> Since when does the word “twitch” even remotely relate to “multiple spawn options”?
Since it doesn’t really matter what spawn options you’ll pick because you’ll die in 0.2 seconds anyway. In shooters with 1+ second kill times (i.e slower-paced i.e. “arena shooters”), multiple spawn options make a much bigger difference. Even shootin sammy acknowledges this.
> > Halo has always been about out skilling your opponent to gain the advantage of a certain weapon, AA’s and load outs stop this.
>
> I used to have to work so hard to instantly grab an SMG next to my base at round start on The Pit, then keep doing it every 30 seconds or less while my average life was around the same time. It was such a highly contested item too, to the point my teammates would call out every time someone took one and watch the enemy’s SMG spawn to record every time the enemy grabbed one. It’s not like anyone ever grabbed one without it being noticed, how chaotic and unpredictable would that be. And what a giant advantage that specific weapon gave me. It would be such a tragedy to let an SMG fall in enemy hands, good thing we always stopped by their base every thirty seconds to prevent that from happening.
>
> Thank god loadouts didn’t exist to break this highly competitive, predictable, and strategic method of weapon acquiring in Halo 3. Except people still commonly had a niche weapon that you could hardly predict or prevent them from acquiring that had almost no effect on the match regardless of being randomly obtained or not.
>
> Frankly if you’re so -Yoink!- about preventing asymmetric gameplay why even let people gain a different gun to begin with? What’s the difference if someone spawned or grabbed an SMG if they have still have one while you don’t? Isn’t it ‘unfair’ in an actual fight either way? Why have more than one gun in the game if it potentially leads to a battle where both players aren’t the same? Why are loadouts taboo but power weapons acceptable when power weapons give even more supreme advantages and make players even more disparate in effectiveness? Because you have to “earn” them by killing some people one time so you can grab them?
This is one of the very, VERY few counters to my side that has made me think. A very good rebuttal.
I still prefer zero loadouts, but that was one of the best responses I’ve read here.
Yes, we don’t know when the other team has grabbed an insignificant weapon 99% of the time, but the person still had to go out of their way or do something in order to obtain that difference.
Still. Well done.
I use to think like you did. That having a Classic and Infinity Playlist would please both groups. This is the easiest way to try please everyone but IMO not the right path.
I have now changed this thought. As this will only split the community more, and future Halo titles would struggle to identify themselves.
We need a Hybrid, where the best aspects are taken that improve the game. Any aspect that does not improve the game and can not be changed is dropped.
Halo needs to return to a competitive Arena Shooter that is fun for everyone.
H2 and H3 were this. It can happen again. I admit most if not all Infinity Settings would be dropped and many new additions featured in H4. I do think a simpler laodout system to H4 could work, with the removal of the weapons that cause issues, the removal of Perks and AA to once again to Map Pickup. We would have a much better game.
You look to your past to see what you did right and wrong, H4 is in the past too. Take the features from all games that worked and have improved Halo. Remove or fix the things that did not.
I have enjoyed all Halo games, I enjoy H4 very much, but see its flaws. But another TU and it could be the best Halo. I have great hopes for H5. 343 have learned a lot from H4. They did many things right, but unfortunately did many things wrong.
343 will learn from this, and try their best to get a Halo that pleases everyone, not an easy task.
What people forget is that game developers now measure success of game in the $$$ they make from it and not from how popular it is or how long people keep playing it for. Pure and simple. Do you really think investors care whether you are still playing the game a month after release. No they want you to go and buy something else so they can make more money. Remember its their $$$ that pay for the game to be developed and they expect a return. Halo 4 was a good example of that. They brought in new features to attract new players to sell more copies.
343 will make the game the best they can to earn $$$ for their shareholders. It is a simple as that. They will build up the hype so everyone will pre order the game and upon release thats it they have made their money. What ever happens after that is mute. It will be onto the next game.
> What people forget is that game developers now measure success of game in the $$$ they make from it and not from how popular it is or how long people keep playing it for. Pure and simple. Do you really think investors care whether you are still playing the game a month after release. No they want you to go and buy something else so they can make more money. Remember its their $$$ that pay for the game to be developed and they expect a return. Halo 4 was a good example of that. They brought in new features to attract new players to sell more copies.
