I tried saying that, the whole "hindsight bias" thing I brought up then Pegasi afterward. The tunnel vision in this discussion is astounding. Then again a lot of the people in this thread probably started at Halo 3 or barely remember CE and 2. I'm a little curious to find out how many people crying foul actually played the first two games, when they came out and not well after the fact (for people who got CE:A, or bargain bin'ed halo 2 well after people stopped playing it). That knowledge wouldn't change anyone's opinions nor mine but it would explain the tunnel vision quite a bit.
I wouldn't necessarily blame them for not growing up with the franchise, but the overall expectation of what should come out of a game in general has changed severely. Back then games weren't held to quite the esteem and there wasn't the inbred competitive nature most gamers seem to possess these days. Back then, it seemed games were intended to be fun. Not competitive sports. I blame online gameplay for that.
I don't know if you'd classify me as one of the people "crying foul," but for what it's worth, I've played every Halo game since release. I bought an XBox specifically to play the original Halo.
ha ha same here. Like I said though, I don't blame hindsight bias. Though, I believe it is a factor. Anyway, like Nutduster said, we pretty much have to come to terms with the fact that H4 will have AAs. At this point focus and discussion should be directed at how to best balance those traits, especially when things like seeing through walls comes into play... Speaking of, what are all the confirmed AAs?
The point is that you reduce their complaints to merely "wanting things to not change." You've done this a lot. Don't do it. Just take their complaint and argue against it, if you're so inclined. I didn't say that you've never done so, by the way, just that you sometimes choose to fall back on this instead. You deliver it like it's the coup de grace, when in actuality it's just a way to lessen someone else's argument. That kind of tactic (whether you're conscious that you're doing it or not) has no place in legitimate debate. I didn't say otherwise, though I can understand why you might have interpreted it that way. I'm just saying there's good and bad arguing, and you sometimes engage in both. I'm sure I do too, actually. But the point remains: it's better to engage with the substance of the argument and not what you think people's background reasons are for making that argument.
why is everyone complaining so much? The game looks like halo 3 with the awesome parts of halo reach mixed in. I think it is going to be great. 343 is just trying to make the game appeal to a larger audience so that they can get halo back to where it used to be. At the top.
In a nutshell, there's a small but not insubstantial portion of the Halo fanbase that is competitive - they either play MLG or at the very least, they orient their gameplay around MLG-ish focal points like the range weapons. That crowd wasn't happy with Reach (for the most part) due to a few things: 1. Specific armor abilities were deemed non-competitive for assorted reasons. The worst offenders are probably unlimited jetpack (which breaks maps that aren't designed specifically for it) and armor lock. MLG was quick to strip AAs down to just sprint (with evade pick-ups) and later no AAs at all except for pick-ups (usually just one jetpack). 2. One of the big cornerstones of competitive Halo is "contestables" - neutrally-located power weapons and power-ups that you fight for. Reach basically took away power-ups and the default maps never took advantage of the possibility of AAs as pick-ups to offset that loss. Here again, MLG basically removed the AAs and restored power-ups (or contestable AA pick-ups); in the case of power-ups they have to use a patched gametype so that camo in particular still provides some kind of real benefit. 3. The concept of loadouts in general was antithetical to Halo 1-3, which are all pickup shooters: every player starts exactly equal and has to pick up any weapon or item that will give them an advantage. Part of the ongoing argument is whether it's truly possible to balance different loadouts. Even with relatively good balance, a common complaint is that it turns into rock-paper-scissors. 4. Bloom added a mechanic that is deliberately random to the game. Competitive players hate randomization because they want skill to prevail in every last conflict that occurs in every last game. There are a number of smaller concerns about Halo 4, but the big one to this community is that instead of retreating to the model of Halos 1-3, it's expanding on the part they didn't like about Reach. AAs are back, new AAs are being added, and now you buy/unlock weapons and perks also that will make you play differently depending how you configure your loadout. This appeals to anyone who likes Call of Duty; it decidedly does not appeal to most competitive Halo players of the original three games. And finally, bloom appears to be back in some form, though specifics have yet to be revealed by the people really in a position to reveal them (i.e. the developer). That's undoubtedly true. But it doesn't placate the competitives who want a specific approach from a Halo game.
I'm just not even going to worry about multiplayer. I'm going to play it and, more than likely, enjoy myself. Halo needs to evolve and I think 343i is heading in the right direction. They have the right idea, they just need to work on their execution (which they still have enough time for). I'm really looking forward to Spartan Ops, even if the name is a little... cheesy..
Someone should do a daily what's new in Halo 4 post... kinda tired of sifting through this thread I know, i'm an ass
Please explain to me how this weapon could be considered lame in any way. I just skip over Nutduster's and Pac's posts.
