Yeah, what is this even?

Not arena https://youtu.be/-0o9880lykQ

This felt like halo to me, especially in the beta

Ads tho.

oh boohoo, 343i can't do the same recipe all over again for the next 3 halo games

so just play some h2a or play h5 k?

oh boohoo, someone isn't orgasming about the stupid decisions 343 has done while I'm a mindless fanboy -lolslayer

I checked out the entire warzone vid, and am wondering: what is so "warzone" about it. Where was the war? It was just big team battle with a few AI guys thrown in every now and then. I expected way more from that.

That is what it basically is, BTB with AI and multiple objectives for points. And now a player progression system. It's made for the casuals who like COD and Titanfall and get put off by the heavy skill based Arena setup.

People should be happy with Arena if they like classic MP. It is basically what we had in H2 and H3 but with the new movement abilities, which is probably for the better because look how stale H2A MP felt as just a rehash of everything we've had before.

This is precisely what 343i is trying to avoid and why Halo would begin to fail in the long run. CoD is blessed by a brainless formula and a casual audience that can be replicated with gimmicks every year. Halo is different because the philosophy and mechanics are different. People exclaim that it doesn't feel or look lie Halo, but the exact same thing was said during Halo: Reach and basically anything after Halo 3.

People here seem to not realize or refuse to believe how necessary it is for Halo to modernize. Given how nitpicky and self-righteous the dedicated Halo fanbase has been since Halo 2, the franchise needs new players to continue sales. We can dislike Microsoft all we want, but at the end of the day our criticism ultimately goes no where because most of the time it shoots any progression/evolution in the series.

Edited by DarkHalo003 on Oct 1, 2015 at 06:18 PM

Plus its not like 343 has ever broke halos main gameplay formula, just added to it.

Or they could simply discontinue the franchise and do something else. A new franchise would be something that we could all look at as a clean slate. There wouldn't be previous material to compare it to, we wouldn't be able to complain "They're doing this wrong," or "That doesn't look right," because they'd be establishing their own universe and lore rather than trying to morph Halo into something that clashes with what we've come to identify as Halo.

I'm going to say this as a long time Final Fantasy fan - you will ruin your gaming experience if you keep comparing every game in a series to its predecessors. It's the same stigma that this community has had since Halo 3, that any extension or game of the Halo universe has to be the exact same, fanmade or unofficial to be accepted. Anything new, interpretive or modernized by an official source automatically becomes disliked/scrutinized beyond reason by that odd percentage of the fanbase. It's irritating to see as a Halo fan and even more irritating to see as a long time player of multiple franchises.

Stop ruining your gaming experience because Halo 4 wasn't the same as Halo 3, or that 343i isn't Bungie. Many of us like Halo, like the universe, like the basic formula and don't care what additions are being made to the game so long as it contains the essentials. You have every right to hate the game, but hating the game because it's not the same as another in the series is a damn shame.

Edited by DarkHalo003 on Oct 1, 2015 at 08:40 PM

The problem with this is that investors would find that hard to stomach.
The title of Halo comes with certain expectations, your right, but it also brings an almost quantifiable certain number of sales which can help companies make games they want with a degree of comfort. That can lead to stagnation, and homogenization of games, but it can also help companies experiment.
I feel like writing it all off as "Oh its different and change is bad, and its just copying this feature from that game" is overlooking a pretty important business side of things.

The best way I can put it is that, when I go to the grocery store to buy milk, I don't want to open up the jug and find orange juice. If I wanted orange juice, I would buy orange juice. Likewise, when I want to play Halo, I want to play Halo. I don't want something that seems like a completely different game dressed up like Halo.


But I'm not an investor. I don't work for 343 or Microsoft. What they're doing definitely makes sense from a business standpoint, but that's irrelevant when it comes to my consumption of the Halo universe. I'm not opposed to any and all change simply on the premise of "Ew this is different," but you eventually reach a point where you've changed so much that there's a pretty big disparity between the current product and the source material.
Edited by Echo77 on Oct 1, 2015 at 11:08 PM

While I understand your point, I think your metaphor is a bit extreme in this instance. You'd probably be looking at chocolate or almond milk over orange juice, which is an entirely different concern because it's still milk nonetheless. Halo 5 is still Halo at its core, otherwise a good number of us wouldn't like it.

