There are a few things about Halo 4 that I like more than the previous Halo's but I lot that I like less. Someone earlier in this thread said something about the Plasma Grenades and Plasma Pistols being too good too start with. Well I'm going to go a step further: I think that the DMR's and Battle Rifles are too good of weapons to start with. I liked that in previous Halo's that everyone started off with something that was okay (Assault Rifle) but it wasn't too great. This led to everyone running around and trying to find a better weapon to use. In Halo 3 there usually weren't enough battle rifles readily available for every person of the team to have so they would go search for something different. This, in my opinion, lead to battles where you would face someone with different weapons more often so there was much more variety. With the current system, even though you are allowed to pick your starting weapon, the healthy majority pick the DMR and have no need to go find another weapon: they already have one of the best weapons in the game. This leads to pretty much every encounter with an enemy being a duel of DMR's which usually ends up being whoever starts shooting first. This is one thing I always hated about Call of Duty that whoever saw who first usually won regardless of skill. No I know some people are going to say something along the lines of "Well if you have more skill you'll be able outstrafe and outgun someone even if they get the first shot." While this is true sometimes, I don't think it's true enough of the time. Back in the days of Halo:CE, before autoaim and such, winning pistol duels took a significant amount more skill than a DMR duel in Halo 4. Getting the first shot off determined the outcome of the battle much less due to the increased importance of strafing and the lack of autoaim. But alas now I feel like every battle is more like CoD where whoever shoots first wins and the skill gap is much smaller between the bad players and good players. I understand that every game company would like newer players to feel more competitive by making it less hard to kill a better player. This of course welcomes many more people to the franchise. However, I feel like that rank/level should be used to separate people of different skill levels, instead of just making it easier for worse people to kill better people. That being said there are things I do like about Halo 4. I love the new game types such as Regicide and Dominion. I think they are both great additions that keep me coming back every time. They're fun, new and game types I haven't really ever experienced. (Although Dominion is similar to Territories, Dominion is actually exciting with the additions of shields/ turrets, where as I loathed Territories.) I also do enjoy the personal ordnance but I think it should be *slightly* harder to earn them, not too much harder but just a tiny bit. Then there's custom games. While many people say 343/Certain Affinity ruined forge I would have to argue against that. While I agree that yes, they should include the gametypes that were left out: 1 Flag, Assault, Territories, Race, Fix flood, I feel like they will add these, they were just under time crunch and ****ed up their time management big time. Also with the additions of magnets, gravity volumes, and trait zones, forging is improved. Magnets while not perfect do help more often than not (at least for me). And the the gravity volumes and trait zones really add to the creative things we can now do with mini games and other things we couldn't do before. So in all, I would have to say multiplayer has gotten less fun due to the fact that most battles seems like a DMR duel where whoever shoots first wins. They have however included some exciting new gametypes, while unfortunately leaving out some key-core gametypes. And I believe Forge has actually improved.
You talk as if AR starts were the only gametypes in previous Halos. That simply wasn't the case, especially when you go back as far as Halo CE where the standard start was Pistol (aka. 3sk handcannon aka absolute death) and AR. The problem isn't starting with precision primaries. If not, it just becomes a game of "who can get one first" and if you don't then you're at a distinct advantage. The issue is with the basic difficulty of gunplay, which depends on how forgiving the gun itself is and the movement tools you have at your disposal (movement speed, jump height/speed, crouch speed, strafe responsiveness). CE had aim magnetism on roughly the same level as subsequent games. It had significantly less bullet magnetism and significantly smaller hitboxes. But I take your point. Gunplay was significantly more skillful, but those days have been gone for a long while. Halo 4 isn't breaking from the norm here, even if it does fail to bring back the beauty of those mechanics.
