Why 'Appealing to a new audience' is a terrible move for 343 Industries, Microsoft, their investors, and of course Halo.

[Solumn Trade]

Despite the overarching controversy, this is a sort, simple refute to the fanboy excuse of '343 changed this game to appeal to a broader audience excuse'.

 

The funny thing is, it's actually true. But just like how 343 doesn't understand what made Halo popular, Microsoft and their investors don't understand what made it PROFITABLE.

 

What they fail to understand is that most people don't own just ONE game. This is true of at least 99% of all Halo players. And chances are, at least 50% of them, in addition to Halo, also had...

 

CALL OF DUTY.

 

In their desperate gambit to attract the 'casual' player that plays COD, they failed to realize THEY ALREADY HAD THEM.

 

In short, Microsoft thinks they will continue to make a bunch of money...but they stand to lose everything. WE stand to lose Halo.

 

 

 

 

So stop using that excuse. It's only reinforcing a bad financial decision.

 

 

 

 

Investors may be in it to make money, but that doesn't mean they always make wise decisions. In fact, a large group of people does not guarantee wise decisions. Take a look at this video, and see if you can find parallels between what I've said and what happened in this historical situation.

 

 

Microsoft, 343, and their investors are just as likely to make silly mistakes when it comes to looking at statistics. They thought "WOW! So many people are playing COD, maybe we can get them to play this game instead!" when in reality...they already were. But now they're not, because why buy a game it's the same as the other?

 

So I suppose that it's also hilariously true when fanboys say that people who abandon Halo aren't hardcore Halo fans...That's because many of them also played COD.

 

I guess fanboys and haters are both right...too bad nobody's a winner. Excuse me while I laugh my buttocks off, reattach it, and laugh it off again.

[Ash]

Well, I don't know what people are talking about when they say that Halo is becoming/basically CoD. When I played AW, it felt absolutely nothing like the Halo 5 Beta, and vice versa. They are still very different games, people are just focusing too much on the few changes that have been added to Halo that bear similarity to things in other FPS games.

 

Also, I've never heard anyone say that excuse, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

 

Personally, I think 343 is doing fine by not keeping Halo the same way it was in 3 prior. They're making the Halo they want, not a halo that's a remake of an older game.

 

Games are supposed to change as they move on, Halo just happens to have bigger changes than most. It is, in no way a bad thing, and I think most of the flak it's getting is people who can't/refuse to adapt.

 

These are just my thoughts and opinions, though.

[Solumn Trade]

Well, I don't know what people are talking about when they say that Halo is becoming/basically CoD. When I played AW, it felt absolutely nothing like the Halo 5 Beta, and vice versa. They are still very different games, people are just focusing too much on the few changes that have been added to Halo that bear similarity to things in other FPS games.

 

Also, I've never heard anyone say that excuse, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

 

Personally, I think 343 is doing fine by not keeping Halo the same way it was in 3 prior. They're making the Halo they want, not a halo that's a remake of an older game.

 

Games are supposed to change as they move on, Halo just happens to have bigger changes than most. It is, in no way a bad thing, and I think most of the flak it's getting is people who can't/refuse to adapt.

 

These are just my thoughts and opinions, though.

OBJECTION.

 

Just because you don't understand the situation, doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist.

 

Just because you supposedly haven't heard the excuse, doesn't mean it hasn't been said. But what you've said is likely untrue, because you found this post, and chances are you found other posts, which DO bring up that excuse. In fact, this is the VERY EXCUSE you are using right now, just worded differently, saying 'Games are supposed to change as they move on'.

 

343 making the game they want isn't necessarily the same game their customers want, which is far more important. If they wanted to make the game they want to, then it needs to stop using the title 'Halo', and become its own IP. There are several examples of games that haven't 'moved on', such as Dynasty Warriors, that still turn a profit. There are also examples ot games that have 'moved on' as you put, that fall flat on their faces like HALO 4, which had a dead population within three months. 343 cannot ride on Halo's name again to turn a profit I think this time.

 

Maybe most of the flak is from people who refuse to adapt, BUT THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. I am not one of those people, for here is another post I made called 'Innovative Gameplay Mechanics': http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

 

Even though your statements are your thoughts and opinions, you must back them up with FACTS. Otherwise they can be shot down as easily as they are brought up.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

OBJECTION.

 

Just because you don't understand the situation, doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist.

 

Just because you supposedly haven't heard the excuse, doesn't mean it hasn't been said. But what you've said is likely untrue, because you found this post, and chances are you found other posts, which DO bring up that excuse. In fact, this is the VERY EXCUSE you are using right now, just worded differently, saying 'Games are supposed to change as they move on'.

 

343 making the game they want isn't necessarily the same game their customers want, which is far more important. If they wanted to make the game they want to, then it needs to stop using the title 'Halo', and become its own IP. There are several examples of games that haven't 'moved on', such as Dynasty Warriors, that still turn a profit. There are also examples ot games that have 'moved on' as you put, that fall flat on their faces like HALO 4, which had a dead population within three months. 343 cannot ride on Halo's name again to turn a profit I think this time.

 

Maybe most of the flak is from people who refuse to adapt, BUT THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. I am not one of those people, for here is another post I made called 'Innovative Gameplay Mechanics': http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

 

Even though your statements are your thoughts and opinions, you must back them up with FACTS. Otherwise they can be shot down as easily as they are brought up.

 

Master Chief Collection is for you (when it's mostly fixed) if you seriously can't adapt to the new games. Just sayin.

