Poker Face
Member
You were ranked in social playlists you just couldn't see it. And progression felt forced for me in H4, I just felt like I was filling up a bar 99% of the time.
Halo 4, One Year Later: What Happened?
- Thread starter FyreWulff
- Start date
- Status
You were ranked in social playlists you just couldn't see it. And progression felt forced for me in H4, I just felt like I was filling up a bar 99% of the time.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
Filling up a bar is better than losing ranks because you were having a bad day. H3 literally was stressful to me, but it was all we had.
How dare you sir.
Stressful = intense = competitive = actually care about winning = better games
Filling exp bars is nowhere close to being on the same level as a ranking system. For me anyways. It doesn't tell you anything about the skill set of your opponents/teammates.
couldnt disagree more
halo 2 and 3 rewarded winning and punished losing, thats how it should be in a ranked mode, if you want a persistent rank that holds everyones hand with positive reinforcement like h4 and cod at least layer it with a real ladder system like halo 2 had so everyone is happy, we havent had real matchmaking since h3
I dont like being rewarded for how much i play instead of how much i win, a real rank system fosters games where people play harder and actual get better which in turn creates better games which is where the fun comes for me at least and i would venture to say thats true for a lot of people when you compare the population of the last 3 halo games, think about how many more ppl have xbl today rather than 6 years ago too? yeah there are more games and games like cod have a huge following but halo has its space to carve out and instead they abandoned their base and tried to steal cods...and secured nothing
JohnOfMars
Banned
Others have touched on the significant problems in Campaign and Multiplayer, but there's one thing I want to address: Spartan Ops.
After finishing the campagin and dabbling in multiplayer, I was bummed, and thought Halo isn't for me any more, I guess. I didn't get angry or upset until Spartan Ops. Spartan Ops was touted as a replacement for Firefight and even as a "second campaign". And what did we get? The worst writing and gameplay in any Halo game. Infinite respawns, no waves, no customization, no scoring. Objectives boiled down to button pushing and Sarah Palmer shouting "EGGHEAD" over and over. I'd come back week after week, hoping for improvement. And Spartan Ops being so bad, and not having Firefight, well, that's when I felt insulted. They kept saying "Halo 4 is amazing! Feels like Halo! Trust us!" and I get Spartan Ops.
343 said they've learned a lot as a team. Learned what? Here's what I've seen from 343 since launch:
I'm done with Halo.
After finishing the campagin and dabbling in multiplayer, I was bummed, and thought Halo isn't for me any more, I guess. I didn't get angry or upset until Spartan Ops. Spartan Ops was touted as a replacement for Firefight and even as a "second campaign". And what did we get? The worst writing and gameplay in any Halo game. Infinite respawns, no waves, no customization, no scoring. Objectives boiled down to button pushing and Sarah Palmer shouting "EGGHEAD" over and over. I'd come back week after week, hoping for improvement. And Spartan Ops being so bad, and not having Firefight, well, that's when I felt insulted. They kept saying "Halo 4 is amazing! Feels like Halo! Trust us!" and I get Spartan Ops.
343 said they've learned a lot as a team. Learned what? Here's what I've seen from 343 since launch:
- DLC Perks
- Halo twin-stick shooter
- Halo TV Show
- Taking over Reach's playlist management & taking forever to roll out changes and title updates.
- Anniversary having significant graphical and performance problems.
- and now Halo 4.
I'm done with Halo.
Muffdraul
Member
That was one of my biggest gripes. When 343 first started talking up Halo 4, they made it sound like the central idea was that it was the beginning of a new trilogy. The original trilogy was wrapped up, the war was over, we were going into uncharted territory. We would learn more about the Forerunner and who knows what else. And all they did was bring back the fucking Covenant. I have to assume it was just a callow marketing decision, more or less. "We're afraid we might alienate a huge chunk of the fanbase if we don't throw them a bone, give them some classic Halo stuff to make them feel warm 'n' fuzzy inside. We're bringing back the Covenant." I don't even recall the game explaining why they were there.
Working for a major animation studio, I have to admit I can understand the decision. Years ago when I started here I asked one of the production heads something like "Why don't we do more experimental stuff?" They said "We can't afford to. We can't justify it. These movies cost over a hundred million dollars, they don't want us taking chances with weird new stuff." The problem is, that thinking doesn't lead to greatness or great success, it leads to mediocrity and tepid interest. In the summer of 1975, the public wasn't asking for a movie about a shark eating people off the New England coast. Ten years later, nobody was asking for a video game about an Italian plumber that jumps on turtles. I guess it boils down to: Halo 1 was Star Wars. Halo 4 is Return of the Jedi.* Turning an original mega hit into a franchise can be a good ride for a while, but eventually it leads to the toilet.
*I liked a lot about Halo 4, and I liked a lot about RotJ... but eventually I had to admit to myself that it's pretty much shit compared to the first and Empire. I certainly don't think so low of Halo 4 that I'd compare it to the prequels (which I actually like, personally.)
JohnOfMars
Banned
On a separate note, 343 may act contrite, but what reason do they have to change anything:
Halo 4 sold more copies than Halo 3 (year to date). Launch weekend alone had 4 Million players and made $300 million.
Halo 4 ranks a very respectable 87 on Metacritic.
Also, how much you wanna bet that the API that lets 3rd parties collect player counts will be mysteriously removed from Halo 5.
Halo 4 sold more copies than Halo 3 (year to date). Launch weekend alone had 4 Million players and made $300 million.
Halo 4 ranks a very respectable 87 on Metacritic.
Also, how much you wanna bet that the API that lets 3rd parties collect player counts will be mysteriously removed from Halo 5.
BlazeBreak
Member
What I don't think everyone probably immediately recognizes is that modes like Assault and 1-sided objectives are absent from Halo 4 not entirely because they were "cut" for time, but that they fundamentally wouldn't work in Halo of Duty.
