Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Classic vs New

OP Lanzerat

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 15
halo without the -Yoink-
I personally like they way it is going. Think about it this way: If Halo never changed except for new graphics, how many people would be playing it? How many people play MCC compared to Halo 5? There is definitely a huge difference. Ultimately, change is better.
Change has only had a negative impact on Halo. The fan base is well over 50% smaller and barely hang around a week after launch due to those unnecessary changes.
Do we really have to do this again?
A: Show me the population numbers
B: Show me the population drop numbers
C: Show me a comparison to all games released at the same time that show a statistically significant difference for H5.
D: Figure out someway to determine and verify why people are leaving rather than just offering an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
E: Remember that there have been massive change with every Halo. Halo 2 was far more popular than CE and included a huge amount of changes. The same is true from 2 to 3 and so on.
They don't release exact number for that very reason. Anyone who isn't blinded by their passionate love for Halo knows the sales, population and everything else have declined greatly. I don't like saying it, it just happens to be true.
And even if it is, you have absolutely no way to determine why. You can't just claim it is X without a valid evidence. Making unsupported claims doesn't help anything.
I feel it needs to evolve while also trying to stay true to the original formula. Sprint is okay, but it could do without Spartan charge.
NEXUS NX wrote:
I like both. Both the old and new style have its merits and downsides.

Overall, Halo needs to change to keep up with the current market. Halo fans from back in the day have grown up. They don't have as much time to play Halo as a younger audience does. This is who 343 are targeting, the younger audience.
That seems to be what nobody understands. Also the fact that there are such a plethora of good games that are constantly coming out. Halo isn't dying its thunder has just been spread out. Halo 5 is a good game. Obviously being a player and huge fan from the first time I ever played CE when I was about 10,I miss the old times. But halo has no choice but to change and evolve. I will say this though if they released a WELL MADE AND VERY FUNCTIONAL H3A, IT WOULD MAKE ME CREAM MY PANTS. IT WOULD HELP THE FRANCHISE ALOT FOR THE MEANTIME.
BARRR28 wrote:
I feel it needs to evolve while also trying to stay true to the original formula. Sprint is okay, but it could do without Spartan charge.
I wish nothing but incredible misfortune to the person who originally thought it up.
I rarely rage quit or just shut my xbox off mid-game, but Spartan charge definitely lights a fire under my A$$
I like the 343 Halo , but still must support Bungie halo that was the one that was that gave life to this fantastic game
Lanzerat wrote:
So I read alot of threads about hate and support against Halo 5 to be considered as a worthy Halo title.
When I read these threads, many people say Halo needs to evolve, it needs change. Many people say it diesn't need these new game mechanics and art style.
So I just wanted to make a thread about, do you like the classic type of Halo or do you like the new type of Halo?
Why not a good mix of both?

No sprint, base movement speed is 110-120%, jump height is 110-120%, clamber is somewhat slower, thrusters and ground pound stay, radar increased to 35 meters.
I personally like they way it is going. Think about it this way: If Halo never changed except for new graphics, how many people would be playing it? How many people play MCC compared to Halo 5? There is definitely a huge difference. Ultimately, change is better.
Change has only had a negative impact on Halo. The fan base is well over 50% smaller and barely hang around a week after launch due to those unnecessary changes.
Do we really have to do this again?
A: Show me the population numbers
B: Show me the population drop numbers
C: Show me a comparison to all games released at the same time that show a statistically significant difference for H5.
D: Figure out someway to determine and verify why people are leaving rather than just offering an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
E: Remember that there have been massive change with every Halo. Halo 2 was far more popular than CE and included a huge amount of changes. The same is true from 2 to 3 and so on.
I don't buy that that fan base drop by 50% after the first week as well - this kid has nothing to back that figure up and I've a quote directly out of the MSFT 8-k report which was filed on 7/19/2016 after they crushed earnings estimates.

Found on page 6 under revenue from personal computing (that's xbox segment) " Xbox Live monthly active users grew 33% year-over-year to 49 million" Halo5 has been out for about 9 months or so.

So if a major xbox franchise experience such a dramatic drop usage right after a lunch date within this past year then how did xbox live active users grow by 33%?

