343 has to get it right this time.

[Twinreaper]

I get it man, and I'm all for changes that would make the game play more like Halo 2 and Halo 3.  But I'

m not sure the community is smart enough nor "big" enough to man up to most of the complaints stemming from their own weaknesses in matchmaking.  For the most part, a lot of your arguments are solid and logical.  Unfortunatly, a large portion of the Halo community is not.  Most of their comments result from poor choices in combat,. or tactics and gameplay styles that don't carry through the entire franchise.

 

It's easy to blame the game, and hard to blame yourself.  Frankly, 99% of the community is far to convoluted and arrogant to ever look at themselves and lay the blame where it belongs.

[OMG Treason]

Omfg, I am the sux cant kill this kid he is obv's hacking, nope its the magnetism darn magnetism, nope not that just a no skill BR spam that needs bloom for real skill, nope no it doesn't bloom = more skill..darn bloom got me killed RNG garbage. No skill

 

The Halo community in a nutshell.

[ChristopherRyan]

Sigh.. 

 

It is depressing, I know. And I'm sorry, I feel like a jerk for saying what I said above. I just see so much potential for fairness and balance in Halo. There are lots of smart, competitive players out there, but a lot of them aren't playing shooters, because there is no balanced shooter that is relatively modern. If Halo took this niche, and offered a balls to the wall, balanced, fair, competitive, no-bull**** game, I swear, it would take the gaming industry by storm. Even the most competitive games out there right now aren't perfectly balanced. Games like LOL, starcraft, DOTA. They aren't, and simply can't be perfectly balanced because of unequal starts. There just isn't a fair game out there to play, and I can't fathom why 343 wants to be part of this stupid rat race of games that are only attractive because of gimmicks. I swear, Halo has the potential to be playable for the next 10-20 years, like counterstrike has. If only they could open their eyes and see...

 

thanks for putting up with me guys, I know I'm zealous.

[Twinreaper]

Not at all Chris, you offer the a perfectly logical and valid aspect from the opposite end of my spectrum.  Your input helps others see things in a different way.  In a way, without you and me having these types of debates, many people may not know about certain things.  I see all this as nothing but positive stuff bro.

 

And yeah, there are a lot of games out there that are good, but like you said, designed to be one sided and very unfair.  Makes me wonder if the future of Halo could be something along the lines of what I am about to describe....

 

Halo is to many, a multiplayer experience first and foremost.  It's pretty much a fact, that a majority or Halo players, don't buy the game for the campaign experience.  Knowing this, why is it that we need to have a constant new multiplayer?  Instead of releasing a new game in it's entirdy, why not create a standalone MM experience, designed from the ground up with nothing but basic "roots".  A MM that can be tweaked, added onto and supported for the next 5-7 years?  Start with a solid platform like that, and simply release add-on campaign.  It can be campaign separate from each one, like Halo 5, then have Halo 6 or whatever.  Just release the campaign on disc, and continue to have the titles use the same multiplayer, the same way they did with CEA.

 

This would cut down development time as 343i would not need to redo the MM experience.  They could just add weapons, characters, or whatever, and it could all be done without it effecting things outside the MM aspect.  This would also allow the devs more time to work on the campaign, and come up with truly ground breaking stuff to add to Halo.  Like we said before, if it isn't broken don't fix it.

[The Director]

 

Not at all Chris, you offer the a perfectly logical and valid aspect from the opposite end of my spectrum.  Your input helps others see things in a different way.  In a way, without you and me having these types of debates, many people may not know about certain things.  I see all this as nothing but positive stuff bro.

 

And yeah, there are a lot of games out there that are good, but like you said, designed to be one sided and very unfair.  Makes me wonder if the future of Halo could be something along the lines of what I am about to describe....

