Most of the community is not willing to take new ideas because “Halo needs to be Halo”. I’m sorry but I’m not gonna pay £50 for a game that is just the same as the last, I will just go and play the old game instead. That is what has happened with CoD and FIFA and would hate to see it happen to Halo. We should take other ideas from different games because thats called progress and if people are not willing to accept new ideas then Halo will not move forward.
A lot of people didn’t like AAs and thats me included but I don’t blame Bungie and say they just gave up on Halo. You know why, because they didn’t. They wanted to change the game to spice up gameplay and it didn’t work (for some people it did) but it is not saying change is bad.
Albert Einstein once said this: “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried”. If Bungie did not make this “mistake” with Reach it would have been looked at in further games and that would make people angrier at the other games. But because Bungie tried it 343 knows not to go down the route. I say to 343, try new things it will let Halo thrive for many years rather than just releasing the same game over and over.
It’s not the introduction of AA’s that bothered me, it was their unwillingness to admit that it wasn’t handled well and actually try to seek a solution.
Many fair solutions were offered to Bungie during the Beta, but they ignored 99.999% of the feedback and only worked on fixing performance issues and bugs (and actually making AL more powerful in the process, by introducing the frosting effect).
There are many competitive, knowledgeable players out there who could have single-handedly pointed out how to fix Reach in a way which pleased all parties, AA lovers included.
Now it’s 1 year later and simply too late… the classic fans will not come back and the newer ones will refuse any and all changes without consideration.
People say they want the same thing because tons of changes that Bungie has made over the years have ended up being bad. The quality of the Halo games is in decline and people are losing hope for change that can be appreciated.
> It’s not the introduction of AA’s that bothered me, it was their unwillingness to admit that it wasn’t handled well and actually try to seek a solution.
>
> Many fair solutions were offered to Bungie during the Beta, but they ignored 99.999% of the feedback and only worked on fixing performance issues and bugs (and actually making AL more powerful in the process, by introducing the frosting effect).
>
> There are many competitive, knowledgeable players out there who could have single-handedly pointed out how to fix Reach in a way which pleased all parties, AA lovers included.
>
> Now it’s 1 year later and simply too late… the classic fans will not come back and the newer ones will refuse any and all changes without consideration.
What makes you think Bungie didn’t want to? They only had control over Reach for a certain amount of time so when Reach released they had a choice to make:
a) Make a TU and polish off what they’ve released so far, and let 343 deal with new content.
or
b) Finish releasing the rest of Reach’s content b/c it’s their last Halo game, and let 343 deal w/ polishing it off.
There is no question that I would choose B like they did if I were in their situation. It’s their last game and they wanted to get everything out of their system before saying goodbye by releasing as much content for this game as they could even if it didn’t work. DLC maps, Insane gametypes, etc.
Bungie knew 343 would come in and polish off everything that they’ve done and they knew the community would love them for it which would put the franchise in the best place possible to move forward.
Imagine if Bungie had pulled out all the stops in their last game, would 343 ever be able to live up to it? Would fans have abandoned ship after they left? Bungie did what they had to do for the sake of the franchise and we all owe them that. They had to make a choice even if it effected their relationship with the fans. That sounds much more like the Bungie I know than the Bungie everyone has been describing lately.
“[They] were the [developer] we needed them to be [for the sake of the franchise].” - Cortana (Halo 3).
“Not the [one] we wanted, but the [one] we needed.” - Comm. Gordon (Dark Knight).
I don’t get why you wouldn’t want stuff to be the same. Call of Duty found something that works and for some people that playstyle is very enjoyable…so they keep doin it. Halo is constantly changing which sounds good on paper but if they have something that works great and people love id say stick with it and if someone wants to play a different way they can switch to a different game for a night or week or whatever. It’s prolly better for the industry as a whole cuz if everyone did the same stuff (perks, ADS, etc) then everyone would just play one game cuz they’d all be the same. (IE the call of duties/wows) Halo has slowly been losing population numbers since Halo 1 & 2, figure it out. We need variety/originality in this business, Halo has a style they should stick with the classic feel…just my opinion
In my opinion Halo is an all round game, and that’s only because every game is different. I liked Halo CE the best, no special grenades, no equipment and no Armor Abilities. It was just a basic and fun game. Halo 2 featured a very fast paced game and Halo 3 was a bigger scale game. Halo: Reach was a more community built game which means that they changed everything because they were told to. But now Halo: Reach’s gameplay is more like Halo 3. I never liked Halo: Reach’s sandbox, I liked the Title Update. but it’s broken as hell, I guess that’s why it’s a beta… for a game that was released a year ago. Why did they need to update Reach? When ODST was released Halo 3 didn’t get a game changing update.
