Halo 4 needs to be like Halo 4. We need innovation to advance, not just recycling old material with a new graphics layer, throwing in a new campaign and slapping Halo 4 on the cover.
Wasn’t there just a thread with the exact same title?
> Wasn’t there just a thread with the exact same title?
No that thread is about Reach and asking why people assume there will be AA’s, this is asking why people want old things and not new things.
i agree.
Some people are deathly afraid of change.
People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
Add new graphics, new maps, a couple new weapons, and a new campaign and I’m fine. Keep the gameplay more like it was with 2 and 3. Reach took a huge step in the opposite direction. As you can tell be Reachs population this was not a good direction to take the series.
> People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
>
> Add new graphics, new maps, a couple new weapons, and a new campaign and I’m fine. Keep the gameplay more like it was with 2 and 3. Reach took a huge step in the opposite direction. As you can tell be Reachs population this was not a good direction to take the series.
You’re the reason Hollywood makes god-awful film remakes 
There is a difference when you say “Halo 4 needs to be more like Halo CE and 2” versus when you say “Halo 4 needs to be exactly like Halo CE or 2”. The former means that it needs to take the most important elements from both games, while the latter means it needs to play exactly like both games. And to be honest, I doubt no one here means the latter when they say that Halo 4 needs to be like Halo CE or 2, or even 3.
You see, the thing is that both of those games had some exceptional gameplay attributes. For example the movement system of Halo 2 was pretty much perfect. CE on the other hand had the best spawn system in the whole series and also the best shooting mechanics and the most balanced sandbox.
In that regard Halo 4 should be more like Halo CE and 2. In other words, it should take what made both games so good, combine them and then make the result even better with new additions.
It’s not that anyone here would be afraid of change, it’s just that they can’t express themselves clearly enough and because people like you misuderstand their points. So next time when you see someone wanting Halo 4 to be like CE or 2, remember that they only want a good Halo game, not an exact copy of a previous. Of course with the exception of them using the word “exactly”, in which case you can go nuts with your “Halo 4 should be like Halo 4”, which by the way, is not a real argument.
> People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
>
> Add new graphics, new maps, a couple new weapons, and a new campaign and I’m fine. Keep the gameplay more like it was with 2 and 3. Reach took a huge step in the opposite direction. As you can tell be Reachs population this was not a good direction to take the series.
Try picking up the covenant carbine sometime.
> People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
Why get rid of candles? They work fine. Because we tried something new and found it works better. If you keep what you had and never change it you will never be able to advance and eventually get left behind. Darwin’s law
Let me explain it nice and simple for you.
Halo: CE —> Halo 2 —> Halo 3 —> Halo 4
Understand?
> People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
>
> Add new graphics, new maps, a couple new weapons, and a new campaign and I’m fine. Keep the gameplay more like it was with 2 and 3. Reach took a huge step in the opposite direction. As you can tell be Reachs population this was not a good direction to take the series.
Why would you want copies and copies of the same game? Thats like watching a TV show, and the season ended. One episode was good, so you want all the rest to be the same. This is called “monster of the week”. Exactly the same, but with a new monster. It gets repetitive, and old.
We want new. People who dont want new are afraid of change. If you liked Halo 2 so much just play that, not Halo 4.
Halo 3 was perfect to me. The gameplay was great. If a player wasn’t good enough to rank up or grab a certain powerup or weapon because they failed to out BR another player they got what they deserved: a quick death and time to think about what they did wrong.
Reached only showed me that bungie wanted to cater to casuals and players that failed these same instances in previous Halos like Halo 3 and 2. Now all they have to do is mash armor lock and wait for their team to come in and save the day. no just no.
Halo 4 need to be like, not exactly like halo 3 in the way that the game is harsh to players that can’t play well. Making a game made for casuals is a bad idea. I don’t care if a certain player isn’t having fun if they don’t know how to properly play the game. We all shouldn’t be brought down to their basic and child like style of how to play a game that goes easy on us for failing all the time against better players. Casuals come and go and move from one game to the next. The game needs to cater to the dedicated and hardcore Halo fans who have been around for a long time and know what Halo really is all about. We don’t need a Reach or a cod style game for Halo 4. What we need is a Halo2/Halo 3 style for Halo 4.
> Some people are deathly afraid of change.
Ironically enough, those same people probably bash the last 4,5 installments of Call of Duty for being copy and pastes of each other (although they are as identical to their predecessor as each new Halo is) and how it’s a garbage and awful franchise because of it. (Obviously it is doing something right considering it’s breaking it’s own records every new release and raking in more money than the Halo franchise ever could.)
