• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT16| Oh Bungie, Where Art Thou?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xxjuicesxx

Member
Capture_zps11d99068.png


Shouldn't Infinity Slayer be called Infinity Team Slayer? Or Team Infinity Slayer. To make parralel's and whatnot.
 
E

EBLspartan

Neo Member
I spent the last few years watching people blaming Reach for the same reasons you are blaming halo 4 (randomness, power ups, absence of a real ranking system...) and now you're saying that "Reach is better than 4"?

In 4 there are a lot of elements of variability: power ups and abilities (and ordnance) force a player to think to a real strategy every time he engage an enemy and even if it is more skilled the result of the combat can be negative due to some factors.

But is this variability that i like: every power up is something useful but not something that makes you hyper invincible, everyone with a bit of intelligence can overcome it or find a strategy or a counterpart in order to survive; that makes every fight something different if compared to older halos where combats were simply JUMP-STRAFE-SHOOT-THROW GRANADE -> REPEAT TO INFINITE.

On the other hand every gun is useful and consistent (and with every i mean ALL OF THEM), and this is an absolute news in halo (also here there are some things to balance, and they're doing it).

It's obvious the game has (and had, but many things have been fixed) some arguable elements: CSR not in game, JIP (they're fixing it) and maybe playlists' organization (and i'm ok with this; but saying that reach is a more solid game, when everyone until yesterday could see how inconsistent that game is (fu*k bloom) it's inconceivable (even after TU).

343 has done a lot of mistakes, but also done a lot of choices, good for someone, bad for someone else that, in my opinion, have bring the game to another depth level.

I know that the largest part of the fanbase has abandoned the game, disappointed because it isn't that "already cooked" thing that halo 2 and 3 were and i can understand, changes are nevere simple (even when we're talking about games), but saying that halo 4 is the worst halo game ever made like many of you think makes me asking you something:

DO YOU REMEMBER REACH? REALLY? (i don't think so)

The truth is that halo 4 is one of the best halos ever made, for many reason in my opinion, but clearly the nostalgia of old times doesen't allow the majority of you to recognize it (remember not all that shines is gold, even halo 2 and 3 had lot of problems in my opinion far far heavier).
And the truth is that 343i were brave to try to give us not the usual and expected MORE OF THE SAME.

If you only try to be a little more flexible you all will find out that even with halo 4 it's possible to spend many really fun moments like the good old times.

That's my opinion; once again sorry for grammar errors: english is not my mother tongue.
 
O

Overdoziz

Banned
EBLspartan said:
I spent the last few years watching people blaming Reach for the same reasons you are blaming halo 4 (randomness, power ups, absence of a real ranking system...) and now you're saying that "Reach is better than 4"?

In 4 there are a lot of elements of variability: power ups and abilities (and ordnance) force a player to think to a real strategy every time he engage an enemy and even if it is more skilled the result of the combat can be negative due to some factors.

But is this variability that i like: every power up is something useful but not something that makes you hyper invincible, everyone with a bit of intelligence can overcome it or find a strategy or a counterpart in order to survive; that makes every fight something different if compared to older halos where combats were simply JUMP-STRAFE-SHOOT-THROW GRANADE -> REPEAT TO INFINITE.

On the other hand every gun is useful and consistent (and with every i mean ALL OF THEM), and this is an absolute news in halo (also here there are some things to balance, and they're doing it).

It's obvious the game has (and had, but many things have been fixed) some arguable elements: CSR not in game, JIP (they're fixing it) and maybe playlists' organization (and i'm ok with this; but saying that reach is a more solid game, when everyone until yesterday could see how inconsistent that game is (fu*k bloom) it's inconceivable (even after TU).

343 has done a lot of mistakes, but also done a lot of choices, good for someone, bad for someone else that, in my opinion, have bring the game to another depth level.