 

Halo is to many, a multiplayer experience first and foremost.  It's pretty much a fact, that a majority or Halo players, don't buy the game for the campaign experience.  Knowing this, why is it that we need to have a constant new multiplayer?  Instead of releasing a new game in it's entirdy, why not create a standalone MM experience, designed from the ground up with nothing but basic "roots".  A MM that can be tweaked, added onto and supported for the next 5-7 years?  Start with a solid platform like that, and simply release add-on campaign.  It can be campaign separate from each one, like Halo 5, then have Halo 6 or whatever.  Just release the campaign on disc, and continue to have the titles use the same multiplayer, the same way they did with CEA.

 

This would cut down development time as 343i would not need to redo the MM experience.  They could just add weapons, characters, or whatever, and it could all be done without it effecting things outside the MM aspect.  This would also allow the devs more time to work on the campaign, and come up with truly ground breaking stuff to add to Halo.  Like we said before, if it isn't broken don't fix it.

 

 

I never thought I'd see the day... Twinreaper posting as part of a debate/argument and only getting one word spelled wrong? What is going on here?!?!

 

Jokes aside, I'm with TR on this one as far as my opinion goes. I'd like to also further point out that 343i did originally try to make Halo 4 with standalone multiplayer (even giving it a storyline and such), so they may go even further with Halo 5.

[ChristopherRyan]

I think a standalone multiplayer is a good idea. Though not to say a campaign is a bad thing. There just needs to be an order in priority: Figure out the multiplayer formula FIRST, then spend time on the campaign. There should be enough time in a 2 or 3 year cycle to create a game. Keep in mind that a simpler game will be easier to balance. But don't release the game until its done.

 

I hear the same thing over and over again: Halo needs to change from title to title to keep people interested. To this I say, hogwash! If the game is a good game by itself, the addition of equipment, armor abilities, sprint, and loadouts will only put that "goodness" in jeopardy. The only new things Halo needs from game to game is better graphics, refinement, better netcode for less lag, better newer maps, and the like. KEEP THE GAMEPLAY THE SAME

[Xbox Fan]

Twinreaper, you didn't prove anyone wrong. All that you proved is that you don't know what you're talking about. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would quit blindly praising 343.

[Twinreaper]

Xbox Fan, firstly keep your unintelligent mouth shut. I know exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps it is YOU, who shouod do some research about the people whom you think are ignorant, or do not know what they are talking about.

 

My history with Halo and it's variant game engines is a long 13+ year history. I know what quite well how it works internally, as well as the tag/meta/compression schemas. Do me a favor and crawl back under the rock from which you came.

[OMG Treason]

I like the idea of stand alone multiplayer. I buy Halo, I buy COD, im going to buy the Division, and RBS Patriots, and every other competitive shooter because I enjoy multiplayer. I could care less about Campaigns im here to stomp people, get my killstreaks, get headshots, and make people feel bad about their FPS abilities. Stand alone multiplayer excellent idea.

[BaconShelf]

If you want a Halo 3 clone, okay Halo 3. Nobody is forcing you to play 4. There are a lot of people who like the features you listed.

 

 

Quite frankly, you just seem buttmad that people don't confirm to your gameplay style- you aren't willing to change tactics or style, so you think everyone should adapt to you.

[Warlord0520]

I think halo reach was decent until load outs came along. But the anniversary bundle fixed some of the problems, only if big team battle dident have load outs and if they made playlists with/without load outs would have made the game less cod ish.

 

I played halo4 for a few weeks because I got tired of call of duty and I realized it was just like cod so I quit lol.

If 343i wants halo5 to last longer than reach, they need to make it like halo3 but with halo reaches armor system, halo 3's leveling system, reaches rank system, and buff up Firefight and make it like odst firefight was, maybe even add a story to it. Hopefully they figured out by now people stick halo4 in their Xbox expecting to play a cod variant. And I don't like they fact the they add all these new guns w/o letting us duel wield them like in Halo3. I honestly don't think halo5 will be any better, I mean, look what buntie did before they released reach... They put load outs. Look what 343 did with halo4, load outs another cod features that were unnecessary.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

I think halo reach was decent until load outs came along. But the anniversary bundle fixed some of the problems, only if big team battle dident have load outs and if they made playlists with/without load outs would have made the game less cod ish.

I played halo4 for a few weeks because I got tired of call of duty and I realized it was just like cod so I quit lol.

