Why classic Halo was broken and needed to be replaced

[Slit Removals]

First of all I just want to say that if you disagree with anything I'm about to say, I'm totally fine with that. Please don't get offended by it, but try to take into mind what I'm saying here. I don't think you'll regret it.

 

A lot of people (whom I consider to be scared of chance, personally) claim that Halo multiplayer was ruined with Halo Reach and even further with Halo 4. They say that Halo needs to go back (devolve, basically) to the way it played originally.

I've always sat back and watched as so many people have made these ridiculous claims, but today I'm taking it upon myself to explain why these claims are in fact, wrong.

Halo's gameplay for the first 3 games was broken, and Halo Reach (and especially Halo 4) took the right steps to fix the many glaring problems with the franchise.

For the sake of keeping things fact-based, I'm going to leave out those things from the original trilgoy which were only bad in my opinion, and stick to disussing those things which were in fact, bad.

 

One of the biggest faults with the way Halo originally played was that you couldn't start with the weapon you wanted. The reason this is never a good thing, without fail, is because when you're playing a game, you need to be able to play to your own play-style. I can't even begin to fathom what benefits are gained when players all have to start out with the same abilities.

Let's take perks, for example. If there's something I'm not particularly good at, such as throwing and timing grenades accurately, then I should be given an opportunity from the game to compensate for that inability, because I bought the game like everyone else and therefore I've purchased the right to having fun (if you will).

So in this example, I would use the perk that lets me carry an extra grenade. This way, I'm more likely to achieve success with my grenade throwing, which is only fair. Like I said, all players payed the same money for the game, so it's only fair that the game ensures that all players are given the same opportunity for success.
But when there were no perks, the game was broken in this sense because it meant that lesser skilled players had to suffer for merely lacking in a particular skill. Should people really have to suffer due to only being human and having weaknesses? Of course not.

So luckily, Halo Reach and Halo 4 began to fix this fault with loadouts, which is great. Now Halo can finally begin to have legs of its own, and I find it quite saddening that so many people start to hate on the franchise when it finally gets to be an experience that works.

 

Another fault with the way the original Halo games played was that they were too predictable, meaning that the game didn't create enough random elements for the experience. Do I really need to go into why this is blatantly a bad thing? I guess so.

Not having randomness means:

1) There is less variety in gameplay. If I know what power weapon is going to be in the hallway on a map, and I know when it's going to be there, where's the fun in that? Fun comes in to play when we don't know what it is we might get or when we might get it.

2) It gives too much power to skilled players. All players should have equal opportunity to achieve success in the game, because as I pointed out earlier, all players payed the same money for the game. This means that it is objectively bad game design to provide players with opportunities which can require large amounts of skill to take advantage of.
When you put a power weapon in a certain spot on a map, then the skilled players will more often than not get it because they can target their skills to attain that weapon. Whereas when the power weapons spawn in random places and at random times, it takes most of the control away from the players themselves, and therefore ALL players are given equal opportunity over time.

Random ordnance and personal ordnance fixed this particular problem, which is why they were such great additions.

 

The next fault with the original Halo trilogy was that they didn't have sprint. I'm always hearing the most ridiculous reasons for why sprint is bad for Halo, and all I can really hear is "I'm scared of change", "I can't adapt", "I can't help but whine at everything new", and "it's not Bungie so it's bad".

A lack of sprint was a fault that needed to be fixed. Period. Why shouldn't I be able to run away from encounters I'm losing? Why should my enemy be able to chase and shoot me at the same speed? These things are claimed to be "good" for Halo by many, believe it or not.
The obvious reason that being able to move at full speed and shoot at the same time is a bad thing is because FPS games should revolve around choosing whether to shoot or to sprint. It should never be about doing both at the same time. Having to know when to sprint and when to stop so you can shoot makes it more like real life, and it also adds another skill you have to think about, and that's why it's nothing short of one of the best additions to the franchise that has happened.

 

So as we can see, Halo 4 has in fact done many things to make the franchise actually worthy of being played. But unfortunately, we still have a way to go. Here are some things that absolutely need to happen in order for Halo to really become a great experience:

1) Aim-down-sights MUST be included. What happens when a person aims in real life? That's it! They have to slow their movement down to gain that accuracy. They have to know when to use the advantage of one and when to use the advantage of the other. Halo is doing this wrong, even to this day, and it simply can't go unfixed as we move forward.

2) Going prone needs to be included. Which was the last Halo book you read which stated that Spartans can't go prone? Oh, you didn't? Then think twice before you start talking some nonsense about how it shouldn't be in Halo. We need to progress, people. Change is good.

3) Grenade cooking. I'm sorry, but saying that a Spartan can't go prone is one thing, but to claim that they wouldn't be able to hold a grenade for a few seconds if they wanted to? That's ridiculous. This feature absolutely must be put in Halo if it's going to be taken seriously. No game should ever not have grenade cooking, or any of these features for that matter.

 

I must be honest, I wasn't even interested in Halo multiplayer in the slightest until Halo Reach just started to grab my attention with its improvements. What does that tell you about the franchise?

Then when Halo 4 came along, I knew that something really good was finally happening with the game. I really don't care how much it resembles Call of Duty or any other shooter, as long as it starts to become a playable experience, then that's what matters.

Let's keep this forward progression going with Halo 5, 343i. Only good can come of it. I beg of you, don't listen to all these people who are stuck in the past.

[The Director]

Well... Figure I should probably put this here...

