Halo infinite looks lost

Porcin3 Proph3t 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.

though technically you can move quicker in 5, infinite allows quicker changes of direction. in 5 you had to sprint for a second before sliding which is like an eternity so slide rarely got used in battle. thruster could only be used every 4 seconds which is like an eternity and when using it, it flung you across the map. infinite allows slide instantly when sprinting and you can slide left and right like a thruster but you can stop the movement. it looks like we can sprint and slide as much as we want. the only drawback is we cant sprint and slide while taking damage which seems fair

harithavaraj wrote:

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.

Uh... no. H5G is the farthest away from Classic Halo the franchise has ever been. Even Halo 4 had more similarities, as it didn't have ADS, you only had one ability at a time instead of half a dozen, and none of them were as broken as Spartan charge or as restrictive as clamber, sprint wasn't infinite, etc.

harithavaraj wrote:

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.

Alright, so don't make it a spinoff. Make it a proper sequel. It's not as if this would be more of a risk than any other game they made or are making. Hell, if anything it is less so, because having every "modern" Halo underperform only makes it more risky to just continue in that direction. One would think that making a game similar to those that have all been smash hits would be a no-brainer... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

knick93 wrote:

harithavaraj wrote:

knick93 wrote:

harithavaraj 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?

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If halo 3 did loose some players after the first month or so. It doesn't matter. Halo 3 still had the highest population of any halo. Not everyone who buys a game and tries it out is going to religiously play the game. That's normal for video games. Halo 3 never had a major drop off in players, that resulted in a low population. Halos after halo 3 have had major drops in population that caused a low population. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo and trying to distort the data isn't going to change that.
Your quote talks about a drop in population for the game halo 3. Even with the initial drop in population you mentioned, halo 3 still has a higher population than any other halo. Therefore it's not possible for halo 3 to be the cause of the future halo games' declining population, since HALO 3 IS THE PEAK of population in the halo series. Think of it like a line graph of all halo games. You look at the population of all halo games as a whole, halo 3 is at the peak with the highest population. All the games after halo 3 decline and have lower populations throughout those games' lifecycles.

It's cool if you like halo with abilities more, but there's no denying that copying other games and adding abilities to halo have caused the declining population. Halo 3 had the highest population and was the last classic halo game.

That's not the competition I was referring to. I wasn't talking about the Call of Duty games during halo 2. I was talking about the Call of Duty games during Halo 3, which were very popular. Modern Warfare (2007), World at War (2008), Modern Warefare 2 (2009). Those games and a lot of other shooters were huge competition with halo 3 not halo 2.

Retention is relative. There is no distortion of data.... Halo 3 lost 2/3s of its population within 2 months. Is that not a bad sign of games to follow? Why did those players leave so soon? Was there, perhaps, another game that seemed more interesting to them (Call of Duty 4, the first blockbuster Call of Duty?). Luckily, Halo 3 had already built up a significant population at launch due to a number of factors (Halo 2 cliffhanger ending, Halo essentially being the premiere console FPS/online matchmaking, end of a trilogy). In the end, it still lost a ton of players. You keep mentioning graphs and population charts, but these charts as well as context around it, is all available on Tsassi's forum signature. Give it a read.

Correlation does not mean causation. Im not denying that copying other game is part of the cause in declining population. I am simply trying to explain that it is much more than that.

When Halo 3 released, the currently available Call of Duty and Battlefield games were Call of Duty 3 and BF2: Modern Combat. I mentioned them to give you some context into what those series were like before 2007. Ask yourself if the first game in a blockbuster franchise has ever been the most successful? Of the franchises that had games launched on Xbox in 2007 (Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Mass Effect, to some degree even Call of Duty only became a blockbuster franchise after 2007), only Halo had really been established. Why is your average gamer going to spend money on some games he's never heard of over Halo 3? Fast forward 2 years, Modern Warfare 2 is the biggest game on the planet, Assassin's Creed/Mass Effect are getting/launching sequels, and obviously, but "new Halo" has come out yet to "ruin the franchise". Can you not see how this might affect the amount of people who would buy/play Halo going forward?

harithavaraj wrote:

knick93 wrote:

harithavaraj wrote:

knick93 wrote:

harithavaraj 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?

