Yeah, but maybe there is a similar Sniper-like weapon that's covie or forerunner that you can spawn with. Also @BT and others with similar sentiments: Holy ****, they aren't making CoD in the slightest. They're ripping elements and stuffing them into a game where they have no place. That's the difference. You have two models of cars yet you don't necessarily rip parts off and switch them between one another. Not everything fits, not everything works just as well on the other model. It's the same thing. Halo isn't CoD. People don't die instantly, zip around the map. There aren't 30 guns to unlock over 80 levels. There aren't 20 perks. But despite all the minor difference the major one is still that first one. People die fast in CoD with any gun. Therefore, all guns can be starting weapons without as noticeable of an advantage. Perks help but they don't make or break you in CoD because no matter what you're still dying very quickly if shot. This isn't the case in Halo, people live long. That extended time period of life gives more time for the advantages and disadvantages to be noticed. If I have more shields in Halo, you will notice it. When I unlock the BR or the DMR before you, you will notice it. When I use 3 grenades or go camo constantly throughout a match, you will notice. They are not close enough for their parts to be swapped. Halo was designed perfectly for what it was. CoD is designed perfectly for what it is. That doesn't mean that either should steal anything from the other.
"Perfectly" is a strong word, for both of those uses, Chrs, but I do agree with much of what you were saying.
78 pages and you still haven't clocked the basis of this CoD argument. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but the more intelligent people putting forward this argument aren't simply focusing on the "did it first" aspect, but rather the basis for the moves being made with this game. CoD may not have been the game to invent classes, perks etc. but if you think that it's more appropriate to cite the games that actually did introduce these ideas as the basis for Halo 4's use of them then you're either naive or wilfully flouting reason. The idea that a trending title, and the game design ideas displayed therein, are being rather plainly adapted in to series which has historically occupied a rather different niche in the shooter market, happening to coincide with the rise of the former and decline of the latter in terms of both reputation and play base, is another issue altogether. I don't think anyone is bewailing that which is "stolen" from CoD for the sake of CoD itself, but rather asking why 343 felt it necessary to take this direction with Halo. What I think is interesting right now is the common reference to Frankie's previous statements, with the snippets like "you'll have to trust us" and "it still feels like Halo" being brought up time and again as bitter emblems of this perceived betrayal. Frankly, in placing this information alongside the recent gameplay leak I think exactly what's meant by these comments, especially it still feeling like Halo, becomes very clear. The idea of it feeling like Halo in terms of the basic player mechanics rings totally true based on what we've seen from footage. Movement looks better than Reach, jump looks better than Reach, and that recent shakycam footage actually looked pretty fast. I suppose the speed could be a little off, but I hope not, as weapon change times etc. actually looked pretty good, and perhaps it's just optimism but the rate of fire on the BR looked higher than we saw in previous videos. But what's interesting is that not too many Halo 4 dissenters seem overly concerned that the core mechanics like movement and shooting are at risk. Even aside from the Halo 3 precedent showing that people can still be plenty happy even with relatively strong spread and changes to movement/aiming, such concerns seemed to peak relatively early in comparison with reactions to wider changes to the game and the reactions they've provoked. I don't think anyone is worried that Halo is at risk of becoming an ADS shooter where positioning holds a much greater significance within the playstyle, so what does "it still feels like Halo" actually mean? Is it a fair, yet ultimately irrelevant assessment of basic in game player mechanics such as movement and shooting, or does it extend to the wider player experience? If it's the latter then I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for 343 to fend off those calling BS. I love you, BT, but I have to say: what an utterly meaningless statement. EDIT: @chrs, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. I actually think that what they're doing is keeping the fundamental second to second player experience of Halo (like I said, largely based around the movement and shooting mechanics, though obviously extending to things like grenades and other interaction with geometry than simply walking/jumping etc.) and transplating that in to a framework much more similar to CoD in terms of how the player approaches the game in the long term. That's not to say I attach any more positive connotations to my assessment than to yours, but I definitely think that's what's going on. The wider experience is being morphed around the more consistent basis of "classic Halo" mechanics which remain, which I feel amounts to a more significant change than simply fudging in isolated tidbits from other titles. The way the player approaches the game in the more long term sense is being changed to mimic a model which has supposedly proven to be more palatable to the current majority of the console FPS market, but with the Halo gunplay remaining at the centre of it.
So Peg, because cod is what is trendy that assumes all responsibility for ideas in games now? I've always hated that argument because it's such a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. So any similar game mechanic must be from Call of Duty because that is what is popular right now. But you know what everyone else seems to know how "obvious" 343i intensions for things are, over 343i themselves apparently so I'll defer to the masses.