If 343i wants halo5 to last longer than reach, they need to make it like halo3 but with halo reaches armor system, halo 3's leveling system, reaches rank system, and buff up Firefight and make it like odst firefight was, maybe even add a story to it. Hopefully they figured out by now people stick halo4 in their Xbox expecting to play a cod variant. And I don't like they fact the they add all these new guns w/o letting us duel wield them like in Halo3. I honestly don't think halo5 will be any better, I mean, look what buntie did before they released reach... They put load outs. Look what 343 did with halo4, load outs another cod features that were unnecessary.

 

So your saying 343i should pretty much rerelease Halo 3, but in a slightly revamped form? I'm sure the closest thing you'll get to this is either Halo 3, or modded game types in Reach or 4. Maybe an actual Anniversary edition, which I doubt will happen.

 

In my honest opinion I don't think 343 needs to downgrade back to Halo 3 or any previous game to succeed. They can learn from the previous games to see what formula made them successful, and work off that, but I think most of the Community just wants something fresh and new: as in some form of innovation for the series.

 

Finally I know that was just opinion, but to me Halo 4 feels nothing like CoD. I can easily see differences between the two. I'd like to know what you see besides just the Loadouts, since there's more to both than that one comparison.

 

And for the record just because CoD has loadouts doesn't mean it's reserved specifically for CoD, and that they solely came up with that feature. Halo 4 may have loadouts, but I see nothing wrong with their implementation. If anything I see it as an upgrade.

 

Sorry if I came off as irritable or something. I respect your opinion, and appreciate you making your statement without mindless ranting.

[Twinreaper]

Since you brought it up Self Destrucy, if memory serves correct, Unreal.Tournament was the first FPS to pretty much to contain everything we have now. Loadouts, Juggernaut, CTF, added abilities, etc.

 

CoD was late to the party with loadouts multiplayer, and again iirc, Crysis was the first actual FPS to encorporate them they way we have them now.

 

But I will agree that regressing backwards is not a good business choice for the franchise. As much as I hate the new multiplayer schema, it does have several admirable qualities. Going forward, you have to look forward, not to the past. Im a big enough man to admit that, and that I need to adjust to that.

[ChristopherRyan]

The problem with loadouts is that no matter how well balanced the starts are, it is impossible to have entirely balanced starts simply because loadouts will be different from one another. Thus the game is unfair, and unbalanced, and more about who can build the best loadout, and less about who can play the game the best.

 

I don't know why people keep coming back to this whole "oh we need something new, and fresh", idea. Wrong. New graphics, new weapons, new maps, and refinement to the original formula is enough, and plenty. Why do we need to change the way the game plays on a fundamental level when we can just improve the finer points? Why risk something new, again, split the community, again, and fail again. 

 

Its time to learn the lesson. How many times do you need to smack your face against a brick wall to realize that it hurts? I don't know about you, but for me, its usually once, or none. Bungie smacked their face against the wall the first time with Halo 2, dramatically increasing kill times, a second time with Halo 3, with the introduction of equipment, and a third time with Reach, with the addition of AA's. 343 has dutifully continued the face-smacking tradition with Halo 4, I'll spare you the list, and could possible be going in for round 2 with Halo 5. The brick wall is chuckling at this point, not cracking.

 

All this "new and fresh" stuff like equipment, AA's, loadouts and sprint only take Halo further and further away from it's original formula (which, GASP, actually worked, was fun, and was sustainable for several years). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. To be blunt, this 'new and fresh" attitude encourages change simply for the sake of change, not at all for the sake of gameplay quality.

 

Halo has failed SPECIFICALLY because it tries to come out with these new ideas that fundamentally alter gameplay, title after title. When the new game comes out, sure some people like the changes, but a lot of other people (core fans) think "what the hell, this is totally different from the last game".

 

Why trade out the old fanbase for the new, every title, when you could keep the old, and continue to build upon it, by releasing games that are more similar than different to their predecessors. Games that are FAIR and FUN and CHALLENGING. No reason, really, other than corporate greed, and foolishness. Since CoD is doing well, and has features XYZ, Halo would to better to implement those features, right? Not that bad of logic at first glance, but c'mon, have we not learned the lesson yet? 

