Notification

Icon
Error

Everyone said get rid of armour abilities. So why on earth are they in halo 4. Including enhanced vision now which was the cheapest of all the abilities in Shadowrun.

However it was much better suited to Shadowrun because that's the type of game it was, everyone had abilities. The abilities and tech were more part of the game than the weapons and each team had to co-ordinate their abilities around each other. Halo is not about armour abilities and never should be. You should know where your opponents are by insight and teamwork, not just pressing a button.

Agree?
I've played plenty of Reach. Enough to tell you the ideas were just thrown in with little regards to balance because they were poorly implemented. Good on paper, not so much in game or do i need to bring up the list of issues again?

I've been here awhile here on Waypoint and most cried for the removal of Armor Lock and to an extent, Jetpacks (though this is in for Halo 4). Not the entire removal of Armor Abilities.


343 is bringing them back because they believe they can work when balanced to counter each other. Instead of Reach's approach of five rocks, one paper in regards to it's AA implementation.

We can't see that now because not all of the game's features were shown at E3. Many but not all and according to 343, there will be counters to Pro Vision (an idea i am not exactly thrilled to have in Halo mind you).


Things will most likely change for the final build of Halo 4.
"As per the Birthday Contingency, we are partying on all fronts."- False Perception
To begin, not everyone said to out-right remove all AAs.

Anyway, Halo has to move forward and change things up. Do you honestly believe that Halo 1, 2, or 3 could survive on today's market, let alone do well? When was the last time you heard of an arena shooter making big news?
This topic has been beaten into the ground.
Toa Freak;1053427 wrote:
To begin, not everyone said to out-right remove all AAs.

Anyway, Halo has to move forward and change things up. Do you honestly believe that Halo 1, 2, or 3 could survive on today's market, let alone do well? When was the last time you heard of an arena shooter making big news?


If people want to play a different type of game then get a different game. Halo should be kept as Halo. The shaking things up is why so few people play reach. It appealed to a wider market possibly as it was something new, but hardly retained any of Halo's original fan base. The general consensus I get from true halo players is that they just want something between Halo 2 and Halo 3 but better. And better doesn't mean lots of changes with extra vehicles, weapons, abilities and emblems. It means, better connections, fairer matchmaking, a banhammer that works and fixing the theater issues.

I would pay more for that game than any other and even pay subscription to it.
D3ADLY SQUIRREL wrote:
The general consensus I get from true halo players is that they just want something between Halo 2 and Halo 3 but better. And better doesn't mean lots of changes with extra vehicles, weapons, abilities and emblems. It means, better connections, fairer matchmaking, a banhammer that works and fixing the theater issues.


Please don't presume to speak for all "true" halo players. Thanks.
Video games don't cause violence, lag does.
@misplacedyank
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses. But again it doesn't seem many Developers use that logic, minus Activision/Blizzard. They have created an Empire over the Call of Duty Series kept a unique formula and now everyone wants to be like them.

I just know from a buissness standpoint Halo 4 could easily be pulling the population of 400,000 on at one time if they went back to the old formula. They would make more money off of DLC and initial sales compared to every previous Halo. But this insist on using the same logic with Reach high sales low population. Which is what will happen with this game as well no doubt. General masses don't stick to one game something Halo fans do. But what gets me is 343 said it will have a halo 2/3 feel which is clearly not the case. Which makes me think Microsoft has something to do with this. Because this formula has continued through 2 Developers.
snickerdoodle;1053640 wrote:
D3ADLY SQUIRREL wrote:
The general consensus I get from true halo players is that they just want something between Halo 2 and Halo 3 but better. And better doesn't mean lots of changes with extra vehicles, weapons, abilities and emblems. It means, better connections, fairer matchmaking, a banhammer that works and fixing the theater issues.


Please don't presume to speak for all "true" halo players. Thanks.


^^ What they said, I have liked each Halo so far and im sure im going to like Halo 4 just as much if not more than the others.
Because 343 don't care about their community, they're completely focused on bringing more casuals into playing Halo, everything we say on this website doesn't matter.
Frost On My Br;1053642 wrote:
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses.


I disagree, both with you and the OP.

first of all, 343 is new. they are a "new" company, making a new halo trilogy. they know that is they make certain errors the halo franchise will cease to excist. because a certain error would influence sales in halo 5/6. they very well listen because they need to.

please do not make COD references. Halo 4 will not reward a camper with another free 10 kills. COD is not even a game in my opinion but just an arcade shooter with a broken MP for casuals. 343 just wants to keep halo 4 in the tray. unfortunatly games need to have a skinner box system to keep players in.

now back to AA. they are good. I still prefer Halo 3's system but the game needs to move forward. another halo 3 would not survive today's market.

have faith in 343.
Prometherion M;1053655 wrote:
Frost On My Br;1053642 wrote:
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses.


