Why halo needs to go back to its roots

Unless you have been living under a rock in the waypoint world, then you know that it is like WW3 between the New Reach fans/ and the Conservative halo 2/3 fans.

I, like most people on this forum, want halo 4 to be the best game it possible can be. I think in order for halo to be successful, and take back the fps crown, it has to go back to its roots.

I am still playing reach, and although i like it (Not as much as halo 3), It does not feel like a halo game. I hate armor lock and other abilities,but at this point I don’t even care about it.

The Halo 3 system worked. When bungie made reach they took everything good about the old system, and threw it out the window. Halo 3 was the most played 360 game for 25 months and then it was at #2 for another 9. Halo 3 put MLG on the map, Created Machinima.Reach destroyed the ranking system, MLG, and the casual community. The numbers talk, when halo 3 was around its 18 month mark it still had always 250K+, Reach barely has 80K. Reach drove away alot of the community because A) The armor abilities or B) The way it is played. People on this forum are still calling for halo 4 to be reach 1.5, when reach drove away the community?? I just don’t get it?

Making halo 4 like reach is like making reach like ODST. Just because It is older doesn’t mean all the future games should be like that. Reach was a Spin-off . Reach has nothing to do with the original trilogy and should not be in halo 4.

I am not afraid of change I just don’t think halo reach is the type of halo I fell in love with. I want change but not like reach, because it is to Radical and does not play like Halo.

In conclusion, I think 343 will make a grave mistake if they make Halo 4 more like halo reach than halo2/3. They will see it in the population, reviews and sales.

Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. You’re arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.

You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.

> Unless you have been living under a rock in the waypoint world, then you know that it is like WW3 between the <mark>New Reach fans/ and the Conservative halo 2/3 fans</mark>.
>
> I, like most people on this forum, want halo 4 to be the best game it possible can be. I think in order for halo to be successful, and take back the fps crown, it has to go back to its roots.
>
> I am still playing reach, and although i like it (Not as much as halo 3), It does not feel like a halo game. I hate armor lock and other abilities,but at this point I don’t even care about it.
>
> The Halo 3 system worked. When bungie made reach they took everything good about the old system, and threw it out the window. Halo 3 was the most played 360 game for 25 months and then it was at #2 for another 9. Halo 3 put MLG on the map, Created Machinima.Reach destroyed the ranking system, MLG, and the casual community. The numbers talk, when halo 3 was around its 18 month mark it still had always 250K+, Reach barely has 80K. Reach drove away alot of the community because A) The armor abilities or B) The way it is played. People on this forum are still calling for halo 4 to be reach 1.5, when reach drove away the community?? I just don’t get it?
>
> Making halo 4 like reach is like making reach like ODST. Just because It is older doesn’t mean all the future games should be like that. Reach was a Spin-off . Reach has nothing to do with the original trilogy and should not be in halo 4.
>
> I am not afraid of change I just don’t think halo reach is the type of halo I fell in love with. I want change but not like reach, because it is to Radical and does not play like Halo.
>
> In conclusion, I think 343 will make a grave mistake if they make Halo 4 more like halo reach than halo2/3. They will see it in the population, reviews and sales.

Stopped reading after <mark>this</mark>
Whats with all the extremists?

You assume that just because someone doesnt agree with another, that one is a “new reach” player and the other is a “conservative” halo2/3 player

I have been playing Halo since CE and LOVED every Halo game made and I am looking forward to the changes made in Halo 4. You guys need to stop it with the black and white thinking because the world is full of grey areas.

> Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. Your arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
>
> You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.

Once again change for the sake of change is a bad thing. If something isn’t broken then why fix it? The trilogy was fine and worked, Reach didn’t. So why should you incorporate things from a bad game when you have 3 good one’s to base a new game off of.

> Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. Your arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
>
> You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.

Reach was updated into ‘something else’.
Look how it turned out.
In-case you didn’t read, the OP put population statistics up.

So you’re wrong. He did have hard numbers and proof to back his claims up. What are you trying to say?

> > Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. Your arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
> >
> > You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.
>
> Once again change for the sake of change is a bad thing. If something isn’t broken then why fix it? The trilogy was fine and worked, Reach didn’t. So why should you incorporate things from a bad game when you have 3 good one’s to base a new game off of.

I agree that change for the sake of change is not necessarily good for the game. But saying that there was nothing which could be improved upon in the original trilogy gameplay is foolish.

You say that the trilogy worked and Reach didn’t, that’s not saying anything. There is no weight to that, you’ve put nothing behind it. Explain why you think the trilogy worked and Reach did not. Why was Reach a bad game?

Halo 4 should create its own experience for a new trilogy using what was good about all the games which preceded it and improving on and changing what may have been damaging to their gameplay. As well, if certain new features are deemed to be beneficial to the gameplay then it’s reasonable that they be added, whether they coincide with previous games’ gameplay or not. This is how Halo 4 can become a great Haalo game while still progressing the series rather than letting it stagnate in decade old gameplay.

> Reach was updated into ‘something else’.
> Look how it turned out.
> In-case you didn’t read, the OP put population statistics up.
>
>
> So you’re wrong. He did have hard numbers and proof to back his claims up. What are you trying to say?

Go back and read the first paragraph of my post.

Population statistics do not speak to the quality of the game. There is a cornucopia of variables taking effect on the outcome of the statistics, and even if we could exclude things like competition between games, popularity still wouldn’t mean quality.

When Einstein said that the WW4 would be with sticks and rock he meant Halo had to stick with that.

I don’t want the next Halo games to be the exact same formula, don’t know about you.

Roots?

You mean the only REAL Halo game Halo CE?

Halo 2/3 are just noob shooters with a bunch gimmicks and aim assist lol…

Nothing to be considered “roots” of Halo in those games lol.

> > > Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. Your arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
> > >
> > > You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.
> >
> > Once again change for the sake of change is a bad thing. If something isn’t broken then why fix it? The trilogy was fine and worked, Reach didn’t. So why should you incorporate things from a bad game when you have 3 good one’s to base a new game off of.
>
> I agree that change for the sake of change is not necessarily good for the game. But saying that there was nothing which could be improved upon in the original trilogy gameplay is foolish.
>
> You say that the trilogy worked and Reach didn’t, that’s not saying anything. There is no weight to that, you’ve put nothing behind it. Explain why you think the trilogy worked and Reach did not. Why was Reach a bad game?
>
> Halo 4 should create its own experience for a new trilogy using what was good about all the games which preceded it and improving on and changing what may have been damaging to their gameplay. As well, if certain new features are deemed to be beneficial to the gameplay then it’s reasonable that they be added, whether they coincide with previous games’ gameplay or not. This is how Halo 4 can become a great Haalo game while still progressing the series rather than letting it stagnate in decade old gameplay.
>
>
> > Reach was updated into ‘something else’.
> > Look how it turned out.
> > In-case you didn’t read, the OP put population statistics up.
> >
> >
> > So you’re wrong. He did have hard numbers and proof to back his claims up. What are you trying to say?
>
> Go back and read the first paragraph of my post.
>
> Population statistics do not speak to the quality of the game. There is a cornucopia of variables taking effect on the outcome of the statistics, and even if we could exclude things like competition between games, popularity still wouldn’t mean quality.

Does it speak of the quality in general? Yes.
Does it speak of the quality that one person thinks it contains? No.

More people like CoD than Halo. More people like Fifa than Halo. Does this mean they are better games than Halo? Yes. They kept more people entertained for longer periods of time than Reach did.

> Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. You’re arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
>
> You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.

Quoted for truth and i completely agree.

The FPS shooter community has changed alot since 2007. This delusion that halo 4 playing like halo 2 & 3 will “save halo” is completely illogical. 343i knows alot about the fps community and what the majority wants. They also know how halo should feel.

If the hardcore / competitive / long term fans that dont want halo 4 unless it is 100% like the old games then they are out of luck cause halo will keep evolving.

