Why Does 343 Cater To Casuals Only.

Almost every implementation into this game since it’s release has been catered to casuals only. Not a single request of the competitive community has been answered:

CSR Visible In Game Next to the Player IGN?:

Nope. We don’t want the weaker kids to feel bad about their low rank. HELLO?! The reason why previous Halos succeeded was people wanted to get better and looked up to people with better ranks. The only incentive for me to get on halo 2 and Halo 3 everyday was because I wanted to hit 50, and seeing people have it while I was stuck at like 48 was the only thing that kept me playing. When Reach came out, I had no incentive to play because there was no real rank system. Plus it reset every month so what the heck.

Increase In Noob Weapons/Implementations:

An almost 2x more powerful AR, high amount of aim assist and bullet magnetism, boltshot, one shot one kill sniper rifle… basically a whole bunch of things to cater to casual players who just want to have “fun”. Fun will only get you so far in a game. Every single game in this world that is successful runs on some sort of notion of skill (or some way to be “stronger”), that you can get better over time. Instead, they narrow the skill gap even more. A game like LoL does not cater to a casual player. People have to get better if they want to win. There is a huge skill gap between the weak and the strong. But this is what makes the weak strive to get stronger and be strong one day, and what keeps the strong playing. Now the skill gap is reduced even more than Reach.

There are way too many. The natural human tendency is that they want to be better than other people. This does not make people who are low feel bad. Initially, those that are lower skilled will feel bad, but then they will strive to become better! That is why previous Halos, not counting Reach, were so successful! Why is this game catering more to casuals? Even casuals strive to get stronger when they get their -Yoink- handed to them by a 50. There’s literally no incentive to play this game. Fun = getting better at a game, and being rewarded for being better. Instead, our reward is using active camo and we can’t see it and no one else can, and noobs are allowed to destroy pros with crappy game implementations.

All the people and more that shun the idea of competition. What is life all about? It is human nature to want to be better than the other person. We apply this in life when we go to college. We want to get good grades to get into a good college. We want to get a better job and more money than others. Even if someone says they don’t care, in the back of your mind, if you’re invited to your high school reunion, and everyone else is driving a sports car and you’re in you 1995 4 door sedan, you’re going to feel pretty bad.

Catering to the competitive not only satisfies the competitive pool, BUT it also causes the competitiveness in the casuals the start up. Even casuals have some competitiveness in them. That competition is what will drive them to keep playing. halo 2 and halo 3 had HUGE replay value. So did Halo 1, to an extent. Reach had no replay value, and Halo 4 has a little bit more, a step in the right direction, but still has that casual catering. 343 fails to understand human psychology and what will keep their game alive and running, as well as remembered, for years to come.

Even right now, in this forum, as people contradict and argue with each other. THAT is also competition. We want to win! Even if the argument is meaningless and dumb, we keep coming back… falling to flamebait and people who troll… why? Because we want to win. We don’t want people to talk back to us. Those of you that contradicted me, you wanted to prove your point. Everyone wants to win, everyone likes to compete. Even if you don’t think so, it is true. Competitiveness exists in all of us, some more than others. If Halo 4 was built properly, then all of you would be on the game trying to get better and play more instead of venting your competitiveness out here. It is FUN to win, and be better than other people. Heck, back in the say when I played those old sonic and mario games, the competition was who can clear a level the fastest. Who can live the longest? Being better creates a feel good feeling, something that does not exist in halo 4 because it lacks that competitive spirit.

Casuals make up most of the Halo community. This depends on your definition of casual, of course.

I put Halo down for LoL for this very reason.

And the only competition they had was based on noobs playing 24/10. NO SKILLS! Just for fun.

> I put Halo down for LoL for this very reason.

Because LoL isn’t a casual version of DOTA at all.

> > I put Halo down for LoL for this very reason.
>
> Because LoL isn’t a casual version of DOTA at all.

This is so on topic.
I am saying has a ranking system. Halo doesn’t. So I play LoL. I’m not gonna fanboy with you. /convo

> Casuals make up most of the Halo community. This depends on your definition of casual, of course.

And do you know what Casuals do whenever a new game comes out? They drop their current game and move to the next one.

Even Casuals benefit from having a competitive game. Competitive games make casuals competitive because it is human nature to want to be better than others, and to be rewarded for it. Instead of making a skill gap that made previous Halos so successful, they turned on easy mode so people will get bored of the game quickly because there is barely any room to get better, and you are not being rewarded for being better.

Why was Halo 2 and Halo 3 so successful? Why is Halo 4 not? Why are H4s numbers dropping?

This is why:

Casuals do not give a grain of rice what the hell goes into a game. They play it for fun. But competitive players do care. If you cater to casuals, eventually all players will leave. But if you cater to casuals, the casuals are more likely to stay and the competitive players will definitely stay.

If you were running a large company would your smartest choice be to a) cater to the larger % of people your business serves or b) cater to the smaller % of people your business serves?

Because casuals don’t whine as much. They make alot of the game sales.

Catering to casual players?

You’re joking.

Customs: Fail.
Theater: Fail.
Forge: Fail.
Matchmaking: Fail.

If you’re saying they cater to casuals, you’re wrong. They’re catering to Noobs and CoD, hoping to get them to play Halo.
Good players are mad. Casual players are mad. Forgers are mad. Machinima and filmers are mad.

This game…

> If you were running a large company would your smartest choice be to a) cater to the larger % of people your business serves or b) cater to the smaller % of people your business serves?

LoL, Dota, and starcraft are all proving if you want you game to last you focus on competitive players.

