I couldn't agree more. It's what I sort of expect from Halo 4 with the changes 343i have already done with Reach... However, I also expect them to contribute to the casual gamers (even though they are generally the minority) so that it covers armour abilities like Jetpacks and sprint. I wouldn't be disappointed if Sprint was included as default, or Jetpack, as long as every player has these abilities from the start of the game. Otherwise, the abilities should be sought after like Overshield or Active Camoflage.
How players use the abilities they're given and the innate good or bad qualities of the ability are completely separate. If players are running into battle, die, then respawn then I'd say those are pretty poor skilled players.
I think with Sprint you can (at least in objective games) get back into the fight too fast on small-medium sized maps. It negates the penalty for dying, same as Evade does. MLG has the right idea by not letting you use AAs off-spawn and thereby limiting your movement during the first 3 seconds.
Is that the reasoning behind that? I just find it deeply annoying. Now that you say that I guess I get the concept, but it seems artificial and I find myself pressing that button over and over wanting it to work so I can get moving. I agree that sprint has somewhat COD-ified Halo, but it's the only armor ability that I've gotten completely attached to. I use it far more than any other AA. If they take it out, I hope they'll be good enough to increase base player speed by quite a bit. Not to Quake levels but at least back to CE. Also, maybe they could introduce a third power-up or a piece of equipment for player speed - if I could move 50% faster than everybody else I'd be pretty excited about that, especially on large maps.
I agree with the Halo 3 thing and I believe sprint should be built in. But I also want a small built in medkit that, if you health has one bar left, fills your health 3/4 way. And they should have a grenade that poisons slowly in a small area but you can get some helmets that prevent it. Just some ideas.
Nope nope nope. This is basically a class system and would be pretty horrible. We could also have a helmet that could make you immune to headshots and chest pieces that make you invisible to radar. Absolutely not
I agree with that but at the same time I don't. Halo: CE was the FPS that birthed console FPS's. It was simple and that was it's beauty. However, we are well past birth and are now into the late teen years of FPS's on consoles and simplicity cannot and will not be tolerated by the community i.e. the consumers. A new FPS (with the exception of the Modern Warfare franchise who can for some unknown reason add a few new polygons to an old game, ship it and then reap the praise of the world) must have something new; innovative, something different. AA's were that difference in Reach. My guess is 343i will find something new for us to sink our teeth into and for some, complain about.
Change for the sake of change, you can look above for my extended view on that, but for some more bite size reading I'll go simply with: yuk.
I think it'd be fairer to say it legitimised competitive console shooters as something worth paying attention to, but I get what you're saying. I genuinely feel for people who never got to enjoy Goldeneye, Red Faction and Timesplitters.
Couldn't agree more. I just get annoyed when fanboys of Halo go around saying Halo birthed FPS. As for armor abilities, I'm not much a fan of them. I'd like a more classic and simplified approach to H4.
I agree that change has to happen, but I also agree that change for the sake of change is bad. There's a sweet spot for how game changing new additions to a game can be. Its all up to your opinion, but in mine AA's over did it and CoD annually under does it. In the case of Halo 4, with all the things going on in Reach, simplifying gameplay would be a sufficient change(why do changes always have to add complexity?). They could also get some new vehicles, weapons, gametypes, etc.
There were a lot of people who, at the time those games were released, didn't feel like those games truly made console shooters any better than PC shooters. Halo, Goldeneye, Red Faction, and Perfect Dark all helped shape the console FPS into what it is today. No game should receive more credit than another only because it is older. Halo was considered by many critics to have made a bigger impact than Goldeneye. But I get what you're saying. Goldeneye really started allowing console FPS games to be taken seriously.
That was exactly my point. In relation to PC shooters, which had always been perceived in a competitive light by at least a significant proportion of the community, generally becoming the clear majority of the community as the games got older, consoles were something casual and bent to the purposes of an FPS, a genre they couldn't really handle. That's why I say Halo legitimised competitive console FPS play, and I definitely agree that overall it had a greater impact upon console FPSs as a whole (in the casual and not just competitive - a la Quake etc. - senses), but if you're talking about what laid the ground work then age does factor in. No matter how you look at it, Halo did not either create the console FPS genre, and it's not even the defining example which took it from niche to widely accepted. It may have been the biggest single step forward to date, I won't argue that, but it was building on some pretty very established foundations, even if that's more in the casual than competitive sense.
And developers would find this kind of point of view, yuk. You can't have it both ways. You can't criticize games for not changing and then criticize the ones that do change that they changed too much and should be like the old ones. It's the classic damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. If it was up to the hard-core gamer there would never be a sequel of any game and every game ever created would be a completely original revolutionary take on the genre. However....video games are a business so if a particular game makes a lot of money the higher ups want to make more of that game because the obvious investment the fans had in the game. But what to do if you're a developer. You don't want to just package the same thing, developers crave a creative outlet, but if you change things too much fans might not like it because they fell in love with the original gimmicks/mechanics/etc, and if the fans don't like the game it won't sell meaning the publisher closes you down and you can't make anymore games including that big creative game you've been developing for years. So, to a developer in this position that means small changes, maybe some tweaks to the mechanics, maybe some added functionality, something that will separate this work of art from its predecessor. This strategy seems to work the best as it usually satisfies most from the camp of keep it the same and most of the camp that want something new and fun to try. Sorry all of this post is off topic but it just annoys me a lot when people don't consider the developer's side of things and think only in their on little gamer bubble.