Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo infinite looks lost

OP Modod

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
There will always be people who want a H3 2.0 this would never happen not even if Bungie were developing Halo. Every Halo will have fans and critics after all you cant please everybody. What's important is that Infinite has what H5 lacked and that was immersion. While multiplayer was enjoyable and added some new interesting features it got stale very quickly. For me they should take the best bits from Halo and put that Infinite.
xsv wrote:
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. Except that someone could say teamwork is more important due to other players being able to dodge more effectively. Better use some teamwork to kill a player rather than leave him be to regain shields and come back.

Also, how does enhanced mobility change map control? Map control and power weapon control are linked together fairly well. The way you traverse the map is different, but the actual important points of the map remain the same.

2. Tsassi is the name of the monitor with a fantastic catalogue of all known Halo population data. In the data itself, Tsassi mentions how A) it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions of why Halos popularity fell, only that it did and B) Halos population retention actually began to dip with Halo 3 (which contradicts an earlier point about it being exclusively because of armor abilities from Reach)

I dont need anyone telling me how big Halo was back in the day. I was there, buying the books and playing the games. I just happen to have the belief that Halo is a function of the time period it launched it, and what it was in relation to the rest of the industry at that time.
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members. This includes stat-flaming.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
It is most definitely not that simple. There are many more factors you haven't considered.
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
Since Halo 3, Call of Duty has become a global powerhouse. The loss in Halo players lines up nicely with an uptick in Call of Duty players. So its fair for me to say they all went to Call of Duty.

Of course, I dont actually believe that without context. But Occams razor isn't some foolproof ideal. Its a theory best suited for scientific hypothesis, and the closest that we have to that is Tsassi's population charts.

Also somehow manages to skip over the fact that the population chart we are speaking of shows retention STARTED to dip with Halo 3, not with Reach. It was already on a downward trend when Reach released. I guess we should blame it on equipment then?
xsv wrote:
xsv wrote:
1. there is a fine line between teamwork and a game of cat and mouse

How does enhanced mobility change map control? If you go from base to base in 7 seconds or less, you cant maintain map control. I will you 3 maps i consider good in h5: coliseum, plaza and fathom yet all 3 of them play poorly with enhanced mobility, on ctf variants its like a race of who will cap the quickest, teamwork and strategies are nullified. On fathom you can clamber to top mid in 2 seconds, you dont ever have to go all the way from tree.

a) its impossible to draw any definitive conclusion... plain wrong. Halo had nothing unique to offer with the addition of abilities. Generic scifi shooter with the name Halo is what we re getting ever since.
b) im laughing right now

''I dont need anyone telling me how big Halo was back in the day. I was there, buying the books and playing the games.'' you dont have that much gametime on classic Halos :)
1. The point you are making is one of the parts I mentioned earlier. As you play more, you learn tips and tricks that give you a competitive edge.

Your Fathom example is perfect, as only someone who has seen others do the jumps to clamber mid without going tree are the ones who can get there faster. Which just happens to have a perfect shot at enemy base, and is a "power weapon" spot for camo.

With teamwork, there's less of a chance for cat and mouse. People move around a lot, so use call outs. They are provided to you in the game. If you are top mid on Fathom and putting pressure on base, there aren't many places to hide. Hence, the emphasis on teamwork. Not saying the game is any better or worse than classic Halos, but they contain the same fundamentals. Equal starts, map and weapon control, teamwork. Something Reach and 4 sorely lacked.

2. This doesn't add anything new to the argument. Again, there is no definitive proof to why Halos population declined. We all have our theories, they all have many assumptions, and they are probably all partially true/untrue. Laugh all you want.

B) I didn't know we were gatekeeping people based on stats. I figured my cousins and I lining up for Halo 3s midnight launch, playing co-op campaign and reading through the lore was enough to justify being a fan, but you're right, I should've spent more time online to prove to all the gatekeepers that I'm a real fan!!! /s

Nothing worse than an entitled gatekeeper. As if the franchise owes you something. Community seems to be full of them nowadays, and then everyone wonders why no one is playing Halo.
xsv wrote:
1. The point you are making is one of the parts I mentioned earlier. As you play more, you learn tips and tricks that give you a competitive edge.