The idea of change isn’t bad. But the core needs to stay the same without compromising everything else. Bungie didn’t do that with Reach. It was change for the sake of change.
Halo was unique. It didn’t need AAs to succeed. It was simple, but complex. That was Halo. And it needs to be that way again.
CoD is the most popular franchise on the market, and barely anything changes between new games. Yet people play it and enjoy it because it’s the same game they’ve come to enjoy, just with new weapons, maps, campaign, etc. Infinity Ward knows what the people want. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Your not that same guy that brought up the idea to be able to punt nades are you?
> Grenade Punt
>
> Frags and plasmas are toggled with Left and Right on the D-Pad.
>
> Grenade Throw and Grenade Punt are toggled with Up and Down on the D-Pad.
>
> Grenade Throw would be similar to how grenades are thrown now: forward, like a slightly arcing line drive.
>
> Grenade Punt would be a new feature where Chief drops the grenade and kicks it. The trajectory of the grenade would now be a high arcing parabola. Punted grenades would go much higher into the air and come now almost vertically.
>
> The Chief would have special armor on his boot to prevent plasma grenades from sticking to him when he punted them.
> Your not that same guy that brought up the idea to be able to punt nades are you?
>
>
>
> > Grenade Punt
> >
> > Frags and plasmas are toggled with Left and Right on the D-Pad.
> >
> > Grenade Throw and Grenade Punt are toggled with Up and Down on the D-Pad.
> >
> > Grenade Throw would be similar to how grenades are thrown now: forward, like a slightly arcing line drive.
> >
> > Grenade Punt would be a new feature where Chief drops the grenade and kicks it. The trajectory of the grenade would now be a high arcing parabola. Punted grenades would go much higher into the air and come now almost vertically.
> >
> > The Chief would have special armor on his boot to prevent plasma grenades from sticking to him when he punted them.
>
> This is why change is bad.
Lol. Not all change is bad, but change for the sake of change is bad.
Gears 3 is a good example of refining the formula, instead of outright changing.
> The idea of change isn’t bad. But the core needs to stay the same without compromising everything else. Bungie didn’t do that with Reach. It was change for the sake of change.
>
> Halo was unique. It didn’t need AAs to succeed. It was simple, but complex. That was Halo. And it needs to be that way again.
>
> CoD is the most popular franchise on the market, and barely anything changes between new games. Yet people play it and enjoy it because it’s the same game they’ve come to enjoy, just with new weapons, maps, campaign, etc. Infinity Ward knows what the people want. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Then on the other hand, while CoD still has a big and loyal fanbase, the franchise is starting to show signs of weakness only after four years. I’ve based this on the fact that I’ve heard many people to talk a lot more about Battlefield 3 than MW3. These people include some former CoD fans. Two years on the top isn’t very long, Halo already was on top four times that long.
Then again if we look at the gameplay itself, CoD doesn’t have very great gameplay, but it attracts a huge amount of casuals. Halo on the other hand had a good gameplay that lasts longer, but may not attract as much population. What I’m getting at is that I don’t know should I take your argument or not.
While it’s very clear that CoD has attracted a lot of casual crowd, Halo is quite a different game. The other problem is that CoD hasn’t been on the top even for three years with the same formula, that’s the average life of a single Halo game. And Halo was on top for three games.
That’s why I say that Halo should go back to it’s roots, but they can’t just leave the gameplay exactly as it was before 2007. They need to evolve on the areas where te gameplay is strong. Any other additions should always be considered very carefully. This way Halo could live and still be fresh every year.
One option is to make a completely new gametype that has all that experimental stuff, but keep the majority of matchmaking as normal classic Halo. This way if that experimental stuff doesn’t have any problems, after a year it could be applied to a wider range of matchmaking. If there still weren’t any or very low amount complaints, the changes could be implemented in the next game.
> > It’s not the introduction of AA’s that bothered me, it was their unwillingness to admit that it wasn’t handled well and actually try to seek a solution.
