Solumn Trade

OBJECTION! There's no way I would think that Halo was outdated. I DON'T PLAY MODERN MILITARY SHOOTERS! When I got my hands on Halo 4 from my roommate who borrowed it to me, that was the day I decided not to get an Xbox One. Despite the bad things Microsoft was planning to do with the Xbox One, Halo 4 was the turning point. I also did not renew my Xbox Live subscription. I invested fully into my PC since then, and I am now a returning customer to Steam. The only reason I have so much knowledge about COD, Battlefield, and other 'modern' FPS titles is because I've watched my roommate play, and he complained 90% of the time. And 90% of the time, he was justified (invisible guy with C4 because the textures didn't render in Battlefield 4, anyone?) You can't fool me with a . You pretend to build bridges, but really are trying to present my 'opinions' as insignificant and override them with your own. "I happen to know that if I analysed a game like the old Halo games by nowadays standards I wouldn't really think the game was all that" Do you mean, these standards? "As for the part where people say that Halo itself plays loads like CoD now, I think that's ridiculous." About this ridiculous? "people, in my opinion can't say 343i are a bad company and have done a bad job at just suddenly taking one of the biggest franchises on the planet. Because honestly if you owned a spin-off company and took on one of the world's biggest franchises with one of the world's most demanding communities I don't think that anybody could do as much of a good job as they done" 007: Goldeneye for the N64 was made by Rare, a brand new developer at the time. They not only made an 'ok' movie licensed game (and we all know how bad movie licensed games typically are), but they made a game that proved that FPS genre was a viable venture on consoles (which was already thriving on PC). " they only 'partially' ruined one Halo game" When they got hold of Halo Reach, they removed Firefight Limited as a play list. Their TU did do things that people liked, but then they backpedaled on it. Halo 4 did not have working file share at launch nor for many months. The game was redesigned to have an XP unlock system to sell Mountain Dew and Doritoes. Forge remains broken, with nearly every piece being off by 'just that much' when using coordinate lock or magnets, without even precision editing to manually fix it. The Halo MCC is merely a collection of PORTS. And to my knowledge, there are still matchmaking problems, and ranks keep getting reset. "If people haven't played a full game they cannot say whether it's a bad game or not" So, you wouldn't be able to figure out if a game is bad or not from watching a video like this? A responsible consumer does their research before a purchase. "I must also say dude that 343i do know exactly what made Halo popular" Just because they might know what made Halo popular, doesn't mean they will do it. In fact, they haven't. It certainly didn't stop them from creating a class system in Halo 4 that runs off of XP fueled by Mountain Dew and Doritoes DOUBLE XP, did it? I don't care if it's Microsoft or 343 who made the decision, it still happened. "I've said it many times before and I'll say it again the majority of Bungie's talent went with 343 to continue the support on the Halo franchise" HOLD IT! http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_.php?page=3 http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/343_Industries TAKE THAT! "Bungie's talent went with 343 to continue the support on the Halo franchise, hence how Destiny in my opinion is quite bad" HANG ON! Not exactly... "all of this was purely based off of opinion" TAKE THAT! Your own words betray you. You and I are nothing alike. My opinions are based on research. Yours are based on hearsay. I am informed. You are ignorant. I am a fan. YOU ARE A FANBOY. Your forum name has nothing to do with it. ... I'm not a know-it-all. It's just most people have decided to know nothing at all. That's what makes me upset with most people. It's why nearly every day I double-face-palm-combo-face-desk.

It is true that I may have not been nice to some of the people who posted here. But you know what? When I try to be reasonable, people start talking down to me. Therefore I'm going for the preemptive strike. I won't be nice, because I know others aren't going to be nice to me. They will use excuse after excuse to defend developers and publishers who don't care about them, and will cut and water down a game as much as they can in order to get the highest amount of profit. Even when developers aren't 'appealing to a broader audience', they still cut the game up into little pieces to resell as DLC, which is exactly what happened to Destiny. I am running out of patience for people's ignorance. So please forgive me if I've taken up the role play of a lawyer, which is more concerned about figuring out the truth than worrying about people's feelings. The truth hurts. Of course I can't just present concrete evidence of wrongdoing, because of course those companies who are performing wrongdoing or planning on doing wrongdoing are going to do their best to hide it. We can only guess their motives and plans based on what we see. And all I see is DLC, DLC, DLC. To the beat of 'Let it Snow': I know I'd be lying, If I said triple-A is dying, Cause everyone I try to warn, Will just scorn! Will just scorn! Will just scorn!

