Discouraged....And I'm not the only one (Halo 4)

[Shadow Hunter Honor]

this........this is just starting to get repetitive.

[Hydricide]

SHUT THE **** UP AND GET OFF THIS SITE NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR WARPED OPINIONS.

 

You really should try and respect other opinions and not just yell, it doesn't give you any credibility, it just makes you sound like a jerk. As for what he had said, it won't ruin it for everyone, but there is a large number of gamers, and here is where I will refute other's claims that casual is the majority, that want a competitive Halo. Reach was geared to the casual gamers, they looked to handicap better players by introducing luck (bloom) and AA's to give skills better players had like timing powerups and equipment, to everyone. EX) Oh, I need to time overshield and not grab it until an opponent is near me so that it will be charging as I begin the battle, now there is armor lock which is a charging OS at the pull of a trigger anytime. Another example, I can jump to escape players that do not know jumps, now there is a jetpack so players don't have to worry about jumping, they can fly (and destroy map design). The changes that have been explained by GI and backed up by 343 sound like more of that system, skilled players being punished for being good. That is why I proposed in another thread that they return a ranked and social playlist system where the social playlists have all of the AA's and new ideas 343 wants to throw in to even the playing field, that would be a great idea so if a bunch of tryhards go to play social, they do not win by 40 kills as they do in H3, which is just unfair, they will be on a more equal playing field. That said, then there is ranked, which is a return to the Halo 2/Halo 3 style MP experience where skill determines whether you get the skill (1-50) in the playlist you are in, not luck. That way you can satisfy the competitive gamers that crave a classic halo game, like me, and the more casual gamer that just wants to pick up the controller now and then and not get blown to pieces when they play.

[ShockGazm]

Ok. If you remember I said I would shoot myself in the foot. Well, i'm in the hospital. And my bro isn't doing well after I threw him out the window.

 

I didn't mention this but if I seen another thread like this I'd launch a crow bar to my balls. Now, I can hardly walk.

[ZB-85]

Halo 4 will not be anything like Call of Duty. All this speculation, and all these rumours are fake.

[Pajama 88]

idc how many people make this thread it needs to be said and thats that.

I dont want join in progress for many reasons

i dont want random weapon spawns for obvious reasons

i dont want instant respawn for even more obvious reasons

i dont want custom loadouts for reasons i cant believe 343 hasnt realized

 

Halo is known for taking more skill and more teamwork to obtain map control and get weapons

everyone starts off equal in every game of halo and halo reach barely took that away and look wat happened

just please create a halo 3 clone almost and i, along with millions of other people will be very happy

 

not to mention, socials will like the social playlist no matter wat so it doesnt really matter.

 

Bungie hit gold in the first 3 halo games and i was really hoping 343 would realize this but it seems money has gotten the best of them.

 

this really makes me wanna cry, and thats not a joke

[Pajama 88]

SHUT THE **** UP AND GET OFF THIS SITE NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR WARPED OPINIONS.

 

i agree with everything you called warped.

 

im sorry, but if you joined halo during reach i feel like maybe you should step aside for these discusions.

its fine if u like reach, but statistically it was a failure. I enjoy MLG playlist as it is now and that is how the game should have been on release.

 

Halo 3 was a perfect game that was succesful until the end.

Halo reach had its flaws and was not succesful for long. which is ok because not everything is going to work and its perfectly fine to try new things. but there is something wrong with changing the qualities of something to try and make more money and gain popularity in a crowd that you naturally dont belong too, which is what 343 is trying to do according to rumors.

 

o dear god please let them be rumors.

[fzdw11]

i agree with everything you called warped.

 

im sorry, but if you joined halo during reach i feel like maybe you should step aside for these discusions.

its fine if u like reach, but statistically it was a failure. I enjoy MLG playlist as it is now and that is how the game should have been on release.

 

Halo 3 was a perfect game that was succesful until the end.

Halo reach had its flaws and was not succesful for long. which is ok because not everything is going to work and its perfectly fine to try new things. but there is something wrong with changing the qualities of something to try and make more money and gain popularity in a crowd that you naturally dont belong too, which is what 343 is trying to do according to rumors.

