As I stated before, I'm not against change. I dislike the principle that he was putting forward, which was almost directly saying "change for change's sake." In more personal terms, I also stated that I dislike the particularly strong deviation away from pick-up mechanics that loadouts bring, and actually the more I think about it the more I realise there aren't many precedents for such a base mechanic shift in other long term FPS franchises, even those older than Halo. That's not to say I dislike change altogether though, for example I personally prefer the DMR to either BR. Even with the bloom I think it's better than the H3 BR. I LOVE the Grenade Launcher, and the Focus Rifle to a lesser but still significant extent. I think H3 perfected nades over both CE and 2. There are plenty of changes I've liked, I just don't like seeing such a drastic deviation from one of the core aspects of the mechanic that made Halo such a definitive title. You're polarising the discussion in a very simplistic way, one which even a more thorough read of this thread alone would have revealed as such.
the minority? Why do you think the call of duty franchise was so successful, and halo reach followed in it's footsteps? This is based on only my observation, but casuals make up probably 75% of the fanbase of these games. Unfortunately you're right though, game companies are businesses and a business will always cater to the majority of consumers, hence why call of duty and halo reach both suck. I could rage about this all day, but all I want is something fun, competitive and focused on skill and cooperation like halo 2 and (for the most part) halo 3 [EDIT] Also to those talking about change for change's sake, I think that's sort of a tricky subject. From the point of view of CoD, it looks like they decided to just not make many changes in mw3, probably because they already had a huge fanbase who liked what they were doing so they just did what they were doing again and called it #3. As far as halo goes, they have been making pretty big changes since CE. Most notably are the ones in reach but they also added the new granades and stuff in halo 3. I think providing something fresh and new has been a small but ever-present motive, but the biggest influence was probably its competition ie CoD. They said "hey call of duty is getting a ton of players, lets try to copy what they're doing", then halo 3 equipment and custom armor was born. Then CoD had continued success so bungie did it again in reach, but this time they just went too far. I already listed these but 1. the casual ranking system 2. AA loadouts 3. reticle bloom/accuracy falloff. Fortunately 343 stepped in, hopefully they'll fix these problems that ended up alienating dedicated players like me for the reasons that I stated in my previous post
I agree change can be good but change for change's sake is, in most cases, a bad thing. But that goes back to the game industry being just that; an industry where making money is a top priority. And a game that can market the new, flashy, gimmicks that haven't been seen yet in the genre or are innovative etc. will usually sell better. (Unless you're MW for some unexplained reason.) Thus, occasionally and unfortunately, we get 'change for change's sake' simply to try and turn a profit. Also, I couldn't agree with you more on this. ^ Considering H3 was in development before Cod 4 (i.e. the first modern warfare) and H3 was launched before CoD 4, your argument/point(?)/off-topic rant makes no sense.
Oh ok well I clearly am not a fan of the call of duty games so I don't know or care when they were released. Aside from that, I'm not really arguing or off-topic so your argument makes no sense. I was addressing your discussion and giving my viewpoint on the topic, no need to try to start a fight. Anyway, I'm pretty sure what I said does make sense. The developers of halo did like to make changes for change's sake (example: introducing dual wielding and the BR, and apparently adding equipment and custom armor for change's sake), but the fact still remains that their changes in reach were unarguably heavily influenced by CoD
What? "backpedal" Implies I changed my opinion. All I did was admit that I was wrong about the fact that those changes in halo 3 were not influenced by cod, but instead by change for change's sake, which is still relative to my overall point
It can also mean "to modify one's opinion, make it less strong." Half your argument was based on Halo 3 and you took those words back. Still think it counts as a backpedal. Anyway, go on with your discussion.
