Halo 5 Beta 1-Hour long video of pure MP

[Sir Nihlus]

I do want change, but just because they change something doesn't mean its good or it's innovative. Reach and mostly Halo 4 didn't just change their forumula, they copied another popular title Call of Duty. They changed what made Halo Halo to try and piggy back off of COD and bring back some of their fanbase. They dropped what made Halo popular in the first place, and I saw Halo 2: anniversary as a great step in the right direction of bringing back what made Halo great, and also throwing in a few new things into it. Halo 5 was the real chance to Bring back what Bungie and 343 tossed aside to make their last games and really make Halo stand out from the crowd. Instead they are looking at games like titanfall and Call of Duty and, again, copying what they are doing and pushing aside more of what makes Halo feel like Halo. It's a change all right, but for me it's a change in the wrong direction.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make as it seems to fall apart. So do you want change or not? Because at the moment I see the initial 'yes I do' but then upon reading the rest of your opinion, it is actually "no I don't". As well as you making a load of assumptions, I don't see how Halo: Reach for example piggy-backed off of Call of Duty - as a fun challenge I would like you to name one that resembles Halo: Reach. Because I don't see any.

I would also like to dispute your claim that H2A was a step in the right direction, because you said that you like change, but they didn't actually change anything about H2A apart from completely redoing the graphics. Unless I severely missed something 'new' that was added that changed the core gameplay that you mentioned?

In all honesty, all I see is Halo trying to become relevant again by modernizing its gameplay mechanics. You can call it piggy-backing, copying or whatever, but the truth of the matter is: no FPS game is original, and if it was, it most likely wouldn't be an FPS game, as there are many things that have been introduced that simply cannot be changed a whole lot (or removed) like sprinting, aiming down the sight, contextual leaning etc (those are all the new standard for FPS mechanics and then some now). To me, those features are what tie me into FPS games because ultimately their goal is to create this illusion so-to-speak, or immersion, that you are there, you are in the first person. My point is, by playing a game such as Halo 4, I find its features like sprinting enjoyable because it is now a necessity. If I play an older Halo game, I now find it completely ridiculous and irritating that a Spartan is unable to sprint when in all these trailers and films they are very much capable of doing so for example.

The heart of the matter is that I am trying to get at, is that all this 'what made Halo games great' are very dated arguments and haven't aged well with the evolving of FPS gaming development, and thus need to be modernised (think of old FPS games like Ghost Recon, where it was First-Person, but you couldn't even see your gun, only a crosshair - that's a dated feature that would be outrageous to keep throughout the franchise).

Not having a go, just providing some food for thought as all the time I hear that people want change, but when asked to specify they actually reveal that they don't want change at all and would rather see the same thing regurgitated over and over.

[NervyDestroyer]

I fail to see the point you are trying to make as it seems to fall apart. So do you want change or not? Because at the moment I see the initial 'yes I do' but then upon reading the rest of your opinion, it is actually "no I don't". As well as you making a load of assumptions, I don't see how Halo: Reach for example piggy-backed off of Call of Duty - as a fun challenge I would like you to name one that resembles Halo: Reach. Because I don't see any.

I would also like to dispute your claim that H2A was a step in the right direction, because you said that you like change, but they didn't actually change anything about H2A apart from completely redoing the graphics. Unless I severely missed something 'new' that was added that changed the core gameplay that you mentioned?

In all honesty, all I see is Halo trying to become relevant again by modernizing its gameplay mechanics. You can call it piggy-backing, copying or whatever, but the truth of the matter is: no FPS game is original, and if it was, it most likely wouldn't be an FPS game, as there are many things that have been introduced that simply cannot be changed a whole lot (or removed) like sprinting, aiming down the sight, contextual leaning etc (those are all the new standard for FPS mechanics and then some now). To me, those features are what tie me into FPS games because ultimately their goal is to create this illusion so-to-speak, or immersion, that you are there, you are in the first person. My point is, by playing a game such as Halo 4, I find its features like sprinting enjoyable because it is now a necessity. If I play an older Halo game, I now find it completely ridiculous and irritating that a Spartan is unable to sprint when in all these trailers and films they are very much capable of doing so for example.

The heart of the matter is that I am trying to get at, is that all this 'what made Halo games great' are very dated arguments and haven't aged well with the evolving of FPS gaming development, and thus need to be modernised (think of old FPS games like Ghost Recon, where it was First-Person, but you couldn't even see your gun, only a crosshair - that's a dated feature that would be outrageous to keep throughout the franchise).

Not having a go, just providing some food for thought as all the time I hear that people want change, but when asked to specify they actually reveal that they don't want change at all and would rather see the same thing regurgitated over and over.

[bazongaman502]

CoD has become the front label to when it comes to first person shooters. It is the top selling game franchise for First Person Shooters. 343 wants that same success. Same with every Dev when it comes to a genre. Every Genre has a "Top Game". Sadly when it comes to Halo, it is always being compared to CoD no matter what it does. That is the same to Battlefield as well.

Like someone said before, people scream for change but once they get it, they hate it. There isn't much you can change that is "revolutionary" when it comes to First Person Shooters. Just about every game has "Been there, Done that". How can you make changes to that when all of these great idea have already been done on several games. When people want change, they need to be clear to what they want. You can't expect "I don't like this" to cause change. When a Dev sees that, they just go "okay, what don't you like about it". No body is actually giving them ideas. When Halo CE and Halo 2 came out, the First Person Shooter was in the process in becoming a lead dog when it comes to game genres. So it was easy for them to come up with such great ideas. Fast Forward 10+ years and there isn't much "changing" that can be done.

Only real change we can get out of a First Person Shooter is if Halo left the FPS behind and went into a different type of genre (Third Person Shooter, MMO, RPG, etc).

It sucks that a game like CoD is so high up on the pedestal that it hurts other games like Halo. Everyone compares Halo to CoD. But why? They both play differently and are set in different universes. Halo gives you the chance to play with future weapons and future vehicles, while CoD lets you play with more modern guns. CoD is a fast moving game, while Halo is a longer game. I can play a game of TDM on CoD in under 5 minutes. Slayer on Halo can range from 7-10 minutes.

We compare the games for all of the wrong reasons