Why halo "must" become easier to play

The following is a post that I have made earlier in another forum. It compares a “new” (made up) game of kickball with halo, specifically how each new installment seems to become easier to play.

The optimal skill gap theory

Why is it that each halo game has become easier to play?

The answer is simple really, video games have turned into something that allows everyone to win. No more the fat kid being picked last for kickball… Why? If anyone makes contact with the ball it is an automatic homerun. What does it matter if he is fat when all he has to do is touch the ball.

Compare this example to halo. Hitting shots equals kicking the ball, fielding equals strafing. Well, in newer halos strafing has been weakened to the point of being useless. If we compared this to the “new” kickball game we would see that the kickball game now needs no fielders, why? Now that its based off the fact if someone kicks the ball its an automatic home run, that scenario can’t be fielded. The other possible outcome is that the kicker misses the ball, in which case again fielders are not necessary. Going back to halo it is now become a game where 1v1 battles are dependent on the OTHER person missing and an opponent has no chance to make the other guy miss. Instead it is a battle of who can have “perfect accuracy”.

In the kickball example the fat kid will still miss the ball from time to time while other “better” players well most likely hardly ever miss. This gives the illusion of a “skill gap” which in reality, is tiny at best. The question becomes why don’t game developers create a game where literally everyone wins all the time? The answer lies in the fact that they are more than likely trying to fake a significant skill gap. If everyone was the same skill level in a game even the fanboys would complain, then they too would want a higher skill gap to have a chance to proove how much more skilled they are than the players they play with. So what developers are trying to achieve is a skill gap that is small enough to give the largest majority of players a chance to be good at the game, while simultaneously creating a skill gap that is just big enough to trick that same majority of people into thinking that they are also better or worse than other players. Tbh they have tricked most of us, look at games like counterstrike and SC 2 or SC broodwar where the skill gap is so massive it makes halo look like a joke. In those games the skill gap difference between pro players is massive whereas in halo I would argue that its much smaller.

I feel another reason the developers have watered down halo’s skill gap is to push teamwork as more important than individual skill. Why would they do this? Well, whats harder losing as a team or by yourself? By pushing teamwork it gives “worse” gamers a scapegoat to blame on their loss, the team, rather than their individual skill. I mean individual skill is so meaningless that to blame it on yourself would be foolish.

I have made this post to bring this “theory” to the attention of this forum. More importantly I want to see what people think about the idea, whether its good, bad, crazy, ingenious, etc. Lastly I find it to be the best possible explanation for why certain features (skill based rank system, individual weapon modifiers, higher skill based aiming mechanics, faster strafe, and others) seem to be either ignored or put on the back burner for the development of most console fps shooters and more specifically halo 4. Granted there are many unknowns in what will come about to exist in Halo 4, the problem is that many features like individual weapon modifiers, higher skill based aiming mechanics, and others have been asked for by the community to be put into place in each successive halo. Unfortunately, these wants have been ignored and never realized in every single successive halo, to me there seems to be a pattern that cannot be ignored.

(modified tldr)
TL;DR The only explanation for watering down the skill gap is to make as many people as possible feel like they are good and succeeding at a game, while AT THE SAME TIME, giving the same majority of players just enough skill gap room to make these same players feel like others are failing at being better than them. The result is the “optimal skill gap” which not only allows the maximum amount of players to be “good” at a game but at the same time providing players with the illusion of being that much better than their fellow players. Doing this ensures that the player will continue to play the game because he/she is having a positive experience (rather than negative) with the game.

[deleted]

My take:

Is it that Halo must become simply easier? Or is it that Halo (and this applies to other games and series is the coming years) must become more intuitive by design?

> My take:
>
> Is it that Halo must become simply easier? Or is it that Halo (and this applies to other games and series is the coming years) must become more intuitive by design?

Could you explain what you mean by intuitive by design? I don’t understand what you mean.

> My take:
>
> Is it that Halo must become simply easier? Or is it that Halo (and this applies to other games and series is the coming years) must become more intuitive by design?

Intuitive does not equal easier. Besides, if anything, Halo is becoming only more counter-intuitive. A prime example of this is bloom, a mechanic that really makes the player wonder “what the heck am I supposed to do here” when they can’t find a rate of fire that is both consistent and cannot be beaten by shooting at a less consistent but faster rate of fire. Halo CE was very intuitive by design, there was just you, your opponents, the map and everything found lying around it. It was only your cabilities that decided do you win or not. That’s pretty much as intuitive as it gets.

this same thing is happening with schools, oh you can’t do it? we’ll make it easier!

it really annoys me, its just to keep people as happy mindless zombies to make them feel good about themselves for what ever particular reason, but in games, it really does not work because people by there very nature will fight over everything, they want to prove to their friends that they are good, with the game preventing them from doing so through the illusion of a skill gap causes them to get overly frustrated with the game.

