Forums / Community / General Discussion

[Locked] Halo 6 Doesn't Need To Return To The Roots...

OP FLOWFUTURISTIC

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 22
Nooga wrote:
Nooga wrote:
-snip-
I started with CE in 2001. Halo 4 was the best Halo by a LONG mile until 5, which is clearly the superior game, came out. Halo 2 will forever be the worst entry in the series. Im only talking about multiplayer. This, of course, is my opinion.
>says he started with CE in 2001.
>says that Halo 4 and Halo 5 are "clearly" superior by a "long mile".
>says that Halo 2 is the worst entry.
>and all of this is about multiplayer.

Seems legit. /sarcasm
Opinion
Okay, fine, it's your opinion that Halo 4 was the best Halo game ever, until Halo 5. It is my opinion that the original trilogy are better than nu-Halo all day long. Now, which of us has statistics showing that the population of Halo 4 dropped hard after 3 months? Obviously, in those people's opinions, Halo 4 was not good.
got population data right here
Nooga wrote:
You want 5 legitimate reasons as to why Halo 4 sucked:

1. It's blatant and shameless attempt at assuming the formula for other FPS games would work with Halo.

2. The lack of any competitive outlet arguably put the nail in the coffin for long time competitive fans who anxiously waited to see what Halo brought after Reach.

3. Spartan Ops replacing Firefight. Spartan ops had the potential. It failed to deliver.

4. A forgettable campaign that was made completely and utterly null and void by Halo 5. Any emotional impact the death of cortana was supposed to have was negated entirely.

5. Armor abilities like jet pack and promethean vision utterly destroying arena based multiplayer.

6. The bolt shot: the ability to spawn with a weapon more useful than the sword or shotgun was a disgusting oversight that plagued multiplayer for too long.

7. Forgettable maps: the multiplayer maps made no lasting impression on the fans. No one is crying for a remake of a halo 4 map for very good reasons.

8. The beginning of removal of series features. As their first original game, 343 showed us that removing features may become a trend. No theater in campaign and no campaign scoring were indicators of what was yet to come. As well as no playable elites, a very important feature to many.

9. Horrendous, HORRENDOUS vehicle game play. Vehicles made of paper mache made it so that no vehicle user could truly excel, no matter how skilled.

10. Horrid sound design. Listen to the Halo 4 battle rifle and Pistol. That's all I need for this argument.

11. It took a month to accomplish everything there was to accomplish in the entire game. It took next to no time.

I could go on and on. Halo 4 wasn't and isn't a bad game. But it didn't even come close to the legacy that was halo 1-3. Even reach. I didn't like the game play of Reach but it's feature set was damn impressive. Halo 4 didn't even deliver that.

You started halo with Halo 4. Yet you claim to speak of the original trilogy as though you knew it when it was revolutionary. You weren't there to witness Halo, the juggernaut of gaming, be transformed into a COD clone and shamelessly thrown around like Call of Duty in space.

Nostalgia can be a blinding influence. But there are many things objectively wrong with Halo 4. Again, it was not bad. But its down there with Reach in terms of Halo game play.
I started with CE in 2001. Halo 4 was the best Halo by a LONG mile until 5, which is clearly the superior game, came out. Halo 2 will forever be the worst entry in the series. Im only talking about multiplayer. This, of course, is my opinion.
Halo 2 the worst multiplayer? Besides the cheaters when u actually had a legit game it was great and competitive with great maps unlike halo 5
Death Nooga -

No. Your opinion can't be wrong. But that is an intellectual cop out that holds no water and is grounds for a dismissal of your arguments (were you to make any)
Nooga wrote:
You want 5 legitimate reasons as to why Halo 4 sucked:

1. It's blatant and shameless attempt at assuming the formula for other FPS games would work with Halo.

2. The lack of any competitive outlet arguably put the nail in the coffin for long time competitive fans who anxiously waited to see what Halo brought after Reach.

3. Spartan Ops replacing Firefight. Spartan ops had the potential. It failed to deliver.

4. A forgettable campaign that was made completely and utterly null and void by Halo 5. Any emotional impact the death of cortana was supposed to have was negated entirely.

5. Armor abilities like jet pack and promethean vision utterly destroying arena based multiplayer.

6. The bolt shot: the ability to spawn with a weapon more useful than the sword or shotgun was a disgusting oversight that plagued multiplayer for too long.

7. Forgettable maps: the multiplayer maps made no lasting impression on the fans. No one is crying for a remake of a halo 4 map for very good reasons.

8. The beginning of removal of series features. As their first original game, 343 showed us that removing features may become a trend. No theater in campaign and no campaign scoring were indicators of what was yet to come. As well as no playable elites, a very important feature to many.

9. Horrendous, HORRENDOUS vehicle game play. Vehicles made of paper mache made it so that no vehicle user could truly excel, no matter how skilled.

