When Thinking of Halo 4...

#1 Edited by Arnox (22 posts) -

Every time I go to some Halo 4 forum (Especially the Halo 4 Waypoint forums. Ugh.), I see people type up these huge walls of text of how Halo 4 just ruined everything. I have read them and they all have a common cause. Nobody knows how to treat Halo 4 properly. You see, I know people will probably disagree with me when I say this but Halo 4 should be treated as the start of a new game trilogy rather then the fourth Halo game a la Halo: CE. When Halo: CE came out, what did it have? It was a pretty simple package. A great campaign and some fun, slightly configurable multiplayer and that was it. That was IT. No map packs, DLC, etc. None.

But you know what? That was OK because it was the start of something completely new and promising. We didn't give it crap because it was the first game in the series of course. Halo 4 should be treated the same way. 343 may have some veteran Bungie employees with them but they are few and far between in the studio's extensive staff. For the most part, they are definitely new and inexperienced. Heck, I remember that they said in a Sparkast that they spent a big chunk of time and money just proving to themselves and Microsoft that they could make any sort of Halo game.

So, before you post that huge rant that you've spent all of an hour writing, think about it first. 343 isn't out to destroy a beloved franchise of who knows how many fans. But they're inexperienced as far as industry experience goes and as they have said many times before, they have a whole lot to live up to.

#2 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

I think there's a lot of acclaim here on the GB forums. I'm one of the many that think the multiplayer is fantastic. I haven't touched it in a bit since I've been playing some PC games I got on the Steam sale, but I'm going to be going back to it this week probably.

I think it's a vast improvement over Reach, and reminds me of the great times I had with 3.

#3 Edited by EpicSteve (6490 posts) -

The type of people you're talking about don't really think of things like that. They have a beloved franchise and see a new entry (in their mind) all jacked up, it pisses them off. A lot of gamers that aren't as in-tuned with the industry as you and I are get really ticked over really weird and specific changes in shooters.

#4 Posted by csl316 (8938 posts) -

I'm hoping it's the start of something amazing. A great start, with a fun campaign and cool multiplayer. I don't think it deserves the crazy high scores it's been getting since it's not a huge leap over the previous games (most of which I loved). But with a foundation this strong from a new studio, they can really start to do their own thing from here on out.

#5 Posted by big_jon (5741 posts) -

Halo 4 was a very good game with some flaws.

That is how a I feel about it, its core is very solid.

#6 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3903 posts) -

That's probably the people who wanted it to be more of what it was. That's fine and all but I'm glad they've taken some chances. They could have taken a few more for my money. I like your point though about it being a new start. That's how it's been pushed by 343 but I guess not everybody wants that.

#7 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

That sounds like a subset of people. And they're wrong because Halo 4 kicked ass.

#8 Posted by bluefish (499 posts) -

I very much agree, I think it's great and I've been a Halo fan since it was released. It took some hindsight but I've come around to being a little let down by the single player and pretty pleased with the multiplayer.

And yes, it's different, but that's what we paid for: n New Game. I'd have actually preferred it be considerably MORE different, particularly in single player. It's like, we were all in a serious, long term relationship with the covenant and there was some real closeness. But we drifted eventually and by Reach we were both just pretending to be in love, but after Halo 3 we both knew it would never really go back to how it was. It was a clean break, we agreed to fight other people and at the drop of a hat and some shiny visuals we fall right back in with the same old war.

I just feel like we compromised and I know it won't go anywhere good. We'll either stay together until we hate one another or this is just a stupid stepping stone to some other, better, more beautiful enemy. Covenant, what can't I quit you?

Also: Halo 2 mp was still the best. But that's ok.