 

o dear god please let them be rumors.

 

Nobody should step aside, regardless of when they started playing Halo. You have your opinions, other people have theirs and that's that.

 

Oh, and Halo 3 was far from perfect. Same with Halo 2.

[Shadow Hunter Honor]

personally i loved all the bugs in all the Halo Games

[XBLuke]

First of all, casual gamers are the majority. Secondly, there are skilled players (not MLG OMG PROZ) MLG are just try hards (no offence), that like Reach, i happen to be one of them when i am in the mood to deal with it. Thirdly, what give you the right to tell 343, and casuals this and that? Fourth, what makes a 1-50 system so great, i have played halo 3, and it just promotes stacked teams. This is why the system needs to be re-worked, for people who want to play alone, or want to do a playlist with a stacked team. Winning is not Skill. A game is to have fun, respect the title, and make cool friends and have nice competition. You sir are not a gamer in my eyes.

Skilled player? Please, you are a captain on Halo 3 with skill 25.

[VivaLebowski]

I would start, but its already been said. So Im gonna copy paste it.

 

343 isn't motivated simply by what the competitive core of Halo players want. They are motivated by sales. They can't make a financially successful game based simply on playing to a small group of Halo fans. They are being forced to modernize, one way or another.

 

VivaLebowski

 

 

First of all, casual gamers are the majority. Secondly, there are skilled players (not MLG OMG PROZ) MLG are just try hards (no offence), that like Reach, i happen to be one of them when i am in the mood to deal with it. Thirdly, what give you the right to tell 343, and casuals this and that? Fourth, what makes a 1-50 system so great, i have played halo 3, and it just promotes stacked teams. This is why the system needs to be re-worked, for people who want to play alone, or want to do a playlist with a stacked team. Winning is not Skill. A game is to have fun, respect the title, and make cool friends and have nice competition. You sir are not a gamer in my eyes.

 

 

It seems like your arguing with someone else...I said Halo cant be financially successful playing to a small group of people (competitive pro diehard fans). The reason I said that is because 343 has to appeal to casuals because they are the majority. I ain't putting out an opinion here on individual features, nor do I think 343 should necessarily cater to the competitive diehards. To make a good AND financially successful game (because 343 needs to make bank if we want them to keep making Halo) 343 must try to make a good game while also going where the money is. I;m not stating an opinion of planned changes, only stating the facts.

[Krinn3]

You know what? those who think Halo 4 is going to suck, just dont buy the game. dont even worry about it, why stress yourself over something you cant change. Everyone has a viewpoint on what the game should be like, but one thing we should all remember is that we are not the only gaming generation. This could be the first step in appealing to the next target audience. Sometimes you just gotta accept the cards your dealt with, even if some view it as a crappy hand. I have my issues with some of the things being presented sure, but I'm willing to at least try the game before I judge it.

 

You know that time your mom had you try some food that you thought you would hate but it turned out that you liked it? I feel like this is happening right now. Just because the ideas sound crazy, doesnt mean they wont stream together well with the series.

[Krinn3]

We don't play call of duty. we are skilled gamers.

 

Oh I don't? That's right you would know because we are friends on xbox and play COD all the time. And if your saying Halo and COD always had similarities then your wrong. Halo separated itself from the rest of first person shooters.

 

I just noticed this post. I would like to point out what you said in your first post and how it contradicts with your argument to my post. Can you see why i assumed you didnt play CoD now?

 

Also, They have always had similarities. There are more differences than similarities, but the similarities are still there.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Krinn3

[Twinreaper]

This got out of hand fast. I don't even know where to begin sorting this out. I'll just start with random things...

 

1. The whole bloom argument. It wa sa feature with every title. reach was the first title to correct the datat fields and have it mechanically perform the way it was intended. If need be I can pull post relevant data fields from the weapon tags and globals to back this up.