>
> 343 will make the game the best they can to earn $$$ for their shareholders. It is a simple as that. They will build up the hype so everyone will pre order the game and upon release thats it they have made their money. What ever happens after that is mute. It will be onto the next game.
Yes Slayer you are right about $$$. But if 343 want Halo to be successful for many years to come, they can’t think they can release a crap game and think it will sell because it has the Halo name on it. It may trick people once or twice. But people will begin to hate the brand, and future products will fail.
But if 343 do want to continue to be successful for years to come, they really need to take a good hard look at what made H2/H3 multiplayer successful years after launch, and why REACH and H4 population dwindled within a year.
Think about this, OP.
Compare Halo’s Matchmaking to the Godzilla series.
Like Halo’s matchmaking, there are different (or rather “similar” if you’d like to go with that) types of Godzilla movies, some different but most are similar enough that they don’t deviate away from the formula.
You have the Toho originals, the Showa (I’d compare this to say, Halo: CE and Halo 2’s matchmaking). These are where the ground roots of the system take place. This is the building blocks for Godzilla (or Halo).
Then you have the Heisei series (where the movies are different, but still similar enough to the original Godzilla movies). I’d compare this to Halo 3 and maybe Halo Reach, because while it is different from the first two Halo’s, they’re still similar enough they don’t confuse the players that much- the core’s still there, but there’s some…flavor, to it.
…But then, you have the 1998 Godzilla. I’d compare that to Halo 4’s Infinity Matchmaking. It’s such a mess it doesn’t even know what it is or what it’s trying to be, “Godzilla” is completely different from the Godzilla we grew up with and love. Yeah, it was successful, but a lot of people hate it because it didn’t stick with the formula.
For Halo 5 to succeed, we don’t need another 1998 Godzilla; we need a “Legendary Pictures Godzilla”, a Halo that is still similar to the original, but different enough that it’s not a carbon copy-paste.
The “Legendary Pictures Godzilla” doesn’t go backwards, however. Instead, it goes forward with what it’s got and makes use of what it worked with, improve what didn’t work, and throw away what didn’t need to be there in the first place. That’s what Halo needs to do: stick with its roots, but take what worked and try to improve what didn’t work, just like the new Godzilla movie did.
That is to say, I don’t think that Halo 4 was not a bad game (rather, it was a good game), it just didn’t know what it’s matchmaking was trying to be.
Halo 4 brought in many features, such as Personal Ordnance and a big loadout feature, that were supposed to help new players. Instead, they drove most new players and old players away from the game as it ended up being a complicated mess that didn’t attract either side. Instead of helping them, they frustrated them, causing players to more than likely not return to the game.
343’s idea to dumb down players doesn’t work. If they wanted to solve the problem of players not UNDERSTANDING what to do in this game, they need to make LEARNING the game easier. This can be accomplished with Training modes, tutorials, AI controlled opponents, and so on, in-game to explain why doing things a certain way is important.
Anatomy and Physiology is a hard course, but they don’t dumb down the content in response to low test scores. Instead, they teach in different ways to make the content understandable, such as culture references (Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Blood, Sugar, -Yoink!- Magic album being a comparison to the Adrenal Glands’ layers’ function), hands-on learning, or straight up 1-on-1 tutoring. If something as hard as giving out an in-depth explanation of the human body, one of the most complicated things to learn, can be taught in a way an idiot like myself can learn it, 343 can be able to attract people in different teaching methods to get them playing. Slap achievements to them and there you go.
Introduce mechanics that don’t conflict with the game everyone is familiar with ands you can expand the audience better than what 343 attempted to do. You want more players? Give them knowledge of how to play the game so they can start enjoying the game earlier and the game will better as a whole. Better matches, better que times, more likely to get DLC purchased and so on.
