Support NeoGAF

[Sean]

Doesn't really make sense for 343 to develop a 'sci-fi Call of Duty' ripoff when one is already been rumored to be in development by Sledgehammer Games.

I wouldn't mind if they changed the formula a bit more, but making a heavily scripted game like CoD single player is not the direction I want them to go in.

 

[chriskun]

All they need to do is make sprint a universal ability and the next Halo will be an automatically better game. The armor abilities are sort of stupid, and having sprint be one doesn't really make sense from a logic standpoint or gameplay one.

 

[Jex]

For a start, I probably wouldn't care for it.

Secondly, why try to ape the competition? Halo differentiates itself from other games in a number of ways, it would be unwise to abandon them.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

All they need to do is make sprint a universal ability and the next Halo will be an automatically better game. The armor abilities are sort of stupid, and having sprint be one doesn't really make sense from a logic standpoint or gameplay one.

Actually, it doesn't make any sense from a gameplay or logic point of view, the spartans are super soldiers I assume they can run constantly for extremely long periods of time, so having a button to sprint makes no sense to me.

 

[Sai-kun]

Run through a corridor shooting Elites while watching explosions go off on the sidelines, and every time I play it, it's always the same?

Why don't I just watch a movie or something.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

As a Halo fan, what would be your reaction if 343i (developers of the next Halo game) ditched Bungie's gameplay tradition and just delivered a cinematic experience that matched that of the live action commercials (aka, it played more like a CoD game)?

I would cry bitter tears.

 

[szaromir]

Halo 3 is the best Halo game as it has the most variety within the levels. Almost every encounter feels distinctly different and requires different tactics to be employed. Reach has more gimmicks but has less interesting battles. Then again, 3's campaign got a ton of hate for some reason, so it apparently varies from person to person.

 

[Kujo]

I'd like to see a Metroid Prime inspired Halo.

 

[Subitai]

Yeah, but it was better when they would come after you. In Reach there was no sense of urgency. You could systematically kill each enemy one by one from a distance. In Halo 3 at least the Brute Chieftain would come after you at some point.

I suspect this behavior was taken out due to whining and frustration in focus testing.

 

[godhandiscen]

I suspect this behavior was taken out due to whining and frustration in focus testing.

It killed Legendary for me. It was hard at the beggining, but once I realized I could take my sweet time, I just moved accross the space looking for the best long range spot, and then procceded to take down each enemy with the DMR. Bring down the shields with plasma, and then kill. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Dennis]

Leave Halo as it is - Its far superior to COD

 

[BudokaiMR2]

It killed Legendary for me. It was hard at the beggining, but once I realized I could take my sweet time, I just moved accross the space looking for the best long range spot, and then procceded to take down each enemy with the DMR. Bring down the shields with plasma, and then kill. Rinse and repeat.

Wait is this serious? I ran into that sometimes, but there were also plenty of times where a jetpack motherfucker would land right behind me and melee kill my ass.

 

[Chinner]

I'm bored with both Halo and COD so whatever happens I'm skipping the next installments.

 

[Feindflug]

So what you're suggesting is making one game worse when we should have asked for both games to evolve and get better - getting rid of the sandbox level design in Halo and making it more scripted a la CoD is like asking for Halo to not being Halo..when I play Halo's campaign for the 5th-6th time the game doesn't feel old or a being there done that situation and every encounter can be something new and surprising resulting at some really fun and unexpected firefights with it's amazing enemy AI and more open level design.

I can't see how making Halo a scripted events based shooting gallery a la CoD is gonna bring something new or improve anything on the Halo formula...dumbing down is improving? if there is a series that needs a reboot it's CoD - as much as I liked the Black Ops campaign for what it is the whole formula from the graphics engine to the AI and mission structure needs an overhaul...little have changed since CoD2 and this was 5 years ago a 360 launch title.

 

[TheOddOne]

FUCK NO.

 

[Dahbomb]

LOL.... no.

 

[dark10x]

I don't think Bungie would allow that to happen. Would be an awful abomination if it did, though.

 

[TheSeks]

CoD: Run in a line through infinite enemies to invisible lines to stop them from spawning, the game.

Halo: Boring combat with some decent AI that traps you in corridors to wait for slowly moving drop-ships that you can't destroy with heavy weapons and so have to wait until they drop their load, kill the load and then the mysterious blockage is gone, the game.