 

From what I see the Halo community (which is massive) is completey inconsistent with what it wants. 343i has to cater to that entire community, and can't appeal to every single person's interests. So they have to add things some people won't like for the sake of the community as a whole. Do those features improve the community, or worsen it? We'll just have to wait and see.

[Solumn Trade]

Master Chief Collection is for you (when it's mostly fixed) if you seriously can't adapt to the new games. Just sayin.

HOLD IT!

 

Adapt to what, exactly?

 

Perhaps I should reveal the true intent of this post. This is my personal courtroom. There are 3 cases here:

 

1. Is what 343 doing in the best interests of the community and future profit?

 

2. Are 'old players' truly too selfish to accept change?

 

3. Are the 'new players' even Halo fans?

 

If I were to answer these three from my perspective in the most simple fashion, it would be "1. no 2. yes and no 3. yes and no". But that will be seen in time. Right now, the question I give to you is "Adapt to what?"

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

HOLD IT!

 

Adapt to what, exactly?

 

Perhaps I should reveal the true intent of this post. This is my personal courtroom. There are 3 cases here:

 

1. Is what 343 doing in the best interests of the community and future profit?

 

2. Are 'old players' truly too selfish to accept change?

 

3. Are the 'new players' even Halo fans?

 

If I were to answer these three from my perspective in the most simple fashion, it would be "1. no 2. yes and no 3. yes and no". But that will be seen in time. Right now, the question I give to you is "Adapt to what?"

 

Adapt to the new features. The new gameplay. The new game. If it's too foreign to you, or you just can't get into it, then you probably can't adapt.

 

[Solumn Trade]

Adapt to the new features. The new gameplay. The new game. If it's too foreign to you, or you just can't get into it, then you probably can't adapt.

 

 

I will assume that by this 'new game', you mean Halo 5, correct?

 

If it is true that the features of this 'new game' are difficult to adapt to, what about them makes you assume that is so?

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

1: Their tenure with the series is still moderately fresh, and it's not really certain if what they have done so far is benefitting the community. Halo 4 was their first game, and they added a bunch of things that the community didn't like, so they took those things (most of them) out of Halo 5 (their second game). All this other external media I think is an imporvement, and expansion of what Bungie did.

 

I don't think they intended for the MCC to flop like it did, and if it had been successful then I'm sure we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Halo 5 will be the final straw where we see if Halo lives or continues IMO.

 

2: If they don't accept change then that's what they believe. They still have the old games to play. I think what they want is for the experience of the same game they played years ago to come back, but don't like the new features 343i adds, so they decide the new games are total crap.

 

3: If you play the game, like it, and become interested in the series then you're a fan. Don't matter if you're old, or new. Veterans get more credibility over new players, so the question should be: "Should new Halo fans get any credibility to their thoughts on Halo?".

I will assume that by this 'new game', you mean Halo 5, correct?

 

If it is true that the features of this 'new game' are difficult to adapt to, what about them makes you assume that is so?

 

Well for starters if you play the game, don't like it, and continue playing in hopes of *catching on*, but just can't then that's a lack of adapability.

 

I played Halo 5, and enjoyed it. Though the game had bugs, but that's to be expected of the earliest Halo Beta ever released.

[Solumn Trade]

1: Their tenure with the series is still moderately fresh, and it's not really certain if what they have done so far is benefitting the community. Halo 4 was their first game, and they added a bunch of things that the community didn't like, so they took those things (most of them) out of Halo 5 (their second game). All this other external media I think is an imporvement, and expansion of what Bungie did.

 

I don't think they intended for the MCC to flop like it did, and if it had been successful then I'm sure we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Halo 5 will be the final straw where we see if Halo lives or continues IMO.

 

2: If they don't accept change then that's what they believe. They still have the old games to play. I think what they want is for the experience of the same game they played years ago to come back, but don't like the new features 343i adds, so they decide the new games are total crap.

 

3: If you play the game, like it, and become interested in the series then you're a fan. Don't matter if you're old, or new. Veterans get more credibility over new players, so the question should be: "Should new Halo fans get any credibility to their thoughts on Halo?".

 

Well for starters if you play the game, don't like it, and continue playing in hopes of *catching on*, but just can't then that's a lack of adapability.

 

I played Halo 5, and enjoyed it. Though the game had bugs, but that's to be expected of the earliest Halo Beta ever released.

 

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

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

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

 

I thought you meant the concept of adaptability, and not the features themselves. You're talking to a person who has trouble "getting things" from the beginning.

 

Here's what I think could be hard to adapt to for some people (in no particular order):

 

1: Sprint

 

2: Scoping Animation (ADS)

 

3: Faster kill times

 

4: Increased skill requirement, but lack of adequate system where you're paired with people of equal skill

 

5: Increased Grenade Damage

 

6: Weapon designs changed

 

7: Some weapons getting overhauls

 

8: Inclusion of scoping mechanics for all weapons

 

9: Shields not being able to recharge when Sprinting

 

10: Spartan Abilities

 

11: Spartan Chatter

 

12: Kill cam

 

13: Callouts by the Announcer for numerous things

 

14: Decrease of auto aim

 

15: Maps being initially hard to get used to

 

16: Matchmaking being unresponsive, and game bugs

 

 

Not like these things ARE problems, but what I think could pose problems. I didn't have a problem with most of these things when I played.