This is pretty much where I stand as well. Nothing about this says CoD mush to me, though there are some things that really do- and I am okay with that. The things I hate about CoD are things that Halo does better usually (spawning is often better, the maps are overall better I think, and Halo's weapons are more balanced). Thus, adding CoD style games and elements such as what they have (perk like alterations, customizing loadouts, etc) I really cant say I hate. The only thing I was really concerned over were armor abilities- and I still am a bit- though the thruster pack (rather than jet pack) eases my doubts a bit. I have no issue with these changes and rather welcome them. I got sick of Reach and Halo 3 MM over a few weeks, I still play the occasional CoD:MW2 game with friends. I expect most things and changes to be great. Not to mention that the times have changed and Halo is honestly a bit slow paced. I enjoy the quicker games that leave only room for safe spawning and everything else is a huge arena of killing and skill. Sure, that is normal in Halo, but it gets a bit boring over a just a few games for me in H3 and Reach. Also a large fan base of Reach likes Reach (shocking, I know). Thus 343 is trying to bring back older Halo fans and keep the new ones while still making a unique Halo game. I cant say that they have done poorly at all considering what all the pressure from so many must be. I have seen so much here to know this pressure exists. I guess all I am saying is that I dont think 343 Dev meetings consist of the lot of them studying horses or monkeys and playing Stratego. I truly believe this will be a grand game, though it will let many down as well without a doubt. All I know is that all the gameplay footage I have seen looks damn fun- and that's what counts.
Gah, you're still missing the point. It's not about "responsibility" for ideas, or credit or anything like that. Sorry, but the player experience is being adapted to include large numbers of varying mechanics and systems that just so happen to have also been part of a currently very popular FPS title, even the biggest direct competitor to Halo as a series. Whether these ideas are worth calling as "stolen from CoD" in terms of crediting their inception is irrelevant, but it genuinely surprises me that the stark nature of what's going on here doesn't prompt even the slightest hint of inferring motivation in your approach to this discussion. Yes, game design is about adapting ideas in to your title that you think will work, and a lot fewer of these ideas are either new or groundbreaking in the way people seem to imply with the outrage present in this discussion. The same is true of software design on any level, easy to see when you compare this to the endless fanboy arguments about Windows and OS X "stealing" from each other. Hell it's even true in basic terms across pretty much all media creation. Story telling, or even general writing conventions become adopted, adapted and appropriated, it's a process inherent to so many things that we create. However, are you honestly telling me that you don't see something striking about what's going on with Halo 4 as not just as a departure from previous Halo conventions, but also as an attempt to create a "new" space within the console FPS market? It's not simply the fact that mechanics which are distinctly similar to those found in CoD (and again, the reason for this comparison isn't simply to do with the invention of these ideas, but the clear precedent for how the current console FPS market reacts to them) are being employed here, it's that they're being pieced together in such a way as to create a wider framework which resembles that of CoD much more closely, only (as I said) with Halo gunplay being used as the centrepiece for this framework. Such a change impacts upon the way people approach the game in the longest term (such as how they've implemented player investment as an practice), to how they approach preparation (constructing your setups around your playstyle suddenly becoming an aspect of the game, and a big one at that), and even in to how they act in the encounters themselves. Again, I feel that this last level is the one which is least impacted upon in terms of this comparison to CoD, but it's still an element to be sure. Now as for the basis of the CoD comparison once again, yes CoD didn't invent this and didn't invent that yada yada yada, but please find me a title which has such a stark similarity to the overall player experience being pushed with this approach to H4. Then please find me one which also just happens to be the biggest competitor in console FPS games right now, a crown which Halo held with its own conventions (again, not invented by, just combined in Bungie's own way 10 years ago). It seems like you're too determined to see this issue in black and white terms. That either everything is stealing or that nothing is and that it's a useless term. On the last point I'd kind of agree, but only in the sense that "stealing" itself is an unhelpful term based on the connotations it holds, and I still maintain that assessing the dynamics of mechanic adaption is more worthwhile than simply saying that everything is fair game and not even thinking about why games are made the way they are, even if this discussion is sometime illustrated in light of other games.
You keep telling me I'm missing the point while reaffirming the same point I'm addressing... I see advertising, something few people seem to understand the point of. If you advertise everything that is the same then you won't get any new people to want to buy your game. You'll get a smaller base of people who will buy your product regardless because of the legacy but that doesn't motivate sales. You advertise what is different and new. Right now that is focusing on the multiplayer and as a lot of the multiplayer is new there is a lot to say about it. In the few videos that have come out so far everything seemed pretty darn "halo" to me, but people don't seem to care about that, just the disjoint ideas being discussed and not how they fit together. ...but I thought that wasn't the point. This whole paragraph is exactly what I was talking about. Because CoD is what is "right now" you call it "stark similarity to the overall player experience" I call it similar game ideas (and don't give me the semantics crap) then it assumes all the responsibility for those ideas. Do you seriously want me to compile a list of lesser known titles that came around the same time as MW2/3/black ops or before that had very similar game mechanics. But again that "wasn't the point" correct? HA, me seeing the issue in black and white terms? I'm the one saying it's anything but. I'm not the one crying foul over every new game detail because of it's similar nature to game x or game y and how "not Halo" it is. I'm not assuming details that haven't been given, nor mechanics that haven't been shown. You know what is black and white? Saying how bad a game is based on what you do or do not like from other games where similar details exist. I wasn't even referring to anything you said in my post, (mostly what chrs, chuck, security said), but apparently in the same way you and nutduster keep reminding me why people can say as many negative things as their heart's desire, why can't I give my opinion regarding this without the 10th degree.