 

Staff Response
Please remain civil when discussing this topic. Any breach of the rules will result in disciplinary action.

[Slit Removals]

Well... Figure I should probably put this here...

 

Staff Response

Please remain civil when discussing this topic. Any breach of the rules will result in disciplinary action.

 

Yes thank you. I know what I've said is controversial, but i still hope we can all remain civil about it.

[Buns]

 

I've always sat back and watched as so many people have made these ridiculous claims, but today I'm taking it upon myself to explain why these claims are in fact, wrong.

There is no facts here. This is just YOUR opinon and that doesn't make it right/good for Halo

 

With that being said I agree with a few things you stated but I think 343i should aim to cater to both audiences. Halo is an Arena shooter at its heart and we should support those Arena elements, but some players really enjoy the more casual loadout system and we should support that too. Halo has always supported variety and thats a great thing. It makes the game flexible while also catering to niche audiences.

 

Although if 343i had to pick one side I say stick with what made Halo, Halo(but also add some fresh new Arena elements like they are doing with Halo 5) It is fairly clear that 343i is listening to the old fans with the next game and while they haven't said "no" to loadouts(I fully believe loadouts will be in the game, but only in certain playlist which is PERFECT that way players have a choice)

 

Really long write up. You would be surprised quite a few people would agree with you on this.  

[Coldfreeze]

I wouldn't like Aiming down the sight. I mean Halo basically evolved around that, taking that aways is rather strange.

Lore based Spartans and marines alike get a reticule which is directly linked to their visual feed. It's a really nice concep and is a ctually being deployed in real combat more and more often, due to landwarrior. 

 

Going prone would not mean much in Halo's MP, the gameplay moves fast and the abillity to react slows down. Cod has it but kills are easily gained. 

 

Your reasons how Halo improved with REACH and 4 are most of the reasons I like them as well.

[Unease Peanut]

Now first off I do agree with you that people need to learn to adapt and not immediatly hate on everything 343i does different from Bungie.

However I'd like to adress some thing you said.

the loadouts are imo not that bad. But I can see why some people want it to change back to basic starter weapons so that everyone starts out equally.

Now you said the less skilled players are helped by making their own loadout so that they have a chance against the "pro's" but to be fair, you cannot always rely on the game to help you out. If you're being beaten it means that the other players were better and they deserve the victory. It's kind of frustrating when you know you're better then the opponent but they still win because they use an ability you might not have in your loadout at the time, or they win because they just so happen to recieve a SAW in their ordnance. Normally you'd have to battle over power weapons and earn them by beating your opponent, not by being lucky.

 

Also implementing ADs and prone just wouldn't be... Halo...

ADS, like Coldfreeze said, isn't necessary and prone would just open oppertunities for campers and it would slow down the pace of the game.

[Slit Removals]

I have to be honest with you guys here, and I don't mean to cause offense, but all I'm getting from this is "I'm scared of change". If you don't want aim-down-sights or going prone in Halo, then you want Halo to stick in the past, right?
Change is good! It really is! And Halo needs change right now. Halo needed change from the very start - it was broken.

 

Think about it, what's more important, that Halo stays "feeling" like Halo, or that Halo makes improvements through additions such as ADS and going prone (and sprint, but we've already got that)? As long as the addition will bring the game into the modern experience, then it doesn't matter if it doesn't "feel" like Halo originally did. Getting away from what Halo has felt like is exactly what we're trying to achieve! Let's face it, the experience was broken.

I wouldn't even be here commenting on Halo if it weren't for the major overhauling that took place in Halo 4. I'd have just carried on ignoring the franchise, because it wasn't for me. Simple as that. But due to these great changes to the way the multiplayer works, I can actually find enjoyment in the experience.

 

It's like how people say "sprint doesn't feel like Halo", "it makes Halo play differently on a fundamental level". I don't care if it makes Halo vastly different! I just want it to actually be an enjoyable experience for once. And you guys are doing the exact same thing by arguing against these new features just because they would change the way Halo plays.
If you don't want Halo with going prone, grenade cooking, and aim-down-sights (which are all expected in a modern FPS), then you can always play the outdated games. Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 will all be in the MCC collection, and if you want those outdated experiences (and yes, even Halo 4 is outdated), then they'll be there for you to play. I personally wont be on the first 3 games because they don't appeal to me.

 

As for going prone promoting camping, well that's kind of the point.... It allows people to utilise the skill of knowing how, when and where to hide themselves, but it's balanced because you lose mobility and become more vulnerable. Look at Call of Duty (a perfect example of what Halo could be) - in CoD, you can go prone and it means that snipers can conveniently hide themselves and this adds another option to their style of play. This is why going prone is objectively a good thing for any shooter, and I see no excuse not to put it in Halo. It's 2014 people!

 

ADS makes it so you have to know when to shoot and when to run, and it's balanced because of that. I don't care whether or not it feels like Halo, I care about if it's going to make Halo an improved experience, and ADS of course would. And when Halo improves, players who wouldn't otherwise have been interested will be more likely to come to the experience.
As for those people who actually thought that Halo not having those features (sprint, ADS, loadouts, going prone) was a good thing, well they will just have to live with it I'm afraid. Halo has to change. Those people think that a lack of a certain gameplay feature actually helps the game in some way? Well I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works.

 

What other modern features do you guys think Halo needs moving forward?

[Coldfreeze]

see the point here is, that ADS is not part of Halo, its like adding just swords in COD or guns in the elder scrolls. it does not belong in Halo, we are not scared of change mind you, I salute sprint and loadouts and ordnance and hijacks and assassinations.

