In reviews for Halo 4, I keep seeing reviewers point out that the new weapons in Halo 4 are dissapointing because they're hte same as the old weapons.

I think the thing that they're missing is... that's the point.

Halo had it's origins as a RTS game. And, as such, that meant that the two factions, Human and Covenant, were designed like Warcraft 2 factions. They had the same build tree, but different. They both had a handgun, they both had a rifle, etc. They both had a car, they both had a plane, etc.

Adding in a new faction to that scenario, it only makes sense from the backbone structure of the universe to give them an equivalent build tree.

Also, as someone who hates gimmicky, unecessary weapons in FPS games, and hates when there's too many weapons in Halo, It's frustrating for reviwers to knock the game because of it.

After the QL "nothing new" seems to be about right.

A lot of Halo 4's originality comes from the armor abilities. There is a lot of fantastic stuff in there. And all the Promethean weapons are spectacular.

the needler doesn't really have an equivalent gun, the spartan laser was also quite unique when introduced.. also, wasn't the brute shot the only grenade launcher in 3? There is no need for there to be more than one version of a gun in a game where there are no factions (in the sense that you're never forced to use a single factions loadout), theres no balancing that needs to be done in this front.

There isn't really an excuse for boring weapon design.

@JazGalaxy said:

In reviews for Halo 4, I keep seeing reviewers point out that the new weapons in Halo 4 are dissapointing because they're hte same as the old weapons.

I think the thing that they're missing is... that's the point.

Halo had it's origins as a RTS game. And, as such, that meant that the two factions, Human and Covenant, were designed like Warcraft 2 factions. They had the same build tree, but different. They both had a handgun, they both had a rifle, etc. They both had a car, they both had a plane, etc.

Adding in a new faction to that scenario, it only makes sense from the backbone structure of the universe to give them an equivalent build tree.

Also, as someone who hates gimmicky, unecessary weapons in FPS games, and hates when there's too many weapons in Halo, It's frustrating for reviwers to knock the game because of it.

Yeah, but given we're ten years out from that original point of inception, you'd have thought they may have branched out a little.

Saying that, I adore the new designs.

But dont they have some quirks to them? They are not carbon copies of existing designs are they? (By that I mean they shoot the same in all modes , do the same damage , have the same recoil/rate of fire etc.)

@rebgav said:

People are inevitably going to complain if you misrepresent re-skinned versions of old weapons as "new" weapons.

Within the game?

As a rule of thumb: I'd rather see fewer, specific weapons than more, repeated weapons. I don't need a shotgun and a short-range multi beam laser and a anti-mater scattergun nor do I feel it is compelling when it is clear they are functionally the same but sound and look different.

That said I like how the new weapons in Halo 4 look but it is hard to say they are anything but copies. Keeping the "tron look" is fine but suggesting the weapons add anything more is dubious.

@Aetheldod said:

But dont they have some quirks to them? They are not carbon copies of existing designs are they? (By that I mean they shoot the same in all modes , do the same damage , have the same recoil/rate of fire etc.)

well i think some of the promethium weapons have an alternate fire, so there's that

Sounds like you're just annoyed that people wanted something more creative than a generic arsenal.
I recognize it as a valid complaint, but like you I never find myself caring for the funkier weapons.

@rebgav:

And these UNSC weapons are already present in the game?

@rebgav said:

@Video_Game_King: This is why you have such a crazy post count, isn't it?

My powers relate more to that.

On topic, though, if this is all true, then the complaints are valid. Why bother having that space for multiple weapons if the weapons are functionally identical?

@rebgav said:

@JazGalaxy said:

Halo had it's origins as a RTS game. And, as such, that meant that the two factions, Human and Covenant, were designed like Warcraft 2 factions. They had the same build tree, but different. They both had a handgun, they both had a rifle, etc. They both had a car, they both had a plane, etc.

Adding in a new faction to that scenario, it only makes sense from the backbone structure of the universe to give them an equivalent build tree.

That justification only makes sense if Halo had remained an RTS. It did not.

People are inevitably going to complain if you misrepresent re-skinned versions of old weapons as "new" weapons.

I disagree. There are some things, when you're talking about design, that prop up the entire design. To eliminate certain core elements eliminates what is great about the game. Featurecreep has claimed more game franchises in the industry than I can name.

Would Halo be broken with new, different guns? No. But it wouldn't be Halo, either. The concept of deciding between the human pistol, which had no refire limit but required ammo, and the convenant pistol which had no ammo but a limited refire rate was a backbone of what made Halo, Halo. Taking that RTS dynamic and placing it in an FPS game was a giant chunk of it's charm. To me, anyhow.