This is one of those insta-flamewar topics, but I still think it's worth discussing. It would be nice if we can keep the more fundamentalist invective out of it. If you're replying to this, do your part: be thoughtful, be polite, and don't use this as an excuse to just bash 343 again, because really, that isn't my point and it isn't really needed right now anyway. There are a bunch of other threads for that. I think we should be able to generally agree, now that we've all played the game, that Halo 4 took a lot of inspiration from Call of Duty multiplayer. Some of that was generally acknowledged before the game came out, but much of it was denied by both 343 and others. Now I believe we should be able to acknowledge that it was exactly what it looked like. This is not a comprehensive list, but even the off-the-top-of-my-head version is long enough to be spoilered: Spoiler Kill cam Kill streaks/ordnance drops Perks Loadouts Specializations Grenade indicators Reticule shake instead of de-scoping Join in progress Unlockable everything Instant respawn I'm sure I'm missing some. But in any event, the list is long enough that on paper, H4 multiplayer looks like a hybrid of classic Halo multi and CoD. In practice, I think it still feels more like Halo than anything else - the map designs and aesthetics are more Halo-style than CoD, and the shooting mechanics and average kill times are more in line with Halo as well; many of the other things listed above are superficial in comparison. At any rate, here are some questions to consider: 1. Do you like the aspects of CoD that Halo has incorporated into itself? Have they fundamentally changed how Halo feels to you, or no? 2. Do you think it was the right approach for 343 to take, considering how many other shooters use some of these aspects, and the market-leading popularity of CoD? At one point Halo was the most influential FPS design on any console, but that shifted when CoD got as popular as it did with Modern Warfare; is Microsoft/343 obligated to try to keep up? What happens if they don't? 3. If you are the sort of person that answers "no" to questions 1 and 2, what path would you have preferred for them to have followed? I think there was a general perception among non-Halo fans that the game was becoming a bit of a dinosaur - influential and groundbreaking in its day, but now old and past its prime. Can you think of any major ways they could shake things up that would lead down paths away from (rather than converging with) Call of Duty? To give one specific example, I believe the shooter side of the game industry has been shifting towards all these loadouts and unlockables because it increases long-term player investment that they can't otherwise guarantee (because they aren't making RPGs); is there some other way to accomplish the same goal? 4. Is there any game series you can think of that is as long in the tooth as Halo, that managed to successfully still lead its field a decade on, or at some point reinvented itself to the point that it changed the game for all of its competitors and successors two times, many years apart? Is that a realistic standard to hold even your favorite game franchise to? Our community (not Forge Hub, but Halo players) seems to criticize our favorite game series for everything: staying the same too much, changing too much, any slippage in online population, etc. Can we acknowledge that to some extent it's because of us that they do the things they do? It's basically impossible to make a game that is different for people who need shiny new things, conservative for people who love the classic gameplay, full of new maps and perfect remakes of old maps, pushes the hardware and FPS philosophy to its outer limits while still keeping the flavor of a ten-year-old game, etc. etc. - all while still selling more copies than any other game and maintaining a huge player base for two solid years (which is what we asked of Reach, and complained about when it failed). Food for thought, anyway.
To me, Halo 4 feels like a superb sci fi game, but isn't Halo. There arn't hilarious silly moments where an entire team goes teabagging one guy, theres no two people on the same team STEALING THE ELEPHANTS AND FLIPPING THEM (I did that for about 2 weeks straight. My god, how we pissed people off )
To be fair Oli, all it takes is some people dedicated to the idea of silliness to bring it back. I don't think anything inherent in Halo prevents such things from occurring. My own customs lobby last week went into matchmaking and all hid in our base (on Ragnarok) with hardlight shields, as well as all standing in a line and using auto-sentry simultaneously. I'm all in favor of silly fun play, and I think Halo still allows for it, even if perhaps it's not quite encouraged any more.
I think that it's not so much "CODification" as just becoming more of a modern shooter. The "arena shooter" style of gameplay that Halo has had in the past (and still has to a lesser extent) is being outpaced by the "tactical shooter" gameplay style of games like CoD and Battlefield. with the second half of that (game elements rather than play style) I think that halo could do well to include things that have made other games great. They've already added an XP ranking system and a ubiquitous sprint ability, among the other things that you mentioned. On the other hand though, they need to know when to stop; I really don't need (or even want) attachment options for my DMR or AR. For now, I think that 343 has a good balance between the elements of modern tactical shooters and the elements of arena shooters that make halo what it is.