Perhaps I should have said 'competent' drivers. Happy? I apologize for not selecting my words more carefully so that you may not jump upon them. My bad.

Very well then. Please do your utmost to calm my fears. Removing vehicles would go WAYYY to far to cater to 'a new audience'. After all, as mentioned in one of the videos I presented, vehicles do present a huge skill gap for new players to overcome. It would kill me if 343 removed them just because they felt like new players don't deserve to be killed by pro vehicle drivers.

Change Log 9: -Added sneaky disarm a. Press the action button (which is reload/swap weapon) while behind an enemy player to steal their weapon or objective item, ala Mirror's Edge. It will drop your currently held weapon, so make sure that the weapon you want to drop is in your hand, and not the one you want to keep. Besides stealing weapons, this can be used for a non-violent game of keep-away oddball.

*shakes head When typing in '343 confirms BTB and vehicles will return in Halo 5', I come up with nothing on Google but fans speculating on what sort of vehicles might be in Halo 5. It worries me. Never has a Halo game been so quiet about vehicle combat. In fact, every beta I've seen of Halo until now included vehicles in one form or another. I know it would be a suicidal move for 343 to exclude them, but then they DID implement their own form of killstreaks and took out the 'arena shooter' aspect of Halo during Halo 4, and only changed it when the population was nearly dead. Now I think they're taking the 'arena shooter' aspect too far and we might just end up with, well, arenas. After all, the most popular map in Halo 4 was Haven. Haven didn't have vehicles. I'm just afraid 343 is looking too close at the numbers and not interpreting them correctly. People should not consider purchasing Halo 5, at least until there's solid proof and confirmation that vehicles will exist in multiplayer. But if you're fine with a Halo that doesn't have vehicles (YES THERE ACTUALLY WAS A HERETIC THAT SAID THAT). by all means go full steam ahead.

Sprint used to be an armor ability, that could be countered by other armor abilities, and it could be removed. While there were still problems with Sprint, armor lock overshadowed it, which is why people probably didn't notice Sprint as much. My title is not exaggerated. I do not believe it's a good idea for 343 to look for 'new' people, when those 'new' people might not exist in large enough numbers to warrant sacrificing the needs of those they already have. In fact, I do believe most of the people they are trying to target ALREADY HAD Halo, as well as COD. HANG ON! It's fine if you do want to continue playing Halo under 343. But many have lost trust in them. I have lost trust in them. And I only feel it appropriate to express my suspicions. It's true that you may indeed have adapted to Halo 5 multiplayer, but I must ask you one question: WHERE ARE THE VEHICLES? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha85QYA0wxI&index=10&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN In every beta of Halo there has ever been, there at least was some vehicle combat. I won't say that 343 won't include them in multiplayer, but I have my doubts because of what 343 tried to do to them in Halo 4, making them obsolete, which was expressed in the video vaulting frog quickly dismissed. I won't ask you not to go ahead and get Halo 5, but tell me: What if vehicles aren't in Halo 5 multiplayer? What would that do to your confidence in 343? Could you really handle it, if they pulled something like that? I say this out of concern, not spite. What is your limit when it comes to changes to Halo? When will it stop being Halo to you?

Bye then. HOLD IT! Because other people will Sprint and use that against you. My question is, why are you here?

Nope. But while being competitive or not DOES originate with the player themselves, games can be designed these days to encourage one type of play style verses another. The reason why Halo was successful in the past was its ability to cater to many kinds of people with many kinds of tastes; one of the primary ways the old Halos did this was by separating competitive and casual playlists. But now, because 343 feels like the 'new' people should have their needs placed above everyone else's, the whole thing is starting to unravel. To me also, a game is something I enjoy or something I don't. I don't enjoy the 'new' rules Halo 5 brings. The main point of this post is to determine whether or not it's a good idea for 343 to ignore the needs of some of the 'older' player base in order to attract a 'new' one. I don't think it is. Halo 4 is clear evidence of that. I mean, do I really have to present the darn chart that gets so over presented, and ignored anyway? I think the game should be remade from the ground up. You cannot deny that Halo 5 bears similarities to COD: Advanced Warfighter, and that's a stigma that very well be Halo 5's undoing, regardless if the mechanics work or not. These are my suggestions for new mechanics for a Halo game, that would make the game feel 'modern', but very much stay like Halo: http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

