VincentMatts
Member
Is it lol? what a stupid consensus
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo 5: Guardians |OT5| Is HaloGAF irrelevant now?
- Thread starter sir_dany12
- Start date
Is it lol? what a stupid consensus
Munch Poke
Member
It's as divisive as it's ever been. It's the revolving door of Halo talk. I'm personally fine with it.
To your first point, players have a specific expectation as to the physical expression of movement in a given context. The setting and tone of Halo as being an ostensibly grounded science fiction action game, players expect to have their need for increased speed be met with a mechanic functionally identical to sprinting. In this instance the sprinting mechanic serves the same function as the coconut effect. Players expect to be able to move quickly by sprinting in FPS games set in a grounded setting. Even if we suggest that a Spartan should be able to move at the speed that they sprint at in-game with their weapons up with no detriment to their capacity to aim, it still doesn't follow that they could also sprint, which would in turn be faster still, and when combined with the player expectation as to how their agency in that decision is supposed to manifest itself, that's not exactly a reason to remove it.
It's equally important to note that from a design perspective that the illusion of empowerment is just as if not more important than empowerment itself, since the thing that players engage with the most is the sensation of their own avatar's actions and perceptions in the context of their surroundings. It doesn't matter if you're actually empowered if it doesn't actually feel empowering to be empowered. It's like the design equivalent of body dysmorphia. This is much easier to point out in table top games, such as Savage Worlds or my own DBZ RPG. In some games you can increase your die type or the number of dice you roll by leveling up, even if doing so gives you a disadvantage or no significant advantage. In Savage Worlds, the larger your skill die is (ie: eight sides versus four sides) the less likely it is that you'll get to roll that die again by landing on the largest side (eight instead of four). It doesn't matter though, since players feel better about rolling a larger die, even if it's statistically less likely that they'll get insanely high roll results. In my own game, it's possible to roll more than 10d10 at a time, even though you start getting massive diminishing returns after 7d10 or so, and this is done because players just feel better when they get to roll a bigger fistful of dice. It just feels more satisfying to do.
Sprinting in Halo is the digital equivalent of this. It's a mechanic that presents a trade-off that has various mechanical consequences (you can't shoot, you have to physically turn, your shields don't charge, getting shot will stop you, ect) but it still feels more satisfying to be granted the sensation of running at top speed, to huff and puff and have your gun sway in front of you, than to just walk really fast and have your gun bob a bit more than normal. Players have a specific reaction to sprinting because they have probably experienced it before, or know of the adrenaline that you get from having to sprint into combat or out of it or around it or even through it. Sprinting from cover to cover when you're playing paintball or airsoft feels exciting to do, and giving players the illusion of that sensation of excitement is incredibly important to making sure that they actually enjoy the experience of playing and that it satisfies them. I'm not even sure how to explain this because of how thread-bare an explanation of this has to be to get the point across.
To your second, how much of Super Mario 64 did you cautiously walk through? How much of Halo: Combat Evolved did you spend without the maximum deflection on your left stick? Or games like Fable, or Assassin's Creed, or Shadow of Mordor, or Doom, or Call of Duty, or literally any other game that features movement in 3D space as a mechanic? Do you expect players in tense situations to not max out their deflection while trying to move, or do you expect them to not accidentally ruin their strafe because they maxed out their deflection and slid or charged instead of crouched?
To the third, there's nothing intrinsically stopping players from disengaging sprint and checking their corners or their flanks. There's nothing stopping players from exercising a modicum of situation awareness and not sprinting through a corridor full of doorways, or through an open field between two pieces of cover. If you're sprinting through high danger areas with blatant disregard to your own well-being then that's a case of a player not having adequate awareness or decision making skills.
And no, I'm not equating mechanical distaste with player skill, but the objections you're raising can be mostly if not completely circumvented with better situational awareness.
