Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Traditional Halo Dies With Infinite

OP munkeemeaty

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. ...
  7. 7
Can you elaborate on "traditional"? If you're meaning classic mobility, it died with Reach. It's been dead for 10 years.
No ADS, no advanced movement or reqs, stuff like that. Just the style of the og trilogy I guess.
Yeah that's what I assumed, just wanted to make sure because "traditional" can mean different things to different people. I personally draw a line at Reach. 1-3 is "classic", Reach-5 is "modern", so in my opinion traditional Halo died when Reach dropped and then 343i just ran with it, so like 10 years now.

As far as Infinite it definitely seems more "traditional" than Reach-5 in my opinion. At least from what we saw from the demo. There's definitely advanced movement but looks much more balanced and tame. There's no ADS that we've seen so far, and they've confirmed no purchasable loot boxes or "req packs" as they're called in H5. But who knows, just because you can't buy them doesn't mean there won't be a loot box system so we'll have to just wait and see on that one.
eviltedi wrote:
Traditional Halo died or changed forever with Halo Reach. I'm not saying 343i's games are ok, but Halo Reach started the change imo.
That is because games have to evolve at a certain point.
There is no reason to use a reskinned halo 3 for several games. Besides if a different company takes over the original 'dna' will be gone aswell since they want to put their own 'vision' to a game. H4 and h5 have the worst art style in halo's history. Reach did start advanced movement options but i always liked that bungie went that way.(except armor lock)
Well to be honest they didn't even re use it once. And their games pops have been declining since. Can only be blind following gimmicks for so long.
eviltedi wrote:
Traditional Halo died or changed forever with Halo Reach. I'm not saying 343i's games are ok, but Halo Reach started the change imo.
I agree with you but when reach made the AAs as pick up items (MLG playlist) and got ride of bloom, it really felt more like Halo. If Reach had a real ranking system like say Halo 3 or 5, and AAs were map pick up items from the get-go, I think reach would have done a lot better and Halo would have been better off for it.
Reach did have ranked it was arena and veey similar to h3 and h5s ranking system.
Of course it will die. It started on Halo Reach thanks to your beloved and "perfect" Bungie, and Halo 4 gameplay wise its just a natural evolution of what Reach made. None of us (at least the ones that have working brains) wants Halo 3 over and over again. Look at the gameplay reveal, it has 170k likes, from all people that liked the gameplay, and just 30k dislikes, from all trash fanboys like you that cant move on from their Xbox 360 days. Its almost a positive 6/1 like/dislike ratio, meaning that people like you that call themselves "real fans" and cry when someone else actually has a good opinion are just a minority in the community, thank god, and you know what that means?? That your mentality of "my opinion matters more because i played Halo 3" isnt valid, because the game will be planned for what the mayority wants, not some kids that still think they are cool because they have an Xbox 360
The "majority" is dumb and doesn't know what they want, they see enhanced mobility and ads and they think "cool" then they play it for a month and leave for COD, Halo needs to be unique and Halo Infinite and shown thus far that it isn't going to be what Halo needs or should be. Likes and Dislikes don't mean anything and nobody here called Bungie perfect and you should know better than to say the opinion of the classic fans doesn't matter when they speak from a time when Halo was actually good and not some half baked AAA redundancy simulator.
also most Halo fans do just want Halo 3 again, and would willingly pay for it.
If the majority actually felt that way we would have more than 10k players playing h5. They just arent catering to the 300k per day that used to play h3.
eviltedi wrote:
Traditional Halo died or changed forever with Halo Reach. I'm not saying 343i's games are ok, but Halo Reach started the change imo.
That is because games have to evolve at a certain point.
There is no reason to use a reskinned halo 3 for several games. Besides if a different company takes over the original 'dna' will be gone aswell since they want to put their own 'vision' to a game. H4 and h5 have the worst art style in halo's history. Reach did start advanced movement options but i always liked that bungie went that way.(except armor lock)
Wrong, Halo Infinite has the worst art style in Halo history.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Tetrafy wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Traditional Halo died or changed forever with Halo Reach. I'm not saying 343i's games are ok, but Halo Reach started the change imo.
That is because games have to evolve at a certain point.
There is no reason to use a reskinned halo 3 for several games. Besides if a different company takes over the original 'dna' will be gone aswell since they want to put their own 'vision' to a game. H4 and h5 have the worst art style in halo's history. Reach did start advanced movement options but i always liked that bungie went that way.(except armor lock)
Well to be honest they didn't even re use it once. And their games pops have been declining since. Can only be blind following gimmicks for so long.
What? Destiny? Destiny outsold every Halo during their respective lifespans.
Traditional Halo died with Halo 2. Why they bothered to add recharging health when recharging shields was already enough is beyond me. Now you can just duck behind cover and wait for your health to recharge, so taking risks and pushing the enemy has no downside if you survive the encounter. In CE you were punished for letting your health go down during an encounter so you would be weaker for the next one. That's one layer of strategy gone.

