Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Does this mean also no updates to gametypes like more tweaks to Oddball's awful spawn system?

 

Also no way there won't be s Halo FPS coming this year. 343 isn't THAT delusional to think H5 will last another 18 months in its current state.

Bet.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There is something coming out this year in Q4 but it's not going to be a core Halo game.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

that doesnt make any sense. the reason people don't give a fuck about Halo currently is because they keep rushing shitty games out the door. in general, the market's interest in a game isn't based on the lasting playerbase of its prequel.

 

how many people were playing GTA4 before GTA5 launched 5 years later? How many people were playing Rainbow 6: Las Vegas before Seige launched 8 years later? how many people were playing God of War 3 when God of War 4 launched 8 years later? How many people are actively playing Red Dead Revolver now? that won't stop Red Dead Redemption from selling like hot cakes this fall- 8 years after its prequel.

 

you don't build interest by rushing games out the door in response to your player count. you build interest by making good games. period. if halo6 comes out, and it's getting wide user and critical acclaim, coupled with good marketing, no one will care that halo 5s population dropped to nothing first. they'll buy and play this new game because they'll feel it's worth it.

 

I hate the era of sequel and remake spam we are currently in with gaming, think what you want about Fortnite but it has proven without a doubt that the way to do things now for multiplayer games is a free to play model with consistent long term support for the game, regular balance and feature updates and non-intrusive, optional micro-transactions. Hell, even League Of Legends showed the F2P model worked years before Fortnite, and there was probably something before even that, and smart developers that actually pay attention (and you know, actually play video games) took the idea, adapted it, and ran with it, instead of relying on "Market Research" only to come to the conclusion that they should rip mechanics from other games and paste them into their own, despite the fact they don't fit there and then alienating their own long term fanbase in the process, which (surprise!) didn't work...

 

I can't believe people ever praised 343's horrendous REQ system in Halo 5 because of the "Free DLC" which gave us probably the WORST selection of maps in the franchises history, and that's a pretty low bar considering maps like snowbound and isolation exist. 

 

Man, I just can't wait to see sprint in Halo 6 at E3! I think something entertaining to try would be to record your own reaction of Halo at this years E3, who knows, you might even be pleasantly surprised, that's the only possibility for me at least considering my expectations are so low 343 couldn't possibly find a way to go below them.

At this point all I really want is a working MCC on PC so I can forget 343 Halo ever happened, if anyone at 343 ever reads this (lol, of course not) take this post as a challenge to prove me wrong, I'd happily eat my words for Halo to return to its former glory, but we all know deep down inside, that's never going to happen.

 

 

Sorry for the rant.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

OWlleSf0Ww8esRoaNcGpWOst8tNiliPi4F5GpmJc

 

MKV_PDOREF.jpg

 

THE FUCK WERE THEY TRYING TO DO

I'm running out of things to bitch about so I thought I'd remind you all of this abomination.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I hate the era of sequel and remake spam we are currently in with gaming, think what you want about Fortnite but it has proven without a doubt that the way to do things now for multiplayer games is a free to play model with consistent long term support for the game, regular balance and feature updates and non-intrusive, optional micro-transactions. Hell, even League Of Legends showed the F2P model worked years before Fortnite, and there was probably something before even that, and smart developers that actually pay attention (and you know, actually play video games) took the idea, adapted it, and ran with it, instead of relying on "Market Research" only to come to the conclusion that they should rip mechanics from other games and paste them into their own, despite the fact they don't fit there and then alienating their own long term fanbase in the process, which (surprise!) didn't work...

 

I can't believe people ever praised 343's horrendous REQ system in Halo 5 because of the "Free DLC" which gave us probably the WORST selection of maps in the franchises history, and that's a pretty low bar considering maps like snowbound and isolation exist. 

 

Man, I just can't wait to see sprint in Halo 6 at E3! I think something entertaining to try would be to record your own reaction of Halo at this years E3, who knows, you might even be pleasantly surprised, that's the only possibility for me at least considering my expectations are so low 343 couldn't possibly find a way to go below them.

At this point all I really want is a working MCC on PC so I can forget 343 Halo ever happened, if anyone at 343 ever reads this (lol, of course not) take this post as a challenge to prove me wrong, I'd happily eat my words for Halo to return to its former glory, but we all know deep down inside, that's never going to happen.

 

 

Sorry for the rant.