I know that the largest part of the fanbase has abandoned the game, disappointed because it isn't that "already cooked" thing that halo 2 and 3 were and i can understand, changes are nevere simple (even when we're talking about games), but saying that halo 4 is the worst halo game ever made like many of you think makes me asking you something:

DO YOU REMEMBER REACH? REALLY? (i don't think so)

The truth is that halo 4 is one of the best halos ever made, for many reason in my opinion, but clearly the nostalgia of old times doesen't allow the majority of you to recognize it (remember not all that shines is gold, even halo 2 and 3 had lot of problems in my opinion far far heavier).
And the truth is that 343i were brave to try to give us not the usual and expected MORE OF THE SAME.

If you only try to be a little more flexible you all will find out that even with halo 4 it's possible to spend many really fun moments like the good old times.

That's my opinion; once again sorry for grammar errors: english is not my mother tongue.
Click to expand...
Both games are bad.
 
M

Madness

Member
EBLspartan said:
I spent the last few years watching people blaming Reach for the same reasons you are blaming halo 4 (randomness, power ups, absence of a real ranking system...) and now you're saying that "Reach is better than 4"?
People did blame Reach for a lot of things, and whether you agreed the blame was justified or not, the fact is until Halo 4, it was the least played Halo multiplayer to date.

In 4 there are a lot of elements of variability: power ups and abilities (and ordnance) force a player to think to a real strategy every time he engage an enemy and even if it is more skilled the result of the combat can be negative due to some factors. But is this variability that i like: every power up is something useful but not something that makes you hyper invincible, everyone with a bit of intelligence can overcome it or find a strategy or a counterpart in order to survive; that makes every fight something different if compared to older halos where combats were simply JUMP-STRAFE-SHOOT-THROW GRANADE -> REPEAT TO INFINITE.

This is the mistake most people make. They think a large quantity means more variability. It doesn't. It leads to redundancy. Each powerup is not as useful as the next, neither is each weapon. If you play long enough, you'll see a real lack of variety in the weapons and powerups people use because there is just no way to 100% balance everything. It's why matches are now 8v8 with almost everyone having a DMR/Boltshot with Jetpack or Camo. There is actually very little intelligence involved. This isn't a strategy game. It's aim, shoot, repeat. It's always been that way. You're making a fallacy in thinking the base combat is any different. The only difference here, is the randomness and unfairness inherent to the combat now. It's less about skill, and more about luck. Someone gets a fuel rod cannon, has the ammo perk and he gets close to 15 one-hit kill shots. You get a speed boost or needler. To say the older games didn't require intelligence is ridiculous. They required more. You had to actively venture outside of your base, to secure weapons, to help your teammates etc. Now you can just sit back, rack up assists and have weapons laid at your feet. Furthermore, if anything, in the older games, stealth and map control played a large part of the game. Now, the focus is primarily offense, the majority of the time. What I mean is, in past games, you needed to push right away. To secure key weapons or locations. Now you don't need to do it anymore, so it's actually dumbed down the game further. No longer does it matter about where a weapon is, or why you need to hold a key area. Sit back, dong at will. Rack enough points, get an incineration cannon. Imagine how The Pit would play in Halo 4. No rush for rockets, no sword room, no snipers on tower. Both sides staying back, using the DMR. Forget about Camo being a once in a while powerup that you could use in combination with things like needler or shotgun to really mess things up, you could have the whole team camo from one side to the next etc.

On the other hand every gun is useful and consistent (and with every i mean ALL OF THEM), and this is an absolute news in halo (also here there are some things to balance, and they're doing it).

Every gun is not useful. This is yet another mistake. The large quantity of weapons has lead to redundancy. Maps used to dictate the weapons that would be placed. You'd have sniper at the towers, maybe a large powerful weapon in the middle, etc. Each gun is not useful or consistent. Why would anyone use suppressor over assault rifle? Why would anyone really take carbine over DMR? Yes there are some things to fix, that doesn't mean it'll be balanced at all, most likely, just like with every game that allows loadouts, people will find one that works best and use it, thereby nullifying the point of loadouts in the first place, the difference is though, loadouts have completely ruined any semblance of map control. I could give two shits about the middle hill, when I can just hole up at my base with sniper and camo.

It's obvious the game has (and had, but many things have been fixed) some arguable elements: CSR not in game, JIP (they're fixing it) and maybe playlists' organization (and i'm ok with this; but saying that reach is a more solid game, when everyone until yesterday could see how inconsistent that game is (fu*k bloom) it's inconceivable (even after TU).

