes. It appears they felt they had to do something to distinguish themselves from Bungie. Fine, but they committed to three new games. They could have spread it out. Changing so much in one game makes us worry about the next one, and we may not recognize Halo 6 at all.

Still, no change at all wouldn’t have been any better. Imagine a Halo 4 that played exactly like Halo 3, with no ranks. Better?

9

I have a feeling this thread is pointed at people like me but I’ll explain why We come up with ideas that are unusual to see in halo.

First off we don’t expect them to be in halo and would be more than happy to play the game even if our ideas aren’t in them. It’s fun to come up with wacky ideas and wonder if they were to be placed in the game, It’s as fun as coming up with your own halo stories :slight_smile:

There’s is an enjoyment in coming up with random ideas and you should try it. Have you ever said to your friends how cool would it be if they made a Gta game based in your nearest city? You know it won’t be in the game but imagining what it would be like is a fun game of its own :slight_smile:

The thing that confuses me is that why people get annoyed, it’s not like 343i is going to take one mans idea and implement it, so why get angry about it. People have gotten really angry at me for suggesting how funny it would be if there were spartan animals.

Basically to sum it up, at the end of the day it’s fun to suggest wacky ideas, we don’t expect them in halo and couldn’t care less if they weren’t, so what’s the harm in suggesting something anyway :slight_smile:

10

> This. Halo is an arena shooter, yet people want 64 players and destructible enviroments

I sure as hell don’t. That’s what Battlefield is for. Less players = more balance.

Anyways back on topic. I definitely don’t want another Halo 3. What I do miss though is every single map being good and enjoying countless hours of custom games with friends. The options are so bland and deceased, it’s just sad. As much as I hated Reach, at least it offered countless hours of stuff to do. Halo 4 fell short on that end, but was, for the most part, balanced.

11

> This. Halo is an arena shooter, yet people want 64 players and destructible enviroments

Nothing wrong with giving players the ability to overstep the boundaries. Big Team Battle is generally the most populated playlist, Infection and the countless spin-offs have been extremely popular among players, as has Racing.

While 64 players would very likely be pushing it, 16v16 isn’t all that bad if done right. And what’s wrong with destructible environments? With Halo you could very easily justify having maps that do and don’t have them, satisfying both parties.

Of course, it’s generally the nature of some few denizens of this forum to “tolerate” 8v8 (with comments boiling down to “If the plebs must insist, then so be it…”), while holding 4v4 and such on its own grand pedestal as the playlist for the Elite and true fans. Somewhat irritating.

12

I think it’s just overexcitement and in some cases trolling. I’d sure as hell like to have MOBA features for the next Halo, but I’m not going to actually propose them because they’d be silly additions that wouldn’t work.

I do however suggest things to add now and then, or change. Like multi-gravitational maps, which I do think would benefit Halo.

> > This. Halo is an arena shooter, yet people want 64 players and destructible enviroments
>
> Nothing wrong with giving players the ability to overstep the boundaries. <mark>Big Team Battle is generally the most populated playlist</mark>, Infection and the countless spin-offs have been extremely popular among players, as has Racing.

Sorry, it only became that a few days after Halo 4’s release. Prior to that 4v4 slayer has always been the most played playlist.

And an increase in player count has been asked since pre-Halo 2.

> Still, no change at all wouldn’t have been any better. Imagine a Halo 4 that played exactly like Halo 3, with no ranks. Better?

Why is it always this ultimatum? No change or massive change. It makes no sense. I haven’t seen a single person ask for a reskin of Halo 3 with all glitches and so forth intact.

I have no problems whatsoever against change, and those who agree with me will do so because I speak for no one else. However it is what changes that I’m against and change for the sake of change, which generally most of the time is for the worse.

You don’t need 10 new gameplay elements and features, or no changes at all. Why not instead one or two ideas?

What I’m trying to say is that there’s no “no change at all” and “tsunami of change”. So there’s no need to post that ultimatum, players want change, but not beyond what’s sensible, and make things unrecognisable.

13

I feel most of the additions to this wonderful franchise has helped it grow.

YET I do have more than enough sympathy for the classic fans in the last 2 games we have seen less classic and more evolved, now don’t get me wrong I like both styles and I lean towards classic but it should be a 50/50 with things like this.

I also feel that AAs have and will continue to help halo…its just with the 2 iterations so far its like…they were so close but no cigar…I honestly feel if PV, AC, AL and JP never of happen people would not feel the way they do now…

Load-outs can and will help halo IF DONE RIGHT, and this is yet another time that I feel just as AAs were it was handled poorly for instance a choice of a BR/CC and weps on map plus a choice of an AA (imagine if there were none of the really messed up ones just thruster and holo for instance) this would have made people happier instead of frustrated with load-outs.

Perks? ahhhh I won’t defend them.( I think unless its completely changed and reworked massively they need to GO)