Its like they heard me saying that Chiron TL-34 was the worst map ever and stepped up to the plate with Riptide. That map is actually so bad its shocking that anyone was okay with letting us see it. I swear they were trying to make the perfect zombies choke point room or something and that was the entire inspiration behind the map

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hate the era of sequel and remake spam we are currently in with gaming, think what you want about Fortnite but it has proven without a doubt that the way to do things now for multiplayer games is a free to play model with consistent long term support for the game, regular balance and feature updates and non-intrusive, optional micro-transactions. Hell, even League Of Legends showed the F2P model worked years before Fortnite, and there was probably something before even that, and smart developers that actually pay attention (and you know, actually play video games) took the idea, adapted it, and ran with it, instead of relying on "Market Research" only to come to the conclusion that they should rip mechanics from other games and paste them into their own, despite the fact they don't fit there and then alienating their own long term fanbase in the process, which (surprise!) didn't work...

Sorry for the rant.

 

Idk guys, sequels worked just fine from CE-H3. Console games (with the exception of Fortnite, but we'll see how that turns out in the long run) are just more prone to the "60$ sequel every 2-3 years" model than PC games with LoL, OW, CSGO and the likes that stay on the same game for years with a slow trickle of content.

 

343 making shitty ass Halo games has more to do with their awful design decisions and a history of mismanagement and less with the fact they have to release a game every three years. You could give Kevin Franklin 10 years and a 3 billion dollar budget and the game would still ship with three Warzone maps and a "sustain plan". People primarily leave because the sandbox isn't balanced, the story sucks, the gameplay sucks, the maps suck and the matchmaking is laughable, not because of lack of content.

 

I fully agree that their focus on "Market Research" and "omg data" will be the bane of their existance, but I don't ever see Halo staying on the same game for years like OW/LoL etc.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe people ever praised 343's horrendous REQ system in Halo 5 because of the "Free DLC" which gave us probably the WORST selection of maps in the franchises history, and that's a pretty low bar considering maps like snowbound and isolation exist.

 

The microtransaction model was not the reason though that the maps sucked. They make more than dlc and game sales combined.

Share this post


Link to post

The microtransaction model was not the reason though that the maps sucked. They make more than dlc and game sales combined.

 

Yes, but the problem I have is that the main defense people used for the REQ system was "B-but free DLC!" when all it gave us was some of the worst maps ever conceived. Like I said though, micro-transactions can be done right, I understand they bring in huge amount of revenue that the developer can't afford to miss out on, expecting them to do so would be unreasonable, but the way it was implemented in Halo 5 was most certainly not the answer. Only time will tell if we see the same thing in Halo 6, but I think we all know the answer to that. As you can tell, my expectations are not high.

Share this post


Link to post

People praising 343 for how well they supported Halo 5 makes me irrationally angry. They did one of the worst post-launch support efforts I've seen in awhile. Balance patches were non-existent, and the maps they came out with were some of the worst in Halo history, not to mention recycled. Look at Rainbow Six or OW to a lesser degree. Both have kept people playing way better than 343 could dream of. 

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

People praising 343 for how well they supported Halo 5 makes me irrationally angry. They did one of the worst post-launch support efforts I've seen in awhile. Balance patches were non-existent, and the maps they came out with were some of the worst in Halo history, not to mention recycled. Look at Rainbow Six or OW to a lesser degree. Both have kept people playing way better than 343 could dream of. 

 

Especailly R6.  That game was such hot garbage when it came out but they worked and worked at it and now it just keeps getting more popular.

Share this post


Link to post

People praising 343 for how well they supported Halo 5 makes me irrationally angry. They did one of the worst post-launch support efforts I've seen in awhile. Balance patches were non-existent, and the maps they came out with were some of the worst in Halo history, not to mention recycled. Look at Rainbow Six or OW to a lesser degree. Both have kept people playing way better than 343 could dream of. 

 

And pre-release 343 was hyping their new "tools" for adjusting weapon variables much more easily and rapidly. Cool, I'm glad to see that got put to good use. 

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

 

Did it, though? I think it could very easily be argued that the console sequel life cycle is a big part of the reason for Halo's decline and the extreme splintering of its community. It's just not great for multiplayer games in particular and makes less sense now that consoles are basically closed down PC's and significant patching is actually viable. By comparison, games for the 360/PS3 had to be very careful about significant patches, in part because a non-trivial percentage of their user base could still have little to no local storage space.

 

A big problem with the regular sequel release schedule has ALWAYS been that gamers have many contradictory expectations from new games in a series. In that context, I can sympathize with some of the challenges 343 has had with making Halo games. Sequels should "innovate." The graphics should be even more "next gen." They should have way more features. Oh, but also they should be like the old games, but not TOO much like the old games. It can't be outdated and needs to be modern, but also appeal to my own nostalgia for my favorite entry in the series. Stop recycling old maps, but also remake my personal favorite map in every game, you idiots.