I'm not playing H4 anymore right now, I'm just trying to wrestle with forge mode to make some good maps. No use making maps for a game that a majority has since moved on from. 1) unanimous yes, they may be trying to take the best aspects of each game, but eventually, you are just paying for the same game but with different game models. 2)no, they should have had their own take on each element. Like I said, If you borrow enough elements, your just buying the same game twice. 3) keep halo, halo. It's nice to include perks and whatnot, but straying too far from the original formula, and you might as well rebrand it as something else. With the inability to emulate the mechanics of past Halo games faithfully, what part of Halo 4 still makes it "Halo"? take away the game models, and unfortunately, its core gameplay/skeleton has "evolved?", no changed/merged into a COD model. 4) I consider Halo PC separate from the rest of the Halo franchise, and I feel that it is probably the most long toothed. Even today, people still play it, and the ability to modify the aesthetics, while retaining the gameplay of a very solid system, allows CE to continue to flourish.
This is an interesting counter and worth exploring in depth. To me, the elements of COD that Halo has absorbed are mostly not necessary components of a tactical shooter - while all those things are present in a number of tac shooters, you don't actually need most of them to have a tactical shooter. Kill cams, grenade indicators, and others are things that are only in some tac shooters because they are in the single most popular exemplar of the genre. Of the more critical elements, Halo has taken more of a selective pick-and-choose approach - we have classes and loadouts, but not the super-low kill times that are standard to most tactical shooters. You can still be out in the open a little bit in Halo 4; you can still come back from shots down, though it's arguably harder than it was in most previous Halo titles, for various reasons. So I feel like, if their goal is as you suggest, they're going about it in a curious way. They're not actually becoming a tactical shooter so much as looking as much as possible like a SPECIFIC tactical shooter, or at least falling under the umbrella of so many other shooters influenced by COD. Which is not to say that you're wrong, but perhaps that their approach is misguided. Maybe they should be thinking for Halo 5 about how to make a tactical sci fi shooter, because I feel like this is still somewhat virgin territory for shooter games. Of course, an alternative would be to retreat from this and instead try to find a way forward for arena shooters instead. Tac shooters may be the flavor of the month, but judging by the popularity of Haven (a classic arena map with nothing tactical or realistic about it), Halo players are still fans of Halo's less realistic arena elements, when they are done well.
1. There are aspects in the game that I like that I believe still need tweaking. I like loadouts but I would remove the grenade and secondary choice because plasma nades, PP's and plasma pistols are all too good to spawn with. I like the kill cam so long as I can choose to watch it or not, which I can. I usually body surf in objective and skip it, but occasionally I watch it. Most of the things work for me, except a few which hurt the game like certain perks, drops for kill streaks with power weapons in them, and instant respawn. I think most factors improve the game but that they need to be refined for Halo play a bit more. 2. I like a lot of these changes, though I do wonder if 343i could have done something different. Still, I think a lot of the choices they made were good ones with a few just needing adjustments. I will be disappointed if they continue to follow other games too much in the future though, thy have mostly caught up to ideas other games routinely do, so now I would like to see forward expansion (and no season 2 of spartan ops.) 3. N/A Just would have like a bit more polish and I think flag and slayer did not need to be redefined. 4. This is unrelated to Halo, especially as it's all single player, but I think the Legend of Zelda series has followed this, reinventing itself quite often yet remaining a favorite and selling massively with each new title on several consoles for over 25 years. Even parts of the core gameplay can be said to change, yet players still love each new game. I don't have many insights into why this is, but it's also just food for thought.