Change for the sake of change is not really a good idea but change for the sake of profits is. I would think that the COD 1 and MW3 has changed more then Halo:CE to Halo:Reach. (Mainly pretext for quoteGameplay wise AA's and loadouts is in theory a balanced mechanic. Even if it deviated from one of the core mechanics that made Halo a definitive title it doesn't change that AA loadout's can be balanced, but the "problem" lies within the fact that they did deviate from one of the core mechanics that made Halo a definitive title. Which is only a problem because of your forced to play it this way if loadouts where only in certain or no MM playlists it wouldn't of been a "change" it would of been a widely welcomed feature. (Helps with a lot of custom games with arguably no disadvantages if it wasn't in MM) Well in Reach it's possible for a player to make maps/gametypes that use loadouts and pickup AA's using forge and custom game options, if they have Designed a map for AA loadouts it will enable the map to handle AA pickups so it wouldn't require any more development only time/effort to design in game which if they can take the time to design power weapon spawn locations they should be able design AA spawns locations. Kind of subjective answer but if the only problem is designing a map which can handle AA loadouts and AA pickups and if a map is developed to handle AA loadouts and if that enables the map to handle AA pickups(which I believe it should) then it seems like a simple solution to please a lot of people. If it's really that hard to make both then it's a either or question then it comes down to what whoever is in charge of making this game decision decides and depends on his intentions (Most likely money then it's most likely what the majority of players prefer)
How so? As for the playing both ways, what about my point that people who like AAs but only as pickups are in the minority. If we're gonna talk about the two main camps of opinion here, I'd say that the no-AA camp is more noteworthy in comparison to those who like Reach as is. As such, I'd say the challenge of not only dedicating enough time to almost a distinct dual-gameplay system, but actually pulling it off, is monumental. On that note, I still don't see why the need to either change or expand the game is even warranted. The only consistent argument put forward in here isn't even gameplay related or showing any kind of integrity: it's just admitting that Bungie sold out to try and attract new profit. EVEN if you accept that as an actual argument (and I don't, as we're talking in abstract gameplay terms, and in those terms 'profit' doesn't justify a change as valid for improving gameplay), it hasn't even really worked. Reach is, in progressional terms, the least popular Halo game so far, so what exactly is your collective point about change for monetary terms being a justification in this case?
How so? Halo CE to Halo Reach Multiplayer major changes are AA's, loadouts, bloom~. Cod multiplayer major changes are Custom classes,Perks,Killstreaks. Not including tiny details of weapons/etc because the Core gameplay style has changed more from Cod 1 to mw3 then Halo CE gameplay has changed to Reach. (Even if it wasn't more it's at least comparable to the amount of change) The reason I replied with a development subject manner is because I said something along the lines of "Which is only a problem because of your forced to play it this way if loadouts where only in certain or no MM playlists it wouldn't of been a "change" it would of been a widely welcomed feature. Then you replied with. Which seems like you agreed that gameplay wise if AA loadouts and AA pickups and No AA's where all gametypes in the same game then everyones happy. So that means there is a answer to solve the gameplay problem. But to solve that problem your saying it's a game development issue which is why I replied with so much development content. Also I don't think it would be that much of a development issue because they don't need to design the actual map to suit AA pickups nor AA's, only AA loadouts sure it would help contemplate that factor but it's not a necessity. So it's only a matter of deciding where to place AA's on a map which shouldn't be that much harder or time consuming then choosing where to place Power weapons or normal weapons. But if the reason they wont do that is AA pickups are the Minority then that sucks but it's not that bad imo because AA's as a new feature and its intention is to be used in loadouts(and it's balanced gameplay in loadouts) and there is an alternative playlist for "core halo gameplay" which is without AA's. AA pickups are converting the AA feature into the "core halo gameplay" but still changing it because there AA's. Future halo's might include more features then just AA's then you can have everything as pickups the floor would be messy and really hard to balance (Weapons,Grenades,Vehicles,AA's,PowerWeapons,PowerUps,Future features) So i think it's a fair decision to include AA loadouts development wise and gameplay wise.
