Is Halo 4 becoming like Call of Duty?

#51 Posted by SirPsychoSexy (1365 posts) -

They all seem like good additions to me. At it's core it is still a very different game though.

Online
#52 Posted by Clonedzero (4206 posts) -

the demonization of call of duty is getting really out of hand and unnecessary. its become alittle too "internet-cool" to hate on it.

i dont even really like CoD much, i always feel like im running in aimless circles on every map, doing laps, which is kinda intended from what i understand, but i dont like that. but they're well made games and im happy people enjoy them.

i'm GLAD they're adding this stuff into halo 4. if they just did another halo game without really changing anything, well thats kinda boring. having some trimmings from CoD and other shooters to enhance the core gameplay of halo is a fantastic idea.

the real weird thing to me is that people i see crying "they're changing Halo too much!" are the same people that say crap like "stupid CoD sheep! its the same game every year!" do you want games to change? or do you want sequels to be the same thing everytime? you cant have both.

#53 Posted by Terramagi (1168 posts) -

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@NotWithoutIntegrity

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

Sales =/= Quality

If that were the case then James Cameron's Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

Would it upset you to know that this was the opinion held about Halo players by most FPS communities for quite a long time? Maybe don't tar several million people with the stereotype brush, hey?

Halo took my medpacks, Call of Duty takes Halo's atmosphere.

Poetic, in a way. I wonder what's going to steal Call of Duty's... uh... whatever virtue that series has that will become evident in hindsight half a decade later, after something kicks it off its goddamn throne.

#54 Posted by glyn (390 posts) -

@MrCandleguy said:

It's still a 'slow' shooter compared to COD. As long as it has the floaty jumps and the slow feeling. It will always be Halo, and ain't these updates to the game just evolution? minus the jumping in a match midway, that blows.

Imagine joining a game and your team is losing, the opposition has full map control and all the power weapons. Sounds fun doesn't it...

#55 Posted by iAmJohn (6166 posts) -

@Renahzor said:

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

You should probably go ahead and delete this forum account now, start fresh while you have the chance and pretend this thread never happened.

Take this man's advice.

#56 Edited by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

So it's becoming a modern shooter. That's not really a problem.

@Terramagi said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@NotWithoutIntegrity

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

Sales =/= Quality

If that were the case then James Cameron's Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

Would it upset you to know that this was the opinion held about Halo players by most FPS communities for quite a long time? Maybe don't tar several million people with the stereotype brush, hey?

Halo took my medpacks, Call of Duty takes Halo's atmosphere.

Poetic, in a way. I wonder what's going to steal Call of Duty's... uh... whatever virtue that series has that will become evident in hindsight half a decade later, after something kicks it off its goddamn throne.

Every shooter ever already "steals" call of duty's custom load-out, leveling and perk system.

#57 Posted by laserbolts (5470 posts) -

I'm just happy they are letting people join mid match. By far the best change and I don't understand how they thought handicapping the team because some kid rage quit was a good idea.

#58 Posted by Demoskinos (16434 posts) -

Oh oh oh dont forget to drink your gamefuel for DOUBLE XP!

#59 Posted by DharmaBum (1072 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Oh oh oh dont forget to drink your gamefuel for DOUBLE XP!

Turns on Breaking Benjamin song... glug, glug, glug am I good at the game yet?!

#60 Posted by Arker101 (1484 posts) -

The funny thing is that I remember people saying Halo 3 was a less skill oriented game compared to Halo 2. If that's the case, then Halo 4 makes Halo 3 look like CS:S.

It's a downer 343 is ruining that formula that Halo used to have, but in fairness, Bungie did start down this path with Reach.

#61 Posted by isomeri (1791 posts) -

The Call of Duty series has made some great innovations for multiplayer shooters and I think it's healthy for Halo to implement them.

#62 Edited by Shaka999 (540 posts) -

@isomeri said:

The Call of Duty series has made some great innovations for multiplayer shooters and I think it's healthy for Halo to implement them.

I mean, yeah, but at some point it became too similar. Sure, adding a feature or two doesn't hurt the overall product, but it's reaching the point where it's implementing a bunch of features that are the reason why I don't play CoD.

Basically, think of Halo as a band. I was really into their old stuff, but now that the times are changing and they have to reinvent their sound, rather than experimenting with actual new sounds (or in the case of a game, brand new ideas that haven't been used before), they're selling out & going for what's popular rather than trying to make new ideas popular. (Hope that made sense >_>)

And to be clear, I don't blame them for doing what they're doing- it's something that was bound to happen. But I'm still kinda bummed about it.

