NOTE: I’m not trying to start arguments or anything, I’m genuinely interested to read why people think so much changed.
I don’t get it. Could somebody explain to me why 343 continued doing with Halo 4 what Reach started, changing the core gameplay?
I was reading an article about the new CoD game (Ghosts), and a certain paragraph really caught my eye -
> The modus operandi to date has been to stick pretty cleanly to what works; though there have been incremental additions throughout the series, <mark>the core gameplay has changed very little, because it’s massively popular and as long as it turns a huge profit, the natural mindset is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."</mark>
That last sentence in particular really resonates with me because I’ve said, more or less, the same thing a few times on here about Halo. I mean, Halo was incredibly successful the way it was. It wasn’t a struggling franchise in desperate need of mainstream attention and popularity, it already had all of that.
I figured 343 would stick to the same Halo formula, but obviously I was wrong. Why do you think that is though? What made 343 want to continue down that path Bungie laid out with Reach?
> I figured 343 would stick to the same Halo formula, but obviously I was wrong. Why do you think that is though? What made 343 want to continue down that path Bungie laid out with Reach?
ignorance
Different minds for different lines. Some like to keep things the way they are, and others want to make changes to something in hopes to make it better or at the very least different. Bethesda did a wonderful job with Fallout 3 in both making the series game different and better, and 343 not so much with Halo 4 at the “better” aspect (for me at least).
> Could somebody explain to me why 343 continued doing with Halo 4 what Reach started, changing the core gameplay?
343’s official stance as of the GDC panel has been to try and tempt more campaign players into the MP, and vice versa, via the storytelling and a lowered skill bar.
And, like many people think, it may or may not have been to try and steal away some fence sitters who were looking at CoD.
> > Could somebody explain to me why 343 continued doing with Halo 4 what Reach started, changing the core gameplay?
>
> 343’s official stance as of the GDC panel has been to try and tempt more campaign players into the MP, and vice versa, via the storytelling and a lowered skill bar.
>
> And, like many people think, it may or may not have been to try and steal away some fence sitters who were looking at CoD.
This I think is the exact reason why 343 changed what they did.
Also I think a little part of it is so they can distiguish themselves from bungie and not just be known for copying bungie.
Define “Halo”/“core gameplay”.
Did Halo 4 deviate a bit more than was needed? Maybe.
Should 343 dumb it down to CoD’s level innovation-wise? No. Never.
> Bethesda did a wonderful job with Fallout 3 in both making the series game different and better, and 343 not so much with Halo 4 at the “better” aspect (for me at least).
Amusingly enough, several fans of Fallout 1 and 2 hated Fallout 3. And while I will agree that many of the complaints were valid (i.e. watered down strategy and difficulty, but that is also easily solved with mods), I bet a lot of it was just them refusing to be dragged out of the 90’s.
> 343’s official stance as of the GDC panel has been to try and tempt more campaign players into the MP, and vice versa, via the storytelling and a lowered skill bar.
This explanation doesn’t make any sense to me.
If I was developing Halo 4, and trying to get campaign into multiplayer or vice-versa, I would’ve funded the -Yoink- out of Spartan Ops and put tons of effort into the writing and missions themselves.
Instead, Spartan Ops was mostly mediocre and they don’t seem to have any plans to do a season 2.
> Also I think a little part of it is so they can distiguish themselves from bungie and not just be known for copying bungie.
There are much better ways to do that.
Anyways, back on topic. I assume they did all of this for a few reasons:
- They wanted to attract a more modern audience, and figured CoD was the way to go.
- They assumed most Halo players would not mind the new changes.
- Going off of #2, they assumed that if they included old-time perks and weapons like awareness and resupply, old fans would feel at home. When they first marketed the game, frank said he was confident the game would have something for everyone.
Basically, they made some bad evaluations.
> 1. They wanted to attract a more modern audience, and figured CoD was the way to go.
> 2. They assumed most Halo players would not mind the new changes.
> 3. Going off of #2, they assumed that if they included old-time perks and weapons like awareness and resupply, old fans would feel at home. When they first marketed the game, frank said he was confident the game would have something for everyone.
>
> <mark>Basically, they made some bad evaluations.</mark>
Definitely. I mean, if I were developing the next game in a popular franchise, I’d try to give the fans something they’re familiar with while adding new, small features.
Completely deviating from what made you popular in the first place is -Yoink- backwards in my opinion, and just bad business.
> > 1. They wanted to attract a more modern audience, and figured CoD was the way to go.
> > 2. They assumed most Halo players would not mind the new changes.
> > 3. Going off of #2, they assumed that if they included old-time perks and weapons like awareness and resupply, old fans would feel at home. When they first marketed the game, frank said he was confident the game would have something for everyone.
> >
> > <mark>Basically, they made some bad evaluations.</mark>
>
> Definitely. I mean, if I were developing the next game in a popular franchise, I’d try to give the fans something they’re familiar with while adding new, small changes.
>
> Completely deviating from what made you popular in the first place is -Yoink!- backwards in my opinion, and just bad business.
Well, you also have to see it from their PoV.
Regardless of what anyone says, Reach was objectively the last successful Halo game. It made tons of money, and it kept it’s population for a very long time.
It would be risky for them to take the game back to 2007. But then they see that aspects of Reach also merge with aspects of other modern titles.
From face value, Reach + CoD seems like a really good idea. But once you start to understand the mechanics of your game and the community that comes with the game, you see the flaws in such an idea.
It doesn’t help the game was rushed and left out many of fan’s favorite features either.
