Are Halo Players Uncomfortable with Change?

I'm not afraid of change. There was a LOT of change between Halo: CE and Halo 3. It just didn't "seem like it" because it did what a series is supposed to do: build on its core mechanics. REACH, 4 and 5 completely broke from the core mechanics, and that is why they were so divisive. The problem with 343i is that with 4 and 5, they've copied trends from other games. They didn't build on what made Halo... Halo.

I grew up on halo and I’ve played all of the originals, but the new mechanics are just better. The old halo gameplay is dated and people want more action in multiplayer nowadays.

RipnKido wrote:

Dean2191 wrote:

I grew up on halo and I’ve played all of the originals, but the new mechanics are just better. The old halo gameplay is dated and people want more action in multiplayer nowadays.

I grew up on halo as well, and the new mechanics are what saturated the game amongst other FPS’s during that time. Saying a game is dated is a poor excuse because it held its popularity for having a distinguishable identity and being action filled. In contrast, the population halo 4 and 5 didn’t hold up over the course of 3-4 years like halo 2 and 3 did.

Well I grew up on Halo as well, but I'm not going to solely attribute the success/failure off any game to one particular attribute without considering every other factor. This is so common in threads comparing classic Halo vs modern Halo. There is this misconception that a good/fun game will always be a successful game no matter what the context. Which imo is not accurate.

Classic Halo trilogy was successful because it had everything going for it AND because of the context it was in. It was first to pioneer console shooters (virtually an empty market) , first to make online matchmaking a thing, the story, the music, the mechanics etc. On the flipsyde, H5 had a horrible campaign with misleading marketing, bad competitive settings, very delayed response on player feedback, other more lucrative esports...these things were far more damaging than the mere inclusion of sprint/abilities.

So all the arguments that any halo was better/worse because of <insert one attribute> is very reductionist.

For me personally, the only Halo I'd consider fun to play today...is Halo 2 and Halo 5. The rest of them feel slow (doesn't matter if its an illusion), aesthetically dated, subpar gunplay.

Everybody has their own definition of what Halo is to them. I just wish that we wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction when there is a successful concept/mechanic that wasn't in the original Halos.

I feel "I don't like x because is not fun" is a much better argument than "i don't like x because it wasn't in the original trilogy"

It depends, we don't like change if it just simply makes the game worse. For example: Spartan Ops replacing Firefight in Halo 4. But we like new things that improve the game, like Firefight itself. And we are fine with both existing at the same time for variety.