Support NeoGAF

[Steelyuhas]

Speak for yourself, brah.

Seriously, sprint can get out.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Then why even call it halo if its not going to feel like it .

Why even have a new halo game if you want it to be like the last? Games are getting better, there are aspects of Halo that haven't been much improved in 10 years. If you keep on asking for a very similar game, you're going to get a very similar game.

I love the Halo Universe, I like the weapon types, I like energy shields, i like the grenades. I don't like moon jumping, I don't like stiff movement.

The same way you want the graphics to get better, I want the gameplay to get better. Is that so wrong?

 

[see5harp]

I guess I'm a little confused about your complaints about weapons and visual feedback. Halo is one of the only console shooters where I know exactly where I'm shooting, when a shield is down, and the precise moment when a melee hits someone else. If you mean bigger visual effects and some more aggressive audio stuff then alright I'm with you.

 

[Ramirez]

Why even have a new halo game if you want it to be like the last? Games are getting better, there are aspects of Halo that haven't been much improved in 10 years. If you keep on asking for a very similar game, you're going to get a very similar game.

I love the Halo Universe, I like the weapon types, I like energy shields, i like the grenades. I don't like moon jumping, I don't like stiff movement.

The same way you want the graphics to get better, I want the gameplay to get better. Is that so wrong?

It honestly sounds like you just don't like Halo's core gameplay, which is fine. I do have a problem with your types who want the game to change into something it's not or never should have been.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Why even have a new halo game if you want it to be like the last? Games are getting better, there are aspects of Halo that haven't been much improved in 10 years. If you keep on asking for a very similar game, you're going to get a very similar game.

I love the Halo Universe, I like the weapon types, I like energy shields, i like the grenades. I don't like moon jumping, I don't like stiff movement.

The same way you want the graphics to get better, I want the gameplay to get better. Is that so wrong?

I think, ultimately, what you want would be best suited for a spin off halo game if one is ever made. While Halo will continue to change and evolve it would be crazy to throw away entirely what makes the game popular and fun to play.

I welcome change to Halo, as long as it doesn't throw away what makes Halo special.. Imagine CoD with Halo jumping. That may win some Halo fans, but it would alienate tons of CoD fans.

I will say, I would love a Crysis/CoD/Battlefield style game in the Halo universe, but I do not want that to be Halo 4.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I suggest you re-read that first sentence you wrote again. You really don't understand why Halo fans might want Halo to feel like Halo? What if the next Street Fighter came out and played like Mortal Combat (to make one example). Do you think fans would have reasonable objections?

My comments, and those of many others, were focused on player movement. What is innovative about lower jump height, slower movement and heavy player inertia which even further limits mobility, mitigates the benefits of strafing and slows player response time? That is what Reach brought to the table; to many of us, it just didn't feel like Halo as a result. There are plenty of other ways the series can expand, iterate and tweak its gameplay while still feeling like it's a Halo game, as has been the case throughout the series. I hope and expect that 343 will continue the tradition.


At any rate, it sounds like 343 will be returning Halo 4 to the classic mechanics and feel of the series, while adding heft in other ways. Spartans are heavy, but they are also fast, powerful and agile. I'm hoping they find ways to communicate these things without resorting to hampering player movement. It sounds like that's the vision.

Its a matter of semantics. What I'm seeing from *many* people in this thread when they say "it needs the same feeling" is that they want to keep things that are doing nothing but holding the game back. Why not have something that feels better? Keep all the things that make Halo so awesome, but improve things that are lacking. I think Halo has fallen behind in some ways, it feels like the shooter it was 10 years ago at a pretty fundamental level.

When I think of the evolution of halo, I see the same mistakes being made, and some for decent reason, no doubt. They are working off the same engine, so they may look at something and say, "nobody really complains about this so we'll just keep it in", when I think they should be saying, "this is good, but look at what all these other shooters are doing, we need to keep ahead of the curve". Of course they already do this quite a bit, but just as Skyrim has underlying memory issues because of its age, halo suffers from lingering problems that have been ignored due to lack of innovation.

I'm not one to rally against the phrase, "If it ain't broke don't fix it", but when you have millions and millions of dollars going into one of the most popular video game series of all time, I think that changes the picture a bit.