> Halo 4 brought in many features, such as Personal Ordnance and a big loadout feature, that were supposed to help new players. Instead, they drove most new players and old players away from the game as it ended up being a complicated mess that didn’t attract either side. Instead of helping them, they frustrated them, causing players to more than likely not return to the game.
Everyone assumes that 343i added these new features to “cater to n00bs” and “help new players”, but I seriously doubt that was the primary motivation behind the ones you list. Aim assist, going to hitscan but retaining bullet magnetism, and slowing movement helps new players . . . adding a bunch of complexity with weapons, AAs, and perks does the opposite. The features you mention were likely added to try to get crossover interest from other shooters, which have features that are similar in concept.
POD was a bad idea. It doesn’t help new players, either. All it does is give the better players better weapons to kill the new players faster. So if that was the idea behind it, it failed. I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was simply to reward good play with better weapons as a type of mini gun-game because those features are favorably received in other shooters. Regardless of their intent, POD was a bad idea. I hope it does not hang around for H5. To be honest, I really doubt they keep that feature. I think it will disappear.
Loadouts, though, have nothing to do with “helping new players”. Loadouts were provided to allow people to choose how they wanted to play and to support commendation attainment. There were three mistakes here: first, loadouts included weapons that should not have been included (namely, PP, PG, BS, and perhaps DMR and LR). Second, the added customization with all of the perks and AAs was excessive (8 * 10 * 13 = 1,024 total combinations for AAs / perks). This doesn’t help new players . . . it bewilders them. Third, the commendation setup was lazy, especially when it came to weapon kills. Loadouts were almost certainly an attempt to get crossover from other FPSs where customization is a standard expectation. It certainly wasn’t there to “help” new players.
Prior to the release of H4, Frank O’Connor went on record saying they hired people who hated Halo in an effort to improve it. He did not say (and they did not hire) people who were complete ignoramuses with respect to the shooter genre. They hired people who wanted to bring features from other games (that they enjoyed) to supplement Halo’s gameplay (that they did not enjoy). This was an attempt to expand the fan base. It failed, and I expect they will jettison or gut many of those features. Helping new players is a separate issue.
> 343’s idea to dumb down players doesn’t work. If they wanted to solve the problem of players not UNDERSTANDING what to do in this game, they need to make LEARNING the game easier. This can be accomplished with Training modes, tutorials, AI controlled opponents, and so on, in-game to explain why doing things a certain way is important.
Again, I don’t think the items to which you object were “dumbing” down Halo. Those items - due to their complexity - likely made understanding the game more difficult for brand-new players while simultaneously disrupting the expected gameplay for the returning players.
With that said, I fully support the ideas you list for helping new players. Those are good ideas and I hope that 343i is already implementing them.
> Introduce mechanics that don’t conflict with the game everyone is familiar with ands you can expand the audience better than what 343 attempted to do. You want more players? Give them knowledge of how to play the game so they can start enjoying the game earlier and the game will better as a whole. Better matches, better que times, more likely to get DLC purchased and so on.
I could not agree more (except that I want them to get their DLC revenue from something other than MP maps).
> Why should they? Isn’t a new game supposed to have addition rather than subtraction? If you honestly think taking away AA’s and Loadouts are going to save Halo, you’re wrong.
>
> This is my idea for what 343i could do to please both audiences.
>
> Just like Halo 3, have a social and ranked playlist. For ranked playlist you could have a Halo 3 1-50 True Skill system. And that rank is marked as your RANKED Playlist Rank. Make the gametypes in this playlist like “classic” Halo, where you have no loadouts, no AA’s, no ordnance.
>
> For Social, have a Social rank, or “SR” but instead of Spartan Rank it could stand for “Social Rank”. Have the rank like Reach and Halo 4’s credit system. And have any new additions like AA’s, Loadouts, ordnance. This is a way to possibly please both types of Halo players.
>
> Obviously this idea isn’t perfect, there probably are flaws in it, but there needs to be some way to please both sides. I mean we can’t expect 343i to just remove every addition they have made just because most of us love Halo 3 and 2 more than the new games.
>
> Another idea, please fix the menu system, just…please.