10. Horrid sound design. Listen to the Halo 4 battle rifle and Pistol. That's all I need for this argument.

11. It took a month to accomplish everything there was to accomplish in the entire game. It took next to no time.

I could go on and on. Halo 4 wasn't and isn't a bad game. But it didn't even come close to the legacy that was halo 1-3. Even reach. I didn't like the game play of Reach but it's feature set was damn impressive. Halo 4 didn't even deliver that.

You started halo with Halo 4. Yet you claim to speak of the original trilogy as though you knew it when it was revolutionary. You weren't there to witness Halo, the juggernaut of gaming, be transformed into a COD clone and shamelessly thrown around like Call of Duty in space.

Nostalgia can be a blinding influence. But there are many things objectively wrong with Halo 4. Again, it was not bad. But its down there with Reach in terms of Halo game play.
I started with CE in 2001. Halo 4 was the best Halo by a LONG mile until 5, which is clearly the superior game, came out. Halo 2 will forever be the worst entry in the series. Im only talking about multiplayer. This, of course, is my opinion.
Halo 2 the worst multiplayer? Besides the cheaters when u actually had a legit game it was great and competitive with great maps unlike halo 5
halo 2 was the best MP. it was the most competative and took the most skill. like you said it had the most memorable maps that are fan favorites. halo 4 is the only halo i quit playing months after launch
Death Nooga -

No. Your opinion can't be wrong. But that is an intellectual cop out that holds no water and is grounds for a dismissal of your arguments (were you to make any)
you are the best mod ever. we need many more just like you.
Nooga wrote:
Nooga wrote:
-snip-
I started with CE in 2001. Halo 4 was the best Halo by a LONG mile until 5, which is clearly the superior game, came out. Halo 2 will forever be the worst entry in the series. Im only talking about multiplayer. This, of course, is my opinion.
>says he started with CE in 2001.
>says that Halo 4 and Halo 5 are "clearly" superior by a "long mile".
>says that Halo 2 is the worst entry.
>and all of this is about multiplayer.

Seems legit. /sarcasm
Opinion
Okay, fine, it's your opinion that Halo 4 was the best Halo game ever, until Halo 5. It is my opinion that the original trilogy are better than nu-Halo all day long. Now, which of us has statistics showing that the population of Halo 4 dropped hard after 3 months? Obviously, in those people's opinions, Halo 4 was not good.
got population data right here
Thanks for the link! pretty interesting read
"reclaimer sage"
How meny people forgot about this being a thing?
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
halo 4 was an abomination. halo 5 is an improvement. if doom can play like the old doom and have a tiny amount of modern features (double jump and clambering) other than that it plays like doom 1 and 3 mixed. THAT is how halo 5 should have been. guess what the new doom is a PURE arena shooter with no sprint and requires alot of strafing. i want 343 to make halo 6 like doom..... follow the original gameplay but add very LITTLE modern features and that is sticking to your roots not ignoring them or burning them with napalm. which is what halo 4 did
I agree with all your points except that H5G supposedly was an improvement. Because it wasn't. Gameplay-wise, it's worse than it's even been.

@OP: Doesn't need to return to its roots... to do what exactly? You never specify.
Sell copies? Probably not.
Sell Xboxes? Debatable.
Keep the franchise going for that 20-ish years that Bonnie Ross was claiming some years back? Yeah, it does. Badly!
I think that looking back is exactly what 343i need to do when designing Halo 6. Both 4 and 5 are failures in their own way. Both did some things well enough, but most of each was just horrible.

You are right, Halo 5 is lacking the fun factor that all of the other games in the series had. I don't think that it's related to the armor system though. At their core, these games were all fun. Before Reach there were no challenges or complex armor systems and unlocks. Halo 2 and 3 are probably the two best games in the series and neither of them have any of that. Those games were just fun to play. Gameplay is the most important. Reach sucked because things like Bloom and Armor abilities. Halo 4 sucked because of loadouts and Armor Abilities. Halo 5 sucks because of Spartan Abilities and lack of content.

Armor Abilities/Spartan Abilities both suck for the same reason. They impact the game in a way that makes it frustrating to play against people that use them. It's not about balance. It's not about evenness. It's about frustration. Everyone in the game could have a Jetpack, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when people break map flow. Everyone could have Armor Lock, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when they use their get out of jail free card in the middle of battle. Everyone could have sprint/thruster/evade and it doesn't make it any less frustrating when people run away and escape from a fight they should not have.

In order to make the games get that fun factor back they have to stop making abilities that are not fun to fight against. Most of the equipment in Halo 3 is a good example of this. As are the Hologram from Reach and 4 and clambering and ground pound from 5. I don't mind smart scope either.