 

The part were Halo is a fast paced arena shooter does not allow for something like prone or ADS. It falls in line with games such as quake and Unreal tournament.

[Slit Removals]

see the point here is, that ADS is not part of Halo, its like adding just swords in COD or guns in the elder scrolls. it does not belong in Halo, we are not scared of change mind you, I salute sprint and loadouts and ordnance and hijacks and assassinations.

 

The part were Halo is a fast paced arena shooter does not allow for something like prone or ADS. It falls in line with games such as quake and Unreal tournament.

 

So you're saying that because it wasn't in Halo originally, therefore it isn't "Halo"? Well of course it's "not Halo", but we need to make it part of Halo from now on for the objective benefits. in exactly the same way we did with sprint.

 

You're telling me you accepted the addition of sprint, yet you wont accept ADS in Halo? Why not? it's a change to the way the game plays, just like sprint. It's an improvement and it brings the game into the future.

1) I'm a Spartan, I should be able to ADS. Even though we can use the smart-link system, we should still have the option of aiming down sights because that's what a Spartan could do if they wanted to. Same thing with sprint.

2) It will modernize the franchise. We don't need old, archaic mechanics. Let's face it, the game wasn't going to survive the modern era without sprint and loadouts, and it certainly wont survive without ADS. It's pretty much essential at this point.

3) It's change, and change is good. I can't figure out why people are so against change.

 

Also, with all due respect, just because there have been certain changes you've accepted so far does not mean you aren't scared of change. The sprint haters accepted changes that happened within the first 3 games, yet they somehow suddenly have something against a new feature like sprint, which can only be good for gameplay? They're still scared of change, and they demonstrate that by whining about a feature just because it's new.

You're doing the exact same thing here. You're saying this new feature is bad just because it's "not Halo". Well then we might as well get rid of sprint and loadouts too, because they're "not Halo" either, but think about how bad the gameplay would be if the franchise devolved like that.

 

I think you should try to open your mind to the benefits of new features like ADS. It really is a great feature for any game.

[Coldfreeze]

I can't think of any reason that ADS would benefit in Halo, I mean weapons have a zoom abillity, not all but a lot do. you can't add stuff only because it modernizes a series, it also needs to fit in with the gameplay. sprint fits in the gameplay mechanics of Halo, so do loadouts.

 

 

And not all change is good. Not everything in the Modern era is good and not all is bad, but there are things that don't fit in terms of gameplay.

[Slit Removals]

I can't think of any reason that ADS would benefit in Halo, I mean weapons have a zoom abillity, not all but a lot do...

That's like saying there's no reason sprint would benefit Halo just because we could already run around and have the maps small enough on average to make travelling fun and not a chore. But sprint adds more than simply getting around faster - sprint makes it so you have to cleverly know when to sprint, and when to shoot, because you can't do both at the same time.

ADS is no different in that it would add a necessity for knowing when to utilise full shooting accuracy, and when to utilise faster movement speed. It's the exact same thing that makes sprint a great and skillful addition.

 

 

 

you can't add stuff only because it modernizes a series, it also needs to fit in with the gameplay. sprint fits in the gameplay mechanics of Halo, so do loadouts.

What do you really mean when you say those things "fit" in to Halo gameplay? Think about that for a second.

Sprint and loadouts change the way Halo functions on quite a significant level, and to say that they don't is to miss the point of them being there. Those changes were needed because they didn't fit into the old, archaic and outdated mold. They changed it up to create a new experience where you had to skillfully deal with the fact that players can now run away from you and you have to choose whether to keep shooting or whether to chase.

 

Loadouts added randomness so that there was variety. People always talk about equal starts, and how it puts the control in the hands of the players alone and not on what inherent advantages they have over each other, as if those things were actually a good thing. Let's face it, it's an old concept and it was time to move into the new era where the focus is also (not exclusively) on having the right stuff at the right time. That makes it fun because you never know for sure whether or not your enemy is going to be advantaged or disadvantaged in any given encounter, and it's more like real life that way too.

 

 

 

And not all change is good. Not everything in the Modern era is good and not all is bad, but there are things that don't fit in terms of gameplay.

I'd just like to put an emphasis on what I was saying before. What do we really mean by it "fits" into Halo gameplay?

 

Loadouts didn't "fit" into the old concept because the old concept was based around equal starts (I mean it's there. Just play those games). Loadouts gave us a NEW concept to work with; an improved concept that isn't broken like equal starts were. The whole point of it being there is that it doesn't "fit" with the old outdated stuff.

I'm going to assume that when you say ADS wouldn't "fit" into Halo, you're saying that it hasn't been a part of Halo so far and would change the way it plays. Well what on Earth do you think sprint did? What is it that you think loadouts and Personal Ordnance did? They didn't "fit" in this sense either, and thank God they didn't as well.

[Coldfreeze]

The AR is a suppresive full auto gun, it's gameplay is focused on supressive fire and room cleaning from short to medium range.

The BR on medium to long firefights with a focus on accuracy.

The DMR on long distance firefights with a large focus on accuracy.

 

Like I said before personal loadouts and ordnance switch up the game perfectly and makes situations unpredictable and keeps the gameplay incredibly fresh every match.

 

Sprint gives you more movement options and a speed increase, giving you the option to charge in or away from a fight.