Well.. What people have been saying for ages, is that not COD is ****ed up, the community is. And i have to agree. Cod is actually a decent game, and i have played it, there is nothing really wrong with it. For me, halo will always be halo no matter what. We have an awesome community, i dont want that to be changed ever, not like the Cod community. Also, i dont think killcams and loadouts make the game "Cod" I,ve seen many people saying this, but i have to say that Halo 4 just plays way better then Reach. (Except some gametypes, flood and invasion) The killcams of halo 4 are absolutly horrible, but no one pays attention to them anyways. And if those changes have to be made for it then do it. 1 - I like them, and yes. Halo reach and 3 were alot of fun, the aspects of the game was what made halo unique. You dont have your own weapons you find them. But i think halo 4 has changed this in a very good way, and its becoming even more fun for me. It feels different, sure, i agree. But you know, halo is halo, even with these drastic changes. 2 - I think Microsoft has the most influence on this. Maybe the public is right, maybe they really are hungering for money. The upcoming map packs only supports this statement. I dont really know if they should have done this, but i think this is mostly microsoft,s fault. I think they wanted to attract an way bigger public then halo ever was, designing the game with aspects of other games so people would might actually step over to halo. They stayed trustfull to the lore, and they basically had no choice with that, but they had plenty of space to add new things. 3 - Halo will always be halo, i keep it at my point. Maybe its just that i cant dislike halo, whatsoever. 4 - I,ve always been amazed with the halo lore, and i really cant think of any other franchise that is as long toothed as halo. Im obviously kind of defending halo, and thats probally because i cant dislike it as i said earlier. Halo is the game i have always played, and i truly admired and followed. I think i will never change my opinion about it anyhow, its just how i feel about it. Maybe this makes my comment worthless, but i would share this anyway. Its my favorite game ever, and it might always be. Even though the countless of other games that i will play, have fun with, and admire. Just an thought though.
Your list is missing instant respawn/X to respawn, which I think is one of the most fundamental changes because it affects the basics of strategy and area/map control in gametypes where it's included (quite a few, and definitely the most popular ones). I wasn't really aware how much that contributed to CoD's run 'n' gun nature until it was implemented in Halo 4.
Yay, someone took this topic and presented it in a fair and concise way. I can't seem to find words to express my opinions but what you've said is fair and I think Shoe did a good job of covering my thoughts for me, aside from the ordinance drops. They'd work better if you needed slightly more points to gain them to begin with, or they were awarded for doing certain things such as capturing a flag or holding the oddball for a set amount of time, rewarding those who play the objective more.
Just wanted to touch on that list a little bit. As you said, on paper those sound like the same thing but many of them are different enough in practice that comparing them is simply just comparing their name. Loadouts do not allow you to switch out every weapon of the game like CoD. Kill streaks just lead to randomized ordinance and not nukes, essentially equating to your one kill streak being the "care package" if we want to draw a direct parallel between them. I'm not aware of specializations in CoD, is the prestige count as that? Everything else on that list...fair enough, they are pretty similar. There's two aspects to this question. Yes, I feel the CoD (which technically weren't invented by Call of Duty, but that's popular so why not) stuff makes Halo a more rounded game. While the expected answer to that people might think is that I think Halo still feels like, I should say "traditional" Halo, to me. The answer is actually no, of course it is different from Halo 3 down, with everyone on "even" footing at the start of a match. I put "even" in quotations because it never really was even. It's the same argument as any arena based shooter. The skill gap is huge because because people who know where the weapons are and have better reaction times will always be better then those who don't. There's a reason why MLG players consistently view Quake as the mecca of shooters. Some would say that is how a shooter should be and not invent ways to make players who lack "twitch" reaction time skills better players but I'm not one of those. Remember, CoD also sells on every console and Halo just sticks to xbox. While money is a huge motivator to a publisher (the cost of making games has steadily gone up), genuine good ideas are a good motivator to developers. There is a reason why Gears of War's horde mode then appeared in dozens of games since its creation as have cover based shooting in general. It adds better immersion and realism to shooters where before cover was just standing behind a wall with various parts of yourself exposed. The negative side of that however is then developers use these elements as a crutch instead of just supplemental. Cover becomes