EDIT: Straight up if you think spartan charge is OP then you're just a BK. Not even a hint of sarcasm. It's super not broken, easily telegraphed, and easily avoidable. Maybe if you guys actually used it more you'd know. "Oh no, he's running right at me! I better lazily limp off to the right because for whatever reason I don't maximize the deflection of my movement stick and-"
You only get hit with Spartan charges if you're not paying attention (in which case you had it coming) or you're not shooting the guy (who can't charge if he's getting shot, and if by some miracle he does you can shoot him before he can shoot you, because he has to exit the animation before he can respond, in which case you got outplayed by a guy that was literally running right at you).
PPS: These "you"s are general.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
If they keep sprint I really do think it would be great to have a separated MLG/HCS/Hardcore playlist that increases movement speed and removes sprint like Halo 3's MLG playlist. It's better to appeal to 2 groups than to compromise everyone's experience.
Halo 3 was the most popular Halo e-sport and most popular online Halo. I don't think it did it a disservice. In fact, it was quite nice to play rounds of MLG and then jump into a default Team Slayer playlist. It was super addictive actually.
I would really like to see 343 comment on something like this and give it a genuine try. That way campaign could keep sprint, Warzone/BTB could have sprint, Team Slayer could have sprint, Swat could have sprint, infection could have sprint, but the tightly balanced competitive Arena could remain classic.
I dunno why guys, but this is killing me inside lol. We have been having these conversations for years and I wish it would just happen...
Halo 3 was the most popular Halo e-sport and most popular online Halo. I don't think it did it a disservice. In fact, it was quite nice to play rounds of MLG and then jump into a default Team Slayer playlist. It was super addictive actually.
I would really like to see 343 comment on something like this and give it a genuine try. That way campaign could keep sprint, Warzone/BTB could have sprint, Team Slayer could have sprint, Swat could have sprint, infection could have sprint, but the tightly balanced competitive Arena could remain classic.
I dunno why guys, but this is killing me inside lol. We have been having these conversations for years and I wish it would just happen...
VincentMatts
Member
I agree that its preferences. Also, the games were primarily played without sprint for a decade so for some of the older crowd, its difficult to change anything about halo because of how it was then.
What bothers me, is how people (including myself) use the franchises passed success as a guarantee of future success. As if redoing the same thing now for a new game with this new generation would equal the same amount of success in 2018.
The gaming landscape has changed since Halo1-2 and 3. That was more than a decade ago. What peoples expectations were then arent what they are now.
Personally, i just want halo to feel like halo, to look like halo and to sound like halo. And for me, thats bigger than just having a sprint or not. Im ok with the gameplay evolving. In fact, the actual gameplay of H5 is the one thing i feel that 343 absolutely nailed.
Pretty much.
I can't really be bothered to continue the discussion because it's been going on so long that it's boring now.
The effects of sprint are objective. Whether or not those effects are a net positive or net negative is subjective.
See this is where the disagreements come from. A number of people feel like the addition of sprint makes it not feel like Halo. Which is fair enough. The problem is when those who dislike sprint say that those who do like sprint are somehow wrong.
User 73706
Banned
I have a compromise that riffs on Metroid's Speed Booster ability called Top Speed. The video's outdated as hell, but I have a proof-of-concept here. If the player sustains movement faster than crouching speed for roughly 3 seconds, it sends them into a state with increased speed. They can still fire, melee, etc. but air-jumping (as opposed to jumping while grounded) or thrusting / crouching / stopping will kick you out of it. There's not a drawback, but considering the base movement speed is already fast it's more for movement / map control than outright combat - good luck trying to quickscope someone at Top Speed when you're going something like ~52mph.
Crouching at top speed will send you into a slide, and hitting jump + melee while grounded at top speed will send you into a Spartan Charge / shinespark equivalent, with the exception that there's a brief "windup-in-place" thing you have to do Metroid style. To compensate, you can use it to launch you forward in three dimensions like Genji's dashing ability, though.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
While I understand what you are getting at with the objective vs subjective thing...you could literally make that argument every time when discussing a design philosophy or impact.
