Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo infinite looks lost

OP Modod

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
xsv wrote:
sprint and slide is not really an advanced movement. H5 was advanced because of how extreme they all were, especially when paired with thrusting, hover, and ground pound. They all lacked weight which resulted in players catapulting across maps. At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense. So they did what they had to do, dumb down H5s movement system, and reintroduce more sandbox elements from H3.

Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person. For some, it's about the sandbox (something infinite is leaning into), for others its purely a compelling campaign, or fleshed out co-op experience. Hell, and for many its just shooting aliens in the face and tea bagging your friend. There is no universal with Halo no matter how much people claim there is. To me, that looked like Halo and I can look past the polish issues cause it's petty at best to complain about visuals (not artstyle) in a demo. Many reactions online also seem to criticize the game for that fact which I find hilarious. I listened to a podcast where they were like "that looked like halo but I wanted something different."

At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want. Halo has gone through this rampage cycle with every release (outside of maybe HW2). People will be mad cause its not what they personally want, they will play it, they will move on. As for a delay, eh I'm fine if it happens, I'm fine if it doesn't. The games multiplayer is ftp and it's on gamepass, if PUBG could thrive (and that was a mess technically) then Halo can as well, especially when the entire multiplayer suite is apparently free to play.
Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
Ah, someone who thinks their opinion is fact, cool. Ya, you are not correcting me. Sprint 100% affects map design but not necessarily fight to fight gameplay (in H5 anyway due to the shield mechanic, in H4 and reach it def did). Sure people run, but they could run in H2 and H3 as well. You could just make the argument it was "harder" to do so.
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
Ya, you could make that argument but it should have been made 8-9 yrs ago, not now.
Quote:
* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.
Here is the thing though, it was not the same between ce-3. H3 mechanically was vastly different from that of H1 and H2 given the inclusion of equipment and projectile-based weapons. From a core functionality standpoint though, they kept the initial player weak so I guess from that viewpoint they were the same. Then reach mucked that up and 343 did what anyone would do with a sequel, iterate on the previous installment, which was reach, not H3. Come H5, it went back on those iterations of 4, but also lost the aspects of 3 that were in 4 (to a minor extent anyway given map equipment was less of a thing).
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
This isn't a war. There are no winners and losers. The franchise is not a living thing, it does not deserve anything. You could make the argument the old school fans (which I am a part of given I've been around since CE) deserve a true sequel to H3 from a gameplay perspective in which near nothing is iterated on and the only thing that changes is the sandbox. I'd be for that. However, I am also a realist and know Halo still has to be mass marketable. Does that mean additions made to the game should everything the competition does? No, that's what H4 was. It does mean Halo needs to be made somewhat appealable to the mass market while also holding onto what makes it Halo. In my eyes, a semi-modern movement system paired with an emphasis on sandbox orientated combat and gameplay does that. Are there issues I have with it? Ya sure, I would prefer the clamber not to be there at all. However, I am not making the game. I am not the only fan. There people who love H4 and H5 gameplay and their opinions mean no less than yours or mine. As a result, the game we get is not going to be the exact game each person envisions, and you know what, that happened with H2 and H3. It's not a new problem and honestly, I don't its a problem at all. Change is good, we just have to see if this iteration is better.
Modod wrote:
sprint and slide is not really an advanced movement. H5 was advanced because of how extreme they all were, especially when paired with thrusting, hover, and ground pound. They all lacked weight which resulted in players catapulting across maps. At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense. So they did what they had to do, dumb down H5s movement system, and reintroduce more sandbox elements from H3.

Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person. For some, it's about the sandbox (something infinite is leaning into), for others its purely a compelling campaign, or fleshed out co-op experience. Hell, and for many its just shooting aliens in the face and tea bagging your friend. There is no universal with Halo no matter how much people claim there is. To me, that looked like Halo and I can look past the polish issues cause it's petty at best to complain about visuals (not artstyle) in a demo. Many reactions online also seem to criticize the game for that fact which I find hilarious. I listened to a podcast where they were like "that looked like halo but I wanted something different."