 

EDIT: Sorry for bad grammar or whatever, I'm using Firefox and it doesn't have autocorrect.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Squidward Tortellini

[Solumn Trade]

I thought you meant the concept of adaptability, and not the features themselves. You're talking to a person who has trouble "getting things" from the beginning.

 

Here's what I think could be hard to adapt to for some people (in no particular order):

 

1: Sprint

 

2: Scoping Animation (ADS)

 

3: Faster kill times

 

4: Increased skill requirement, but lack of adequate system where you're paired with people of equal skill

 

5: Increased Grenade Damage

 

6: Weapon designs changed

 

7: Some weapons getting overhauls

 

8: Inclusion of scoping mechanics for all weapons

 

9: Shields not being able to recharge when Sprinting

 

10: Spartan Abilities

 

11: Spartan Chatter

 

12: Kill cam

 

13: Callouts by the Announcer for numerous things

 

14: Decrease of auto aim

 

15: Maps being initially hard to get used to

 

16: Matchmaking being unresponsive, and game bugs

 

 

Not like these things ARE problems, but what I think could pose problems. I didn't have a problem with most of these things when I played.

 

EDIT: Sorry for bad grammar or whatever, I'm using Firefox and it doesn't have autocorrect.

 

I think you've got the definition of 'adapting', 'tolerating', and 'preferring' confused.

 

You see, there is very little trouble when 'adapting' to different controls, or 'adapting' to a defensive style of play. Adapting to new controls happens ANY TIME you pick up a new game. In fact, the main complaint of most old time players who comment on the game's mechanics, don't complain that it's too hard, they complain that it's TOO EASY. That it's TOO EASY to stay alive. Most of the ones complaining about the mechanics being too hard are the NEW players, the players that 343 is supposedly trying to bring in.

 

As for 'toleration', why should people expect less performance...from a NEWER game?

 

And finally, 'preferring'. Let's face it: some people do not like the new aesthetics of Halo 5, with one major thing being pointed out being the redesign of the rocket launcher. They do not like many of the redesigns. They also do not like a defensive-type game. They are 'preferring' the methodic, but situationally dynamic style of play that older Halos offered.

 

 

 

 

When you claimed that people who don't like what Halo 5 had to offer 'have trouble adapting to it', were you saying that...

 

*slams table 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0

 

BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOUR OPINION WAS BETTER THAN THEIRS?

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

I think you've got the definition of 'adapting', 'tolerating', and 'preferring' confused.

 

You see, there is very little trouble when 'adapting' to different controls, or 'adapting' to a defensive style of play. Adapting to new controls happens ANY TIME you pick up a new game. In fact, the main complaint of most old time players who comment on the game's mechanics, don't complain that it's too hard, they complain that it's TOO EASY. That it's TOO EASY to stay alive. Most of the ones complaining about the mechanics being too hard are the NEW players, the players that 343 is supposedly trying to bring in.

 

As for 'toleration', why should people expect less performance...from a NEWER game?

 

And finally, 'preferring'. Let's face it: some people do not like the new aesthetics of Halo 5, with one major thing being pointed out being the redesign of the rocket launcher. They do not like many of the redesigns. They also do not like a defensive-type game. They are 'preferring' the methodic, but situationally dynamic style of play that older Halos offered.

 

 

 

 

When you claimed that people who don't like what Halo 5 had to offer 'have trouble adapting to it', were you saying that...

 

*slams table 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0

 

BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOUR OPINION WAS BETTER THAN THEIRS?

 

I found it not easy to stay alive in the game, and I've played Halo for years. Once you get the hang of it then sure, I guess you won't have a hard time staying alive. What you should worry about is being faced against people of equal skill, or even worse people who are better than you are.

 

And I never said my opinion was better than everyone elses. Don't know where you got that from. My opinion is an "opinion": as in what I think. It's not fact. I never clamed it was.

 

[Twinreaper]

This whole thread is nothing but opinion.  I saw no concrete facts listed by Microsoft or a genuine solid party with no biased.

 

The only thing I have a problem with Solumn, is when you used the phrase "343 making the game they want isn't necessarily the same game their customers want, which is far more important".

 

Each and every customer has a different taste in what they prefer in a game.  Sure you can take a collective of similar wants in a game, but your never going to give each customer the EXACT game they want.  It's about compromise versus catering too much towards a certain genre or niche of players.  If you recall, Bungie stated the same problems, and their first two games were NOT the games the players wanted or even remotely the games they were supposed to be.  Since 343i is now in charge of Halo, it is logical to see them follow the same steps as Bungie.  Their first outing with Halo 4 was less than spectacular yes, but Halo CE had the same problem.  It wasn't until later on that it caught on, but that was also a new IP and the first of many to come.  So in terms of success, you can't compare.  But in terms of development you can.

 

Halo 2 fell short on every front, yet is still regarded by many as the pinnacle of Halo.  So much was cut from it, that the final game didn't look or play anything like the E3 demo they showed off.  So again, following the development track, we should see Halo 5 become a better Halo than the previous.   Now that is neither fact or opinion.  That is just simply logical observation used as a hypothesis for what could happen.

 

But again, this whole thread is simply the opinion of one member, and there is no solid backing for anything suggested. 

[Solumn Trade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsT9LGG5CSs&index=18&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN

 

Hmm, I was not aware that you were having trouble staying alive in the game, at least when you first started. Is that where your opinion about people not being able to adapt to the game originated from? I do apologize for having to point a figure, but sometimes that's how you get to the truth.