People will talk objectively about it not because they can't see one side of the argument, but because they think their case is a better one. Just like any truth claim. You have to weigh the evidence yourself and make a decision.
Was just thinking of something like this, but I'm afraid it would make movement feel unexpected at times. How would you keep the top speed from happening if you don't want yourself to reach that speed? You would then have to take your thumb off the walking stick on occasion to prevent it. You could easily go into a top speed run by accident and overshoot cover, a ledge, etc.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Wait Masters1337 is a member? When did that happen?
Your arguing that there is an expectation, among FPS gamers that there is a mechanic to move at a speed greater than a base movement speed- that's it's imperative to include such a mechanic, even if it has negative effects on gameplay- all because of the illusion it creates. And you make this argument even if there are plenty of other ways to create the same illusion without compromising gameplay. As evidenced by the numorous successful FPS that have no issues with player agency, despite not having a sprint- including several Halo titles.
You can argue that this implementation of Sprint FEELS satisfying. And I can agree. But it also demonstrably devolves Halo's arena gunplay and platforming by imposing map design principles that focuses attention forward rather than on empowering 360 degrees of mobility and awareness. There are ways to make a player FEEL fast and powerful without diluting the engagement. THAT should be the goal.
Regarding deflection: I don't suggest assigning The sprint speed and accompanying animations to max deflection would alter player behavior. When I played Mario, I almost always sprinted- by moving my fully deflecting the joystick. if max speed was controlled exclusively by the joystick in halo, I'd still almost be moving at full deflection- just like I did when I played Halo:CE-3.
I imagine the times where full speed isn't ideal would be situational, just like it has been in previous games. In those situations you crouch or don't fully deflect.
Finally, no there's nothing stopping a player from Stopping to check their flanks. But the play spaces are scaled to be sprinted through. Not sprinting subjects a player to much more exposure. The fact that you have to slow down to check your flanks, is an example of depowering the player.
PS. Spartan Charge has a shit ton of magnetism. No amount of player skill changes that. It's not a matter of insufficient telegraphing, it's not a matter of how hard/easy it is to counter. It's power is disproportionately high in relation to how easy it is to connect.
The power:ease of use ratio is often brought up when discussing Halo balancing. And for this particular move, the ratio is fucked. It's as simple as that. I remember complaining when H2 took all the skill out of normal melees. Now we are arguing that SC is a matter of skill. Wow...
This^^^^
I really smh when i read about going back to classic halo will bring back the glory days as if like the millions of people that played halo back then will return...and stop playing overwatch/destiny/cod/bf/csgo or even dota/lol and yes "shocking" alot switched to MOBA games
Years passed and guess what people like different things and there are so many good FPS games to choose from
What they need to do is obviously tweak/balance few things and have a game ready day 1 with all the features/gamemodes that people expect like dev btb maps/classic firefight/oddball/forge
By the way i dont care if sprint is going to be in halo 6 or not, all i want is active player base and feature complete game day 1
The thing is that with Halo there's no point of reference. Each game has substantial differences from the last. There's been just as many mainline Halo titles with sprint as those without.
The context for these discussions is whether a given mechanic or feature works in Halo. That's an incredibly weak framework because what counts as Halo varies from person to person. You can't compare the different arguments because they're trying to fit different expectations.
Person A says "these are the reasons I dislike 'x' mechanic"
Person B responds with "those are the same reasons I like that mechanic"
Who's got the better argument?
Frankly, all this sort of discussion leads to is one group being massively elitest and claiming the other is "wrong" for having different expectations about what Halo should be.
I'm really not interested in going back to classic halo.
But I think for "evolving" to actually lead to growth, we need to understand exactly what elements of Halo's combat systems made it attractive to so many.
I know Halo's sales decline isn't exclusively related to changing mechanics. But, you also can't ignore that more people have been put off by changes than have been brought on. I say this as someone who views H5 as my second favorite MP halo game.
