I'm not feeling it. I'm not sure about changing back to a 3 shot burst weapon for main utility weapon. I'd rather have a single shot one, and preferably it would also be really accurate and don't have that annoying bulletspread of the H3 BR. God, I hope they don't mess this up. They need to make it more competitive again to get the huge parts of the community, that left Halo because of Reach, back. At least the part about the maps is sort of good news. If I believed in a god, I would be praying to it.
It's definitely good news. Hopefully there will be fewer (meaning no) maps that look and feel like campaign spaces that just happened to have spawn points dropped all over them. And if they use forge variants on the disc, hopefully those will have more attention paid to them... In general, I feel like, even though I've usually defended the Reach maps against their worst detractors, there needs to be more focus on the multiplayer maps in Halo 4. Get back to the series' bread and butter. I may be alone in this, but I'd also like to see a lot fewer remakes of old maps. A lot of fans might cry over it, but they've piggybacked a little too much on previous successes. More originals and even more re-imaginings would be welcome (I can't be alone in thinking that Avalanche was better than Sidewinder, Valhalla was better than the Gulch, and Guardian was a fighting equal to Lockout).
BR IS BACK! Pegasi, eat your heart out. I don't know about you guys, but that video gives me nothing to complain about.
I totally agree with you. Remakes are terrible. I payed for them once, I don't want to pay for them again.
yep yep no, just no. The problem I have with remakes, is that they put a map designed for game A, into game B and think that it still works as good as it did originally
I know a lot of my CoD friends (who used to be die-hard Halo fans, but began switching after MW was released and were fully converted by BlOps) are excited for Halo 4. Reach really pushed a lot of people away and I'm hoping that Halo 4 will bring them back. Right now the big attraction is simply that the MC is back. It's easy to take vague statements and footage from this video and extrapolate upon their meaning, but I don't think we can jump on the, "Halo 4 is gonna suck," bandwagon just yet. Let's wait for E3 when more information is released before assuming the worst has happened and our beloved franchise is being flushed down the toilet. PS: Am I the only one who thinks the new armor looks pretty dope? I mean, let's not forget that Reach has some pretty shitty looking armor. PPS: Those new maps look schweeet. I had an idea for an atrium map with an in-construction mech in the middle for a long time, but it's not really feasible in Forge. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought this would make for a damn cool playspace. I'm also hoping that one of those mechs is playable in the campaign.
Seriously, a Campaign linked with Multiplayer? Sounds to me like someone ran out of ideas... As Oli said, the positioning of the medals is pure ludicrous. There hasn't been anything wrong with it for the last 4 games, so why move it somewhere else? Also, perks? Whatever happened to providing the player with a fun multiplayer experience where every game relied on how skillful or strategic you were, not what unbalanced silly powerups you spawned with b/c you were a high level? Well, at least there's Borderlands 2
Yeah.....no. I don't expect to treat every shooter like an RPG and grind to get a starting advantage in future games. I'm not dissing it as a gameplay principle, I may not be a huge CoD/BF player but I enjoy them in their own way and think it'd suck if they went towards the even playing field style that Halo has. But, by the same token, I enjoy winning in a given game of Halo because I was better in that given game of Halo, not because I worked off an advantage that previous victories had bought. "Learn to accept changes" is still the single worst justification for any given addition to a game, and completely dodges the need to justify changes or additions in their own right. You're polarising the options in to either being a stick in the mud who hates all change, or someone who's mind is so open that it's spread all over the street and who'll chug down anything a dev tosses their way as good simply because it's different. You're right that we don't know enough to even consider how it'll work, let alone play out in practice, but the simple idea of having an equipable change to the game is enough to worry me.
They should get him to work on Firefight. Firefight was good in ODST but a train wreck in Reach. I can't say I'm exactly happy about the introduction of perks into Halo, but I just hope they're not as gameplay-defining as in CoD. Let's just cross our fingers that there's not a weapon progression system. If so, I've lost hope.
mother of god, they moved the place where medals appear that have no effect on gameplay from the left side of the screen to the right. alert the press, someone get the ****ing president on the phone, this means the end of halo as we know. are you serious? also, now im not saying i support this in halo, but anyone who says unlockable weapons gives an unfair advantage to people who have played the game a lot is just plain bad at the game if you ask me. give me any of the low-level weapons in cod or even the default classes and i'll give you a 2.0 k/d almost every game in tdm. did you ever play the original gears of war? everyone started with the same weapons with an average of maybe 2 or 3 pickups on each map. and you were lucky if you could get above a 0.5 k/d after weeks of playing. having few weapons just gives people who play it a lot that much more time to get extremely good with those starting weapons than people who are just picking it up. stop complaining at least until there is some legitimate, solid info to complain about.