I think we're on more of the same page than you know; I'm not saying Reach was a break away from the normal halo formula in a good way. What I'm saying is I hope Halo 4 breaks away from the formula in a good way.

 

[dragonelite]

Halo is primarily a multiplayer franchise though, and those things are important for Halo's SP but don't really apply to the MP side. Reach turned off so many players because of those fundamental changes to each basic trait of the gameplay.

This i planned to play reach atleast 1.5 year everyday but i stopped caring after 3 months.
Something didn't feel right or something was different. Maybe the amount of rage quitters and armor lock or the player movement can't pin point what really drove me away. The single player is only like 2 days worth of fun its the multi where i''ll be spending my time.

 

[NullPointer]

The debate is what makes a Halo game a Halo game? Is it the movement speed, jump height... To me what makes a Halo game is the sandbox battles, exploration, epic adventure. They could make it a third person shooter as long as they have the sandbox, exploration and epic adventure.

Yes.

343 taking the reigns presents an opportunity to breathe some real fresh air into the series and take some risks to lay the foundation for a new trilogy. Maybe I'm an odd man out here but I'm not looking for another Bungie Halo. I'd prefer something with some real innovation rather than just yet another tune of the formula with the requisite heavy dose of nostalgia.

But I guess we all have our favorite bits that make Halo truly Halo. For me its the sandbox, AI, tactical choices and replayability that comes from the game's emergent systems. I expect the multiplayer competitive crowd will force the game to stick to safe territory though. And like I've said many times before I'd hate to be in 343's shoes as I don't see the way to move forward without pissing off a whole swath of their old or new fans.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I think, ultimately, what you want would be best suited for a spin off halo game if one is ever made. While Halo will continue to change and evolve it would be crazy to throw away entirely what makes the game popular and fun to play.

I welcome change to Halo, as long as it doesn't throw away what makes Halo special.. Imagine CoD with Halo jumping. That may win some Halo fans, but it would alienate tons of CoD fans.

I will say, I would love a Crysis/CoD/Battlefield style game in the Halo universe, but I do not want that to be Halo 4.

Do you think they meant to make the halo jumping so floaty? Or do you think they did what they did with the limited tech of the time? Look at the jumping in Crysis 2 for an illustration of what I think it could/should be. It wouldn't have to be exactly the same; a little higher, a *little* more floaty to keep that halo feel, but there's no reason not to change something if it can be better.

 

[Slightly Live]

The same way you want the graphics to get better, I want the gameplay to get better. Is that so wrong?

Halo 3 can't hold a candle to the original Crysis in terms of technical graphics. Halo 3's Art is miles better though but there's plenty of room to improve from Halo 3 to Crysis, even if better hardware is needed.

Graphics are constantly improving and it's natural to expect games to look better as developers become familiar with hardware.

Nut improving gameplay? Halo doesn't need improving. Go look at Halo Anniversary, that game still holds up. Why? Gameplay. The main thing Halo has done over the course of ten years is add more and refine the gameplay further. It doesn't need improving.

Trying to "improve" Halo gameplay lead to Reach. It's been said that Halo is built on a golden gameplay tripod of guns, grenades and melee. Yeah you could argue player movement, vehicles and environments are just as important.

Trying to improve the gameplay lead to dismantling the tripod and reassembling it as weird quadrapod. Guns, Grenades, Armour Abilities, Melee. It's a mess.

Instead of adding to and refining vehicles with Reach they dismantled them completely and rebuilt them from the ground up in the hopes of improving them and failed utterly. Reach has some of the worst BTB action in all of Halo.

Halo doesn't need improving. It needs refining. Additions need to be appropriate and conservative and used in moderation with deep consideration for much of an impact they make on the core gameplay.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why even have a new halo game if you want it to be like the last? Games are getting better, there are aspects of Halo that haven't been much improved in 10 years. If you keep on asking for a very similar game, you're going to get a very similar game.

I love the Halo Universe, I like the weapon types, I like energy shields, i like the grenades. I don't like moon jumping, I don't like stiff movement.

The same way you want the graphics to get better, I want the gameplay to get better. Is that so wrong?

