Has the question ever come across your mind...
Halo: Reach
(Let's be honest... if you vividly remember Reach, you can skip the following paragraph.)
I'm starting with the last game made by Bungie. Even though Halo has made progress since CE, most people would agree that Reach followed the convention of the previous titles to a degree. Sure, Armor Abilities were included, but the system didn't recieve a complete ovrehaul. As far as weaponry, a few minor weapons were added, but nothing important was removed. Maps were tailored to a weapons set and an objective set so that everyone started off on the same foot. Speaking of, a plethora of game modes were added (conventional and unorthodox) to provide a change of pace when neccessary. Overall, we didn't expect much from Reach, and essentially, that's what we got.
Halo 4
Is there a point in explaining 343's motives? Sure. But when one begs the question "what was 343 thinking?", they are trying to find a cause first. They're taking it all wrong. To analyze the motive, we need to reverse-engineer the crime scene (forensics reference ftw).
Weaponry (Guns, grenades, AAs, abilities, etc.)
Despite everything I've listed here (oh wait, that's everything)...
But really, we have to give credit where its due. 343 made a game from the ground-up, and in many respects, did a fantastic job. Is Halo 4 really a Halo? Who's to say. It still has the letters "H-A-L-O" and a succeding number/title afterwards, so I'd suppose so.
And that means we'll be wondering about Halo 5 and 6. SPOILER: I'm not a pyschic. If you know one that likes Halo, call 'em up. We know that 343's motives were to make their own Halo, something they could call their own. The natural forces of the Gaurdians are calling though, and they are not pleased in the way in which 343 blatantly overlooks or gives up on trying to solve their issues. It's like half-baking a pie - once you eat it, you're not going to cook it again. They need to remember the recipie and start over. Add a little more of this here and fix that, stir it all together and sprinkle some long hours of dedication on top. Then, bake it until it's just right. If they keep making it wrong, they might run out of ingredients.
So while 343's baking... what do you guys think? If you could add to this, we'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Where is 343i going with Halo 5 and Halo 6?
It probably has, and in this post, I'll be examining the multiplayer aspect. We'll compare Halo: Reach and 4 to determine the steps that 343 will take doing into the future. This means pinpointing pros, cons, controversial issues, maps, weapons, etc. I probably won't be able to cover it all at once, so if you have some constructive insight I'd be happy to include it in this post.Halo: Reach
(Let's be honest... if you vividly remember Reach, you can skip the following paragraph.)
I'm starting with the last game made by Bungie. Even though Halo has made progress since CE, most people would agree that Reach followed the convention of the previous titles to a degree. Sure, Armor Abilities were included, but the system didn't recieve a complete ovrehaul. As far as weaponry, a few minor weapons were added, but nothing important was removed. Maps were tailored to a weapons set and an objective set so that everyone started off on the same foot. Speaking of, a plethora of game modes were added (conventional and unorthodox) to provide a change of pace when neccessary. Overall, we didn't expect much from Reach, and essentially, that's what we got.
Halo 4
Is there a point in explaining 343's motives? Sure. But when one begs the question "what was 343 thinking?", they are trying to find a cause first. They're taking it all wrong. To analyze the motive, we need to reverse-engineer the crime scene (forensics reference ftw).
Weaponry (Guns, grenades, AAs, abilities, etc.)
Complete. Overhaul.
This is probably the largest topic ever to be discussed in the history of the Halo Discussion thread. However, weapons are so dynamic that it'd be impossible to break down the variables involved and tell 343 what do to. If that's the case, check out my pinned Weapon Stats thread. You'll probably find 8 pages of debate amongst my rational comments (and the original post, of course).
In the name of brevity, all I have to say is that common sense should prevail. Halo players are (usually) rational enough to determine what is broken and was isn't. After all, every value they've made can be analyzed thouroughly by a high school kid. This is a game firm that has access to change relatively simple coding values. If they invented the weapons, they should know how to fix them. All they need to do is take the time to do so. (P.S. @343 my weekends are free)
Custom Game LoadoutsThe concept seems simple - let people pick what they want. Trend - people want the best. Problem - there are a few good options out of the large amount of possible combinations. It's understood that making everything synergize is no easy task. But a lack of differentiation is not soley attributed to imbalances in weaponry. Rather, the cumulative effectiveness of each should be measured to determine the changes that need to be made either to its components and/or to the system itself.
Personal OrdinanceSimilar concept, different execution on the part of 343. Even though it sound perfectly unreasonable and unrealistic that a spaceship can drop you a selction of weapons anywhere you are, it works. They just add the spice behind power weapons in a balanced way. One might argue that this is unbalanced, because any kid who gets a few kills can get an Incineraton Cannon. The better someone does, however, the more ordinance they'll recieve (scaled down, of course, to prevent power weapon chaining). A simple but effective risk/reward system is in place.
MapsAgain, another highly disputed topic. They achieved in some areas but fell short in others. Some say they have a "grandeur problem" because everything has to be huge and vast. Others claim that, from a level-design perspective, there are glaring flaws. I cannot really claim to have any knowledge to this. What I do know, though, is that there have always been flopped concepts behind maps in Halo. Is it really because they are bad maps? Who could tell, because the way in which a map interacts with the rest of the multiplayer makes a case that can't be pinpointed to either issue.
Power Weapons/Map OrdinanceThis is one thing that remained relatively static, as the world changed around it. Powerful stuff pops up on a map, and you should go grab it. The incentives and alternatives are elsewhere in many cases. At least they balanced this with big map markers indicating the ordinance from a distance. There's no point in wasting time to run to a respawn location, to find out that the weapon has already been taken/not there/not what you want.
Despite everything I've listed here (oh wait, that's everything)...
But really, we have to give credit where its due. 343 made a game from the ground-up, and in many respects, did a fantastic job. Is Halo 4 really a Halo? Who's to say. It still has the letters "H-A-L-O" and a succeding number/title afterwards, so I'd suppose so.
And that means we'll be wondering about Halo 5 and 6. SPOILER: I'm not a pyschic. If you know one that likes Halo, call 'em up. We know that 343's motives were to make their own Halo, something they could call their own. The natural forces of the Gaurdians are calling though, and they are not pleased in the way in which 343 blatantly overlooks or gives up on trying to solve their issues. It's like half-baking a pie - once you eat it, you're not going to cook it again. They need to remember the recipie and start over. Add a little more of this here and fix that, stir it all together and sprinkle some long hours of dedication on top. Then, bake it until it's just right. If they keep making it wrong, they might run out of ingredients.
So while 343's baking... what do you guys think? If you could add to this, we'd appreciate it. Thanks.