How is Reach inconsistent, aside from Bloom? You know exactly what you're getting. If anything, either you like Reach or you don't. Some people have issues with the movement, with the jump height, fall damage, armor abilities. But they are not inconsistent, they don't like them. Bloom is perhaps the most inconsistent thing and people bring up bloom as if it was the worst thing ever conceived, when you'd probably get affected by it's randomness only 10% of the time. The skilled player will still nail down the exact timing of pacing shots or spamming. The skilled player, will still most likely end up winning a duel, even with the randomness thrown in. I dislike bloom, I just played Reach today after 5ish months. I noticed it right away, but the rest of the game was a blast. I didn't need to worry about half the team getting one-hit kill snipers, hiding with mini-shotguns camo'ed in corners etc.

343 has done a lot of mistakes, but also done a lot of choices, good for someone, bad for someone else that, in my opinion, have bring the game to another depth level.

I know that the largest part of the fanbase has abandoned the game, disappointed because it isn't that "already cooked" thing that halo 2 and 3 were and i can understand, changes are nevere simple (even when we're talking about games), but saying that halo 4 is the worst halo game ever made like many of you think makes me asking you something:

DO YOU REMEMBER REACH? REALLY? (i don't think so)

The truth is that halo 4 is one of the best halos ever made, for many reason in my opinion, but clearly the nostalgia of old times doesen't allow the majority of you to recognize it (remember not all that shines is gold, even halo 2 and 3 had lot of problems in my opinion far far heavier).
And the truth is that 343i were brave to try to give us not the usual and expected MORE OF THE SAME.

If you only try to be a little more flexible you all will find out that even with halo 4 it's possible to spend many really fun moments like the good old times.

That's my opinion; once again sorry for grammar errors: english is not my mother tongue.

This last point of yours, you end it by saying, this is just my opinion, but you've used the whole post to shit on the rest of us who have a different one, as if it is invalid because YOU believe it so. We all remember Reach, I bet almost all of us will have played it 10x more than we'll have played Halo 4. It was a far more polished game AT launch. In fact, I'd say it was 343 and their tinkering that did more damage to it than anything else. Title updates that affected certain playlists, a paywall playlist that played completely different than the rest of the game, etc. How you can say Halo 2 and Halo 3 had more problems that were more severe than anything Halo 4 has had, makes me wonder how much you played them. Yes there were cheaters, and glitchers, and boosters etc. It was a different time, a lot of games had bugs then, a lot of games have bugs now, the difference being they get fixed much quicker since people share things at an amazing pace. I don't mean to single you out, but your quote completely tries to invalidate the numerous valid complaints others have had.
Click to expand...


My answers in bold. Also, I play Halo 4 everyday. So do a lot of people here. I don't know why you think so, but HaloGAF is split on whether Reach or Halo 4 are the better games, with some saying they're equally bad. If anything, more people play Halo 4 than they do Reach at this point on HaloGAF so I don't know why you think people don't. I don't play as much as I could, but I do play throwdown, doubles, flood, SWAT, Castle DLC, and Action Sack regularly. I don't have any ill will towards 343. I want them to succeed, I want Frankie and the team to make a shitload of cash, read his letter on the past page, he's good people, but it's not a very good competitive Halo game. It's definitely improved since launch, which is why I've got high hopes for Halo 5. They deserve a chance to make up for their shortcomings this go-around, but when you have a lot of Halo fans, some who are passionate and have played the hell out of the series for over a decade, completely stop playing, something needs to be done.
 
N

Nebula

Member
Both Reach and Halo 4 suck for BTB, and the vehicles suck as well. However Halo 4 has much easier access to anti vehicle things through loudouts and weapon drops. Sadly Reach has Armour Lock which continues to be a huge issue for me.

H3 would be my go to game but BTB on Mexican host in a lobby with people from 4+ countries in the mix makes for a horrid match. Generally I spend most BTB games on H3 on yellow bar, making it a chore to play.

Either way BTB is dead. Vehicle combat is dead. Halo is dead.
 