Well sure there were other starting weapons in different gametypes (Slayer Pro) but the Assault Rifle was pretty much the standard for most gametypes(At least for Halo 3, Halo 2 used the SMG). And as you go back far enough to Halo:CE, yeah you start out with one of the most powerful guns in the franchise but due to the smaller hit boxes, and reduced bullet magnetism it required more skill to be good at. With larger hitboxes and the DMR's now it becomes less of a 'duel' and becomes more of who can get the first shot. In Halo:CE there simply wasn't a variety of weapons so it was understandable that there wasn't the variety that I was saying I liked about Halo 3. Instead, it did have a larger skill gap that made the game more fun. While those days are gone, the new variety of weapons (like in Halo 3) kept the game fun. Now Halo 4 seems to have gone back to one main weapon that everyone starts with and uses which kills the variety of a battle, without having the good mechanics that made it work in Halo:CE. EDIT: This part wasn't here yet when I started quoting Well in Halo 3 if you didn't get to a precision weapon it was okay because there were many other weapons on the map to pick-up. With the new Halo 4 system they don't put as many weapons on the map because they figure you've got all you need when making loadouts. In Halo 3 just because you didn't get precision weapon didn't necessarily put you at a disadvantage. The same amount of people on the other team probably didn't get precision weapons so there wasn't an almost guarantee you'd run into someone else with a precision weapon. In Halo 4 you are almost always going to end up fighting someone with a DMR (or a Boltshot but that's a whole separate problem). Don't get me wrong, I still have a great time playing Halo 4. I just think it's a step in the wrong direction.
I dunno about "most gametypes." Team BRs was pretty standard as well in both Halo 2 and 3, with Team DMRs in Reach. BTB has also always had precision primaries as standard. I'd say it's been a continuous theme in Halo at least as much as AR starts. Ah OK. I agree basically, and think the issue really stems from the removal of non-power weapon pickups. In that sense, it does strip it down to just primary vs primary in terms of any non power weapon battles, and this makes it less enjoyable for me too. In fairness, it isn't just a case of DMRs vs DMRs. A see a fair few people using the BR even if numbers have dropped since release, and more than a few Light Rifles. Carbines are pretty damn rare. Also I guess the ordnance is meant to address that, and to be fair to 343 I think there are quite a few primary vs. non-loadout weapon battles by dint of this mechanic. I think it goes about it in the wrong way, though. And yeah, I can agree with your closing statement as well.
I didn't think it was that difficult to grasp. CoD works because it was built to work that way. Halo was dissected to work that way. Grenades, as I mentioned, are a good example of this. The punch they normally have is diminished both by indicators and the desire to offer more explosive power through a perk. They have taken away or weakened core aspects of Halo to offer them back to the player as perks. Well I don't know what you're talking about then, which is why I asked you to define it. It sounds like you're implying that mechanics are the reason CoD is successful, and that the sales justify this assertion. This also implies that applying said mechanics to every other shooter will also be successful. That would only be half right. Battlefield 3 benefits from some of these mechanics, but that's because it is also a tactical shooter. Halo is not. Nut, I couldn't find those specific numbers, but I provided them for perspective. H4 did not exactly blow Reach out of the water, and it appears to have been understandably weaker than H3, so when you factor in the higher cost and higher drop-off of H4, it's already apparent that it won't be as successful as you seem to believe.
Chrono the sales comparison with past games is never a strong argument. It is an argument but not one that holds much weight in any real conversation. There are sooooo many factors that go into how well a particular game sells at any particular time then just "game r good, therefore game must sell good. Game r bad therefore game sells not as well". Sequels in a series generally sell much better than their predecessors, that's why publishers pay for sequels. When your starting off point is that sequel then it becomes much more complex. What was the game's competition at the time? How was the market? Currently video game sales are down by several million sales across the spectrum while in 07 it was boom time for video games. Where is the market trending, back when Halo 3 came out the Nintendo Wii had just come out and the massive swing toward the casual market began. My point here is while you might not be wrong, it is a very weak argument to make and should not be what you're basing your argument on.
I literally just said it was for perspective. There is no argument behind it, and it was Nut who originally claimed people aren't playing H4 because of other games. My only point there is that it actually has more to do with the developers and the game itself than it does the release of other games.
It's a poor perspective then. What difference does it make. The point is saying Halo 3 is obviously better because it sold better or retained more people playing it after a month does not a solid argument/perspective make.
It feels like you didn't follow the convo. Nut said that other games are what hurt H4, and I said that H4 looked vulnerable even before other games were a factor. A drop-off alone might support Nut's stance, but a combination of sales, the drop-off, and the flaws we've all been pointing out for the last several weeks make it clear that H4 is actually a weaker game as a result of its own merits, not outside influence.
