"when preparation meets opportunity"

[Bloody Initiate]

I was thinking of how earlier Halo games had particularly good timing and all had something very special they offered at launch that was otherwise unavailable.

 

Halo CE made console shooters viable, the genre existed on consoles before Halo CE but Halo CE made it work well enough that suddenly consoles had something PCs didn't (PCs later got it, not at all relevant).

 

Halo 2 brought console shooters online with Xbox Live, this wasn't an innovation so much as right place right time. Or was it? Did you know Unreal tried to get in on the action? Their game didn't even compare, I played it, and the only fun thing to do was to get a certain gun that called something like an air strike.

 

Halo 3 set the standard for Xbox Live competitive multiplayer on the Xbox 360. (When I say "competitive" I'm referring to the fact that you win by making someone else lose. The alternative would be a "cooperative" multiplayer game) It also actually did a pretty good job with cooperative multiplayer on the Xbox 360.

 

I didn't play Halo Wars, no comments on that, I did play ODST though, and even that game had a bit of an ace up its sleeve. It was the first Halo game to use Halo skills in order to find out about someone other than Master Chief. It was the only one to diverge from the original focus. I mentioned "use Halo skills" because Halo Wars was an RTS, but ODST played just like a tweaked Halo 3 (Thus the name, Halo 3: ODST).

 

So along comes the time for Halo Reach, and there isn't a brilliant launch opportunity. There isn't anything it can really plan to offer that hasn't been offered. It can offer Halo, or do its best anyway.

 

I end up feeling the same way about Halo 4. I almost pity the situation now, because how lousy to be scheduled for release as early as a year before the next Xbox comes out? I find myself wishing they'd waited a year to publish Halo 4. I feel there was no opportunity for Halo 4 to capitalize upon, nor was there for Halo: Reach. They are in my opinion the weakest in the series, and I'm beginning to suspect that's because they broke no new ground.

 

In fact the original title of this thread was "NOT Breaking Ground: How Halo 4 is a "me too" shooter" and then I shortened it to just "NOT Breaking Ground" and I found even that wasn't adequate. This was also originally a much longer post, but as I typed it occurred to me that what I wanted to say was diluted by my disappointment in Halo 4.

 

While CE and Halo 3 were astounding games (I actually never thought Halo 2 was that great), they also had awesome opportunities at the time they were released. They were excellent by themselves, but they were both magnified by the times in which they were released. I would say Halo 2 benefitted most from that timing, just because of the three I thought it had the least to offer on its own.

 

So as I thought about this I wondered whether we'd have a better game if it was released with the gravity of one of those titles. More accurately I wondered if my opinion on Halo 4 would differ if it had released at a time when it had something special to offer that wasn't already readily available in the market. The answer I came up with was "not if it played like this," but what do you think?

 

What would you think of the game if it had something original in it? I'm not trying to mock the game, I'm trying to think of what it would be like if Halo 4 brought something to the shooter market that wasn't already present. It's sort of a "What If?" game where you look at a world where something important was missing, like yourself. Only in this case what if previous Halos were missing? What if other shooters were? What would Halo 4 feel like if it remained unchanged but the market did?

[FleshBack]

I think trying to "CoD-ify" Halo 4 was 343's shallow attempt to bring something new to the Halo universe. They tried to bridge the gap between the original sci-fi shooter and contemporary FPSs, but it didn't stick the landing so to speak as the previous titles had. However, that is all more or less irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

In retrospect it is difficult to imagine what innovating, ground breaking concept 343 could have brought to the franchise that would have made this game anymore successful, especially in this gaming environment. I guess Bungie had a knack for striking oil as they did it 3 (some would argue more) times in a row. The fact that 343 isn't living up to those standards doesn't surprise me as Bungie raised the bar quite high every time for original, innovative, and addicting gameplay.

 

Lets think about it for a minute. People can already play Halo with all of their friends from around the world, They can communicate, form parties, host custom games and play cooperatively. Outside of the actual video game itself, there isn't too much obvious ground breaking (at least from what I can see) to be done. We have Halo Waypoint which bridges the gap between social media and gaming, but that doesn't seem to be catching on. Maybe a more refined version of that could really appeal to people? I don't know.

 

I don't want to be the guy to say that all the good ideas were already invented because it is a very short-sighted comment, but I do not see too much that would really make this particular title as successful and groundbreaking as Halos of the past. They probably would have had to gut the whole game to get much more innovation out of it. Like, things like space battles. Maybe more RPG elements and customization to your individual Spartan; however, those things aren't Halo and are unnecessary. I doubt they would've made the difference between 4th most played game on Xbox live and 1st.