Traditional Halo died with Halo 3. Now instead of having to use your skill and dexterity to survive if someone gets the jump on you, you can just drop a bubble shield and make your attacker come in for close quarters. And there's no visual que to see what kind of equipment others are carrying so there's no way to strategize or plan around your enemy having a regenerator or what have you.

Traditional Halo died with Reach. Loadouts cause uneven starts, which make balancing maps for early encounters more difficult. The jetpack has a visual cue at least, but now you can just use armor lock as a get out of jail free card. This makes it much harder to read encounters than even in Halo 3.

All of these are legitimate complaints (Reach bringing back health was a brilliant move IMO), and they beg the question: where do you draw the line between "traditional" Halo and "non-traditional" Halo? Surely you can't just divide it between Reach and 4 because a lot of 4's DNA was sown in 3 and Reach. But Halo CE's multiplayer is about as different from 2/3 as Reach is, IMO. So was it Halo 2 that did it in? What does it mean that "traditional Halo is dead"? Is it necessarily a bad thing? Would it be preferable if Reach, 4, 5, and Infinite were just variations on 3? Or is there something to be said for experimentation and evolution?

Personally, I think each game introduced some good ideas (dual-wielding in 2, detachable heavy weapons in 3, Invasion in Reach) but also some bad ones (see above). Halo is at its best when it is leading the industry on some change rather than following it. So that's why rechargeable health, equipment, and uneven starts are bad innovations and dual-wielding, detachable heavy weapons, and Invasion are good innovations. So I understand and agree with a lot of the frustrations with 4 and 5, since 4 followed industry trends of killstreaks and too many unlockables, and 5 followed industry trends on mobility and microtransactions *shudder*.

My problem with 4 and 5's multiplayer is that they weren't really industry leaders or trendsetters in any way, they were pretty much exclusively trend followers. Halo 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3 and Reach all created something new and interesting that inspired other games to follow, but 3 and Reach were the start of this decline of creativity on the multiplayer side. And that's a natural part of the evolution of a franchise IMO. The same thing happened with Return of the Jedi. It was a great and beloved movie but it wasn't anywhere near the creativity and inventiveness of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. I think if Bungie had left Halo after 2 or 3 games and went to work on Destiny, then that game could have been a true industry leader, but when it came out Bungie had already used a lot of ideas on 3, ODST, and Reach, and the industry had time to independently develop a lot of the ideas Bungie had for Destiny so it wasn't as fresh as it could have been when it launched.

So in conclusion, I think it's absolutely inevitable for a long-running franchise to lose steam due to a lack of creativity. Nintendo is the big big big exception to this, as Breath of the Wild is one of the most exciting games to have come out in recent memory, and Super Mario Odyssey had a lot of great new ideas as well. But not everyone can be Nintendo, and I think when it comes to Halo multiplayer it's not immune to this natural phenomenon.

