Halo really needs to adapt and innovate in order truly to thrive.

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -

The existence of Halo 4 is one that has worried me since Halo 3, not only am I iffy about whether or not Bungie ever intended for this to exist is one thing, but the other worry is whether or not it will be just another "Halo style" game with a few new weapons and the same exact combat model that we have been using for ten years.

I have been worried about this because with each new release I find my self less excited than the last as there is a feeling of staleness. Halo CE was something new and special, it created a whole new way to play games on a console, unrivalled graphics, gameplay and AI were among what it brought to the table, Halo 2 brought Online, matchmaking and so much more than this to the table. Each Halo game has upped the stakes but they have become very small increments since the first two games, and one thing that I am worried my never adapt fully is the gameplay. I want something new, that uses what they have learned from past titles but completely innovative and fun, not the same thing over and over again. All the Halo releases have been high quality up till this point but it really is time for change.

A good example is what Call of Duty 4 did to fps games in 2007, it was the "Halo" of this generation, and hundred of games tried to copy it, Though most failed, some took that core idea and expanded it to be a more polished concept with different elements mixed in, Like the battlefield series. But now in 2011 we see that the Call of Duty franchise is becoming stale, each new game feels like the last, and it is hard to tell where that series is headed.

That is where Halo 4 comes in, this is the perfect time for 343 to show us what is fun and new, create something that captures our imaginations like Halo CE did in 2001 of Halo 2 in 2004, but will they try? Or will they make another game that plays it safe and shows that one of the best series ever made is afraid to show us what is innovative and fun again?

We need to be shown what is fun, not just resold the same safe concept of that idea again and again just to play it safe.Microsoft is one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world and they have a team capable of brilliance, this will mark the time of whether or not that are willing to take a risk and blow our minds again. But that's just how I feel.

Thank you for reading, I will edit this and add more as I feel that I need to

#2 Posted by Synaptic (310 posts) -

I'm hoping for the same personally, increasing the speed of combat while retaining Halo's overall feel could bring some positive results.

#3 Posted by billnyethesciencepie (1336 posts) -
@Synaptic: That "speed", along with weapon tactics, is Halo. 
 
Its way less fast paced than Call of Duty 4, andif you take that away, its another generic shooter. 
 
Also it sold just fine
#4 Posted by agentboolen (1843 posts) -

Anytime someone tries to reinvent the wheel they have a huge chance at failing.  The fact Microsoft knows this, they also know this series will sell no matter how much it stays the same.  That can definitely mean that there telling 343 just to make another Halo game.  Yes I think this would be a huge mistake but lets look at how boring Microsoft has become as a 1st party publisher (seems like endless sequels to there top 3 games and nothing new in site...  Other then cheap Kinect kids games).  There easily the most boring of the big 3 when it comes to publishing games, just feels like there more interested in playing it safe as a whole.  I would like to see Halo do something new and exciting, lets hope 343 isn't on a extremely short lease like other Microsoft developers.....  Every year is like the last year in Microsoft land.
 
Even though I say this I am still excited for GOW3, but that just seems to be the next Halo for Microsoft.

#5 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@agentboolen: That fact sadness me.

#6 Edited by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

They can't stray to far from what is Halo or it risks not being Halo. I'd hope they stick with that Halo gameplay without aiming down sights and what not. They will probably have some twist on it like its faster or larger scale but I wouldn't hold my breath for it being revolutionary. Armour ablitlies weren't really that risky a move but it wasn't really that successful a move for Halo either. I am sure they have talented people working on something very good but its probably not going to be hugely  different a game.

#7 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

Nothing about First Person Shooters is going to change until something new comes along. It's all about evolution and refinement right now, not revolution.

You can't change Halo just for the sake of change. Everything needs to make sense. It's Halo, therefore it must play like Halo. Why? Because it works. Dunno if you knew this, but Reach was a really fucking good game. Why? Because of the minute refinements that Bungie made. They didn't try to reinvent the genre. They just set out to make a kick ass game, and succeeded.

Also...