 

Those are some of my thoughts. It is a bit of a mess, but it is a pretty abstract topic.

[Bloody Initiate]

Yeah I knew there wasn't a lot of new ground left to break. That's why my focus shifted as I posted the OP, because I hadn't thought about the setting for Halo 4's release much. I think it could have been a much better game rather easily, and I think its numbers would be better, but I'm not sure they'd bridge the gap 343 and MS wanted.

[FleshBack]

This is a bit of an after thought, but I think shooters are really starting to gravitate towards RPG elements nowadays. With the perks, the builds, the customization--which is all very limited by any RPG's standards--form the basis of a very rudimentary FPS-RPG online. Imagine if you were able to play a game with the complexity of Fallout 3 online? Take your character and story and pit them against other people. I don't know if this has been seriously done or not, or if current gen systems are unable to make these kind of games but I would say a game like that would be the next step in FPS.

 

I could picture a Halo RPG to be a hit. You have your own unique Spartan. This Spartan has his own story, attributes, characteristics, and and look. All the values are decided by the play as is customary with most RPGs. It would build a real connection between you and your multiplayer Spartan that has never existed to such an extent in a previous Halo. This Spartan would be designed around your playstyle, whether that be stealth, running-and-gunning, vehicle operation, whatever. The flaw of this approach would be that game balancing would be a logistical nightmare. However, Halo 4 has already set the precedent for player's Spartans starting off differently and with unbalanced loadouts, so it isn't so much of a departure from the current style of play as it is an exaggeration.

 

The only reason I didn't mention it before is cuz I thought it might have been too big a departure from standard Halo.

 

BIoWare tried doing this with SWTOR by trying to infuse MMORPG game experience with the richness of storytelling. The experiment didn't work out so well but I think they were on to something.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

I think it was groundbreaking. Not in a mechanical sense but in a story sense (like ODST). Never before had we seen the Forerunners. Sure we read about them in the books and the terminals in H3 gave some insight into who they were, we just never had seen one or could have invisioned how "human" they are.

 

The mightest species in the galaxy being laid low by the humans all those years ago. They hate they can display is astounding for a species portrayed to be the protectors of all life in the galaxy. Their evolution has barely begun however the ice has been broken and the stage set for an epic change to what we have known and assumed about them.

 

For technical stuff I dont see a huge amount of innovation beyond the complete overhaul of an engine (which they did a great job with). They tweeked the game a bit after seeing some feedback from Reach (issues with people just using sprint and so on) and they tried to follow through on that feedback in their gameplay. Of what they implemented some was a success and others not so much (I hate the black screen), but for the most part people got a version of what they were asking for (every piece of feedback must be tweeked in order to fit within the game and any other mechanics they develop from feedback) and they were solid.

 

As i have been constantly saying, this isnt Bungies vision of Halo anymore. 343 has taken that mantle and we just barely got a peak at what their vision of Halo is. I am certain that each one of us views Halo in a similar yet strikingly different light, just as 343 does from Bungie. This doesnt make it bad, only different. I mean looking back at Halo CE, when it first came out they could have ended the series right there and been completely fine. I have seen games cut off like that before and are still amazing games even if they should have had a sequel. That story while great, could not even begin to show what might happen later on in the series. It introduced new enemies, that was it. No hints beyond the "we are just getting started" line at the end. They had a fresh start then and now 343i has the same fresh start with Halo 4.

 

I am really getting tired of the "CoD" thing. It is wearing thin. I know it is a game series that people use to compare Halo to however that is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit (or in this case FPS's) but both are different in flavor. They have a similar background yes however that doesnt make them the same. I realize it is hard to find something else to compare it to but come on, Halo is not CoD and it never will be. Apples and oranges people. Thats all I will say on that (my views are fairly well known about it anyways).

[ProudDrunkIrish]

I have to say your post makes a very good point and gives great food for thought.. I do think the storyline of the campaign was very good, it was new and refreshing, we got to see a new enemy, new weapons and real development of the characters.

 

Maybe we are at a point where the best possible features for an FPS on current consoles have been explored, though I dare say there is something entirely new left on a drawing board somewhere, this may have lead to what we describe as the copying from CoD (using CoD as the basis is due to it being the beiggest title). I still believe that they sacrificed too much of what made Halo well Halo.. Its not so much the additions to the game that get me but the things they took away as a result.