OBJECTION! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN&index=23 No one enjoys a product THAT THEY DON'T want. And that is precisely why 343 has attempted to 'blow off' the Halo veterans. Of course this statement on its own holds no water... *slams table BUT I HAVE PROOF! I present this Youtube video to the court record: While this is speculation on Halo 5, it shows many examples in Halo 4 that confirm that 343 was trying desperately to close the skill gap between veterans and new players. Why should veterans be forced to endure it? Why should they 'appreciate' it? However, the blame cannot be squarely put on 343. Call of Duty has given noobs unrealistic expectations as to what to expect from a game. The evidence for this I also submit to the court record: TAKE THAT! OBJECTION! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN&index=23 No one enjoys a product THAT THEY DON'T want. And that is precisely why 343 has attempted to 'blow off' the Halo veterans. Of course this statement on its own holds no water... *slams table BUT I HAVE PROOF! I present this Youtube video to the court record: While this is speculation on Halo 5, it shows many examples in Halo 4 that confirm that 343 was trying desperately to close the skill gap between veterans and new players. Why should veterans be forced to endure it? Why should they 'appreciate' it? However, the blame cannot be squarely put on 343. Call of Duty has given noobs unrealistic expectations as to what to expect from a game. The evidence for this I also submit to the court record: TAKE THAT! Besides the port still being broken for Xbox One, there is a point where a game DOES get repetitive. DLC stopped coming for Halo 3. Also, the story can't continue on Halo 3 (unless they took Valve's route and started releasing episodes, but that's obviously not going to happen). As good as the campaign is, nobody wants to be told the same story over and over, it needs to progress. Unfortunately, the story Halo 4 presented wasn't very satisfying to many people. I myself couldn't enjoy it. Also, Xbox Live has this nasty habit of dropping support for certain games, which is why Halo veterans are so desperate to make sure Halo 5 does cater to their needs. Eventually, support will be dropped for H3 and MCC. And one more thing...if all the veterans are playing H3...wouldn't that SHRINK the actual population for Halo 5? Why is it that these people 'have to go'? It's done nothing but backfire for 343, but they assumed that if they could get rid of the veterans that they could cater to the unreasonable expectations of the generation raised on COD. That hasn't worked. It still won't work. No matter how hard they try, Halo at its core is far too different from COD to appeal to those who only like COD. And as I meantioned at the head of this post, it's pointless to try to appeal to those people because many of those people ALSO PLAYED Halo. Halo was the game to get better at, COD is the game to automatically stomp in. When one got boring, they would change to the other. But because 343 is trying to make Halo the same sort of game COD is, people actually find LESS of a reason to get Halo.