Not go backwards that would DEFINITELY kill the franchise lol

> > > > Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. Your arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
> > > >
> > > > You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.
> > >
> > > Once again change for the sake of change is a bad thing. If something isn’t broken then why fix it? The trilogy was fine and worked, Reach didn’t. So why should you incorporate things from a bad game when you have 3 good one’s to base a new game off of.
> >
> > I agree that change for the sake of change is not necessarily good for the game. But saying that there was nothing which could be improved upon in the original trilogy gameplay is foolish.
> >
> > You say that the trilogy worked and Reach didn’t, that’s not saying anything. There is no weight to that, you’ve put nothing behind it. Explain why you think the trilogy worked and Reach did not. Why was Reach a bad game?
> >
> > Halo 4 should create its own experience for a new trilogy using what was good about all the games which preceded it and improving on and changing what may have been damaging to their gameplay. As well, if certain new features are deemed to be beneficial to the gameplay then it’s reasonable that they be added, whether they coincide with previous games’ gameplay or not. This is how Halo 4 can become a great Haalo game while still progressing the series rather than letting it stagnate in decade old gameplay.
> >
> >
> > > Reach was updated into ‘something else’.
> > > Look how it turned out.
> > > In-case you didn’t read, the OP put population statistics up.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you’re wrong. He did have hard numbers and proof to back his claims up. What are you trying to say?
> >
> > Go back and read the first paragraph of my post.
> >
> > Population statistics do not speak to the quality of the game. There is a cornucopia of variables taking effect on the outcome of the statistics, and even if we could exclude things like competition between games, popularity still wouldn’t mean quality.
>
> Does it speak of the quality in general? Yes.
> Does it speak of the quality that one person thinks it contains? No.
>
> More people like CoD than Halo. More people like Fifa than Halo. Does this mean they are better games than Halo? Yes. They kept more people entertained for longer periods of time than Reach did.

FYI they kept people entertained longer because they ARE EXTREMELY EASY TO PICKUP GAMES! how many times do i have to say this on this forum?? every other forum this has been said everyone gets it. But this forum is having some serious comprehension problems.

COD IS AN EASY pickup shooter that ANYONE can get kills and feel good at! Thats why people keep buying it by the millions and playing it. Its the same dry easy multiplayer every game and thats what most of the casuals want, a shooter they can just put in and get kills.

Halo USED to be that game before cod. Do you really want halo to be number 1 at that cost? You really want it to be some easy watered down shooter that anyone can get kills in? Cause thats what it takes to be number one against easy games like cod and fifa.

> Unless you have been living under a rock in the waypoint world, then you know that it is like WW3 between the New Reach fans/ and the Conservative halo 2/3 fans.
>
> I, like most people on this forum, want halo 4 to be the best game it possible can be. I think in order for halo to be successful, and take back the fps crown, it has to go back to its roots.
>
> I am still playing reach, and although i like it (Not as much as halo 3), It does not feel like a halo game. I hate armor lock and other abilities,but at this point I don’t even care about it.
>
> The Halo 3 system worked. When bungie made reach they took everything good about the old system, and threw it out the window. Halo 3 was the most played 360 game for 25 months and then it was at #2 for another 9. Halo 3 put MLG on the map, Created Machinima.Reach destroyed the ranking system, MLG, and the casual community. <mark>The numbers talk, when halo 3 was around its 18 month mark it still had always 250K+, Reach barely has 80K.</mark> Reach drove away alot of the community because A) The armor abilities or B) The way it is played. People on this forum are still calling for halo 4 to be reach 1.5, when reach drove away the community?? I just don’t get it?
>
> Making halo 4 like reach is like making reach like ODST. Just because It is older doesn’t mean all the future games should be like that. Reach was a Spin-off . Reach has nothing to do with the original trilogy and should not be in halo 4.
>
> I am not afraid of change I just don’t think halo reach is the type of halo I fell in love with. I want change but not like reach, because it is to Radical and does not play like Halo.
>
> In conclusion, I think 343 will make a grave mistake if they make Halo 4 more like halo reach than halo2/3. They will see it in the population, reviews and sales.

Halo 3’s population counter accounted for every player in the last 24 hours. Reach only accounts for the players on at that given moment.

