> One of the few well written opinions in the history of this forum xD But I sorry to say, there will be no major changes made to halo 4 at this point. Idk if you were making this thread in an attempt to try and change 343’s mind or not.
>
> If you really cant stand the idea of the progression system, then halo 4 multiplayer might not be for you 
I will buy Halo 4 the instant it’s available. I intend on giving 343 the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think a progression system will automatically ruin Halo, hopefully 343 nails it, hopefully they invent a progression system that enhances the thrill of combat more than it complicates it. This was more just a perspective on the gaming industry at large.
See, it’s more than just the military shooters that are falling victims to feature-creep, in a very competitive market, designers feel that adding more features is the way to get an edge over the competition.
Assassin’s Creed is a great example.
It’s one of my favourite gaming franchises. Why? Because there’s about 3 or 4 things Assassin’s Creed does really well. In Assassin’s Creed I’m having the most fun when I’m effortlessly scaling a building, plummeting from dizzying heights into a bale of hay, using the hidden blade to assassinate, hiding in plain sight among crowds, free-running. It’s these elements that have been so beautifully designed that’s made Assassin’s Creed one of those games that non-gamers can’t help but watch you play.
Now when designers want to improve Assassin’s Creed they need to develop features that enhance or add to these already fun elements. Sadly, instead of sharpening their katana, the developers began making AC into a swiss army knife. I think at one point someone said “what if a player could not only climb a building, but purchase it?” At first, adding Sim City elements doesn’t seem harmful but ask yourself this:
When you were playing Assassin’s Creed 1, did you ever catch yourself thinking “gee this game is great and all, but I really wish I could purchase real estate, that’d really make this fun.”
Probably not.
And that’s what happened to Assassin’s Creed. Perhaps it was a drive to be competitive in a tight market, or maybe it was the engineers typical compulsion to keep adding features (hey, they’re engineers, that’s what they do). When I’m playing Assassin’s Creed I wanna be running, climbing, stabbing, or admiring a historical setting. Anything that stops me from doing these things is a fun-roadblock. So much was added to the game that didn’t contribute to the Assassin’s Creed experience. Things like managing a city, withdrawing money, tower defense, awareness meters, upgrading property, none of this did anything other than provide a distraction from the actual gameplay. Even the economy was worthless. You build up funds, withdraw money, go to a shop, what for? To upgrade your weapon? Why would I want 30+ weapons that all animate identically and have small statistical differences? I mean, you start the game with the best weapon strapped to your wrist! I’m walking around concealing the most badass, one-hit-kill weapon that I can use to end the lives of 20 guards, so why would I want a curved roman harvesting scythe?
Gameplay clutter.
Designers create a really fun game, and in their efforts to make it bigger and better they throw more clutter in front of the fun. Designers need to spend more time improving on features than adding them. Assassin’s Creed became a Swiss army knife. It did a lot of extra things but not very well. It was a gimped tower defense game, it was a sub-par kingdom management sim, it had an undeveloped economy. It already had fun, elegant and artistic gameplay but they just kept on bolting on extra features that did little to improve the things that made the game fun. I wish all of the efforts had been focused on making the core gameplay better. Rather than designing 30 new weapons, give me 30 new counter kills for the hidden blade.
Sure, you can ignore this in a single player game. I did. By the time I got to AC Revelations I didn’t craft any bombs, buy houses, upgrade armour or buy new weapons. The game was even more fun when I ignored all the clutter. But this isn’t possible in a multiplayer game. You need to participate in all of the systems and mechanics to stay competitive.
I know 343 aren’t going to change much based on people’s reactions. I’m just making an unfortunate observation about modern gaming. The problem is that when you get more and more sequels to a single game, the compulsion is to keep adding stuff. But why? Developers get a little bit trapped in the cycle of feature creep when sometimes, quite simply, less is more. If a game is fun, can’t we just have more of a good thing?
Artists have trouble taking their hands off their art. When a sculptor is working they spend time refining and building until they’ve made something beautiful. The more time they spend, the more striking the sculpture. But there reaches a point where the art has reached a plateau, it’s achieved it’s vision. It will never be perfect, but it is finished. The artist may chose to walk away and start a new piece and try and do something even more grand this time around. Or, as artists so often do, they keep tinkering and working on it, adding to it. If they over indulge it can turn into a jumbled mess. Just look at what George Lucas has done to the original Star Wars movies.
This is what I’ve see happen to other shooters. Their elegance is buried under so much clutter. I hope Halo does not fall into the same rut.