Did you read the replies to your last post? Your idea of making it "better" is to change the core of the game so that it no longer plays like Halo. There's a LOT you can do while still making the game play like a Halo game. Look at how it expanded from Halo 1 to Halo 3. The gameplay and combat sandbox were expanded and tweaked significantly with each installment. I'm all for that continuing, for making the game better, different, with new gameplay features and options and weapons and whatnot. I'm not for making the game play like Shadowrun. I want it to do those things and still come out a Halo game. It sounds like you do not. Nothing wrong with that, but it's odd to wonder why fans might object.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

It honestly sounds like you just don't like Halo's core gameplay, which is fine. I do have a problem with your types who want the game to change into something it's not or never should have been.

So according to this reply, no shooter ever should have progressed from feeling like Doom. You're talking game to game within a franchise, my hypothetical self is saying the whole evolution of shooters should never have happened. Tell me, whats the difference besides scope?

 

[kittens]

It honestly sounds like you just don't like Halo's core gameplay, which is fine. I do have a problem with your types who want the game to change into something it's not or never should have been.

ding ding ding ding

The ideas being tossed around can work, but keep'em out of mainline Halo, please.

This might help. Two examples of GOOD changes: vehicle boarding and the EMP effect of the plasma pistol and grenade launcher. Both totally redefined how infranty vs. vehicle combat plays out in Multiplayer, but in balanced and fun ways.

I know Im going to be dissapointed by this game.

We should see almost no returning weapons. Almost nothing covenant, all new enemes and vehicles as well.

Something tells me it wont be any of that.

I mean, if you're expecting NOTHING to return from the previous games, then yeah, that's pretty absurd. But I expect it to be 80% new stuff, and if the Covenant return, I think it'll be in a secondary plot to the main conflict (MC vs. evil Forerunnerz or whatever).

 

[BuggyDClown]

I know Im going to be dissapointed by this game.

We should see almost no returning weapons. Almost nothing covenant, all new enemes and vehicles as well.

Something tells me it wont be any of that.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Did you read the replies to your last post? Your idea of making it "better" is to change the core of the game so that it no longer plays like Halo. There's a LOT you can do while still making the game play like a Halo game. Look at how it expanded from Halo 1 to Halo 3. The gameplay and combat sandbox were expanded and tweaked significantly with each installment. I'm all for that continuing, for making the game better, different, with new gameplay features and options and weapons and whatnot. I'm not for making the game play like Shadowrun. I want it to do those things and still come out a Halo game. It sounds like you do not. Nothing wrong with that, but it's odd to wonder why fans might object.

Yes, did you read my reply to your post?

 

[TheOddOne]

Its a matter of semantics. What I'm seeing from *many* people in this thread when they say "it needs the same feeling" is that they want to keep things that are doing nothing but holding the game back. Why not have something that feels better? Keep all the things that make Halo so awesome, but improve things that are lacking. I think Halo has fallen behind in some ways, it feels like the shooter it was 10 years ago at a pretty fundamental level.

When I think of the evolution of halo, I see the same mistakes being made, and some for decent reason, no doubt. They are working off the same engine, so they may look at something and say, "nobody really complains about this so we'll just keep it in", when I think they should be saying, "this is good, but look at what all these other shooters are doing, we need to keep ahead of the curve". Of course they already do this quite a bit, but just as Skyrim has underlying memory issues because of its age, halo suffers from lingering problems that have been ignored due to lack of innovation.

I'm not one to rally against the phrase, "If it ain't broke don't fix it", but when you have millions and millions of dollars going into one of the most popular video game series of all time, I think that changes the picture a bit.

I think we're on more of the same page than you know; I'm not saying Reach was a break away from the normal halo formula in a good way. What I'm saying is I hope Halo 4 is breaks away from the formula in a good way.

Every interation of the engine has brought vast improvements, so I don't quite get this complaint. It's not like those updates where nothing and for most part you still not have seen the toolset brought by Bungie to the console space in other shooters. Hell other developers are struggeling to even implement Bungie's improvements in their own games.

Fundamentally a Halo game should feel like Halo game -- why should it be like every other game in the genre? It's still one of the most unique games, that has it's own set of rules. If you want it to be like another game, then with all due respect, play that other game. It's not Halo has to comform to standards set by other games. If I wanted to play Crysis, I would play Crysis instead of an cheap knockoff.