Both have their faults. Making Halo into a scripted engine wouldn't help, but getting rid of campaign dragging (DROPSHIPS!) would help. None of the games have ever felt like a war to me. Halo 1 gets a pass because it's a limited amount of enemies on the ring-world/in the ring-world area. But Halo 2/3/ODST/Reach has a HUGE number of enemies on them, and yet you only see maybe 5-6 at a time?

Sure, it's to make "gameplay balance" but it never feels like Earth/Reach/etc. are being invaded. But making thousands of enemies only to have them die to an ONI ship the same way everytime wouldn't help, neither would the "monster closets" and rushing from point A to B to close to closet.

However, Halo's "sandbox" should allow you to go from point A to B without firing a shot and sneaking past enemies if you so choose. IIRC there are areas in the campaigns where you are FORCED to go into a firefight to progress.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Please no.

CoD 4 was fun, because it was new and exciting, by Black Ops I was worn out on the CoD formulae and could see scripted sequences coming from a mile off.

I would love a Halo movie, but until then the games should play like games.

 

[CozMick]

Well the next Bungie project could well be a CoD/Halo hybrid.

Activision know full well that the twitchyness of Call of Duty sells.

 

[Unknown One]

I don't think Bungie would allow that to happen. Would be an awful abomination if it did, though.

Bungie is not working on it anymore...it might be possible...

 

[TheSeks]

Bungie is not working on it anymore...it might be possible...

Yeah, MS owns the IP. The only thing Bungie is consulted for anymore is the "lore"/canon/universe. Anything else is MS's playground.

If you aren't bailing out on Halo after Reach, you're going to be in for a rude awakening once MS starts making "Halo Wars 2, Orbital of Dropship Troopers: Combat Evolved 2. Halo Puzzle Fighters. Halo or Alive 4 (oh, wait, they did that already)" etc.

 

[szaromir]

Halo: Boring combat

Which FPS has exciting combat then? I can't think of any.

 

[LordPhoque]

Scripted sequences in Halo Reach are kind of weak. I enjoyed the SP, but it has almost no memorable moments. What I like in Halo is the strategic encounters, the sandbox orientation and the non scripted AI. Some spectacular scripts would help though. As long as they keep the level-design open I'm okay with it.

 

[TheSeks]

Which FPS has exciting combat then? I can't think of any.

Bad Company, but that's because I can take a grenade launcher and destroy buildings and vehicles. The fact that I can change the shape of the sandbox/cover for enemies makes it less stale than Halo's "grab a plasma pistol, over-charge it, quick switch to BR/AR/DMR and headshot" hum-drum.

After five games of that, Halo's combat is stale. Hell, Call of Duties formula is stale as well.

Battlefield's campaign may not be great, but it's a kick in the pants that is sorely needed in the FPS genre. Blowing out cover or making your own cover would be nice. Combine that with reactive AI of Halo (without the "having to drop their shields to kill them" mechanic) and you'd have a winner.

 

[brain_stew]

Id imagine most people wouldn't care since most people skip the single player portion of the game, maybe

Complete BS, well over half of 360 gamers don't even subscribe to Xbox Live Gold. There's more gamers skipping the multiplayer portion than the single player portion.


--------------------

If the situation in the op happened then its simple, I wouldn't buy it. I buy Halo games for the gameplay not the shitty story and I'm already hesitant whether a start up can fill Bungie's boots, and this would just confirm that. I'm much more excited for Bungie's new IP.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Bad Company, but that's because I can take a grenade launcher and destroy buildings and vehicles. The fact that I can change the shape of the sandbox/cover for enemies makes it less stale than Halo's "grab a plasma pistol, over-charge it, quick switch to BR/AR/DMR and headshot" hum-drum.

After five games of that, Halo's combat is stale. Hell, Call of Duties formula is stale as well.

Battlefield's campaign may not be great, but it's a kick in the pants that is sorely needed in the FPS genre. Blowing out cover or making your own cover would be nice. Combine that with reactive AI of Halo (without the "having to drop their shields to kill them" mechanic) and you'd have a winner.

Thats kind of subjective, I find Halos 'stale clinical' gameplay REALLY fun and dont enjoy Bad Company, so thats a bad argument.

Halo 3 might have focused on one weapon, but the versatility of that weapon was what made that game fun, games with a big sandbox that play like rock papers scissors bore me, I just want to play a game where my raw movement and ability to out think my opponent is what makes me win - I find the 1v1 encounters you get on Halo to be much more exciting than the types of encounters you get on every other FPS.