#63 Posted by isomeri (1791 posts) -

@Shaka999: I get you. It feels like Halo has become more reactive than proactive. But then again I don't think that any of the new additions change the fundamental gameplay as much as something like dual-wielding or destructible vehicles did.

#64 Posted by SomeJerk (3732 posts) -

Publisher: "make it more like COD"
Focus groups: "make it more like COD"
Only choice: to make it more like COD
 
Welcome to Xbox 360 development!

#65 Posted by HistoryInRust (6650 posts) -

@Shaka999: I'd be a little ginger with the phrase "selling out" in this case. I understand that they're incorporating some core elements of the framework that made Call of Duty so accessible (and successful, financially and otherwise), but to come at this as though it's a black-and-white blame game is the wrong thing to do. We'd be remiss to neglect mentioning the obvious (perhaps overbearing?) care and value 343i have assigned to their work with the Halo narrative.

I see where you're coming from, and I can understand how a staunch champion of the Halo design philosophy might get so heated as to label these changes mere symptoms of a "sell-out." Obviously, money has a lot to do with what's happening with the Halo franchise. It's in Microsoft's best interest to keep the brand healthy, financially. But that's not the whole picture. Although it might be enough for some.

#66 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

All that stuff sounds great, I hated the race to your favourite gun mentality of Halo

#67 Posted by ShaggE (7237 posts) -

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

Aaaand there it goes. You almost had a respectable thread here, too, but then you had to play the "they're having fun wrong" card.

#68 Posted by Shaka999 (540 posts) -

@HistoryInRust: using the term "sell-out" was more for the analogy than anything else; something as big as Halo can't really sell out anyway. I understand why they're making the changes and hopefully it gets them more sales but I would've been happy for them to take a different approach.

And hell, who knows. Maybe it'll all come together to make something unique, but I have my doubts.

#69 Posted by TheVideoHustler (412 posts) -

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

Sales =/= Quality

If that were the case then James Cameron's Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

Sorry but. Quality doesn't matter. Only dolla bills.

#70 Edited by ez123 (2012 posts) -

@isomeri said:

The Call of Duty series has made some great innovations for multiplayer shooters and I think it's healthy for Halo to implement them.

I look at that list in the OP and don't see any of the COD stuff as worthwhile. Sprint and join in progress are fine. You could join in progress in Halo PC so I wouldn't attribute it to COD and sprint just seems like common sense. Everything else is about chasing the money.

I don't think floaty jumps and no iron sights mean that this game is still like Halo 1-3. The multiplayer is completely different, people can't keep saying that the core is still there. Everyone being in an equal playing field no matter how much they played was part of the core. Being simple was part of the core without useless systems and grinding.

#71 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4748 posts) -

I'm not a fan or any Call of Duty or Military shooter but I do like Halo, so i'm left curious at these choices. Halo is a very different beast and hopefully they choices were implanted with preserving that in mind, because they felt it legitimately made the game better. Not because they are the popular choices.

But added Perks, Load outs, and Kill cam is a lot of change so we'll see I guess. From watching the video where brad played it I did not like how each kill got you experience and the emblems form head shot and the like were replaced as well as the announcer. It give the multiplayer a different personality.

#72 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

Halo could use a little modernizing. As long as the game plays well, it's a good thing.

#73 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

I'm not a fan or any Call of Duty or Military shooter but I do like Halo, so i'm left curious at these choices. Halo is a very different beast and hopefully they choices were implanted with preserving that in mind, because they felt it legitimately made the game better. Not because they are the popular choices.

But added Perks, Load outs, and Kill cam is a lot of change so we'll see I guess. From watching the video where brad played it I did not like how each kill got you experience and the emblems form head shot and the like were replaced as well as the announcer. It give the multiplayer a different personality.

I could be wrong, but they've been doing that since three. Not the +10 headshot or whatever, but everytime you'd kill a person, it would say it on the screen with a big ass little medal to show how.

#74 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4748 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

I'm not a fan or any Call of Duty or Military shooter but I do like Halo, so i'm left curious at these choices. Halo is a very different beast and hopefully they choices were implanted with preserving that in mind, because they felt it legitimately made the game better. Not because they are the popular choices.