As for single player (which is more important to me as a Halo fan), Halo hasn't really been in the same trend-following rut as it has with multiplayer. I'm a bit worried that 343i will follow a lot of tired open-world looter shooter trends, but am optimistic that they'll find a way around a lot of the headache inducing ones like Breath of the Wild did. Similarly, multiplayer being free to play does not assuage my fears of trend-following but I'll reserve judgement until we find out more since we know very little about it at this point.
  • Halo 2 retail was the Mortal Kombat 3 of the Halo series.
  • Halo 2 post patch with map packs is the Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 of the series.
  • Halo 3 is the Mortal Kombat Trilogy of the Halo series.
ZnaZanZ wrote:
...My problem with 4 and 5's multiplayer is that they weren't really industry leaders or trendsetters in any way, they were pretty much exclusively trend followers. Halo 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3 and Reach all created something new and interesting that inspired other games to follow, but 3 and Reach were the start of this decline of creativity on the multiplayer side...
I agree with most of what was said to this point, but I'm really at a loss as to what Reach innovated at all. The loadouts were Bungie attempting to shoehown COD's loadout design into Halo. I guess you can argue bloom as notably different than traditional recoil maybe, but even that was more of a copy of Shadowrun, which used similar mechanics, only more fleshed out than Reach.
The innovations in Halo 3, which is admittedly quite an innovation, was Theater mode, an unequivocal success, and the attempt at Forge mode, a success in spite of itself. Definitely didn't have any real noteworthy innovation in gameplay (because deployables were largely inconsequential)
ZnaZanZ wrote:
I think if Bungie had left Halo after 2 or 3 games and went to work on Destiny, then that game could have been a true industry leader, but when it came out Bungie had already used a lot of ideas on 3, ODST, and Reach, and the industry had time to independently develop a lot of the ideas Bungie had for Destiny so it wasn't as fresh as it could have been when it launched.
I don't see it. You mean having a story hub like Reach? I think Destiny goes so much further with the hub and world design and the fact that it's persistent online only is a huge difference. Beyond that most of Destiny isn't anything that wasn't already seen in 2009's Borderlands, which was the proto loot shooter. So much of what Destiny was outside of the persistent online aspect was well established by 2014 by other games. People were already expecting Borderlands 3 to be announced before Destiny was released.
  • Halo 2 retail was the Mortal Kombat 3 of the Halo series.
  • Halo 2 post patch with map packs is the Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 of the series.
  • Halo 3 is the Mortal Kombat Trilogy of the Halo series.
ZnaZanZ wrote:
...My problem with 4 and 5's multiplayer is that they weren't really industry leaders or trendsetters in any way, they were pretty much exclusively trend followers. Halo 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3 and Reach all created something new and interesting that inspired other games to follow, but 3 and Reach were the start of this decline of creativity on the multiplayer side...
I agree with most of what was said to this point, but I'm really at a loss as to what Reach innovated at all. The loadouts were Bungie attempting to shoehown COD's loadout design into Halo. I guess you can argue bloom as notably different than traditional recoil maybe, but even that was more of a copy of Shadowrun, which used similar mechanics, only more fleshed out than Reach.
The innovations in Halo 3, which is admittedly quite an innovation, was Theater mode, an unequivocal success, and the attempt at Forge mode, a success in spite of itself. Definitely didn't have any real noteworthy innovation in gameplay (because deployables were largely inconsequential)
ZnaZanZ wrote:
I think if Bungie had left Halo after 2 or 3 games and went to work on Destiny, then that game could have been a true industry leader, but when it came out Bungie had already used a lot of ideas on 3, ODST, and Reach, and the industry had time to independently develop a lot of the ideas Bungie had for Destiny so it wasn't as fresh as it could have been when it launched.
I don't see it. You mean having a story hub like Reach? I think Destiny goes so much further with the hub and world design and the fact that it's persistent online only is a huge difference. Beyond that most of Destiny isn't anything that wasn't already seen in 2009's Borderlands, which was the proto loot shooter. So much of what Destiny was outside of the persistent online aspect was well established by 2014 by other games. People were already expecting Borderlands 3 to be announced before Destiny was released.
My example of Reach's innovation was Invasion, which was a new and interesting gamemode I thought.