Note: Unless you want to read another wall of text debating how the game will feel in relation to previous titles, skip this post. Fair warning. Thanks man, and I basically fall directly into that category. I've played Halo for the past 8 or so years in some form or another; I wasn't exactly involved with looking up information about it or delving deeper until Halo 3; I'll admit, but I've been playing since CE in some form. The campaign was the main focus for me back then, and I still consider it important today, but I'd be lying if I said the multiplayer wasn't what kept the disk in my xbox. Now, this is a giant, giant wall of text, so I'm going to break it up with spoilers and such. I just wanted to spill this all out somewhere. Feel free to read just certain parts, take your time, get a snack, whatever. Or skip it entirely. It's understandable. On how the game still "Feels like Halo" and how I believe 343 has done such with the universe but not multiplayer gameplay. Spoiler I'm worried about the direction of the game because I've come to expect certain core concepts in the multiplayer in the Halo titles just as I expect to be involved in a plot holding the fate of the universe in the balance in the story. Both are integral in my eyes. 343's decisions of late seem to reflect a serious involvement in the story and fiction which I do like and look forward to, but it seemed they have not come to the same conclusions of Halo multiplayer concepts that I have, and many of my friends as well. The story may be Halo, the world and sandbox may be Halo, but the multiplayer, the games and times I've shared with 16 friends around 4 xboxes in a house that we shouldn't be able to fit in will not feel like Halo to me. That component is a serious part of the game to me and I'm sad to see that 343 doesn't hold core values in the multiplayer as they have with the universe. On what I see as multiplayer pillars on which Halo has been built on so far. Spoiler In referring to elements of the multiplayer I'm mostly looking at the following principles I see in the three trilogy games: Even starts for all. My friend who owned the game when we originally started may have skill, but he was as mortal as we were, and I knew he didn't have any advantage on me other than innate experience and skill. Working together to earn advantages. As we grew with the game, we learned how to play well and the teamwork and challenge involved in control has been key to me. Crutches weren't given. As mentioned above, my better friend had advantages in skill, and no crutches would help us beat him. Instead, we learned to get better. Self improvement is important to me, and this gameplay encouraged this. Not to mention the skill system prevented seriously unbalanced matches in matchmaking at the time (for the most part), and offline games were just good fun, and it helped us catch up to him in the end. Look at all of the major changes from Halo CE to 2 to 3. They were major, sure, but they kept the basics the same. The game changed, but at the core it played the same way. New tactics were used to accomplish old objectives. New things to fight for, new ways to fight, certainly. Still, the core gameplay felt like Halo not just because of shields and super-human jumping, but also because I was blue and he was red and we both were fighting for control on even terms. I'm not opposed to change. I welcome change, so long as the basic game plays with the same basic principles as the one before it. Different FPS games have their own unique style, and I don't see why any one of them should give theirs up.Reach began to compromise with these three, bending the rules, causing the reason for my major complaints. Halo 4 looks to being going further and blatantly stepping on all three; I see the first one as the most important and it's removal in the mainstream Halo 4 matchmaking can't even be debated at this point. Counter-arguments and concessions, such as the "I haven't played yet" and "There will be classic playlists" spiel and the conclusion. Spoiler Sure I haven't played it yet and sure there will be classic playlists and such, but I don't want to be marginalized in the general community of the games I play. I experience this to a degree in Reach; stuck in Super Slayer, MLG and Objective most of the time, with Multi-Team as a casual playlist. All four of those playlists combined makes up half of Vanilla Slayer or Living dead on an average day, or thereabout. I don't want a game that I have to play under so many 'house rules' as someone put it to be able to enjoy it in the same way I have with previous Halo titles' multiplayer. Maybe it is premature, and that is why I'm not blatantly refusing to play it at this point, but I'm seriously concerned and will probably be done with Halo and xbox in general if Halo 4 turns out the way I think it will. I am complaining because I don't want to see the multiplayer of Halo 4 become something I see as completely foreign to Halo multiplayer principles I've come to accept. I understand that I am the minority and that I most likely will be ignored because of the small purchasing power the people that think this way hold, but I'd rather go down fighting than slowly accept the mutation of the multiplayer I've come to know and enjoy with friends I've grown up with over the last 8 years. But seriously, I'm not saying "This game will suck", I'm just trying to explain why I don't see this as keeping consistent in keeping the principles of the game intact in both the world and the multiplayer, in the way I have come to expect from the Halo name. I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm not telling them to stay away, I'm just concerned and I want to be heard. Take from this what you will. I hope you enjoy the game. This is my belief, I understand many think differently and I may enjoy the game myself, but I won't feel like I'm playing Halo with my friends at a LAN at this rate. It may be fun, but not like the last 8 years, at least to me. I just wrote a freakin essay...China called...if you actually managed to sit through ALL of that, props to you, go take a break, get some fresh air. I owe you a cookie. And lastly, I like the idea of a giant confirmed list of Halo 4 things, and I would be glad to make one, but I don't want to make another Halo 4 thread without permission, and there are probably better people to keep it. Not saying I wouldn't maintain it. Apologies for any major errors I may have made in advance; I'll proofread again when I'm not coming out of the stupor and machine-like mindset post-AP essay practice. I think that influenced this post quite a bit.
Long, but very well said, Scorch. That's exactly what I keep trying to point out. For every bitter complainer who can't string a sentence together, there's something like you who has legitimate concerns and is capable of stating them reasonably and politely, albeit at great length. You deserve to be responded to in kind and not just dismissed.
Same here they post so often I don't even read anymore just skip em and you will see something about halo 4 lol [br][/br]Edited by merge: You owe me a cookie.
/me dismisses scorch's point /nutduster is not amused /me Although I think this whole thread is a good sumarrisation of us as a community. We start off well. We see something controversial. We all take the negative stance. We then join the positive stance side, casting mean glances upon those who still think so, as we all group everybody together. After that we realise that we should respect opinions if they are justified. Maybe next, we can DISCUSS said opinions. Damn. Scary!