#9 Posted by SuperWristBands (2266 posts) -

I'm not so into giving them a pass because they are new to it. I'll give 'em all the shit they deserve until they make a Halo game that is as good as or better than any other Halo FPS. (which I don't think they managed to do)

#10 Posted by Gamer_152 (14091 posts) -

I've actually seen a lot of praise for the game, and I believe it's a great game myself, none the less I just can't agree with some of the arguments you're making and I feel I have to make the following points:

  1. While Halo 4 in some ways can be seen as a new start, we can't pretend that it's part of an entirely new series or in anywhere near the same position that Halo: Combat Evolved was. There's no way to ignore the essential fact that Halo 4 is a game continuing an existing series, and that it is building on top of the gameplay, art style, and narrative of the previous games. This is not a new IP and so should not be judged as such.
  2. Times have changed greatly since Halo: Combat Evolved was released. Why should we hold a game released in 2012 to the same standards a a game released 11 years ago? That doesn't make sense to me.
  3. I don't believe that the people working at 343 are inexperienced, there seems to be some considerable effort that's gone in to making sure the studio is full of people who are experienced in the industry, but even if they were, the fact that the people who worked on the game were inexperienced doesn't make it in any way a better game, or make any of its flaws not be flaws.
Moderator
#11 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1438 posts) -

I think (story wise) it is my favorite in the series. They finally tried to expand on Master Chief character. Instead of doing the whole "We want you to play the character as if he was you, even though there are no choices in the game and the games ends the same way for every goddamn person who bought this game". Whenever they said that, I puked a little in my mouth.

#12 Posted by DeathbyYeti (748 posts) -

I think it is the best Halo this generation but considering I found the others to be bad that isnt saying much

Online
#13 Edited by EXTomar (4837 posts) -

Some points:

- I feel that the genre in general is showing a lot of fatigue. As an example, Black Ops 2 is probably the best told and constructed campaign the across all of the Call of Duty franchise has seen but many are just blase about it. The gaming world is different than it was when Halo released. Expectations let alone gamers have changed and need something more than bombastic kill box set pieces where I'm not sure Halo 4 delivered beyond that. It is not a bad campaign but it isn't something to brag about either.

- I also feel something was squandered. I was intrigued with the idea left at the end of Halo 3 where Master Chief and Cortana where headed to parts unknown without support. This should have been a great blessing to 343 where MC and Cortana don't need to follow any orders, play by anyone's rules, and would have allowed them to explore completely different things. Instead we are back to the same old stuff with "aliens enemy+" style monsters that carry the same weapons that animate and glow differently and we are back to "Earth's in danger!" Think about what happened to Cortana at the end and how it would have effected Master Chief if they were isolated at the edge of nowhere.

- Ultimately I wonder why this game exists beyond the perfunctory "got to have a big game for the fall". I wonder if 343 should have done something like ODST 2 or some other Halo related game and reserved Halo 4 as the big opening game for the next XBox. This is moving more towards the problem with regular releases that seem to be filler more than substance where a similar situation has happened with Assassin's Creed: The more games you put out in front of me, the less they mean and the more I look back thinking "...that really wasn't that good and had those problems". I barely cared that AC3 and Halo 4 where released this fall and neither left me eager for that more. How much am I going to care when they announce AC3:Subtitle and Halo Whatever in 2013?

#14 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

My ONE gripe about this game is that the campaign is very clearly stretched artificially. The best example of this is when you're basically moving a little platform across a chasm and you have to hit 2 (3?) buttons on basically identical sides of the platform after fighting waves of enemies. I wish they'd just make it longer honestly, not with these repetitive sequences. Luckily, the gameplay is fun enough that I didn't mind much.

#15 Posted by xMEGADETHxSLY (446 posts) -

Really hoping they go all out in the next Halo, Something like Halo 2 where it was so ambitious in story and set pieces. If its more of the same i'll be very disappointed.

#16 Posted by Daneian (1245 posts) -

Halo 4 perfected the series gameplay and had great, fun missions but everything about the story is incredibly bad.

