Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Sick. All I needed. 

But yeah, I do. Not to be "that person" but don't get an ego and think you know better than someone just because you disagree with their design decisions. Arrogant as hell.

Yeah I mean it's not like we as the competitive community have written a literal Lord Of The Rings trilogy worth of information about Halo over the years that has been 100% ignored the entire time by two different developers.

The ego on us.

  • Like (+1) 7
  • Toxic (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The target audience are people that buy their games no matter what so it's perfectly viable to ignore all feedback from the "competitive" Halo community, I think most people here who disagree with what 343 changed bought the game too, not saying it would be enough of an impact to get anywhere, I am just thinking that from their perspective there is really no benefit in listening to feedback from the few people that want to get to the bottom of the issues.
And with titles this large it doesn't even matter if your default settings have good potential for competitive play, you just throw a lot of money at tournaments and people will play them.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

The target audience are people that buy their games no matter what so it's perfectly viable to ignore all feedback from the "competitive" Halo community.

Are you sure about that?

- Halo 3 sales 11.87 million 

- Halo 5 sales 5 million 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I mean those numbers don't only represent the drop in sales due to the changes 343 made to the game. Other things happened over the years, CoD got bigger, people quit Halo because of other reasons, and so many more factors we don't know about.

To be honest I wish your point was actually proof that their changes drove people away (well it's certainly true for a fraction of the people who left), but there is no way you can conclude precisely that this is the main reason, too many effects overlapping for any significance.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

I mean those numbers don't only represent the drop in sales due to the changes 343 made to the game. Other things happened over the years, CoD got bigger, people quit Halo because of other reasons, and so many more factors we don't know about.

To be honest I wish your point was actually proof that their changes drove people away (well it's certainly true for a fraction of the people who left), but there is no way you can conclude precisely that this is the main reason, too many effects overlapping for any significance.

CoD was just as big in 2007-2010 if not more so. This topic has been discussed to death, halo sales dropped because the game suck now. 

  • Like (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

Even if so, the people left now seem to be okay with what the game is like I think. Tell me how many people see that Halo Sprintfinite has modern gimmick abilities again and decide to not buy it at this point...

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Warlord Wossman said:

Even if so, the people left now seem to be okay with what the game is like I think. Tell me how many people see that Halo Sprintfinite has modern gimmick abilities again and decide to not buy it at this point...

The better question is who cares what the people left think after completely losing your way and bleeding users left and right for the last 9 years straight? They're at the point where you could understandably throw paint at the wall since its simply selling off of its name at this point. They could try to make it oldschool or do something completely new/insane but the only thing that is certain is leaving it the way it is will, obviously, never work

Halo is probably at the point where more people have played it (xbox players anyways) and chosen to play another game than there are new players to attract. They need to figure out why everyone passed on the series post H3 and correct. This is also why Infinite going to PC is a really big deal because its opening their market up to a lot of people that wouldn't have been included in what I just said above. The only thing they could do more after this is go cross plat with Nintendo/Sony so if the game doesn't catch on pretty well with PC players they're kind of in deep shit as far as trying to figure out a successful model for the game

I'm not envious of their position at all but its taken a few years to get here. They need this game to help sell the new Xbox console, to help push the franchise in a positive direction on PC, and generally just to stay on track to remain something worth AAA development/investment because Halo has been sliding back for a long time. I'd imagine all of this contributed to why this game has taken so long to come out. Halo failing is like if Mario stopped selling for Microsoft. That's a lot of pressure and the direction we've been headed in

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am just wondering if the people that got used to sprint/gimmick Halo since Reach would now be mad if they made it classic by default, a lot of new people started playing in the last 9 years as well and might think it's natural to Halo. What do I know, we will see what Halo Sprintfinite brings and how people react.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The only part of all of this that I never understood is Halo 4. You have to think you're a new studio, you're coming into a very popular/storied franchise, people aren't sure if they should be confident in you or not and finally the latest title in the series had just begun a downward trend after making pretty radical changes to the mechanics of the game.