Ok yeah. I would argue that custom classes expand the loadouts base mechanic, albeit requiring much more complex balancing, rather than deviating from it. However, I agree that perks and killstreaks are such deviations, as they fundamentally affect your off spawn experience and the way you treat each spawn. So yeah, failed to account for those, and fair enough. I would say that (as an interesting aside rather than an argument) such changes came either before or during the games rise to such mainstream prominence (approximately the genesis of its console fame), whereas the significance change to Halo came well in to its lifetime and arguably as its popularity began to dip. Without access to the kind of figures that Major Nelson has, and that Bungie were likely bearing in mind, it's hard to tell whether this change was an attempt to head off this declining popularity, or the cause of it (or at least the largest nail in what some would call a coffin). I'd probably say that, within the context of the H3 to Reach transition, Bungie thought the change was both positive and necessary (since I definitely credit them with more integrity than those who simply call 'sell out' or 'Cod rip off"). Obviously 'positive' is subjective as we've very much gone over in here, but I don't think 'necessary' was a fair assessment by them if it was one of their reasons for doing so. Halo 3 was still doing reasonably well even late in to its lifespan, and Halo 2 proved that a strong enough following, as long as they're catered to, can still keep a game in the higher echelons of the mainstream. OK, in retrospect I phrased my post very badly. When I said 'everyone would be happy' that was contextual to that point in the argument, ie. 'everyone we've discussed so far.' I tend to structure my arguments, and thus posts, as a pretty strict, linear progression. However, I most certainly should have made that clearer. That said, it still felt like you responded to some of my post and not another part, with respect to: I think introducing a new feature, then saying that the game would be too messy in pick up terms if all these things were around the floor, and using that to justify a fundamental change like loadouts, is pretty weak. The final result of a change (i.e. loadouts) should justify itself, not just be an easy but drastically different workaround to something which has other pluses. You see what I'm saying? As for the playlist where we can play classic Halo, again that was kinda my point. Expecting maps to work for both purposes is naive, hence Bungie focusing so heavily on the CEA maps which have two (often fundamentally) different versions. 6 maps for one side vs. like double that for others, and again I think we can be reasonably sure that the alienated sections of the Halo community with Reach are pretty damn significant in size. Also, I'd like to return to the fact that we get this classic playlist, post TU where 343 pleased so many people by enabling ZB (again, both ways of playing being the best way for sure), then completely failed to use it in even a single classic style gametype. Seriously, what? Idk where we've gotten right now, but I still maintain that it was a somewhat ill thought out and definitely ill-applied change. One which has reason to, and did, put off a significant proportion of the core fan base that Halo relied on. I'm not quite one of them (in that I wasn't put off, I'm definitely a more long term fan), but the way Bungie treated the development of Reach and the fan base during that process has left me disenchanted with them as a multiplayer dev, I have to say.
Can't please everyone but I still retain that if all gametypes where included the bulk of players would not have a disagreement to having all gametypes in MM. It was more a point to say Halo cant stay a purely pickup shooter if they keep making games and adding features and AA loadouts was a decent change compared to other changes that could of changed the game more drastically. AA Loadouts are a balanced and fun(believe it or not) gametype so in that retrospect it justifies itself. But as for justifying the change, Change is required in a video game because of this very reason: So AA loadouts are a decent gameplay mechanic and Reach needs a change put 2 and 2 together, Doesn't really need more justification? Well some Reach has AA loadouts and in MLG has AA pickups which both are balanced gametypes on the same map, Also I think this was bungies thought proccess was if you wanted to play classic halo you can just play classic playlist or custom games if you wanna play reach play Reach. IMO that was "ill thought out and ill applied change" because they should have accommodated the classic gametype and pickup system better. Idk where you are but I have a better understanding of the logical arguments against AA loadouts. But on this specific point this is my summary. I think AA loadouts are balanced and a decent game mechanic and is only down side is it's forced onto people that may not like this gameplay style and if they design Halo 4 with playlist choices that's the solution.
I definitely agree that there could have been significantly worse changes, hence me giving Bungie more credit for integrity in their decision than many others seem to. As for it being fun, again that's subjective. I totally appreciate that it is for many, I never denied and even supported that in my posts, though on that point I'd like to return to the concision of Loadouts being added and Halo dropping off in popularity after a consistent upward trend. I'm not gonna directly equate the two, but with the consistent backlash against such a fundamental change from so much of the old school Halo community that stayed with the game even through H3 (which was bitched at in near equal measure to Reach) whilst still making that game more popular in turn than H2, I don't think you can deny that they're definitely linked as events. Just because a game shouldn't be a carbon copy of a its predecessor, thus change is required, doesn't mean any change they then choose to fill that role is justified, that's poor logic. The nature of the change should justify itself. As we just discussed, you feel it does justify itself as an improvement to the game, I don't, we could argue this to the ends of the earth but I think we can agree there's little point going round in circles with subjectivity. I feel like you're trying to bend your subjective agreement with the change (which is a fair