People wanted a different Halo, they got it in the form of ODST and Reach. ODST was a great experiment, which was vastly different in buildup and enemy encounters; but still played like Halo. Reach on the other had was failed experiment; it strayed to much and forgot to focus on it's streights.

 

[NullPointer]

I sure as hell don't want Halo to play like other shooters. Since COD a lot of the genre has completely stagnated.

What I really want is for Halo to lead the way forward.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yes, did you read my reply to your post?

I wrote that I welcomed change, so long as the core of the game still felt like Halo. You replied with, "Why even have a new halo game if you want it to be like the last?"

I didn't say that. I explicitly said the opposite of that.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I'm probably not making myself clear. My philosophy is that a game can always be better, why do it the same if it can be better? I don't go to a restaurant and get the same thing every time because I know something else may be better. Its the same restaurant, same type of food, but I want to see if I can get something better.

Halo 4, new developers, new game, and you want the same thing? You say you don't mind small changes, but the core gameplay needs to be the same. So you pretty much want some new weapons, new maps, new looks, thats it? If you want bungie's halo, go back to bungie's halo. I want something better. If change is for the better (why would I want change for the worse), then why the heck not?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Do you think they meant to make the halo jumping so floaty? Or do you think they did what they did with the limited tech of the time? Look at the jumping in Crysis 2 for an illustration of what I think it could/should be. It wouldn't have to be exactly the same; a little higher, a *little* more floaty to keep that halo feel, but there's no reason not to change something if it can be better.

Im sure they both meant for it while at the same time were influenced by limitations. Thats not the point though, the point is what they created felt and feels modern for the most part. Is there room for improvement, evolution and changes? Of course. But it doesn't have to lose its identity to evolve.

So according to this reply, no shooter ever should have progressed from feeling like Doom. You're talking game to game within a franchise, my hypothetical self is saying the whole evolution of shooters should never have happened. Tell me, whats the difference besides scope?

Your talking crazy extremes here comparing it to FPS's not evolving past Doom gameplay. That feels dated, Halo, to most, does not. I do not want Halo 4 to play exactly like CE/2/3/Reach but at the same time I don't want it to lose its identity in the process. Mainline Halo games have an established feel, and while there is room for improvement I dont think its so black and white.

 

[Stinkles]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=/watch?v=YPIsTKpAoE4&v=YPIsTKpAoE4&gl=US

Calm down lads, calm down.

 

[TheOddOne]

I sure as hell don't want Halo to play like other shooters. Since COD a lot of the genre has completely stagnated.

What I really want is for Halo to lead the way forward.

Pretty much, It's not that I don't want improvements to Halo; it however should not change what it fundamentally makes it unique.

 

[clashfan]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=/watch?v=YPIsTKpAoE4&v=YPIsTKpAoE4&gl=US

Calm down lads, calm down.

You got guys frothing at the mouth for Halo 4 news, it leads to this!

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm probably not making myself clear. My philosophy is that a game can always be better, why do it the same if it can be better? I don't go to a restaurant and get the same thing every time because I know something else may be better. Its the same restaurant, same type of food, but I want to see if I can get something better.

Halo 4, new developers, new game, and you want the same thing? You say you don't mind small changes, but the core gameplay needs to be the same. So you pretty much want some new weapons, new maps, new looks, thats it? If you want bungie's halo, go back to bungie's halo. I want something better. If change is for the better (why would I want change for the worse), then why the heck not?

No one is saying they want the same thing. You are arguing against a point that is not being argued...

 

[kittens]

I'm probably not making myself clear. My philosophy is that a game can always be better, why do it the same if it can be better? I don't go to a restaurant and get the same thing every time because I know something else may be better. Its the same restaurant, same type of food, but I want to see if I can get something better.

Halo 4, new developers, new game, and you people want the same thing? If you want bungie's halo, go back to bungie's halo. I want something better. If change is for the better (why would I want change for the worse), then why the heck not?

So you're saying you want good changes. And you don't want bad changes. Uhhh, this is exactly what everyone else is saying. It's just subjective.

And you have to realize that too many changes will make for an entirely different overall feel. When that point is reached, the game may as well not be called Halo.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

No one is saying they want the same thing. You are arguing against a point that is not being argued...