Why would you not play it safe and release a basic "everything you expected" Halo game aimed at people who play Halo? Its crazy how they just came in and tried to put their spin on everything immediately. They've never even proven they can provide that experience

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Snipe Three said:

The only part of all of this that I never understood is Halo 4. You have to think you're a new studio, you're coming into a very popular/storied franchise, people aren't sure if they should be confident in you or not and finally the latest title in the series had just begun a downward trend after making pretty radical changes to the mechanics of the game.

Why would you not play it safe and release a basic "everything you expected" Halo game aimed at people who play Halo? Its crazy how they just came in and tried to put their spin on everything immediately

Because 343 are the antithesis of intelligent decision making?

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/29/2019 at 9:38 PM, Snipe Three said:

The only part of all of this that I never understood is Halo 4. You have to think you're a new studio, you're coming into a very popular/storied franchise, people aren't sure if they should be confident in you or not and finally the latest title in the series had just begun a downward trend after making pretty radical changes to the mechanics of the game.

Why would you not play it safe and release a basic "everything you expected" Halo game aimed at people who play Halo? Its crazy how they just came in and tried to put their spin on everything immediately. They've never even proven they can provide that experience

Allegedly they tried something like that but the suits at microsoft shut it down early. I mean It's not impossible that some bigshot came in and gave them a laundry list of AAA FPS tropes that need to be there (perks, killstreaks, loadouts, flat easy-to-learn maps etc.)  or otherwise they'd get the boot.

Though I also wouldn't be surprised if 343 came up with all that horseshit by themselves given that Quinn ruined Gears before moving to 343, Franklin ruined a bunch of racing games previously and Frankie played nothing but Black Ops for the duration of 2011 and honestly the dude has never given off the vibe that he understands a single thing about Halo aside from "green guy is Chief I think and aliens bad".

I totes agree with you though. Why didn't they start off with something like an FPS version of Contact Harvest or First Strike and stick to a very conservative generic Halo formula with upped graphics? Basically give us a non-shitty H2A before deciding that "classic Halo wouldn't sell". Where is the evidence of that? Seems very similar to climate change denial honestly. All we really know is that "modern" Halo:

1) doesn't sell half as much as real Halo

2) divided the community even further and shut down dozens of community sites

3) performs sub-par as an eSport despite millions of dollars getting thrown at it and

4) ruined Halo's reputation among the general gaming audience.


The last point is more anecdotal I have to admit, but just check out any big reddit thread on Halo (not the cesspit known as r/halo) and you'll have hundreds of comments saying how much they used to love the franchise but quit because of Reach and H4 and never looked back.

There's no evidence classic Halo would be DoA. Zero. It was all made up because 343 wanted to justify their CoD-ification, oh excuse me "innovation" of Halo. Drones on Waypoint and r/halo ate it up of course and started spreading than nonsense. If Infinite is classic and not terrible in terms of non-gameplay stuff and still tanks then I'll gladly eat my words.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If I had any coding ability whatsoever I would write a virus that would target people who unironically try to make the "yeah but CoD killed Halo's sales figures!" argument in 2019 and automatically uninstall their browser.

  • Fire (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Yeah I mean it's not like we as the competitive community have written a literal Lord Of The Rings trilogy worth of information about Halo over the years that has been 100% ignored the entire time by two different developers.

The ego on us.

It doesn't matter how much you write. My point is on the quality. And as someone who actually plays the game, I for one would disagree with the quantity AND quality of stuff written in the past that people claim would make the game better. Writing stuff doesn't mean you know better is ultimately my point. And you disagreeing with design decisions or being off-put by them doesn't make them wrong. Hell, even popularity doesn't make them wrong, given popularity is just defined by a like, regardless of inherent quality. As we see with Fortnite, Halo, Call of Duty, and many other franchises.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

It doesn't matter how much you write. My point is on the quality. And as someone who actually plays the game, I for one would disagree with the quantity AND quality of stuff written in the past that people claim would make the game better. Writing stuff doesn't mean you know better is ultimately my point. And you disagreeing with design decisions or being off-put by them doesn't make them wrong. Hell, even popularity doesn't make them wrong, given popularity is just defined by a like, regardless of inherent quality. As we see with Fortnite, Halo, Call of Duty, and many other franchises.