Your Fathom example is perfect, as only someone who has seen others do the jumps to clamber mid without going tree are the ones who can get there faster. Which just happens to have a perfect shot at enemy base, and is a "power weapon" spot for camo.

With teamwork, there's less of a chance for cat and mouse. People move around a lot, so use call outs. They are provided to you in the game. If you are top mid on Fathom and putting pressure on base, there aren't many places to hide. Hence, the emphasis on teamwork. Not saying the game is any better or worse than classic Halos, but they contain the same fundamentals. Equal starts, map and weapon control, teamwork. Something Reach and 4 sorely lacked.

2. This doesn't add anything new to the argument. Again, there is no definitive proof to why Halos population declined. We all have our theories, they all have many assumptions, and they are probably all partially true/untrue. Laugh all you want.

B) I didn't know we were gatekeeping people based on stats. I figured my cousins and I lining up for Halo 3s midnight launch, playing co-op campaign and reading through the lore was enough to justify being a fan, but you're right, I should've spent more time online to prove to all the gatekeepers that I'm a real fan!!! /s

Nothing worse than an entitled gatekeeper. As if the franchise owes you something. Community seems to be full of them nowadays, and then everyone wonders why no one is playing Halo.
ok you got me, you re absolutely correct, your knowledge on the game far exceeds mine, cant believe i didnt see it before
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
Since Halo 3, Call of Duty has become a global powerhouse. The loss in Halo players lines up nicely with an uptick in Call of Duty players. So its fair for me to say they all went to Call of Duty.

Of course, I dont actually believe that without context. But Occams razor isn't some foolproof ideal. Its a theory best suited for scientific hypothesis, and the closest that we have to that is Tsassi's population charts.