The speed of Halo 4 is way too fast. Players spawn more quickly and can move around most the map very fast - even more so when ordinance like speed boost is taken into account. CTF barely works as is in H4, and would never work one-sided, because the attackers would be able to swarm the defender base. And Assault is a game mode that is all about being careful and choosing your moment. Which is the antithesis of Halo 4 gameplay design.
The majority of Halo 4's maps are also arenas or somewhat symmetrical blobs with random items thrown down, and neither serve those sorts of objective gametypes work. Even without unlimited sprint and with longer respawns, there are only a handful of maps that would work well with Assault/1-Flag/1-Bomb etc.
Maybe this is a reason to change it.
11-6-12 - 381,005
11-6-13 - 7,151
I'm a HARDCORE Halo fan and I'm done with the game. I've only put up 600 games for Halo 4, compared to 12k on Halo 2, 6k on Halo 3 and 2k on Halo: Reach. This isn't about me getting older or having less time, Halo just isn't enjoyable now.
BlazeBreak
Member
There is that. Reviews definitely don't tend to be dedicated multiplayer players, however. They don't get a chance to play enough when they review and, perhaps more importantly, they, on average, don't seem to be the sort that sink a lot of time into FPS multiplayer. And on its surface, Halo 4 multiplayer certainly seemed polished, slick, and fun. But to dedicated players, as this thread is testament to, it was an incredibly shallow surface. The last year has taught me that I can't really trust anyone in the review world when it comes to multiplayer. Halo 4 being front and center, but I also found myself entirely misled by endorsements some of the reviewers I trust the most made in Gears Judgment.
And as CyReN just said, the utter and complete exodus from the game must have 343 on their toes. I have no confidence that the next Halo game will definitely go in the right direction, but I am entirely confident that the next Halo game will be a departure from Halo 4's multiplayer in at least some significant ways.
I'm in the same boat. I've played a ridiculous amount of Halo. Me and my friends had plenty to bitch about in regards to 3 and Reach, but we still kept playing and playing. But Halo 4 just completely dropped off a cliff.
The question in regards to the future of the franchise is, just how much damage did Halo 4 ultimately do? Will people still buy the next game in droves? Will it take another entry before sales figures rebound? Or has the franchise forever lost some of its playerbase?
And unfortunately for Halo, Microsoft has definitely not helped its future at all. It seems like the only real handcuff to Xbox loyalty for a lot of people in this thread was Halo. With Halo 4 tarnishing the franchise's "Must-Buy" status, plenty of people are poised to jump ship from Xbox without any regrets.
Halo, I don't think, is a system seller anymore. Even if the next game is a marked improvement over Halo 4, people are already going to be content with PS4/PC/etc. And even if you factor in a potential XBO price drop, I think PSN multiplayer becoming a paid service is also a bad factor. Because then if somebody buys a Xbox One in addition to their PS4, they'll have to pay a second subscription fee in order to play Halo.
At this point, I count myself as being probably forever lost. I'm going to be doing the majority of my gaming on PC, and then enjoying the hell out of Destiny on PS4. I could care less about the next Halo game. If I ever buy a Xbone, it'll be later in its life cycle at a price significantly less than $500 in order to catch up on any exclusive titles I've missed out on. If the next Halo games are any good, I'll play them out of the bargain bin then.
Halo 3 was really my golden age of online gaming. There was always friends to play with and that just never came back..
I felt like I never really improved with Halo 4 ... there were just come matches that i got ... lucky. With Halo 3 I always felt like I got better and better because I got a greater level of skill. I miss that the most.
Assault has been my most treasured gametype in Halo ever since it was introduced in Halo 2. The settings they used in Halo 2, along with maps designed brilliantly for it, were fantastic. It's a shame how devalued the gametype has gotten since. Halo 3 really smacked it in the face, and killed a lot of strategy involved. From equipment pieces where players can cheese anywhere they wanted, to a poor map pool, and eliminating the actual arming mechanic, sticky arming, and proper contesting. Halo: Reach brought it back and added the arming back into it, but still lacked those other key, enjoyable features. It's a bummer. Then the Halo 4 hype revs up, we don't hear much relating to gametypes until we first hear about flag and oddball assassinations. Cool, I don't give a shit. Later, through a modder I believe it was, we see a list of gametypes and not only is Assault absent, but so is 1-flag and 3 Plots/Territories. 343 were attempting to make you believe Oddball and King of the Hill were on the same level as those gametypes. Please. Along with the terrible decisions they've made in Halo 4, and throughout its course in playlist management, they were eliminating those types of gametypes in Reach as well during its latter stages of its run. I have absolutely no faith in their vision of what makes Halo fun, so unless something major happens I'm done with them, as well.
BlazeBreak
Member
I will give 343 credit with certain additions. Regicide - especially Team Regicide - is a great gametype that's a marked improvement over its Juggernaut/VIP/etc forebearers. The problem is, it's what I'd call a "minor" gametype. Fun to play as a change of pace and as a more tactical version of Slayer, but it's not something like CTF and Assault that's going to be a main draw for me. The one time outside of Halo 4's launch window that got me and my friends playing it again somewhat regularly again for a little bit was when they finally added CTF and BTB Objective playlists.
But the other problem outside of these in regards to gametypes is that Halo 4's just really limited in general. WIth H4 as their first major game, it's perfectly fair not to expect 343 to add a ton of features on top of Reach. But it was built on the same base engine, yet still dropped so much, and let you do so little with what did remain. Reach, on the other hand... hell, look at Race, even, as an example. It's something that Bungie knew was basically never going to have any sort of matchmaking presence, yet look at all the tools Reach gave you. An HUD and lap counter specifically for the gametype.