@Pegasi Lol, I leave for a couple hours and so many posts. I mean that you have to tackle gaming in a general sense for ideas. It is possible to apply that principle (selective adaptation based on current traits) to something like this (which someone did say a while ago, I do remember ): I justify using this prefab building because it has 3 entrances, a hole in the roof at the center, a wall in front of the entrance, a ramp leading up and around a corner, and a window at exactly this spot. Borrowing ideas from only successful FPS games has far less potential for borrowing from all games, especially when it comes to things like atmosphere, feel, and replayability (what I was talking about) which are common to all games. I could also state twenty characteristics of a failing game and say that it was not possible for this game to succeed, because if not, it wouldn't be Halo (or whatever game), but that's (partially) besides the point.
1.Do i like the aspects, As a whole no. Some of the individual ones are good though. Changed how i feel about Halo gameplay? Yes, Did i expect that? Yes, Am I ok with a Halo CoD spin off (like wars)? Yes. 2.Right approach? No. If they didn't copy CoD in Halo 4? Hopefully not make halo 4 and spent time on perfecting Reach. 3.Don't make Halo 4, Fix Reach or think of innovative new ideas for Halo THEN make a game. Don't ask me what innovations they could of done that's not up to me, Also necessity is the mother of invention and if I don't see a need for a new halo then Its really hard to innovate. (It's 343i and Microsoft's responsibility to innovate if the want to force a New halo game) 4. CoD will be popular for ages to come so don't think "It's old, Can't be good" applies(its a fair point but don't think it applies) Because I think a Reach 2.0 would of been an amazing release with upgraded everything fine tuned and polished and a bit a innovation Read this whole thread. One thing I would like to know. We have a working wonderful staple Halo mechanics, Why did 343i decide to take away a lot of those staple mechanics and clone so much from CoD? Blew my mind, I would actually really enjoy a Halo 4 CTF game where everyone spawns with 1 ordnance drop to use at any time and gain a good one ordnance drop for capturing the flag only. I can't speak for everyone but that seems like a good reason for people to leave. (Its why i can't play for to long at once)
I hadn't played a halo game in like 10 years, so I guess I can't answer this. at least I can say the unlockable system is better than in far cry 2 (it was so bad, that I only played in non-competitive mode, where no one could level up...) well, I don't see how I can answer the other questions with very little knowledge of the serie. I don't mind so far, but it seems they don't work. at 1st I was raging at people not hitting me and killing me thanks to auto-aim, until someone told me the kill cam doesn't work... actually I haven't used them yet. well, I got to pick a few weapons that other people called but never picked-up. it seems better than CoD killstreak, which mostly involve choosing a target and boom, dead, or calling allies and getting lots of free kills. at least in halo 4, you still have to get the kills yourself, and the weapon may change hands, so you might think twice before calling an incineration cannon. I only tried a few and they didn't seem to have a very great impact, but I doubt it is the case for all, and it will probably be like in CoD with everyone picking the same perks. the problem is if you make them too powerful, you may unbalance the game, but if you make them too weak, what's the point of picking them? I like it. I think there is an option to disable them (using map loadouts I think) so I guess that's all good. I didn't like it in FC2 or CoD because you couldn't disable them. it's not that it's bad, but it's better as an option. sometimes you should have to find your weapons on the map, instead of just spawning with them. haven't unlocked them lol. I was actually pretty surprised the 1st time I saw that on CoD, that's kind of very noob friendly. well, actually that's cool for noobs because that avoid you from dying out of nowhere. in another hand it might be one of the reason why a lot of people say that grenades are inefficient? I don't really mind it so far, but it's a bit ridiculous. always been used to that, but that doesn't happen too often here. I don't feel it's a problem I still think that for balance sake, it would be better if everything was unlocked for the start, so that a player that has more experience doesn't also have better weapons, making him untouchable. fortunately you can climb levels quite fast in halo 4, and get access to decent stuffs with just a few level ups. whereas in FC2, being a newbie against players who had access to every power weapons was pretty painful... been used to that as well