Yet when it comes to discussing new features for a new Halo installment, they want it to play nearly identically to the original trilogy.
inb4 don’t fix what ain’t broke. Because if that was true, every Halo would be literally identical.
> > People want H4 to be like H2 and 3 because those games worked, they were fun to play. Why change something that is not broken?
> >
> > Add new graphics, new maps, a couple new weapons, and a new campaign and I’m fine. Keep the gameplay more like it was with 2 and 3. Reach took a huge step in the opposite direction. As you can tell be Reachs population this was not a good direction to take the series.
>
> Why would you want copies and copies of the same game? Thats like watching a TV show, and the season ended. One episode was good, so you want all the rest to be the same. This is called “monster of the week”. Exactly the same, but with a new monster. It gets repetitive, and old.
>
> We want new. People who dont want new are afraid of change. If you liked Halo 2 so much just play that, not Halo 4.
Please, could you just stop and think for a moment. As I said, no one except people who so oppose Halo CE and 2 are using the word “exactly”. Besides you, no one in this thread ever said that Halo 4 should be exactly like Halo CE and 2. You can very well see that he said “keep the gameplay more like it was in Halo 2 and 3”. Never did he want Halo 4 to play exactly like any of those games.
So instead of misunderstanding eachothers points for all day long, let’s actually think about what does the person mean with their words instead of filtering it all through your head until the only words you hear are “Halo 4… like… Halo CE and Halo 2”. Let’s be constructive and see that sometimes taking something that worked in the past and repurposing it to support the new works just fine.
> > Some people are deathly afraid of change.
>
> Ironically enough, those same people probably bash the last 4,5 installments of Call of Duty for being copy and pastes of each other (although they are as identical to their predecessor as each new Halo is) and how it’s a garbage and awful franchise because of it. (Obviously it is doing something right considering it’s breaking it’s own records every new release and raking in more money than the Halo franchise ever could.)
>
> Yet when it comes to discussing new features for a new Halo installment, they want it to play nearly identically to the original trilogy.
>
> inb4 don’t fix what ain’t broke. Because if that was true, every Halo would be literally identical.
It’s not as much about anyone here wanting it to play exactly like the previous installements, as it’s about most of the gameplay mechanic ideas by the community being bad. You’re taking people’s words and putting them out of context. If you can point me a single post in this forum that ever said the words “Halo 4 needs to play exactly like Halo CE/2/3 and should have no new gameplay elements in it”, then I believe that there is a single person here on this forum that doesn’t want change. But at the moment, never have I seen a Halo fan who has said those exact words.
The point of every person saying Halo 4 should be more like any old Halo game is just that they want the gameplay to be fun and good. How possibly could they say that it should be lie something else because that something else has nothing, they have never played that “something else”, therefore they can only trust on what they have played.
And on the other hand, the other reason people prefer to the original trilogy is because those games worked. Besides working on a casual level, they were also exceptional at more competitive levels, therefore catering to a much wider variety of players. I could seriusly care less about Halo changing it’s mechanics, as long as it works well on a competitive level so that people who are better than the average in the game can also have fun. And that’s exactly, why people want elements taken from previous games.
Because Halo 2 and 3 were awesome?
> Because Halo 2 and 3 were awesome?
The last thing people need is to fall into the same trap as COD did: creating the same game over and over and over again.
Gamers want to see something new (including gameplay mechanics). Take Battlefield 3 for an example. They introduced bullet glare, prone, all that good stuff. Gamers don’t want to see a game ripped straight off of other games before.
From what I’ve read they are planing to at least change the campaign style up so that the new trilogy really is a new trilogy. Apparently a lot more focus will be put on the story and they are going to draw on mystery and suspense as strategies to draw the player in. The one thing I heard they are going to change that I really don’t want them to is the Chiefs armor.
> > Wasn’t there just a thread with the exact same title?
>
> No that thread is about Reach and asking why people assume there will be AA’s, this is asking why people want old things and not new things.
Because people felt that the old way of Halo is better and that is want they want and they fear that adding new things will ruin the game such as armor abilities
That would be nice.BTW, People don’t get why Reach isn’t like Halo 3. Its because Bungie was doing its last halo game so they WANTED TO GO ALL OUT! Thats why its so different because they didnt want to make the same exact game for there final project that would be just lame.