 

My personal opinion is that the reason Halo 5 doesn't appeal to me or many others is the fact that the game is both too competitive AND not competitive enough. Please hear me out.

 

When it comes to being too competitive, I think that's because what many considered 'noobifying' features, like equipment (or in Reach and Halo 4's case armor abilities) and duel wielding, have been removed. Although now Halo is supposedly a 'fairer' game because of this, it is also now a more boring game now. That's because the game no longer has match altering events like the simple deployment of a bubble shield, or someone popping out with akimbo SMG's. What you're left with is a game which you might only enjoy if you do well at it.

 

When it comes to not being competitive enough, that's because the game encourages defensive play. With the ability to Sprint, it encourages people to move away from their adversaries, and forces them to move with their team, if they want the greatest chance of success. This effectively kills the ability to be the 'one man army' that you could be in other Halos, since people will likely only travel with their team. Also, since people can Sprint, they can move away while a different teammate steps in.

 

This wasn't a problem in older Halos, because likely the other player wouldn't get very far, and the one who initiated the engagement could back off and not worry too much about being pursued, since everyone moved at the same rate of speed and could fire in any direction while moving. That meant anybody that DID pursue could expect a grenade to be lobbed at them, meaning that in order to take out the person they were pursuing, they still had to outplay them. But, because people can Sprint, the other teammate of the guy who had to back off can rush forward to take advantage of the former attacker's situation of a weakened shield, and the weakened individual would be forced to engage rather than attempt escape.

 

In other words, when you are alone, Sprint is the bane of your existence, but when you are with a team you are practically untouchable. Thus reinforcing the point that players, when they figure out how the game works, will stick close to their teams and not deviate. Essentially, at low levels of play the game is still somewhat fun, but at higher levels it becomes tedious and stressful.

 

So, what do you think about this, Mr. Tortellini?

This whole thread is nothing but opinion.  I saw no concrete facts listed by Microsoft or a genuine solid party with no biased.

 

The only thing I have a problem with Solumn, is when you used the phrase "343 making the game they want isn't necessarily the same game their customers want, which is far more important".

 

Each and every customer has a different taste in what they prefer in a game.  Sure you can take a collective of similar wants in a game, but your never going to give each customer the EXACT game they want.  It's about compromise versus catering too much towards a certain genre or niche of players.  If you recall, Bungie stated the same problems, and their first two games were NOT the games the players wanted or even remotely the games they were supposed to be.  Since 343i is now in charge of Halo, it is logical to see them follow the same steps as Bungie.  Their first outing with Halo 4 was less than spectacular yes, but Halo CE had the same problem.  It wasn't until later on that it caught on, but that was also a new IP and the first of many to come.  So in terms of success, you can't compare.  But in terms of development you can.

 

Halo 2 fell short on every front, yet is still regarded by many as the pinnacle of Halo.  So much was cut from it, that the final game didn't look or play anything like the E3 demo they showed off.  So again, following the development track, we should see Halo 5 become a better Halo than the previous.   Now that is neither fact or opinion.  That is just simply logical observation used as a hypothesis for what could happen.

 

But again, this whole thread is simply the opinion of one member, and there is no solid backing for anything suggested. 

Ah, but what you've just mentioned is what the primary problem is. And it is the problem I stated at the top of this topic. It is true, that 343 could never give each customer the EXACT game that they want.

 

Which is why they should not have been focusing solely on one party over the other. The reason Halo was so successful in the past was because it was BOTH a casual game AND a competitive game at the same time. When 343 tried to target casual players in Halo 4, they blew off the competitive community. Now, they 'seesawed' back to the competitive side with Halo 5, and went too far. You'll have to see my reply to Mr. Tortellini to see what I'm getting at.

[Ash]

I don't see how sprinting encourages people to stay with their team. I usually see people sprint off on their own away from their team.

 

Sprint offers mobility, the ability to move more quickly to an engagement. Unless a player sees 2 or 3 enemies looking at them, they don't try to sprint away, they would stay and fight. Then after that fight, they would sprint to cover to recharge, then sprint towards the next enemy. Very rarely do I see people sprint right towards their team right off spawn or after an engagement across the map.

 

Now saying it's too competitive isn't far off, and I'd rather they stray a little from that. Considering the amount of casual players in a game far outweighs the amount of competitive players. I think they're trying too hard to make the casual and competitive into one, where as they should separate them, like with Halo 3's Ranked and Social playlists.

 

I don't really see why not having dual wielding takes away from the game. Since it was either too powerful (needlers) or not strong at all (magnums, SMG's).

 

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

 

 

Hmm, I was not aware that you were having trouble staying alive in the game, at least when you first started. Is that where your opinion about people not being able to adapt to the game originated from? I do apologize for having to point a figure, but sometimes that's how you get to the truth.

 

Some people can't get past the gameplay, and just stop playing. I didn't. It was hard at first but eventually I got the hang of it. I adapted. I've seen multiple posts on here, and over on reddit detailing why certain people just could not get into the game: they couldn't adapt. So yea you could say that's where that opinion originated.

 

My personal opinion is that the reason Halo 5 doesn't appeal to me or many others is the fact that the game is both too competitive AND not competitive enough. Please hear me out.

 

When it comes to being too competitive, I think that's because what many considered 'noobifying' features, like equipment (or in Reach and Halo 4's case armor abilities) and duel wielding, have been removed. Although now Halo is supposedly a 'fairer' game because of this, it is also now a more boring game now. That's because the game no longer has match altering events like the simple deployment of a bubble shield, or someone popping out with akimbo SMG's. What you're left with is a game which you might only enjoy if you do well at it.

