[Locked] "Classic" gameplay is excruciatingly slow

IronArcher148 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

F16 HUNTER wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.

Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?

Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.

Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.

That's why the population is always hidden.

Most games, popular or not don't show population any more: Fortnite, Destiny 2, Apex Legends. That isn't a good metric.

The one I am about to use isn't either but its the best I can think of on what Halo 5 may have? (believe this as much as you want cause I am not sure. But hey, its something right?) Halo Tracker has Halo 5's CSR population in team slayer at almost 400,000 players. Now, it does say it tracks everyone in the site, not just those who play Halo. So Lets remove the unranked players and only count ranked ones since that can act as the metric of actually playing. That puts us at around 200,000. Yes it did halve the population, but if this is based on the current season. 200,000 players 5 years later is pretty good.

Again, this may be me just talking out my butt with pseudo-science, but its better than just saying "it does have population".

God Rohan wrote:

evilbojangals59 wrote:

God Rohan wrote:

Willko wrote:

Have you ever considered that if you find Halo's original gameplay too slow, that maybe Halo just isn't the franchise for you any more? Why should the newer games bend and twist themselves into something totally different to cater to someone who no longer enjoys what the franchise was built on?

This statement is ludicrous. How can you say this? If the game doesn’t move forward and evolve it’ll stagnate and fail. I enjoy having sprint and climb. But I still also enjoy old school halo. To say that halo isn’t the franchise for you anymore to anyone because they enjoy the new features is rubbish. If anything it could be said that the franchise is not for you anymore because you’re stuck in the past.

Why does a game need to evolve to be successful? Halo 5 bombed.

That bombed not because of evolution but because of a rushed abysmal -Yoink- show that was. But in all fairness the multiplayer was its only saving glory. If you don’t want progress why don’t you just scream for a halo 3 remaster?

Your straw manning me, I never said that I didn’t want halo to progress. The game should progress with new sandbox tools like vehicles and guns not chasing trends. Also 343 would absolutely mess up a remaster which is why people don’t ask for it

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

Jonny45k7236 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

F16 HUNTER wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.

Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?

Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.

Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.

It was the lowest selling Halo for copies of the game. They only bragged about "Halo related sales" meaning consoles, halo merch and micro transactions. So yes worst selling Halo. Player retention only matters when you have a large amount of players to begin with.

Ok, so Halo 5 was said to have sold 5 million copies 3 months after launch and nothing seems to give numbers after that except 5 mill+ (which isn't really helpful). That is indeed lower than say Halo 2 or 3, about half. The issue is we have nothing for after that 5 mil number. The number definitely went up ( I mean it ain't going down) and with regards to the population, you seem to forget games pass, used copies, etc which has probably added at least a small chunk of players to the base. I am not saying its Halo 3 levels of success, but saying its the worst performing Halo is definitely not true. Like I said before, its probably comparable to Reach.

If it went up it looks like less then a million judging by how fast it fell on most played lists.

evilbojangals59 wrote:

God Rohan wrote:

evilbojangals59 wrote:

God Rohan wrote:

Willko wrote:

Have you ever considered that if you find Halo's original gameplay too slow, that maybe Halo just isn't the franchise for you any more? Why should the newer games bend and twist themselves into something totally different to cater to someone who no longer enjoys what the franchise was built on?

This statement is ludicrous. How can you say this? If the game doesn’t move forward and evolve it’ll stagnate and fail. I enjoy having sprint and climb. But I still also enjoy old school halo. To say that halo isn’t the franchise for you anymore to anyone because they enjoy the new features is rubbish. If anything it could be said that the franchise is not for you anymore because you’re stuck in the past.

Why does a game need to evolve to be successful? Halo 5 bombed.

That bombed not because of evolution but because of a rushed abysmal -Yoink- show that was. But in all fairness the multiplayer was its only saving glory. If you don’t want progress why don’t you just scream for a halo 3 remaster?

Your straw manning me, I never said that I didn’t want halo to progress. The game should progress with new sandbox tools like vehicles and guns not chasing trends. Also 343 would absolutely mess up a remaster which is why people don’t ask for it

No I’m not lol. I don’t think they’d ruin that, the halo 1 and 2 remasters are fine in my opinion. What trend would they be chasing? They’d stagnate simply be another cod but without loadouts same gameplay only addition is guns and vehicles. That might work but for how long? The og games were ground breaking for their time which is why they’re beloved but if we stay in the past without innovation and progress the halo franchise will end up failing worse then it currently is. They only way I see this looped debate/argument over sprint being concluded is by catering to both with both modes new and old designed ground up separately.

God Rohan wrote:

evilbojangals59 wrote:

God Rohan wrote:

evilbojangals59 wrote:

God Rohan wrote:

Willko wrote:

Have you ever considered that if you find Halo's original gameplay too slow, that maybe Halo just isn't the franchise for you any more? Why should the newer games bend and twist themselves into something totally different to cater to someone who no longer enjoys what the franchise was built on?

This statement is ludicrous. How can you say this? If the game doesn’t move forward and evolve it’ll stagnate and fail. I enjoy having sprint and climb. But I still also enjoy old school halo. To say that halo isn’t the franchise for you anymore to anyone because they enjoy the new features is rubbish. If anything it could be said that the franchise is not for you anymore because you’re stuck in the past.

Why does a game need to evolve to be successful? Halo 5 bombed.

That bombed not because of evolution but because of a rushed abysmal -Yoink- show that was. But in all fairness the multiplayer was its only saving glory. If you don’t want progress why don’t you just scream for a halo 3 remaster?