But added Perks, Load outs, and Kill cam is a lot of change so we'll see I guess. From watching the video where brad played it I did not like how each kill got you experience and the emblems form head shot and the like were replaced as well as the announcer. It give the multiplayer a different personality.

I could be wrong, but they've been doing that since three. Not the +10 headshot or whatever, but everytime you'd kill a person, it would say it on the screen with a big ass little medal to show how.

They did. It is similar in effect to the number of Call of Duty. It rewards the player for kills, but only specialty kills like head shots of needle kills. I found it a smart way to incidence good play. The announcer goes "Killing Spree" it's like "heck, yeah I did". The number seem like a worse form of that.

#75 Edited by DharmaBum (1072 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

All that stuff sounds great, I hated the race to your favourite gun mentality of Halo

That's what made Halo the arena shooter that it was. Power weapons and power-ups like overshield and camo used to be placed on the map and you would have to control and earn them by outplaying the other team. Now there's Infinity Slayer where you call in your own power weapons on the fly. It's the same stupid design philosophy as the active camo armor ability in Reach. Have fun playing a team of try hards who all choose camo and crouch-walk across the map, turning everyone's radar into a mess of red dots. If they don't allow traditional Slayer with weapons placed on the map with a timer, then I will be sorely disappointed.

#76 Posted by MrCandleguy (914 posts) -

@glyn said:

@MrCandleguy said:

It's still a 'slow' shooter compared to COD. As long as it has the floaty jumps and the slow feeling. It will always be Halo, and ain't these updates to the game just evolution? minus the jumping in a match midway, that blows.

Imagine joining a game and your team is losing, the opposition has full map control and all the power weapons. Sounds fun doesn't it...

Did you read my entire comment? I clearly stated that at the end...

#77 Posted by JasonR86 (10028 posts) -

I haven't played it so I don't know.

Online
#78 Posted by LaszloKovacs (1272 posts) -

Yeah, the industry is trending toward feature-parity with the most popular franchise ever. Nobody is shocked.

I like all of those changes, though, so I'm not complaining.

#79 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (4012 posts) -

@ez123 said:

@isomeri said:

The Call of Duty series has made some great innovations for multiplayer shooters and I think it's healthy for Halo to implement them.

I look at that list in the OP and don't see any of the COD stuff as worthwhile. Sprint and join in progress are fine. You could join in progress in Halo PC so I wouldn't attribute it to COD and sprint just seems like common sense. Everything else is about chasing the money.

I don't think floaty jumps and no iron sights mean that this game is still like Halo 1-3. The multiplayer is completely different, people can't keep saying that the core is still there. Everyone being in an equal playing field no matter how much they played was part of the core. Being simple was part of the core without useless systems and grinding.

But the systems they're adding aren't grindy or complicated. They're pretty easy to understand, it's not like the CoD system is super in-depth and requires a tutorial. The trappings surrounding the multiplayer are different but its the way the game plays that's the same and that's the most important part of a game. It's the feel of combat, not the fact that I can customize my load out. And none of the power weapons can be included in loadouts, you can't take a rocket launcher into battle with you, you still have to fight for that power weapon like you have in every other Halo.

#80 Posted by Bawlsz (85 posts) -

343i showed of Halo 4 at quite a few gaming events, has anybody here actually played the game? Because from what I've heard, from people who actually played the game, is that it feels like Halo, so that's good enough for me.

Also the improvements to Forge mode and a shit load of more options to customise games is pretty awesome.

#81 Posted by DharmaBum (1072 posts) -

@Bawlsz: I think most people have only had a chance to play Infinity Slayer, hence the skepticism. Apparently MLG will get their hands on the game early to craft some gametypes for their upcoming Dallas event. Should be interesting to see what they come up with.

#82 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1695 posts) -

Halo 4 is becoming like a modern first-person shooter, while still retaining the core of what makes Halo, Halo. (e.g. shields extending the average length of a battle, the trinity of guns/grenades/melee, vehicles being a big part of multiplayer, and the important of team tactics).

#83 Posted by The_Nubster (2582 posts) -

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

@GunstarRed said:

All of those things seem like great inclusions. A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right. I have no doubt in my mind that the game will play exactly like a Halo game.

>"A lot of people like Call of Duty, they must be doing something right."

Yes, those people are casual game players. The kind that play shitty facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

Sales =/= Quality

If that were the case then James Cameron's Avatar is the greatest film of all time.