These kids don't have a clue!
TGLT BL4cK wrote:
TGLT BL4cK wrote:
TGLT BL4cK wrote:
New halo. I heavily dislike one gun games without sprint called halo CE, 2, 3 and reach (AA sprint was a + but armor lock was frustrating).
I don't think halo is for you than. Call of duty or destiny is more your style
Destiny is a money grab that I hate. Call of Duty is a copy and paste that functions like press the kill button first to win. Halo allows me to fight back, it has infection, vehicles, covenant weapons, forge, jenga city, etc. No other game has that. Halo is far more to some people than a no sprint game. I just don't like games without sprint and especially ones accompanied with a constant battle rifle fest that makes all other weapons useless. Halo 5 is the most balanced halo and most fun for me gameplay wise. I disliked all the rest and only played for the story (note I share my profile with my brother and he is playing Reach all day long). Lack of sprint isn't the only defining characteristic of the franchise. Fighting back, alien weapons and Vehicles, map control, forge, custom games like infection and a great campaign (gameplay wise) define halo.
Halo 1-3 did. It promote being bad. There was no noob charge. One person left the fight alive one did not. Sprint ruins that. Also the travel time is the same just the maps are bigger. Halo 3 had all of that minus sprint why did you not like it. Halo 2 had all that minus infection. There is nothing wrong with the BR being dominant. As long as the Noob AR is not on the game halo is a better place
I disagree. If your weapon sandbox has 40 weapons they need to be viable. If one weapon dominates all others to the point that all automatics don't stand a chance against it, all other precision weapons barely stand a chance and even power weapons can be outclassed in the ranges they should be effective (with both users being skilled) then you might as well scarp every weapon and put only a battle rifle and 3 other power weapons on a map. That kills variety. It makes the game stagnant, predictable, boring. Halo 3 wasn't a bad game for its time. It had forge, great custom games, great maps and was less of a BR fest than halo 2. Halo Reach came and killed balance by making all covenant weapons non viable and in several cases non existent (plasma rifle). Sword block made the sword useless. Armor lock was the most frustrating addition to the franchise, hologram was useless, the entire sandbox was useless compared to the DMR, the banshee was extremely fast but a few dmrs or a sniper could wreck havoc on it and they did the same to all other vehicles. The maps were bad because they were campaign maps shoehorned into MP and most played badly. Halo 4 then came and introduced a ton of randomness and cod elements that couldn't lead to consistent gameplay that allowed planning. It had a greater weapon balance though and in the MCC where most cod elements from halo 4 have been removed it plays very beautifully. Halo 5 came then and offered the most balanced gameplay and a fun viable sandbox. It's the -Yoink- story and severe lack of features like infection, infinite ammo, split screen, forge, etc at launch along with the terrible req system and horrible maps that killed the game. For some reason maps in halo 5 are terrible (except truth and a few others). They play bad, look bland, have no distinct features compared to maps from all other games (including halo 4 and reach). They feel too over designed, have bad colour diversity, lighting, textures and a billion polygons protruding from everything. Remixes don't help the situation either.
Autos have. No place in competitive. Single or burst should be promoted over automatic. Auto weapons promote noob rushing we don't what that, Spartan charge and AR break the game. H5 wild be perfect if you cut out Spartan charge and nerf all autos range and damage by 20% than pistol would be the go to weapon next to BR carbine or DMR and power weapons. Don't enable noob behavier
I like the classic art style.
Ok. I'm getting sick of this "halo needs to evolve"- bs. Does evolve mean make bad changes to your game just for the sake of changing? I agree on that change is good. But why do we copy other games? To evolve? I mean all these abilitys don't make halo a better game. They just make it a different game.
Classically New; lol
I like the classic Halo better but I also thing Halo should evolve because it would get kinda old to play the next indtallment if it was just like the other games. I just don't like the things the 343 is doing compared to the original games. They are getting better though because gameplay wise I think Halo 5 is better than Halo 4.
I personally like they way it is going. Think about it this way: If Halo never changed except for new graphics, how many people would be playing it? How many people play MCC compared to Halo 5? There is definitely a huge difference. Ultimately, change is better.
Change has only had a negative impact on Halo. The fan base is well over 50% smaller and barely hang around a week after launch due to those unnecessary changes.
source?
Source for what? Common knowledge? I hate saying it, but it's also not my fault 343 made 4 & 5's multiplayer significantly different than what made it successful.
That's not common knowledge... And if you can't provide a proper source for those stats, which I'm assuming you just grabbed a number out of thin air, then I'm not sure if what you said is the case
Both are extremely enjoyable.
I like both. A combination of the two would be great.
I personally like they way it is going. Think about it this way: If Halo never changed except for new graphics, how many people would be playing it? How many people play MCC compared to Halo 5? There is definitely a huge difference. Ultimately, change is better.
Change has only had a negative impact on Halo. The fan base is well over 50% smaller and barely hang around a week after launch due to those unnecessary changes.
Do we really have to do this again?
A: Show me the population numbers
B: Show me the population drop numbers
C: Show me a comparison to all games released at the same time that show a statistically significant difference for H5.
D: Figure out someway to determine and verify why people are leaving rather than just offering an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
E: Remember that there have been massive change with every Halo. Halo 2 was far more popular than CE and included a huge amount of changes. The same is true from 2 to 3 and so on.
I don't buy that that fan base drop by 50% after the first week as well - this kid has nothing to back that figure up and I've a quote directly out of the MSFT 8-k report which was filed on 7/19/2016 after they crushed earnings estimates.

Found on page 6 under revenue from personal computing (that's xbox segment) " Xbox Live monthly active users grew 33% year-over-year to 49 million" Halo5 has been out for about 9 months or so.

So if a major xbox franchise experience such a dramatic drop usage right after a lunch date within this past year then how did xbox live active users grow by 33%?

These kids don't have a clue!
A compiled user base from 360 and XB1. Just like their Holiday sales figures, which will change, if they will say anything now.
LethalQ wrote:
Why can't I like both?
No reason you can't.
I personally like they way it is going. Think about it this way: If Halo never changed except for new graphics, how many people would be playing it? How many people play MCC compared to Halo 5? There is definitely a huge difference. Ultimately, change is better.
Change has only had a negative impact on Halo. The fan base is well over 50% smaller and barely hang around a week after launch due to those unnecessary changes.
source?
Source for what? Common knowledge? I hate saying it, but it's also not my fault 343 made 4 & 5's multiplayer significantly different than what made it successful.
That's not common knowledge... And if you can't provide a proper source for those stats, which I'm assuming you just grabbed a number out of thin air, then I'm not sure if what you said is the case
You're deflecting. Half of the playlists barely have enough players to function and you get matched with the same people. Go look up Halo 4's significant drop after 1 week and that was on 80+ Million 360s. I understand you refuse to believe it, but I'm just calling it like it is.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 15