I'm all for evolving with the times. I don't think we needed to sacrifice so many of the beloved nuances of halo combat in order to incorporate these abilities. These unneccisary sacrifices are at least partially responsible for the franchises decline in popularity. I think it's pretty clear that in our attempts to evolve with the times, the times have left us behind.
But I think for "evolving" to actually lead to growth, we need to understand exactly what elements of Halo's combat systems made it attractive to so many.
I know Halo's sales decline isn't exclusively related to changing mechanics. But, you also can't ignore that more people have been put off by changes than have been brought on. I say this as someone who views H5 as my second favorite MP halo game.
I'm all for evolving with the times. I don't think we needed to sacrifice so many of the beloved nuances of halo combat in order to incorporate these abilities. These unneccisary sacrifices are at least partially responsible for the franchises decline in popularity. I think it's pretty clear that in our attempts to evolve with the times, the times have left us behind.
I think Halo 4, the absolute disaster that was the MCC and the poor launch state of H5 are far bigger reasons for the low population than sprint.
Even if H6 is just a reskin of H5 gameplay wise, if they market it well and it launches with a good amount and variety of content it will retain a high playerbase.
User 73706
Banned
Yeah, that's a downside to the current implementation, but I misspoke - to be able to activate Top Speed you actually have to maintain speed equal or greater to your max walk speed (acceleration is high so you get there near-instantaneously), not just faster than your walk speed while crouched. By extension of that you could probably reset it just by strafing slightly, but above all I'm shooting for customization and accessibility - you can even customize your HUD thanks to how the slots work to emulate Bungie Halo / 343i Halo / Metroid / Overwatch HUDs!
I think I'm going to add in a "toggle Top Speed" option where you can either have it the Metroid way where it automatically kicks in, or you can have it the Halo way where if that "sprint windup" meter is at 100% (meaning you couldn't "pocket" a sprint while crouching, etc.) and press the Sprint button it'll send you into top speed. With my Spartan Charge equivalent having its own super telegraphed charge-up animation, I don't think you really run the risk of someone "pocketing" a sprint and then using it to sucker-punch you with a body check because you'll still have plenty of time to dodge it / kill them.
Doom is an excellent example of what a modern FPS can take from old games without having to use Sprint and ADS (even if ADS isn't really a thing in Halo). And it's freaking fun to play (even the PvP, but it's not Halo of course).
I agree that Sprint isn't the thing that is making Halo not Halo, but without repeating previous post, Sprint is really hurting a lot of concept that were what make Halo, well, Halo, like level design, gameplay momentum, etc...
I'm not saying sprint is a greater culprit. But Halo piqued with H3.
I don't want a reskinned H3 ( I really didn't like that game) But would a reskinned H5 lead to growth?
I think a future Halo games are more faithful to core sensibilities (like not separating movement from shooting), then the franchise could grow by appealing to old fans while still adding things to appeal to new ones.
Yes H4 was straight bad. Yes MCC was a disaster. Yes H5 launched w/o content. But if H5s core gameplay was more widely appealing, more people would still be playing. Shallower games have enjoyed more longevity.
Fata1moose
Banned
Look at Gears it has classic gameplay and sold poorly. It was quite boring so I stopped playing it. Halo 3 rode off of 2, that was the year CoD took over. People started losing interest with 3.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
From a handful of mainstream players I know, they have all expressed that they don't like the art style, maps, and controls. They feel it's too complicated and difficult to get into. Even after getting them into it they get fatigued quickly after a few matches.
I can see this. I love halo 5 but honestly hope 6 takes the best of 5, simplifies, and refines it. Like, if you break aerial melees, your shit is too convoluted. If I have to buy an elite to use paddles to effectively play, your shit is too convoluted. If i, a hardcore fan from the get go, with hundreds upon hundreds of hours of h5, can't come to grips with some of your mechanics (stabalized and more specifically stabalized jumps), your shit is too convoluted. Simplify the mechanics and controls. Give me the best of old and new halo somewhere between both pls.
But watch them just add more. Half expecting double jumps, wall running, and wall bouncing in 6.