At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want. Halo has gone through this rampage cycle with every release (outside of maybe HW2). People will be mad cause its not what they personally want, they will play it, they will move on. As for a delay, eh I'm fine if it happens, I'm fine if it doesn't. The games multiplayer is ftp and it's on gamepass, if PUBG could thrive (and that was a mess technically) then Halo can as well, especially when the entire multiplayer suite is apparently free to play.
I think their is a clear set of elements that can be called standard. Seeing as there was 5 games released back to back that reatured them.
Really, I don't think there are given each game changed systems pretty drastically (at least after H2).
Quote:
Also I was satisfied with every bungie game at release even when they weren't exactly what I hoped. The free to play model isn't right just because it's profitable
That's not a point. My point was PUBG was a technical mess but was healthy and successful from a player population perspective. So, if infinite is a technical mess, but possesses a full multiplayer suite (especially forge) and is free to play, I honestly do not think it can fail. Is there a chance? of course, I am not naive. I just don't think the chance is that big. I mean, H5 kept a healthy player base and that launched incomplete and was fully paid for.
xsv wrote:
Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
Ah, someone who thinks their opinion is fact, cool. Ya, you are not correcting me. Sprint 100% affects map design but not necessarily fight to fight gameplay (in H5 anyway due to the shield mechanic, in H4 and reach it def did). Sure people run, but they could run in H2 and H3 as well. You could just make the argument it was "harder" to do so.
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
Ya, you could make that argument but it should have been made 8-9 yrs ago, not now.
Quote:
* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.
Here is the thing though, it was not the same between ce-3. H3 mechanically was vastly different from that of H1 and H2 given the inclusion of equipment and projectile-based weapons. From a core functionality standpoint though, they kept the initial player weak so I guess from that viewpoint they were the same. Then reach mucked that up and 343 did what anyone would do with a sequel, iterate on the previous installment, which was reach, not H3. Come H5, it went back on those iterations of 4, but also lost the aspects of 3 that were in 4 (to a minor extent anyway given map equipment was less of a thing).
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
This isn't a war. There are no winners and losers. The franchise is not a living thing, it does not deserve anything. You could make the argument the old school fans (which I am a part of given I've been around since CE) deserve a true sequel to H3 from a gameplay perspective in which near nothing is iterated on and the only thing that changes is the sandbox. I'd be for that. However, I am also a realist and know Halo still has to be mass marketable. Does that mean additions made to the game should everything the competition does? No, that's what H4 was. It does mean Halo needs to be made somewhat appealable to the mass market while also holding onto what makes it Halo. In my eyes, a semi-modern movement system paired with an emphasis on sandbox orientated combat and gameplay does that. Are there issues I have with it? Ya sure, I would prefer the clamber not to be there at all. However, I am not making the game. I am not the only fan. There people who love H4 and H5 gameplay and their opinions mean no less than yours or mine. As a result, the game we get is not going to be the exact game each person envisions, and you know what, that happened with H2 and H3. It's not a new problem and honestly, I don't its a problem at all. Change is good, we just have to see if this iteration is better.
sprint completely changing the playstyle isnt an opinion, its a fact. Map design as you said so yourself AND individual fights, in every Halo that has sprint you can evade situations you wouldnt in classic Halo games, basically you make a mistake and that mistake is negated with sprint. Makes the game more forgiving, lowers the skillgap, gameplay becomes slower.
As to the rest of your over-analyzed mechanic details, i dont think you really understand the mechanics of classic Halo.
"they kept the initial player weak" huh? i have no idea what you re talking about here, also projectile weapons were a thing from ce to halo 3 (i dont know about reach for sure) but the first three halos all have projectile weapons, there wasnt a single hitscan weapon in there, modders found out some time ago, do look it up.
Lastly, i dont undermine anyones opinion, although (since you mentioned Halo needs to be mass marketable) i urge you to look up the moment Halos playerbase began to steadily drop (and hasnt recovered since), as the realist you say you are, you will find out that it happened with the inclusion of armor abilities, enhanced movement mechanics and the deviation from the classic formula. Change isnt always good...
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics. To me, I prefer the older Halo movement styles because it required more skill, and made you feel skilled when you were doing well in a match. For MP, I think it should be kept with the older mechanics. Clamber is fine to stay there idc. I think what was shown is fine in campaign, since it is an open world and sprint would be more useful.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
Imo (pretty sure I said this on a different post) Halo 3 had the perfect balance of the blood and gore. Not over done, but not diminished to the point it feels very much built for kids. That was one of 5's many mistakes. Plus, if 343 is targeting younger people again, showing that the option is in the game would show parents that it can be M or T and is their choice. But even then, 343 shouldn't worry about the age rating, since really it would be up to a kid's parents to choose if they can play the game or not. Catering to these younger people wasn't a good choice for the rest of the older community.
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
How about that and a new skull that adds even more gore and effects. ? Maybe makes bodies take more time to despawn as well? I miss blood in halo.
Regice554 wrote:
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
How about that and a new skull that adds even more gore and effects. ? Maybe makes bodies take more time to despawn as well? I miss blood in halo.
Well I just miss Halo.
Regice554 wrote:
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
How about that and a new skull that adds even more gore and effects. ? Maybe makes bodies take more time to despawn as well? I miss blood in halo.
Well I just miss Halo.
I mean a new game that looks like halo 2? Because I get my fill from MCC. Not saying it's perfect but i can't deny that it works and is hella fun.
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
Imo (pretty sure I said this on a different post) Halo 3 had the perfect balance of the blood and gore. Not over done, but not diminished to the point it feels very much built for kids. That was one of 5's many mistakes. Plus, if 343 is targeting younger people again, showing that the option is in the game would show parents that it can be M or T and is their choice. But even then, 343 shouldn't worry about the age rating, since really it would be up to a kid's parents to choose if they can play the game or not. Catering to these younger people wasn't a good choice for the rest of the older community.
It would still be rated as if gore was on by default since there's no T&C with the ratings. There's no "T with an optional M" rating. Parents aren't going to look for detailed information online about whether or not Infinite allows you to toggle the gore on or off. As far as they're concerned, their kid just wants some game called Halo and it has to be the new one.