 

Now I did not say that ADS doesn't fit into the "old" concept, I said it did not fit into the game in terms of gameplay, it would be the same as changing the elder scrolls combat into a hack and slash. It fit's the concept of the game, but not the gameplay.

 

Same goes with prone, it fits in the concept, but does not fit into the gameplay.

 

Now let me explain what I mean with the term gameplay in Halo.

 

See Halo is focused on an arena type gamestyle, much like the old games such as quake or unreal tournament. These games are focused on movement during combat and the abillity to adapt during combat, switching either weapons or direction of movement on the fly and enemies do not die in one shot unless it's whit what we call a power weapon. the games focus on map control,

 

Call of duty and counter strike are focused on a far more competitve yet highly reactive type of gameplay. You see an enemy you shoot, the games don't offer things such as power weapons, but only weapons that are different in small ways, like recoil, rounds per minute, loading time, distance. While counter strike also does not feature ADS, it's a completely different game than Halo, some weapons in CS offer a scoped view and some don't. These type of games focus on heavily on kills and fast reaction speed. Map control is less important, since more kills means less resistance.

 

Then we got another type of style which I reference to as war sims, this are games such a Battlefield or Red orchestra, focusing on map control, strategy and vehicles and objective based gameplay. 

 

Halo is focused on a "retro" style arena shooter with some small elements of a war sim in the vehicles and objective based gameplay.

 

Your suggestions for prone and ADS, would move Halo a lot more in the direction of games like Call of duty, now you said you didn't mind having that, but a lot of people do, not because they are scared of change, but it's not the gamestyle they seek in their FPS games. 

[WonderWombat]

I think the rapid decline in Halo 4's online population is evidence that they are doing something wrong. Maybe if they changed it in the right way it could be more successful or maybe not.

 

After H2A's multiplayer has been available for several months I think then we can find out what the best option for Halo multiplayer is.

[D-38 Boss]

Prone shouldn't be in Halo.

 

The last thing we need is a carbon copy shooter. (I.E. just another CoD)

 

I wasn't in the first game, it hasn't been in any of the games, and you're the ONLY person I've ever heard mention it. Adding prone would invite campers, something that's already an issue. Not to mention, the lack of prone, as simple of a thing as it is, allows for the game to take on a different feel from other shooters, giving it a good pacing.

 

Call of Duty? All over the place. it's fast, it's slow, it's the same game as the last six....

 

 

ADS.

 

I could take it or leave it. The fact of the matter is, one of the things about the Spartans, is they have an actual HUD, not just one that's super imposed in other games. Spartans ACTUALLY have that. Like, IN story. so they automatically have an aiming reticule, same as Marines and ODSTs.

 

So, I'd be fine with it, but there isn't much of a reason to aim down anything but a long range scope.

 

 

Cooking grenades

 

No.

 

You get enough deaths by frag / plasma / whatever crazy grenade they cook up without it. Cooking grenades is just pointless, as it's not something any sane person does.

 

Military shooters would have you believe soldiers actually hold on to a LIVE EXPLOSIVE to wait for a timed blast.

 

They don't.

 

Pull pin, throw, hope it doesn't hit you.

 

Besides, the different types of grenades would make cooking them complex, as they all behave differently.

 

 

Randomness.

 

I need to clarify on this. What exactly do you need randomness for? Where should it come from? That's not really something a developer can program, unless they're programming damage rolls.

 

Randomness in and of itself goes against the other things you've been saying need to be added, most of which originate from CoD, which is, in it's very nature, a predictable game; You run around, shoot a guy, get killed by a camper, then buy the re-skin they come out with in a few months.

 

Truthfully, randomness isn't something you can program, nor is it something that can be added with a patch. it comes from the people playing.

 

 

And I like Halo 4, so.... I don't really care what people say about it, because I'll still like it.

 

Great discussion though.

[Is not JL]

What do you really mean when you say those things "fit" in to Halo gameplay? Think about that for a second.

The thing is, many of the points you've given are simply things that people don't like in Halo. You've listed things that say 'FPS is supposed to be about xxx' or 'Halo should be about xxx', before listing a game mechanic. One example I picked out 

FPS games should revolve around choosing whether to shoot or to sprint. 

 

Well, the converse argument could be used as well. For the reason 'FPS/Halo is supposed to be xxx' we want to maintain our mechanics.

 

Example: 'Halo is supposed to be about timing and throwing good grenades, which is why we should not be able to hold them because that would completely change how the grenades are thrown, severely impact the way the golden triangle works and generally will not be about the Halo'

 

To put it into perspective......Let's say 'FPS' is a type of food - Beef.

 

The mechanics in FPS games - the ingredients.

 

One game could be a Beef Wellington - another game could be Beef Pie. 

 

Some people want Beef Wellington. Other people want Beef Pie. To advance the Beef Wellington, elements of the Pie is included. 

 

How good is the new Beef Wellington? Subjective to opinion. But the people who liked the Beef Wellington in the first place might not enjoy it, and the people who like the Beef Pie don't care about it at all. The new food tastes so unlike a Beef Wellington that there's no point in calling it one.

 

So moral of this metaphor - 'This needs to be in Halo so it's Halo' is subjective, but what is OBJECTIVE FACT is that there is something that does make Halo, Halo and to alter that something would make it NOT Halo. 