... So, besides arguing about if we should allow people to share their opinions or not, how do you guys see these unidentified Armor Abilities and Perks working out?
well, unless they have a thousands of assholes playtesting, probably exploitable to a point of horrible imbalance. games with all these additions need betas, and not "look at our game" previews labeled as betas. it'll be a few title updates before it all works how they expected in the first place, as it usually is.
Right now I'm just excited mainly for everything but matchmaking. Campaign looks great, SO sounds great, and (I hope) forge and customs will be awesome. So even if MM doesn't turn out too great, we still have all the other stuff. That's the way I'm looking at it at the moment.
I do agree that the rest of the game looks to be shaping out very well, but honestly, I need the multiplayer. I consider that the lasting portion of the Halo experience. Campaign is great first time through, but once or twice through and I only touch it later every month or so at best. I enjoy the challenge of other players on even turn far more than an AI who only gets more difficult through unfair bonuses. I would love to be able to subsist on customs, but I see them as being to infrequent to warrant me staying in the game as much as I would like. It would be nice to play customs on maps made with a godly forge instead of matchmaking, but I do not have that many friends readily available. Generally I can manage four for a team, with occasional customs. It's not enough. I wish it was. If the single turns out to be the only aspect I like the looks of, I'll rent and play that. Nothing more. It'll be sad to leave Halo, but I can't put up with Matchmaking that includes these changes. I play Halo mainly for an (more or less) arena shooter. If the game does not fulfill that role, I won't really have too much of a use for it. That's just my position on the game. It might be a great game, but it isn't going to be the sub-genre of shooters that I enjoy. Dammit, I spewed a long wall of debate again. Sorry. As for the AAs and Perks, I expect there will be many patches needed to balance them. I forecast (note: this is all speculation) that people will still find combos of abilities that make for very focused gameplay that makes them nearly unstoppable in a certain type of encounter (CQB in tight spaces, for example) which will make the game very counter-heavy (343 hints at this with their statements about how some AAs counter others. Combine this with the community which will inevitably find powerful combinations.), to which the perks and AAs will be nerfed to the point where they are not really all that useful or game changing at all. 343 will then reverse these changes in about half the playlists and you will be left with half almost class-based gameplay revolved around picking the right combo for the job, and the other half which more or less resembles Reach with diluted abilities. Just judging based on their track record with the Reach TU.
You know, I feel like I could forgive (most of) 343i's transgressions if only they brought back equipment. Spoiler And the flamethrower. And playable Elites, too.
Guys, stop saying that Halo will be like CoD, seriously... gawd... ...on a serious note, I don't blame 343 for trying to dip into the mainstream gaming pool. While it is undoubtedly going against my own (and many people here's) desires, it would be pretty stupid of 343 to try and be the hipster that gets their budgets cut solely to satisfy the "cool" crowd rather than the bigger population of pants-on-head retards with lots of cash and no patience for games that actually require thumbs to play. Also, of all of the crap news that I've been seeing (IMO), I have to take this time to appreciate the hardlight shield (omgs, that was so 10 pages ago). I'll probably end up hating it after a week of the game's release, but until then, I think the fact that it blinds half of your screen (or at least it looks like it does on the potato-camera) is a pretty good balancing concept.