My ideal Halo game is basically Halo 2 anniversary, with equipment (including hologram in there somehow), with clamber and ground pound and smart scope, and with some double jumping ability like from the new Doom game. I don't hate the idea of limited loadouts (only being able to pick from AR or BR. No grenade choice, no secondary choice, no equipment at spawn, and no perks), and think being able to pick between an AR and BR would solve a lot of the issues that people always have over if it should be AR starts or BR starts. I think that this game could exist, and would show the best of what Halo as a series could be.

EDIT: and if it wasn't clear, NO SPRINT.
The problem is that you aren't a competitive player, just a casual gamer.
That's why you like the fun halo instead of Halo 5.
I think that looking back is exactly what 343i need to do when designing Halo 6. Both 4 and 5 are failures in their own way. Both did some things well enough, but most of each was just horrible.

You are right, Halo 5 is lacking the fun factor that all of the other games in the series had. I don't think that it's related to the armor system though. At their core, these games were all fun. Before Reach there were no challenges or complex armor systems and unlocks. Halo 2 and 3 are probably the two best games in the series and neither of them have any of that. Those games were just fun to play. Gameplay is the most important. Reach sucked because things like Bloom and Armor abilities. Halo 4 sucked because of loadouts and Armor Abilities. Halo 5 sucks because of Spartan Abilities and lack of content.

Armor Abilities/Spartan Abilities both suck for the same reason. They impact the game in a way that makes it frustrating to play against people that use them. It's not about balance. It's not about evenness. It's about frustration. Everyone in the game could have a Jetpack, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when people break map flow. Everyone could have Armor Lock, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when they use their get out of jail free card in the middle of battle. Everyone could have sprint/thruster/evade and it doesn't make it any less frustrating when people run away and escape from a fight they should not have.

In order to make the games get that fun factor back they have to stop making abilities that are not fun to fight against. Most of the equipment in Halo 3 is a good example of this. As are the Hologram from Reach and 4 and clambering and ground pound from 5. I don't mind smart scope either.

My ideal Halo game is basically Halo 2 anniversary, with equipment (including hologram in there somehow), with clamber and ground pound and smart scope, and with some double jumping ability like from the new Doom game. I don't hate the idea of limited loadouts (only being able to pick from AR or BR. No grenade choice, no secondary choice, no equipment at spawn, and no perks), and think being able to pick between an AR and BR would solve a lot of the issues that people always have over if it should be AR starts or BR starts. I think that this game could exist, and would show the best of what Halo as a series could be.

EDIT: and if it wasn't clear, NO SPRINT.
if halo 5 was halo 2 just with clamber and sprint is a power up like overshield than alot more people would like the game. with halo 2 sized 4v4 maps (so many great maps). just you and your gun thats it. nothing more
My biggest problem with Halo 4 was that there was absolutely about no transition from Halo 3 to 4.

It's just, you wake up in a whole new world, with new guns, new story, and basically new chief.
Worst offender of my case is there is no explanation to why chief has new armour, Cortana said something about upgrades, but really? That's all we get? Why don't we see parts of the old armour anywere else on the ship?

And we'll I'm on it, why the heck did they change the ship? I know they wanted to design the level but that kills continuity from Halo 3.

I would have liked to see the ship the way it was in 3 and have chief change into his armour at a later point in the mission, or even as he's waking up Cortana needed to upgrade his armour and explains it more. Also, I would have liked to see the old tech for the first and second mission, then transition us to the new tech after the Infinity was introduced.
Halo 5 is good game that lacks minor features. For example armor customization is lacking this game. However, Halo 5's multiplayer is one of the best ever. Sprint, Thrusts, Spartan Charge, etc... combined with the amazing weapon balance is amazing.
Celestis wrote:
halo 4 was an abomination. halo 5 is an improvement. if doom can play like the old doom and have a tiny amount of modern features (double jump and clambering) other than that it plays like doom 1 and 3 mixed. THAT is how halo 5 should have been. guess what the new doom is a PURE arena shooter with no sprint and requires alot of strafing. i want 343 to make halo 6 like doom..... follow the original gameplay but add very LITTLE modern features and that is sticking to your roots not ignoring them or burning them with napalm. which is what halo 4 did
I agree with all your points except that H5G supposedly was an improvement. Because it wasn't. Gameplay-wise, it's worse than it's even been.