Oh great, fake greentexting and =/=. The people who play CoD don't play Farmville. CoD is more than a casual game. It's fine for other games to take features from CoD, because CoD is very well-made and has a lot of very smart systems in place. Halo has had CoD elements since Reach, anyways.

#84 Posted by xMEGADETHxSLY (484 posts) -

Yes, Is that a bad thing. COD has 1,500,000 preorders

it will probably feel like halo with attributes that are call of duty but

ALL ABOUT CAMPAIGN

#85 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (4012 posts) -

@Bawlsz said:

343i showed of Halo 4 at quite a few gaming events, has anybody here actually played the game? Because from what I've heard, from people who actually played the game, is that it feels like Halo, so that's good enough for me.

Also the improvements to Forge mode and a shit load of more options to customise games is pretty awesome.

Dude, Forge looks bananas. And some really smart improvements. Duplicate button, how was that not a thing already?

#86 Posted by ez123 (2012 posts) -

@TheSouthernDandy: Simple in terms of design. There's no useless extra stuff just for the sake of it.

I bought Halo 3 day one but if I had bought it a year later, people wouldn't be able to have weapons that I don't have and reload faster than me. Some people like that shit and that's fine but it changes Halo. That stuff makes it so it doesn't play the same. I don't think this is subjective, these changes are making a multiplayer that plays differently from the previous games.

And if you don't think it's grinding, that's fine. The point is, it's not fun.

#87 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (4012 posts) -

@ez123: Yeah I get that. I understand if you don't enjoy the extra stuff. I personally really like the progression system from CoD, I remember a few years ago saying how rad it would be if that was in Halo. I understand if that's not everyone's cup of tea but I like the extra incentive to play a few more matches to unlock the next thing. The customization in Reach was fun and this kinda takes it a step further.

I would imagine though for people who don't like that there will be a playlist that keeps it bare bones. I think they had one for Reach if I'm remembering correctly.

#88 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1244 posts) -

Well, yeah. But that's not a bad thing. Snobs shit on COD but that fact is that it's obviously doing something right. I'm fine with it. Halo 3's progression system was pure shit that alienated anyone who wasn't a 15 year old with unlimited free time. It's all about the gameplay and balance. In that case, Halo appears to still be just fine.

#89 Edited by ez123 (2012 posts) -

@TheSouthernDandy: Maybe. Are they going make you level up to the starting weapons for all the other playlists except for that one? Seems weird.

If it exists, hopefully it shuts the announcer up and there's no text in the middle of the screen.

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

Well, yeah. But that's not a bad thing. Snobs shit on COD but that fact is that it's obviously doing something right. I'm fine with it. Halo 3's progression system was pure shit that alienated anyone who wasn't a 15 year old with unlimited free time. It's all about the gameplay and balance. In that case, Halo appears to still be just fine.

It was a number next to your name that went up and down depending on how good you were playing. It had no gameplay ramifications. But somehow that was for 15 year olds with unlimited time and not the one that made you play the game a lot to get better weapons/powers. Yeah, alright.

#90 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1244 posts) -

@ez123 said:

@TheSouthernDandy: Maybe. Are they going make you level up to the starting weapons for all the other playlists except for that one? Seems weird.

If it exists, hopefully it shuts the announcer up and there's no text in the middle of the screen.

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

Well, yeah. But that's not a bad thing. Snobs shit on COD but that fact is that it's obviously doing something right. I'm fine with it. Halo 3's progression system was pure shit that alienated anyone who wasn't a 15 year old with unlimited free time. It's all about the gameplay and balance. In that case, Halo appears to still be just fine.

It was a number next to your name that went up and down depending on how good you were playing. It had no gameplay ramifications. But somehow that was for 15 year olds with unlimited time and not the one that made you play the game a lot to get better weapons/powers. Yeah, alright.

Bullshit. Call me a Tryhard and be as impressed as you want with your Slayer K/D but it was about idiots messaging you trying to sell you that number once every half a dozen matches. The COD system means nothing and is thus, worth nothing. In other words, just play the game for the enjoyment of the game. I repeat, not a bad thing...

#91 Edited by ez123 (2012 posts) -

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

Bullshit. The COD system means nothing and is thus, worth nothing.

Except the part where it is actually worth something. Your argument is very confusing. Exactly which part of what I said is bullshit?