R

reggie

Banned
EBLspartan said:
I spent the last few years watching people blaming Reach for the same reasons you are blaming halo 4 (randomness, power ups, absence of a real ranking system...) and now you're saying that "Reach is better than 4"
Click to expand...

Newsflash; not everything is black and white. Reach is still a massive turd, just not as big as Halo 4.
 
K

kylej

Banned
EBLspartan said:
I spent the last few years watching people blaming Reach for the same reasons you are blaming halo 4 (randomness, power ups, absence of a real ranking system...) and now you're saying that "Reach is better than 4"?

In 4 there are a lot of elements of variability: power ups and abilities (and ordnance) force a player to think to a real strategy every time he engage an enemy and even if it is more skilled the result of the combat can be negative due to some factors.

But is this variability that i like: every power up is something useful but not something that makes you hyper invincible, everyone with a bit of intelligence can overcome it or find a strategy or a counterpart in order to survive; that makes every fight something different if compared to older halos where combats were simply JUMP-STRAFE-SHOOT-THROW GRANADE -> REPEAT TO INFINITE.

On the other hand every gun is useful and consistent (and with every i mean ALL OF THEM), and this is an absolute news in halo (also here there are some things to balance, and they're doing it).

It's obvious the game has (and had, but many things have been fixed) some arguable elements: CSR not in game, JIP (they're fixing it) and maybe playlists' organization (and i'm ok with this; but saying that reach is a more solid game, when everyone until yesterday could see how inconsistent that game is (fu*k bloom) it's inconceivable (even after TU).

343 has done a lot of mistakes, but also done a lot of choices, good for someone, bad for someone else that, in my opinion, have bring the game to another depth level.

I know that the largest part of the fanbase has abandoned the game, disappointed because it isn't that "already cooked" thing that halo 2 and 3 were and i can understand, changes are nevere simple (even when we're talking about games), but saying that halo 4 is the worst halo game ever made like many of you think makes me asking you something:

DO YOU REMEMBER REACH? REALLY? (i don't think so)

The truth is that halo 4 is one of the best halos ever made, for many reason in my opinion, but clearly the nostalgia of old times doesen't allow the majority of you to recognize it (remember not all that shines is gold, even halo 2 and 3 had lot of problems in my opinion far far heavier).
And the truth is that 343i were brave to try to give us not the usual and expected MORE OF THE SAME.

If you only try to be a little more flexible you all will find out that even with halo 4 it's possible to spend many really fun moments like the good old times.

That's my opinion; once again sorry for grammar errors: english is not my mother tongue.
Click to expand...

7uGyMOU.gif
 
T

Talents

Banned
Gui_PT said:
Worst level in Halo 4's campaign? You can only pick one.

Go go go.
Click to expand...

The last one. Seriously shit. The only way I managed to complete that level was by thinking "Well hopefully the fight with Didact will be awesome". Of course I was wrong, it is 343 who made the game, just defeat one of the biggest threats in the Halo Universe with a simple QTE.
 
D

Deadly Cyclone

Pride of Iowa State
The first two levels in Halo 4 were the best. They still conveyed that sense of wonder and the unknown. Busting out of the cryo tube and having no idea what was going on was pretty awesome. Same with stepping on Requiem for the first time. When your Warthog hits that clearing and you see the massive Forerunner structures, it's just great.
 
I

IHaveIce

Banned
Dude started with good points I also think Halo 4 is way better than Halo Reach, the only good thing inreach is MLG Reach, and IMO Throwdown Halo 4 and Doubles Pro Halo 4 are far superior.

People would of course argue about sprint, yeah I'm not happy either, but it works in Halo 4 now.

The core of Halo 4 is good, the gametypes which were chosen to be the mainstream expierence are just horrible, paired with dumb non Halo shit like Loadouts.


But then his points started to crumble, the problems of Halo 2 and 3 weren't near as heavy as Halo 4's, they kept the Halo style of everyone spawns with the same.

Halo 4 could be fantastic gameplay wise if 343 would do bold moves, but that won't happen


Still I prefer Halo 4 ( even Infnity) over Bloom Slayer in Reach
 
S

StalkerUKCG

Banned
What a terrible post. 343i fucked up in so many ways with Halo 4. While I respect the people making it the final products is way below a standard we have come to expect from the franchise.