the only thing the player can use during gameplay and the environments end up turning into chest high walls all over the place devoid of reason for them being there (the mass effect cover system). Back to the question and Halo specifically. Halo is fundamentally rock paper scissors. If I use this weapon I have a better chance against that player who has this other weapon. That kind of gameplay is great in that it gives everything balance but eventually it gets old. Which is where the cynics would say the franchise should die at this point. Once the core mechanic is old, the franchise should go away and not even try to change. Adding more complexity to the equation with AA, specializations, ordinance, etc does not alter the rock paper scissors gameplay but it does bolster it to make it interesting again. The problem however is that because it is more complex, really really careful attention needs to be given to everything to make sure it still really is all balanced. This is an area that I think 343i is still working toward. I don't think it is nearly as bad as some people think it is, but it is definitly still an area that needs improvement. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Bungie didn't have these same problems when they added new things as well. You hit the nail on the head. "It increases long-term player investment that they can't otherwise guarentee". Sure that ends up looking like people have the attention span of a gnat and unless something shiny is presented to them after a game they will cast it off and move onto the next game to give them something shiny...but newsflash, gamers often are attention span deficient. There are far fewer "hardcore gamers" then people want to believe. The industry has grown to what it has because of the large segment of casual gamers. Casual in this sense doesn't just mean wii-mote swinging, kinect humping, people. It means people who before couldn't devote the time to being level 2888 in the game. Some people just like to play a game in their leisure and not be killed a thousand times in a row because they don't give the same attention to the game as someone who plays it like they are being paid to. The only suggestion I could give, because I do like the direction, is to refine the balance of its added elements. Refine what is there and expand the extra features that get even more people involved in the game (forge and customs). I think it would be a bad idea if Halo went all the way to far cry with its editor, but I'm sure a happy medium could be achieved if more attention was put into it. Same with customs, almost all the popular gametypes were once fan inspired gametypes made in customs game; Flood, SWAT, Griffball, Race (from Reach, not counting the Halo CE one), etc. No. As you said, the line between, "The game has sold out" and "the game's old and they just keep making the same game over and over again" is too fine. If it was up to many of the people I notice complain in this forum, no game would go past the sequel and the video games industry would still be that niche thing the other entertainment industries make fun of.
That's funny, that was one of the main things on my mind when I posted this thread, and I completely forgot it as I was typing up the post. Added.
A very interesting idea. Unless I'm mistaken, the ordnance meter is based on anything which gains you points, so actually playing the objective does count towards it. One could argue that the weightings need to be higher, but to be honest I don't think that objective games are where ordnance has the biggest effect. In Slayer, all you're left with is increasing the number of points required to gain one, which I agree with in basic terms but doesn't address the core issue in such a direct way.
I can think of a number of ways to make them work better - though ultimately I think I just prefer the old Halo method of doing things. Ordnance drops that can occur anywhere at all and classic Halo map design don't mix especially well, IMO. It's been a big contributor (along with loadouts) to a complete shift in map control - specifically, you can hold down just about any piece of real estate now and if your team is good enough to earn some ordnance, you'll probably be fine there. That never used to be true. I remember being surprised in Reach when I played a game on Boardwalk and my (good) team got out-strategized by a team holding the bottom level around plasma launcher. They deliberately cut themselves off from all power weapons except rockets, but still cut us to pieces with good teamwork and precision shooting. That was a very rare exception to a basic truth of all previous Halo games: some geometry on any given map is known by all to be powerful, and some is only there to pass through on your way to somewhere else. I feel like Halo 4 plays very differently from that, especially in Infinity Slayer.
I like ordinance to a point, until I'm doing ****ing awesome and getting Pulse Grenades/Concussion Rifle/Speed Boost as a reward I hate it. Maybe it should be scaled so the better you do, the better choices you get. So for the first drop you can get some of the lower-tier weapons then the higher the score, the higher the chance of getting good weapons. I remember once being offered Incineration/Binary/Damage boost within 3 minutes of play. That shouldn't really be happening.