 

[TheOddOne]

Bad Company, but that's because I can take a grenade launcher and destroy buildings and vehicles. The fact that I can change the shape of the sandbox/cover for enemies makes it less stale than Halo's "grab a plasma pistol, over-charge it, quick switch to BR/AR/DMR and headshot" hum-drum.

After five games of that, Halo's combat is stale. Hell, Call of Duties formula is stale as well.

Battlefield's campaign may not be great, but it's a kick in the pants that is sorely needed in the FPS genre. Blowing out cover or making your own cover would be nice. Combine that with reactive AI of Halo (without the "having to drop their shields to kill them" mechanic) and you'd have a winner.

Bad Company as a good example? :lol

 

[brain_stew]

I don't think Bungie would allow that to happen. Would be an awful abomination if it did, though.

Bungie don't have any say in the matter.

 

[TheSeks]

Thats kind of subjective, I find Halos 'stale clinical' gameplay REALLY fun and dont enjoy Bad Company, so thats a bad argument.

Then we gotta agree to disagree, because I ask for evolving in my First Person Shooters than sitting on their laurels.

Sure, you can use the needler/etc. in Halo, but why would you? The kill speed is slow, it doesn't take out so many enemies in quick succession.

Really, though, my BIGGEST issue with Halo's campaign is that it's just plain boring. There is nothing exciting (IMO) going on. Again, you don't feel like "you're in a war." Bungie never attempted to force the player to go into stealth:

There is 50 enemies in an area listening to the commander. Shooting any of them is a guaranteed death.You have to sneak past them to get to the next area. You may/may not have active camo...

THAT, or anything in variety would spice up Halo. It doesn't have to have destructible environments (but it would be nice, IMO that's where the genre should go next) but it does need less "go here, sit here for the dropship to come, kill them, move to next area, wait for dropship..."

Note: I haven't played Reach yet. But from what I've seen it's similar to 1/2/3/ODST's campaign which is a bit disappointing as I expected a huge amount of covenant to overrun you.

 

[MMaRsu]

Bungie don't have any say in the matter.

Ehm yes they do.

And I wouldn't buy it. But I'm not gonna buy their next game first hand anyway.

 

[Arnie]

I'm willing to try different stuff for campaign. Just don't mess with my multiplayer.

Reach?

Spoiler

I kid

 

[quickwhips]

does this mean inifinite respawns. If so fuck that.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Then we gotta agree to disagree, because I ask for evolving in my First Person Shooters than sitting on their laurels.

Sure, you can use the needler/etc. in Halo, but why would you? The kill speed is slow, it doesn't take out so many enemies in quick succession.

Really, though, my BIGGEST issue with Halo's campaign is that it's just plain boring. There is nothing exciting (IMO) going on. Again, you don't feel like "you're in a war." Bungie never attempted to force the player to go into stealth:

There is 50 enemies in an area listening to the commander. Shooting any of them is a guaranteed death.You have to sneak past them to get to the next area. You may/may not have active camo...

THAT, or anything in variety would spice up Halo. It doesn't have to have destructible environments (but it would be nice, IMO that's where the genre should go next) but it does need less "go here, sit here for the dropship to come, kill them, move to next area, wait for dropship..."

Note: I haven't played Reach yet. But from what I've seen it's similar to 1/2/3/ODST's campaign which is a bit disappointing as I expected a huge amount of covenant to overrun you.

Oh no now that I see where your coming from I agree fully. I wouldnt say Halo is sitting on its laurels but your spot on about the atmosphere of war just not being there. They could have done a lot more with Reach, considering how interesting the books make Spartan operations seem. I do still prefer the more open levels and combat, but the levels could have had more interesting objectives.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

Actually, it doesn't make any sense from a gameplay or logic point of view, the spartans are super soldiers I assume they can run constantly for extremely long periods of time, so having a button to sprint makes no sense to me.

and they should be able to shoot in rapid succession without their accuracy going to pot.

 

[Dabanton]

Note: I haven't played Reach yet. But from what I've seen it's similar to 1/2/3/ODST's campaign which is a bit disappointing as I expected a huge amount of covenant to overrun you.

I was pretty cool on Halo 3's campaign but Reach is just amazing there were moments where i just thought fucking hell look at this scale. There were parts where my jaw just dropped at all the stuff going on where you have to go and blow up these guns and a massive battle cruiser flies overhead. while the sky is full of fighting.