Looks like we have another one of “these” threads again. For the last time it wouldn’t be going backwards, it would be going back to Halo. All games that have went down a similar path have always failed or was failing before a reboot (aka going back to what the game actual is) turned things around. There are many examples, Socom being one of them were incompetent new hires added COD elements to a game it was not meant for, wanted for, or even made sense in and the fans turned on it and the game franchise suffered incredible damage. Just like the Halo 4 situation. That was not improvements being added to Socom, that was them making a 3rd person COD game. There is a difference.
But you are right a new game should have additions and improvements. In Halo 4 they didn’t do that as much as they made a non-Halo game and called it Halo 4. Again there is a difference.
If they can remove an incredible amount of things that made Halo “Halo”, then surely they can remove the stuff added to Reach and Halo 4 that has proven detrimental and down right simply not working with this type of game. And if something doesn’t work and is hated by the MAJORITY, then not removing it is pretty stupid don’t you think? Since when has it ever made sense to stay the course when something has not be successful or even good, just because of what? Ego? I seriously don’t know what would keep any person with a brain and some desire to succeed at their jobs from removing stuff that is hurting the game.
So yes we can and DO expect 343i to remove the garbage. They made a mistake other new devs have made to other games and the backlash and damage caused is predictable. Maybe one day game devs in one studio will learn from the mistakes made by multiple other devs so we don’t have this unnecessarily situation. The difference with Halo is that Halo is so big that it can take much more damage than other franchises like Socom without it killing it as fast.
The way I see it is as follows.
In 1988, John Frusciante replaced Hillel Slovak in the Red Hot Chili Peppers who had lost his life after a heroin overdose. Slovak was not a bad musician but up to that point the RHCP were relatively unknown and had been since 83. Frusciante was a great fit in the band and they developed a style of music that worked well for them which helped them achieve mainstream success with “Mothers Milk” (Halo CE/2).
In 1991 they released “Blood Sugar -Yoink!- Magic” which is now regarded by many critics as one of the best albums of all time (Halo 3). Frusciante who had developed a signature style of play similar to Hendrix was now a key part in the band’s formula.
Frusciante then left to deal with drug addiction at which point they brought in Dave Navaro, guitarist of Janes Addiction. They released “One Hot Minute” which was not on par with previous albums because the forumla had changed and people don’t like big change (Halo 4).
Was it a bad idea that they brought Frusciante back? Is that moving backwards? Should they have kept with Navaro and tried to work with him? No. With Frusciante they have released 4 of the biggest albums of the 90s and 00s (3 of which included in the Rolling Stones best 500 albums of all time) with songs that defined the 90s and 2000s e.g. Under the Bridge, Give It Away, Californiacation, Soul To Squeze, Otherside, Around the World, By The Way, Can’t Stop, The Zephyr Song, Dani California and Snow, to name a few. (This could be Halo 5)
But not one album sounds the exact same. They stuck to the formula however which is why they have been so successful. Halo 4 tried to be something its not which is why it failed in comparison to previous titles.
The little changes like graphical improvement, expansion on customization and sandbox ect is what I would like to see. Maybe even loadouts could work if restricted. Things like Sprint however do not fit into the formula so isn’t worth any effort to try improve upon. They will never be accepted and will always hold the game back.
> Everyone assumes that 343i added these new features to “cater to n00bs” and “help new players”, but I seriously doubt that was the primary motivation behind the ones you list.
Ordnance was designed to give new players “opportunities … to earn power weapons that they might never have got a chance to use in multiplayer before.” It was designed so that players who aimlessly wander around maps can still get power weapons. It was designed so that players don’t have to compete against enemies or teammates for power weapons (e.g. betraying for the Sniper Rifle). It wasn’t designed to make the game as a whole easier or more interesting; it was designed so that the n00bs who just like 'splody guns can use them more often. It may not “help” them per se, but it was designed for them.
(The latter half of the linked video is all about Halo 4’s multiplayer design. It’s very insightful.)