 

So to this attitude of "fresh and new", I say, that is the reason Halo is failing. Stop it with the fresh and new, and go back to consistency.

 

Halo NEEDS to go back, downgrade, as you say. Halo has always found strength in its simplicity. It would take courage, and dignity for 343 to come out and say "we were wrong, but now we are going to do the Halo franchise right, and offer the original Halo formula". It is cowardice to follow trends. Do I need to cite population statistics?

[BaconShelf]

However, loadouts offer newer players a chance to start with a weapon they feel comfortable using. For instance, I shrek in Titanfall with the Spitfire, but others do the same with Longbows or EVA's. giving people a chance to play how they play best means that there aren't as many unfair advantages who know where to camp the weapon spawns.

[Elite]

This is a troll post, or a stupid (thus troll) post.

 

Usually when making a game, you aren't told by your boss to turn around and undo everything till you have half of a completely broken game.

 

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean everyone else hates it too. Sprint was a valid gameplay mechanic, if you don't like it, you should be constructive and explain why, and your reasons for how it "breaks everything completely", instead of saying "REMOVE IT GET IT OUR OF MY FACE >>:C:C"

[Xbox Fan]

 

If you want a Halo 3 clone, okay Halo 3. Nobody is forcing you to play 4. There are a lot of people who like the features you listed.

 

 

Quite frankly, you just seem buttmad that people don't confirm to your gameplay style- you aren't willing to change tactics or style, so you think everyone should adapt to you.

BaconShelf, I'm not going to reply to your lack of intelligence.

 

This is a troll post, or a stupid (thus troll) post.

 

Usually when making a game, you aren't told by your boss to turn around and undo everything till you have half of a completely broken game.

 

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean everyone else hates it too. Sprint was a valid gameplay mechanic, if you don't like it, you should be constructive and explain why, and your reasons for how it "breaks everything completely", instead of saying "REMOVE IT GET IT OUR OF MY FACE >>:C:C"

Elite, you clearly have no common sense at all. Do you really think that I'm the only one that hate the features that were put into Halo: Reach and Halo 4? If you do, then I'm very sorry that you have not clue what you're saying. You want to know why Sprint is bad, here's my list of reasons for why it's bad for Halo: Sprint easily gets you out of situations that you should've died in (in other words it's a get out of jail free card), Sprint dumbs down maps (developers have to make bigger maps for Sprint to work which in turn mean most of the maps are going to be terrible), Sprint ruins call outs (by the time that a teammate lets another teammate know where the enemy is at the enemy has already Sprinted away), Sprint ruins map control (not only do you have to get to a power position first, but once you're already there you have to constantly check behind you because of Sprint), Sprint promotes double-beat down killing (your opponent can now Sprint around a corner and spam the melee button without any skill required), and Sprint isn't Halo. I can go on all day, but I'm going to make things short and simple. By the way I as well as most other Halo fans would rather you and the rest of the COD, Battlefield, and Casual crowd go instead of the True Die Hard Halo Fans to. We don't need COD, Battlefield, and Casual players playing Halo. We need Die Hard Competitive Halo Fans playing Halo.

[BaconShelf]

>tells people that they shouldn't be allowed to do something if they disagree

 

>calls those people idiots

 

 

I sense hypocrisy at the highest level.

[ChristopherRyan]

Alright, lets not degrade ourselves to calling each other stupid. That's not a valid argument.

 

Baconshelf, your logic is flawed. "Camping" weapon spawns isn't an unfair advantage. The weapons are on the map, everyone has the exact same capabilities and weapons off spawn, thus everyone has the exact same capability to fight over the weapons. Especially on team-based, symmetrical maps, which is what most maps should be like. Asymmetrical maps aren't necessarily the most fair maps.