I agree with the anti-perks stance. What makes Halo's multiplayer unique is that everyone starts every game as equals. Power ups are fun but only when everyone has an equal chance at getting them every game, like in Halo 3. Also, I saw this on /v/.
They never said campaign was linked with multiplayer. More so that there was just a reason for reds fighting blues now.
To be fair, the medals in Reach were originally gonna be at the bottom center of the screen, as seen in the beta trailer.
It wasn't a yeah....no statement. It was a "A lot of people enjoy this mechanic" statement. Whether you like it or not wasn't the point your opinion is not the majority of people who play games. I'm sure you would like their opinion's to match yours but that doesn't make it so. I'm sure you would respond with "and you know what the majority of gamers like?" and the answer to that would be no though I can infer based numbers of people who play perk based games. I'm not just applying my opinion to the situation and acting like if it is different at all from what I want it must suck. Again this entire point of view is based on a viewpoint of not changing. And don't give me that "I'm open to changes" crap that involves simply tweaking a few internal gameplay settings but otherwise everything is exactly the same as old games. In your view of things Halo 4 should be Halo 2 or Halo. Your viewpoint is also assuming a perk system in halo would be exactly like it is in those others games. Just because that is what you have to compare to doesn't mean you can assume that will be the case. Again, way to early to tell and hating every little snippet of information that gets revealed about a new game being too different gets old fast. I'm polarizing the options because those are the two options. I notice you didn't offer a dissenting opinion on that. The middle ground between those two zones are what game developers strive to hit but as far as the fans go there are only the two spheres. This is the case that game developers have had to deal with when coming up with sequels to original games since games existed. Just look at the majority of posts today regarding halo 4. Now tell me "stick in the mud" doesn't apply to all of those responses. If you think no then you are one of those sticks. All I'm saying is learn to appreciate a developer's drive to make a game their own and learn to adjust to new things instead of deciding to hate everything before you even start based on some preconceived notion of the game not being what it should be compared to older games. If you start out all ready negative on a game then you will never have fun with and if you can't have fun with it why even bother talking about it other then to suck the fun out of for other people. You worry too much. Now, my own personal opinion is I would rather not have a perk system in halo, but I wouldn't hate them for doing so, if the system was implemented well I would enjoy it all the same.
Without meaning to sound like an ass, my K/D is significantly higher than yours and I object to the perk system precisely because I don't suck at the game. On the one hand, I want to win games because I was better than the opponent, or lose because I was worse, not because of an advantage that one could work towards in easier games. On the other, I don't want someone beating me, even just in a given encounter, because they had a specific perk, despite them being worse than me in the given instance. People who object to perk systems are, by and large, people who are better at the game, and dislike the idea of being able to grind your way through a skill gap. And what about when Bungie brought in things like Sprint and loadouts at the start of each game/respawn? Look how that turned out, Reach bombed in comparison to other Halos, because it's more complex than simply moving with the currently popular gameplay mechanics. Don't think you can simplify the gaming landscape to that degree, it's foolish. So any change I do agree with is tweaking, but any I don't is actual change? How about you unbunch your panties for a second and actually listen to me when I say that I am open to change. For example, I'd actually be very interested if there were some manner of gameplay trait or ability system that worked within individual games. Something akin to the buy system of CS or Shadowrun, though obviously different in implementation due to Halo's lack of round-based-gameplay (by and large). Something that adds extra strategy and depth to the game, without it simply being a case of some people starting off with objectively better stats/equipment/abilities than others, would be great. If you're actually going to pull the "you just hate change" just because I put forward concern over a change that you may agree with, then I honestly don't know what to say. No, my viewpoint is assuming any kind of system where players in the game start on an uneven keel, be that through things which are unlocked/bought over time or as a result of grinding, or are simply chosen from available options. Sorry, you're actually saying that the options are being open to literally all change and saying "yay!" or hating anything changing in the slightest? Are you serious? If that's the way you view the gaming community then I (and think you should also) question your ability to even weigh in on such discussions to a worthwhile degree. And thanks for grouping me with people who's opinions happen to fall in line with mine in certain aspects. Nutduster, as a counter example, seems similarly reserved about the principle of a perk system, yet he is far from a stick in the mud about change. I agree that plenty of the posts in here are simply anti change, but I don't align myself with them. I know you are apparently capable of only seeing things in black or white, but I'd appreciate it if you at least tried to pick out the differences here. Seriously, where are you getting this "hate everything" from? Honestly, apart from the idea of differences in player traits at game start, I like the stuff I've seen in these few snatches, and what I've heard from 343. You really need to let go of this sweeping rhetoric. As for appreciating their drive, I totally do. I'm really enthusiastic about 343 taking over, I love Frankie's drive and clear passion for the franchise, but again that doesn't mean that I'm just going to smile and nod at everything. I don't expect decisions to be made on my say so or that of people with similar opinions, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion, and honestly it isn't even that dissenting an opinion. Smile and nod, dude, smile and nod. So I'm not allowed to show concern over a potential change because we don't know how it'll work, but you can say definitively that you'll still enjoy it? See what I mean about being too apt to just accept whatever's given to you? Don't you worry your head about these things, adults are taking care of it... EDIT: Dunno if this has been mentioned, but it looks like we're unlikely to get a beta.