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If halo 3 did loose some players after the first month or so. It doesn't matter. Halo 3 still had the highest population of any halo. Not everyone who buys a game and tries it out is going to religiously play the game. That's normal for video games. Halo 3 never had a major drop off in players, that resulted in a low population. Halos after halo 3 have had major drops in population that caused a low population. Halo 3 had the highest population of any halo and trying to distort the data isn't going to change that.

Retention is relative. There is no distortion of data.... Halo 3 lost 2/3s of its population within 2 months. Is that not a bad sign of games to follow? Why did those players leave so soon? Was there, perhaps, another game that seemed more interesting to them (Call of Duty 4, the first blockbuster Call of Duty?). Luckily, Halo 3 had already built up a significant population at launch due to a number of factors (Halo 2 cliffhanger ending, Halo essentially being the premiere console FPS/online matchmaking, end of a trilogy). In the end, it still lost a ton of players. You keep mentioning graphs and population charts, but these charts as well as context around it, is all available on Tsassi's forum signature. Give it a read.

Correlation does not mean causation. Im not denying that copying other game is part of the cause in declining population. I am simply trying to explain that it is much more than that.

Halo 3 despite losing some matchmaking players after the first couple months, still had the highest multiplayer population of any halo title.

^ that sentence summarizes it for you.

In a previous post of yours, you tried to say that halo 3 caused the decline of halo multiplayer population. Your point was proven wrong. Halo 3 despite losing some players (who could have been new players just trying the game for the first couple months), still had the highest population of any halo title. The major long lasting decline in halo population occurred starting with halo reach and continued with halo 4 and 5.

You said "Halo 3 lost 2/3s of its population within 2 months. Is that not a bad sign of games to follow?" No, it's not considering Halo 3 still had over a million players and the highest population of any halo game. You have to look at the big picture. Halo 3 had the highest population and was the most successful the franchise ever was. I would be worried to see what the population data looks like from halo 4 and 5.

Call of Duty 3 wasn't as successful as the COD games that followed. Just like like halo 2 wasn't as successful as Halo 3. Both franchises grew. Saying Halo 3 didn't have competition is incorrect. Like I said before. Call of Duty released 3 games during the time Halo 3 was out, COD was majorly successful and was a major competitior of halo 3. Halo 3 still went up against 3 COD games, 3 Battlefield games, Gears of War and other shooters.

I'm sure people who work in the video game industry knows this. When you release a game you get extra people playing the game at first just to try it out. Same with your competition. When they release a game they are going to get an extra boost in players (people trying out the game). What you were talking about was just a temporary inflation of the population. People trying out the game, and that's normal for all games. The long term decline of the population is what's important and that starts with halo reach and continues with halo 4 and 5.

SMOK69KMK wrote:

Wallhack aka Promethean Vision and invisibility would like to have a word with you.

I will give you wallhack. That's one ability out of how many? And you never have all of them at the same time, all the time.
However, I don't see how invisibility is "farther away from classic Halo". It literally existed since Halo CE.

SMOK69KMK wrote:

Clamber, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, ADS are still more classic when keeping in mind
that they came with descope instead of flinch and equal loadouts instead of individual loadouts.

No, they are not.
Loadouts are completely irrelevant to the gameplay as a whole. They only exist in specific gamemodes in multiplayer, which only makes up half of the game to begin with.
Halo 4 already had modes without them at launch and H5G still has modes with them, also at launch. If anything, with regards to equal starts, nothing has changed from 4 to 5.
Descope/Flich is literally the only thing that makes H5G more classic, but it is completely pointless when ADS changes the entire way weapons behave.
Even so, it is one step closer amongst a dozen steps further away. It's still a net departure.

SMOK69KMK wrote:

If anything, H4 was the farthest away from the classic Halo formula, that's a matter of fact.

No, it's not. H5G is, and that is fact.

SMOK69KMK wrote:

No-brainer is really the right word in that case, because the developer as well as the publisher
would've been punished without proper functioning brains to even assume that games which worked
13 to 19 years ago would still work today and still appeal as many people as they did back then like,
ignoring the fact that people jumped ship since then.

Strangely enough, people only jumped ship after the games changed their core gameplay.
Whether that's the ultimate cause or not, the last classic Halo to this day is still the best-selling and most-played title of the entire franchise and each consecutive game performed worse than the one before it, either in sales or population or both.
That alone would be reason enough to make a game in the same style of the one that sold best and had the best reception, as it is less likely to fail than the ones that have already proven not to be received as well.
Doesn't Microsoft want to make money? Even if the games still sell, don't they want to make more money?