> >
> > Many fair solutions were offered to Bungie during the Beta, but they ignored 99.999% of the feedback and only worked on fixing performance issues and bugs (and actually making AL more powerful in the process, by introducing the frosting effect).
> >
> > There are many competitive, knowledgeable players out there who could have single-handedly pointed out how to fix Reach in a way which pleased all parties, AA lovers included.
> >
> > Now it’s 1 year later and simply too late… the classic fans will not come back and the newer ones will refuse any and all changes without consideration.
>
> What makes you think Bungie didn’t want to? They only had control over Reach for a certain amount of time so when Reach released they had a choice to make:
>
> a) Make a TU and polish off what they’ve released so far, and let 343 deal with new content.
> or
> b) Finish releasing the rest of Reach’s content b/c it’s their last Halo game, and let 343 deal w/ polishing it off.
>
> There is no question that I would choose B like they did if I were in their situation. It’s their last game and they wanted to get everything out of their system before saying goodbye by releasing as much content for this game as they could even if it didn’t work. DLC maps, Insane gametypes, etc.
>
> Bungie knew 343 would come in and polish off everything that they’ve done and they knew the community would love them for it which would put the franchise in the best place possible to move forward.
>
> Imagine if Bungie had pulled out all the stops in their last game, would 343 ever be able to live up to it? Would fans have abandoned ship after they left? Bungie did what they had to do for the sake of the franchise and we all owe them that. They had to make a choice even if it effected their relationship with the fans. That sounds much more like the Bungie I know than the Bungie everyone has been describing lately.
>
> “[They] were the [developer] we needed them to be [for the sake of the franchise].” - Cortana (Halo 3).
> “Not the [one] we wanted, but the [one] we needed.” - Comm. Gordon (Dark Knight).
They didn’t need to “go all out,” they just needed to make a handful of very minor changes and the game would have been twice as good.
That’s the problem: they were clearly more than capable of fixing these issues but simply chose not to. They became far too proud of their “great work” (as they clearly thought of it from the Vid docs), and refused to admit their wrongs.
> Your not that same guy that brought up the idea to be able to punt nades are you?
>
>
>
> > Grenade Punt
> >
> > Frags and plasmas are toggled with Left and Right on the D-Pad.
> >
> > Grenade Throw and Grenade Punt are toggled with Up and Down on the D-Pad.
> >
> > Grenade Throw would be similar to how grenades are thrown now: forward, like a slightly arcing line drive.
> >
> > Grenade Punt would be a new feature where Chief drops the grenade and kicks it. The trajectory of the grenade would now be a high arcing parabola. Punted grenades would go much higher into the air and come now almost vertically.
> >
> > The Chief would have special armor on his boot to prevent plasma grenades from sticking to him when he punted them.
>
> This is why change is bad.
Let me hear one original idea from you. Just one, then talk to me. TBH I don’t know why you would be so against the ability to send a grenade on a high arcing trajectory without taking your eyes off the battlefield.
> Most of the community is not willing to take new ideas because “Halo needs to be Halo”. I’m sorry but I’m not gonna pay £50 for a game that is just the same as the last, I will just go and play the old game instead. That is what has happened with CoD and FIFA and would hate to see it happen to Halo. We should take other ideas from different games because thats called progress and if people are not willing to accept new ideas then Halo will not move forward.
>
> A lot of people didn’t like AAs and thats me included but I don’t blame Bungie and say they just gave up on Halo. You know why, because they didn’t. They wanted to change the game to spice up gameplay and it didn’t work (for some people it did) but it is not saying change is bad.
>
> Albert Einstein once said this: “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried”. If Bungie did not make this “mistake” with Reach it would have been looked at in further games and that would make people angrier at the other games. But because Bungie tried it 343 knows not to go down the route. I say to 343, try new things it will let Halo thrive for many years rather than just releasing the same game over and over.
dont worry, 343’s not that stupid. There will always be new refreshing stuff in halo
People want the game to stay the same. and I agree to an extent.
Certain small details ( the way zoom works vs the iron sights in most other games. ect ect) should probably stay the same. But not game mechanics, those should change from game to game.
I like and agree’d w/ AA because I understood what Bungie wanted. They said that equipment was to help put Halo in a more class based direction that would change how the game was played, but it din’t. so they tweaked the equipment into AAs.
Not prefect perhapse but I think loadouts in the least are/were a great idea. Lets hope 343 changes AAs and loadouts for the better.