If they're targeting teens and they believe the age rating is important for that, there's no point adding a gore filter at all. That said I have no idea why it matters at all since CoD is 18+ and half the fanbase are probably 12.
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
The flood is in the first trailer btw. At the start, if you look to the bottom left as the camera pans up out of the cave, you can clearly see a flood infection form's tentacle move.
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Well I certainly wasn't one of them while halo 3 has my personal favourite art style I always liked reach felt like a higher fidelity ce to me.
Modod wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Well I certainly wasn't one of them while halo 3 has my personal favourite art style I always liked reach felt like a higher fidelity ce to me.
Yeah I really enjoyed Reach as well. That and 3 were the first games I played on the 360 so I probably have a little bias towards them. It was just annoying constantly hearing about how Reach had destroyed the franchise and Bungie lost their way and Halo was doomed, etc etc.
Raz Raptre wrote:
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
Imo (pretty sure I said this on a different post) Halo 3 had the perfect balance of the blood and gore. Not over done, but not diminished to the point it feels very much built for kids. That was one of 5's many mistakes. Plus, if 343 is targeting younger people again, showing that the option is in the game would show parents that it can be M or T and is their choice. But even then, 343 shouldn't worry about the age rating, since really it would be up to a kid's parents to choose if they can play the game or not. Catering to these younger people wasn't a good choice for the rest of the older community.
It would still be rated as if gore was on by default since there's no T&C with the ratings. There's no "T with an optional M" rating. Parents aren't going to look for detailed information online about whether or not Infinite allows you to toggle the gore on or off. As far as they're concerned, their kid just wants some game called Halo and it has to be the new one.