 

----

 

Okay, now onto my PERSONAL OPINION, which is this - Change is fine and dandy and all but:

 

A. At no point should it Introduce or Throw away mechanics that completely change the flow of the game and it's already existing basis mechanics within the Golden Triangle. (Examples include: Prone, which would impact controller layouts and how they respond to the crouch button and also the flow of the game and mechanics, since it's a new movement that would accomodate a slower movement speed, requiring a rebalancing of weapons to accommodate said speed, and weapon balance would also need tweaking since the player model has changed severely when prone. Aim Down Sights, which would need animation times, slow down gunplay, and completely disrupt existing mechanics like being kicked out of zoom.

 

B. Make any attempt at decreasing the skill gap. (Examples include increasing the existing randomness in the game to unnecessary amounts that are clearly designed for bad players to take advantage of [Ordnance is.....acceptable], or adding perks that are designed to act as a crutch for bad players and offer no advantages due to a limited skill potential* for the better players)

 

C. Take a step forward and two steps back. 

 

D. Be implemented badly (Example: Deathcam. Would have been useful in Halo 4 if it didn't make the enemy look like a lagging hack.)

 

-----

 

The two issues I have with your ideals is this.

 

1. Yes, we are afraid of changes, but only SOME changes - the ones that are going to derail Halo and utterly change it's feel. Or, in other words, the changes that suck so much that there is literally no point in playing Halo anymore.

 

2. Many of your proposed changes drop the skill level like a rock in water. 

 

3.

 

I should be given an opportunity from the game to compensate for that inability, because I bought the game like everyone else and therefore I've purchased the right to having fun (if you will).

This is not how the game works. You purchased the right to participate in the game, not the right to having fun. People derive fun from participation - it is not a right, but a privilege.

 

 

1) There is less variety in gameplay. If I know what power weapon is going to be in the hallway on a map, and I know when it's going to be there, where's the fun in that? Fun comes in to play when we don't know what it is we might get or when we might get it.

2) It gives too much power to skilled players. All players should have equal opportunity to achieve success in the game, because as I pointed out earlier, all players payed the same money for the game. This means that it is objectively bad game design to provide players with opportunities which can require large amounts of skill to take advantage of.

When you put a power weapon in a certain spot on a map, then the skilled players will more often than not get it because they can target their skills to attain that weapon. Whereas when the power weapons spawn in random places and at random times, it takes most of the control away from the players themselves, and therefore ALL players are given equal opportunity over time.

Random ordnance and personal ordnance fixed this particular problem, which is why they were such great additions.

[Zaguroth]

I'm sorry in advance if this offends anyone, I'm going to be as polite sounding as I can. (Someone is guaranteed to be offended ._.)

 

 

 

First of all I just want to say that if you disagree with anything I'm about to say, I'm totally fine with that. Please don't get offended by it, but try to take into mind what I'm saying here. I don't think you'll regret it.

 

A lot of people (whom I consider to be scared of chance, personally) claim that Halo multiplayer was ruined with Halo Reach and even further with Halo 4. They say that Halo needs to go back (devolve, basically) to the way it played originally.

I've always sat back and watched as so many people have made these ridiculous claims, but today I'm taking it upon myself to explain why these claims are in fact, wrong.

Halo's gameplay for the first 3 games was broken, and Halo Reach (and especially Halo 4) took the right steps to fix the many glaring problems with the franchise.

For the sake of keeping things fact-based, I'm going to leave out those things from the original trilgoy which were only bad in my opinion, and stick to disussing those things which were in fact, bad.

 

One of the biggest faults with the way Halo originally played was that you couldn't start with the weapon you wanted. The reason this is never a good thing, without fail, is because when you're playing a game, you need to be able to play to your own play-style. I can't even begin to fathom what benefits are gained when players all have to start out with the same abilities.

Let's take perks, for example. If there's something I'm not particularly good at, such as throwing and timing grenades accurately, then I should be given an opportunity from the game to compensate for that inability, because I bought the game like everyone else and therefore I've purchased the right to having fun (if you will).

So in this example, I would use the perk that lets me carry an extra grenade. This way, I'm more likely to achieve success with my grenade throwing, which is only fair. Like I said, all players payed the same money for the game, so it's only fair that the game ensures that all players are given the same opportunity for success.
But when there were no perks, the game was broken in this sense because it meant that lesser skilled players had to suffer for merely lacking in a particular skill. Should people really have to suffer due to only being human and having weaknesses? Of course not.

So luckily, Halo Reach and Halo 4 began to fix this fault with loadouts, which is great. Now Halo can finally begin to have legs of its own, and I find it quite saddening that so many people start to hate on the franchise when it finally gets to be an experience that works.

 

Another fault with the way the original Halo games played was that they were too predictable, meaning that the game didn't create enough random elements for the experience. Do I really need to go into why this is blatantly a bad thing? I guess so.

Not having randomness means:

1) There is less variety in gameplay. If I know what power weapon is going to be in the hallway on a map, and I know when it's going to be there, where's the fun in that? Fun comes in to play when we don't know what it is we might get or when we might get it.

2) It gives too much power to skilled players. All players should have equal opportunity to achieve success in the game, because as I pointed out earlier, all players payed the same money for the game. This means that it is objectively bad game design to provide players with opportunities which can require large amounts of skill to take advantage of.
When you put a power weapon in a certain spot on a map, then the skilled players will more often than not get it because they can target their skills to attain that weapon. Whereas when the power weapons spawn in random places and at random times, it takes most of the control away from the players themselves, and therefore ALL players are given equal opportunity over time.

Random ordnance and personal ordnance fixed this particular problem, which is why they were such great additions.