What I'm saying is that I say I want a different jumping mechanic and I get mauled by 3 people. Yea, its the point thats being argued alright.

 

[kittens]

What I'm saying is that I say I want a different jumping mechanic and I get mauled by 3 people. Yea, its the point thats being argued alright.

It's cause those people think that your idea of jumping mechanics is a bad idea. Which goes back to your concept of wanting good changes and not wanting bad changes. It's a subjective analysis of what makes for good/appropriate innovation in a Halo title, not a stubborn rejection of change, which is how you're characterizing it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What I'm saying is that I say I want a different jumping mechanic and I get mauled by 3 people. Yea, its the point thats being argued alright.

Again, you are arguing for changes to Halo's fundamentals, while the people responding to you want those fundamentals retained while refining, expanding and building upon that core. They are advocating for Halo to evolve, so long as it does not turn into another game entirely. Yet, you keep telling them they want the same thing.

You're not understanding this point. I clearly can't help, so I'll stop trying.

 

[dragonelite]

What I'm saying is that I say I want a different jumping mechanic and I get mauled by 3 people. Yea, its the point thats being argued alright.

Maybe explain what you want to change?
Just saying i want different jumping mechanic is not enough.
What do you want to change height,gravity(fallspeed) maybe a double jump or a triple jump?

Havent seen what you wanted to change so i could have over seen it.
What else do you think halo can do better?

 

[Rickenslacker]

Thanks for the heart-warming reply, you really opened my mind with your ad-hominem threaded remarks, it really proves the point you're trying to make.

I know people like the halo "feel", and thats fine. If you saw my specific example, there are certain aspects that I think need change. I don't care for the moon jumping; its cool because you can jump high, yes, but the lack of weight breaks visceral immersion that I expect from a fps these days.

The shooting is fine, I'm not asking for aiming down sights, but halo's weapons still need more feedback; they pale in comparison to many shooters today. I want to feel powerful when I'm running around shooting enemies. Halo is certainly fun, however it doesn't make me feel like the badass Spartan that I want to be AND I believe is possible with the current tech of today.

We all know halo needs a sprint, if you don't think it needs it, point proven right there. Reach's sprint was decent, but once again, the "feeling" could be worked on. Visually, the physics have always been great in Halo games, however the feeling of myself moving around still feels stiff and floaty.

What have I been smoking? Better stuff than you.

So what you want is visceral immersion in the jumps, powerful feedback to make you feel like a badass when shooting, and sprint because you believe Halo needs it. I feel like there's nothing I can say to this without coming off as an asshole. :X

What I will say is that speaking for myself, I'm okay with Halo changing things going forward. I don't want a carbon copy of the previous game. Though Halo's multiplayer has historically shown that it's been hurt more than improved through the additions. Between dual wielding, vehicle jacking, equipment and AAs the only thing that really ended up being for the better was vehicle jacking. The rest ended up being detrimental for one reason or another.

There's plenty they can do to change things up though, but they don't need to change up the core of how you manipulate your character to do it. Of course we want the new Halo to feel like a Halo game, but that does not mean we don't want it to make progress. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

It's cause those people think that your idea of jumping mechanics is a bad idea. Which goes back to your concept of wanting good ideas and not wanting bad ideas. It's a subjective analysis of what makes for good/appropriate innovation in a Halo title, not a stubborn rejection of change, which is how you're characterizing it.

Point taken, maybe that is how I'm characterizing it. What I think is going on is people didn't like some of the changes in Reach, so change looks really bad. When something goes wrong, revert back to when it was right. I say keep trudging in unknown territory, its the only way the games have reached and will reach their full potential.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Again, you are arguing for changes to Halo's fundamentals, while the people responding to you want those fundamentals retained while refining, expanding and building upon that core. They are advocating for Halo to evolve, so long as it does not turn into another game entirely. Yet, you keep telling them they want the same thing.

You're not understanding this point. I clearly can't help, so I'll stop trying.

I understand the point perfectly well, I just think its a limited point of view and I'm trying to explain why I think that.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Point taken, maybe that is how I'm characterizing it. What I think is going on is people didn't like some of the changes in Reach, so change looks really bad. When something goes wrong, revert back to when it was right. I say keep trudging in unknown territory, its the only way the games have reached and will reach their full potential.

and you won't reach full potential by getting rid of the ideas that DO work because, hey, maybe there's something even better!