 

The Power Weapon spawns, and the Announcer yelling it out to everyone is a match altering event. I've been in multiple power struggles for the Power Weapons in matches in Halo 5, where in Halo 4 I blew it off. On maps I haven't really adjusted to (like Truth) I don't bother with the Power Weapons.

 

And in Halo 4 everyone had AAs (which are match altering like Bubble Shields). All those features for the Loadouts I believe added randomness into the game to cater to the "noobs", like you say it pushing away the Competitive Players when you quoted Twin.

 

When it comes to not being competitive enough, that's because the game encourages defensive play. With the ability to Sprint, it encourages people to move away from their adversaries, and forces them to move with their team, if they want the greatest chance of success. This effectively kills the ability to be the 'one man army' that you could be in other Halos, since people will likely only travel with their team. Also, since people can Sprint, they can move away while a different teammate steps in.

 

This wasn't a problem in older Halos, because likely the other player wouldn't get very far, and the one who initiated the engagement could back off and not worry too much about being pursued, since everyone moved at the same rate of speed and could fire in any direction while moving. That meant anybody that DID pursue could expect a grenade to be lobbed at them, meaning that in order to take out the person they were pursuing, they still had to outplay them. But, because people can Sprint, the other teammate of the guy who had to back off can rush forward to take advantage of the former attacker's situation of a weakened shield, and the weakened individual would be forced to engage rather than attempt escape.

 

In other words, when you are alone, Sprint is the bane of your existence, but when you are with a team you are practically untouchable. Thus reinforcing the point that players, when they figure out how the game works, will stick close to their teams and not deviate. Essentially, at low levels of play the game is still somewhat fun, but at higher levels it becomes tedious and stressful.

 

So, what do you think about this, Mr. Tortellini?

 

I think Lone Wolfing is a problem. It encourages players to not work as a team, but to go off and do their own things (like in Halo 4). You can still be a one man army in Halo 5, but fully expect yourself to die if you come into contact with more than 1 enemy player if you're not experienced, or "pro" (I've experienced this firsthand). Traveling in packs, and sticking together is the greatest chance of success, and an improvement over Halo 4's Lone Wolfing.

 

I agree with what you say, but I think it's a good thing. Definitely didn't feel stressful knowing at some level my teammates were actually working with me (or it felt like it) instead of being total pricks.

 

Now if your team just doesn't want to work together than you're screwed. Don't really know how to alleviate that other than the skill matching being better tuned or something.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Squidward Tortellini

[Solumn Trade]

Some people can't get past the gameplay, and just stop playing. I didn't. It was hard at first but eventually I got the hang of it. I adapted. I've seen multiple posts on here, and over on reddit detailing why certain people just could not get into the game: they couldn't adapt. So yea you could say that's where that opinion originated.

 

The Power Weapon spawns, and the Announcer yelling it out to everyone is a match altering event. I've been in multiple power struggles for the Power Weapons in matches in Halo 5, where in Halo 4 I blew it off. On maps I haven't really adjusted to (like Truth) I don't bother with the Power Weapons.

 

And in Halo 4 everyone had AAs (which are match altering like Bubble Shields). All those features for the Loadouts I believe added randomness into the game to cater to the "noobs", like you say it pushing away the Competitive Players when you quoted Twin.

 

I think Lone Wolfing is a problem. It encourages players to not work as a team, but to go off and do their own things (like in Halo 4). You can still be a one man army in Halo 5, but fully expect yourself to die if you come into contact with more than 1 enemy player if you're not experienced, or "pro" (I've experienced this firsthand). Traveling in packs, and sticking together is the greatest chance of success, and an improvement over Halo 4's Lone Wolfing.

 

I agree with what you say, but I think it's a good thing. Definitely didn't feel stressful knowing at some level my teammates were actually working with me (or it felt like it) instead of being total pricks.

 

Now if your team just doesn't want to work together than you're screwed. Don't really know how to alleviate that other than the skill matching being better tuned or something.

I know you may not like lone wolfing and lone wolves, but is it worth making the game so that it's a near impossibility? I feel almost as though Bungie left a bomb that was bound to go off when they left Halo for other projects. Halo means so many things to soo many different people. 343 cannot simply focus on one group over another, and must find a balance. You have forgers, casuals, competitive, machinima makers, speed runners, soloists, team players, and lots of individuals in between.

 

I have the feeling that, although Microsoft and 343 may want to downsize this game (which isn't a bad thing in itself, since Halo looks to be becoming a yearly title), that it's next to impossible without some sort of backlash.

 

Now, I will say this: sometimes Lone Wolves ARE a problem, especially when they aren't good enough to actually fill that role and hog power weapons. But forcing people who want to play a more independent style shouldn't be punished for doing so. The problem needs to be solved, not by punishing these individuals, but rather adding an additional layer to the game that can only be accessed by teamwork.

 

Right now, vehicles such as the Warthog immediately encourages some teamwork on their own, since they cannot be used effectively without two people. But besides vehicles, I think even more teamwork can be encouraged by solving a few problems that the old Halo trilogy had. THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT: THE OLD TRILOGY DID HAVE PROBLEMS.