EBLspartan said:
In 4 there are a lot of elements of variability: power ups and abilities (and ordnance) force a player to think to a real strategy every time he engage an enemy and even if it is more skilled the result of the combat can be negative due to some factors.
Click to expand...

Excessive uncontrollable variability negates strategy. The more random elements forced upon a player the less situations they plan for. Its like taking chess and instead of the base 16 pieces one player at the roll of a die at a whim got 15 queens.
But is this variability that i like: every power up is something useful but not something that makes you hyper invincible, everyone with a bit of intelligence can overcome it or find a strategy or a counterpart in order to survive; that makes every fight something different if compared to older halos where combats were simply JUMP-STRAFE-SHOOT-THROW GRANADE -> REPEAT TO INFINITE.
Click to expand...

Fine, You like it. Clearly however based on population figures the rest of the public don't. Halo: Reach suffered intense backlash from the community because it added too much variability to combat with the inclusion of Armour Abilities. Instead of learning from this 343i effectively cranked the dial to 11. Now not only does a player have to contend with the problematic AA's but they have to worry that "player X" could have quicker shield regen or more powerful grenades or at any second he could call in a host of 1 shot kills weapons many which are so easy to use they almost guarantee a kill
On the other hand every gun is useful and consistent (and with every i mean ALL OF THEM), and this is an absolute news in halo (also here there are some things to balance, and they're doing it).
Click to expand...

Every gun is far from useful the sandbox is bloated. The Scattershot is a more inconsistent shotgun, the Railgun (despite personal feelings) is essentially a weak spartan laser, The light rifle is basically a DMR with poor close range effectiveness , The Storm Rifle and The repeater are an assault rifle with a different fire rate and The Binary rifle is a Beam rifle that tells people where you are.

It's obvious the game has (and had, but many things have been fixed) some arguable elements: CSR not in game, JIP (they're fixing it) and maybe playlists' organization (and i'm ok with this; but saying that reach is a more solid game, when everyone until yesterday could see how inconsistent that game is (fu*k bloom) it's inconceivable (even after TU).
Click to expand...

Halo: Reach serves as the lesser of two evils, Its far from perfect but if its a choice between having to contend with Bloom which over the course of a year grew to become a manageable hindrance or having to contend with the host of bullshit throw around by Infinity Slayer then its surely its not difficult to understand why some people are returning to Reach.
I know that the largest part of the fanbase has abandoned the game, disappointed because it isn't that "already cooked" thing that halo 2 and 3 were and i can understand, changes are nevere simple (even when we're talking about games), but saying that halo 4 is the worst halo game ever made like many of you think makes me asking you something:

DO YOU REMEMBER REACH? REALLY? (i don't think so)
Click to expand...

Of course we remember reach because some of us have actually returned and played it recently. In comparison I feel Reach is a solid game. Its not Halo 2 in any way but its also free from some of the more invasive elements of Halo 4. Not to say its the pinnacle of the series because its far from it. But after 4 years dev time and the mistakes of Reach Halo 4 should have been that "Already cooked" thing.

The truth is that halo 4 is one of the best halos ever made, for many reason in my opinion, but clearly the nostalgia of old times doesen't allow the majority of you to recognize it (remember not all that shines is gold, even halo 2 and 3 had lot of problems in my opinion far far heavier).
And the truth is that 343i were brave to try to give us not the usual and expected MORE OF THE SAME.
If you only try to be a little more flexible you all will find out that even with halo 4 it's possible to spend many really fun moments like the good old times.
Click to expand...

I disagree that Halo 4 is one of the best Halo's ever made. There's no more truth in that statement than me saying Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie ever made.

I honestly don't see how 343i were brave either. Its plain as day many of the choice made were done so to appeal to a different userbase. Either a more casual one or one used to Call of Duty. Instant respawns, Text on screen, JiP, Spint ect.

That's not bravery that's tailoring a game for maximum profit because ultimately that is what the game is a product to be bought. Call it a labor of love all you want for many dev's that is very likely true however the game is created with a budget and projected sales figures it has to meet and when the biggest video game userbase in the world are the call of duty players marketing to them is a smart move.
 