True, but somewhat beside the point - CoD doesn't really have power weapons. Or more accurately, almost every weapon in CoD is a power weapon, so it doesn't especially matter if you give players access to the whole weapon set. This concept translated to a more standard Halo environment has been that power weapons take the place of choppers and airstrikes (things you earn based on kills), and the loadouts still give you access to everything else, once you've unlocked it. It's a similar construction in my mind - though it feels very different also, because a power weapon you have to use yourself is still a very different animal from an airstrike. Agreed. And I would add, I'd like to get past the sense of almost moral outrage and condemnation that seems to come along when one popular game apes a feature from another. I'd like to talk about this more analytically - I don't really care whether it's "right" for a developer to borrow a concept from another. They all do it, to some extent. And while some idea-stealing is all about the money, there's also a clear indication a lot of times that developers see a new game and slap themselves on the forehead, saying "Why didn't WE do that???" These aren't just businessmen and bean-counters; they're also creative types who are fans of the games they make and compete with. When a genius idea comes along - like Halo CE's control scheme and two-weapon + 'nades simplicity - of course people want to adapt it to their own ends. There's a sense around here sometimes that 343's borrowings were more than usually cynical and money-driven, and they may have been, but then again they may not - or at least not entirely. Who knows. When you ask a community of Halo fans who aren't such big CoD fans, for the most part, it's not too surprising that you'd get that reaction. I don't think you can trust it. Of course, it would have helped if Frankie and Kiki had copped to how much they were being influenced by CoD instead of pretending it wasn't happening... but OK, they have a game to sell. Exactly. Just look at the population drop H4 has already experienced. There's no way the game is bad enough to warrant that. I believe the explanation is a lot more obvious than that: most gamers buy new titles frequently enough, and have short enough attention spans, that they just move on to the new thing as soon as there is one. They only stick with a game for more than a few weeks if their friends are doing it, and that only happens with one massively popular, zeitgeist-capturing title every few years. I doubt most developers are able to make that one title no matter how hard they try, because a lot of it is simply luck - the tenor of the times and what people are into now. It will change in five years like always, and then CoD will be struggling to keep up with some other franchise. Good, that's about how long it took me to type that first post. This is a meaty subject if you tackle it in earnest.
That isn't the case this time. Most people leaving can see the multiplayer for what it is, an unbalanced shell of what Halo has always been. I'm all for unlock systems, as they do retain interest. However, by shoehorning perks and loadouts into a different system, you are forced to chop up the existing mechanics to hand out as "rewards" or "customization options". To give you an example, grenades are now pitiful because you need to use the Explosives package if you want them to be as powerful as you expect them to be. At the same time, plasma grenades and pistols are so abundant because of the loadouts/Resupply package that using a vehicle the same way you would in any other Halo is tantamount to suicide. I have to use the package provided by the Operator specialization to make vehicles even remotely viable, effectively making vehicles a waste of time to anyone below 50. There are multiple chain reactions like this, all of which make H4 a chore to play. This is to say nothing of the other kill-friendly mechanics like reduced speed when shot and overabundant power weapons/buffs.
yes. i have lived through the decline of CoD from vanilla, UO perfection to modern warfare popularity and the money making machine. i have nothing against them making money. they have given the people what they want, which isnt necessarily for the best. FPS games are, at the core about who has the better shot. it alienates casual players. todays fps games are a hell of a lot more inclusive. any average player can be the 'hero'. for me, halo was the console exception in that shots counted and it was fun. but they still give you forge and the ability to create custom games, anything you dont like you can tweak to be how you like it. which is very nice of them i dont want to come across as bitter. i'm not the majority gamer, ive been through the diasspointment in CoD. i am not going to beat the machine. i find Halo 4 fun, which is why i am still playing it. but i notice gameplay elements that i enjoyed the most are gone. what annoys me more...is that in the decade i have been playing FPS games, there have been no significant advances. its still basically ctf and slayer variants. i am gonna stop before i write an essay! i hope you get the point. yes. there is a recession. the money men want profit. and that generally means not gambling, and giving people what they want. is it keeping up?....a little. but those sort of things players expect now. if you dont include it, you arent cutting edge. if you gamble 2 things happen. a lot of money or not enough. not many are taking risks anymore. maybe they will make improvements in halo 5. put more of their stamp on things. if they change too much from bungie template they would alienate the majority of their custom. its a difficult juggling act. i dont know. one thing i will say is this. the unlockables work. i hate loadouts. but the majority dont. i always considered battle rifles a power weapon. you fought for them. now everyones got them. everyones special (or no one is) many friends game for unlocks and medals. i just check my k/d ratio end game. i dont really care what i look like in game. but most now do. halo 2 you had rank. levelling up and down. down would annoy me. as i am sure it does everyone. now you only level up. everyone happy cos even though you lose you are still gaining. agree. they have catered for the masses and made lots of money. what more can you do? you cant please everyone but you can please the majority. even for a short while, they still bought your game, as long as they feel they got what they paid for they will buy the sequel. a big difference now is that game life cycles are shorter. halo 5 will be out in 2014? not many casual gamers will be playing this game for that long. but they have a money making DLC for those that do to bide them over. while the model of what they release makes the money it does nothing will change. i dont know how to fix it. not even a suggestion.