Pac: I fear you're falling way too much into the trap of being the Designated Halo Defender, who battles against the raging hordes of unreasonableness. Not that such a thing is needed in reality (although there are indeed certain hordes who are QUITE unreasonable, I grant you that), but you have cast yourself that way, and it's coloring every argument you have on here lately. If anyone says anything remotely negative, pessimistic, or even mildly fretful, you tend to charge in with an attitude, and want to lump them in with all the bitchiest bitches that clutter up the Bungie and Halo Waypoint forums. Can I offer some advice? Ignore the people that are blatantly unreasonable, and try engaging with the others of us on our own terms, based on what we actually say, and not putting words in our mouth. As Pegasi points out, I'm a guy who can sometimes be critical of the state of Halo. But I try to be even-keeled about it, and I'm far from opposed to change. Much to the contrary, I am brimming with ideas for ways to update and improve Halo; the thing I posted earlier in this thread about power weapon locations is just the tip of a huge iceberg. If you have a day and a lot of patience, I'll talk your ear off about changes I'd like to make. And I think even some of the more negative self-proclaimed "competitive players" will profess their love of the grenade launcher, a weapon that didn't exist prior to Reach and has no close Halo precedent except maybe, and just partially, the brute shot in its Halo 2 incarnation. Even for those guys (or us guys?), change can be good... when it's good. Change can also be bad though. You can't make it an either/or proposition; it simply isn't. I can't replace your XBox and copy of Reach with Hungry Hungry Hippos and tell you that "change is good." One thing that really troubles competitive players (most of them) is any fundamental alteration to Halo's core, original philosophy: a pick-up shooter where every player is equal at spawn, except in skill. Balance in this fashion has been a big part of the game until Reach, through many other types of changes (dual wielding, equipment, etc.). Other changes may have bothered some players, but the inclusion of loadouts bothered many more people than usual, and I think it's because of that big philosophical shift. Perks takes things to another level, because now you (probably - we have limited info so far) can't just pick any of 5 armor abilities to spawn with, which is at least a KIND of equality. Now you earn them over time, and you literally get better at the start of each game simply by having racked up experience. To people who have loved the franchise from a competitive standpoint for a decade now, this is potentially ruinous. I say potentially, though, because we have yet to get more than the merest hint of what this system really entails, or how it will affect gameplay. I'm willing to withhold judgment. But I also hope that you'll be willing to tolerate guys like me being a bit nervous about it. This isn't just change - this is a game we've loved (in multiple different iterations) changing into a different game entirely that just happens to look kind of the same on the surface. It may not represent that to you, but it surely does to us.
I'm defending game developers not Halo. I'm sick and tired of every new game being brow beated way ahead of when a game comes out because it doesn't fit "their" ideal based on 10 year old games they loved. It pisses me off and isn't good for gaming's future. Sucks all the fun out of a new game, it really does. As far as the "tweaks" vs changes thing goes whenever you start out on the plane of what is all ready there and say how you would "improve" it, THAT is a tweak. That isn't a significant change. I'm sure you could tweak the hell out of any game to the point where you feel it is at its best (as modders love doing to PC games) but they aren't changing the game. When modders do make a significant change to a game its always met with a lot of controversy where some people love it and find it a fun novel experience and those who hate it and say it just isn't the same game anymore.