No one is going to read this whole thing, but here goes: Didn't any of your parents teach you that change can be a good thing? I see people constantly dismissing opinions on each Halo game by telling the people complaining about them to, "Go play Halo 1/2/3 if you don't like it." Well, same to you. Go play one of those if you don't like Halo 4 when it comes out. No one will miss you. Besides, we all know customs and Forge will be fun as they are in every Halo, so if MM sucks, Halo 4 will be no different than Reach to me. I highly dislike Reach's multiplayer, perhaps more than any other Halo before it. If it weren't for Customs, I would have never played it beyond the first couple months. It felt like a half-assed attempt at what we're seeing here with Halo 4. A lot of these changes are clearly the natural progression if one were to continue fleshing out the bastard child that Reach was. One could argue that, since Reach's attempt at class-based Halo failed, that Halo 4's is doomed to fail as well. I would disagree. Going only half-way is what made Reach fail and I certainly believe that there is a chance 4 will follow suit, but it can't disappoint me more than Reach's MM. I enjoy playing CoD. I enjoy playing Halo. As BT has said, a polished marriage between the two would be amazing. Pegasi, you say that you cannot just take other "car" parts and tack them onto another car and have it work. While this is true, I do not believe that is what they're doing here. The videos we've seen and feedback from hands-on impressions have proven that it still feels like Halo. That is all that matters to me. I think the class and perk systems will be fun additions to the game and allow more specialized players to promote their style of game-play more. Can you jump 6 ft in CoD? Do you have shields? Can you fall from 20 stories and walk away unharmed? Do you have thruster packs and x-ray vision? No. This is still Halo, but with elements borrowed (some may say stolen, but every elements from all of your favorite games have "stolen" from another that came before it) from another successful franchise that has features people like. 343i can't worry about satisfying every neck-beard and high school kid who bitches about their game without having laid a finger on the controller. But of course, on FH, we all know game-play mechanics better than the people who've spent 10-15 years of their life making games. Just sayin'. This isn't directed at anyone, but I'd like to say that this thread makes me really sad to see how entitled gamers feel to have games be exactly what they want them to be. It's like the people who bitched about ME:3's ending. Do you think your favorite author should go back and make a new ending to their latest novel because a majority of the people who read it disliked the ending? You might, but you aren't entitled to make demands of them. We're lucky 343i is doing their best to continue keeping close ties with the community like Bungie has. The people who make these games pour thousands of hours into a project they love and all they get is **** from their "fans" for it. Edit: What Benji said, essentially. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Wow, this is ignorant. You really think Halo isn't mainstream? It invented mainstream multi-player FPS's on consoles. No one is a hipster for liking classic Halo. Then you go on to insult players who might like the changes by calling them names and making arbitrary accusations about them having lots of disposable income and no skill? Not much else to say here but a good ol', "**** youuuuuuuuu!"
Let's not get carried away now. The complaints regarding ME3's ending stemmed mostly from glaring plot holes and inconsistencies in the well established story (as well as the whole being promised numerous endings based on choice and receiving 3 with as little choice as possible while still technically being called a "choice"). Not exactly the same scenario as demanding a game play exactly like an older game (over-simplification, bla-bla-bla whatever, people can keep saying that but doesn't mean that isn't what they want). I do agree with most of the other stuff you said though. Remember unfrozenlynx, loscocco speaks for "most" people, I wouldn't question his logic or else you'll anger most people. At least this time he added the "IMO". It's a start.
Rofl Unfozen "can't you see, gaming is changing? It isn't like it used to be in the original titles. Who cares if it draws inspiration to welcome in a new generation of gaming, you entitled pricks. God..." ... "Halo's old mechanics aren't mainstream anymore? How ****ing ignorant, **** you!" Contradiction is contradictory... Notice the past tense you used when it built mainstream FPS? Yeah, it's past tense for a reason. And did I say, "all CoD fans and fans of Halo changes are wealthy and lack skill" in my post? No... but I'd say that a good chunk (<- hey look Pac) of those nubs exist on CoD's end of the spectrum and 343 does want to grab their attention to restore Halo's glorious population size. Also, the "with lots of cash" was referring to the extremely large pool of players in CoD's fanbase, saying that "this is where the money is at" (however, there are lots of CoD fans that buy the yearly title, which is a good amount of cash in game-sales perspectives), but that was poor wording on my part. Their personal wealth is completely irrelevant to the video game industry if they're buying/have bought the game. And pac, just grow up. Way to bring rise too all of my points that you just spit on without an actual rebuttal, just personal jabs, in the end because you're just too perfect. Once again, way to use everything I said completely out of context to criminalize me and support your ignorant logic. You're a winner, kid.
All of you who are arguing and trading insults... either stop talking, or start being infracted. If you can't discuss anything without insulting each other, your posts aren't wanted in this thread. Take it to VM or PM if you have to... Also... Gun leaked in Halo 4!!! This just makes the game now... Spoiler By 'leaked' I meant it urinated on the spartan's sleeve.
Same here. I'm willing to bet I'll not go into multiplayer as much, but that's mainly because I don't think i'll have time to play it in the near future. But, from what we've seen, campaign looks and sounds promising and Spartan Ops sounds like a nice idea. One of the best things about the Halo Franchise, for me, is that it can cater to almost anybody. You can have a game of 300% speed, high jumping rockets, then drop into MLG, then play a game of jenga. It never ceases to amaze me what people came up with using Halo 3 & Reach, and even in Halo 2 when people played Zombies & Cops and Robbers. If 343 can get the level of customisation Halo 3 had with Reach's forge (plus more than 2 or 3 moveable objects, I want my switches back!), I don't think I'll ever touch matchmaking anyway.