I disagree, both with you and the OP.

first of all, 343 is new. they are a "new" company, making a new halo trilogy. they know that is they make certain errors the halo franchise will cease to excist. because a certain error would influence sales in halo 5/6. they very well listen because they need to.


They aren't going to listen to the minority you can be sure of that.
Edited by Moderator - Please refrain from making nonconstructive posts.



*Original post, click at your own discretion.
Logfish111;1053666 wrote:
Prometherion M;1053655 wrote:
Frost On My Br;1053642 wrote:
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses.


I disagree, both with you and the OP.

first of all, 343 is new. they are a "new" company, making a new halo trilogy. they know that is they make certain errors the halo franchise will cease to excist. because a certain error would influence sales in halo 5/6. they very well listen because they need to.


They aren't going to listen to the minority you can be sure of that.

If we were the Minority, why did Reach matchmaking flop?
Logfish111;1053666 wrote:
Prometherion M;1053655 wrote:
Frost On My Br;1053642 wrote:
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses.


I disagree, both with you and the OP.

first of all, 343 is new. they are a "new" company, making a new halo trilogy. they know that is they make certain errors the halo franchise will cease to excist. because a certain error would influence sales in halo 5/6. they very well listen because they need to.


They aren't going to listen to the minority you can be sure of that.



please, what is a minority?

we can give our opinions, but the people at 343 are the experts at game design. they clearly have the bigger picture in their hands, and a better view on how to handle things, because they have that bigger picture.
Even in Reach, the AAs were not really so bad as they were just broken in some situations that were more common than with using others. Like Armor Lock for example. It was plainly more destructive than defensive because not only did it provide temporary invulnerability, but it harmed players and vehicles with its EMP shock. Things like jetpack were fine in their utility fashion, but because of people's ability to find hidden spots to snipe from, it made it all the more difficult to counter a sniper hidden on a rock wall
Logfish111;1053666 wrote:
Prometherion M;1053655 wrote:
Frost On My Br;1053642 wrote:
343 doesn't listen to it's community clearly but some developers choose this option. They decide to risk a franchise by deciding to try and be innovative. THQ is a perfect example of this. Other Developers are also being forced to continue in a direction by the Publisher so it's a bit hard to point fingers in one direction. Everyone wants to be like COD these days but what made Halo "Halo" was being it's own unique game that cattered to the fans not the general masses.


I disagree, both with you and the OP.

first of all, 343 is new. they are a "new" company, making a new halo trilogy. they know that is they make certain errors the halo franchise will cease to excist. because a certain error would influence sales in halo 5/6. they very well listen because they need to.


They aren't going to listen to the minority you can be sure of that.

He/She can't, as a matter of fact. Neither can you, or me.
The core problem with armor abilities is that they don't work in loadouts. Loadouts either make them horribly powerful or restrict their potential. Think about camo, for example, it was a gret power-up, no one complained. It was something you fought for, something you wanted to get. It had no restrictions such as jammed radar and making you more visible when moving. It was perfect. Then, loadouts came, now it's the camper's dream because A) any kind of movement with it makes you visible which forces you to either move slowly or stay stationary, B) you can activate in anywhere you want and get it stright off spawn.

Then, thinking about what the armor abilities that previously weren't power-ups could be as power-ups. Promethean Vision: you pick it up, get immediately a certain amount of time where you can see through walls. However, you have to utilize this ability fast as it starts immediately on pick-up and the drain cannot be stopped. Huge advantage when used skillfully, a nice little advantage in regular gameplay, just like overshield and active camo.

Jetpack also was an ability that had the problem that a player could get it anytime they wanted and every player could have one. Were Jetpack a map pick-up, it would provide an advantage, but not one that would completely break the concept of map control when only one player has it.

Armor abilities aren't the problem, they're a good idea. The problem is restricting their gameplay potential by adding them to loadouts and messing everything up, which leads to situations such as the case with Jetpack in Reach where carefully crafted map control spots were completely irrelevant and it didn't really matter were you on the top, or the bottom, you could still be beaten by Jetpack. Alternatively, there could be the horrible maps like Swordbase that were so horizontal that top control was way too easy.
Professional 99% of the time.