And the thing is, it's about the entire package, not just a specific game mode or maps. And when Halo 4's lacking in a whole bunch of different departments, it makes it less forgivable because it has an exponential effect. Like with what you're getting at - part of the reason why Halo 2 Assault was such a great experience was a combination of the gametype's mechanics with some absolutely stellar maps to take advantage of them on. Whether one-sided (Headlong, Terminal, etc) or two-sided (Containment, etc)
Xhenxhefil
Member
Pretty much everything I want to say has been said about the game's failings but to tie it into my experience with Halo 4, it makes me miss one particular thing I used to do on Halo 3: I'd sometimes go back and watch my games to see where I went wrong. If I got killed by Rockets, it was either my fault for not knowing the spawn location/time or just not paying attention to it, or they just outplayed me to get it. I could trace most deaths back to a mistake I'd made or an opponent just flat-out outplaying me. I tried doing this in Halo 4's first week. I found myself constantly thinking "Nothing I could do about that. He just got a lucky ordnance drop". That's not what I want from Halo. I want a game where I always feel like everything that happens is as a result of mine or my opponents actions, rather than the game rolling a higher number for them than me. I want a game that makes me want to improve in both application of knowledge as well as outright shooting skill. I only started playing FPS games at Halo 3, when I started I couldn't hit a damn thing but I kept playing and improving to around a level 35 in Lone Wolves, and while it isn't really "good", I could look at that and be reasonably proud that I'd got there having not been able to hit a barn-door with a BR just a few years ago. I don't want a game where I'm punished for absolutely nothing of my doing, rather the other player was able to call in a Sniper directly to a prime sniping location, whereas I only got a Concussion Rifle, having done nothing better/worse than me except rolling a six where I rolled a two. I have CoD for that sort of random, more mindless thing. I fear though, that Microsoft will look at the sales and tell them to carry on down that road.
On BTB: playing Halo 3's BTB has made it clear how much better Halo is without the DMR. There's more going on. You're forced to move around to take up better positions or use vehicles, because you can't cross-map with the BR. I love Sandtrap and shudder to think what it would play like in Halo 4. Halo 4's BTB just feels like everybody is doing the same thing: sitting back, pinging people with the DMR. It feels way more static. Light vehicles like the Warthog, Ghost and Mongoose are rendered near-ineffective by the Plasma Pistol + Stickies combo of doom. (How was this ever considered anything other than a death knell for a historically more vehicle-oriented playlist?) The Mantis is just dull to use and fight against, especially with the PP+Stickies. Nobody advances with it and why would they? All it takes is one person using Camo (Don't get me started on that) hiding with PP + Stickies to kill them and there's nothing they could have done about it. They spawned with everything they needed to kill what's supposedly one of the more powerful vehicles. What reason do players have to advance from their side of the map on, say, Ragnarok, when they can sit and ping people with the DMR and then just call in weapons directly to them?
I wish I still had faith that Halo would go back to the core of what made it great (equal starts, power weapons in set locations/timers, etc.) and then innovating around that rather than haphazardly creating what amounts to a checklist of modern FPS standards and slapping 'Halo' on it. But that sort of colossal misunderstanding of the game fits in with MS of late, I don't have any belief that they'll keep their noses out with their focus groups and whatever. Hell, I'm almost intrigued to see how the next Halo does if it's a double-down on everything that made this a Frankenstein's monster of a Halo game. I can forgive missing features like Campaign theatre, skulls, and such due to the game coming in hot. But the design decisions that make Halo 4 what it is, there's no excusing them.
On BTB: playing Halo 3's BTB has made it clear how much better Halo is without the DMR. There's more going on. You're forced to move around to take up better positions or use vehicles, because you can't cross-map with the BR. I love Sandtrap and shudder to think what it would play like in Halo 4. Halo 4's BTB just feels like everybody is doing the same thing: sitting back, pinging people with the DMR. It feels way more static. Light vehicles like the Warthog, Ghost and Mongoose are rendered near-ineffective by the Plasma Pistol + Stickies combo of doom. (How was this ever considered anything other than a death knell for a historically more vehicle-oriented playlist?) The Mantis is just dull to use and fight against, especially with the PP+Stickies. Nobody advances with it and why would they? All it takes is one person using Camo (Don't get me started on that) hiding with PP + Stickies to kill them and there's nothing they could have done about it. They spawned with everything they needed to kill what's supposedly one of the more powerful vehicles. What reason do players have to advance from their side of the map on, say, Ragnarok, when they can sit and ping people with the DMR and then just call in weapons directly to them?
I wish I still had faith that Halo would go back to the core of what made it great (equal starts, power weapons in set locations/timers, etc.) and then innovating around that rather than haphazardly creating what amounts to a checklist of modern FPS standards and slapping 'Halo' on it. But that sort of colossal misunderstanding of the game fits in with MS of late, I don't have any belief that they'll keep their noses out with their focus groups and whatever. Hell, I'm almost intrigued to see how the next Halo does if it's a double-down on everything that made this a Frankenstein's monster of a Halo game. I can forgive missing features like Campaign theatre, skulls, and such due to the game coming in hot. But the design decisions that make Halo 4 what it is, there's no excusing them.
The OP is really great.
Though I did call this back in 2011 and then got yelled at by fellow HaloGAFrs that were seemingly overly optimistic. There was no way 343 was ever making a better Halo game than bungie, let alone filling their shoes. But still, that doesn't explain the incompetant decision making, awful maps and terrible playlist management.
Disagree, the campaign is quite dreadful and the worst in the series by a large margin for me. It's also the least re-playable.
It being 'prettier' is a bad argument when it was released in late 2012.
Though I did call this back in 2011 and then got yelled at by fellow HaloGAFrs that were seemingly overly optimistic. There was no way 343 was ever making a better Halo game than bungie, let alone filling their shoes. But still, that doesn't explain the incompetant decision making, awful maps and terrible playlist management.
Disagree, the campaign is quite dreadful and the worst in the series by a large margin for me. It's also the least re-playable.