There just trying to make it like COD (i’m not MP here only btw) to steal away players there and to make it more “user friendly” which is a joke.Thats not Halo.Yes sales were good in halo 4…well that’s because it was the frist halo game that had the chief back and many,MANY people were under the impression (myself and my friends included) that halo 4 was going back to it’s roots so ya i’m not surprised it broke 24 hour sale records for past halo games and most played in 1 week records but you think halo 5 will do the same if it’s like halo 4?? I’ll bet it doesn’t. It’ll do well,don’t get me wrong,but who want pretty good, when you can have the best you know. The funny part is there changing all these things and things are getting worst (I think) and the proof is in the population numbers.I’m sorry I don’t know how anyone can argue this.it’s right there.Doesn’t make halo 4 a bad but is it as good as say halo3? population AND sale numbers tell us no and that’s what you want. I firmly think if halo 5 doesn’t go back to how it was (core game play in MP)like it was in halo 2-3 it’s gunna show it sale numbers. To me halo 3 was the test per say. It introduced ranked/social playlists …those worked So good!!! Ranked mode worked so well…(people like myself keep coming back to get my rank higher and it needs to be able to be viewed in game somehow) and it added one small game play changer…equipment. I’d say most players had np with it and the ones that did,didn’t like it but could live with it because 90% of the time they didn’t change the game so much where it was like WTH!!! They weren’t HUGE game changers. Yes some hated it but not many I’d say and lets face it, your never gunna please everyone and the success of halo 3 backs up what i’m saying. Halo 3 shows that if you leave the gameplay as it is and just add something like equipment aka maybe armour powers instead on the map for ex. the community will not only accept it, but embrace your game. leave power weapons on the map, make ranked (where DLC is mandatory like H3 which people were fine with btw and accepted)/social playlist, In game rank is show, etc and Halo 5 will do well. Get ride of this tactical/support perk stuff like COD too. It’s not needed, how do I know this? Halo reach proved it.Reach didn’t have those things and people liked it just fine, just like loud outs. reach had load outs too,basic ones and they worked fine,so why add more…you don’t need more! I’ll bet you,if you made halo 5 that combines what I just said, it’d do great. The problem I think is 343 went for “we need to add this or that” we need more,when in reality for halo 4 they should have been thinking less is more. Here’s hoping 343 learns from this and make Halo 5 the winner we all know and love. Good Luck 343,i’d love to help you if I could…now…I need a weapon!
I really wonder whether 343 will continue with the Reach/Halo 4 gameplay direction or go back to the CE - 3 type of simplistic gameplay.
343 has caught themselves into an one super huge, confusing, and hectic pickle.
> I really wonder whether 343 will continue with the Reach/Halo 4 gameplay direction or go back to the CE - 3 type of simplistic gameplay.
>
> 343 has caught themselves into an one super huge, confusing, and hectic pickle.
Why can’t we have both?
We should have both. I said this before H4 and I’ll say it again. Completely re-create Halo CE and or 2 in their new engine. Trust me just do it. Exactly as it was. Okay now that you’ve done that? Add whatever the -Yoink- you want and make sure you can toggle it off. Mission accomplished. Most everyone got something they want be it the older Halo style or the new shiny garbage and they can co-exist peacefully.
They messed up with the big changes we aren’t allowed to opt out of. Flinch, not being able to drop the flag etc. Very fundamental things that were quite simply worse IMO. Why we had no option or say in that matter is mind boggling. Good way to alienate your player base when you could have scored free points among your players with a simple toggle option.
Don’t force the changes on us in Halo 5. Give us the option and let us choose. That way nobody rage quits and you have quite a bit more information and a safety net if your changes aren’t so popular. Seems like common sense to me.
Scope creep… every Halo game brings something new to the table, but this game brought too much. They didn’t have enough time to polish it all off. Hopefully the weapons tweak on June 3 will appease the larger audience. I like a lot of the additions but they could have been better implemented/refined or cut based on testing and feedback. Growing pains of a new studio, I guess.
They blindly rushed the game and didn’t have a BETA for christ’s sake.
A Beta would have brought all of these problems out to the forefront, allowing players to give valuable feedback. 343 then could have made adjustments accordingly.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that so much changed when the developer hires people that hate the game and then subcontracts out 80% of the entire game to other studios.
The sad part is that about 7-8 months ago people were calling us stupid because they were asserting that ‘the gameplay needs to change or people will get bored’.
Look where we are now.
There are a myriad of (unconfirmed and confirmed) reasons why 343 did what they did. I can’t be bothered getting mad at them anymore, its a waste of breath now. All I, and many other people regret, is that we didn’t play the previous Halos to -Yoink!-.
Well, here’s the thing, 343 were actually trying to do their own thing. I respect them in the fact that they tried to go down a path they knew would we tricky to pull off. By adding all these new things and lowering the skill gap to make it more accessible is something many Halo fans have dreaded. 343 took a risk, which not many companies in a position like theirs would do. Some may call it stupid, fine. I believe that they’ve learnt from the risk they took. We can see them slowly fixing things here on Halo 4 (Of course, there’s only oh so much you can do with updates) and perhaps we’ll have a huge change back to the old for halo 5. Who knows.
Not trying to defend 343, they’ve done and said some pretty derp stuff, but -Yoink!- also has a lot of say about what goes into the new Halo games. So I don’t believe all the blame can be put on 343s shoulders.
> The sad part is that about 7-8 months ago people were calling us stupid because they were asserting that ‘the gameplay needs to change or people will get bored’.
>
> Look where we are now.
>
> There are a myriad of (unconfirmed and confirmed) reasons why 343 did what they did. I can’t be bothered getting mad at them anymore, its a waste of breath now. All I, and many other people regret, is that we didn’t play the previous Halos to -Yoink!-.
I got so mad at Halo 3 and I quit it for months at a time, now I realize that was the funniest gaming experience I have ever had. Sure Halo 2 had arguably better competitive aspects, but Halo 3, man… RIP.
Forget Reach.