 

Loadouts, on the other had are not fair, by nature. This point is non-negotiable, stemming from the meaning of the word "fair". Yes loadouts, they give people the opportunity to play with a certain utility weapon, and various balance-ruining perks, but people no longer are spawning into the map with the exact same performance and capabilitites, thus the game is not fair. I assume most Halo players were better than you, and you had a hard time picking up the weapons you enjoyed to play with, let alone power weapons. This doesn't mean the game was unfair. And people usually fight more over power weapons, not other utility weapons on the map like the carbine, or the BR, which would be available in loadouts. 

 

Sure, I love listing the pitfalls of sprint!

 

-Halo is a high kill time game, compared to a game like COD, were you only need to land 2 or 3 bullets to get a kill. In a game like COD, there is risk/reward element to sprint, because if you sprint into a bad situation, you are killed outright. Where as in Halo, if you sprint into a bad situation, the kill times are high enough to give you the time to turn and run. Sprint is a risk/reward system in COD, but a reward/reward system in Halo. This is why sprint is called a get out of jail free card, because you can just hold a button to get away

 

-When you are in a gunfight in Halo 4, and you know you are going to lose, all you need to do is sprint away. The person who would have killed you now can't, because to pursue you, he must sprint as well, and while both of you are sprinting, neither of you can shoot, meaning that all the while your sprint is being used up, time is elapsing, and your sheilds are coming back. This is why sprint can actually decrease the pace of the game: a sprinter can someone to beat him, then run away, multiple times before someone finally kills him. This is why sprint makes Halo 4 play so differently from previous Halos. If you want to run away in Halo 3, you just move, and your pursuer can still shoot you in the back, because you don't have the ability to trade your ability to fire for a faster movement speed.

 

-Sprint encourages double beatdowns.

 

-The maps in Halo 4 are HUGE, because now, we have sprint. Meaning all of your gunbattles are much further away, grenades are less useful, and map design is generally poor. you have to sprint around for a while just to find someone, and fights are longer range, and less interesting.

 

-On the other hand, in a no-sprint game, the maps would be small, and games are action-packed, as you need not look far for an opponent. And the pace of the game is faster, because you can't prolong engagements by running away.

 

-The base movement is lowered to account for sprint, meaning that strafe is much less effective. The average speed between sprinting and not sprinting is about the same as the base movement speed in no-sprint MLG games.

 

If you guys like loadout, sprint games, go play destiny, or COD, or titanfall, or pretty much any other shooter right now. The market is ABSOLUTELY SATURATED with those kinds of games right now. Halo doesn't need to compete for a spot among those games, it needs to offer an OG Halo game.

 

And stop with the "oh you just want Halo to be your way" argument, that's a stupid argument, and %100 goes both ways.

[Twinreaper]

I'll just in real quick to state one thing.  "Fair" is not a term or concept that translates well into the real world either in gaming or not.  Is it fair to force someone to start with a Battle Rifle, when they suck at aiming with it, and after years of practice, they can't use it?  Or is fair, because the people who are good with it, get an advantage over the suckier people?

 

Fair fundamentally means that everyone has the "EXACT" same chance when they start.  Depending on some ones abilities with a certain weapon, you can't say it is fair.  People who have an adept ability to use an Assault Rifle better in combat than a BR, will more than likely use that weapon and their instincts to outperform someone with a different weapon.  Forcing them to use a starting weapon, and not giving said player an opportunity to use what they are comfortable with, isn't exactly fair either.  Sports for that matter are another example of fairness.  People are built differently and because of such, there is no sure "fair" competition.  I know that's a bit off topic, but the logic behind it rings across different areas.

 

Give two people the same shoes, it doesn't mean that their chance for balance or speed are the same.  Give someone the same gun, it doesn't mean they both can fire it accurately.  Fair is simply a perception of each individuals situation.  Fair, implies people are exactly the same, with the same exact situation, circumstance and abilities.  Creating a "fairer" gameplay situation is a better use of the term.  Again, nothing will ever be fair, it's human nature and a fact of life.