 

The next fault with the original Halo trilogy was that they didn't have sprint. I'm always hearing the most ridiculous reasons for why sprint is bad for Halo, and all I can really hear is "I'm scared of change", "I can't adapt", "I can't help but whine at everything new", and "it's not Bungie so it's bad".

A lack of sprint was a fault that needed to be fixed. Period. Why shouldn't I be able to run away from encounters I'm losing? Why should my enemy be able to chase and shoot me at the same speed? These things are claimed to be "good" for Halo by many, believe it or not.
The obvious reason that being able to move at full speed and shoot at the same time is a bad thing is because FPS games should revolve around choosing whether to shoot or to sprint. It should never be about doing both at the same time. Having to know when to sprint and when to stop so you can shoot makes it more like real life, and it also adds another skill you have to think about, and that's why it's nothing short of one of the best additions to the franchise that has happened.

 

So as we can see, Halo 4 has in fact done many things to make the franchise actually worthy of being played. But unfortunately, we still have a way to go. Here are some things that absolutely need to happen in order for Halo to really become a great experience:

1) Aim-down-sights MUST be included. What happens when a person aims in real life? That's it! They have to slow their movement down to gain that accuracy. They have to know when to use the advantage of one and when to use the advantage of the other. Halo is doing this wrong, even to this day, and it simply can't go unfixed as we move forward.

2) Going prone needs to be included. Which was the last Halo book you read which stated that Spartans can't go prone? Oh, you didn't? Then think twice before you start talking some nonsense about how it shouldn't be in Halo. We need to progress, people. Change is good.

3) Grenade cooking. I'm sorry, but saying that a Spartan can't go prone is one thing, but to claim that they wouldn't be able to hold a grenade for a few seconds if they wanted to? That's ridiculous. This feature absolutely must be put in Halo if it's going to be taken seriously. No game should ever not have grenade cooking, or any of these features for that matter.

 

I must be honest, I wasn't even interested in Halo multiplayer in the slightest until Halo Reach just started to grab my attention with its improvements. What does that tell you about the franchise?

Then when Halo 4 came along, I knew that something really good was finally happening with the game. I really don't care how much it resembles Call of Duty or any other shooter, as long as it starts to become a playable experience, then that's what matters.

Let's keep this forward progression going with Halo 5, 343i. Only good can come of it. I beg of you, don't listen to all these people who are stuck in the past.

 

 

1. "couldn't start with the weapon you wanted" <--- Not a fault. Puts EVERYONE on the same level at the start of a match. When everyone starts with the same weapons, the only thing that decides the outcome of a firefight is skill. When everyone starts with weapons they like, you're just giving good players a higher advantage. (I personally don't mind custom or forced loadouts)

2. Perks - Perks were an interesting addition, but if you aren't good at something like grenade throwing, an extra grenade isn't going to do much except create more opportunities to see where you are. In addition, if the person you are engaging is a better player, regardless of weapon or perks used, you are likely going to die whether you have helpful perks or not.

3. "I paid so I should be able to do this!" - You paid. You bought the game. You knew what you were buying, if you didn't, maybe you should do some research before the purchase.

4. "experience that works" "not having randomness"  - That is your opinion, plenty of other people LOVED the predictability with forced loadouts, weapon spawns etc.

5. "gives too much power to experienced players" - Experienced players are usually going to have the advantage whether you have a power weapon or not, that is why they are called "experienced."

6. "lack of sprint" - In the Halo franchise, maps are scaled based on movement speed, you have sprint in a game, maps for 2v2/4v4 are going to be bigger than in games without sprint. Now, I can understand from a lore perspective why you would want sprint, but multiplayer shouldn't matter because the maps are designed to accommodate movement speed, whatever that speed is. Also, saying "why can't I run away from a fight I'm losing? why can the enemy player follow me at the same speed" is kind of dumb (I'm sorry but it is). If sprint is in the game, they are still going to be able to follow you at the same speed.

7. Aim down sights - This is not necessary, they are spartans, it says in the books that the weapon sights are linked to the helmets.

8. Going prone - I can kind of see why you'd want it, but it is an opinion. Going prone would only really be an advantage if you are sniping in a remote corner of a very large map. Other than that it would be used like it is in CoD (dropshotting, camping etc)

9. Cooking grenades - The grenades have rather short fuses, don't need to cook them. Pulse grenades (that I can remember) go off soon as they land. Plasma grenades stick to the target (doesn't help if you can't throw well).

Finally "wasn't interested in the multiplayer until reach, what does that tell you about the franchise" It tells us that you disliked the first 3 games, either because you weren't as good at them, or because you came to the franchise from a game like CoD where sprinting is a default, loadouts are basically all custom, and camping is the most used way to kill. (Once again, not trying to offend just saying)

 

 

 

I have to be honest with you guys here, and I don't mean to cause offense, but all I'm getting from this is "I'm scared of change". If you don't want aim-down-sights or going prone in Halo, then you want Halo to stick in the past, right?
Change is good! It really is! And Halo needs change right now. Halo needed change from the very start - it was broken.

 

Think about it, what's more important, that Halo stays "feeling" like Halo, or that Halo makes improvements through additions such as ADS and going prone (and sprint, but we've already got that)? As long as the addition will bring the game into the modern experience, then it doesn't matter if it doesn't "feel" like Halo originally did. Getting away from what Halo has felt like is exactly what we're trying to achieve! Let's face it, the experience was broken.