 

What was one of those problems? Well, from DAY 1, there was one annoying thing that has always happened: people on the same team fight each other to use the power weapons. I myself have encountered this in the most ridiculous circumstances. I would ask my team "Does anybody want the sniper rifle?" I'd wait, look around, and hear nobody say anything or see anybody around. Then I would pick it up, and then the morons WHO I JUST ASKED if they wanted the sniper rifle or not would attempt to kill me and take it. I didn't even want the gun at that point. I just wanted to get rid of it say "HERE! TAKE IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE." However, in order to get rid of it I would have to run to another weapon, which they of course would take as me running away with it, and swap it out. 9 times out of 10, they would stop shooting me, look down at the gun, look back me with sudden guilt, and then pick it up and go about their way, head low. Of course the other 1 time they're just team killing for the sake of team killing.

 

If you could drop the weapon you are carrying for your teammate without going to a different gun, that would have prevented so many friendly fire incidents. Moreover, if you could THROW a weapon or ammo to your teammates, that would be revolutionary! It would spawn a whole new breed of combat medals, from tossing weapons from teammate to teammate and getting those special assist kills. Perhap the medals would be known as 'Alley-Oop' medals? Anyway, it would cause a whole new level to the game, that might make lone wolves a more useful part to the team by them collecting weapons from the map and bringing them back to their team. Also, people who aren't good with certain weapons would no longer have an excuse not to hand them over. And noobs would have the ability to help their team without getting kills, again collecting the big guns for the strongest players to use.

 

Anyway, I discuss that sort of thing more in my 'Innovative Gameplay Mechanics' post. Lemme know what you think.

 

http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

[Vaulting♥Frog]

I am sorry but I do take issue with one thing. You say that they blew off "competitive players" with Halo 4. I disagree with this statement beyond existence.

 

So called "competitive players" blew Halo 4 off on their own. Playing the game competitively is a choice. I choose to play competitively, I want to win. I desire to go "all out" in my games. It is a state of mind. Halo 4 could have, and was plenty competitive. People chose to ignore it because it wasn't the same kind of competition as older games, nor should it have been (at least in my opinion). That is the players fault, not the games.

 

One can play any game competitively if they so choose.

 

To me players were so hung up on what Halo 2 and Halo 3 were like in their multiplayer that they couldn't move beyond it. Anything that was different needed to be shunned. Heck Halo Reach took some major blows because it was different. This "stubbornness" to me is the real issue. A lot of it is ego driven (Ohh big man, you were a 50 in snipers!!! Big deal) and nonsensical. I would rather they stop knocking CoD for its "unchanging gameplay" and just admit that that particular "feature" is what they want for Halo as well.

 

As far as a business model goes towards attracting new customers, I think Microsoft and 343i are making the smart choice. Gamers who grew up on Halo from way back when are now mostly adults with significant responsibilities to deal with now. Such as paying bills, working and their own children. I know I don't have nearly the amount of time to devote to gaming as I used to. Targeting new markets fills in that gap where older groups of gamers are no longer able to participate. It is a smart and practical business move that allows them to continue making profits and still produce games of artistic quality.

 

People will always disagree on what "Halo" is or isn't. That is just the way people are. I suggest that people just be happy they are getting a product in the first place. Gaming is a luxury, one that not a lot of people have. Enjoy the product for what it is. 

[Twinreaper]

See, I don't look at a game and judge it competitive or casual by it's features.  To me, it's a simply a game and I either enjoy it, or I don't.  Being competitive, again, starts with the PLAYER him or herself.  As I tried to illustrate many many times, any game can be played competitively, regardless of features or rank system. 

 

One of the greatest and still played competitive comps they have now is Donkey Kong.  Are you gonna tell me Donkey Kong was a game that was designed towards "hardcore" gamers?

[Drizzy_Dan]

This is question I need answered. I need it to be answered by the members of the Halo community who really dislike the new Halo games. First I wanna say Halo 4 was not that great. It was very different but I don't think it was bad. It definitely wasn't as good as Halo 2 or 3 or even Reach which I despise. I also wanna say that I loved the Halo 5: Guardians beta and my friends and I have been avid competitive Halo players since Halo 2. I find Halo 5 to be very competitive actually and I think they're on the right track with the game. 

 

Many players do not like the new features like the ones Squidward Tortellini mentioned above. You might even say the majority don't according to polls from Waypoint, TeamBeyond and other large communities.  Halos 1-3 were brought to the Xbox One and are available for playing any time. Connection bugs exist that's for sure but those are likely to disappear in time. Ok here's the question that I need answered now:

 

If these players want Sprint and other new features to be gone from the game and for the games to be more like Halo 2 and 3, why do they not just play Halo 3? 

[Solumn Trade]

I am sorry but I do take issue with one thing. You say that they blew off "competitive players" with Halo 4. I disagree with this statement beyond existence.

 

So called "competitive players" blew Halo 4 off on their own. Playing the game competitively is a choice. I choose to play competitively, I want to win. I desire to go "all out" in my games. It is a state of mind. Halo 4 could have, and was plenty competitive. People chose to ignore it because it wasn't the same kind of competition as older games, nor should it have been (at least in my opinion). That is the players fault, not the games.

 

One can play any game competitively if they so choose.

 

To me players were so hung up on what Halo 2 and Halo 3 were like in their multiplayer that they couldn't move beyond it. Anything that was different needed to be shunned. Heck Halo Reach took some major blows because it was different. This "stubbornness" to me is the real issue. A lot of it is ego driven (Ohh big man, you were a 50 in snipers!!! Big deal) and nonsensical. I would rather they stop knocking CoD for its "unchanging gameplay" and just admit that that particular "feature" is what they want for Halo as well.