#17 Edited by Bobby_The_Great (1008 posts) -

I love Halo 4. I think they could have done a bit more with the Prometheans, but I think the flow of the game, the graphics, the multiplayer, Spartan-Ops (and rolling out episodes for free), the load-outs (which weren't game breaking like I thought they'd be at first) are a good addition. It's great.

That said, I'd like more set pieces and boss battles. I think that's missing from Halo 4.

#18 Posted by JohnstonThistle (42 posts) -

@EpicSteve said:

The type of people you're talking about don't really think of things like that. They have a beloved franchise and see a new entry (in their mind) all jacked up, it pisses them off. A lot of gamers that aren't as in-tuned with the industry as you and I are get really ticked over really weird and specific changes in shooters.

Wow, sound more pretentious please.

It's nothing to do with being in-tune with the industry, in fact some of the people who get annoyed over specific changes are more "in-tune" (whatever the F*** that means) than you can even imagine, it's just like with a new fighting game. People who play these games obsessively and care deeply about them notice the little things that those more unobservant like you simply don't. Little things change the entire game and if you care about it enough to notice and feel these changes then I'd say you're more in-tune than anyone. People like that aren't ignorant or obtuse, they simply (in this case) adored the way the earlier Halo games played and are sad to see changes that they feel reduce the enjoyment of the franchise. Go look on the MLG forums or Waypoint, people know that Halo 4 inevitably had to be more like CoD and we had to have killstreaks and unlimited sprint and nonsense like that, these people know that that's how the industry works, but they still have every right to complain and spout their grievances to anyone who will listen and discuss.

#19 Posted by mrfluke (5266 posts) -

I think halo 5 will be the make it or break it one for the team,

gameplay wise its the best in the series easily,

but i expected more from the story, the cortana and chief story was well done, but everything else in the story suffered or wasnt given the same focus

#20 Posted by OneManX (1693 posts) -

I feel like I am liking Halo 4 more because I didn't finish ODST, 3, didn't even play Reach. Halo games just lose steam, after a certain point.

I feel like Halo 4 is keeping my attention, mainly because I feel I can move better.Like Sprinting feels like a real game changer. I dunno, I guess I'm not on that bummer traint hat everyone seems to be on with every big release this year.

#21 Posted by glyn (382 posts) -

@Arnox said:

Every time I go to some Halo 4 forum (Especially the Halo 4 Waypoint forums. Ugh.), I see people type up these huge walls of text of how Halo 4 just ruined everything. I have read them and they all have a common cause. Nobody knows how to treat Halo 4 properly. You see, I know people will probably disagree with me when I say this but Halo 4 should be treated as the start of a new game trilogy rather then the fourth Halo game a la Halo: CE. When Halo: CE came out, what did it have? It was a pretty simple package. A great campaign and some fun, slightly configurable multiplayer and that was it. That was IT. No map packs, DLC, etc. None.

But you know what? That was OK because it was the start of something completely new and promising. We didn't give it crap because it was the first game in the series of course. Halo 4 should be treated the same way. 343 may have some veteran Bungie employees with them but they are few and far between in the studio's extensive staff. For the most part, they are definitely new and inexperienced. Heck, I remember that they said in a Sparkast that they spent a big chunk of time and money just proving to themselves and Microsoft that they could make any sort of Halo game.

So, before you post that huge rant that you've spent all of an hour writing, think about it first. 343 isn't out to destroy a beloved franchise of who knows how many fans. But they're inexperienced as far as industry experience goes and as they have said many times before, they have a whole lot to live up to.

They missed THE only opportunity the new trilogy could have brought.

Chief exploring the unknown.... With a bit of magic and awe. Instead we get more covenant. sigh

#22 Edited by mikeeegeee (1573 posts) -

@JohnstonThistle said:

@EpicSteve said:

The type of people you're talking about don't really think of things like that. They have a beloved franchise and see a new entry (in their mind) all jacked up, it pisses them off. A lot of gamers that aren't as in-tuned with the industry as you and I are get really ticked over really weird and specific changes in shooters.

Wow, sound more pretentious please.

