I can’t believe how many people are saying “it should be more like Halo 3” for almost everything, like ranking, health, weapon stats. Why do people want things to be like older games? Then it’s like buying the same game again if everything is the same.
I’m all for change but i’m guessing people who say that only say it because of Reach. It strayed very far from the halo they knew and it failed in a lot of peoples eyes.
So they don’t want a repeat
-Yoink!- if you do, -Yoink!- if you don’t. I feel sorry for game developers in a way, they have to try and please so many people.
Don’t change the game up a bit and they get called ‘Stale’ ‘Just like CoD!’
Do mix things up a bit and get -> ‘CoD clone!’ ‘This isn’t Halo!’
lol.
I agree, I like change, there’s no point in releasing new games if you’re not moving in a certain direction, if we all wanted the same game we’d still be playing them.
The Halo community is very passionate, for all the right and wrong reasons, but then again, that’s good too, as I have said many times before it would be a very very boring world if we all agreed and liked the same thing.
Because those were amazing?
I think there should be changes from game to game, but I’ll agree that there are just too many changes in Halo 4 to the core of what Halo is. They are equivalent in severity to taking away MC’s shields.
If you read this article, Opinion: Player Metrics Vs. The Vocal Minority, there’s a section saying, "Loss of old skills and knowledge or the requirement that players learn new skills always provokes an angry response.
Change that isn’t merely the addition of new content is almost always seen in a negative light. Learning has a real associated cost in time and effort. Anytime a game takes away a perceived skill, players feel that their time spent within the game is invalidated.".
Bascially, they’re annoyed they have to relearn the game again that they think they’ve already learned.
> I think there should be changes from game to game, but I’ll agree that there are just too many changes in Halo 4 to the core of what Halo is. <mark>They are equivalent in severity to taking away MC’s shields.</mark>
I wouldn’t go that far dude… bad analogy.
[deleted]
We’re never all going to agree, I think the devs have a hell of a job on their hands, they have to find a balance that appeals to all, the ones that want the more classic Halo, ie 2, 3, and the ones that liked Reach and the changes to the mechanics the AAs’ brought to the game,
I have not liked all the changes over the years but I’m a huge Halo fan, so I try to find the best in a game, I hated the AAs’ at first, I still hate some, but I try to adapt.
> I can’t believe how many people are saying “it should be more like Halo 3” for almost everything, like ranking, health, weapon stats. Why do people want things to be like older games? Then it’s like buying the same game again if everything is the same.
you want to know why? because the old games made us like halo. don’t care if they change stuff, only dislike changes made to the core of halo…and those are way to many in H4.
> I don’t necessarily want ‘classic’ Halo.
>
> I just want Halo to be more similar to it’s predecessors than to every other mainstream shooter on the market.
Several games after Halo copied and immitated Halo. CoD, and even Assassin’s Creed got their own Infection mode. Other games may have came up with better ideas that Halo can use.
Because Halos 2 and 3 were actually good games.
> > I think there should be changes from game to game, but I’ll agree that there are just too many changes in Halo 4 to the core of what Halo is. <mark>They are equivalent in severity to taking away MC’s shields.</mark>
>
> I wouldn’t go that far dude… bad analogy.
I honestly don’t think so. Map control has always been a huge concept, as well as the idea that no matter how well you do, you’re still just a guy with a gun like everyone else. Now, power weapons are spawned randomly, can be spawned as a ‘killstreak reward’, and things like overshields and even damage boosts can be spawned, all in relation to how good the character is doing.
So essentially, the good will always be better. But these changes also give the game a sense of randomness that has never been native in Halo games of the past.
And I’m not one to complain about the loadout weapons, but I’m still really leery of the AAs, TPs, and SUs, as many of them are looking to give much more than a ‘minor advantage.’
The ability to have xray vision
The ability to give more grenade damage, while receiving less
The ability to have extended sensor range
The ability to move silently
The ability to relead any weapon faster than any one else
Those are just off of the top of my head.