You want it to be the best it can be eh? Well then let i continue the way its going, because at the moment we have no idea what this game is going to be like, or how its going to role out. We have seen 2 minutes of gameplay, so how exactly can we judge this game yet, or tell 343 to do somthing about things that we have no idea how they are implemnted.

Just trust 343i please.

> > Unless you have been living under a rock in the waypoint world, then you know that it is like WW3 between the New Reach fans/ and the Conservative halo 2/3 fans.
> >
> > I, like most people on this forum, want halo 4 to be the best game it possible can be. I think in order for halo to be successful, and take back the fps crown, it has to go back to its roots.
> >
> > I am still playing reach, and although i like it (Not as much as halo 3), It does not feel like a halo game. I hate armor lock and other abilities,but at this point I don’t even care about it.
> >
> > The Halo 3 system worked. When bungie made reach they took everything good about the old system, and threw it out the window. Halo 3 was the most played 360 game for 25 months and then it was at #2 for another 9. Halo 3 put MLG on the map, Created Machinima.Reach destroyed the ranking system, MLG, and the casual community. <mark>The numbers talk, when halo 3 was around its 18 month mark it still had always 250K+, Reach barely has 80K.</mark> Reach drove away alot of the community because A) The armor abilities or B) The way it is played. People on this forum are still calling for halo 4 to be reach 1.5, when reach drove away the community?? I just don’t get it?
> >
> > Making halo 4 like reach is like making reach like ODST. Just because It is older doesn’t mean all the future games should be like that. Reach was a Spin-off . Reach has nothing to do with the original trilogy and should not be in halo 4.
> >
> > I am not afraid of change I just don’t think halo reach is the type of halo I fell in love with. I want change but not like reach, because it is to Radical and does not play like Halo.
> >
> > In conclusion, I think 343 will make a grave mistake if they make Halo 4 more like halo reach than halo2/3. They will see it in the population, reviews and sales.
>
> Halo 3’s population counter accounted for every player in the last 24 hours. Reach only accounts for the players on at that given moment.

Thank you ! Finally someone else actually knows about this. I cant believe people thought that there were 600,000 playing halo 3 at the same time on most days a year and a half after it came out lmao.

Ok, let me say this again to the reach haters.

REACH WAS SUPPOSED TO FEEL DIFFERENT. YOU NEED TO REALISE YOU WERENT SUPPOSED TO FEEL LIKE MASTER CHIEF YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO FEEL LIKE A SPARTAN III. MY GOD THEY SAID IT OURTIGHT AS THEY WERE MAKING IT. “This game will be like nothing you have expeirienced in halo beofre.”

The only bad thinga bout reach was the way the chagnes were implemented and the horrible colour pallet. Stop flaming reach and get over it ok? Becauser each happened, and continueing to flame it after it came out over a year and a half ago is pointless and stupid.

Can we truist 343 to implement the changes right please?

Halo’s roots? That means you’re talking about Combat Evolved. So… you want a 343i to not really care about the multiplayer mode, then decide what the hell and tack one on in the last few weeks? Fair enough.

> > Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. You’re arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
> >
> > You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.
>
> Quoted for truth and i completely agree.
>
> The FPS shooter community has changed alot since 2007. This delusion that halo 4 playing like halo 2 & 3 will “save halo” is completely illogical. 343i knows alot about the fps community and what the majority wants. They also know how halo should feel.
>
> If the hardcore / competitive / long term fans that dont want halo 4 unless it is 100% like the old games then they are out of luck cause halo will keep evolving.
>
> Not go backwards that would DEFINITELY kill the franchise lol

No one ever said that they didn’t want Halo to change, unless it was purely sarcastic.
And what do you think the majority wants? As far as I’m concerned, the majority quit Halo after Reach.

I don’t understand where you’re getting your arguments from. We don’t want H4 to fail, because it’s incorporating Reach ideas, and Reach did fail. If Reach can maintain a population of over 120-150k until H5 comes out, it can be considered a success.