 

I'm no 343 fanboy, but they picked up the series from Bungie, who made basically only two Halo games out of 4 that resembled each other. Every one of those games has a fanbase who insist that their favorite is the best. It's the real Halo. That problem continues with each "innovative" sequel and it's a problem that Bungie created for Halo.

 

If you look at a lot of games that aren't CoD, the long term "games as a service" model is represented VERY favorably in population charts. People like being able to return to the same core gameplay, progression, cosmetics, rankings they have enjoyed for years. Meanwhile, a game like CoD, in large part by design, has a fairly short shelf life with a huge population at launch and a steep drop-off as the new game smell fades and people return to Fortnite, PUBG, Rainbow Six, GTA V, Overwatch, Warframe, etc (all of these games are on consoles). By the time the next year rolls around, everyone is ready for a new CoD with new content, shinier graphics, a new campaign, core mechanics reworked yet again and the cycle continues. This can work well for a shallow casual game (and CoD is expertly fine-tuned to be a casual game), but it is absolutely god-awful for anything resembling competitive multiplayer.

 

I strongly believe Halo would benefit hugely from a stable competitive multiplayer platform with a clear gameplay identity and a real, long term support plan (i.e. not H5 "free DLC). Let spin-offs and single-player campaigns be their own thing.

 

 

And competitive play on PC with mouse and keyboard

 

This, this so much. The only other thing would be spacing out the time between games more which Counter Strike does (Though it has ended up having the exact same problems as Halo because Valve decided to "innovate" instead of following the core formula). I highly prefer the games as service model which is one of the few good things to be popularized by microtransactions.
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

And pre-release 343 was hyping their new "tools" for adjusting weapon variables much more easily and rapidly. Cool, I'm glad to see that got put to good use. 

Remember when those were in Halo 4 and used a grand total of one time?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

And pre-release 343 was hyping their new "tools" for adjusting weapon variables much more easily and rapidly. Cool, I'm glad to see that got put to good use. 

Yeah, this is the exact shit that should have been done for each TU if they couldn't actually do it without one.  Instead the only thing they touched for 2 years (TWICE!!) is the goddamn plasma caster and REQ energy requirements for some weapons. Then suddenly they decide to do real tuning and wonder why they get such backlash when they try to tackle half the sandbox at once.

 

Make, small iterative tweaks on a regular basis so you can take care of problems before people get so pissed about them that their feedback is all hyperbole.  Sniper hitboxes and bullet magnetism should have been tweaked in TU1 as should AR damage.  Those were obvious from day 1. That also gets people used to the idea that hey, balance might move around a bit so they don't have a cow when shit changes.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

The thing about the "games as a service" model is that it gives developers an excuse to launch a game that is half baked and then make it "complete" over time which is exactly what happened with Halo 5. It had like 3 game types, no forge, no BTB, and not many maps, and it took a long time before it could be considered a complete game. If Halo 6 actually launched as complete as Halo Reach did, and was then updated with maps (preferably funded with cosmetic microtransactions and not the goddamn REQ system, fuck Warzone) over time, then that would probably succeed. People here brought up Fortnite - it's a great example and especially so because they update the game every 2 weeks without fail. This schedule keeps people coming back, as do the weekly challenges, which Halo could easily bring back from Reach.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

A F2P competitive MP focused Halo with SP handled separately could work.

 

But there’s no reason a standard model couldnt work as well. Franchises don’t decline BECAUSE of the sequel cycle. They decline because of bad sequels. Yes, sequels need to look prettier. Yes, they need to innovate. but neither of those things should come at the expense of the design philosophies that make the franchise stand out in the first place.

 

I have plenty of issues with H2 and H3, but with Reach-5 the developer set out to completely toss out primary standards and replace them with new ones. That behavior is unnecessary for a sequel. It’s also the reason community splintered and ultimately declined. We don’t see that happening with 3D Mario or GTA.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

This, this so much. The only other thing would be spacing out the time between games more which Counter Strike does (Though it has ended up having the exact same problems as Halo because Valve decided to "innovate" instead of following the core formula).

 

Ehhhhhhh....

 

Comparing CSGO to CS 1.6 is more like comparing H3 to H2 than it is comparing H4 to H2.  The core formula is still perfectly intact, it's mostly just that the game is worse on a mechanical level.

 

I highly prefer the games as service model which is one of the few good things to be popularized by microtransactions.

 

It's acceptable when the games are released as completed products and updated over time.  Many cases though they release a half-finished game and just use updates to finish it, and all that does is give the game a bad first impression that it fails to recover from.  Early access needs to stop, seriously.