 

343 seem to have taken what may have been considered the safe and easy route, in the multiplayer they added features that had been tried and were in other games. But beyond that in the campaign things such as showing the chiefs face at the end was a cheap addition to ''make the game special and memorable'', such things were not really needed hell they had already killed cortana so why add more??? If Bungie were still in charge then I would say with a new console we may have had an awsome game but the pressure on 343 to carry on a huge title along with the launch of a new console may have been too much. Such a company has to protect its future, not their fault just the way it is.

 

All the above said this game released with a new console and the improvements that would have allowed, also giving them more time to complete the game (thus a better product on day of sale) may have been a huge leap in keeping the customer base happy.

 

Now these are just my opinions, and as such they are what they are..

[Bloody Initiate]

Take your character and story and pit them against other people. I don't know if this has been seriously done or not, or if current gen systems are unable to make these kind of games but I would say a game like that would be the next step in FPS.

 

This has been done a bunch of times actually. When you let characters develop enough you get a paper rock scissors game where one build simply has much better odds of beating another. The consistent trend of Halo gameplay, even in Halo 4, is that you can't get an incredible edge over someone before you pick up the controller (By that I mean YOU beat your enemies, not your character). People don't like the perks and AAs and stuff adding that unpredictable element, but generally they grant only slight edges. What you're talking about is a game where spartans can develop differently enough that the edges won't be as slight.

 

As I said a bunch of games have done that though, you probably didn't notice because generally that model doesn't produce the kind of high quality gameplay. The more you put into the multiplayer arena the less consistent and polished it becomes. I don't know how to explain that better, perhaps it's something I'm particularly good at noticing, but it's like games get grainier the more they stuff into their multiplayer. The programming isn't as clean, the graphics are more disconnected, the animations more jerky. The smoothness that stood out to me when I first played Halo is not present in games like you describe.

 

The simple fact is that more = harder for coders. The more variables you introduce into multiplayer the harder it is to make sure they all work properly, and work together properly. In games with a lot of multiplayer options you notice certain options sort of sag too, like a weapon won't be very good at all or it will be broken good (Beyond complaints about the DMR). Everything fits together a little bit less when you have more pieces.

[FleshBack]

Perhaps it is a battle for another generation, I suppose. Can't say I have heard of any games that tried that model though, but I can imagine them being not that well received critically.

[Bloody Initiate]

Well you could fight each other in the original Borderlands, MMOs that allow PVP all fit the model you describe, in the game Dark Souls you can invade other players' worlds as they play through the story (Just BOOM, now I'm here, time to fight), you can also duel other players or work with them in Dark Souls, the game Phantom Dust for the original Xbox let you combine 3rd person arena gameplay with a sort of card-battle system, and as you say a lot of shooters are moving toward a sort of RPG development system where you are rewarded with new weapons and abilities for your soldier.

 

I think the original idea was to reward players for investing time in the game, where previously in Halo the only rewards you got for investing time were sharper skills and in Halo 3 you got some armor. In Halo Reach you got more armor, and finally in Halo 4 the final perks are awarded through time investment.

 

The problem with that system is exactly what people say it is, you can gain a very real edge from those systems, and suddenly the game is giving players who have played for awhile a mechanical edge over new ones.

 

Ever played Battlefield 3? It is an excellent game, but it's more than a little guilty of having that high, punishing learning curve. When you first start out in that game you have very few guns to pick from and all but one are using iron sights. Everyone else who has played a bit has acquired scopes for their weapons. The guns in that game also have noticeable recoil that you have to learn to control. People who have played a bit will have more tools for managing their recoil. There is also nowhere in the original game to practice flying jets, people eventually rented servers and designated them for practice, but that's reliant on their generosity. As the game shipped no one could practice flying jets except in multiplayer, so when you finally get in one you're crashing constantly and experienced pilots can knock you out of the sky without you ever having a chance. They already went through their crashing noob phase, and now they have missiles that lock on and air radar that keeps them from losing track of you. So in addition to experience, they have a mechanical advantage.

 

I've heard that all the Battlefield games have that steep punishing learning curve, and once you get over it BF3 is really pretty incredible, but it sucks being new to the game.

[Chris Hansen]

My solution for halo is not to add new game-play features, but take what put them on top on the first place and make those parts really shine.

 

I played halo over other FPS's because of it's not realistic anything. It was my future alien FPS. How fast you could move and jump, the over the top multi-player vehicles, The crazy weapons all with a different niche in combat. These are the things I remember and constantly wish to experience every time I boot up a halo title.

 

I don't want an overhaul, or even a revolution, but rather just new content, new weapons, new maps, new vehicles, all while maintaining the core mechanics that made halo great in the first place.