Similarly, perks don’t necessary make the game itself easier, but the intention behind perks is to give each player an advantage in however he wants to play. As long as players stick within their loadout’s niche, they are more likely to get kills and thus feel leet without leet skills. They will die more often when they are not in their loadout’s niche, but they feel it’s made up for them when they get that rush of getting a few kills in a row with the loadout. Again, doesn’t ultimately “help” n00bs because it’s also a hindrance, but it was designed for them.
> What people forget is that game developers now measure success of game in the $$$ they make from it and not from how popular it is or how long people keep playing it for. Pure and simple. Do you really think investors care whether you are still playing the game a month after release. No they want you to go and buy something else so they can make more money. Remember its their $$$ that pay for the game to be developed and they expect a return. Halo 4 was a good example of that. They brought in new features to attract new players to sell more copies.
>
> 343 will make the game the best they can to earn $$$ for their shareholders. It is a simple as that. They will build up the hype so everyone will pre order the game and upon release thats it they have made their money. What ever happens after that is mute. It will be onto the next game.
Well…Halo 4 didn’t outsell Halo 3. Halo 4 didn’t even sell as much as it should have or was on track to sell once people realized what they were getting. So if it is about making as much $$$ as they can, they’d go with the formula that actually sold the most, which is pre-Reach Halo. And given the amount of 360s worldwide sold in 2007 vs 2012, Halo 4 had every opportunity to be the biggest selling Xbox game. It being bad to many is why it failed at that.
So if it is about $$$, then making real Halo games seems to make more sense. Especially since more copies sold could also help DLC sales. It also helps with the sales of future games too. And you kinda care about people playing the game a long time after launch since that helps DLC. Not only that but if people love the game to play it for years after launch, then they’d almost automatically will buy the next game. Guaranteed sales and $$$.
On a side note, Microsoft have a problem on their hands. Because of the mediocre to bad experiences offered by non-numbered games like Spartan Assault and Halo Wars, anything that is not a numbered Halo game will not be taken as seriously these days. The only reason those games sold what they did is because Halo is in the title. If they keep this up, they will hurt the “Halo” brand.
When it comes to numbered games and even spin offs like Reach, if they keep down this path they will continue to hurt the brand and consumer trust. That will hurt future games and will impact $$$. And Halo is pretty much their Ace in the Hole and extremely important to Xbox One sales, they can’t afford to continue on a downward spiral when Sony is beating them over 2 to 1. Although it will take more than Halo, Halo has always been on the front lines of the battle and has always been extremely important.
> Stuff
I stand corrected. Thank you.
I don’t understand their logic. I’m not sure I see how they thought it would work out to be beneficial to new players.
Anyway, thanks for the correction.
> > Stuff
>
> I stand corrected. Thank you.
>
> I don’t understand their logic. I’m not sure I see how they thought it would work out to be beneficial to new players.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the correction.
You’re a stand-up man. I like that.
I thought Reach would be compared to the Millennium series.
> POD was a bad idea. It doesn’t help new players, either. All it does is give the better players better weapons to kill the new players faster. So if that was the idea behind it, it failed. I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was simply to reward good play with better weapons as a type of mini gun-game because those features are favorably received in other shooters. Regardless of their intent, POD was a bad idea. I hope it does not hang around for H5. To be honest, I really doubt they keep that feature. I think it will disappear.
>
> Loadouts, though, have nothing to do with “helping new players”. Loadouts were provided to allow people to choose how they wanted to play and to support commendation attainment. There were three mistakes here: first, loadouts included weapons that should not have been included (namely, PP, PG, BS, and perhaps DMR and LR). Second, the added customization with all of the perks and AAs was excessive (8 * 10 * 13 = 1,024 total combinations for AAs / perks). This doesn’t help new players . . . it bewilders them. Third, the commendation setup was lazy, especially when it came to weapon kills. Loadouts were almost certainly an attempt to get crossover from other FPSs where customization is a standard expectation. It certainly wasn’t there to “help” new players.
Totally agree.
Loadouts is something IMO can be retained if the items you listed including the DMR/LR be removed and were map pickups.
POD and PERKS have no place in Halo. I also think AA should return to map pickup like H3 Equipment, but can have multiple uses before being discarded.