If they're targeting teens and they believe the age rating is important for that, there's no point adding a gore filter at all. That said I have no idea why it matters at all since CoD is 18+ and half the fanbase are probably 12.
That's where I think Halo 5 went wrong. It targeted younger kids, even though most today play CoD games anyway. Would you rather have a watered down Halo 5 style again, or the more gritty/bloody Halo 3 style? Imo, I would go with 3's style.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Well I certainly wasn't one of them while halo 3 has my personal favourite art style I always liked reach felt like a higher fidelity ce to me.
Yeah I really enjoyed Reach as well. That and 3 were the first games I played on the 360 so I probably have a little bias towards them. It was just annoying constantly hearing about how Reach had destroyed the franchise and Bungie lost their way and Halo was doomed, etc etc.
Or perhaps it's an example how how players entering the franchise with the newer games can still be fans and find ways to enjoy the games regardless of changes? No need to gatekeep.
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Well I certainly wasn't one of them while halo 3 has my personal favourite art style I always liked reach felt like a higher fidelity ce to me.
Yeah I really enjoyed Reach as well. That and 3 were the first games I played on the 360 so I probably have a little bias towards them. It was just annoying constantly hearing about how Reach had destroyed the franchise and Bungie lost their way and Halo was doomed, etc etc.
Or perhaps it's an example how how players entering the franchise with the newer games can still be fans and find ways to enjoy the games regardless of changes? No need to gatekeep.
Halo: Reach is by far one of the better Halo games. For the day the graphics were top notch and the gameplay was extremely fun. It also had the Sabre mission. First space fight with fighters scenario. It innovated.
xsv wrote:
xsv wrote:
Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
Ah, someone who thinks their opinion is fact, cool. Ya, you are not correcting me. Sprint 100% affects map design but not necessarily fight to fight gameplay (in H5 anyway due to the shield mechanic, in H4 and reach it def did). Sure people run, but they could run in H2 and H3 as well. You could just make the argument it was "harder" to do so.
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
Ya, you could make that argument but it should have been made 8-9 yrs ago, not now.
Quote:
* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.
Here is the thing though, it was not the same between ce-3. H3 mechanically was vastly different from that of H1 and H2 given the inclusion of equipment and projectile-based weapons. From a core functionality standpoint though, they kept the initial player weak so I guess from that viewpoint they were the same. Then reach mucked that up and 343 did what anyone would do with a sequel, iterate on the previous installment, which was reach, not H3. Come H5, it went back on those iterations of 4, but also lost the aspects of 3 that were in 4 (to a minor extent anyway given map equipment was less of a thing).
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
This isn't a war. There are no winners and losers. The franchise is not a living thing, it does not deserve anything. You could make the argument the old school fans (which I am a part of given I've been around since CE) deserve a true sequel to H3 from a gameplay perspective in which near nothing is iterated on and the only thing that changes is the sandbox. I'd be for that. However, I am also a realist and know Halo still has to be mass marketable. Does that mean additions made to the game should everything the competition does? No, that's what H4 was. It does mean Halo needs to be made somewhat appealable to the mass market while also holding onto what makes it Halo. In my eyes, a semi-modern movement system paired with an emphasis on sandbox orientated combat and gameplay does that. Are there issues I have with it? Ya sure, I would prefer the clamber not to be there at all. However, I am not making the game. I am not the only fan. There people who love H4 and H5 gameplay and their opinions mean no less than yours or mine. As a result, the game we get is not going to be the exact game each person envisions, and you know what, that happened with H2 and H3. It's not a new problem and honestly, I don't its a problem at all. Change is good, we just have to see if this iteration is better.
sprint completely changing the playstyle isnt an opinion, its a fact. Map design as you said so yourself AND individual fights, in every Halo that has sprint you can evade situations you wouldnt in classic Halo games, basically you make a mistake and that mistake is negated with sprint. Makes the game more forgiving, lowers the skillgap, gameplay becomes slower.
As to the rest of your over-analyzed mechanic details, i dont think you really understand the mechanics of classic Halo.
"they kept the initial player weak" huh? i have no idea what you re talking about here, also projectile weapons were a thing from ce to halo 3 (i dont know about reach for sure) but the first three halos all have projectile weapons, there wasnt a single hitscan weapon in there, modders found out some time ago, do look it up.
Lastly, i dont undermine anyones opinion, although (since you mentioned Halo needs to be mass marketable) i urge you to look up the moment Halos playerbase began to steadily drop (and hasnt recovered since), as the realist you say you are, you will find out that it happened with the inclusion of armor abilities, enhanced movement mechanics and the deviation from the classic formula. Change isnt always good...
1. How exactly is playstyle not an opinion. Don't different people have different playstyles? Lots of Halo YouTubers have done videos analyzing whether the skill gap has shrunk, got bigger, or just moved slightly along the spectrum. If you spend enough time playing a game, you will learn tricks and movements that give you an edge over other people. From what I think of Halo, the concepts of teamwork, map control, and power weapon control are all attributable to Halo 5.
2. There is no definitive proof that Halo's popularity and retention struggles can be attributed to the change in mechanics. At best, it is a large part of multiple other factors, and therefore, best not to be used in an argument. Someone could easily say a Bungie made Halo would have ended up like Destiny, or could say that a classic-mechanic Halo wouldve sold less than the newer ones did. No way to prove whether anyone is right or not.
Raz Raptre wrote:
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
Movement could be tweaked depending on feedback... Haven't heard an insane amount on it unlike graphics.

Halo started with the blood effects and environment splatters (including flood gore), so it could finish with it. Even an option to toggle those things on and off would be better for many fans (the younger vs the more mature audiences).
Indeed. I don't understand why there could not be a gore intensity option. For us who like lots of blood a decent max gore intensity setting and for those who dislike it an option to disable.
Imo (pretty sure I said this on a different post) Halo 3 had the perfect balance of the blood and gore. Not over done, but not diminished to the point it feels very much built for kids. That was one of 5's many mistakes. Plus, if 343 is targeting younger people again, showing that the option is in the game would show parents that it can be M or T and is their choice. But even then, 343 shouldn't worry about the age rating, since really it would be up to a kid's parents to choose if they can play the game or not. Catering to these younger people wasn't a good choice for the rest of the older community.
It would still be rated as if gore was on by default since there's no T&C with the ratings. There's no "T with an optional M" rating. Parents aren't going to look for detailed information online about whether or not Infinite allows you to toggle the gore on or off. As far as they're concerned, their kid just wants some game called Halo and it has to be the new one.