My point with Destiny is that had they tried to tackle and successfully pull off the ambitious persistent online in a shooter idea (which they claim to have been thinking about since the end of Halo 2's development IIRC) earlier than 2014 then it would have been a lot more unique on release.
Sprint has been in halo now longer than it hasn't been.
ZnaZanZ wrote:
  • Halo 2 retail was the Mortal Kombat 3 of the Halo series.
  • Halo 2 post patch with map packs is the Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 of the series.
  • Halo 3 is the Mortal Kombat Trilogy of the Halo series.
ZnaZanZ wrote:
...My problem with 4 and 5's multiplayer is that they weren't really industry leaders or trendsetters in any way, they were pretty much exclusively trend followers. Halo 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3 and Reach all created something new and interesting that inspired other games to follow, but 3 and Reach were the start of this decline of creativity on the multiplayer side...
I agree with most of what was said to this point, but I'm really at a loss as to what Reach innovated at all. The loadouts were Bungie attempting to shoehown COD's loadout design into Halo. I guess you can argue bloom as notably different than traditional recoil maybe, but even that was more of a copy of Shadowrun, which used similar mechanics, only more fleshed out than Reach.
The innovations in Halo 3, which is admittedly quite an innovation, was Theater mode, an unequivocal success, and the attempt at Forge mode, a success in spite of itself. Definitely didn't have any real noteworthy innovation in gameplay (because deployables were largely inconsequential)
ZnaZanZ wrote:
I think if Bungie had left Halo after 2 or 3 games and went to work on Destiny, then that game could have been a true industry leader, but when it came out Bungie had already used a lot of ideas on 3, ODST, and Reach, and the industry had time to independently develop a lot of the ideas Bungie had for Destiny so it wasn't as fresh as it could have been when it launched.
I don't see it. You mean having a story hub like Reach? I think Destiny goes so much further with the hub and world design and the fact that it's persistent online only is a huge difference. Beyond that most of Destiny isn't anything that wasn't already seen in 2009's Borderlands, which was the proto loot shooter. So much of what Destiny was outside of the persistent online aspect was well established by 2014 by other games. People were already expecting Borderlands 3 to be announced before Destiny was released.
My example of Reach's innovation was Invasion, which was a new and interesting gamemode I thought.

My point with Destiny is that had they tried to tackle and successfully pull off the ambitious persistent online in a shooter idea (which they claim to have been thinking about since the end of Halo 2's development IIRC) earlier than 2014 then it would have been a lot more unique on release.
That's a fair point but I doubt the infrastructure would have been there in earnest. You would have had to convince either Microsoft to shelve work on a cashcow like Halo then spend several years and a quarter billion dollars on a new IP in an unproven genre. Or Activision or EA to spend that money.
Sprint has been in halo now longer than it hasn't been.
aaaaaaaaaannnnnd? what is your point? just because it's been around doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of it
Sprint has been in halo now longer than it hasn't been.
aaaaaaaaaannnnnd? what is your point? just because it's been around doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of it
I don't think he is trying to make a point
Sprint has been in halo now longer than it hasn't been.
aaaaaaaaaannnnnd? what is your point? just because it's been around doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of it
Ain't really trying to make a point. Just saying that sprint has been in the series for the majority of its life now.
Just to preface this the title is not what I want to happen, but what I predict will happen. It is clear to see that infinite is meant to appeal to children. Infinite follows trends from other shooters instead of being traditional Halo, and now that the MP is free to play and has weapon skins, there is no doubt that Microsoft is trying to make Halo the next big shooter (not that theres anything wrong with that, they are a business). My point with all this is that if Infinite flops, Halo is kinda dead outside of MCC, and if it succeeds then Microsoft will continue to pursue making Halo another modern shooter. Hope this doesn't get locked cause 343 hates criticism about Halo, crippling discussion.
Traditional Halo was dead with Halo 4 in my opinion.
ZnaZanZ wrote:
Traditional Halo died with Halo 2. Why they bothered to add recharging health when recharging shields was already enough is beyond me. Now you can just duck behind cover and wait for your health to recharge, so taking risks and pushing the enemy has no downside if you survive the encounter. In CE you were punished for letting your health go down during an encounter so you would be weaker for the next one. That's one layer of strategy gone.

Traditional Halo died with Halo 3. Now instead of having to use your skill and dexterity to survive if someone gets the jump on you, you can just drop a bubble shield and make your attacker come in for close quarters. And there's no visual que to see what kind of equipment others are carrying so there's no way to strategize or plan around your enemy having a regenerator or what have you.

Traditional Halo died with Reach. Loadouts cause uneven starts, which make balancing maps for early encounters more difficult. The jetpack has a visual cue at least, but now you can just use armor lock as a get out of jail free card. This makes it much harder to read encounters than even in Halo 3.

All of these are legitimate complaints (Reach bringing back health was a brilliant move IMO), and they beg the question: where do you draw the line between "traditional" Halo and "non-traditional" Halo? Surely you can't just divide it between Reach and 4 because a lot of 4's DNA was sown in 3 and Reach. But Halo CE's multiplayer is about as different from 2/3 as Reach is, IMO. So was it Halo 2 that did it in? What does it mean that "traditional Halo is dead"? Is it necessarily a bad thing? Would it be preferable if Reach, 4, 5, and Infinite were just variations on 3? Or is there something to be said for experimentation and evolution?