Like i said, I'm not interested in carbon copies of old games. Gears shows that doesn't work. But the radical departure angle hasn't worked for Halo either.
I also don't buy the COD argument. It's a monster, H3 went toe to toe with COD. Halo used to be a monster, now Several FPS' are sitting higher than H5 on the most played list
Did people who liked halo's style of play start preferring CODs? Or did people who liked halo's style of play stop playing halo because there was nothing on the market that filled that gap due to gameplay changes.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
The Great Pistol Debate continues.
Gears 4 multiplayer is l e g i t. I hope you're just talking about the campaign, otherwise I have to ask how much you enjoy Gears to begin with? Genuine question btw because for me Gears 4 finally provides the Gears experience I've been waiting for on Xbox One. UE was okay, but it was clunky and felt exactly like Gears 1 obviously.
Gears is in a similar situation to Halo where the multiplayer has been around for so long that fans know what they want/expect out of a new title. That's why specifically for these franchises, I think it'd be smart to break out the multiplayers into their own platforms, releasing expansions for campaign every 2-3 years along with new features, modes, maps, etc. for the existing multiplayer base.
Gears 5 has to reinvent itself from getting stale (some would argue that happened with 4), but it CANNOT drastically change the multiplayer from what we have now because fans would outrage, and sometimes rightfully so imo. I'm all for new and different experiences that change the formula like in Reach, but NOT at the expense of what people expect from a well-tuned formula. As spin-offs and packages that exist alongside the platforms that'd be fine, but once these risky spin-offs start replacing titles we love because they're hot and new, that's when it becomes an issue. For example, Reach was only hated because it was the fresh new Halo that everyone flocked to and was the title Bungie solely focused on, however if it existed alongside a Halo 3 that continually received updates and new content, it would've been a nice substitute.
It's a tough balancing act, for sure, but I think it's necessary in these specific situations. Like I've said before, when Halo 3 isn't the sole Halo game being played for 3 years, it's really not so bad to go back to every so often. For as much shit as it gets, there's still a lot to love and appreciate about its multiplayer.
Take Halo 5 for example, wouldn't you all say Arena and Warzone are very different experiences? Now, what if Halo 5 launched with just Arena, then added Warzone later? That's essentially what I'm saying to do going forward as long as both experiences receive dev support, granted of course there are fans there to continue supporting it. So Gears 5 needs to be similar to Gears 4 multiplayer, but that doesn't mean it can't have completely new stuff either, similarly to Halo 6. It would be a shift in how games are developed considering I can't name any franchises like this (where old games receive support as new/different experiences are supported as well), but for specific long-lasting franchises like Halo and Gears, I think it's essential for MS/343/TC to consider.
No, it was Halo Reach when people started loosing interest. Halo 3 consistently held the top spot for most xbox live game for two years and it wasn't dethroned untill Modern Warfare 2 came out. Even then it was still consistently in the top 3 or 4 until Reach was released which quickly dropped off the top 10 most played monthly list.
As for sales figure's Halo 4 sold as much as it did because it was the return of the Master Chief. In addition Halo 5 sold even less, though it is hard to pinpoint if it's due to fans not liking gameplay, the Xbox One DRM fiasco, franchise fatigue, more competition, people disappointed and burned by Reach, Halo 4, and MCC or all of the above.
Halo 5 had alot going against it and the lack of gameplay options at launch and the in your face focus on the ultra niche pro gamer audience did not help either. The original trilogy did fine without Bungie neglecting most of their fans for the sake of competitive players.
Halo is what made MLG succesful, not the other way around. The franchise shouldn't have to sacrifice options at launch just to cater to a niche audience.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Which is why MLG/HCS always deserve their own events/playlists/settings etc. The difference in H5 between a few settings for pros vs casual players isn't the light year gap as Reach or H4 was. I don't think 343i shouldn't walk on eggshells so much about having some "minor" differences from the core buying audience or majority of playlists.
I'd be happy to see a little more diversity as long as it's clear during loading screens so you're always going in with the right mindset. Perhaps the unification of default gameplay is being forced by design due to population and region matching per playlist?