Spawning with a precision weapon in basically every playlist isn’t catering to the hardcore? Also, drastically reducing the effectiveness of a number of AAs. Removing bloom. There’s plenty of things that catered to the hardcore. You just don’t look at them because you’re too busy looking at everything that ISN’T the way you want it.

> LoL, Dota, and starcraft are all proving if you want you game to last you focus on competitive players.

League of Legends caters to competitive players? Da -Yoink-? The reason LoL is the most popular DOTA clone is because it is the most casual of them. Starcraft is probably one of the few games on the MLG circuit that is there because of the size of the competitive community rather than the size of the casual community. What do you think is part of the reason CoD ended up on MLG rather than Halo?

If the only people you have to look up to are the people with higher ranks than you in a video game you might need to rethink your priorities in life…

H2 & even H3 did not have nearly the competition that H4 has now (certainly not for the same platform anyway)…If you think dedication solely to competitive players will work I suggest getting into the gaming industry and trying it out.

> > Casuals make up most of the Halo community. This depends on your definition of casual, of course.
>
> And do you know what Casuals do whenever a new game comes out? They drop their current game and move to the next one.
>
> Even Casuals benefit from having a competitive game. Competitive games make casuals competitive because it is human nature to want to be better than others, and to be rewarded for it. Instead of making a skill gap that made previous Halos so successful, they turned on easy mode so people will get bored of the game quickly because there is barely any room to get better, and you are not being rewarded for being better.
>
> Why was Halo 2 and Halo 3 so successful? Why is Halo 4 not? Why are H4s numbers dropping?
>
> This is why:
>
> Casuals do not give a grain of rice what the hell goes into a game. They play it for fun. But competitive players do care. If you cater to casuals, eventually all players will leave. But if you cater to casuals, the casuals are more likely to stay and the competitive players will definitely stay.

What is entertaining to me is everyones definition of a casual game. First and fore most. Most game developers are not developing games to appease your sense of entitlement or self esteem issues. They do not care if you put the game down later, you already paid for it. They got there money out of you, so it was a successful project. This is the way the world works. The main objective for most game developers, and this applies even more so for console games is not developing a single game that is going to last but to publish a game to push future sales. Example Halo.

Really, do you think you playing halo 4 for 3 years is what matters to them? OR, do you think that buying halo 4 and then buying halo 5 and then buying halo 6 would be more profitable to them?

Microsoft has this flawed idea that making the game like CoD will make players stop playing CoD. We need something better than CoD, not Halo 4 with every CoD feature imaginable.

> > If you were running a large company would your smartest choice be to a) cater to the larger % of people your business serves or b) cater to the smaller % of people your business serves?
>
> LoL, Dota, and starcraft are all proving if you want you game to last you focus on competitive players.

Sure, if that is the main goal of your game is for staying power. Thats not how console games are designed. Most of the time they are built to drive future sales, continue a story line, expand apon a universe created/added to in the last game.

> Microsoft has this flawed idea that making the game like CoD will make players stop playing CoD. We need something better than CoD, not Halo 4 with every CoD feature imaginable.

Name me 1 feature that halo copied from COD that COD did not take from another game.

Dont worry, I’ll wait.

> Catering to casual players?
>
> You’re joking.
>
> Customs: Fail.
> Theater: Fail.
> Forge: Fail.
> Matchmaking: Fail.
>
> If you’re saying they cater to casuals, you’re wrong. They’re catering to Noobs and CoD, hoping to get them to play Halo.
> Good players are mad. Casual players are mad. Forgers are mad. Machinima and filmers are mad.
>
> This game…

Sorry my definition of casual is very akin to noob. But in Halo 3, many casuals became competitive, so there are two kinds of casuals to me. The kinds that have potential and become competitive, and the ones that ar spray around every corner and dont care if they lose or not (basically noobs).

> If you were running a large company would your smartest choice be to a) cater to the larger % of people your business serves or b) cater to the smaller % of people your business serves?

You realize the question is bigger than this. I’m taking classes in both computer science and business/economics in college so I am privileged from being able to see this from two angles. I’m also an avid gamer and I love competitive games. You are supposed to cater to who will stay with your product for the longest time. You want to create something with replay value, something that people will keep and continue to play for a long time because something in the game keeps them there. Nothing in this game keeps competitive players. And casuals don’t stick with games in the first place.

Like I said, figuring out who to cater is also is based on psychology, another class I’ve taken. it is human nature to want to compete and be better than the other. However, we do not get this chance in Halo 4. We do not see our rank. We are not rewarded for being better. There is no skill gap.

Just go back and find out why Halo 3 and H2 were so successful, and tell me What H4 is missing from those. 343 can implement as many new features as they want as long as they keep skill and competitiveness, the arena shooter, than Halo has long been. But they removed all of that and dumbed the game down.

I thought this game would be at least be an improvement over Reach. Wrong! 343 ran Halo head first into a brick wall. I wonder what group of people 343 thought this game would appeal to. Themselves?

> > Microsoft has this flawed idea that making the game like CoD will make players stop playing CoD. We need something better than CoD, not Halo 4 with every CoD feature imaginable.
>
> Name me 1 feature that halo copied from COD that COD did not take from another game.
>
> Dont worry, I’ll wait.

Did I say that CoD created them? This post you made is one of the most repeated, and simultaneously flawed, statements I see on this forum.

Do you honestly think that without CoD’s rise to popularity, we would see Loadouts, Ordnance Drops, or AA’s?
Don’t worry, I’ll wait.