If they're targeting teens and they believe the age rating is important for that, there's no point adding a gore filter at all. That said I have no idea why it matters at all since CoD is 18+ and half the fanbase are probably 12.
It's trying to appease the Chinese market, they made a china patch to all the mcc games purely to reduce blood splatter.
It's economics pure and simple.
xsv wrote:
xsv wrote:
Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
Ah, someone who thinks their opinion is fact, cool. Ya, you are not correcting me. Sprint 100% affects map design but not necessarily fight to fight gameplay (in H5 anyway due to the shield mechanic, in H4 and reach it def did). Sure people run, but they could run in H2 and H3 as well. You could just make the argument it was "harder" to do so.
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
Ya, you could make that argument but it should have been made 8-9 yrs ago, not now.
Quote:
* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.
Here is the thing though, it was not the same between ce-3. H3 mechanically was vastly different from that of H1 and H2 given the inclusion of equipment and projectile-based weapons. From a core functionality standpoint though, they kept the initial player weak so I guess from that viewpoint they were the same. Then reach mucked that up and 343 did what anyone would do with a sequel, iterate on the previous installment, which was reach, not H3. Come H5, it went back on those iterations of 4, but also lost the aspects of 3 that were in 4 (to a minor extent anyway given map equipment was less of a thing).
Quote:
* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
This isn't a war. There are no winners and losers. The franchise is not a living thing, it does not deserve anything. You could make the argument the old school fans (which I am a part of given I've been around since CE) deserve a true sequel to H3 from a gameplay perspective in which near nothing is iterated on and the only thing that changes is the sandbox. I'd be for that. However, I am also a realist and know Halo still has to be mass marketable. Does that mean additions made to the game should everything the competition does? No, that's what H4 was. It does mean Halo needs to be made somewhat appealable to the mass market while also holding onto what makes it Halo. In my eyes, a semi-modern movement system paired with an emphasis on sandbox orientated combat and gameplay does that. Are there issues I have with it? Ya sure, I would prefer the clamber not to be there at all. However, I am not making the game. I am not the only fan. There people who love H4 and H5 gameplay and their opinions mean no less than yours or mine. As a result, the game we get is not going to be the exact game each person envisions, and you know what, that happened with H2 and H3. It's not a new problem and honestly, I don't its a problem at all. Change is good, we just have to see if this iteration is better.
sprint completely changing the playstyle isnt an opinion, its a fact. Map design as you said so yourself AND individual fights, in every Halo that has sprint you can evade situations you wouldnt in classic Halo games, basically you make a mistake and that mistake is negated with sprint. Makes the game more forgiving, lowers the skillgap, gameplay becomes slower.
As to the rest of your over-analyzed mechanic details, i dont think you really understand the mechanics of classic Halo.
"they kept the initial player weak" huh? i have no idea what you re talking about here, also projectile weapons were a thing from ce to halo 3 (i dont know about reach for sure) but the first three halos all have projectile weapons, there wasnt a single hitscan weapon in there, modders found out some time ago, do look it up.
Lastly, i dont undermine anyones opinion, although (since you mentioned Halo needs to be mass marketable) i urge you to look up the moment Halos playerbase began to steadily drop (and hasnt recovered since), as the realist you say you are, you will find out that it happened with the inclusion of armor abilities, enhanced movement mechanics and the deviation from the classic formula. Change isnt always good...
1. How exactly is playstyle not an opinion. Don't different people have different playstyles? Lots of Halo YouTubers have done videos analyzing whether the skill gap has shrunk, got bigger, or just moved slightly along the spectrum. If you spend enough time playing a game, you will learn tricks and movements that give you an edge over other people. From what I think of Halo, the concepts of teamwork, map control, and power weapon control are all attributable to Halo 5.
2. There is no definitive proof that Halo's popularity and retention struggles can be attributed to the change in mechanics. At best, it is a large part of multiple other factors, and therefore, best not to be used in an argument. Someone could easily say a Bungie made Halo would have ended up like Destiny, or could say that a classic-mechanic Halo wouldve sold less than the newer ones did. No way to prove whether anyone is right or not.
1. by playstyle im talking about how the game plays out due to mechanics etc, not how each player likes to play. Yes, theres teamwork on Halo 5, only its not as important as previous Halos, and to me thats a downgrade. Map control goes out the window with the enhanced mobility.
2. There IS definitive proof. I dont know how old you are, but i can tell you back in the day, Halo was huge, you have no idea how huge, more people played it, more people knew about it, more people talked about it, more devs wanted their games to be like it. When i come across the monitor that has the playerbase stats for every Halo i will pm you.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5