T

TheOddOne

Member
Popeck said:
There's some kind of a "Halo 4 making of" article on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_.php.
Click to expand...
"There were a lot of mistakes we made along the way in which we knew weren't necessarily the right way to do things," says Wolfkill of the steep learning curve. "But given what we had to deliver and our timeframe, we accepted that these are necessary mistakes, and we acknowledged and cataloged them.
Click to expand...
There was inefficient prototyping -- the team didn't clearly define and communicate the parameters of successful prototypes early enough in development, which slowed the process. The team also started to realize that Halo 4's narrative, rooted in volumes of sci-fi lore, was at times too inside baseball, and wasn't self-contained enough. It was an accessibility issue that needed to be addressed.

Sub-teams would get too close to a singular component of a game, such as a new enemy design, and not think of the design in the larger context of the game’s mechanics, lore and narrative, leading to inefficiencies in the overall development process.

343 also struggled with balancing familiarity with reinvention, as the studio wanted to please a large fanbase, but at the same time bring something new to the series. While the game received high scores, some critics pointed out a feeling of sameness.
Click to expand...
"It's during that time you're questioning yourself: 'How is this going to work, will it be as I envision it in my head?" says Holmes. For Halo 4, he says there were a few epiphany moments that helped boost the morale of the team. One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a "very traditional" Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.

343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal.
Click to expand...
.
 
G

Gui_PT

Member
It's pretty clear most of us don't like Halo 4 because nostalgia.


Yeah that sounds like a good reason.

E: I actually don't mind the Mammoth level because you can skip 90% of it.
Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

And I agree with Cyclone, the first couple of levels have that great unknown sci-fi feel. Too bad we only get that for 2 missions and a couple of moments in the other levels.
 
S

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
So 343 make games to a deadline and not to a quality bar that they are happy with?

Fantastic compromise.

And scrapping a build of Halo that people liked on the basis of being "too traditional" - you can't make that shit up.

These are fantastic efforts to lower the entire company in fan's eyes, I must say.
 
F

Fracas

#fuckonami
TheOddOne said:
"It's during that time you're questioning yourself: 'How is this going to work, will it be as I envision it in my head?" says Holmes. For Halo 4, he says there were a few epiphany moments that helped boost the morale of the team. One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a "very traditional" Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.

343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Are you serious?

Just make a campaign, expand on this multiplayer. Bam, Halo 5.
 
D

Deadly Cyclone

Pride of Iowa State
Slightly Live said:
So 343 make games to a deadline and not to a quality bar that they are happy with?

Fantastic compromise.

And scrapping a build of Halo that people liked on the basis of being "too traditional" - you can't make that shit up.

These are fantastic efforts to lower the entire company in fan's eyes, I must say.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is if 4 would have been too much like the other games (2/3) people would have complained even more (despite the core Halo community's notes) and the game would have been panned a bit critically which could have affected overall sales.

It sucks to see that the more traditional variant was scrapped, but one can see why they had to do it. With the population decline we see now I wonder if they go back to that build for Halo 5.

Also, seems like the deadlines would be a MS move. I'd guess 343 would have loved more time on Halo 4.

I think we're going to see a lot of outrage at Josh's last quote there, but these are the times we live in. 343 isn't the only company to do this, and who can say what the effect would have been had they released that version of the game. We'd be happy, but would the game have sold far less?
 
T

Tawpgun

Member
IHaveIce said:
WOW.

WOW.

THAT LAST QUOTE. NO FUCKING WAY
Click to expand...
Am I reading that right?

"We made awesome core Halo and it was so much fun... but too close to the previous halos so fuck it lol"


Booties said:
RIP Tawpgun. Game sucks. Time for babby to wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...
I'm drinking some dunkin now!
Deadly Cyclone said:
8 month summer break? Are you on pluto time?
Click to expand...
dat co-op program

I'm going home for May and June. I'll be back in Boston in July, with a coop, basically means I'm working for 6 months instead of going to school. Then in January back in classes.
 
M

Mix

Member
monsterfracas said:
Are you serious?