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

In other words, just play the game for the enjoyment of the game. I repeat, not a bad thing...

Okay? What does that have to do with anything? I played the previous Halos for fun and will play Halo 4 for fun as well.

#92 Posted by HistoryInRust (6650 posts) -

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie: You're absolutely right. The Halo system influenced the kinds of people you were matched against. So if you were real heavy into the game at first and then came back after a long hiatus, the barrier for entry would be incredibly steep.

#93 Posted by ez123 (2012 posts) -

@HistoryInRust said:

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie: You're absolutely right. The Halo system influenced the kinds of people you were matched against. So if you were real heavy into the game at first and then came back after a long hiatus, the barrier for entry would be incredibly steep.

If you lost, your rating would go down.

#94 Edited by DharmaBum (1072 posts) -

I think the real issue with a lack of a proper ranking system isn't so much showing off how good you are, but rather getting unevenly matched with other players. Ranks were meaningless in Reach (along with guests being allowed just about everywhere) and more often than not full teams would just streamroll whoever got randomly matched together. Say what you will about boosters, the 1-50 system was a simple solution that gave players a clear indication of what they were up against. Playlists in Halo 4 seem to be divided into gametypes to improve the matchmaking, but they really ought to have a designated area for full accounts where you rank up only for wins, not merely sinking the most time into the game. The core mechanics of the game alone should provide the necessary skill gap, without gimmicky unlocks/abilities that make encounters inconsistent.

#95 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

@DharmaBum said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

All that stuff sounds great, I hated the race to your favourite gun mentality of Halo

That's what made Halo the arena shooter that it was. Power weapons and power-ups like overshield and camo used to be placed on the map and you would have to control and earn them by outplaying the other team. Now there's Infinity Slayer where you call in your own power weapons on the fly. It's the same stupid design philosophy as the active camo armor ability in Reach. Have fun playing a team of try hards who all choose camo and crouch-walk across the map, turning everyone's radar into a mess of red dots. If they don't allow traditional Slayer with weapons placed on the map with a timer, then I will be sorely disappointed.

I get that I loved Halo 2 but since COD4 it just felt old. I agree they should keep a classic mode in there.

#96 Posted by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

@Vinny_Says said:

what multiplayer shooter isn't these days though?

That's what worries me about the current state of the gaming industry.

It is going to be amazing when the industry rediscovers balanced game play with no unlocks after the persistence thing jumps the shark (it has not done it yet arguably, but some game is going to come out where, if you do not get in during the first week, you'll always be destroyed).

#97 Posted by Whitestripes09 (533 posts) -

I don't really think so. I think that a lot of the new features are just a way to introduce a more casual group of players to the game. I think that the most of the additions are welcoming personally. I don't know how many times I would get pissed at the fact that people would d/c on my team or even on the other team. I'm sorry, but the fact that I can't have someone fill up those spots in a non-ranked game is just stupid and irritating. All I'm hoping for is that they take away the join in progress button for ranked so there can still be some sense of professionalism in ranked however.

#98 Posted by Spitznock (771 posts) -

@NotWithoutIntegrity said:

I mean think about:

> Ordinance Drops ala Killstreaks

> Custom Loadouts

> Join game matches whenever you want

> Points System

> Sprint Function

> Tactical Package ala Perks System

> FUCKING Killcams!

I thought Halo: Reach was going the route of Call of Duty but it's Counter Strike 1.6 compared to this shit. I'm worried about Halo 4, and after hearing negative reactions to the live stream, leaked copies and ending, it's gotten worse. I hear the ending is almost as bad as Mass Effect 3's. *cringes*

My thoughts exactly. If we're talking about multiplayer, Reach was easily the worst of the series, and Halo 4 seems to be going even farther in the direction of Call of Duty. It's astounding how far the series has strayed from innovation to make way for adhering to generic shooter conventions. Yet for some silly reason I'm still interested in checking Halo 4 out once it's out, even after not caring for Halo 3 all that much and outright despising Reach, the first two games had such a positive impact on me that I'm compelled to keep giving them chances. *throws arms up helplessly* We'll see I guess.

#99 Posted by murisan (1143 posts) -

zomg it has sprint and you can spawn power weapons when you're getting lots of kills. TOTES CALL OF DUTY RIPOFF GAIS

#100 Posted by Syndrom (413 posts) -

what a bunch of whine in this thread. djeez.

Game purists, gotta hate them.

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.