Your straw manning me, I never said that I didn’t want halo to progress. The game should progress with new sandbox tools like vehicles and guns not chasing trends. Also 343 would absolutely mess up a remaster which is why people don’t ask for it

No I’m not lol. I don’t think they’d ruin that, the halo 1 and 2 remasters are fine in my opinion. What trend would they be chasing? They’d stagnate simply be another cod but without loadouts same gameplay only addition is guns and vehicles. That might work but for how long? The og games were ground breaking for their time which is why they’re beloved but if we stay in the past without innovation and progress the halo franchise will end up failing worse then it currently is. They only way I see this looped debate/argument over sprint being concluded is by catering to both with both modes new and old designed ground up separately.

Cod is nothing like classic halo the modern halo games are far more like it. Halo 4 was chasing cod loadouts and 5 was chasing the mobility of game like advanced warfare and titan fall. Ironically cod modern warfare went back to its roots and it sold much better than the advanced mobility games. Remember classic halo has always been successful modern halo failed twice. You innovate the franchise by adding new sandbox tools like the grappling hook, not by changing the fundamental way the game is played.

IronArcher148 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

IronArcher148 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

F16 HUNTER wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.

Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?

Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.

Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.

You said it was as good as Reach, and Reach has a population counter. Halo 5 never did. 400,000 players means how many played the game and got ranked. That ranges from both casuals and people that got it on Gamepass and dropped it. Not consistent players like most of us here that play ranked and stuck with it. Halo 5 never had party matching to begin with which further proves my point.

Firstly, not having party matching nor a counter still doesn't prove your point. The first is a matchmaking feature and the second is still something nearly all games then and now don't do anymore.

On the Halo tracker thing, I can only defend it based on my best guess so I can't really say your wrong. But my guess is that it resets on each season. So yes, it wouldn't give you the exact player count.

SomberJam842707 wrote:

Theres nothing wrong with sprint. All these so called halo fans just want halo 3 over and over again. Sprint doesnt slow down gameplay, it gives you tactical options for combat. In halo 3 the gun fights were decided on who had the better gun. No skill or thinking required, just shoot them till they die. Adding sprint will give you the ability to avoid attacks similar to cod mw. In any fps game, I want to be able to run across an ally without dying because I am too slow. I want to be able to surprise attack people by rushing around the corner, startling them and out maneuvering their aim, giving me an advantage in the gun fight. Halo 3s gun fights were just shoot it out. There really was no point in strafing since we move so slowly. With sprinting gun fights have more variables. Aim, maneuverability, health, and dps.

Speaking from a logical standpoint, halo without sprinting makes absolutely no sense. We are playing as a bio augmented super soldier, and youre saying they shouldnt sprint??? The whole no sprint argument baffles me.

"Just like COD" there's your first mistake.

"In any FPS game"
CSGO says hi, oh it's an old game? Then why is it the most popular FPS? Why are new games like Doom and Valorant popular then? I thought sprint was suppose to add more skill, oh wait sprint is only in battle royal nowdays aka heavily RNG based games.

Jonny45k7236 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

Jonny45k7236 wrote:

KnavishPlum169 wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

F16 HUNTER wrote:

bluep0inter wrote:

Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.

Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?

Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.

Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.

It was the lowest selling Halo for copies of the game. They only bragged about "Halo related sales" meaning consoles, halo merch and micro transactions. So yes worst selling Halo. Player retention only matters when you have a large amount of players to begin with.

Ok, so Halo 5 was said to have sold 5 million copies 3 months after launch and nothing seems to give numbers after that except 5 mill+ (which isn't really helpful). That is indeed lower than say Halo 2 or 3, about half. The issue is we have nothing for after that 5 mil number. The number definitely went up ( I mean it ain't going down) and with regards to the population, you seem to forget games pass, used copies, etc which has probably added at least a small chunk of players to the base. I am not saying its Halo 3 levels of success, but saying its the worst performing Halo is definitely not true. Like I said before, its probably comparable to Reach.

If it went up it looks like less then a million judging by how fast it fell on most played lists.

So I was curious and checked where it is now. Which is 34th place (ehhh...), anyways. Finding any benchmark to compare it with is like impossible as I was telling someone else, no one put population counters on their games anymore. Its between Warframe and BL3, assuming its the same for others who check. I mean, people only really check the top 10. Again, I am not saying it did super well. It just wasn't the failure that some of you are saying.

Willko wrote:

Xomet wrote:

Willko wrote:

Have you ever considered that if you find Halo's original gameplay too slow, that maybe Halo just isn't the franchise for you any more? Why should the newer games bend and twist themselves into something totally different to cater to someone who no longer enjoys what the franchise was built on?

Telling someone that they should move away from a game they like is not a good way to approach this situation

How many times have classic Halo fans been told to move on or go back to the old games?

To be honest not as often as you would think. The Halo community is way too divisive and everybody is at each other’s throats. How many of the common core mechanics from CE have been carried over throughout Halo as a whole, the answer is all of them

Willko wrote:

Xomet wrote:

Willko wrote:

Xomet wrote:

Willko wrote:

Have you ever considered that if you find Halo's original gameplay too slow, that maybe Halo just isn't the franchise for you any more? Why should the newer games bend and twist themselves into something totally different to cater to someone who no longer enjoys what the franchise was built on?

Telling someone that they should move away from a game they like is not a good way to approach this situation

How many times have classic Halo fans been told to move on or go back to the old games?

To be honest not as often as you would think. The Halo community is way too divisive and everybody is at each other’s throats. How many of the common core mechanics from CE have been carried over throughout Halo as a whole, the answer is all of them

Not as often as I think? I'm told that constantly!

Well how often do you criticize their opinions?