Personally, I think each game introduced some good ideas (dual-wielding in 2, detachable heavy weapons in 3, Invasion in Reach) but also some bad ones (see above). Halo is at its best when it is leading the industry on some change rather than following it. So that's why rechargeable health, equipment, and uneven starts are bad innovations and dual-wielding, detachable heavy weapons, and Invasion are good innovations. So I understand and agree with a lot of the frustrations with 4 and 5, since 4 followed industry trends of killstreaks and too many unlockables, and 5 followed industry trends on mobility and microtransactions *shudder*.

My problem with 4 and 5's multiplayer is that they weren't really industry leaders or trendsetters in any way, they were pretty much exclusively trend followers. Halo 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3 and Reach all created something new and interesting that inspired other games to follow, but 3 and Reach were the start of this decline of creativity on the multiplayer side. And that's a natural part of the evolution of a franchise IMO. The same thing happened with Return of the Jedi. It was a great and beloved movie but it wasn't anywhere near the creativity and inventiveness of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. I think if Bungie had left Halo after 2 or 3 games and went to work on Destiny, then that game could have been a true industry leader, but when it came out Bungie had already used a lot of ideas on 3, ODST, and Reach, and the industry had time to independently develop a lot of the ideas Bungie had for Destiny so it wasn't as fresh as it could have been when it launched.

So in conclusion, I think it's absolutely inevitable for a long-running franchise to lose steam due to a lack of creativity. Nintendo is the big big big exception to this, as Breath of the Wild is one of the most exciting games to have come out in recent memory, and Super Mario Odyssey had a lot of great new ideas as well. But not everyone can be Nintendo, and I think when it comes to Halo multiplayer it's not immune to this natural phenomenon.

As for single player (which is more important to me as a Halo fan), Halo hasn't really been in the same trend-following rut as it has with multiplayer. I'm a bit worried that 343i will follow a lot of tired open-world looter shooter trends, but am optimistic that they'll find a way around a lot of the headache inducing ones like Breath of the Wild did. Similarly, multiplayer being free to play does not assuage my fears of trend-following but I'll reserve judgement until we find out more since we know very little about it at this point.
To me the death of classic Halo means the end of the revolutionary Halos. For revolutionary I mean with an original feature that was so good it was copied by many other games. Like Halo CE had revolutionary controls for FPS, Halo 2 basically invented the matchmaking, Halo 3 brought forge and theatre with custom game types and the mainstreaming of Macinema. After that, there was no other revolutionary feature in Halo copied by any other game.

For me classic Halo has nothing to do with the gameplay, it's just about how revolutionary the game was. Nowadays I would be happy with something not revolutionary, but even just innovative. One original good feature, not badly copied by some other game. Halo Infinite lacks of any innovation, it's sickening.

It's not just Nintendo that can do it, God of War did it too. I think it's totally possible for Halo to become a trend setter again (you need time, money and talent to come up with and make revolutionary features and a good game), just not for a 343's Halo. 343 has lots of money from MS and 6 years, but no talent.
C0RRuPTT wrote:
Wait until the multiplayer reveal, we don’t know enough yet.
Yea, the multiplayer will give me final thoughts before playing it.
Traditional halo died with Halo CE. Comon duel wielding. Vehicle jacking, completely nerfing the pistol...a -Yoinking!- sword. That was not halo
I mean I guess but like at that time Halo didn't really have a super established formula.
Im totally agree with this, i've seen a tons of replies talking about a supposed "formula" for the bungie games, but at the end of the day a game it's not like an hamburger.
Tetrafy wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Traditional Halo died or changed forever with Halo Reach. I'm not saying 343i's games are ok, but Halo Reach started the change imo.
I agree with you but when reach made the AAs as pick up items (MLG playlist) and got ride of bloom, it really felt more like Halo. If Reach had a real ranking system like say Halo 3 or 5, and AAs were map pick up items from the get-go, I think reach would have done a lot better and Halo would have been better off for it.
Reach did have ranked it was arena and veey similar to h3 and h5s ranking system.
I'm aware it did. It was not similar to 3 and was a little bit 5 but overall it was a terrible system. I was there and saw first hand when bungie removed it because it was a broken mess! LoL

Hence I said what I said in my previous post.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. ...
  7. 7