It being 'prettier' is a bad argument when it was released in late 2012.
Hydranockz
Member
Halo 3 was for me how I imagine LoL/Dota is for a lot of people these days. By that, I mean that Halo 3 was this thing I could see being played at crazy competitive levels but I could still enjoy it at a lower skill tier. I would hop on with friends and roll around MM just trying to copy some jump or outstrafe someone or get a quick flag cap or a whole bunch of stuff. Halo 4's multiplayer doesn't have that same cohesive feel. Halo 3 was no saint. There were overlapping playlist hoppers but in Halo 4, it felt like there was no one feel they wanted to go for.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
You're probably trolling but
Halo 3 was selling copious amounts of DLC and was the most played game on Xbox Live for years. Halo 3 was the only reason why I and I'm sure millions of others even bought a 360+gold. You can't possibly make the same claim for Halo 4 and all future sale indicators are doom and gloom.
87 is pretty bad for a major Halo release. Also, lol @ at the 98 from IGN. I'm sure Microsoft's wallet had no factor in any of those critic reviews!
Halo 3 was selling copious amounts of DLC and was the most played game on Xbox Live for years. Halo 3 was the only reason why I and I'm sure millions of others even bought a 360+gold. You can't possibly make the same claim for Halo 4 and all future sale indicators are doom and gloom.
87 is pretty bad for a major Halo release. Also, lol @ at the 98 from IGN. I'm sure Microsoft's wallet had no factor in any of those critic reviews!
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Perhaps but smaller maps of old never posed this issue. I never had issue in Reach with enemy sprint AA and me arming the bomb. Give me real assault without a waypoint on my head, a willing team with mics and I'll make it work as the carrier. Christ in 2/3 I made it work in assault with a random mic less team half the time.
To me the teamwork and decision making trumps any game mechanic. Map design needs to return to tighter arena or simple assymetrical quality of old. It works with even starts in slayer or objective.
JohnOfMars
Banned
I'm not trolling. I'm just saying Halo 4 was a commercial success in a lot of ways and did well on Metacritic. Many other games would be thrilled with those results. Player counts only tell one part of the picture. Whether I'm playing Halo 4 or not right now doesn't matter, they still have my $100 (because I'm an idiot).
BlazeBreak
Member
Player movement speed was slower in Reach, I believe. Also not everyone had sprint - and there wasn't a perk that gave you unlimited sprint.
H4's carrier waypoint, I'd wager is also partly a product of gamespeed. If somebody gets away from your base with the flag in 4 and you don't immediately know where he is, you pretty much have no prayer of stopping him.
Another part of this is the fact that in Halo 2, 3, and Reach, objective carriers move slower than normal (90% I think?) while in H4 they retain their base movement speed.
BlazeBreak
Member
Yeah, there's that, too. From a design point of view, the waypoint is probably a counterbalance to full movement speed and the flagnum. Both of which were added Halo 4 to keep it fast, as per the game's design ethos - and probably to make carrying the flag feel like less of a chore because Call of Duty players all only like killing stuff or whatever.
honeymustardn
Member
Excellent post. A lot of multiplayer games could learn from their mistakes.
They did almost everything wrong and screwed up the game, the graphics were awesome, so was the soundtrack, but everything else was poor. The maps and the gameplay.
I'm not going to get a next gen console, but when 343 release the new Halo game, and if I see footage online of it being good with everything the old online Halos had (ranks, good gameplay, good maps) I will most likely get an Xbox One just for Halo.
I'm not going to get a next gen console, but when 343 release the new Halo game, and if I see footage online of it being good with everything the old online Halos had (ranks, good gameplay, good maps) I will most likely get an Xbox One just for Halo.
Also this, I've played like 30 games of Halo 4, compared to probably over 10000 of Halo 3. I haven't touched Halo 4 since January and even when I went on then, it was only for 1 game.
Latvian Hitman
Member
Halo 3 launched to a much smaller install base than Halo 4. Halo 4 also saw its price drastically reduced just months after release, which helps slant those #'s as well. When you look at it in that light, the fact that the gap is as small as it is should be concerning to 343i.
And there simply is no positive light in which to view what happened to the MP population, and what that must have meant with regard to post-launch DLC sales.
I really enjoyed gunplay in this game.Great sound and kills gave me much satisfaction.I had 2-3 months of fun with it and then just stoped playing.I was already tired with current gen though.I'm not a big Halo multiplayer player also(played only 3,Reach and 4) so I can't really see what was wrong with it in comparison but I must say that I enjoyed it more than Reach.
Reach wasn't that bad of a game and I enjoyed it for some time but there was a lot of frustrating things going on and I constantly had this feeling that something should work but it didn't.I felt cheated in a lot of situations.
In 4 it was completely different.Everything worked fine and a kill was a kill.
Reach wasn't that bad of a game and I enjoyed it for some time but there was a lot of frustrating things going on and I constantly had this feeling that something should work but it didn't.I felt cheated in a lot of situations.
In 4 it was completely different.Everything worked fine and a kill was a kill.
It's all a part of their (horribly misguided) Committed Carrier Experience (gross) that they created (read: stripped every drop of subtlety and elegance out of the experience, and lopped off the entire top half of the skill curve) to ease new players into objective modes. I think it speaks to a complete lack of confidence in the average player to literally shout "CARRYING FLAG" (hidden language "YOU MORON") at them every time they pick the thing up, to remove every team-oriented waypoint except DELIVER (so you cannot tell where your team's flag is at all when you're carrying the enemy's, because how dare a capable flag runner do anything but DELIVER), to strip the player of any sort of stealth run ability by pointing out his location to the world, and to remove his ability to fight back with the rockets he picked up on the way to the enemy base. This wasn't something that the then-popular defensive mantra "wait until you play it, it's fine" worked for, either, as the day of its announcement was filled with the ire of seasoned players pointing out how the entire metalevel strategy of Halo CTF was instantly gone. It fits with their general feedback system for Halo 4, which is pretty much completely devoid of nuance with massive white text functionally replacing visually identifiable medals, a nearly-useless killfeed, as well as hit markers and grenade indicators replacing the extremely powerful and elegant audiovisual feedback in Reach.