@big_jon said:

A good example is what Call of Duty 4 did to fps games in 2007, it was the "Halo" of this generation, and hundred of games tried to copy it, Though most failed, some took that core idea and expanded it to be a more polished concept with different elements mixed in, Like the battlefield series. But now in 2011 we see that the Call of Duty franchise is becoming stale, each new game feels like the last, and it is hard to tell where that series is headed.

HA! You couldn't be any more wrong.

Bad Company =/= Call of Duty

From all reports; Battlefield 3 = Battlefield ass Battlefield game.

#8 Edited by agentboolen (1843 posts) -
@big_jon: It saddens me to.  Both Nintendo and Sony put out more exciting first party lineups IMO, but it just seems like the xbox has the better online and that just keeps them above them.  I wouldn't mind it if they would take a chance once in a while but at this point the Xbox 360 is the 1st system I have owned where the 1st party games haven't been some of the best.  
 
There biggest chance was Kinect and I think that thing is a bit of a bomb....  Hell Forza 4's big Kinect feature is head tracking!?!?  What the hell does that mean?  I don't know about you but my head doesn't usually move much when I play video games.
#9 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@ShaggyChu said:

Nothing about First Person Shooters is going to change until something new comes along. It's all about evolution and refinement right now, not revolution.

You can't change Halo just for the sake of change. Everything needs to make sense. It's Halo, therefore it must play like Halo. Why? Because it works. Dunno if you knew this, but Reach was a really fucking good game. Why? Because of the minute refinements that Bungie made. They didn't try to reinvent the genre. They just set out to make a kick ass game, and succeeded.

Also...

@big_jon said:

A good example is what Call of Duty 4 did to fps games in 2007, it was the "Halo" of this generation, and hundred of games tried to copy it, Though most failed, some took that core idea and expanded it to be a more polished concept with different elements mixed in, Like the battlefield series. But now in 2011 we see that the Call of Duty franchise is becoming stale, each new game feels like the last, and it is hard to tell where that series is headed.

HA! You couldn't be any more wrong.

Bad Company =/= Call of Duty

From all reports; Battlefield 3 = Battlefield ass Battlefield game.

It's called persistence in multi-player and upgrades like body armour, weapon sights, and more explosive damage you fucking moron.

Anyone who denies that Battlefield has taken and adapted some things from the Call of Duty 4 model is being fucking stupid.... It's a fact, just like how Call of Duty took things from Battlefield, now get over it and move on.

I hate how people find one thing to get their panties in a bunch about and that is all they will comment on, this thread is about the future of the Halo franchise it's not a Call of Duty vs Battlefield debate.

I also stated these things clearly in my OP.

#10 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@agentboolen said:

@big_jon: It saddens me to. Both Nintendo and Sony put out more exciting first party lineups IMO, but it just seems like the xbox has the better online and that just keeps them above them. I wouldn't mind it if they would take a chance once in a while but at this point the Xbox 360 is the 1st system I have owned where the 1st party games haven't been some of the best. There biggest chance was Kinect and I think that thing is a bit of a bomb.... Hell Forza 4's big Kinect feature is head tracking!?!? What the hell does that mean? I don't know about you but my head doesn't usually move much when I play video games.

They also killed Rare and basically made them Kinect exclusive developers, this further depresses me.

Xbox is losing it's quality.

#11 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@big_jon: Have better writing skill next time? You weren't clear about what you were talking about whatsoever so I just made assumptions. My b if that pissed you off (cause it did apparently *rolls eyes*).

Also, what in bloody hell do you expect Halo to do then? You pointed out "persistence in multi-player and upgrades like body armour, weapon sights...". Stuff like that can't be expanded on much more than Reach (cosmetic armour changes), in my opinion. Though I don't make games.

You will also NEVER see customizable weapons in Halo. That would defeat the whole purpose of the multiplayer.

You put forth the opinion that Halo needs to change, but you bring up no specifics on how you think this can be done.

#12 Posted by Fosssil (627 posts) -

Honestly, I'd prefer them to do as little innovating as possible. Innovation in the Halo series has given us dual-wielding in Halo 2 (ruined the weapon sandbox), Equipment in Halo 3 (pointless and annoying), and Armor Abilities in Reach (terribly unbalanced, and in some cases game-breaking). They need to be looking back at what made the first two games so great, instead of trying to shoe-horn ideas from other shooters into the game just to appeal to people who will drop the game as soon as the next new big-name shooter is released.