Don't worry, you don't have to buy the CoD argument. Major Nelson used to post monthly active users for every game on XBL and H3 was always on #1 for a long time. Here is the end result for 2009 for example.
Yes, that's right. It beat 3 CoD titles
(despite MW2 breaking all sale records)
(that didn't even break the top 20)
---
Also:
No Radar > Radar
No Sprint > Sprint
Run and Gun > Run or Gun
Bungie/DICE aiming > 343i aiming
Gamertags in Player Search > Emblems in Player Search
Chat in Player Search > No chat in Player Search
Halo 3 was pretty much top dog until MW2.
Reach still did pretty good, but it was no H3.
Now, halo 5 is far from a top dog. There's 9 FPS currently more popular than H5 four of which are COD.
Back-compat Blops2 is the current leader... man I wish mcc wasn't a dumpster fire. It was a shot to see how the old formula faired with new and old fans alike...
Prinz Eugn
Member
Make FPS Great Again
No reload!
No reload!
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Now THAT'S how a supersoldier fights!
Speaking of Doom, why doesn't Halo have blood anymore? =/
You forget that Gears 2 was the previous MCC. That game was outselling CoD and then cratered when it barely worked MP-wise. Never recovered. Gears 3 MP and campaign was solid and yet a month after release dropped out of top 10. Gears: Judgment is now erased from memory.
Gears 4 was a great game with great multiplayer. It had the same problem every other Xbox game has had which is release on this dogshit console with half the playerbase of the other one, especially in NA. Gears 4 was released at a crowded time to capitalize on the holiday sales. It should have released now when there was far less MP-wise. Even TitanFall 2 which everyone loves campaign wise and MP wise is essentially dead.
I think there is no stopping Halo's decline. More people would rather play like 8 other shooters on an Xbox console than Halo. It is what it is. The era of Halo is done, long live Overwatch and CoD. Even Infinite Warfare is behind Blops 2 and Blops 3. Maybe it is fatigue.
I honestly think shitty H4 multiplayer, coupled with Xbox One being a stinker of a console with a poor launch, the MCC debacle and H5 being so feature poor at launch hurt more than anything else.
Let's not go overboard there.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Doesn't it seem like consumers are growing tired of the "enhanced" movement cliche/trend?
-BF1 is huge
-COD fans keep echoing the request for "boots on the ground"
-We are getting a new WWII COD
-Rainbow Six Siege is slowww but highly regarded
-various slower shooters coming out or out on PC
-return to more classic styles like Wolfenstein and most importantly DOOM 2016
-Fan made Installation 01 Halo MP in development (looks very promising)
-not shooters, but there is a resurgence of classic JRPG's
-return of cRPG's like Pillars of Eternity
-interest in platformers again
-open world fatigue and a desire for tightly designed linear experiences
-simple indie games
It seems like huge swathes of players are excited for a more "classic" approach in new games. I think Halo could take advantage of this and they have the beloved franchise history to back them up.
Seems evident that merely continuing in the same direction wouldn't help Halo, but even potentially hurt it.
Damn, Halo 4 dropped like a rock.
Masterz1337
Neo Member
I got approved in February, but only started posting as of 2 weeks ago I believe. Glad to finally be here though! Been pleasantly surprised by the amount of people who recognize me too.
I have very vivid memories of people playing games of Halo 3, having games full of poor hit detection and BS and then running off to play COD when they lost. I think the faster speed of COD plus more consistent feeling guns both fed off 2 of arguably H3's greatest weaknesses. Also the more mature and realistic tone was something they embraced, other than the more juvenile approach to visuals H3 took.
COD played off many H3's shortcomings masterfully IMO.
Interesting Reach dropped after the Bungie handoff and after CEA came out which completely split the playerbase with the Anniversary playlist and different settings were just crazy. I think I pretty much stopped playing Reach then too.