Edited by DarkHalo003 on Oct 2, 2015 at 12:09 AM

when the gameplay becomes excessively modified and the art likewise, can you honestly still call it halo? It just becomes "Modern Sci-Fi Shooter Number X" or what have you at that point

Ya.

It only stops being Halo when there isn't a Halo ring. 😏

rip Wars and ODST

And Reach.

HR Had a halo ring in the final cinematic.

For the most part reach still played and felt halo. If you took out loadouts it would feel near identical to the original set. 4 however just went crazy with AA and loadouts, and turning spartans into supermagnets
Edited by R93_Sniper on Oct 2, 2015 at 11:36 AM

This is what we all said before H4 came out... and in the end the general consensus was that at it's core it was still Halo.

I don't really call H4 Halo tbh.

I felt Reach was a far fetch from Halo too already, mainly cause of the decrease in AI quality and fun. My main gripe was with the tap-dancing elites that were really hard to hit. Halo 1's AI was perhaps more predictable, but more fun to fight to me.

AI quality did bother me a bit but I still had as much fun in reach as I did in H3. The constantly dodging elites I did find a bit more irksome only because they would somehow godmod their ways out of headshot deaths



General consensus meaning: Only you?
Edited by R93_Sniper on Oct 2, 2015 at 02:50 PM

Well, that's quite an ignorant response. There are a LOT of people who consider Halo 4 to still be Halo, hence why Halo still has a large fanbase for Halo 5. Stop pretending like Halo 4 was a bad game with poor results and a weak followup. You'd seriously have to be daft to believe so.

To be clear, I'm not saying Halo 4 was the perfect Halo or better than Halo 3 by any stretch. It's very difficult, I think, for a Halo game to ever compare to Halo 2 or Halo 3. Halo 1 was so vastly different from the rest that you can't compare it either. But the issue is that we keep comparing the games to each other rather than enjoying them. While Halo 4's enjoyment was shorter lived than any other Halo by a great deal, the general consensus (if you take the time to pour through forum threads across Waypoint/NeoGAF/reddit) is that the Multiplayer was poor and the campaign was the shining point of it.

Edited by DarkHalo003 on Oct 2, 2015 at 04:27 PM

I was counting both the final cinematic and Forge World. 😔

According to my made up internet statistics 41% of people thought Halo 4 was still Halo.
That does not surmount to be general consensus in my book.

Well, their your made up statistics, like you said.

I was just trying to be provocative.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

( ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)

That's my job.

The general consensus of returning fans of the halo series that I've seen has been that Halo 4 is extremely far from halo in terms sheer gameplay, which is what MOST people go to halo for (you know, considering it is a game).

The actual STORY for Halo 4 was alright. The story MODE was not. Even then, 343i tried way too hard to include the expanded universe into the game universe which panned out pretty poorly. The odd characterization differences from how the narrative was handled in the previous games created a really noticeable dissonance, something that reach's story also did terribly.

You go from action hero to gushy human story too fast and it's like pulling the emergency brakes on a highway when you're hitting 70 (Miles, not Kilos). Sure it gets the job done but there are some noticeably negative impacts (namely the literal one in this case).

It's really only here you see mass hate for the H4 campaign, everywhere else I've seen that its decently received, not peoples favorite but not the worst either. There's nothing really unhaloey about the core gameplay. Perks, killstreaks... whatevers... those aren't core.

I've always hated the way bungie handled the narrative, they clearly were not big on story, especially now that it's come out they even wanted to scrap Fall of Reach. It was probably the weakest part of their games. Other than Cortana getting super mushy at the end, they did a good job exploring the core characters in H4. And don't give me any bullcrap about chief being in love with her too, there is nothing in the game to suggest he had a romantic interest in her, there was more so of that done by Bungie than anyone else.

Perks, killstreaks and sprint have affected the core. So the core which is balanced equal starts, not getting an extra weapon or boost to kill even more bad guys when you're already on a killing spree. Oh, and useless Promethean weapons too.

If you don't find that changing the core then what does?

You've clearly never used the incineration cannon before