For those Defending the Demo

MerlinG2 wrote:

Fractal Echo wrote:

MerlinG2 wrote:

Fractal Echo wrote:

MerlinG2 wrote:

TheCherriPopper wrote:

Get Farmed Kid wrote:

TheCherriPopper wrote:

I agree with you 100%. This game looks nothing like Halo. I wouldn't be surprised if this game was rated E10+.

It clearly does Look like Halo. And graphics can change just go and look at Halo 5 in Beta then at Launch. Stop complaining about nonsense what can be easily fixed.

Halo doesn't have sprint, Halo doesn't have a grappling hook, Halo is dark and gritty and this game comes out in 5 months which is barely enough time to fix anything.

Look, you're never going to get a halo 3 game again as halo is going in a new direction and I'm afraid you just have to accept that. It's a different take and frankly, halo is being made to appeal to the masses rather then just Bungie purists. You don't have to like it, but I'm afraid you do have to accept it.

cucking to focus groups is of no benefit to any game or gamer. appealing to the masses is rather pointless, as it would make halo a generic shooter, which makes it one of many and thereby limits its success. appealing to a specific audience captures this whole audience and may motivate others to try it.

anecdote: if you copy mcdonalds, you will likely go broke. you need to do something different or vastly better.
<p></p>

First off, that isn't an anecdote mate. An anecdote is a story that can be used to make a point (ish) and that is not a story at all.

Secondly, Halo still has a target audience, I never said it didn't. But it is trying to appeal to the masses as they have to try and get as many new people into the game as possible and in order to do that, they may have to modernise it a bit. Also you can have a game that appeals to the masses and it not be generic.

"analogy" would have been the better thing to say indeed.

modernization to not solemly rely on player retention is not the issue. the issue lies with some of the tried modernizations not benefitting the game, as these make the game less distinct which therefore has to compete harder with the original games of the niche they are developing towards. improving and expanding their own niche is more viable. make the players come, insted of making the game wander around.

If you're referring to sprint, slide, and clamber, these things are what a lot of newer gamers expect in a first person shooter and may be turned off by not being able to go faster when not in combat (like in an open world). In terms of grapple, in the campaign it looks like it may be a permanent ability and, while I understand that it is in other games, it provides a new experience to the halo universe and when you mix it with everything else in the game, such as equipment, weapons, enemy strategy, and overall world, it can provide an experience that you can find no where else. Also, in multiplayer it will be equipment that you can pick up on the map which I don't believe is in any other multiplayer component of a game.

While I understand that if they try to make the game similar to another one (like 4 did with cod) it will make it generic and lack creativity, but when you take one element from another game, add a slight spin to it, and place it in a different environment, it can create a vastly different experience even if the actual mechanic itself isn't too different from another game.

Andre LMay BR wrote:

Reptar117 wrote:

I mean you don't have to play it if you don't like it

Does it mean that it is easier for the franchise to lose fans than to do what they want? 343I never got 100% right with Halo that's the truth. The Bungie who made good stories.

Will I have to stop playing too?

MerlinG2 wrote:

Fractal Echo wrote:

MerlinG2 wrote:

Fractal Echo wrote:

MerlinG2 wrote:

Fractal Echo wrote:

MerlinG2 wrote:

TheCherriPopper wrote:

Get Farmed Kid wrote:

TheCherriPopper wrote:

I agree with you 100%. This game looks nothing like Halo. I wouldn't be surprised if this game was rated E10+.

It clearly does Look like Halo. And graphics can change just go and look at Halo 5 in Beta then at Launch. Stop complaining about nonsense what can be easily fixed.

Halo doesn't have sprint, Halo doesn't have a grappling hook, Halo is dark and gritty and this game comes out in 5 months which is barely enough time to fix anything.

