Many people want halo 4 to have the return of the 1-50 ranking system. well there is a reasons why that just cant happen.
the reason is that the game must evolve. If halo continues to have the same repetitive game play the game will loose gameplay value and the game will be less fun since it has not evolved. this would result in other shooters in the market to progress and send halo downwards to a less enjoyable game and it would not be an outspoken title. 343 has continued the evolved version of the ranking system and truly the are making the game progress since it is a much more valuable way of progressing. the reason you all love the 1-50 so much is because that is how halo multiplayer started. but if we go back to it the multiplayer will be flat out boring.
1-50 is not how Halo multiplayer started, making your assumptions incorrect.
> 1-50 is not how Halo multiplayer started, making your assumptions incorrect.
it is actually when halo 2 had full online capability it was nothing but numbers that was your rank. it may have not been 1-50 but that is how it came to be
I just miss the days of Halo: CE where rank wasn’t an issue because it wasn’t there…
Yes, GP is the exact same as the ranking system. Better yet, the “argument” that you have for the removal of 1-50 is that the game must evolve? Come on, you must do better than that.
And yes, Halo MP started with H2. Or wait, perhaps there’s a reason it was called H2 and not CE, oh yeah because there was a game before it that also had MP features even though they weren’t on XBL but on XBC.
It does not effect gameplay and this is not a valid reason for 1-50 not being in the game.
You could have said so many other reasons, but you said because it has to evolve? smh…
> You could have said so many other reasons, but you said because it has to evolve? smh…
Liek what?
Doesn’t make a different why it can and cannot return, you’re beating a dead horse.
Like how Reach’s evolved and wasn’t boring, oh wait it was.
This thread makes zero sense. Game play is not affected by a ranking system. Look at CoD,
same game, same ranking system. It’s still working for them.
Whatever we are going to say, 1-50 will not return. So wait until tomorrow…
> > You could have said so many other reasons, but you said because it has to evolve? smh…
>
> Liek what?
Boosting and cheating
Removing things isn’t evolving, it’s devolving. It doesn’t matter what it is anyway, Halo 4 needs a ranking system BADLY, and one that supports playlists without trash like perks, open lobbies, and AAs. I don’t want to play a mindless, casual COD clone, I want to play true competitive Halo multiplayer, and so the game needs ranks.
Halo did evolve… into a system that required no skill in any way to rank up (albeit at a snail-like pace). All props to Bungie for making a game that was more open to casual players who didn’t really care about the competitive side of Multiplayer (which there is nothing wrong with), but if you want to do that, it’s not terribly difficult to come up with a system for casuals (in Social playlists) and a system for “hardcore” players or competitives (in a Ranked playlist).
If anybody with an 8th grade education could sit here and come up with a halfway decent ranking system for either the Social or Ranked (or both) playlist group that would function reasonably well in no more than 15 to 30 minutes, then imagine how well of a system trained game designers could come up with in as little as a week (plus play-testing). It’s not difficult to come up with a system that suits most everybody, it’s just about putting in the effort.
I think the 1-50 system COULD return in a modified manner. 343 won’t have any sort of idea how to handle Bungie’s complicated Mu and Sigma system (which would, I’m sure, befuddle the most experienced of game designers), but something like it that takes in even MORE factors to make the Social and Ranked playlists fit as much to their key demographics without being too terribly polarizing would not be as incredibly difficult an undertaking as some people may think it is.
tl;dr: 1-50 was okay, but coming up with something better isn’t all that hard.
The only reason Halo is “evolving”(aka adapting to modern FPS trends) is because its not number 1 anymore.
I guarantee you if Halo was still number 1 on XBL, WE WOULD NOT see the so called “evolution” of the gameplay. It all has to do with market direction and not creative direction when it comes to these billion dollar franchises these days. We live in a capitalist dominated country, and the video-game industry is no different. When Coke came out with Diet Coke, Pepsi quickly came out with Diet Pepsi. The same thing is happening to video-games where creative decisions have really became market decisions to reap the most profit. Its just a reality that comes with mainstream gaming.
If shooters were really “evolving” then why do the popular ones all play similar these days? No, evolution is not happening that would imply new ideas and ground was being broken. What is happening is Halo is “adapting” to modern FPS trends which while not particularly bad, becomes bad when your sacrificing core values of the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Guis, guis, Halo 4 can’t have shields, Spartans, BRs, or Warthogs! None of that old stuff! Halo must evolve or it’ll die!