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

and you won't reach full potential by getting rid of the ideas that DO work because, hey, maybe there's something even better!

No, but the developers should try something better. If it works, implement it. Don't keep it the old way cause its the old way, keep it the old way if you can't find something better.

 

[nomis]

I know Im going to be dissapointed by this game.

We should see almost no returning weapons. Almost nothing covenant, all new enemes and vehicles as well.

Something tells me it wont be any of that.

Something tells me that's what Ryan Payton wanted.

 

[kittens]

What I think is going on is people didn't like some of the changes in Reach, so change looks really bad. When something goes wrong, revert back to when it was right.

Yeah, I think Reach (and Halo 3's equipment + reduced movement speed) have people pining for Good Ol' Classic Halo. That's made some people resistant to some change, for sure, but trust me: these same people have thought out their opinions pretty well. The weekly AR vs. BR vs. DMR debates in the Halo OTs is just one example of that.

Something tells me that's what Ryan Payton wanted.

Your avatar looks like Halo 4 Chief's crotch pre-codpiece.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Something tells me that's what Ryan Payton wanted.

Don't say that, cause that what I want also. =/

To be clear, I dont want a completely different universe, I just hope the game is more "new" when it comes to weapons/vehicles/enemies.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

No, but the developers should try something better. If it works, implement it. Don't keep it the old way cause its the old way, keep it the old way if you can't find something better.

And how long is the "can't find something better" phase suppose to last? One game release? Two games? A trilogy? Do fans of a series need to weather a storm of drastic changes in gameplay design until developers throw their hands in the air and go back to what works? Considering how much time and money goes into these things, the fact that they only come out once every blue moon, you really can't spend time trying to add F-Zero race tracks to see if it improves vehicular combat and other assorted shit on the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Nutter]

I understand the point perfectly well, I just think its a limited point of view and I'm trying to explain why I think that.

To many hardcore players, Reach was exactly what you described as wanting out of a Halo game.

And including myself in that, I want Halo to retain and return to the basics of what makes Halo a Halo game to begin with. Reach was not the Halo I wanted.

 

[Havok]

Point taken, maybe that is how I'm characterizing it. What I think is going on is people didn't like some of the changes in Reach, so change looks really bad. When something goes wrong, revert back to when it was right. I say keep trudging in unknown territory, its the only way the games have reached and will reach their full potential.

People haven't been averse to change in this series - its seen quite a bit of it over the years, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. People do, however, latch on to the changes that aren't good, and that's fine. The thing is, there are a million small factors that define what a Halo game is, and the evolution of the series is something that people want to be taken seriously and not have things added in for the 'wow' factor. Additionally, it doesn't take many of these things changing to pretty radically shift how the game plays. People complain about the jumping in Reach because it's much, much lower and less floaty than in Halo 3. Go compare the two and say that it hasn't evolved at all. Personally, I like the change as I felt 3 was too floaty and Reach is a return to the air time that 2 had, even if it doesn't quite have the height. Other people dislike the change and so their hopes for the series reflect that. That's just one example, each of the games changes enough that it has its own very unique feel and identity (with the smallest jump being 2 to 3 in the mainline series, and there are a ton of changes between those two).

Personally, I do think Reach feels like a Halo game (and an improvement over Halo 3 in a whole lot of ways), but that doesn't mean that all of the changes they came up with were implemented well. There's a wonderful underlying formula to these games that does allow quite a lot of wiggle room provided the changes are executed well. A huge amount of the changes in the last couple of games have been implemented pretty poorly while still retaining their status as good initial ideas. If bloom had been 85% at launch, if only balanced armor abilities like Sprint and Hologram had been implemented, if Halo 3's playlists had emphasized the right equipment instead of the worst ones, if the player had been slightly more agile in the last few games, if the netcode had been good enough to support a BR like Halo 3 had, then literally hundreds of pages in the Halo threads arguing about them would disappear.

 

[Steelyuhas]

Don't say that, cause that what I want also. =/

To be clear, I dont want a completely different universe, I just hope the game is more "new" when it comes to weapons/vehicles/enemies.