> Ok, let me say this again to the reach haters.
>
> REACH WAS SUPPOSED TO FEEL DIFFERENT. YOU NEED TO REALISE YOU WERENT SUPPOSED TO FEEL LIKE MASTER CHIEF YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO FEEL LIKE A SPARTAN III. MY GOD THEY SAID IT OURTIGHT AS THEY WERE MAKING IT. “This game will be like nothing you have expeirienced in halo beofre.”
>
> The only bad thinga bout reach was the way the chagnes were implemented and the horrible colour pallet. Stop flaming reach and get over it ok? Becauser each happened, and continueing to flame it after it came out over a year and a half ago is pointless and stupid.
>
> Can we truist 343 to implement the changes right please?

Agreed. people are using bungies game from two thousand and F*ing ten to dictate how halo 4 will play out. A game that is being made by people who CARE ABOUT THE ORIGINAL HALO FEEL. That means even with these changes the gameplay will still be fast paced, varied and balanced.

Yet people would just keep raging and whining over reach. 343 with a simple title update made reach MUCH more enjoyable than the default settings, so imagine what they can do with halo 4, a game they have been working on since ODST :slight_smile:

> > > Thing is, what a Halo game “feels like,” is changing. You’re arguing against change without reason to back it up. The amount of people who play a game is not a signifier of how good that game is now is it? Popularity does not dictate quality.
> > >
> > > You have nothing backing up your assertion that reverting gameplay back to the original trilogy style will make Halo 4 better and likewise nothing supporting the idea that updating the gameplay from the decade old original trilogy core will be a bad step forward.
> >
> > Quoted for truth and i completely agree.
> >
> > The FPS shooter community has changed alot since 2007. This delusion that halo 4 playing like halo 2 & 3 will “save halo” is completely illogical. 343i knows alot about the fps community and what the majority wants. They also know how halo should feel.
> >
> > If the hardcore / competitive / long term fans that dont want halo 4 unless it is 100% like the old games then they are out of luck cause halo will keep evolving.
> >
> > Not go backwards that would DEFINITELY kill the franchise lol
>
> No one ever said that they didn’t want Halo to change, unless it was purely sarcastic.
> And what do you think the majority wants? As far as I’m concerned, the majority quit Halo after Reach.
>
> I don’t understand where you’re getting your arguments from. We don’t want H4 to fail, because it’s incorporating Reach ideas, and Reach did fail. If Reach can maintain a population of over 120-150k until H5 comes out, it can be considered a success.

REACH DID NOT FAIL! it has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of players EACH DAY! its in the TOP 5 of all games played on xbox live! That is in NO WAY a fail my god stop using YOUR views on reach to dictate whether it succeeded or failed it makes you look so flawed.

It sold millions, hundreds of thousands still play it. IT succeeded no matter what your opinion on the game is.

As for halo 4 alot of people on this forum are saying they want halo 4 like halo 2 or halo 3. you have to be blind to not see these threads popping up demanding this and its stupid.

And finally the cherry on the sundae as to how illogical you are, you think that just because it will have some things from reach, it will make halo 4 fail. Even though you have NO IDEA what kind of game halo 4 is yet, and you have NO IDEA the full scope of what 343 has been building for over 3 years, and you have NO IDEA at all how these ideas from reach will be implemented yet you think you have the right to declare halo 4 a failure? Because of reach implements ? lmao

Everything negatively you say about halo 4 stems from YOUR OPINION that halo reach failed. That is why your logic is so flawed. If you can actually come up with some FACT that reach failed your argument would be much better supported. But no matter how much you compare reach to halo 3, and no matter how much you say halo fans quit it, halo reach was a success. Millions of copies sold, top 5 on the played charts with hundreds of thousands playing it makes halo reach a SUCCESS. You simply cannot say it fails with those kind of numbers

Want to see a fail game? Gears of war 3 failed. They spent almost 3 years on that game. And its in the low end of the top 10. It just came out in september and had so much hype but look at it now.

Reach stayed strong and came out 1 and a half years ago and is back in the top 5. its proved its worth and that also backs up its success :slight_smile:

It seems Halo 4 will be straying as far away as possible from classic Halo ;_;