 

And (maybe getting a bit off-topic here) almost always you lose out on mods and other custom content because the developers want control over everything and don't want anything potentially cutting into their DLC / Microtransaction sales.  After all how do you sell skins and maps when your playerbase can make them on their own?  Team Fortress 2 and CSGO reach a good middleground here but every other as-a-service game I see is completely 100% railroaded by the developers with no support for custom content.

 

I miss paying $30-$60 and just having a complete game that I can do whatever the hell I want with and where I don't have to constantly pay for game content.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all about the premium product. I know f2p works but I just don't like the model.

For me it comes down to multiplayer vs singleplayer, the F2P model works well for multiplayer but Halo was never JUST a multiplayer game, a large portion of people buy it for the campaign too, which is one of the main reasons they bring out a new one every few years, I'm not sure how they would get that to work with a F2P multiplayer or if it would even be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm cool with the idea of F2P, but most devs/publishers don't have enough restraint/confidence in their product to do it right.

 

in the case of Halo. it would need to feel like a full multiplayer suite. a nice bunch of quality maps, a complete set of quality modes. and a customization/unlock system that feels rewarding to players even if they don't spend any money. basically take the entire MP suite from h3 or Reach and make it free.

 

then you capitalize on social hooks. 1) have a robust server browser and sell server rentals. 2) constantly release new premium skins. 3) have weekly XP ladders and leaderboards w/ prizes for top players and have XP boosts in req packs. 4) have daily/weekly/monthly challenges 5) let people easily publish clips + progress on social media etc 6) promote quick free & paid tournaments 7) gamebattles

 

many companies would feel like giving all that for free would limit their ability to make money, but the opposite is true: the volume of players engaging with the social hooks embedded in a game so good they'd play it anyway, would make them a ton of cash.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

For me it comes down to multiplayer vs singleplayer, the F2P model works well for multiplayer but Halo was never JUST a multiplayer game, a large portion of people buy it for the campaign too, which is one of the main reasons they bring out a new one every few years, I'm not sure how they would get that to work with a F2P multiplayer or if it would even be worth it.

 

"Games as a service" doesn't inherently mean multiplayer only or f2p. The games I listed offer a variety of approaches and types of content, but the trend is clear. I can't think of a single competitive multiplayer game that has benefited long term from constant sequels. Not one. F2p can be a good option for bringing in a large number of players up-front, but games like Rocket League, Rainbow Six, and even CS:GO are all "premium" products. Warframe is almost entirely PvE.

 

Want significant single-player/Co-op/PvE periodically? Premium expansion (hey, Blizzard). Even Destiny does that (poorly). Various spin-off games with variations on core gameplay (Halo: Warzone full scale Battlefield rip-off?). There are plenty of options that don't require reinventing the wheel with the core multiplayer suite to justify another full retail console product every 1-3 years.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Games as a service" doesn't inherently mean multiplayer only or f2p. The games I listed offer a variety of approaches and types of content, but the trend is clear. I can't think of a single competitive multiplayer game that has benefited long term from constant sequels. Not one. F2p can be a good option for bringing in a large number of players up-front, but games like Rocket League, Rainbow Six, and even CS:GO are all "premium" products. Warframe is almost entirely PvE.

 

Want significant single-player/Co-op/PvE periodically? Premium expansion (hey, Blizzard). Even Destiny does that (poorly). Various spin-off games with variations on core gameplay (Halo: Warzone full scale Battlefield rip-off?). There are plenty of options that don't require reinventing the wheel with the core multiplayer suite to justify another full retail console product every 1-3 years.

Actually Battlefield is the perfect example for finding success with sequels without constantly reinventing the wheel.

 

Honestly, I don’t understand where the pressure to to reinvent the wheel comes from, considering the strain it clearly puts the franchises base. The goal is to make something bigger, to widen the base - dramatically changing things works against that. If anything, the lesson the market should be learning is that sequals should build on top of established successful design, rather than take large gameplay risks. Sequels should really be more like large premium expansions than sweeping mechanical “innovations”. More GTA less COD/Halo.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Battlefield is the perfect example for finding success with sequels without constantly reinventing the wheel.

 

Honestly, I don’t understand where the pressure to to reinvent the wheel comes from, considering the strain it clearly puts the franchises base. The goal is to make something bigger, to widen the base - dramatically changing things works against that. If anything, the lesson the market should be learning is that sequals should build on top of established successful design, rather than take large gameplay risks. Sequels should really be more like large premium expansions than sweeping mechanical “innovations”. More GTA less COD/Halo.

 

YES.  If you want to make a game with a bunch of rad new shit, start a new IP.  Don't add unnecessary risk to an otherwise successful franchise.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

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.