In a lot of ways, I think they were looking at how MLG set up their gametypes and tried to make that experience - you can see it in the always-on waypoint which mimics the flag juggling mechanic, you can see it in how at launch every single CTF game went to 5 points like pro games did, and you can see it in how rigidly structured the new overtime mechanic is. But it's obvious that they didn't understand why those gametypes were set up that way by MLG. It doesn't translate well to general matchmaking unless the entire ecosystem surrounding it is set up in a very particular way, and their sandbox was anything but. In the end, it just eliminates a huge amount of the midmatch player agency that I loved so much about Halo.
But 343 has always fumbled with objectives, which is a pretty big part of why I don't have a lot of faith in whatever comes next. They pretty much killed Reach's Team Objective playlist by bumping up the player count and introducing awful gametypes like Flag Slayer and forcing it into voting slot 1 (which as it turns out, might as well have just been a Slayer gametype). That playlist's average population dropped by about half after they made their changes, from ~1500 to about 700 on average. They also killed what was left of Reach BTB by making it almost entirely Slayer (and Heavies at that), where it was mostly an objective playlist before. Their handling of objectives for 4 has been no different, even looking past their butchering of existing gametypes and the complete absence of others. The idea of a single gametype per playlist for objective modes was an incredible blunder. Oddball and King of the Hill will never be able to sustain a playlist each, and the same goes for Extraction and even Ricochet. Eliminating grab bag objectives for those second tier gametypes just makes me think that they don't understand how people play their games - those gametypes were the equivalent of impulse purchases that broke up long strings of A-tier gametypes like CTF and the now-dead Assault. There is currently no permanent home for FOUR of the six objective gametypes the game has with their intended player counts (Throwdown's Extraction doesn't count, since all indications point to that playlist being dead, and BTB King of the Hill is an incredibly asinine concept). As someone who finds Slayer to be a snoozefest and whose enjoyment of Halo relies almost entirely on how objective gametypes are handled, that's why I'm pretty much done with it all until I have something concrete showing me that they've learned basic lessons about how to handle those modes.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
This alone is why I rank Halo 4's gunplay the best since CE.
EDIT:
Yeah but in Halo 2 the flag physics were bouncy so you could throw it around. Halo 3 came and killed everything.
CTF hasn't been as fast or fun as it was in Halo 1 and 2.
The Antitype
Banned
I kind of had to keep my composure after reading this and did not reply to it yesterday. It’s a new day, so hopefully I can put into words on why I feel that this assumption is, for the lack of a better word, terrible.
For me personally, Halo’s multiplayer is based around a couple of key principles. Those are: equal starts, static weapon/item placements (with respawn timers), grenades and complementary map design. Equal start means that every player starts with the same weapon and same grenades. The benefit of this is that no one player is overpowered or given a leg up. Static weapon spawns is for a power weapon (such as sniper, rocket launcher and so on) placements around a map, those respawn after a certain amount of time after the one lying around is picked up. Grenades are kind of the randomizer, you use them to get out of though spots. All those elements are layers of the game and create depth. With equal starts people are more invested in getting the weapons placed around the map, because they want to keep the other team from getting them. It also indirectly promotes map movement (“Who is getting the sniper? We will go get the rocket launcher.”and team play (“Player x has the rocket launcher, he is camping in the x room!”
With Halo 4’s multiplayer much of those ideals are gone and replaced with a whole new set of principles. There is a loadout system which lets you customize which weapon you spawn with, not only that but you can chose which type of grenades you want and get extra help with the perk system. While playing the game you can earn ordnance drops in which you can call in certain weapons or items. Does that not sound like another popular game? Well, yeah. Chief argument for it is that it puts more power in the hand of the player. All good and all, with good intentions, but that breaks all balance because you have about a thousand possible variations. The clean, everybody is equal approach is much more inviting and practical. The ordnance system is kind of a replacement for static weapons spawn, the problem with it is it removes the element of urgency you had with it – no more effort to keep control of a certain part of a map or even outright confrontation trying to manically to pick up the power weapon first (and doing It again 3 to 4 times during one match). The worst effect these new principles have had on are the maps, they are now backdrops instead of being crucial to the game because well nothing promotes them to be explored or taken advantage of. You might have noticed a pattern there, nothing about this new philosophy is build around longevity – it’s built to make a good first impression and it really does, the shooting is great and feels overall well built. In this day of age, that is all that is needed for games, because people move on from game to game faster these days. I feel like that is a wrong way to approach a game, you should always strive to keep players engaged and coming back.
There has always been a certain learning curve to Halo and that can be intimidating for some people. There are multiple ways to combat this issue though; Halo 3 introduced social playlist where the player gets time to play with a lower pool of players just to get a feel for the game. This is an ideal way, because more experienced players are not handicapped. Halo 4’s approach to this problem is by making the whole game accessible from the start, but never really removes those training wheels. It would have been interesting if they started out “Cod lite” and gradually when the player ranks up the more intricate Halo elements are introduced. Again, another aspect that kind of highlights the short- term thinking instead of the long-term vision. There are so many interesting thing in the Halo design DNA that should be used, but are not even taken advantage of or just completely abandoned for no reason. Now look at some popular e-sports games, like Starcraft, League of Legends and Street Fighter, what do they all have in common? They respect their hardcore DNA and people flock over to play those games. It’s not just about respecting its core fundamentals, it also expects players to play it for a long time. You see this in for example adding ranking, spectator mode and such. Those games give a great, maybe a little intimidating, first impression but also, to hammer this point again, also are built to keep players engaged and entertained. “Pro-gamers” or regulars wanted this is not something that is selfish, they want the game to succeed and get a huge and diverse population for the right reasons – because in the end it benefits all parties. More options? More diversity? Why would anybody want to say no to that.