> If you read this article, Opinion: Player Metrics Vs. The Vocal Minority, there’s a section saying, “Loss of old skills and knowledge or the requirement that players learn new skills always provokes an angry response.
>
> Change that isn’t merely the addition of new content is almost always seen in a negative light. Learning has a real associated cost in time and effort. Anytime a game takes away a perceived skill, players feel that their time spent within the game is invalidated.”.
>
> Bascially, they’re annoyed they have to relearn the game again that they think they’ve already learned.
of course we’re going to see it in a negative light when it doesn’t add but destroys…
It’d be incorrect to portray more ‘traditional’ Halo players as people that dislike change on the basis that it is change. Most players, and most gamers, welcome change. They just don’t welcome stupid changes, which they feel most changes since H1 have been.
> If you read this article, Opinion: Player Metrics Vs. The Vocal Minority, there’s a section saying, “Loss of old skills and knowledge or the requirement that players learn new skills always provokes an angry response.
>
> Change that isn’t merely the addition of new content is almost always seen in a negative light. Learning has a real associated cost in time and effort. Anytime a game takes away a perceived skill, players feel that their time spent within the game is invalidated.”.
>
> Bascially, they’re annoyed they have to relearn the game again that they think they’ve already learned.
That’s a horrid argument that is just about as silly as this entire “adapt” nonsense.
They aren’t annoyed that they need to relearn the game, in fact they tend to do that faster and better than most other people. They are annoyed with the fact that what the are relearning simply isn’t very good compared to what they had before.
The more you try to make something be something it’s not; the more you’ll realize that it’s not and it will never will be.
Because it’s good for you.
> It’d be incorrect to portray more ‘traditional’ Halo players as people that dislike change on the basis that it is change. Most players, and most gamers, welcome change. They just don’t welcome stupid changes, which they feel most changes since H1 have been.
>
>
>
> > If you read this article, Opinion: Player Metrics Vs. The Vocal Minority, there’s a section saying, “Loss of old skills and knowledge or the requirement that players learn new skills always provokes an angry response.
> >
> > Change that isn’t merely the addition of new content is almost always seen in a negative light. Learning has a real associated cost in time and effort. Anytime a game takes away a perceived skill, players feel that their time spent within the game is invalidated.”.
> >
> > Bascially, they’re annoyed they have to relearn the game again that they think they’ve already learned.
>
> That’s a horrid argument that is just about as silly as this entire “adapt” nonsense.
>
> They aren’t annoyed that they need to relearn the game, in fact they tend to do that faster and better than most other people. They are annoyed with the fact that what the are relearning simply isn’t very good compared to what they had before.
and why is what they’ve already learned better then what they can learn now?
> > It’d be incorrect to portray more ‘traditional’ Halo players as people that dislike change on the basis that it is change. Most players, and most gamers, welcome change. They just don’t welcome stupid changes, which they feel most changes since H1 have been.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you read this article, Opinion: Player Metrics Vs. The Vocal Minority, there’s a section saying, “Loss of old skills and knowledge or the requirement that players learn new skills always provokes an angry response.
> > >
> > > Change that isn’t merely the addition of new content is almost always seen in a negative light. Learning has a real associated cost in time and effort. Anytime a game takes away a perceived skill, players feel that their time spent within the game is invalidated.”.
> > >
> > > Bascially, they’re annoyed they have to relearn the game again that they think they’ve already learned.
> >
> > That’s a horrid argument that is just about as silly as this entire “adapt” nonsense.
> >
> > They aren’t annoyed that they need to relearn the game, in fact they tend to do that faster and better than most other people. They are annoyed with the fact that what the are relearning simply isn’t very good compared to what they had before.
>
> and why is what they’ve already learned better then what they can learn now?
Your arguments are consistently arbitrary and do not relate to the core issue. The problem is, we don’t want to learn things that are the opposite of the way Halo used to be. Because Halo is Halo. So, any changes that go away from the core concept of Halo are not welcomed, because we’ve been playing Halo for 10 years.