 

As far as a business model goes towards attracting new customers, I think Microsoft and 343i are making the smart choice. Gamers who grew up on Halo from way back when are now mostly adults with significant responsibilities to deal with now. Such as paying bills, working and their own children. I know I don't have nearly the amount of time to devote to gaming as I used to. Targeting new markets fills in that gap where older groups of gamers are no longer able to participate. It is a smart and practical business move that allows them to continue making profits and still produce games of artistic quality.

 

People will always disagree on what "Halo" is or isn't. That is just the way people are. I suggest that people just be happy they are getting a product in the first place. Gaming is a luxury, one that not a lot of people have. Enjoy the product for what it is. 

OBJECTION!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN&index=23

 

No one enjoys a product THAT THEY DON'T want. And that is precisely why 343 has attempted to 'blow off' the Halo veterans. Of course this statement on its own holds no water...

 

*slams table

 

BUT I HAVE PROOF!

 

I present this Youtube video to the court record:

 

 

While this is speculation on Halo 5, it shows many examples in Halo 4 that confirm that 343 was trying desperately to close the skill gap between veterans and new players. Why should veterans be forced to endure it? Why should they 'appreciate' it?

 

However, the blame cannot be squarely put on 343. Call of Duty has given noobs unrealistic expectations as to what to expect from a game. The evidence for this I also submit to the court record:

 

 

TAKE THAT!

I am sorry but I do take issue with one thing. You say that they blew off "competitive players" with Halo 4. I disagree with this statement beyond existence.

 

So called "competitive players" blew Halo 4 off on their own. Playing the game competitively is a choice. I choose to play competitively, I want to win. I desire to go "all out" in my games. It is a state of mind. Halo 4 could have, and was plenty competitive. People chose to ignore it because it wasn't the same kind of competition as older games, nor should it have been (at least in my opinion). That is the players fault, not the games.

 

One can play any game competitively if they so choose.

 

To me players were so hung up on what Halo 2 and Halo 3 were like in their multiplayer that they couldn't move beyond it. Anything that was different needed to be shunned. Heck Halo Reach took some major blows because it was different. This "stubbornness" to me is the real issue. A lot of it is ego driven (Ohh big man, you were a 50 in snipers!!! Big deal) and nonsensical. I would rather they stop knocking CoD for its "unchanging gameplay" and just admit that that particular "feature" is what they want for Halo as well.

 

As far as a business model goes towards attracting new customers, I think Microsoft and 343i are making the smart choice. Gamers who grew up on Halo from way back when are now mostly adults with significant responsibilities to deal with now. Such as paying bills, working and their own children. I know I don't have nearly the amount of time to devote to gaming as I used to. Targeting new markets fills in that gap where older groups of gamers are no longer able to participate. It is a smart and practical business move that allows them to continue making profits and still produce games of artistic quality.

 

People will always disagree on what "Halo" is or isn't. That is just the way people are. I suggest that people just be happy they are getting a product in the first place. Gaming is a luxury, one that not a lot of people have. Enjoy the product for what it is. 

OBJECTION!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hx8WTHcie0&list=PL6akIKaXBeU3hPzULIPfnFptaAsnEdNMN&index=23

 

No one enjoys a product THAT THEY DON'T want. And that is precisely why 343 has attempted to 'blow off' the Halo veterans. Of course this statement on its own holds no water...

 

*slams table

 

BUT I HAVE PROOF!

 

I present this Youtube video to the court record:

 

 

While this is speculation on Halo 5, it shows many examples in Halo 4 that confirm that 343 was trying desperately to close the skill gap between veterans and new players. Why should veterans be forced to endure it? Why should they 'appreciate' it?

 

However, the blame cannot be squarely put on 343. Call of Duty has given noobs unrealistic expectations as to what to expect from a game. The evidence for this I also submit to the court record:

 

 

TAKE THAT!

This is question I need answered. I need it to be answered by the members of the Halo community who really dislike the new Halo games. First I wanna say Halo 4 was not that great. It was very different but I don't think it was bad. It definitely wasn't as good as Halo 2 or 3 or even Reach which I despise. I also wanna say that I loved the Halo 5: Guardians beta and my friends and I have been avid competitive Halo players since Halo 2. I find Halo 5 to be very competitive actually and I think they're on the right track with the game. 

 

Many players do not like the new features like the ones Squidward Tortellini mentioned above. You might even say the majority don't according to polls from Waypoint, TeamBeyond and other large communities.  Halos 1-3 were brought to the Xbox One and are available for playing any time. Connection bugs exist that's for sure but those are likely to disappear in time. Ok here's the question that I need answered now:

 

If these players want Sprint and other new features to be gone from the game and for the games to be more like Halo 2 and 3, why do they not just play Halo 3? 

Besides the port still being broken for Xbox One, there is a point where a game DOES get repetitive. DLC stopped coming for Halo 3. Also, the story can't continue on Halo 3 (unless they took Valve's route and started releasing episodes, but that's obviously not going to happen). As good as the campaign is, nobody wants to be told the same story over and over, it needs to progress. Unfortunately, the story Halo 4 presented wasn't very satisfying to many people. I myself couldn't enjoy it.

 

Also, Xbox Live has this nasty habit of dropping support for certain games, which is why Halo veterans are so desperate to make sure Halo 5 does cater to their needs. Eventually, support will be dropped for H3 and MCC.