[ChristopherRyan]

I'll just in real quick to state one thing.  "Fair" is not a term or concept that translates well into the real world either in gaming or not.  Is it fair to force someone to start with a Battle Rifle, when they suck at aiming with it, and after years of practice, they can't use it? YES Or is fair, because the people who are good with it, get an advantage over the suckier people? YES

 

Fair fundamentally means that everyone has the "EXACT" same chance when they start.  Depending on some ones abilities with a certain weapon, you can't say it is fair. One's abilities are irrelevant, the game gives everyone the same tools to work with, on one gets a handicap. People who have an adept ability to use an Assault Rifle better in combat than a BR, will more than likely use that weapon and their instincts to outperform someone with a different weapon.  Forcing them to use a starting weapon, and not giving said player an opportunity to use what they are comfortable with, isn't exactly fair either. Disagree.  Sports for that matter are another example of fairness.  People are built differently and because of such, there is no sure "fair" competition.  I know that's a bit off topic, but the logic behind it rings across different areas. Not really the best example, humans are different from one another. I will probably never be a pro football player.

 

Give two people the same shoes, it doesn't mean that their chance for balance or speed are the same.  Give someone the same gun, it doesn't mean they both can fire it accurately.  Fair is simply a perception of each individuals situation.  Fair, implies people are exactly the same, with the same exact situation, circumstance and abilities.  Creating a "fairer" gameplay situation is a better use of the term.  Again, nothing will ever be fair, it's human nature and a fact of life.

Disagree %100

Answers in bold

 

People starting with the same weapon/capabilities = fair

 

People starting with a different weapons that they are comfortable with =/= fair

 

Spawning people with different weapons in attempt to get them on the same level by allowing them a weapon they are comfortable with is a poor attempt at fairness.

 

The BR/DMR are precision oriented weapons, and the AR is a spray and pray bullet hose, with much less requirement for skill. the skill involved with using the AR is about surviving long enough to get in range, and is more movement based, like a shotgun.

Of course, there is the option of spawning players with both the DMR/BR and the AR, kind of like in Halo CE, that would be fair too. The main point is, everyone should spawn in as an exact clone as one another, personal capability aside

[Twinreaper]

Everyone is different Chris. Someone with poor depth vision, aka blind in one eye, will.do better with a spread based weapon as a start out rather than a BR or DMR. Is that fair to limit someones physical prowless all in the name of winning the match?

 

The more I go back through and read everything, the problem seems to be that noone can accept plain out defeat in a Halo 4 match. Im sure just as many complaints circulated around the previous titles, stemming from the inability to juat lose and walk away gracefully. Im choosing the latter. Im walking away from this endless debate. I have better things to do now in hindsight, after going back through this thread.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

Then there's no freedom. I understand Halo 3, and 2 were this way, but I'd rather prefer my own custom loadout instead of being forced to play in such a slow gameplay.

@ChristopherRyan

[ChristopherRyan]

Then there's no freedom. I understand Halo 3, and 2 were this way, but I'd rather prefer my own custom loadout instead of being forced to play in such a slow gameplay.

@ChristopherRyan

How does slow gameplay get lumped in with no loadouts? You always have the freedom to go and pick up a gun. I would agree that Halo 3's default movement speed was low. Have you ever played MLG Halo 3, or MLG Reach? The movement speed is pretty quick.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

My bad I meant both Sprint and Loadouts.

 

No I'm not MLG and have not never played MLG playlists. I would just find the speed of the matches I've played in Halo 3 and partially Reach to be slow: since in 3 your reduced to walking speed (and faster in MLG) and in Reach the same was true if you had a different AA than Sprint.

 

Whenever I play 3 I have the sudden urge to just let loose and sprint. I feel really restricted due to the limited movement, and that's why I did not play MM in 3 much.

 

In Reach you had Sprint, and so the pace was a little faster and more attuned to my play style. I'm one of those people who run around everywhere.

 

I just find it strange to uninclude Loadouts and Sprint because as a Spartan, you should be fast and allowed to use whatever weapon suits you at the start.

 

I don't know I just feel like the way your describing it is just 343 releasing a Halo 3 clone. If anything a gametype would be far better executed.