Halo had an enormous skill gap in Halo 1. Like I would 15-0 my friends all the time in 1v1’s and -Yoink-. Halo 1 was very skilled and deep for a console game, so much so that the OGRES arguably the best Halo duo ever never lost a Halo 1 2v2 in tournament play. Just because this generation of Halo games is so easy soccer moms can go postitve, doesn’t mean it was always like that.

I do think however that Bungie and 343 could find more intuitive ways to cater to masses than simply dumbing down the game. That is not good for anyone really.

Also comparing completely different PC and console games is not very accurate. I have played various PC and console games that I would consider to be “skilled” games. Shadowrun was a console game that was wasnt a twitch shooter but was very deep and competitive.

> this same thing is happening with schools, oh you can’t do it? we’ll make it easier!
>
> it really annoys me, its just to keep people as happy mindless zombies to make them feel good about themselves for what ever particular reason, but in games, it really does not work because people by there very nature will fight over everything, they want to prove to their friends that they are good, with the game preventing them from doing so through the illusion of a skill gap causes them to get overly frustrated with the game.

It’s sad schools are turning to this strategy.

What can be truly frustrating is that even if the developer wants to go this route they seem to constantly refuse to give players the customization options to change the game to become more skillful. Things like aim assist modifiers or individual weapon modifiers could be given in custom game options to allow people to make a game that is harder and more challenging. For some reason though the options are never given… Remember when people wanted a bloom toggle option after the reach beta?

I don’t think Halo should become easier to play or easier at all. A much better way to make Halo open to inexperienced is to lower the kill times. By making Halo faster we give both noobs a chance to get kills and allow players to develop and learn how to get really good at the game.

There is no need to water-down Halo or the skill gap

It explains why the aim assist pulls my aim towards another guy even though i am trying to finish off the other :confused: The game is not be helpful this way rather, it’s counterproductive.

Things need to be reduced. Players don’t need the game to be aiming for them, that’s ridiculous. Not so much to CE levels (though that would be nice) but enough that my cursor moves where it needs to be and that’s that.

Lol reminds me of the massive skill gap in gears of war 2. No matter how hard i tried i couldnt get good at that damn game, was centered around the shotgun and i couldnt quite pull it off. Then there were the people who were amazing at it. We all know what they did to gears 3 though, it was changed to be more accomodating to all but the best players were still the best just not by as much. If halo had to go one way or the other id prefer the gears 3 balanced version over gears 2 unbalanced its no fun to get -Yoink- on constantly. Gears 3 still requires more individual skill to be good however. So i think gears 3 has it right fundamentally, a focus on individual skill but if you dont use teamwork you will probably still lose as a team.

> Lol reminds me of the massive skill gap in gears of war 2. No matter how hard i tried i couldnt get good at that damn game, was centered around the shotgun and i couldnt quite pull it off. Then there were the people who were amazing at it. We all know what they did to gears 3 though, it was changed to be more accomodating to all but the best players were still the best just not by as much. If halo had to go one way or the other id prefer the gears 3 balanced version over gears 2 unbalanced its no fun to get -Yoink- on constantly. Gears 3 still requires more individual skill to be good however. So i think gears 3 has it right fundamentally, a focus on individual skill but if you dont use teamwork you will probably still lose as a team.

You do realize most competitive GoW players think GoW 2 was a total noob fest compared to GoW 1 right(In part because it was centered around the sawed off shotgun)? GoW 3 really redeemed that franchise in the eyes of alot of players.

Hopefully H4 can be the same and redeem the franchise in the eyes of the veteran community.

Halo 2 was easily the Halo game with the most new guy friendly features, I loved it.

It was still an awesome game, like it or not, new fans are required for Halo to survive, the old population won’t be playing games forever.

> > My take:
> >
> > Is it that Halo must become simply easier? Or is it that Halo (and this applies to other games and series is the coming years) must become more intuitive by design?
>
> Could you explain what you mean by intuitive by design? I don’t understand what you mean.

Easier is simply making yourself and everyone more killy. Increasing the dakka and just letting everyone mash. Where players do not have to sacrifice anything to fufill a role for their team (mobility, etc). Halo really doesn’t need to go this direction.

What I’m going for by using the term intuitive is that everythings role ought to be readily learned or understood and sit right into its niche.

I’ve been gaming for a long time and one recurring theme I see is certain things becomes OP simply becuase they are well designed compared to everything else in the sandbox. So in and of themselves they’re not OP but nothing else is fitting their respective roles.

Wargear in game needs to become more intuitve. They need to what you think they do. What something is meant to do should be very very clear, and more often than not it should fufill its intended duty very well. Something that increase your energy pool for example ought to increase it noticeably; and an AV weapon will actually kill a tank. You should be able to gauge a feel for whether a piece of gear is helping you after one or two games max, without ever having to doubt whether you’re just not ‘using it right’.