 

And one more thing...if all the veterans are playing H3...wouldn't that SHRINK the actual population for Halo 5? Why is it that these people 'have to go'? It's done nothing but backfire for 343, but they assumed that if they could get rid of the veterans that they could cater to the unreasonable expectations of the generation raised on COD. That hasn't worked. It still won't work. No matter how hard they try, Halo at its core is far too different from COD to appeal to those who only like COD. And as I meantioned at the head of this post, it's pointless to try to appeal to those people because many of those people ALSO PLAYED Halo. Halo was the game to get better at, COD is the game to automatically stomp in. When one got boring, they would change to the other. But because 343 is trying to make Halo the same sort of game COD is, people actually find LESS of a reason to get Halo.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

So your proof is some random person's opinion from a youtube video. Strong proof there. I hope you can detect the sarcasm in those statements.

 

You have shown nothing but opinions, of which are only applied to the person giving them. Please stop trying to enforce them as fact.

 

I have no more time to waste upon this subject as clearly you are not willing to grasp the concept of an opinion. And that is fine. You can argue about it till you are blue in the face if you want. It does not change that you are only arguing an opinion, which quite frankly I don't think has any basis in reality at this point. I am finding that this is boiling down to a perceived "decline" in Halo by you because you are unhappy with a product.

 

Simply put, if you are not happy with the product then don't use said product. Your unhappiness does not mean the product is broken or unenjoyable by others. I think that is a clear enough statement for you.

 

On a side note your little sideshow of Phoenix Wright ran its course quite some time ago and in all honesty is just annoying.

 

Now then as I stated above, I have no inclination to waste anymore of my time with this topic. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Vaulting♥Frog

[Drizzy_Dan]

 

Besides the port still being broken for Xbox One, there is a point where a game DOES get repetitive. DLC stopped coming for Halo 3. Also, the story can't continue on Halo 3 (unless they took Valve's route and started releasing episodes, but that's obviously not going to happen). As good as the campaign is, nobody wants to be told the same story over and over, it needs to progress. Unfortunately, the story Halo 4 presented wasn't very satisfying to many people. I myself couldn't enjoy it.

 

Also, Xbox Live has this nasty habit of dropping support for certain games, which is why Halo veterans are so desperate to make sure Halo 5 does cater to their needs. Eventually, support will be dropped for H3 and MCC.

 

And one more thing...if all the veterans are playing H3...wouldn't that SHRINK the actual population for Halo 5? Why is it that these people 'have to go'? It's done nothing but backfire for 343, but they assumed that if they could get rid of the veterans that they could cater to the unreasonable expectations of the generation raised on COD. That hasn't worked. It still won't work. No matter how hard they try, Halo at its core is far too different from COD to appeal to those who only like COD. And as I meantioned at the head of this post, it's pointless to try to appeal to those people because many of those people ALSO PLAYED Halo. Halo was the game to get better at, COD is the game to automatically stomp in. When one got boring, they would change to the other. But because 343 is trying to make Halo the same sort of game COD is, people actually find LESS of a reason to get Halo.

 

I don't agree with your videos but this is an answer I can get behind and agree with actually. I could certainly see the game getting boring after time because of the lack of updates. I would also like to see if bullet magnetism exist in Halo 5. 

 

Do you think 343 should release a classic playlist for the game without thruster pack default, Spartan abilities, and Sprint? I personally think that all of these features have their advantages and disadvantages to balance the gameplay.

[Solumn Trade]

See, I don't look at a game and judge it competitive or casual by it's features.  To me, it's a simply a game and I either enjoy it, or I don't.  Being competitive, again, starts with the PLAYER him or herself.  As I tried to illustrate many many times, any game can be played competitively, regardless of features or rank system. 

 

One of the greatest and still played competitive comps they have now is Donkey Kong.  Are you gonna tell me Donkey Kong was a game that was designed towards "hardcore" gamers?

Nope. But while being competitive or not DOES originate with the player themselves, games can be designed these days to encourage one type of play style verses another. The reason why Halo was successful in the past was its ability to cater to many kinds of people with many kinds of tastes; one of the primary ways the old Halos did this was by separating competitive and casual playlists. But now, because 343 feels like the 'new' people should have their needs placed above everyone else's, the whole thing is starting to unravel.

 

To me also, a game is something I enjoy or something I don't. I don't enjoy the 'new' rules Halo 5 brings. The main point of this post is to determine whether or not it's a good idea for 343 to ignore the needs of some of the 'older' player base in order to attract a 'new' one. I don't think it is. Halo 4 is clear evidence of that. I mean, do I really have to present the darn chart that gets so over presented, and ignored anyway?

I don't agree with your videos but this is an answer I can get behind and agree with actually. I could certainly see the game getting boring after time because of the lack of updates. I would also like to see if bullet magnetism exist in Halo 5. 

 

Do you think 343 should release a classic playlist for the game without thruster pack default, Spartan abilities, and Sprint? I personally think that all of these features have their advantages and disadvantages to balance the gameplay.

I think the game should be remade from the ground up. You cannot deny that Halo 5 bears similarities to COD: Advanced Warfighter, and that's a stigma that very well be Halo 5's undoing, regardless if the mechanics work or not.

 

 

These are my suggestions for new mechanics for a Halo game, that would make the game feel 'modern', but very much stay like Halo:

 

http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/33515-innovative-gameplay-mechanics/

[Ash]

How about this, when Halo 5 comes out, why not just never sprint?

 

Problem solved, that is unless you want to continue to complain about something that's been in halo since 2010.