Look, you're never going to get a halo 3 game again as halo is going in a new direction and I'm afraid you just have to accept that. It's a different take and frankly, halo is being made to appeal to the masses rather then just Bungie purists. You don't have to like it, but I'm afraid you do have to accept it.

cucking to focus groups is of no benefit to any game or gamer. appealing to the masses is rather pointless, as it would make halo a generic shooter, which makes it one of many and thereby limits its success. appealing to a specific audience captures this whole audience and may motivate others to try it.

anecdote: if you copy mcdonalds, you will likely go broke. you need to do something different or vastly better.
<p></p>

First off, that isn't an anecdote mate. An anecdote is a story that can be used to make a point (ish) and that is not a story at all.

Secondly, Halo still has a target audience, I never said it didn't. But it is trying to appeal to the masses as they have to try and get as many new people into the game as possible and in order to do that, they may have to modernise it a bit. Also you can have a game that appeals to the masses and it not be generic.

"analogy" would have been the better thing to say indeed.

modernization to not solemly rely on player retention is not the issue. the issue lies with some of the tried modernizations not benefitting the game, as these make the game less distinct which therefore has to compete harder with the original games of the niche they are developing towards. improving and expanding their own niche is more viable. make the players come, insted of making the game wander around.

If you're referring to sprint, slide, and clamber, these things are what a lot of newer gamers expect in a first person shooter and may be turned off by not being able to go faster when not in combat (like in an open world). In terms of grapple, in the campaign it looks like it may be a permanent ability and, while I understand that it is in other games, it provides a new experience to the halo universe and when you mix it with everything else in the game, such as equipment, weapons, enemy strategy, and overall world, it can provide an experience that you can find no where else. Also, in multiplayer it will be equipment that you can pick up on the map which I don't believe is in any other multiplayer component of a game.

While I understand that if they try to make the game similar to another one (like 4 did with cod) it will make it generic and lack creativity, but when you take one element from another game, add a slight spin to it, and place it in a different environment, it can create a vastly different experience even if the actual mechanic itself isn't too different from another game.

only sprint and clamber harm the halo formula. the rest is fine by my understanding.

making clamber have a realy small benefit and making sprint so that it works like the ghost boost (with weapons up) so it is only viable in open spaces might work, but is a hassle to balance. faster bms and a higher maximum crouch jump height would work simpler and better.

Tbh, I completely agree with the last sentence. But, for me, I personally don't think that sprint and clamber harm the halo formula, they just add something else to it. With sprint and clamber, because they have an animation and take a little bit to go back to gun ready mode, you have to use these things while being wary that if you sprint into someone's line of fire, you are going to be at a immediate disadvantage in that gunfight. But I do understand where you're coming from and if I were to make a halo game I wouldn't include those elements. But sadly, that's not what 343 are doing and I can also understand why it's kept in. One thing I'm curious about is, for you does it make the game not fun or just less fun?

Canadianatlas wrote:

I think it looks like it has great potential. HOWEVER. As people have said before, just about everything about the Phantom looks disappointing. The Warthog sounds weak What was 343 thinking, recording anything less than a beefy V8 with turbo whine (AMG GT), for the Warthog sound? I can't stand the cartoon particle effects that look like they were ripped right from Breath of the Wild, a style that clashes with the rest of the visuals. Plasma Batteries and Fusion Coils look like they belong in Zelda as well.

The visual style looks like it was made by 2 completely different teams, which means this is either made up of VERY old assets, or tells us there was poor direction and communication in that area. I enjoy Zelda, and I understand Halo never had super realistic visuals, but the Infinite demo and 1 minute campaign trailer both look like the assets are a jumbled mess from 2 entirely different projects. It looks like a PC game loaded with free mods, not an industry leading, cohesive product.

Dr Robaldnik wrote:

Is a thread like this supposed to make me feel bad for really liking the demo and being excited for the game? Such a killjoy.

Evil Twin 1 wrote:

I think 343 needs to stop making more halo games at this point.
They seem to start fresh every time and the games just look unfinished. I would rather being playing a glorified Halo 2 or 3 in unreal engine at this point. I think they need to start with what works and make gradual changes to the physics and graphics as technology progresses...not start from scratch. It's just a giant waste of time. Halo 2 and Halo 3 are a little outdated. But all they need to do is just update the player animations, graphics, gametypes, etc. as time goes by. They could also add campaign expansions if they want too. MCC is a joke btw they messed it up