I know you may not like lone wolfing and lone wolves, but is it worth making the game so that it's a near impossibility? I feel almost as though Bungie left a bomb that was bound to go off when they left Halo for other projects. Halo means so many things to soo many different people. 343 cannot simply focus on one group over another, and must find a balance. You have forgers, casuals, competitive, machinima makers, speed runners, soloists, team players, and lots of individuals in between. I have the feeling that, although Microsoft and 343 may want to downsize this game (which isn't a bad thing in itself, since Halo looks to be becoming a yearly title), that it's next to impossible without some sort of backlash. Now, I will say this: sometimes Lone Wolves ARE a problem, especially when they aren't good enough to actually fill that role and hog power weapons. But forcing people who want to play a more independent style shouldn't be punished for doing so. The problem needs to be solved, not by punishing these individuals, but rather adding an additional layer to the game that can only be accessed by teamwork. Right now, vehicles such as the Warthog immediately encourages some teamwork on their own, since they cannot be used effectively without two people. But besides vehicles, I think even more teamwork can be encouraged by solving a few problems that the old Halo trilogy had. THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT: THE OLD TRILOGY DID HAVE PROBLEMS. What was one of those problems? Well, from DAY 1, there was one annoying thing that has always happened: people on the same team fight each other to use the power weapons. I myself have encountered this in the most ridiculous circumstances. I would ask my team "Does anybody want the sniper rifle?" I'd wait, look around, and hear nobody say anything or see anybody around. Then I would pick it up, and then the morons WHO I JUST ASKED if they wanted the sniper rifle or not would attempt to kill me and take it. I didn't even want the gun at that point. I just wanted to get rid of it say "HERE! TAKE IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE." However, in order to get rid of it I would have to run to another weapon, which they of course would take as me running away with it, and swap it out. 9 times out of 10, they would stop shooting me, look down at the gun, look back me with sudden guilt, and then pick it up and go about their way, head low. Of course the other 1 time they're just team killing for the sake of team killing. If you could drop the weapon you are carrying for your teammate without going to a different gun, that would have prevented so many friendly fire incidents. Moreover, if you could THROW a weapon or ammo to your teammates, that would be revolutionary! It would spawn a whole new breed of combat medals, from tossing weapons from teammate to teammate and getting those special assist kills. Perhap the medals would be known as 'Alley-Oop' medals? Anyway, it would cause a whole new level to the game, that might make lone wolves a more useful part to the team by them collecting weapons from the map and bringing them back to their team. Also, people who aren't good with certain weapons would no longer have an excuse not to hand them over. And noobs would have the ability to help their team without getting kills, again collecting the big guns for the strongest players to use. Anyway, I discuss that sort of thing more in my 'Innovative Gameplay Mechanics' post. Lemme know what you think. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsT9LGG5CSs&index=18&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN Hmm, I was not aware that you were having trouble staying alive in the game, at least when you first started. Is that where your opinion about people not being able to adapt to the game originated from? I do apologize for having to point a figure, but sometimes that's how you get to the truth. My personal opinion is that the reason Halo 5 doesn't appeal to me or many others is the fact that the game is both too competitive AND not competitive enough. Please hear me out. When it comes to being too competitive, I think that's because what many considered 'noobifying' features, like equipment (or in Reach and Halo 4's case armor abilities) and duel wielding, have been removed. Although now Halo is supposedly a 'fairer' game because of this, it is also now a more boring game now. That's because the game no longer has match altering events like the simple deployment of a bubble shield, or someone popping out with akimbo SMG's. What you're left with is a game which you might only enjoy if you do well at it. When it comes to not being competitive enough, that's because the game encourages defensive play. With the ability to Sprint, it encourages people to move away from their adversaries, and forces them to move with their team, if they want the greatest chance of success. This effectively kills the ability to be the 'one man army' that you could be in other Halos, since people will likely only travel with their team. Also, since people can Sprint, they can move away while a different teammate steps in. This wasn't a problem in older Halos, because likely the other player wouldn't get very far, and the one who initiated the engagement could back off and not worry too much about being pursued, since everyone moved at the same rate of speed and could fire in any direction while moving. That meant anybody that DID pursue could expect a grenade to be lobbed at them, meaning that in order to take out the person they were pursuing, they still had to outplay them. But, because people can Sprint, the other teammate of the guy who had to back off can rush forward to take advantage of the former attacker's situation of a weakened shield, and the weakened individual would be forced to engage rather than attempt escape. In other words, when you are alone, Sprint is the bane of your existence, but when you are with a team you are practically untouchable. Thus reinforcing the point that players, when they figure out how the game works, will stick close to their teams and not deviate. Essentially, at low levels of play the game is still somewhat fun, but at higher levels it becomes tedious and stressful. So, what do you think about this, Mr. Tortellini? Ah, but what you've just mentioned is what the primary problem is. And it is the problem I stated at the top of this topic. It is true, that 343 could never give each customer the EXACT game that they want. Which is why they should not have been focusing solely on one party over the other. The reason Halo was so successful in the past was because it was BOTH a casual game AND a competitive game at the same time. When 343 tried to target casual players in Halo 4, they blew off the competitive community. Now, they 'seesawed' back to the competitive side with Halo 5, and went too far. You'll have to see my reply to Mr. Tortellini to see what I'm getting at.

I think you've got the definition of 'adapting', 'tolerating', and 'preferring' confused. You see, there is very little trouble when 'adapting' to different controls, or 'adapting' to a defensive style of play. Adapting to new controls happens ANY TIME you pick up a new game. In fact, the main complaint of most old time players who comment on the game's mechanics, don't complain that it's too hard, they complain that it's TOO EASY. That it's TOO EASY to stay alive. Most of the ones complaining about the mechanics being too hard are the NEW players, the players that 343 is supposedly trying to bring in. As for 'toleration', why should people expect less performance...from a NEWER game? And finally, 'preferring'. Let's face it: some people do not like the new aesthetics of Halo 5, with one major thing being pointed out being the redesign of the rocket launcher. They do not like many of the redesigns. They also do not like a defensive-type game. They are 'preferring' the methodic, but situationally dynamic style of play that older Halos offered. When you claimed that people who don't like what Halo 5 had to offer 'have trouble adapting to it', were you saying that... *slams table https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0 BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOUR OPINION WAS BETTER THAN THEIRS?

You still haven't answered the question. What about Halo 5 are people having trouble with adapting to? You claim there are people who lack the ability to adapt to the game, but you've yet to put a finger on precisely why they are having trouble doing so. Stop beating around the bush, and at least throw out a theory.

I will assume that by this 'new game', you mean Halo 5, correct? If it is true that the features of this 'new game' are difficult to adapt to, what about them makes you assume that is so?