 

2. You cannot compare skill across Halo Titles. Each title brought a unique expereince and game play mechanics that were not all available in the previous.

 

3. Hating on Reach because supposed "pros" or "MLG" players insist there is less skill or the game inhibits players with real skill, only further proves that your skill set is only limited to previous titles, in which you constantly make referrences to. It's a fact, not every pro or mlg guy will be great at every title. People have to evolve or re-learn techniques in order to evolve with a game. Calling things random or luck because you don't understand a mechanic or a gameplay feature is childish. Every feature or usage in the engine is designed to work a certain way. While you may not agree with the way it works, you cannot bash or diminish it simply because you say it is bad.

 

4. No game on earth is completely different than another. every game uses or borrows ideas or techniques from another game somewhere. Halo in terms of core basics was due for a change. Creating games like Halo may have started out as "fun"...but look where that got Bungie. On the verge of Bankruptcy before Microsoft stepped in and backed them for the rights to Halo. Creating the next Halo game is a balance of fun, compromise and sales. Without sales, there is no further title...just as without no compromise, there would be no fans....you see where this is leading.

 

5. Saying CoD players or the game in general lacks any skill is false. every game has a certain degree of skill and skill set rquired to master it. Just because it is different than Halo's, makes it no less skill required.

 

6. Statistically Reach was not a failure by any means. Had Halo Reach been launched when say...Halo 2 was, Reach would have had the same success as Halo 2. The game market is more competative now, and the economy is dragging. Reach's quality had no effect on the sales or population. Economic status' and a heavy competative title presence helped to minimize the impact Reach had. If your gonna try quoting facts or statistics by saying quality or game content killed a franchise or title, you really need to be careful and research the comparative title and "timing" of that said title.

 

 

 

7. Halo was never known for anything other than just being a great innovator in FPS's. I guess in my 10+ years of playing Halo, I must have missed the memo that stated "Halo was and always will be known for being a high competative game that required the most skill to play". Funny, I thought it was because it had a great story, offered various forms of MM gameplay and allowed multiple genres of gamers to come together and enjoy it.

 

Now as I read and go over more of the posts in this thread, I see one common underliying fear. That fear is that the newer systems employed by halo 4, will further regress or require previous title pro's to re-learn or evolve with the title past the point of which they will care to. This of coarse is only assumption. None of us truly know how any of these new features will work, and guessing at them based on pictures alone or misconstrued words is not enough to do so. Now, if there was a Beta and people got to try them out then hated it....that would be a completely different story.

 

Like all opinions, we must all remain respectful of eachother's and stop this constant fighting with eachother. It is all well and good to not agree or want to point out flaws and shiz...but please do so kindly. We really dont need anymore pointless long flame wars between members.

[McChicken343]

Shockgazm your macros suck.

 

And yes the 343 is stupid for this bull******y

[Constantly]

6. Statistically Reach was not a failure by any means. Had Halo Reach been launched when say...Halo 2 was, Reach would have had the same success as Halo 2. The game market is more competative now, and the economy is dragging. Reach's quality had no effect on the sales or population. Economic status' and a heavy competative title presence helped to minimize the impact Reach had. If your gonna try quoting facts or statistics by saying quality or game content killed a franchise or title, you really need to be careful and research the comparative title and "timing" of that said title.

 

Saying, "Reach's quality had no effect on the sales or population" is wrong. For obvious reasons.

 

You can't say that Reach would have been just as successful as Halo 2 if released at the same time. For obvious reasons.

 

The whole "timing" issue and "other titles" is my favorite excuse as to why Reach was a flop. Aside from initial sales to people who expected another great Halo game. Game develpers compete, games come out all the time, the economy has been bad for years... the cream will rise to the top. This goes with quality of gameplay.

 

Let me ask you this. If the game was better would more people play it?

[fzdw11]

Saying, "Reach's quality had no effect on the sales or population" is wrong. For obvious reasons.

 

You can't say that Reach would have been just as successful as Halo 2 if released at the same time. For obvious reasons.