Add me to that list.

 

[kittens]

People haven't been averse to change in this series - its seen quite a bit of it over the years, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. People do, however, latch on to the changes that aren't good, and that's fine. The thing is, there are a million small factors that define what a Halo game is, and the evolution of the series is something that people want to be taken seriously and not have things added in for the 'wow' factor. Additionally, it doesn't take many of these things changing to pretty radically shift how the game plays. People complain about the jumping in Reach already because it's much, much lower and less floaty than in Halo 3. Go compare the two and say that it hasn't evolved at all. Personally, I like the change as I felt 3 was too floaty and Reach is a return to the air time that 2 had, even if it doesn't quite have the height. Other people dislike the change and so their hopes for the series reflect that. That's just one example, each of the games changes enough that it has its own very unique feel and identity (with the smallest jump being 2 to 3 in the mainline series, and there are a ton of changes between those two).

Personally, I do think Reach feels like a Halo game (and an improvement over Halo 3 in a whole lot of ways), but that doesn't mean that all of the changes they came up with were implemented well. There's a wonderful underlying formula to these games that does allow quite a lot of wiggle room provided the changes are executed well. A huge amount of the changes in the last couple of games have been implemented pretty poorly while still retaining their status as good initial ideas.

Well put. Especially the point on execution. That's been a huge weak point in the changes made, especially when applied to multiplayer.

 

[nomis]

Your avatar looks like Halo 4 Chief's crotch pre-codpiece.

You say that as though halfway through the game, an ODST pod is going to fire out of the sky, the door pins will blast, and inside will lay a brand new set of Mark VII robo-briefs.

Don't say that, cause that what I want also. =/

To be clear, I dont want a completely different universe, I just hope the game is more "new" when it comes to weapons/vehicles/enemies.

Honestly, I could deal with having literally all new weapons besides AR and BR that were in the ship.

 

[BuggyDClown]

Something tells me that's what Ryan Payton wanted.

Missed what he said. Hope thats not a bad thing.

The way I see it the majority of weapons should be new. Only some should be returning and that is whatever is on his ship. Other than that unless the covenant show up (secondary and not enemies please) I want a new race/class of weapons and enemies.

Ive fought the same people enough now. No flood, no brutes, no covenant. Please.

Also new vehicles to go along with the new territory.

If we keep 25% of the current weapons/vehicles and throw in 75% new we can keep Halo's classic core gameplay mechanics, evolve them and introduce new elements by the way of weapons and vehicles or anything else we haven't thought of. This is what I think a new trilogy deserves. The beginning of a new set of elements that should last and evolve through 3 games, not ones from the 4 previous ones.

 

[Monocle]

Halo 3 can't hold a candle to the original Crysis in terms of technical graphics. Halo 3's Art is miles better though but there's plenty of room to improve from Halo 3 to Crysis, even if better hardware is needed.

Graphics are constantly improving and it's natural to expect games to look better as developers become familiar with hardware.

Nut improving gameplay? Halo doesn't need improving. Go look at Halo Anniversary, that game still holds up. Why? Gameplay. The main thing Halo has done over the course of ten years is add more and refine the gameplay further. It doesn't need improving.

Trying to "improve" Halo gameplay lead to Reach. It's been said that Halo is built on a golden gameplay tripod of guns, grenades and melee. Yeah you could argue player movement, vehicles and environments are just as important.

Trying to improve the gameplay lead to dismantling the tripod and reassembling it as weird quadrapod. Guns, Grenades, Armour Abilities, Melee. It's a mess.

Instead of adding to and refining vehicles with Reach they dismantled them completely and rebuilt them from the ground up in the hopes of improving them and failed utterly. Reach has some of the worst BTB action in all of Halo.

Halo doesn't need improving. It needs refining. Additions need to be appropriate and conservative and used in moderation with deep consideration for much of an impact they make on the core gameplay.

I agree with all of this. You build a better Halo by a process of refinement, not wild arbitrary reinvention. Just about every one of Reach's major flaws is connected to a significant change to Halo's established formula. Leave the experiments to side projects like ODST, or restrict them to new modes like Firefight. Keep the core gameplay intact.