I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not 100% sold on the idea of prioritizing the needs/desires of the top-end, ultra competitive players above all else.
I DO agree that it's imperative for the developer to understand the central pillars of a gameplay experience, keep them in place, and ensure any evolutions of the formula are complementary or strengthen those pillars, rather than undermining or replacing them.
Full disclosure: I'm not an ultra-competitive, top-end player. I think I'm pretty good. I rank in the low-to-mid 40s in every playlist I played in Halo 2 and Halo 3, and I reached General rank in Reach (can't remember what rank, but it's kind of irrelevant since grades are all credit-based). I do well at Team Slayer, but prefer Objective (4v4) and BTB objective.
My issue might be totally one of misperception, so please educate me if you think I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the top 1% of Halo players have an overriding obsession with the notion of purity. This not only makes them resistant to ANY kind of change, it also frequent comes at odds with what I love about Halo games, combat variety and emergent gameplay. It seems to me the prevailing idea of the ideal Halo experience to the top 1% of competitive players is two players, with the same precision weapon (pistol, BR, DMR, whatever), circle strafing around each other until somebody scores the final headshot.
So as somebody a little more than casual, but not quite competitive, here are the pillars that matter to me, many of which align with yours:
Shoot/Grenade/Melee - Halo's version of the triforce. You mentioned grenades, but I think it goes beyond the simple use of grenades. I think any time the game starts undermining the usefulness and use of grenades and melee, the game suffers for it. Halo 4 is a prime example. The combination of an arsenal that leans heavily toward long-range, combined with a shallower grenade arc and a less-than-awesome melee ensured 99 out of 100 battles came down to mid-range pinging contests. Halo 2, with it's emphasis on dual-wielding, is another example of where the series got away from the thoughtful, strategic and skillful ballet of shooting mixed with grenades to create space and flush opponents where you wanted them to go, and melees, which could be used to punish players that let their guard down in mid-short range battles.
A varied, balanced and USEFUL sandbox - This is where I start to diverge heavily from the super competitive crowd, because I honestly believe weapons like the AR have a place in the sandbox and SHOULD be useful/powerful. EVERY weapon should be useful/powerful under specific circumstance, and disadvantageous under other circumstances. And yet you'll hear the argument that 'it takes more skill to use a precision weapon, therefore a precision weapon should win in every circumstance'. To which I would respond, 'wow you have a fragile ego'. The BR, or DMR or pistol should not be the best option in every single fire-fight, because that will inevitably lead to 90% of fire-fights offering the exact same experience, where the exact same tactics and skill-set come to bear. By comparison, a balanced sandbox where every weapon can be used to great effect under the right circumstance ensures a great variety of combat experiences, where different tactics are put up against each other, different skillsets are put up against each other and smarts/strategy weigh just as heavily as 'I can shoot a dude in the head real good'.
One of the reasons I enjoyed Reach a great deal despite it's flaws was because I haven't played a Halo since the original where I saw a wider variety of weapons getting a ton of use throughout every match. Bloom was imperfect, but it's practical impact of forcing players to choose between range/accuracy/rate of fire helped ensure that there wasn't one default go-to weapon, and that every weapon in that arsenal felt useful depending on your playstyle or situation.
Equal starts - We agree with this, though I think we differ on the meaning. I think equal means balanced, not homogeneous. I honestly don't mind if another player starts with a different weapon or ability than me, so long as the weapon and ability I start with is just as useful and effective. Players in Team Fortress 2, for example, start on equal footing. But they certainly don't start with the exact same weapon and ability loadout. The same can be true for Halo, provided it is balanced and tuned correctly. Thus far, homogeneous starts have worked better, but I think that's a failing of tuning rather than concept. I think giving players custom loadouts and unlockable weapons is a terrible fucking idea, but I don't think letting players choose from a selection of set, balanced options is unworkable. HOWEVER, they need to include a way for the opponent to immediately recognize what 'package' they're dealing with from a distance, whether it's through a modification to each character's silhouette, a color scheme, a fucking icon over their head once they come into view, whatever.
Static weapon placement - Yes. That's really all I got. Remove static weapon placement, you negatively impact movement through the map, you remove different facets of map and gametype strategy that players have to consider on the fly while doing battle with the opposition, you remove the impact of map control and strategy (how many people do we want locking down that weapon, as opposed to charging the objective, as opposed to covering our asses, etc).
No bloom DMR feels good in Reach. I actually enjoy the gunplay in Reach far more than Halo 4 or Halo 3. Bloom was a poorly handled mechanic, but if you take it out, the core mechanics of aiming feel pretty good in Reach. The bloom doesn't bother me at all for Campaign and Firefight, feels fine and the shooting isn't as stupid easy as it is in Halo 4.
Halo 2 felt pretty smooth, but was also very easy to aim, the smaller player models and better player strafes helped make up for the easy aiming. Whereas Halo 4 has easy aiming, huge player models, and barely any player strafing to throw off your shot.
The Horror the horror
Banned
Halo, more specifically Master Chief, is an iconic video game character. Iconic video game characters, unless meticulously refreshed, are prone to inevitable obscurity. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, AAA franchises that sell a lot without skipping a beat don't recycle their protagonists for that very reason. Mario was on the way to the gutter before NSMB and Mario Galaxy gave the franchise a fresh start. Link is on the same path to obscurity as Master Chief unless Nintendo does something.
ebullientprism
Member
I still hate the flag bit. And the fact that it took them forever to get some sort of BTB Objective type games in there.