#13 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2295 posts) -

I really can't see what the Halo series could do to innovate itself. It's a shooter first and foremost, we all saw what Halo Wars did and why it wasn't a success even though it was trying to bring something new to the series. I guess epic unscripted set pieces, open battlefields where I get a choice of either going on foot, hopping into a ground vehicle or aircraft. As far as AI goes, more improvement towards friendly AI rather than enemy AI since the enemies in Reach did offer a good challenge. The Reach engine needs a bit more work, there were times where I thought I was seeing double vision and weird low fps in cutscenes. Apart from those points all I really want is a great story with characters to care about and good dialogue between those characters and also an ending that feels satisfying for investing the time to beat the game.

#14 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@ShaggyChu said:

@big_jon: Have better writing skill next time? You weren't clear about what you were talking about whatsoever so I just made assumptions. My b if that pissed you off (cause it did apparently *rolls eyes*).

Also, what in bloody hell do you expect Halo to do then? You pointed out "persistence in multi-player and upgrades like body armour, weapon sights...". Stuff like that can't be expanded on much more than Reach (cosmetic armour changes), in my opinion. Though I don't make games.

You will also NEVER see customizable weapons in Halo. That would defeat the whole purpose of the multiplayer.

You put forth the opinion that Halo needs to change, but you bring up no specifics on how you think this can be done.

I'm not payed millions of dollars to figure out what it needs to do, I said it needs to innovate and not copy, it's not my job to find out what is fun, it's theirs. One thing I think though is more AI vs AI fights, like in fire fight and single player, seems like a no brainer to feel like you're in a larger battle to be helping a large group of allies like in Halo 1 and 2. The best parts of Halo have often been in watch two groups fight and watch the AI do it's thing from a far. Watching Hunters fight flood, of Elites fight a sqaud of non-useless marines.

But how was I to come up with the Ideas that made Halo CE and COD 4 a success? That is just insane.

#15 Posted by Barrock (3553 posts) -

So for it to truly be Halo 4 does it have to have a new engine?

#16 Posted by pweidman (2362 posts) -

I hear you tc. I've wanted a fundamental change for a while too, while suffering from Halo gameplay burnout. But, we do pretty much know: new enemies, new weapons, new setting, MC after a 4 yr hiatus :), and apparently a game design tennant of no purple. At least they're trying to bring something distinctive to the table. And we don't know that 343 can make a good game or not...I do hope so. Very curious to see how this game turns out.

#17 Posted by Gamer_152 (14109 posts) -

Do I want to see Halo adapt and innovate? Absolutely. Do I think Halo needs to to adapt and innovate before the end of the next trilogy to thrive? Quite possibly, but the true judge of that will be how people react to the next Halo game or two. Do I think Halo 4 specifically will need to adapt and innovate to thrive? No and 343 aren't going to take any risks on this one. Oh and I understand these arguments can get kind of heated but let's try and keep things polite even if we can't keep them entirely friendly.

Moderator
#18 Edited by animathias (1194 posts) -

While I kind of agree with you, I would think that would be a really tough thing to do. Take a look at Call of Duty. BlOp's multiplayer feels almost identical to CoD2. The only difference in that series is that CoD4 brought the games from WWII to modern day and added in the perks - which was pretty risky (in the fact that it could have broken the game completely. Luckily, it didn't.) But the core of the multiplayer itself has barely changed in 6 iterations.

Halo, on the other hand, is now on its 4th iteration of multiplayer, and if you think about it, they've been adding subtle, but pretty powerful changes in each one without changing the feel of the game - it still feels very much like Halo. Halo 2 introduced Dual-Wielding and vehicle stealing, Halo 3 brought Equipment, and Reach has Armor Abilities (and funnily enough, drops almost all of what 2 and 3 introduced.) So the evidence is there of them trying new things, but changing too much at once and possibly fussing with the core of the gameplay is very risky.