> Why should they? Isn’t a new game supposed to have addition rather than subtraction? If you honestly think taking away AA’s and Loadouts are going to save Halo, you’re wrong.
>
> This is my idea for what 343i could do to please both audiences.
>
> Just like Halo 3, have a social and ranked playlist. For ranked playlist you could have a Halo 3 1-50 True Skill system. And that rank is marked as your RANKED Playlist Rank. Make the gametypes in this playlist like “classic” Halo, where you have no loadouts, no AA’s, no ordnance.
>
> For Social, have a Social rank, or “SR” but instead of Spartan Rank it could stand for “Social Rank”. Have the rank like Reach and Halo 4’s credit system. And have any new additions like AA’s, Loadouts, ordnance. This is a way to possibly please both types of Halo players.
>
> Obviously this idea isn’t perfect, there probably are flaws in it, but there needs to be some way to please both sides. I mean we can’t expect 343i to just remove every addition they have made just because most of us love Halo 3 and 2 more than the new games.
>
> Another idea, please fix the menu system, just…please.
oh my god, competitive is not 1-50… competitive can be gameplay without AA & Loaudouts, perks ecc… so, can you have 1-50, stars, ecc but if there are casual factor it will not be competitive…
> > Why should they? Isn’t a new game supposed to have addition rather than subtraction? If you honestly think taking away AA’s and Loadouts are going to save Halo, you’re wrong.
> >
> > This is my idea for what 343i could do to please both audiences.
> >
> > Just like Halo 3, have a social and ranked playlist. For ranked playlist you could have a Halo 3 1-50 True Skill system. And that rank is marked as your RANKED Playlist Rank. Make the gametypes in this playlist like “classic” Halo, where you have no loadouts, no AA’s, no ordnance.
> >
> > For Social, have a Social rank, or “SR” but instead of Spartan Rank it could stand for “Social Rank”. Have the rank like Reach and Halo 4’s credit system. And have any new additions like AA’s, Loadouts, ordnance. This is a way to possibly please both types of Halo players.
> >
> > Obviously this idea isn’t perfect, there probably are flaws in it, but there needs to be some way to please both sides. I mean we can’t expect 343i to just remove every addition they have made just because most of us love Halo 3 and 2 more than the new games.
> >
> > Another idea, please fix the menu system, just…please.
>
> oh my god, competitive is not 1-50… competitive can be gameplay without AA & Loaudouts, perks ecc… so, can you have 1-50, stars, ecc but if there are casual factor it will not be competitive…
Why would a game not be competitive if it has something to attract casuals? I I don’t know if this is the way for competitive players to keep casuals out completely or not.
I also don’t see the problem with sprint. If someone starts sprinting away form you when your about to kill them then GO AFTER THEM!!!. If it was a real skirmish we wouldn’t have time to complain about the target running away. Is it really that hard to shoot a guy running?.
If sprint does get removed however, 343 should ar least increase the general running or walking speed. As great as Halo 3’s game play was, it seems to be slow now compared to the previous Halo games.
then there is the concern of removing assassinations. If we try to make it too much like Halo 3 you could end up taking away what never caused any problems in the first place.
So it’s important that you specify what you feel is okay and not okay to have in Halo 5.
As for AA’s, I think having them as a pick up item might actually be okay.
Now if you feel that I misunderstood the sprint part then please let me know why.
> > > Stuff
> >
> > I stand corrected. Thank you.
> >
> > I don’t understand their logic. I’m not sure I see how they thought it would work out to be beneficial to new players.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for the correction.
>
> You’re a stand-up man. I like that.
It’s easy to be when the person correcting you is also a stand-up guy. Vektor is one of my favorite posters here.
Also I doubt adding on to old features would do enough to make some innovation.
At least try to add something new to the game. Yes improving on feature sis always welcomed.
As for AA’s if we make them as just pick ups and only on certain playlists that’s fine with me. most casuals would never touch the competitive stuff.
Heck I never go near the competitive playlists unless it was required to unlock an armor piece.