Also somehow manages to skip over the fact that the population chart we are speaking of shows retention STARTED to dip with Halo 3, not with Reach. It was already on a downward trend when Reach released. I guess we should blame it on equipment then?
That's normal for any video game. Halo 3's population decreased at the end of it's life cycle and that's normal for any game. Once there are no more updates to a game, a lot of people are going to play something else. Saying the population eventually dipped towards the end of the life cycle years later means nothing. Halo 3 was over and reach was coming out. Halo 3 still had the highest population of any halo game.
People left halo to play newer games like call of duty because halo reach didn't appeal to them. Starting with Reach, Halo wasn't as unique or different compared to other shooters.
Halo 3 also had a lot of competition back when it was out and still was on top against call of duty, battlefield, and gears of war. Call of duty released 3 games in the time halo 3 was out, before reach. I think the Act Man has a video on it.
There will always be people who want a H3 2.0 this would never happen not even if Bungie were developing Halo. Every Halo will have fans and critics after all you cant please everybody. What's important is that Infinite has what H5 lacked and that was immersion. While multiplayer was enjoyable and added some new interesting features it got stale very quickly. For me they should take the best bits from Halo and put that Infinite.
I don't understand. Halo 5 despite its flaws was the most immersice campaign with excellent work on helmet interior in campaign this has none of that and looks crazy unpolished
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
Since Halo 3, Call of Duty has become a global powerhouse. The loss in Halo players lines up nicely with an uptick in Call of Duty players. So its fair for me to say they all went to Call of Duty.
That's not actually a contradiction.
Back in the day when both franchises offered different experiences, people were able to play both of them to scratch different itches in their gaming preferences.
Ever since both franchises became increasingly like one another (and yes, CoD also took from Halo, this is not just a one-sided process), there was no longer a need to get both types of games, because they provide similar experiences, so you pick one of them and stick to it. This saves on money and you achieve more progress in one game than splitting your play time across multiple titles.
Modod wrote:
I don't understand. Halo 5 despite its flaws was the most immersice campaign with excellent work on helmet interior in campaign this has none of that and looks crazy unpolished
I actually hated that part about H5G. I don't mind the HUD mimicking the spartan's helmet, but especially Locke's HUD cut off so much space because it had to show the same shape as the helmet.
This was one of the very few things in Infinite's trailer that I liked: The HUD (despite having its elements rearranged) once again being non-intrusive.
Immersion should never hamper the player. *hint*hint*
Celestis wrote:
Modod wrote:
I don't understand. Halo 5 despite its flaws was the most immersice campaign with excellent work on helmet interior in campaign this has none of that and looks crazy unpolished
I actually hated that part about H5G. I don't mind the HUD mimicking the spartan's helmet, but especially Locke's HUD cut off so much space because it had to show the same shape as the helmet.
This was one of the very few things in Infinite's trailer that I liked: The HUD (despite having its elements rearranged) once again being non-intrusive.
Immersion should never hamper the player. *hint*hint*
Ya sure immersion can have negative effects on practical features but trying to say the bare hud of infinite is remotely as immerisive as halo 4 or 5 is ludicrous.
Your preference doesn't really make one more immerisive over the other. one actually feels like wearing a Spartans helmet and is immersion based the other is practically based and foregoes any sense of inhabiting a set of mjolnir. Perhaps immersion isn't the correct phrasing for the poi t your making? It certainly doesn't appear to be correct from reading the comments.
Celestis wrote:
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
Since Halo 3, Call of Duty has become a global powerhouse. The loss in Halo players lines up nicely with an uptick in Call of Duty players. So its fair for me to say they all went to Call of Duty.
That's not actually a contradiction.
Back in the day when both franchises offered different experiences, people were able to play both of them to scratch different itches in their gaming preferences.
Ever since both franchises became increasingly like one another (and yes, CoD also took from Halo, this is not just a one-sided process), there was no longer a need to get both types of games, because they provide similar experiences, so you pick one of them and stick to it. This saves on money and you achieve more progress in one game than splitting your play time across multiple titles.
I'm not sure I believe CoD players who want their Halo fix think they can get it in Call of Duty. The games are still fundamentally different in many ways (equal starts, on map pick ups, TTK, Aim Assist/ADS/Descope, health/shield system). Quick edit: I also don't think that Halo players who prefer a classic Halo would just go full cold turkey and play Call of Duty. Outside the fundamental gameplay differences, how can classic Halo fans want a game without sprinting, clamber, ADS, etc, and then turn around and play THE game that contains all of that?

All I'm trying to get across in the forum is that its not so simple as "Halo Reach was different, so people left Halo". We have no real idea why people left. Maybe CoD appeals more to your everyday gamer, maybe online gamers moved away to Playstation. Maybe every Halo player was like "this doesnt feel like Halo" and left. I just think it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that's possible. You have an aging fan base, a rise in military type sims and then also a whole host of new FPS games to play.

All I can say is

1) As many faults as Halo has, I'm glad it hasnt turned into Mass Effect, Splinter Cell, or Bioshock. At least we get new Halo games. Love them or not, at least some people still get to enjoy a franchise they love.

2) The sheer number of household franchises that got their start or big break on the HD consoles is staggering. Looking at lists for best selling games for 2005-2006 and then 2007-2008 shows just how many new experiences console received. Halo had already had its big break. Halo 3 competition is a entirely different argument, but it plays a part as well.
knick93 wrote:
knick93 wrote:
The simplest answer is usually correct. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo. It was the last classic halo game. It's safe to say sprint and abilities caused the declining population. 343 won't give the population numbers of their games because they don't want people to know how low they are.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways.
Since Halo 3, Call of Duty has become a global powerhouse. The loss in Halo players lines up nicely with an uptick in Call of Duty players. So its fair for me to say they all went to Call of Duty.

Of course, I dont actually believe that without context. But Occams razor isn't some foolproof ideal. Its a theory best suited for scientific hypothesis, and the closest that we have to that is Tsassi's population charts.