In previous Halo games picking up the flag felt important. You traded your weapons and movement and hoped that your team mates were committed to protecting you. Sure sometimes you got in a bad team of randoms and everyone was just camping around but every now and then your team would come together and team mates would happily take heat off you and die just so that you would have a shot at taking the flag farther away. And when that happened it was absolutely AMAZING! That feeling of vulnerability as the carrier MADE CTF for me.
I still think Halo 4 is a fantastic game. But some of the MP design decisions were really questionable. I am pretty sure though that 343 is committed to that path. The DLC (even down to the achievements) confirm that. They might start making all the right noises to reel the people who were disappointed back in as release gets closer but I am pretty sure Halo 5 will be closer to Halo 4 than Halo 1-3.
My overall position wasnt only looking from pro-gamer perspective, but also from regulars who stick around to play the game. I think that much of the core ideas overlap between the two groups, because both crave longevity and variety.
I get your points, but they feel like either this way or that way. Look at Halo 3s split between social and ranked, both sections had playlist with their own set of rules and principles. That is a great way to let players experience the overall sandbox, but does not impact other game types. The other great thing is that different groups of players can be catered too without being shackled to others. Halo 4 just does not do that, because it barely respect and utilizes the sandbox it has and takes no account for different kinds of players. Its just a free-for-all game, where shooting is priority and the rest is an afterthought.
I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, like every other 'it feels like Halo' statement they've ever made. You know what would make me begin to believe that they get it again? Getting rid of the +5 Awesome! text in the middle of the screen, or at least giving the simple option of having it there or not.
A simple little thing. A small gesture. But they are too incompetent, even for that, and this crow shall remain uneaten.
BlazeBreak
Member
Ugh, yeah. Don't get me started on what they did to Reach's matchmaking. I will give credit for the TU, though. Especially after removing bleedthrough. The reduced-bloom DMR felt great (and also made the Needle Rifle viable), while Armor Lock and Active Camo received direly needed nerfs. However, the TU also began 343's ill-fated trend of trying to make absolutely everyone happy and failing miserably because of it. The vanilla/TU split was completely asinine. That, along with the separate Anniversary playlists, and them basically removing the DLC from matchmaking (in-practice), absolutely killed Reach matchmaking. Turning BTB into nothing but Heavy Slayer was the final nail in the coffin.
BTB Objective has always been my favorite flavor of Halo, and the same can be said for most of my Halo-playing friends. I think it's a testament to how good Reach was beneath the surface of its flaws how much I ended up liking the game despite the long, troubled, map-less history of Reach BTB. The most fun I had playing Halo 4 was when they finally added BTB Objective, but even that couldn't hold me for too long, considering that Flag wasn't really Flag and the limited number of gametypes (and, for that matter, the fact that all the BTB maps weren't even on the BTB Objective playlists, and certain maps only used certain gametypes, etc)
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Halo's the reason I got a 360. I enjoy Halo 4, but it just isn't as good a game as CE or Reach (or even 3 despite the shitty netcode). Customs is really the best part about the game, and even that wouldn't be that good without modded gametypes. If Halo 5 isn't a good Halo game, I doubt I would get a next-gen console any time soon. It would be great if 343 released an official Megalo editing tool for Halo 5, since there's tons of possibilities with it (and maybe also an actual map maker). They also need to work with the competitive community to make good competitive gametypes and maps. Hiring Bravo and Team Throwdown was a good start. Oh, and better Campaign (I think they should just get rid of Spartan Ops and have downloadable Campaign packs with actual story. Imagine playing as a Marine during the attack on Harvest or an Elite fighting against humans).
Also going to throw my Halo 4 disappointment in here. At the end of the day I think Halo 4 strayed away from what makes Halo so great: simplicity. Eliminating the bullshit in multiplayer and making it 'player vs. player' instead of 'player and his perks and his power weapon he got from a killstreak' vs. 'another one of these players' is why Halo I think was so special on a competitive level.
Halo doesn't need persistence or unlocks or perks or killstreaks or whatever the hell else they added into Halo 4. None of those things are 'features' or 'new ways to play', those things detract from the game and make it a convoluted nightmare. Go back to the roots, bring back the simplicity in multiplayer arena shooters, and add meaningful features that compliment the game as a whole. (along the lines of Theater, Forge, etc.)
Easier said than done, but I really hope that 343 is listening. They might have learned a lot from their first game, but it certainly wasn't a Halo game.
Halo doesn't need persistence or unlocks or perks or killstreaks or whatever the hell else they added into Halo 4. None of those things are 'features' or 'new ways to play', those things detract from the game and make it a convoluted nightmare. Go back to the roots, bring back the simplicity in multiplayer arena shooters, and add meaningful features that compliment the game as a whole. (along the lines of Theater, Forge, etc.)
Easier said than done, but I really hope that 343 is listening. They might have learned a lot from their first game, but it certainly wasn't a Halo game.
Ichabod
Banned
I was there day one for every mainline Halo. I loathed Reach but stayed with it for months at the behest of my friends. I played Halo 4 a month or so before I had no desire to play anymore. Halo 5 will be the first Halo game I take a wait-and-see approach on. My interest in the series is on life support.
Nemesis121
Member
This is for 4? or 2? because this is how i feel for 2...
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
The game you are all describing is Halo 1. You know that right?
Yeah I like zero bloom Reach gunplay, but to me Halo 4's felt slightly better because I could use any of the weapons and be effective. Consistency too; that's another reason I rank Halo 4 above Halo 2 or 3, but hmm compared to Reach it's a close one for me.
Reach has the Grenade Launcher but Halo 4 has more weapons than just the DMR DMR DMR DMR or BR BR BR BR from 2 and 3. For my personal taste, they're fairly close. Strafing. I wanted to read that post he mentioned but the site is down.
EDIT:
And then 343 decided to bring it back as an AA instead of returning it to its former glory as a Power-up.
Yeah I like zero bloom Reach gunplay, but to me Halo 4's felt slightly better because I could use any of the weapons and be effective. Consistency too; that's another reason I rank Halo 4 above Halo 2 or 3, but hmm compared to Reach it's a close one for me.