No one cares what you think about it.

The issue is whether we know better than the developer about managing the Halo franchise.

Given how Reach instantly destroyed the competitive scene and H4 annihilated the casual population, there is literally no way we could've done any worse.

  • Like (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

No one cares what you think about it.

The issue is whether we know better than the developer about managing the Halo franchise.

Given how Reach instantly destroyed the competitive scene and H4 annihilated the casual population, there is literally no way we could've done any worse.

You're not thinking outside the box if that's where you think the "worst" is. 

Furthermore, I still don't think you (general term) know better than any dev. Which was my whole thing. That's arrogant to presume so. 

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

You're not thinking outside the box if that's where you think the "worst" is.

14.5 million copies sold to presumably 5 million copies sold says we're pretty close to "worst".

12 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Furthermore, I still don't think you (general term) know better than any dev. Which was my whole thing. That's arrogant to presume so. 

And that's a wonderfully baseless opinion in the face of absolutely everything.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Cursed Lemon said:

13 million copies sold to presumably 5 million copies sold says we're pretty close to "worst".

And that's a wonderfully baseless opinion in the face of absolutely everything.

Again, that's popularity. That isn't proof of anything past "people like this", which we can apply to anything. As I said in my original post, popular things can be garbage, AND varied, lol. Which was my other point. It means effectively nothing on our level, and doesn't actually affect anything tangible to a player until you dip below 1K, where matchmaking performance tanks or suffers. That's about as much effect as you'll ever get, barring "I want my favorite thing to be popular" and having the resulting unpopularity hurting your feelings.

Which lead into how I don't really care for the mountains of posts I see here, and find it baffling at how people perceive themselves to devs. These posts are written by people who don't really grind or play the new games, and as a result of the lack of time put in, obviously don't understand them, and just wanna change from them. Why take that seriously? Likewise, why would I feel or be inclined to feel someone somehow knows more than devs, while sitting in that boat, too. I'm not saying you must be a pro, or you must dedicate your life to a game, or that being the former grants you knowledge. I'm just saying, there's a tangible difference in people's thought patterns here in what they post, and how things actually play out. And as a result, I can't really this seriously. And see it as arrogant.

I also can't take just calling my viewpoint baseless seriously. You didn't argue anything. You just said "everything" without saying anything, lol.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheIcePrincess said:

It doesn't matter how much you write. My point is on the quality. And as someone who actually plays the game, I for one would disagree with the quantity AND quality of stuff written in the past that people claim would make the game better. Writing stuff doesn't mean you know better is ultimately my point. And you disagreeing with design decisions or being off-put by them doesn't make them wrong. Hell, even popularity doesn't make them wrong, given popularity is just defined by a like, regardless of inherent quality. As we see with Fortnite, Halo, Call of Duty, and many other franchises.

Fortnite and Call of Duty ARE quality games though, hence why they are more popular. If Halo 5 was actually a good game people would be playing it still, like they are still playing Rainbow 6 Siege. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • WutFace (+0) 1
  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ChieftaiNZ said:

Fortnite and Call of Duty ARE quality games though, hence why they are more popular. If Halo 5 was actually a good game people would be playing it still, like they are still playing Rainbow 6 Siege. 

Explain Titanfall 2.

  • Downvote (-1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 2
  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Again, that's popularity.

We have popularity and the mechanical explanation of the degradation of the franchise on our side.

32 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

I also can't take just calling my viewpoint baseless seriously. You didn't argue anything. You just said "everything" without saying anything, lol. 

This, like Halo 5, is a game I refuse to play.