Also somehow manages to skip over the fact that the population chart we are speaking of shows retention STARTED to dip with Halo 3, not with Reach. It was already on a downward trend when Reach released. I guess we should blame it on equipment then?
That's normal for any video game. Halo 3's population decreased at the end of it's life cycle and that's normal for any game. Once there are no more updates to a game, a lot of people are going to play something else. Saying the population eventually dipped towards the end of the life cycle years later means nothing. Halo 3 was over and reach was coming out. Halo 3 still had the highest population of any halo game.
People left halo to play newer games like call of duty because halo reach didn't appeal to them. Starting with Reach, Halo wasn't as unique or different compared to other shooters.
Halo 3 also had a lot of competition back when it was out and still was on top against call of duty, battlefield, and gears of war. Call of duty released 3 games in the time halo 3 was out, before reach. I think the Act Man has a video on it.
Here is a quote, from Monitor Tsassi's population database.

"Whereas Halo 2 kept growing for the first three months of its life, Halo 3 starts off high, at 1,492,078 unique players in 24 hours on 27th of September, but then begins a steep decrease, until by November 12th the 24 hour uu counts have fallen two thirds of what they were at launch"

"When we consider its population retention ability, one cannot deny that relative to its highs, it (Halo 3) lost players at a faster rate than Halo 2"

You cant say why people left Halo 3. Unfortunately, I wish we had all the answers, but you aren't in the mind of the average gamer. Like I mentioned earlier, maybe the modernized Call of Duty appealed more to people. Maybe someone who loved Sci-Fi decided to give Mass Effect 2 a shot, since the first game had high praise. Maybe they hated Halo 3's equipment and left. We dont knoww. Halo is still very unique compared to other shooters, namely with the following: TTK, equal starts, map pick ups, health/shield system, etc.

Act Mans video is why I'm trying to make this point. Depending on what side of the argument you fall on, you use certain things to make your point. If you dislike new Halo, then the reason for its drop in popularity is "People didnt like Reach and 4 and they left, and 343 games are copies so until they make a classic one no one will come back". If you like the new games, then the argument is "Bungie wouldve turned this game into Destiny if there wasnt a 343, and the classic Halo games would be DOA if they launched today, didnt have a lot of competition". Both camps are partly wrong, and partly right. I reason its a bit of both, the non-hardcore Halo fans leaving to go play something more accessible and understandable in Call of Duty or Battlefield, and then some of the core audience being turned off completely by Halo Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5. I cant say definitively which one is more likely, but I have my theories.

Also, just to point out, the competition you refer to is Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and Call of Duty 3. Halo 2 largely outshines both of those. Once Call of Duty 4 releases, people start to take notice, and the series gets its big break. This is while Halo 3 is being the biggest thing in gaming. Its not really competition if one guy is playing college ball and the other is in the NBA. Once they get to the same playing field, thats when it gets interesting. The timeline is that CoD was not as popular (Call of Duty 3) as Halo before Halo 3, and then equaled (Call of Duty 4) and surpassed (Modern Warfare 2) Halo's popularity all within Halo 3s lifetime. Of course, 3 separate games were released before Reach hit shelves, but those are the numbers.
Modod wrote:
There will always be people who want a H3 2.0 this would never happen not even if Bungie were developing Halo. Every Halo will have fans and critics after all you cant please everybody. What's important is that Infinite has what H5 lacked and that was immersion. While multiplayer was enjoyable and added some new interesting features it got stale very quickly. For me they should take the best bits from Halo and put that Infinite.
I don't understand. Halo 5 despite its flaws was the most immersice campaign with excellent work on helmet interior in campaign this has none of that and looks crazy unpolished
I should of clarified I meant in regards to the storyline. I never felt it really 'gripped' me more that I was a bystander which essentially you are especially in regards to the Locke missions. The battle of Sanghelios springs to mind. But I agree about the helmet interior aspect and hope it's something they add to not just Infinites campaign but its multiplayer also.
I'm not sure I believe CoD players who want their Halo fix think they can get it in Call of Duty.
They don't, and I never said they did.
But they don't get it from Halo anymore either, so what's the point of buying/playing both games if you're essentially getting the same thing?