All of that said, I'll reiterate that I agree. I'd like to see some changes that get closer to messing with the core of the gameplay, but I have no idea what they could do to make it better without breaking what it is. Perks, maybe? Custom classes (sans weapons?) Who knows. That's why I'm the consumer and not the one making the games. =D

#19 Edited by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@big_jon: Then... there's no point to this thread. None. You clearly want no discussion on this topic. It's just you bitching that you're bored of Halo now. If you don't like Halo anymore, move on.

On a serious note...

One thing I think though is more AI vs AI fights, like in fire fight and single player, seems like a no brainer to feel like you're in a larger battle to be helping a large group of allies like in Halo 1 and 2. The best parts of Halo have often been in watch two groups fight and watch the AI do it's thing from a far.

While I too would like that. If anyone has read the books, you know that a couple squads of Spartans would face off against hundreds of Covenant at once. However, such a thing is a limitation of the Xbox 360 hardware. You can only have so many enemies, so many vehicles, and so many explosions going off at the same time at once on screen. It's just not possible for such a thing right now.

Just because Reach didn't sell as many copies as Black Ops doesn't mean it was a flop. Dozens of developers and publishers would KILL for the numbers that Reach got.

Jesusfuckingchrist, reevaluate your expectations bro.

#20 Posted by Enigma777 (6058 posts) -

You're basically asking for lightning to strike twice. Stop being so greedy!

#21 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@animathias said:

While I kind of agree with you, I would think that would be a really tough thing to do. Take a look at Call of Duty. BlOp's multiplayer feels almost identical to CoD2. The only difference in that series is that CoD4 brought the games from WWII to modern day and added in the perks - which was pretty risky (in the fact that it could have broken the game completely. Luckily, it didn't.) But the core of the multiplayer itself has barely changed in 6 iterations.

Gonna quote Jeff here: "What fucking game did YOU play?"

You and I played a different Call of Duty 2 then, since in that game I couldn't customize my weapons, can't sprint, and I also don't get killed from random aircrafts dropping things on my head.

Other than zooming and how your health is indicated, modern Call of Duty games play WILDLY different then CoD2.

#22 Posted by HatKing (6108 posts) -
@agentboolen said:
Anytime someone tries to reinvent the wheel they have a huge chance at failing.  The fact Microsoft knows this, they also know this series will sell no matter how much it stays the same.  That can definitely mean that there telling 343 just to make another Halo game.  Yes I think this would be a huge mistake but lets look at how boring Microsoft has become as a 1st party publisher (seems like endless sequels to there top 3 games and nothing new in site...  Other then cheap Kinect kids games).  There easily the most boring of the big 3 when it comes to publishing games, just feels like there more interested in playing it safe as a whole.  I would like to see Halo do something new and exciting, lets hope 343 isn't on a extremely short lease like other Microsoft developers.....  Every year is like the last year in Microsoft land.  Even though I say this I am still excited for GOW3, but that just seems to be the next Halo for Microsoft.
Let's keep in mind this isn't Bungie.  343 needs to prove themselves here.  I'm hoping that is also the same train of thought that Microsoft has.
Online
#23 Edited by animathias (1194 posts) -

@ShaggyChu: I'll be perfectly honest. I played CoD2 online for a few hours a most at the launch of the 360 and it was a buggy mess.

I did, however, play dozens of hours of both CoD3 and CoD4. Sorry I forgot about the killstreaks and weapon customization, but the core gameplay, which is what I'm talking about, feels nearly identical.

#24 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@animathias: I really think you're crazy, lol. Along with everything else that has been introduced, and sprinting, the pace of the game is so much faster. Number of kills in a CoD2 game are a fraction of what they are in a modern CoD game. Because of these facts, they play differently, therefore are different games.

Note: I probably played CoD2 on the 360 for 35+ hours, and play CoD4 for god knows how many hours.

#25 Edited by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@ShaggyChu: Dude, you clearly have no interest in reading what I post and like to put words in my mouth. When the fuck did I say I haven't liked the last Halo games? When did I bring up Reach's sales?

Your "Discussion" has consisted of making this a Call of Duty vs Battlefield debate then making me re-type things that I already posted in my OP.

#26 Posted by AuthenticM (3802 posts) -

Considering 343 has gone on saying that they want to completely avoid the color purple in Halo 4, this tells me that they are serious about making the game feel different from its predecessors. I have good hope that Halo 4 will feel fresh.