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Contrary to the gaming circlejerk "TF2 best shooter of the decade", the game has massive replayability issues. The campaign is really damn great, but you're done with that in like 6 hours. The PvE stuff is cool but also gets boring fast. Multiplayer has neither a rewarding ranking or unlock system nor is the core gameplay loop engaging enough to keep people coming back. I can't really put my finger on exactly what it is, and it's probably a combination of many issues but bottom line the game is not engaging and addictive enough to keep people coming back long-term.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Explain Titanfall 2.

Titanfall was okay, but severely lacking in content.

This meant people were cautious about the sequel.

It launched in the week between IW and Battlefield 1, the latter of which was the most anticipated game in a far, far larger and more popular franchise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Explain Titanfall 2.

Titanfall 2 is a first-person shooter video game, developed by Respawn Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts. A sequel to 2014's Titanfall, the game was released worldwide on October 28, 2016 for Microsoft WindowsPlayStation 4 and Xbox One. In Titanfall 2, players control Titans, mecha-style exoskeletons and their pilots, who are agile and equipped with a variety of skills ranging from wall-running to cloaking. Set in a science fiction universe, the single-player campaign follows the story of Jack Cooper, a rifleman from the Frontier Militia, who bonds with his mentor's Titan BT-7274 after his mentor is killed. Together, they embark on a quest to stop the Interstellar Manufacturing Corporation (IMC) from launching a superweapon that is threatening to destroy the Militia planet Harmony.

The game's two-year development cycle began in mid-2014. The decision to add a single-player campaign to the game came about because the team wanted to expand the game's player base. They came up with different ideas and prototypes, and integrated them to form a single coherent campaign. Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet and buddy cop films, as well as the video game Half-Life inspired the game's campaign and narrative. The team also overhauled the progression system and made subtle changes to the multiplayer to make the game fairer to players. Valve Corporation's Source engine powers the game. Stephen Barton returned to compose the game's music.

Upon release, the game received critical acclaim. The single-player campaign was praised for its design and execution, and the multiplayer modes for building on the foundation of the original game. Despite the positive reception, Titanfall 2 underperformed commercially, with most attributing its underwhelming performance to it going on sale in a crowded release window, being placed between the release of Battlefield 1and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. It was nominated for multiple year-end accolades including Game of the Year and Best Shooter awards, by several gaming publications. Respawn continued to support the game after its release, providing several updates and free downloadable content.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Simms (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ChieftaiNZ said:

Titanfall was okay, but severely lacking in content.

This meant people were cautious about the sequel.

It launched in the week between IW and Battlefield 1, the latter of which was the most anticipated game in a far, far larger and more popular franchise.

 

Okay, but the point is, it was good despite doing poorly from (likely) sales cannibalism. Fortnite and Call of Duty aren't "good" just because they do well. They're just popular. Their quality is something separate. Likewise, something can be unpopular and shit. Titanfall 2 is just an outlier there. Point is, again, popularity means legitimately nothing bar what people like. And what people like, isn't necessarily quality in every sense. Like, yunno, Modern Warfare and Black Ops 4, teehee. Go back ten years to Modern Warfare 2. A big-ass, enormous event of a release. Popular and spoken of to this day. And yet it was a game designed to be easy to access, to appeal to a wide demographic it successfully hooked through a bunch of cheese mechanics and things like killstreaks. 

9 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

We have popularity and the mechanical explanation of the degradation of the franchise on our side.

This, like Halo 5, is a game I refuse to play.

No, we have a hypothesis for its degradation. It's nothing concrete to this point. You could just as well argue Halo suffered from series burnout that, say, Call of Duty never did because the former is harder to access and the latter is easy to jump into and play. And the two happened to come together at a time where Halo began to peter out and Call of Duty rose hardcore in the following years. And it could very well be likely. I dunno if it's true, and I'm not arguing it AS true. But I'd be nuts to say it was true or the reason, even if I believed it 100%.

However, if you refuse to play, just don't join in the first place and instigate. Least then you won't waste my time. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.