I wouldn't even be here commenting on Halo if it weren't for the major overhauling that took place in Halo 4. I'd have just carried on ignoring the franchise, because it wasn't for me. Simple as that. But due to these great changes to the way the multiplayer works, I can actually find enjoyment in the experience.

 

It's like how people say "sprint doesn't feel like Halo", "it makes Halo play differently on a fundamental level". I don't care if it makes Halo vastly different! I just want it to actually be an enjoyable experience for once. And you guys are doing the exact same thing by arguing against these new features just because they would change the way Halo plays.
If you don't want Halo with going prone, grenade cooking, and aim-down-sights (which are all expected in a modern FPS), then you can always play the outdated games. Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 will all be in the MCC collection, and if you want those outdated experiences (and yes, even Halo 4 is outdated), then they'll be there for you to play. I personally wont be on the first 3 games because they don't appeal to me.

 

As for going prone promoting camping, well that's kind of the point.... It allows people to utilise the skill of knowing how, when and where to hide themselves, but it's balanced because you lose mobility and become more vulnerable. Look at Call of Duty (a perfect example of what Halo could be) - in CoD, you can go prone and it means that snipers can conveniently hide themselves and this adds another option to their style of play. This is why going prone is objectively a good thing for any shooter, and I see no excuse not to put it in Halo. It's 2014 people!

 

ADS makes it so you have to know when to shoot and when to run, and it's balanced because of that. I don't care whether or not it feels like Halo, I care about if it's going to make Halo an improved experience, and ADS of course would. And when Halo improves, players who wouldn't otherwise have been interested will be more likely to come to the experience.
As for those people who actually thought that Halo not having those features (sprint, ADS, loadouts, going prone) was a good thing, well they will just have to live with it I'm afraid. Halo has to change. Those people think that a lack of a certain gameplay feature actually helps the game in some way? Well I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works.

 

What other modern features do you guys think Halo needs moving forward?

 

 

1. "Bring the game into the modern experience" "who cares if it doesn't 'feel' like Halo" - The game is a modern experience ._. Adding prone and ADS isn't going to change that Halo is still a decently popular shooter. If a Halo game doesn't feel like a Halo game than why is it called Halo?

2. "The experience was broken" - That is an opinion, many now feel that way about the games you like (Reach and 4). Look at how popular Halo 3 was compared to them >.> (I like the lot of em anyways)

3. "cooking grenades, ADS, prone expected in modern fps" - I don't know why these are expected in every game in your opinion.. Is it because of CoD? Halo isn't your average FPS.. It's not based in modern times, it's futuristic. It doesn't need cooking grenades, the fuses are short enough. It doesn't need ADS, weapons are linked to the Spartans' helmets. Like I said above, I can see why some would want prone, but it's not necessary for a game like Halo where the weapon aiming doesn't need you to support the bigger weapons using the ground.

4. "Look at call of duty" - God, if I wasn't Mr. Nice Zag.... Anyways, CoD and Halo should NEVER be compared, they are two drastically different games. In the future don't compare them please. It causes unnecessary anger lol.

5. "I care about if it's going to make Halo an improved experience" - Once again, your opinion, many others will disagree with you there, others will agree. I'm one who disagrees, because all of your suggestions don't go with the canon of the games.

 

 

 

So you're saying that because it wasn't in Halo originally, therefore it isn't "Halo"? Well of course it's "not Halo", but we need to make it part of Halo from now on for the objective benefits. in exactly the same way we did with sprint.

 

You're telling me you accepted the addition of sprint, yet you wont accept ADS in Halo? Why not? it's a change to the way the game plays, just like sprint. It's an improvement and it brings the game into the future.

1) I'm a Spartan, I should be able to ADS. Even though we can use the smart-link system, we should still have the option of aiming down sights because that's what a Spartan could do if they wanted to. Same thing with sprint.

2) It will modernize the franchise. We don't need old, archaic mechanics. Let's face it, the game wasn't going to survive the modern era without sprint and loadouts, and it certainly wont survive without ADS. It's pretty much essential at this point.

3) It's change, and change is good. I can't figure out why people are so against change.

 

Also, with all due respect, just because there have been certain changes you've accepted so far does not mean you aren't scared of change. The sprint haters accepted changes that happened within the first 3 games, yet they somehow suddenly have something against a new feature like sprint, which can only be good for gameplay? They're still scared of change, and they demonstrate that by whining about a feature just because it's new.
You're doing the exact same thing here. You're saying this new feature is bad just because it's "not Halo". Well then we might as well get rid of sprint and loadouts too, because they're "not Halo" either, but think about how bad the gameplay would be if the franchise devolved like that.

 

I think you should try to open your mind to the benefits of new features like ADS. It really is a great feature for any game.

 

 

Most things in this spoiler I've already said something about ._.

Overall, most changes you are suggesting just don't fit the Halo franchise. They don't go with the canon (yes that is very important).

 

 

 

That's like saying there's no reason sprint would benefit Halo just because we could already run around and have the maps small enough on average to make travelling fun and not a chore. But sprint adds more than simply getting around faster - sprint makes it so you have to cleverly know when to sprint, and when to shoot, because you can't do both at the same time.
ADS is no different in that it would add a necessity for knowing when to utilise full shooting accuracy, and when to utilise faster movement speed. It's the exact same thing that makes sprint a great and skillful addition.

 

 

 

What do you really mean when you say those things "fit" in to Halo gameplay? Think about that for a second.