I’m saying this because we’re now seeing player created loadout options and such. In context this means we can all now design our loadouts to deal with certain mobs and other player-types. You can supress, heavy-hit, go for AoE, plain shootout, etc. We then should be allowed to micro on our weaknesses and feel safe in the fact that our characters won’t fail at what we’ve set them up to do. Queing into a game and telling your team “I got AV” (AV in this context reffering to Anti-Vehicle Capabilities) is far more straightforward then trying to weave 3-5 different abilities across 3 guys without any one player-setup being able to do jack on its own.

I think the fundamental point of success now with the new design for competetive and co-op multiplayer with these wargear loadouts is to be able to reliably hard-counter some type of enemy of your choosing. So that team composition can be more readily handled based not only on individual preferences and skill in certain areas but also map/gametype and the mission at hand.

My issue is that I don’t see 343 pulling that off on the first go with Halo 4. Some of the specializations may very well end up being out-classed or just simply out-weighed by others. Which is fine in small cases.

I’m just taking this from an RTS/MOBA player standpoint. Where in characters and abilities or units/abilites fit certain roles and have hard-counters. Armor abilities changed the Halo landscape from map-design and beyond and the inclusion of loadouts is only going to increase that. So instead of shoe-horning it in time should be taken to make sure everything fits as intended and designed around the whole of the game.

Halo doesn’t necessarily need to become easier. It would certainly be simpler to just go that route when designing the game. Toss in whatever wargear packages you want and see how it goes. Reduce the skill gap and just let everyone murder each other without any real solid roles in teamplay.

I would much rather see well designed weapons, abilities, and perks that help a player identify a certain role and tailor themselves to playing that role well. So that teams can have very cleary identified support, AV, suppressors, carries, pushers, etc. Since well it’s now a little too late to go back to the original trilogy mechanics.

> Halo 2 was easily the Halo game with the most new guy friendly features, I loved it.
>
> It was still an awesome game, like it or not, new fans are required for Halo to survive, the old population won’t be playing games forever.

Many would disagree, due to fast kill times, fast strafes, button combos etc.

I understand why developers try to find the “optimal skill gap”, I just wish they would give players the chance to make the game harder through customization options.

> I understand what your saying and tbh I don’t know how I feel about it. But what my OP is more geared toward is the basic components like aiming in fps that seem to become more and more dumbed down with each successive game. I might actually like what your talking about if the aiming mechanics and other things become harder to do, thus creating a higher skill gap.

What has happened in games these days is a shame. I always found it weird how now people who are new to gaming have to be catered to so much. I wasn’t catered to when I started off. I got beat into the ground until I was good enough hold my own then eventually get to a decent level of skill. The excuse is that now that gaminghas become so widely accepted that we have to keep peoples attention and they won’t stay if it’s to hard. Well years ago all those who started off could have quit just because it was to hard, but we didn’t we kept playing and got better.

Keep in mind I don’t think new players should be ignored. I think that the game should cater to who ever plays it. I just notice trend where new players get things to make them better or appear better, however the hardcore player doesn’t benefit at all. But I digress. Here’s hoping Halo 4 brings back the franchise. 343i make it happen.

No

It should take time and practice to get good at something. A progression ranking system and gimmick playlists like Griffball and Action Sack should be enough to appease these players, not dumbing down the entire game to the extent where anyone can be good after about 5 minutes.

> Halo 2 was easily the Halo game with the most new guy friendly features, I loved it.
>
> It was still an awesome game, like it or not, new fans are required for Halo to survive, the old population won’t be playing games forever.

Believe it or not, many of the supposed “noob-friendly” features in H2 were to speed up the game like health regen, dual-wielding, and no fall damage. H2 was definitely easier than H1, but I think many times as gamers we see things as being “dumbed down” or “catered to noobs” when it could very well be just to speed up game pace or get rid of unnecessary clutter in the game systems. We dont know what the developers are thinking with all of their decisions, so its kind of hard to know what the intention of changing or adding a new feature is when it could very well be for reasons unbeknownst to us. So we call it “catering to noobs” out of ignorance even if it really does make it less competitive. Its also good to note that different devs have worked on each Halo game, and have different views on game mechanics and different ideas for the game.

> > I understand what your saying and tbh I don’t know how I feel about it. But what my OP is more geared toward is the basic components like aiming in fps that seem to become more and more dumbed down with each successive game. I might actually like what your talking about if the aiming mechanics and other things become harder to do, thus creating a higher skill gap.
>
> Oh yeah I’d be happier with what you’re suggesting as well in tandem.
>
> By creating definitive roles and having teams compete against these roles would increase the skill gap by forcing players to have better team make up in competetive play. I mean we might see more rage here and there because when you’re playing with randoms they’ll be doing whatever they want which might weaken your team overall.
>
> But any good player ought to be able to carry a little bit.
>
>
> That’s just what I see when I see the new direction of MP design.