Reach has the Grenade Launcher but Halo 4 has more weapons than just the DMR DMR DMR DMR or BR BR BR BR from 2 and 3. For my personal taste, they're fairly close. Strafing. I wanted to read that post he mentioned but the site is down.
EDIT:
And then 343 decided to bring it back as an AA instead of returning it to its former glory as a Power-up.
The Antitype
Banned
Halo:CE was obviously amazing, but it had it's own weapon balance issues. From a sheer combat variety standpoint (ie, the different situations you found yourself in on a match to match basis), I would take Halo 3 over Halo: CE.
From a weapon balance standpoint, I would take Reach, actually.
BlazeBreak
Member
I found great irony in the fact that Halo 4 tried to skew competitive only to get dropped from MLG lol.
I, at least personally, have always found competitive Halo to be the complete antithesis of the game. Reducing the sandbox to nothing and turning the game into more of a twitch shooter. I consider flag-hopping to be against the designed spirit of the game (as also exemplified by Bungie trying to make it a lot less effective in Reach).
I have no ill will against those who prefer to play Halo more competitively, but the thing is, MLG had always occupied a separate playlist. I could play a game that actually used the entire sandbox, while other people could go and play there. Halo 4 had entirely the wrong idea by trying to take more cues from the competitive scene - especially when it was simultaneously trying to pull stuff like perks from CoD. The two things just collided into a terrible mess.
Edit:
Active Camo only became more broken in Halo 4, at that. And they still haven't fixed the radar glitch, have they?
I, at least personally, have always found competitive Halo to be the complete antithesis of the game. Reducing the sandbox to nothing and turning the game into more of a twitch shooter. I consider flag-hopping to be against the designed spirit of the game (as also exemplified by Bungie trying to make it a lot less effective in Reach).
I have no ill will against those who prefer to play Halo more competitively, but the thing is, MLG had always occupied a separate playlist. I could play a game that actually used the entire sandbox, while other people could go and play there. Halo 4 had entirely the wrong idea by trying to take more cues from the competitive scene - especially when it was simultaneously trying to pull stuff like perks from CoD. The two things just collided into a terrible mess.
Edit:
Active Camo only became more broken in Halo 4, at that. And they still haven't fixed the radar glitch, have they?
Wow, good writeup OP. Actually jumped back into the game a few days ago after not playing since shortly after release, and the player count was shocking. The game had issues at it's core but I didn't think it was bad enough to see almost everyone abandon it.
But coming back to it after all this time made me realize what caused me to get bored quickly: I'm still able to dominate most matches and having a >2.0K/D even after barely playing for a year. That could never happen in Halo 2/3. I made lvl50 in those games and after not playing for a month or two it would be a struggle to come back. You needed skill, teamwork. The progression was about getting better, not about unlocking an armor piece that barely looks any different. Games were highly competitive and people wanted to win, not get assassinations or splatters or whatnot. 4 has no competetive edge, it never gets my heartrate up like Halo2 and 3 could.
But coming back to it after all this time made me realize what caused me to get bored quickly: I'm still able to dominate most matches and having a >2.0K/D even after barely playing for a year. That could never happen in Halo 2/3. I made lvl50 in those games and after not playing for a month or two it would be a struggle to come back. You needed skill, teamwork. The progression was about getting better, not about unlocking an armor piece that barely looks any different. Games were highly competitive and people wanted to win, not get assassinations or splatters or whatnot. 4 has no competetive edge, it never gets my heartrate up like Halo2 and 3 could.
You are probably the reason I find Halo 4 so hard online.
Despite all the talk of dumbing the game down and lowering the skill ceiling to even players out, I get absolutely obliterated in Halo 4 by comparison to the other games.
I'm not even terrible, I was pretty competent in All of them.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
I'm glad you brought this up. Allow me to break it down as to why I think Halo 1's sandbox is far greater than any other game:
- Pistol -> All around utility weapon. The only mid-range weapon available in the game. High skill gap that not even top 1% players can consistently land 3sk's on LAN.
- AR -> 64 shots, shoots fast, quick melee, spray like a mo' fugga. Can be used to activate Camo faster via shooting, so when you picked up power weapons while having Camo, you'd drop your Pistol. High level meta game with such an easy execution that most people had no clue about.* Gave that weapon a bigger purpose outside of just shoot-bang.
- Plasma Rifle -> Stun. Incredibly deadly.
- Plasma Pistol -> Stun and overcharge. Shoots fast. Incredibly deadly.
- Shotgun -> Do I need to say more?
- Sniper -> Easily the most skill-demanding Sniper in all of Halo. You had to lead your shots but it shot extremely fast.
- Rocket -> This shit is a nuke.
- Needler -> Because you need one weapon to humiliate people with ;]
- Grenades -> Mini nukes, balanced by bouncy traits and longer fuse times.
- Melee -> No lunge, but had a bigger hitbox. Took 3 of them to kill someone, but you could double melee (only if you had a 'nade - risk/reward)
Then you have to take into consideration the button glitches that made everything more useful. You could run out of Pistol ammo in a battle, press XXY (backpack reload) as your AR comes out. You continue fighting as you hear the Pistol reloading, sure it doesn't make SENSE, but this brought a new dimension to Halo's meta game that Bungie was so eager to crush. You run out of AR bullets and switch back to a fully loaded Pistol.
- Backpack reloading -> Sped up the pace of the game and kept players shooting/in the action.
- Double melee -> Risk/Reward. No lunge. You needed a 'nade so if you just spammed the double melee blindly, chances are you'd either kill yourself or waste all of your grenades.
* Why can't they bring they bring back something as harmless as backpack reloading or little "glitches" (ie: reload frames melee cancel)? They could easily make an Advanced Tutorials section detailing Halo's meta game for all types of players.
- Status