#27 Posted by agentboolen (1843 posts) -
@big_jon:  For Rare I kind of think Nintendo purge that company when they decided to sell it to Microsoft (I could be wrong, but something changed big time when Microsoft got them).
 
@HatKing: And yea your definitely right they do have to prove themselves, but no matter what creating a game takes a lot of time, I'm sure there going to be using the last game as a template, but they can try to throw there own little twist in there.
#28 Posted by animathias (1194 posts) -

@ShaggyChu: They are different games. But I never once said they were the same, I said they feel the same, and if you don't see that, then I think you're crazy. I don't know what class you play, but I mainly play a sniper. Crouching down in CoD3, pulling up the scope, holding your breath, and popping off a headshot has felt the exact same in 3, 4, WaW, MW2, and BlOps - and it felt that way in CoD2 as far as I can remember, but like I said I barely got to play that online since they took a while to fix it. That's what I pull my experience from. Of course, in the modern games the semi-auto snipers are a whole different experience, but I enjoy the bolt actions.

The other classes I would play would be CQC based, with SMGs and Shotguns, and while sprinting, perks, and weapon attachments makes kills easier to obtain and quickens the pace, the very core of the gameplay feels exactly like it did back in CoD3.

#29 Edited by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@big_jon: I have not once put words into your mouth. I'm simply stating my observations from what has transpired in this thread (that sounds way more douchey then I want it to, but can't thing of better words).

Halo is no longer relevant. Call of Duty is the big king on the block. You want Halo to be relevant again. I think we can both agree up to this point.

What I have gathered: You want Halo to change in order to be relevant again. Since you haven't brought up anything specific, I assume you want the gameplay to drastically change in order to take over the fps market again. Halo game -> drastically change gameplay -> no longer a Halo game. (-> piss off giant fan base -> probably lose sales.)

End.

#30 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@ShaggyChu said:

Nothing about First Person Shooters is going to change until something new comes along. It's all about evolution and refinement right now, not revolution.

You can't change Halo just for the sake of change. Everything needs to make sense. It's Halo, therefore it must play like Halo. Why? Because it works. Dunno if you knew this, but Reach was a really fucking good game. Why? Because of the minute refinements that Bungie made. They didn't try to reinvent the genre. They just set out to make a kick ass game, and succeeded.

Also...

@big_jon said:

A good example is what Call of Duty 4 did to fps games in 2007, it was the "Halo" of this generation, and hundred of games tried to copy it, Though most failed, some took that core idea and expanded it to be a more polished concept with different elements mixed in, Like the battlefield series. But now in 2011 we see that the Call of Duty franchise is becoming stale, each new game feels like the last, and it is hard to tell where that series is headed.

HA! You couldn't be any more wrong.

Bad Company =/= Call of Duty

From all reports; Battlefield 3 = Battlefield ass Battlefield game.

It's called persistence in multi-player and upgrades like body armour, weapon sights, and more explosive damage you fucking moron.

Anyone who denies that Battlefield has taken and adapted some things from the Call of Duty 4 model is being fucking stupid.... It's a fact, just like how Call of Duty took things from Battlefield, now get over it and move on.

I hate how people find one thing to get their panties in a bunch about and that is all they will comment on, this thread is about the future of the Halo franchise it's not a Call of Duty vs Battlefield debate.

I also stated these things clearly in my OP.

The entire persistent multiplayer experience with unlocks, awards, challenges, etc was taken directly from Battlefield 2. The only thing Call of Duty 4 did was perks, which Battlefield still hasn't bothered copying.

Call of Duty 4's success was in its implementation of Battlefield 2's features into a well polished 60fps game that was console friendly.

#31 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -
@Enigma777 said:

You're basically asking for lightning to strike twice. Stop being so greedy!

Hey its happened before.
#32 Edited by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@animathias said:

@ShaggyChu: They are different games. But I never once said they were the same, I said they feel the same, and if you don't see that, then I think you're crazy. I don't know what class you play, but I mainly play a sniper. Crouching down in CoD3, pulling up the scope, holding your breath, and popping off a headshot has felt the exact same in 3, 4, WaW, MW2, and BlOps - and it felt that way in CoD2 as far as I can remember, but like I said I barely got to play that online since they took a while to fix it. That's what I pull my experience from. Of course, in the modern games the semi-auto snipers are a whole different experience, but I enjoy the bolt actions.