It's nothing to do with being in-tune with the industry, in fact some of the people who get annoyed over specific changes are more "in-tune" (whatever the F*** that means) than you can even imagine, it's just like with a new fighting game. People who play these games obsessively and care deeply about them notice the little things that those more unobservant like you simply don't. Little things change the entire game and if you care about it enough to notice and feel these changes then I'd say you're more in-tune than anyone.

I'd like to speak on these points. The problem with the changes to the multiplayer is that they are too minor. The game plays like Halo, but the changes with loadouts and ordinances are enough to create a slightly yet noticeably different experience. The thing that aggravates players who were so devoted to the previous games is that Halo 4 feels so familiar, yet some of the changes feel completely unnecessary. Now, I disagree. As others have said in this thread, 343 should've made even more drastic changes. I did not want this Halo to feel familiar. In some ways, 343 succeeded in that regard. In others, this is still a Halo ass Halo game. And the changes feel unwarranted.

TL;DR: make huge, sweeping changes. These are clearly talented and creative developers. I'd like to have a few grains of familiarity surrounded by an ocean of change rather than the reverse, which is what I believe we were delivered. The tiny grains of change stick out like sore thumbs to the people who are butthurt over this newest iteration.

#23 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (338 posts) -

If they didn't want you to think of the games that came before it, maybe they should have left the big number "4" off of the package. Or called it Sparkly Green Armor instead of "Halo".

I like the game and am an avid Halo fan. But titles like this don't have the luxury of being released in a vacuum. There is no "remember 2001" here. This is number 4 (technically number 6 or 7) in a franchise. And even by their own admission, 343 started with Bungie's original code. I appreciate the sentiment of what you're saying, just not the actual point. New team, old team, you put "HALO" on the box you get 2 things. You get the sales that come with that name, but also the baggage, There's no getting one without the other.

#24 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -
@mikeeegeee said:

@JohnstonThistle said:

@EpicSteve said:

The type of people you're talking about don't really think of things like that. They have a beloved franchise and see a new entry (in their mind) all jacked up, it pisses them off. A lot of gamers that aren't as in-tuned with the industry as you and I are get really ticked over really weird and specific changes in shooters.

Wow, sound more pretentious please.

It's nothing to do with being in-tune with the industry, in fact some of the people who get annoyed over specific changes are more "in-tune" (whatever the F*** that means) than you can even imagine, it's just like with a new fighting game. People who play these games obsessively and care deeply about them notice the little things that those more unobservant like you simply don't. Little things change the entire game and if you care about it enough to notice and feel these changes then I'd say you're more in-tune than anyone.

I'd like to speak on these points. The problem with the changes to the multiplayer is that they are too minor. The game plays like Halo, but the changes with loadouts and ordinances are enough to create a slightly yet noticeably different experience. The thing that aggravates players who were so devoted to the previous games is that Halo 4 feels so familiar, yet some of the changes feel completely unnecessary. Now, I disagree. As others have said in this thread, 343 should've made even more drastic changes. I did not want this Halo to feel familiar. In some ways, 343 succeeded in that regard. In others, this is still a Halo ass Halo game. And the changes feel unwarranted.

TL;DR: make huge, sweeping changes. These are clearly talented and creative developers. I'd like to have a few grains of familiarity surrounded by an ocean of change rather than the reverse, which is what I believe we were delivered. The tiny grains of change stick out like sore thumbs to the people who are butthurt over this newest iteration.

I totally agree with this point.
#25 Edited by Turbyne (98 posts) -

@EpicSteve said:

The type of people you're talking about don't really think of things like that. They have a beloved franchise and see a new entry (in their mind) all jacked up, it pisses them off. A lot of gamers that aren't as in-tuned with the industry as you and I are get really ticked over really weird and specific changes in shooters.

While i'm also somebody who plays a lot of different games, you NAILED what I was going to contribute to this thread. To call Halo 4 a bad game would be downright dumb, it's well made and the multiplayer is simple fun. It just lacks the staying power and competitive nature of previous entries in my opinion, and i'd rather play Halo 3.

