Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] What if Halo & CoD United?

OP carltonhilson

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. ...
  6. 10
If they somehow managed to merge into one game, I would never play a new Halo game ever again.
Something occurring metaphorically can be just as real as it occurring literally.

You're still playing Halo games. How many thousands of MP games were you playing during CE/2/3? And since Reach and Halo 4? And which did you enjoy more?

These are simple questions which have been both asked and answered many times. The answers have clear, steady, and consistent. The purchasing decisions, however, have not appropriately reflected those answers.

I'm afraid that this is nearing a point where all of it is so easy to understand...that most will have convinced themselves it's impossible to recognize.
with halo 4 they pretty much did.. and now with all the changes in h5 it pretty much is cod with halo setting :/
There are literally thousands of reasons to disprove that.
Well, if there are literally thousands, could you at least offer one? Your statement is empty, left as it is here.
Well for one there's descope.

And Accurate hip fire.
OK. The re-addition of descope. Descope has been featured in every single Halo game except Halo 4. I think it's fair to say re-adding descope was a no-brainer, and while this alone draws Halo 5 a tiny bit closer to the roots compared to 4, to suggest it actually has brought H5 back to its roots is clear disregard for all the NEW things which is built on top of other unnecessary additions to the once extremely popular Halo MP formula.

Accurate hip fire. I'm not sure what you mean. I think you're trying to use the false-logic retort to a strictly anti-ADS thread, but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Just to be clear, hip fire is not as accurate as scoped-fire in any Halo game (H5 included). How can this be? Easy. It's just more difficult to maintain accurate aim without using the scope. The difference with H5 is every weapon will be equipped with a scoping feature, meaning all players will have the ability to increase their firing accuracy at the click of a button--actually, at the pull of a trigger--regardless whether they are using an SMG, AR, BR, Sniper, Rockets, or Energy Sword.

So, there certainly is a penalty when using hip-fire, but that penalty is enforced indirectly. It's realized whenever you battle someone who chooses to pull a trigger and increase their odds of landing their shots. This backwards logic is how Sprint has been defended. People will say, "don't sprint if you don't like sprint", and by doing so they simply disregard any potential disadvantages this might possibly impose on the person who doesn't want to sprint. Similarly, people say "there is no penalty for using hip-fire", and by doing so they totally disregard the fact that if others use the scope on their SMG, then not using the scope yourself is the penalty putting you at a disadvantage.
Carlton, if You're trying to get people to accept that Halo and CoD have become the same - I think you must first define what "CoD" is, before stating the two have become one. I think most people on the forum share this view of CoD:
Quote:
  • Boring combat centered around pulling two triggers and watching people die. This is a problem Halo's never really had because of the insane kill times and precision required to hit anything.
  • Feverishly unbalanced gameplay. Because who needs balanced and strategy when the entire game is pulling two triggers and you can murder anyone with the gun you received after an arbitrary amount of time and eventually break the game with your killstreak reward?
  • Annual -Yonking- releases that ensure money in Activision's pockets, ensure devs don't have enough time to do anything interesting (perpetuating the boring combat that never changes), and probably arise from the fact that people stop playing the game after a year.
  • The fact that we've had 6 interchangeable games because it's released annually. Believe it or not, I'm a little miffed about the lack of change between Halo 2 and Halo 3. However, 6 same-y games > 2 same-y games. Halo has, in no form or fashion, flooded the market with extraneous new product the way CoD has, nor does anyone want it to.
  • Hostile communities. Say what you will about the Halo community, but our prime demographic, to my knowledge, is not made predominately of 12 year old homophobes.
You see resistance because people don't believe that many of these points are present in Halo - and in some ways - it is said that they are even less present in Guardians than in previous games. If that is to be believed, Halo is becoming more Halo. Once again, it is possible for games to look similar but play differently. This is why I equate the new stuff in Halo 5 to paint jobs. They look like things CoD is doing, but their only contribution to the gameplay is switching around most of the very Halo aspects of the game, as none of them scrape the above definitions. (Scept' Sprint, the little sod) I have made this point before in response to you.

Worse still is your idea that sticking them together would solve everything (which was your sales pitch in the OP) when in reality - that, more than anything, sounds like it would utilize the above turd-like substances.

Basically, if something has similar looking mechanics, but lacks the above features, than it is not considered CoD by this community. Therefore - few actually think Halo is becoming CoD.

THIS BEING SAID.

I don't disagree with your symptoms or your treatment - I disagree with your diagnosis. Some of this stuff is just weird and pretty unnecessary, but being CoD-like isn't the problem, imo. You can find my list of qualms with the new features in Guardians here:
Quote:
  • ADS. In and of itself, it's just a new animation for the same scope. Harmless, but openly unnecessary. The problem arises because now it's on every gun. It may have been overdue for the AR, but the SMG? The Sword!? Shotguns, Plasma Pistols, Needlers, Gravity Hammers - basically any weapon that required some skill or trick to hip-fire would now have a tacked on zoom feature. If the SMG and Sword are any indication, it won't be unnoticeable either.
  • Thrust. Once again, pretty much harmless and an interesting new addition. However, when you consider how every FPS these days is attaching added movement options to their combat, the novelty slowly wears off. Once again though, mostly harmless.
  • Clamber. No more Crouch Jumping, eh? Parkour? What about shooting? Can I shoot while I clamber? No? Well that significantly drops the amount of versatility this mechanic could have had. That is the other main thing I'd like to see in Guardians, the ability to shoot whilst I Clamber.
  • Ground Pound. Why? I mean, it would be useful to have a button that brings the player down from the mid glide after a thrust, but why must that have all the limitations of an offensive ability?
  • Stabilizers. Not as bad as Jetpack was, but still an issue. I can go into zoom and hover. It's basically the game telling me that I don't have to worry about shooting while I fall.
  • Sprint. This will never not be an issue for me.
Thruster is the only one that really strikes me as an entirely harmless mechanic that's only there to cater to the modern market - out of all of them, this is the only one where my biggest problem is that it's "CoD-like," as nothing else about it bothers me. Anything else that can be considered "CoD-like" has a much bigger problem attached to it that probably doesn't have to do with CoD, imo.