The other classes I would play would be CQC based, with SMGs and Shotguns, and while sprinting, perks, and weapon attachments makes kills easier to obtain and quickens the pace, the very core of the gameplay feels exactly like it did back in CoD3.

In your explanation of sniping, yes, that feels the same. As it should. How the guns feel hasn't changed that much (just maybe in accordance of WWII weapons vs modern weapons).

As for CoD3, I wouldn't know. I never played it. Was there sprinting in that game? Okay, I can believe that then.

However, I think it's bollocks to say CoD2 = CoD4/MW2/BO. You yourself said you barely played CoD2. You can't make that comparison without playing the game for more than two hours.

#33 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2690 posts) -

I don't want Halo 4 at all, but since it's happening and since it's a new developer, I want a complete innovation. 
#34 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

I think I might be down fro some Halo-ass Halo.

#35 Posted by hanktherapper (384 posts) -

What really bugged me about the Halo series is how "cut and paste" the whole thing felt. Too many levels looked the same. Too many of the same enemy groups you faced each and every time. That is why I hated Reach.

#36 Posted by Barrock (3553 posts) -

I know a guy who is doing some work on it and he said it was playable at the moment so I doubt they are changing too much.

#37 Edited by AngriGhandi (792 posts) -

To answer the thread title directly: Yes. Yes it really does.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited as anyone for a new Halo game - but seeing the teaser trailer for Halo 4 that basically amounted to nothing more than "See? We brought back Master Chief, guys! Just like you wanted!" I couldn't help but feel crushed by a cold feeling of inevitability.

I mean, we don't know anything yet, of course-- but the feeling I got from that reveal is that 343 is terrified to change anything about Halo - and I wouldn't be surprised if the big old portal they showed at the end of the trailer leads straight back into the same war with the Covenant that's been going on for three five games now. The fact that they pre-announced it as a new trilogy didn't help much.

In the interest of being constructive in my criticism, though, I will add that I think Halo could make a great open world game.

#38 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@AngriGhandi said:

In the interest of being constructive in my criticism, though, I will add that I think Halo could make a great open world game.

Already been done, bro.

#39 Edited by AngriGhandi (792 posts) -

@ShaggyChu: Well, yeah... but I mean, like, really.

Like, let me drive the Warthog around the Halo.

Or better yet, just let me fly the god damn pelican for once

I mean what the hell

#40 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@AngriGhandi: While stuff like that would be cool, I don't see how it would add to the story (or multiplayer). Not to mention the time it would take to create and entirely accessible Halo ring would be insane (and a total waste, since it would serve nothing to the story).

Also, the Pelican is a giant, slow troop carrier. I don't see how that could be more fun then flying a Falcon or Banshee. The only thing that makes sense would be using a turret out the back to shoot down Banshees on your tail. However, that's a rail shooting sequence. We've had enough of those at this point. That'd be more copying, not creating something new.

ALSO, we won't see a Pelican until the MC find his way back to Earth in Halo 6, and if we even see one it'll be in a cut scene.

#41 Posted by DeltaSnow (6 posts) -

And to think that innovation and change is why I buy Halo every two/three years instead of Call of Duty each year.

#42 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@DeltaSnow said:

And to think that innovation and change is why I buy Halo every two/three years instead of Call of Duty each year.

There has been one Halo game a year since 2009, and there was two that year.

#43 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@ShaggyChu said:

@big_jon: Then... there's no point to this thread. None. You clearly want no discussion on this topic. It's just you bitching that you're bored of Halo now. If you don't like Halo anymore, move on.

On a serious note...

One thing I think though is more AI vs AI fights, like in fire fight and single player, seems like a no brainer to feel like you're in a larger battle to be helping a large group of allies like in Halo 1 and 2. The best parts of Halo have often been in watch two groups fight and watch the AI do it's thing from a far.