i think you have mistaken me a little. i have not said that they should change slayer or ctf. i enjoy both gametypes and long may they continue. but, i dont think they are the pinnacle of what can be done. dominion is next to both. an option. your comparison to sport is interesting. i consider halo a game. i certainly agree there is a skill and that skill can be perfected. but there are no limitations in the game world. no established rule set. i said in my previous post that i am in the minority. what i want and what is made are 2 very different things. i dont know what developers can do. but i look at co-op gaming. someone starts it, people want it. you can play the campaign together. you can with 4 people. then firefight and zombies and horde mode (not in that order..) now 343 are trying spartan ops. and its not perfect, but its enjoyable and different. the past 4 mondays i have played each episode. but they are trying to advance it. zombies in cod have tranzit, and the bus. i havent played it, but it sounds like an improvement. during the ads for halo 4 one of the stand out points for me, was the introduction of infinity slayer. i dont recall exactly but they said they were adding a story line to multiplayer. there was a reason for red fighting blue. i havent found it yet. but the idea of a story intrigued me. i imagined a basic idea that affected maps. little things like maybe one map playing into another. maybe something like red winning get to choose next map. or maybe they gain an advantage for the next map. not something that kills the balance. but i hope you get the point. or maybe something as simple as a tug of war. there are 5 maps. you start on 3. if you win you go to 4, lose 2. if a team wins 1 or 5 its over. i havent got a closing point
Can i just say that at least the campaign has gone back to huge sprawling alien structures and vast landscapes rather than Reach's human bore. Matchmaking may have changed drastically into a weird COD/Halo hyrid but at least the campaign sticks true to its roots.
To me it felt like the most CoD campaign. That boss fight in campaign reminded me more of COD then any Halo boss. And the campaign felt more linear, Kill generic enemy's in confined space press button, Kill next generic enemy's in confined space press button repeat. No backtracking, No exploring. Which is how i feel when i play any COD campaign. (Least COD has helicopters blowing up into buildings and bunch of flashing effects going on so make up for lack of gameplay)
honestly halo is the only arena style shooter left, I think 343 really should have taken a look at unreal tournament and quake games to get their inspiration from. halo used to be the kind of game where if you were a GOOD player, you could easily take out 3 opponents (I'm talking assault rifle and a few well placed nades). now the way they have rigged the game, its almost impossible to win a 1 v 2 situation, if your using standard weapons like the DMR or BR. although it is more balanced, as an experienced halo player I feel weaker in halo 4, maybe I'm just not used to all the weapons and mechanics but in previous games It wasn't hard for me to get godlike killing sprees. as for all the perc's, armor abilities, killcam, sprinting. I really could care less for all that stuff. the good thing about halo was that it's SIMPLE, now it just feels complex and bloated. I really had a love hate relationship with reach, and it seems like 343 just pulled out "reach 2: Cod Edition"
Well you pretty much said what I was thinking. While 343 clearly took aspects from CoD and used them in Halo It doesn't bother me in the slightest. They took alot of ideas from them, but they were only ideas. Halo loadouts were bound to happen eventually. All FPS's had it. As for grenade indicators. Join in Progress, Ordnance etc. etc. While obvious tools that were once used in CoD. They are exactly that... Tools... It makes Halo ALOT better. (No more 1v4 games when my team quits & No more advantages to whoever knows power weapon locations. It's all about Ordnance now). These things are great improvements but not once did I sit there and FEEL like I was playing CoD. The gameplay, the weapons, the control. It is still strictly 100% Halo. Only thing 343 took from CoD was useful gameplay tools that most FPS's had already. It's not like you're scoping in using LT on Iron Sights and ****. I think 343 did well. As for custom games/forge... Ew... But they have updates to work on that. In terms of War Games, 343 got it spot on, and just adopted a few CoD ideas to optimize the gameplay for us. For the record. I HAAATE CoD multiplayer. Always have. But these new aspects in Halo don't bother me. Because it was the raw gameplay of CoD that I hated, not the ideas and the gameplay tools (Which is essentially all 343 used).
Personally I absolutely hate join in progress. I always get shoved into a game where my team is getting ass raped and all I get out of it is wasted time waiting in loading in screens not even having done anything. Also Halo 3 and Reach were hilariously fun when my team quit. Id go all HLG and hide like a muthafucker, watching the enemies freak out trying to find me and then handing them a load of lead (because I am a boss at tactical fighting). Grenade indicator I am indifferent about. Ordnance is alright. Killcams and reticule shake rather than zooming out is absolutely retarded. My two cents.