Just make a campaign, expand on this multiplayer. Bam, Halo 5.
Click to expand...
Fucking seriously? This is more than upsetting. Too traditional? Isn't this what 100% of the community wanted? Scrap Reach and make a sequel to Halo 3 as intended? No, instead we get a creative director who listens to the wrong group of people and in doing so puts out a sequel to our favorite franchise that rubs us all the wrong way. He won't even show his face in this forum because he knows he'll be roasted for it. I have nothing against Josh Holms or anyone else at 343 for making this 4 million dollar mistake, but it's one that they need to recognize and fix with the next iteration of the game.
 
K

kylej

Banned
One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a "very traditional" Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.

343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional
Click to expand...

I would say it's unbelievable but... this is 343.

Is it too early to move to a Destiny thread?
 
G

Gui_PT

Member
I hope the folks working on the new Star Wars movie scrap the whole project if they realize it feels too Star Wars-ish.

I want no Star Wars in my Star Wars.
 
K

kylej

Banned
Deadly Cyclone said:
The unfortunate thing is if 4 would have been too much like the other games (2/3) people would have complained even more (despite the core Halo community's notes) and the game would have been panned a bit critically which could have affected overall sales.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been panned critically. That's what marketing budgets are for.

See: 9.8
 
B

Booties

Banned
That article. Oh em geeeeeeee. Way to realize you have in-house development problems with an unfocused group of people; and then make things worse by throwing out the flukey "good game" they made.
 
M

Madness

Member
Deadly Cyclone said:
The unfortunate thing is if 4 would have been too much like the other games (2/3) people would have complained even more (despite the core Halo community's notes) and the game would have been panned a bit critically which could have affected overall sales.

It sucks to see that the more traditional variant was scrapped, but one can see why they had to do it. With the population decline we see now I wonder if they go back to that build for Halo 5.

Also, seems like the deadlines would be a MS move. I'd guess 343 would have loved more time on Halo 4.

I think we're going to see a lot of outrage at Josh's last quote there, but these are the times we live in. 343 isn't the only company to do this, and who can say what the effect would have been had they released that version of the game. We'd be happy, but would the game have sold far less?
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. Sure you would have IGN, and the numerous sites give 343 crap about it "being the same Halo of the past decade", but even non-Halo fans would buy it. The difference is, you'd have more classic Halo fans stick around. You'd bring back the pro players, the ones who now play CoD, you'd have communities planning Halo nights everyday instead of barely getting a team of 4 to play with etc.

And I know people hate the casual vs hardcore term. But the casual gamers, who buy a game, either trade it in or move on within a month, would have done that for Halo 4, whether it was traditional or new. The difference is, us, the fans who post everyday about our love for the series, would be much happier and playing much longer if it was a more traditional Halo.

Was it a gamble? Yes. Did it work? I saw sub-7000 players in War Games yesterday at night and peak populations of barely 30k, so I don't think it worked. They know this now. Frankie and Josh are probably putting an increased focus on customization options and more traditional modes and ranks for Halo 5 as we speak.

It goes back to that Cliffy B article about studios wanting the critical masses to give high scores and good word of mouth, while also maintaining quality and familiarity for their hardcore fans. That part at the end, about the traditional build being a hit, but getting scrapped, that personifies what 343 ultimately wanted, and it was a hit with IGN, Penny Arcade and numerous other streamers that played for a week or so. After that? They moved on, we're stuck picking up the scraps and begging for slight changes to get a semblance of the game back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First Details on Halo Infinite Canceled Campaign Expansion
Rumor 2
88
5K
the_master replied
How would you feel is Bungie and 343 Studios collaborated on a Destiny-like game set in the Halo universe?
36
851
Clintizzle replied
Halo Infinite | Live Stream Recap | Jan 2024
23
2K
RPS37 replied
AMD "Strix Halo" Zen 5 Mobile Processor Pictured
Rumor Analysis
39
4K
THE DUCK replied
  • Locked
Sketchy twitter rumor- Halo no longer considered a top flagship at Xbox, next Halo game has half the budget of Infinite, will determine fate of series
2 3 4 5
219
21K
Angry_Megalodon replied
Top Bottom