Nice to see Halo 3 largely remained ahead of CoD until about 2009 trading back and forth. People always love to shit on it, but it was the most played Halo MP and most popular game by a longshot. H3A makes a lot of sense for 343 to capitalize on the remaining popularity for the game. 4K/60fps Scorpio campaign, get like 10-12 maps remade with the Halo 5 engine. There is that lego fun blocks version of the Pit that plays pretty good in H5. Try and mimic some settings like H2A. H2A only faltered because of the low map count and that it was tied to MCC shenanigans. By itself it would have seen much greater play especially with more maps.
I think this says it all. The original trilogies uncompromising run&gun mechanics stood tall against COD and the onslaught of sprint/ADS FPS giants.
The moment the franchise shifted away from that it became less competitive in the FPS space. I would argue that Halo offering a unique style of engagement is part of what allowed it to remain interesting to the wider audience.
Since we haven't had a sprintless Halo since H3, there is no evidence that the market "prefers" sprint in their halo, but I keep hearing arguments that suggest it's a mandatory, player agency, requirement at this point.
I think Halo's decline is reversable. The primary issue is that the current gameplay loop isn't widely appealing. I like it. Anyone who's still playing it probably likes it. But there are millions of people who bought it, but didn't enjoy it enough to keep playing it.
A resonating gameplay loop can survive a bad, content sparse launch. Just look at Rainbow Six: Siege. People stuck around long to see it's offering improved because the gameplay was so good. Others picked it up after positive word of mouth.
Sometimes I feel like we're in an echo chamber. Halo 5 DOES feel good to me. But would the mass market agree? I think the convoluted control scheme used to deliver the SAs is frowned upon by many. Is the lack of content really want actually kept people away Or did people just not like how it plays.
VincentMatts
Member
I think its funny that you mention Doom considering last i checked, the game wasnt selling very well. But yes, its a nice combination of new and old. Still, sales arent great.
I think the Halo Brand is still very strong. The fact that it sells a lot pretty consistently within its first week is proof enough that people still want halo. If people stop playing it, then thats another issue.
Games today come with a lot of content and most need a fresh batch of content in order to keep people coming back. The lack of warzone maps in halo5 is one of the reasons people stopped playing. You cant expect people to keep coming back if all you add is forge looking maps that usually dont end up looking particularly good.
I played 150 hours of BF1. Gameplay is fantastic. But sometimes, as great as it is, i just dont feel like playing on the same maps over and over. I know them all by heart. Doesnt mean i dont like the game anymore. In 2017, games need a regular amount of fresh content. And im sorry but Forge content doesnt cut it. Warzone needed a lot of new maps, not just cards.
Samurai G0SU
Member
Welfare
Member
Eh, it first dropped when Gears 3 came out, then drops again due to BF3 and increased success of FIFA, then of course MW3 and Skyrim released in November. Then after the holidays Reach stabilizes at #5 until Halo 4.
Population did drop around that time but that is because of more games coming out and it being a year after launch. Not like it dropped significant numbers.
Also, sprint is in no way a necessary feature that needs to be in Halo. Look at games like CSGO and Overwatch and how popular they are. Not having sprint doesn't mean you can't make the player "feel fast".
Yup. Any weapons that deal splash damage and have hitmarkers, to be more precise.
Masterz1337
Neo Member
Probably a bit of both. The mass market probably enjoys H5 for what it is for a period of time, but the people who have consistently bought Halo are split. I think it's as simple as the changes are alienating enough to old fans who then drop the game and not attracting new fans who are as committed to the game and series as the old. Content situation certainly burned people out early on.
Even for someone who considers himself a hardcore fan, I couldn't survive more than a month over a sub par campaign, 4 multiplayer game types on a small amount of maps, and warzone without being bored.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
YESSSS I was whining about them pre-MCC launch. I was mentioning them in all the surveys. I was complaining here...but people were defending them like the plague.
*frustrated screeching*
lol
edit:
Don't you about face palm your head off when you hear the commentators during HCS games yell excitedly, "He got the grenade hitmarker!"