Seriously, why is it that all these posts talking about Halo ‘evolution’ do so in a manner that implies it’s to better the genre, or the industry? They make claims like innovation is what separates Halo from CoD, and if Halo evolves it’ll be number 1 again. It seems you people don’t care weather or not Halo 4 is fun. As long you’re able to say “Halo changes, CoD doesn’t, Halo’s better!”, and other slogans to fuel your imaginary war between Halo and CoD you seem to be genuinly happy. I don’t want a science experiment. I want a fun game. A fun Halo game. Halo 4 seems to have left the Halo part behind.
> The only reason Halo is “evolving”(aka adapting to modern FPS trends) is because its not number 1 anymore.
>
> I guarantee you if Halo was still number 1 on XBL, WE WOULD NOT see the so called “evolution” of the gameplay. It all has to do with market direction and not creative direction when it comes to these billion dollar franchises these days. We live in a capitalist dominated country, and the video-game industry is no different. When Coke came out with Diet Coke, Pepsi quickly came out with Diet Pepsi. The same thing is happening to video-games where creative decisions have really became market decisions to reap the most profit. Its just a reality that comes with mainstream gaming.
>
> If shooters were really “evolving” then why do the popular ones all play similar these days? No, evolution is not happening that would imply new ideas and ground was being broken. What is happening is Halo is “adapting” to modern FPS trends which while not particularly bad, becomes bad when your sacrificing core values of the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I think you’re very right. My problem with this logic however (not your’s, Microsoft’s) is that although Halo isn’t THE biggest game franchise any more, it’s still really damn big, right? Why do loyal fans deserve a poor game made for ADD sheople when MS makes millions upon millions whether it’s a great competitive game or a COD knock off?
> Many people want halo 4 to have the return of the 1-50 ranking system. well there is a reasons why that just cant happen.
> the reason is that the game must evolve. If halo continues to have the same repetitive game play the game will loose gameplay value and the game will be less fun since it has not evolved. this would result in other shooters in the market to progress and send halo downwards to a less enjoyable game and it would not be an outspoken title. 343 has continued the evolved version of the ranking system and truly the are making the game progress since it is a much more valuable way of progressing. the reason you all love the 1-50 so much is because that is how halo multiplayer started. but if we go back to it the multiplayer will be flat out boring.
No, I love the 1-50 system so much because players had to actually win to rank up. Reach multiplayer is boring right now because of this. Yet, people wonder why players AFK, team kill, betray etc - HINT: THEY DON’T HAVE TO WIN. THEY’RE GOING TO GET THEIR CREDITS REGARDLESS.
> If halo continues to have the same repetitive game play the game will loose gameplay value and the game will be less fun since it has not evolved
You just described Reach perfectly. You’re entire OP is gaged at the unbiased fact of your opinion towards Reach being a positive factor for the Halo Franchise, when in fact Reach (in terms of population and current players) is a huge disappointment to the franchise. Keeping the original formula is what should’ve happened, evolving to Reach style just killed it.
> The only reason Halo is “evolving”(aka adapting to modern FPS trends) is because its not number 1 anymore.
>
> I guarantee you if Halo was still number 1 on XBL, WE WOULD NOT see the so called “evolution” of the gameplay. It all has to do with market direction and not creative direction when it comes to these billion dollar franchises these days. We live in a capitalist dominated country, and the video-game industry is no different. When Coke came out with Diet Coke, Pepsi quickly came out with Diet Pepsi. The same thing is happening to video-games where creative decisions have really became market decisions to reap the most profit. Its just a reality that comes with mainstream gaming.
>
> If shooters were really “evolving” then why do the popular ones all play similar these days? No, evolution is not happening that would imply new ideas and ground was being broken. What is happening is Halo is “adapting” to modern FPS trends which while not particularly bad, becomes bad when your sacrificing core values of the game to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Halo 3 gameplay → Halo 3: ODST gameplay = Evolution.
Halo 3: ODST gameplay wasn’t dictated by focus groups and popular market trends, it was a risk taken by Bungie on kind of game (immersive, stealth, film-noir, mystery FPS) that they thought would be good. Because they “make games [they] like to play”.
If 343 did the same, I’m sure that with all the smart people they’ve got over there they’re bound to get a good product. Will it be as good as (what I thought) ODST was as far as a game that is unusual and no-the-norm yet good, with clean, fluid gameplay? I don’t know. But it’s not hard to evolve against market trends and “strike gold”, as it were.