Sprint and loadouts change the way Halo functions on quite a significant level, and to say that they don't is to miss the point of them being there. Those changes were needed because they didn't fit into the old, archaic and outdated mold. They changed it up to create a new experience where you had to skillfully deal with the fact that players can now run away from you and you have to choose whether to keep shooting or whether to chase.

 

Loadouts added randomness so that there was variety. People always talk about equal starts, and how it puts the control in the hands of the players alone and not on what inherent advantages they have over each other, as if those things were actually a good thing. Let's face it, it's an old concept and it was time to move into the new era where the focus is also (not exclusively) on having the right stuff at the right time. That makes it fun because you never know for sure whether or not your enemy is going to be advantaged or disadvantaged in any given encounter, and it's more like real life that way too.

 

 

 

I'd just like to put an emphasis on what I was saying before. What do we really mean by it "fits" into Halo gameplay?

 

Loadouts didn't "fit" into the old concept because the old concept was based around equal starts (I mean it's there. Just play those games). Loadouts gave us a NEW concept to work with; an improved concept that isn't broken like equal starts were. The whole point of it being there is that it doesn't "fit" with the old outdated stuff.

I'm going to assume that when you say ADS wouldn't "fit" into Halo, you're saying that it hasn't been a part of Halo so far and would change the way it plays. Well what on Earth do you think sprint did? What is it that you think loadouts and Personal Ordnance did? They didn't "fit" in this sense either, and thank God they didn't as well.

 

 

Tbh, loadouts make the game a heck of a lot more unbalanced than the forced loadouts do. They make it so that skilled players get to choose the weapons they are best with. You might think "Hey I have this weapon that I really like and seem to do well with," but when put up against a skilled player using their best weapon, all you're going to be getting is killed. Then the complaints start about a weapon being too good, someone cheating, etc etc etc. Forced loadouts start everyone with the same weapons, so (for the most part) everyone is on even ground. The only thing that determines who wins a firefight with forced loadouts is skill >.>

Sprint.. That's a difficult one to comment on.. 1. It somewhat sped up gameplay; 2. Enabled somewhat faster travel; 3. Uh.. That's about it XD

 

All in all, in the original post, you said that everything you were saying were FACTS. Fact - "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true" Opinion - "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal" EVERYTHING was opinion based in your post. Pretty much every argument about what should/shouldn't be added/changed is opinion based.

I don't know if you were making this because Halo 5 is going somewhat back to the older game styles or if you just hope that eventually some Halo game is made with all that stuff, but everything is an opinion.

Once again, I tried not to offend anyone (though I probably did).

[Buns]

ADS Can't be in Halo because if you know anything about Halo lore most if not all soldiers use their helmets Smart-Link to synchronize with their weapon optic(and Spartans can synchronize with Covenant weapon optics. I assume the rest of the UNSC can now as well)

 

That is why you dont ADS when you zoom in with the BR. Because your helmets hud handles that.

 

Now I can hear you say "Well not all Halo games are always lore friendly" while this is true to an extent all Halo games(besides Reach) have been fairly accurate to lore while still keeping the game fun.

 

Also no one here is attacking you. You wanted discussion and we're providing it. 

[Slit Removals]

Also no one here is attacking you. You wanted discussion and we're providing it. 

I didn't say anyone was

I'm glad people are discussing this with me.

@coldfreeze

 

I don’t know why you’re telling me the good points about loadouts and sprint. I’m already aware of those. I’m trying to make you aware of the the other features that Halo 5 requires are also good and necessary.

 

“Now I did not say that ADS doesn't fit into the "old" concept, I said it did not fit into the game in terms of gameplay,” – That’s exactly what I’m talking about. What do you mean it wouldn’t “fit”?

What you mean is that it would change the experience in ways which change what was enjoyable to you personally about the original experience, right?

 

Well sprint and loadouts changed what was enjoyable about the experience for many other people, yet you still have enough about you to recognise that those features should have been added anyway. It didn’t matter that part of the experience many people out there got out of Halo would be ruined by sprint and loadouts and all the other great stuff, what mattered was that it was change, and change is good. And what mattered was that it was enjoyable to other people and it made the game obviously better.

It’s the exact same thing with ADS and all the other stuff that’s needed. Just because you’re in the same spot now as the anti-sprint fans, you’re suddenly not OK with changes happening. Suddenly it’s wrong that new additions which don’t appeal to everyone are added (such as ADS). Well as with sprint and loadouts, ADS and all the other stuff should be added in spite of how they will change the experience for the worse for people who can’t adapt, such as yourself. And I know that sounds harsh of me, but that’s exactly the attitude you rightly took when others were stupidly against the new features in Halo 4 like sprint.

 

@Stinky

You’re trying to use lore to argue against ADS? Seriously?

 

Halo 4’s version of sprint isn’t accurate from a lore perspective, but it’s still one of Halo’s greatest additions. It isn’t accurate because there are many examples of Spartans sprinting and shooting accurately at the same time. But that’s not kept in the gameplay itself because that wouldn’t be good, for obvious reasons. We shouldn’t be able to shoot accurately and run at full speed at the same time, as this is just bad game design. And ADS would further help to separate movement and shooting, as exactly as sprint did. I still can’t believe there are people that don’t realize ADS is a necessity.

 

Also, there's nothing stopping a Spartan from aiming down their sights if they choose to, it's just that it's not completely necessary for them. What's more important are the improvements to gameplay, which would be that you have to skillfully choose when to shoot and when to move at full speed.

Sprint and ADS are both necessary because they both work towards separating the two.