enough stance by any degree) in to an objective justification of it as a enhancing change. There's no real objective metric we can judge this by definitively, the closest we have being what I talked about above with looking at the turn in Reach's popularity compared to past Halo games. Again, this is far too complex for me to simply tout as justification of my position, other games came to the fore and that impacts greatly upon the popularity of past successful series. However, I think it's pretty damn difficult to use this, the only thing close to an objective point of comparison we have, to justify your stance on this. Original Classic playlist was awful, an afterthought. It was also only brought about by a concerted and ongoing campaign by some of the more dedicated forum community. Custom games is a poor justification, just like it has always been. As for your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. If they'd pulled off Classic properly from the beginning, it could have been at least somewhat factored in to the development process in terms of balance. As for some AA pickup gametypes I agree even more, since that doesn't even require a look in during development really, just some decent time spent on extra map variants. I dislike what some people say in this situation (and I know you're not saying this, I'm just pointing out a relevant path of discussion at this point), that if you want to play AA pickup games you can play MLG. There are plenty of aspects about MLG that many don't like, and hell I'm a huge fan but still want to appreciate the wider spectrum of default Halo gameplay a lot of the time. It's a couple of steps away from taking Hammers out of the game and saying "Oh, wana use Hammers? Go play Grifball." It really annoys me and stinks of people who really don't care about any imbalance in community satisfaction as long as they get their way, but can't quite admit that to themselves. Agreed. I think it could be difficult, but could be done. I think what's key with Halo 4 is that 343 keep an open mind as to not leaving a large, core fanbase section feeling abandoned. They've already made a massive gesture with this TU, but avoided the easy trap of undoing Bungie's work that so many others enjoy as is, instead just adding to it. It isn't perfect, but few things are, and as a first act in their stewardship of the franchise I think it's an incredibly well measured appreciation of both aspects of the community in this debate (aside from: gimme more ZB!!!!!!). I think this is where Bungie fell down, and is in part why I guess I'm left feeling that it was a poorly executed change. It showed a surprising disregard for the franchise that they themselves (not accounting for large staff and creative direction changes) created and nurtured, whereas if you were to examine Reach as if Halo had never existed before it, it's much easier to appreciate it as a game deserving of real critical acclaim. Hell, I still love the game. I play Halo 3 and can barely stand it anymore, just because the DMR >>>>>>> the H3 BR even with full bloom, and even more so with 85% or ZB. I guess I'm one of those guys who loves Reach just enough to feel disappointed about what could have been (and, to be fair, still could considering 343's massive headway), as long as it is maintained in tandem with what it already is. EDIT: This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
I think that both AAs and equipment can be incorporated into H4 matchmaking, and that it would be foolish to not include all of the retro options for custom games. (Off topic: think of all the discussion that we would have been spared of if Reach had a BR for custom games.) The AA's to me seem to be designed for BTB and Invasion, even though they were implemented in everything. Sprint and Evade (the latter for Obj) compensates for the large scale and the distances between areas of cover- Evade wouldn't make CQB chaotic as often- the power of evade and a sword seems reasonable on a BTB map, and all of the slower loadouts (including the jetpack) have a worse disadvantage over sprint (but not an extreme one- walking usually takes only from 6/5 to 5/4 as long as sprinting- try it), AL isn't a lifesaver as often because a teammate will only rescue you if you stuck close- on most smaller maps everyone is moving towards the top and will most likely rescue you without intending to- AL also seemed to be a temporary defense against all of the (unlimited ammo) vehicle firepower (banshee, scorpion, wraith). Only active camo (as an AA) is too powerful on large maps. The sniper rifle is always cited as best in conjunction with AC, but crouching and scoping with the DMR kills quickly at extreme ranges too. If they got rid of AL, AC, and the hologram, the only AAs left would be the movement AAs. Those are so easy to remember that they are intuitive even with equipment. You wouldn't have to worry about an invisible enemy at a distance, whether or not an enemy can survive a rocket or if you will net zero or -1 points if you rush these two enemies off guard, one of whom wouldn't be able to save the other normally(ever think about AL that way?). You also wouldn't have to worry about whether the target that you shoot is actually a target (not that holograms have ever changed the outcome of a match) in BTB matchmaking. Equipment, which has been designed to be more: team oriented in that it can affect more than one player, balanced partly because you can't use it every ten F###ing seconds after you spawn (but then again, most of us would choose a single use of AL on a small map over a bubble shield or even a regen), skill dependent in that you don't have every second that you play to figure out how to use in the best way, and in that you even have to go as far as putting yourself in a position conducive to its effectiveness, (equipment) could be used in all competitive matchmaking playlists. The jetpack is necessary for a good variety of slightly vertical maps (not necessarily Paradiso or Boneyard; any walls above jump height would distinguish jetpack-only accessible paths without creating an absurd distance). Sprint was already explained and evade (again for obj only like Reach) is simply fun to use and fun to fight against when an enemy isn't close enough to evade behind (as in past) you.
All I would want is infinite sprint and limited jetpack. Nothing else. Active camp should be in the game, but only in the form of power ups found across the map.