 

The whole "timing" issue and "other titles" is my favorite excuse as to why Reach was a flop. Aside from initial sales to people who expected another great Halo game. Game develpers compete, games come out all the time, the economy has been bad for years... the cream will rise to the top. This goes with quality of gameplay.

 

Let me ask you this. If the game was better would more people play it?

 

Who says the game is bad? You? A few others? See, I love when people claim that the game is bad. If it was so bad, I wouldn't be seeing people online at all times of the day. I wouldn't be able to jump into matchmaking and have a game in under a minute (usually less than 30 seconds to find a full game). I wouldn't see new people starting to play the game on a near daily basis, new recruits who are just dipping their toes into matchmaking for the first time. Obviously new players when you see them play.

 

Reach is only a "flop" to those who don't like it. I guarantee you that Bungie and Microsoft didn't see Reach as a flop.

[Skys]

Let the gameplay speak for itself..

[fzdw11]

Let the gameplay speak for itself..

 

Thank you. Until we see more actual gameplay, until we play the game for ourselves, we don't know what it's going to be like.

[Skys]

For now opinions are needed. But let us see the first gameplay mission..let us see a good gameplay trailer.

[Constantly]

Who says the game is bad? You? A few others? See, I love when people claim that the game is bad. If it was so bad, I wouldn't be seeing people online at all times of the day. I wouldn't be able to jump into matchmaking and have a game in under a minute (usually less than 30 seconds to find a full game). I wouldn't see new people starting to play the game on a near daily basis, new recruits who are just dipping their toes into matchmaking for the first time. Obviously new players when you see them play.

 

Reach is only a "flop" to those who don't like it. I guarantee you that Bungie and Microsoft didn't see Reach as a flop.

 

I didn't say it was bad. I asked if it were better, would more people play it? Whether you think the game is a godsend or not. Things can always be better.

 

My point was that the better the quality of the game, the more people will play it.

[Krinn3]

I didn't say it was bad. I asked if it were better, would more people play it? Whether you think the game is a godsend or not. Things can always be better.

 

My point was that the better the quality of the game, the more people will play it.

 

I agree. More people would play if the game was better. Though better is a relative term. "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Its all relative to the person playing.

[fzdw11]

Exactly, Krinn. What's "better" to me, may not be to you, or to anybody else. But none of that matters.

[Constantly]

My point was in response to the person that said that the quality of the game did not affect the sale or population of the game.

[fzdw11]

Quality will affect future sales of the game, not the initial purchase. If word gets out that a game is terrible prior to it's release, then maybe. But for the most part, if a game is highly anticipated, it's still going to sell really well upon release, and only dwindle sales later.

 

The whole "population" thing, and this isn't just from you, mind, just boggles my mind. Sure, the population seems much smaller on Reach than at the height of Halo 3. But I still never have trouble finding games. Ever. So the population can't be that bad, in reality, can it?

[Twinreaper]

The competition and quality is relative. Halo 2 and Halo 3 did not have competition to worry about. Show me one FPS or another genre title from the release dates of Halo 2 and Halo 3 that would have threatened it. You can't. Halo Reach had a lot of competition, and a lot of hype behind other titles that dwarfed it. Reach was not nearly hyped as much as Halo 3 or Halo 2. No matter how good Halo was made, or even if Halo 2/3 came out now....there are too many other great titles that take away from it. You don't think for one minute that games like Mass Effect 3 or even Assassins Creed coming up, won't effect populations for other games? Everything is interconnected and it's always easier to point to a game and say it sucked and that's why nobody plays it.

 

Your looking at the whole thing through closed eyes and seeing it only from a hardcore / MLG perspective. At least that much can be assumed since you asked in another thread why we casual or softcore gamers prefer Reach and why we do. Evolution of the games is a needed thing. Do you honestly think CoD 4 or even Modern Warfare would have had the sales and popularity it did, if it had been like CoD 2 and had not changed? Change is what made those titles popular, and the same will happen with Halo. It jut takes a bit more time for some changes to finally be accepted. In the end, if Halo 4 does not work for you, then move on.