My main problem is that Halo used to be well...Halo, it felt like a fairly unique experience on the side of other shooters, the "modernization" such as perks, standard sprinting, and loadouts are just a few small things that contribute to the game sort of losing a little bit of it's soul and identity in the crowd of other shooters. But once again, to consider Halo 4 even close to being a poor effort would be silly. I could say the same damn thing about the new DMC game being a little button-mash friendly, the 30 FPS, and there being no lock on system. It really is the little things that matter to people who actually enjoy these games on a regular basis.

#26 Posted by Fattony12000 (7516 posts) -

Halo 4 is the only Halo game that I've not bought on launch day.

And I can't really say why.

#27 Posted by Brendan (7834 posts) -

This seems very counter to Jeff's opinion on the game, which is odd. Many in the public feel this game was too radically different than previous installments, and Jeff thinks that the game is basically a rehash of the ones that came before it.

I is confused.

#28 Posted by Rawrz (590 posts) -

As someone who has pretty much been a diehard Halo player, Halo 4 pisses me off. Now I wont say that its a bad game since its really quite good and ive had a lot of fun with it, it just has some major issues that if fixed could really make the game as good as it could be. Most of the people complaining on Waypoint are pretty hilarious though some have valid complaints like how the from a competitive setting the DMR is damn near game breaking.

#29 Posted by Tesla (1927 posts) -

I enjoyed Halo 4 quite a bit. However, I think it falls short in the story telling department by not going far enough off the deep end.

All that stuff about past humans combating the Flood and the Forerunners mistakenly thinking they were being attacked, then subsequently devolving the human race is really cool. Ancient human prisoners being the Promethians is cool. AI Rampancy is cool. Ethically questionable science used to produce Spartans is cool.

They had a chance to take this game to some really interesting places, but all of these cool things are merely hinted at, or hidden in Waypoint videos. The narrative within the game proper focuses on little more than what button we need to press to stop the Didact from doing something. That is the problem with Halo 4. Everything else is pretty solid.

#30 Posted by Arnox (22 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

- I also feel something was squandered. I was intrigued with the idea left at the end of Halo 3 where Master Chief and Cortana where headed to parts unknown without support. This should have been a great blessing to 343 where MC and Cortana don't need to follow any orders, play by anyone's rules, and would have allowed them to explore completely different things. Instead we are back to the same old stuff with "aliens enemy+" style monsters that carry the same weapons that animate and glow differently and we are back to "Earth's in danger!" Think about what happened to Cortana at the end and how it would have effected Master Chief if they were isolated at the edge of nowhere.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. This is (kinda) how Halo: CE started. Marooned on an ancient alien ring. You may have been fighting with some survivors but at the end of the day, you were all alone. There was no big ship to back anyone up and no hope for support from Earth until they could get off the ring. And even with the survivors, they were few and only had enough man power to perform simple guerrilla ops. And then it didn't really matter anyway because almost all the humans died on that ring anyway. That was one of the themes that Halo: CE conveyed and I feel that opportunity to start the trilogy out with that isolated loneliness and wonder that really made the Halo: CE campaign was sorta lost in the rush to get the story moving and to finish it.

So, in wrapping up again. I will forgive Halo 4 for its shortcomings and back 343 up for now but come Halo 5, I will have no mercy. Now there will be no excuse to not break that mold that Bungie has broken all these years.

#31 Posted by Hupfen (44 posts) -

I did like Halo 4 quite a lot, but ODST is still possibly my favourite of the series. I do believe they are pushing the boundaries a little bit, quite like Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed and Pokemon. But I can't blame 343 for trying!

My opinion is that they should have stopped it at Halo 4, or even split Halo 4 into two parts. That way they had more time to figure out exactly what they wanted to do with the ending, instead of milking it... just a tad.

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.