@OP: Doesn't need to return to its roots... to do what exactly? You never specify.
Sell copies? Probably not.
Sell Xboxes? Debatable.
Keep the franchise going for that 20-ish years that Bonnie Ross was claiming some years back? Yeah, it does. Badly!
the new doom is so refreshing. a game that respects its roots and embraces it. i have not had this much fun in a while. ID games are pure gold and made with love and not made to cater to get a kind of audiance that it did not have before
when you leave the core of a game franchise you completely abandon what made it special to begin with. Halo 4 wasn't a bad game, but it was a horrendous Halo because it strayed too far from the core mechanics. I still think Halo 5 is too far outside of the core with hard weapon counters present in the game and adding all these mechanics to keep pace with other shooters just seems unnecessary. They also can't seem to lock down that social vs competitive aspect and this is what I felt made halo special at its core. If you can't do that you might as well call it something else. 343 seem to be Halo fans, but as far as I am concerned they should've made a spin-off or a completely new IP with the ideas they have because they run so rough against the grain of the original trilogy.
Celestis wrote:
halo 4 was an abomination. halo 5 is an improvement. if doom can play like the old doom and have a tiny amount of modern features (double jump and clambering) other than that it plays like doom 1 and 3 mixed. THAT is how halo 5 should have been. guess what the new doom is a PURE arena shooter with no sprint and requires alot of strafing. i want 343 to make halo 6 like doom..... follow the original gameplay but add very LITTLE modern features and that is sticking to your roots not ignoring them or burning them with napalm. which is what halo 4 did
I agree with all your points except that H5G supposedly was an improvement. Because it wasn't. Gameplay-wise, it's worse than it's even been.

@OP: Doesn't need to return to its roots... to do what exactly? You never specify.
Sell copies? Probably not.
Sell Xboxes? Debatable.
Keep the franchise going for that 20-ish years that Bonnie Ross was claiming some years back? Yeah, it does. Badly!
the new doom is so refreshing. a game that respects its roots and embraces it. i have not had this much fun in a while. ID games are pure gold and made with love and not made to cater to get a kind of audiance that it did not have before
Played MP with my friend yesterday. Haven't had that much fun in a long, long time.
Reach's armour system with Halo 2's maps with Halo 5's gameplay (MINUS SPARTAN CHARGE AND GROUND POUND) with Halo Reach's artsyle.

Masterpiece.
Reach's armour system with Halo 2's maps with Halo 5's gameplay (MINUS SPARTAN CHARGE AND GROUND POUND) with Halo Reach's artsyle.

Masterpiece.
Oh got armor lock.
I think that looking back is exactly what 343i need to do when designing Halo 6. Both 4 and 5 are failures in their own way. Both did some things well enough, but most of each was just horrible.

You are right, Halo 5 is lacking the fun factor that all of the other games in the series had. I don't think that it's related to the armor system though. At their core, these games were all fun. Before Reach there were no challenges or complex armor systems and unlocks. Halo 2 and 3 are probably the two best games in the series and neither of them have any of that. Those games were just fun to play. Gameplay is the most important. Reach sucked because things like Bloom and Armor abilities. Halo 4 sucked because of loadouts and Armor Abilities. Halo 5 sucks because of Spartan Abilities and lack of content.

Armor Abilities/Spartan Abilities both suck for the same reason. They impact the game in a way that makes it frustrating to play against people that use them. It's not about balance. It's not about evenness. It's about frustration. Everyone in the game could have a Jetpack, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when people break map flow. Everyone could have Armor Lock, it wouldn't make it any less frustrating when they use their get out of jail free card in the middle of battle. Everyone could have sprint/thruster/evade and it doesn't make it any less frustrating when people run away and escape from a fight they should not have.

In order to make the games get that fun factor back they have to stop making abilities that are not fun to fight against. Most of the equipment in Halo 3 is a good example of this. As are the Hologram from Reach and 4 and clambering and ground pound from 5. I don't mind smart scope either.

My ideal Halo game is basically Halo 2 anniversary, with equipment (including hologram in there somehow), with clamber and ground pound and smart scope, and with some double jumping ability like from the new Doom game. I don't hate the idea of limited loadouts (only being able to pick from AR or BR. No grenade choice, no secondary choice, no equipment at spawn, and no perks), and think being able to pick between an AR and BR would solve a lot of the issues that people always have over if it should be AR starts or BR starts. I think that this game could exist, and would show the best of what Halo as a series could be.

EDIT: and if it wasn't clear, NO SPRINT.
if halo 5 was halo 2 just with clamber and sprint is a power up like overshield than alot more people would like the game. with halo 2 sized 4v4 maps (so many great maps). just you and your gun thats it. nothing more
I more or less agree with you. There are definitely good things that newer games in the series have done, but you don't need to overhall the game for every iteration. Like I said, Halo 2 Anniversary with equipment, Clamber, Ground Pound, smartscope, limited loadouts, and a double jump like feature would be awesome.

I've thought about this a lot and defiently agree with you that the speed boost powerup could be used a lot more than it ever was (think there was like one map that used it in Halo 3). Powerups were an awesome part of the early games, and I'm happy that Halo 5 brought them back into the fold. I just wish that Halo 5 was fun to play is all.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 22