Halo's main appeal to me is freedom try going off the beaten path in a CoD game, not happening. You get told off for going out of the boundary of what the developer wants you to do in Reach yes i was travelling to checkpoints but how i got there was up to me. I was travelling across massive maps and could within reason go anywhere

 

[dark10x]

Sure, it's to make "gameplay balance" but it never feels like Earth/Reach/etc. are being invaded.

Gameplay balance is most important, though. If there's anything I've learned over the years about gaming, it's that aiming big does not often lead to better gameplay.

Bungie is not working on it anymore...it might be possible...

Wasn't thinking. I was thinking of Bungie's next project (a non-Halo game) rather than the next actual Halo game.

 

[subversus]

KZ2 was a perfect cross between advanced AI and cinematic approach. They just should add more epic parts and it seems that KZ3 is on that.

 

[Kuroyume]

Id imagine most people wouldn't care since most people skip the single player portion of the game, maybe

Pretty much... Unless I'm mistaken I believe the stats from the game were posted a few weeks ago and very few touched the campaign.

 

[Nirolak]

I think this does a nice job explaining my issues with fully scripted games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY

Skip to 13:40 if you're low on time. This is on Hardened for the curious.

 

[the_zombie_luke]

Play any Flood level and you'll get a preview of what it could look like. :lol

 

[dark10x]

KZ2 was a perfect cross between advanced AI and cinematic approach. They just should add more epic parts and it seems that KZ3 is on that.

Yeah, it actually was. It was much less scripted than Call of Duty but still featured some of the cinematic flourishes you'd find in CoD.

 

[Raiden]

COD sucks at is infinite enemy respawns, and a bit too scripted, Halo is just some AI's dropped in a room and you need to take them out. I really love the Halo's(multiplayers) but the campaigns sucked ass since Halo 1.

My opinion though.

 

[Littleberu]

My problem with Scripted events is re playability. I mean, Bioshock 1 is an awesome game, but I wouldn't play it again because it's mostly just a linear games with enemies popping up left and right.

I can play Halo levels endlessly because of the freedom of encounters. The fights, especially in Reach, all feel fresh and exciting, even if you've seen them a couple of times.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Has this been here before:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=276676

mission cleared in black ops without shooting. HEEAVY scripting there dawgs.

 

[Littleberu]

Has this been here before:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=276676

mission cleared in black ops without shooting. HEEAVY scripting there dawgs.

Woh, what the fuck at 13:30

 

[Guts Of Thor]

Then it would be the first Halo I wouldn't buy.

 

[flyinpiranha]

I love how in Reach, if you pop up and shoot a couple guys in the head and then duck out of sight again, to circle around and take another shot from a different angle, every guy you kill is a tangible bit of progress toward clearing the encounter. I really enjoy that - whereas in CoD you can be stuck behind a bit of cover, pop up and shoot a few guys and it really makes no difference, because if you don't press forward to hit the next invisible checkpoint, another bunch of guys are just going to spawn in from a dead-end corridor to continue the fight ad nauseum.

So, no, please don't make Halo play like CoD. Bad idea.

This is what I like too. Being able to make progress. Every person I killed I was like "fuck yeah" while almost every time I've come across a difficult situation in CoD I just zig zag run to see if I get a checkpoint.

Monster closets are absolutely stupid. It's why I'm skipping Black Ops for the most part and not interested in anything that is compared to CoD anymore.

I like my games to be methodical.

Has this been here before:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=276676

mission cleared in black ops without shooting. HEEAVY scripting there dawgs.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

This makes it kind of hilarious to read the "just finished on Hardened, hella hard brah" posts that much more hilarious.

Something that has been getting worse in Halo with each release is the shitty 'Firefight in a campaign' that plagues many levels. Even moreso with the latest 2 releases, you'll have areas where you just stay in and wait for dropship after dropship after dropship. It's boring and a lazy way to increase the length of the campaign.
.

This I agree with but it hasn't made the game unplayable in any way for me. I think if they continually go down this path with 343 behind the helm then I might not be as inclined to get the next iteration.

 

[Chittagong]

Yeah every time I play Halo on Legendary I'm thinking "damn, this would be so much better with Treyarch's shitty enemy closet and trip wire mechanics"

Think, man.

 

[xbhaskarx]

I think this does a nice job explaining my issues with fully scripted games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY

Skip to 13:40 if you're low on time. This is on Hardened for the curious.

Wow, I'm glad I don't buy Treyarch games...