While I too would like that. If anyone has read the books, you know that a couple squads of Spartans would face off against hundreds of Covenant at once. However, such a thing is a limitation of the Xbox 360 hardware. You can only have so many enemies, so many vehicles, and so many explosions going off at the same time at once on screen. It's just not possible for such a thing right now.

Just because Reach didn't sell as many copies as Black Ops doesn't mean it was a flop. Dozens of developers and publishers would KILL for the numbers that Reach got.

Jesusfuckingchrist, reevaluate your expectations bro.

Oh and I wasn't asking for more enemies, I was asking for better AI vs AI scenarios to take part in like the first two games. Like Hunters fighting flood and the like. You don't read well at all.

#44 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@big_jon: No. You still don't know what you want, or don't know what you're talking about.

Due to the hardware limitations of the Xbox 360, it's physically impossible to have the large scale, in your face AI battles that you're describing. You had that sort of stuff off in the distance in Halo 3 and Halo Reach, but that's because there was less to render.

You're naive to think you'll be able to walk through a battle of two dozen Elites fighting a pack of Flood, all on your screen at once. It will simply never happen on the 360.

#45 Edited by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@DeltaSnow said:

And to think that innovation and change is why I buy Halo every two/three years instead of Call of Duty each year.

There has been one Halo game a year since 2009, and there was two that year.

That's hardly a valid argument. Halo 3 was in development for at least 3 years. Halo ODST was purely a single player game with a neat little side story, built on the Halo 3 engine (therefore no development on the tech side), and used the Halo 3 multiplayer. Halo Wars made sense but was ultimately a flop (and wasn't even an fps, nor was it made by Bungie). Finally, many (including Giant Bomb's Jeff Gerstmann) would argue that Reach was Bungie's best Halo game. It featured an all new engine, loads of new animations, more robust Forge tools, and... well, the list goes on.

By your argument, it's a god damn miracle that Bungie managed to make Reach as good as it was in one year (not really one year).

#46 Posted by niamahai (1394 posts) -

they need to show's MC fucking face.

MC * takes off helmet, impersonates Paul Walker* : "Cortana, IMA Spartan"

~CUE CREDITS TEASE HALO 5~

#47 Posted by Philosoma (109 posts) -
@Enigma777 said:

You're basically asking for lightning to strike twice. Stop being so greedy!

This
#48 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

Why is it that gamers constantly expect a formula that works, to continue to evolve just because they have played it for 10 years? If you really think about it, think about a kid that was around your age when Halo CE first released (around 11 for me) and realize that Halo 4 will give 11 year olds this generation the same feeling. It's not about constantly updating a franchise for its founders, but ending the trilogy and starting anew to those who are joining the franchise now.

#49 Posted by big_jon (5782 posts) -

@ShaggyChu said:

@big_jon said:

@DeltaSnow said:

And to think that innovation and change is why I buy Halo every two/three years instead of Call of Duty each year.

There has been one Halo game a year since 2009, and there was two that year.

That's hardly a valid argument. Halo 3 was in development for at least 3 years. Halo ODST was purely a single player game with a neat little side story, built on the Halo 3 engine (therefore no development on the tech side), and used the Halo 3 multiplayer. Halo Wars made sense but was ultimately a flop (and wasn't even an fps, nor was it made by Bungie). Finally, many (including Giant Bomb's Jeff Gerstmann) would argue that Reach was Bungie's best Halo game. It featured an all new engine, loads of new animations, more robust Forge tools, and... well, the list goes on.

By your argument, it's a god damn miracle that Bungie managed to make Reach as good as it was in one year (not really one year).

Get off my nuts and stop arguing with everything I say just to be contrary, you put words in my mouth, make stupid points that no one was even arguing against, and have done nothing but annoy me since this thread was started, go away.It's all the way one way with you ar all the way another, no greys.

There has been a Halo game each year since 2009 and there will continue to be (Halo: Reach 2010, Halo CEA in 2011, Halo 4 in 2012) if you're going to argue against that then you really need to get your head checked.

#50 Posted by Falconer (1707 posts) -

@csoup: And there's the "don't fix it if it ain't broke" mentality. Halo CE Anniversary is a thing for a reason. That game was awesome. It's still awesome. That's why it's being re-released. Because it's going to sell gang busters for a second time.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.