Outside the fundamental gameplay differences, how can classic Halo fans want a game without sprinting, clamber, ADS, etc, and then turn around and play THE game that contains all of that?
You can enjoy both things for different reasons.
I love Battlefield. But I would never want Halo (or any other franchise) to become Battlefield. That would just rob me of the opportunity to play [Other Franchise] when I get in the mood for that.
Furthermore, if you have two products that do the same thing, you might as well stick with the one who does it better.

I just think it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that's possible. You have an aging fan base, a rise in military type sims and then also a whole host of new FPS games to play.
Fair enough. Just the same, I think it's disingenuous not to look at the major gameplay changes that existed in all games that underperformed and none of the prior ones and completely disregard them.

That's why I've always said, 343 should have just made a classic Halo, a spinoff if necessary, just to gauge the interest.
Modod wrote:
Ya sure immersion can have negative effects on practical features but trying to say the bare hud of infinite is remotely as immerisive as halo 4 or 5 is ludicrous.
Your preference doesn't really make one more immerisive over the other. one actually feels like wearing a Spartans helmet and is immersion based the other is practically based and foregoes any sense of inhabiting a set of mjolnir. Perhaps immersion isn't the correct phrasing for the poi t your making? It certainly doesn't appear to be correct from reading the comments.
I think you have me confused with the person who actually made the claim about Infinite being more immersive in the first place. Which, granted, is actually my fault for removing that part of the quote. I just usually do that so it is clear which part of the post I'm replying to in particular.
Celestis wrote:
I'm not sure I believe CoD players who want their Halo fix think they can get it in Call of Duty.
They don't, and I never said they did.
But they don't get it from Halo anymore either, so what's the point of buying/playing both games if you're essentially getting the same thing?

Outside the fundamental gameplay differences, how can classic Halo fans want a game without sprinting, clamber, ADS, etc, and then turn around and play THE game that contains all of that?
You can enjoy both things for different reasons.
I love Battlefield. But I would never want Halo (or any other franchise) to become Battlefield. That would just rob me of the opportunity to play [Other Franchise] when I get in the mood for that.
Furthermore, if you have two products that do the same thing, you might as well stick with the one who does it better.

I just think it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that's possible. You have an aging fan base, a rise in military type sims and then also a whole host of new FPS games to play.
Fair enough. Just the same, I think it's disingenuous not to look at the major gameplay changes that existed in all games that underperformed and none of the prior ones and completely disregard them.

That's why I've always said, 343 should have just made a classic Halo, a spinoff if necessary, just to gauge the interest.
My point was that if classic Halo is the gameplay style you enjoy most, by and large the closest you get to that is Doom and Halo 5. If you want only classic Halo and not "the next best thing" then yes, going cold turkey works. Same goes from a campaign perspective, because I can see thats your primary interest. A long interconnected story or broken up individual ones, but if the long story loses you, then the game is pointless. I dont think a lot of time and effort goes into the Call of Duty campaigns, and I've only enjoyed one (Black Ops 1).

There's a fine line between having similar features (sprint and clamber) and being the same. While Halo has taken some cues from other games (and vice versa, which doesn't help), i think the average gamer isn't going to say that Halo feels like the other FPS games out there. In fact, Halo, Modern Warfare, and Battlefield really all have their own feel. It's the games like Titanfall and Destiny that start blurring the lines.

I do agree with the concept of a classic Halo to gauge interest, but i doubt it happens. For anything else, just to settle these debates. If its a spinoff, the prime argument will become it didnt get enough dedication/resources to be a true sequel to classic Halo. From there, it devolves into a resource allocation question for what is basically a test game, because you'd need to devote time to create a proper one. 343 can look around the industry and find enough "justification" for a reason not to make one. I wish we could get one, but I don't see it happening.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5