 

[zap]

I think that the core gameplay mechanics, as Ghaleon said, the movement 'feel', the gunplay, the vehicles and the BR/AR should all be kept. It is Halo. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel - we know what works and (with Reach especially, but with the others as well *cough SMG starts*) what doesn't.

What I am looking for in Halo 4 is a more Halo 2 style multiplayer game with fast movement, great BR, awesome maps to play. Campaign and Firefight is where the experimenting should occur, but keep the same Halo 'feel' above.

 

[monome]

I think that the core gameplay mechanics, as Ghaleon said, the movement 'feel', the gunplay, the vehicles and the BR/AR should all be kept. It is Halo. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel - we know what works and (with Reach especially, but with the others as well *cough SMG starts*) what doesn't.

What I am looking for in Halo 4 is a more Halo 2 style multiplayer game with fast movement, great BR, awesome maps to play. Campaign and Firefight is where the experimenting should occur, but keep the same Halo 'feel' above.

I'm on the new weapons/new whatever bandwagon as long as it's haloish.

realistically, HALO 4 has to be close in terms of gameplay, weapons, even ennemies.
I can see 343i approaching it like Street Fighter IV was made : back to basics, emphasis on presentation, trying to tie things up story-wise, and a few additions with some over the top ones (be it weapons, maps, ennemies).

Halo 5 will probably push for more change with the added knowledge of Halo 4 reception.

 

[Feindflug]

Something tells me that's what Ryan Payton wanted.

Well that's a possibility but we don't know how much Payton wanted to change the game, talking about the campaign and only (I'm not the one to talk about MP) the core mechanics of Halo should remain intact and build from there...I don't know how to put it but I want a Halo game with new design rather than new gameplay.

The Metroid Prime-influenced wet dreams of some people here are a great example of what I have in mind while I know that such a thing is not gonna happen (sadly) due maybe to development time, hardware limitations, risk or even design difficulties (co-op for example)...a game with Halo's excellent gameplay combined with more exploration and a constant world would've been my game of the forever.

I love the series so much and played the hell out of every game in the series but this time I just want to be surprised and see a new start for the series with 343 behind the wheel.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Thanks for the heart-warming reply, you really opened my mind with your ad-hominem threaded remarks, it really proves the point you're trying to make.

I know people like the halo "feel", and thats fine. If you saw my specific example, there are certain aspects that I think need change. I don't care for the moon jumping; its cool because you can jump high, yes, but the lack of weight breaks visceral immersion that I expect from a fps these days.

The shooting is fine, I'm not asking for aiming down sights, but halo's weapons still need more feedback; they pale in comparison to many shooters today. I want to feel powerful when I'm running around shooting enemies. Halo is certainly fun, however it doesn't make me feel like the badass Spartan that I want to be AND I believe is possible with the current tech of today.

We all know halo needs a sprint, if you don't think it needs it, point proven right there. Reach's sprint was decent, but once again, the "feeling" could be worked on. Visually, the physics have always been great in Halo games, however the feeling of myself moving around still feels stiff and floaty.

What have I been smoking? Better stuff than you.

What point has been proven? The point that you dont understand Halo? If you play Halo on a more casual level then sure you might think that, but theres a whole level of depth to the game that Reach ruined by adding stuff like sprint.

As for the immersion with the jump, Halo isnt a realistic game...

What weapons do you use out of interest? If your using the AR your doing it wrong.

So according to this reply, no shooter ever should have progressed from feeling like Doom. You're talking game to game within a franchise, my hypothetical self is saying the whole evolution of shooters should never have happened. Tell me, whats the difference besides scope?

Well Doom shouldn't progress from feeling like Doom, but other I.P's that came out would have they're own feel. My point is, maybe you really just want to play Crysis? Why change the gameplay of one series when you can just go play the series which has the gameplay you like? Variety is good, by emulating other i.p's gameplay mechanics your doing nothing except reducing variety on the marketplace Halo has its unique corner.

 

[monome]

a game with Halo's excellent gameplay combined with more exploration and a constant world would've been my game of the forever.

Supposedly it's what Bungie's next game is all about.

I'm mostly looking forward to see if 343i can keep the pink (my definition of colors+humor) relevant in future Halo games whereas the latest books were very serious (still good but).