As I have said before, trying to be CoD may be influencing Halo, but that's not the worst of it's problems.
L377UC3 wrote:
Carlton, if You're trying to get people to accept that Halo and CoD have become the same - I think you must first define what "CoD" is, before stating the two have become one. I think most people on the forum share this view of CoD:
Quote:
  • Boring combat centered around pulling two triggers and watching people die. This is a problem Halo's never really had because of the insane kill times and precision required to hit anything.
  • Feverishly unbalanced gameplay. Because who needs balanced and strategy when the entire game is pulling two triggers and you can murder anyone with the gun you received after an arbitrary amount of time and eventually break the game with your killstreak reward?
  • Annual -Yonking- releases that ensure money in Activision's pockets, ensure devs don't have enough time to do anything interesting (perpetuating the boring combat that never changes), and probably arise from the fact that people stop playing the game after a year.
  • The fact that we've had 6 interchangeable games because it's released annually. Believe it or not, I'm a little miffed about the lack of change between Halo 2 and Halo 3. However, 6 same-y games > 2 same-y games. Halo has, in no form or fashion, flooded the market with extraneous new product the way CoD has, nor does anyone want it to.
  • Hostile communities. Say what you will about the Halo community, but our prime demographic, to my knowledge, is not made predominately of 12 year old homophobes.
You see resistance because people don't believe that many of these points are present in Halo - and in some ways - it is said that they are even less present in Guardians than in previous games. If that is to be believed, Halo is becoming more Halo. Once again, it is possible for games to look similar but play differently. This is why I equate the new stuff in Halo 5 to paint jobs. They look like things CoD is doing, but their only contribution to the gameplay is switching around most of the very Halo aspects of the game, as none of them scrape the above definitions. (Scept' Sprint, the little sod) I have made this point before in response to you.

Worse still is your idea that sticking them together would solve everything (which was your sales pitch in the OP) when in reality - that, more than anything, sounds like it would utilize the above turd-like substances.

Basically, if something has similar looking mechanics, but lacks the above features, than it is not considered CoD by this community. Therefore - few actually think Halo is becoming CoD.

THIS BEING SAID.

I don't disagree with your symptoms or your treatment - I disagree with your diagnosis. Some of this stuff is just weird and pretty unnecessary, but being CoD-like isn't the problem, imo. You can find my list of qualms with the new features in Guardians here:
Quote:
  • ADS. In and of itself, it's just a new animation for the same scope. Harmless, but openly unnecessary. The problem arises because now it's on every gun. It may have been overdue for the AR, but the SMG? The Sword!? Shotguns, Plasma Pistols, Needlers, Gravity Hammers - basically any weapon that required some skill or trick to hip-fire would now have a tacked on zoom feature. If the SMG and Sword are any indication, it won't be unnoticeable either.
  • Thrust. Once again, pretty much harmless and an interesting new addition. However, when you consider how every FPS these days is attaching added movement options to their combat, the novelty slowly wears off. Once again though, mostly harmless.
  • Clamber. No more Crouch Jumping, eh? Parkour? What about shooting? Can I shoot while I clamber? No? Well that significantly drops the amount of versatility this mechanic could have had. That is the other main thing I'd like to see in Guardians, the ability to shoot whilst I Clamber.
  • Ground Pound. Why? I mean, it would be useful to have a button that brings the player down from the mid glide after a thrust, but why must that have all the limitations of an offensive ability?
  • Stabilizers. Not as bad as Jetpack was, but still an issue. I can go into zoom and hover. It's basically the game telling me that I don't have to worry about shooting while I fall.
  • Sprint. This will never not be an issue for me.
Thruster is the only one that really strikes me as an entirely harmless mechanic that's only there to cater to the modern market - out of all of them, this is the only one where my biggest problem is that it's "CoD-like," as nothing else about it bothers me. Anything else that can be considered "CoD-like" has a much bigger problem attached to it that probably doesn't have to do with CoD, imo.

As I have said before, trying to be CoD may be influencing Halo, but that's not the worst of it's problems.
Really good post, L377UC3. Thanks for this!

I'll take time to give you a real response tomorrow, but I wanted to say thanks and to quickly clarify something regarding what I've bolded above. . .

Honestly, I agree with you. What I hoped this thread might accomplish was to bring people together through their blind hatred for CoD and unconditional defensive state for Halo. The point was to say...
  • "Hey, if the games you love and hate the most are slowly becoming one and the same, do we really need to be supporting all of this change?"
And if people got that far, and answered YES, then ask...
  • "Well, then why not embrace a full-blown partnership to extend the lives of both franchises MP?"
Simply because I already knew that nobody wants this. The point was to knock some of the stubbornness off, and maybe manage to open some minds to the fact that Halo MP is succumbing to the same disease that most other major console FPS' are becoming riddled with - "Evolving" into an average generic joe. I do maintain that Halo and CoD's multiplayer experiences are becoming eerily alike, but unfortunately I'll have to explain why more in depth tomorrow (sorry!).
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. ...
  6. 10