One Man's Opinion
#1
Sun, 04/21/2013 - 10:52
One Man's Opinion
Not mine, but this is an interesting read. Got it thru an HBO Twitter feed:
http://postgamecarnagereport.com/2013/04/soapbox-rant-it-is-not-traditional-halo/
Yep it was a good read, well written. His/her points even have some validity to them. Still the overall reasoning is a little naive.
I disagree. He added exactly *zero* to the discussion.
What he said was that the detractors' phrase "it isn't Halo" doesn't make sense because the game has "Halo" in the title and therefore is clearly "Halo". Well that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. That, of course, is not what the detractors mean when they say "it isn't Halo". What they mean is that, if you define games by their characteristics, what kind of game they are, how the gameplay works, etc, the current game has moved away from traditional Halo games (in its characteristics) and toward other games (e.g., COD). The H4 detractors' argument is kind of like saying that the Porsche Cayenne SUV isn't a Porsche because it's not a sports car and doesn't look or perform remotely 911ish, and his argument is kind of like saying, well, it says "Porsche" and it's sold at Porsche dealers so obviously it IS a Porsche. That argument is beyond stupid.
The bottom line is that 343 saw that SUV's were popular and made a Porsche SUV. I suppose some people might like it, but don't expect traditional Porsche fans to like it. You can't get around that. Furthermore, it's not like you can argue about how well it worked. That ship has sailed:
http://majornelson.com/2013/04/17/live-activity-for-week-of-april-8th/
Agreed Lanierb. I thought it was a strange blog overall and kind of random.
Yeah, by name it's a Halo game and that seems to be his main point. Well, thank you Captain Obvious!
Why do people still defend 343 though. That is the real issue.
Because they released a game that has "Halo" in the title.
To expound on that, some other reasons are because some folks think that a game's new release automatically makes it better than its predecessor. In theory, that should be 100% true, but we see that, of the fun in practice, it isn't. Some folks like what the game has become, and prefer the move from more traditional Halo, with its higher skill curve and less social atmosphere. Some folks subscribe to the doctrine of just playing it and having fun, and some look at the time they put into it, amortize that fun and the cost over the time they're having that fun, and say that means they're having a much cheaper version of fun, compared to other alternatives.
The fun part? They're all right and wrong at the same time. Life is complicated, friends. Deal with it and try to make things better.
Some people also try to capture the same feeling they had when played HaloCE at a LAN for the first time or when they jumped on Xbox Live or joined their first clan. Nothing will ever be like the first time. Halo is still Halo to me, but I don't feel the need anymore to play just one more game. Still love it.
Question to people who struggle to like the game. Whats wrong with throwdown, CTF or objective? Is it just the fact that the population is low? Does the fact that there isn't a good competitive community turn you away? Does seeing low population numbers effect your thoughts on the game? Would you want to play more if there was 300k players on nightly?
All of the above, but also with the changing of the skill curve. I sympathize with how 343 wanted to change some things, and think they actually did a pretty damned good job doing so, however, they've been less than responsive and not very innovative. throwdown is good, but it's harder to get into without a set team of folks. That's harder to attain with a lower base population, and with a smaller population here. Personally, I've been wading into Reddit to fix that, but it takes time to feel out a new community. Also, having 300k people on nightly means more of everyone, so more choices, more chances, and more competition. It isn't really any one thing; it is everything.
What kills me: No ranked playlists=no incentive to play, Low populace means people either really suck, or are really good. Moreso on the earlier part, which brings me to the part that dixon eluded to and the part that matters the most to me:
The games skill gap: Anyone can hop on CoD and rack up thirty kills. My VERY first game of the newer CoD's I went 34-2. there is no skill gap. No learning the maps. Just run and gun.
Halo used to require a certain familiarity with the maps to run a game. Now, it is MUCH like CoD where you get to choose from a list of starting weapons, and you no longer have to control a map to get a power weapon...they drop them at your feet. Medals are too easily acquired. I can go on.
yes, it is still Halo. And if you are running with a team of people who were good at H3, you will probably dominate the other teams. The problem is that there is no reward for teamwork, communication, or strategy. The original Gears of War had that going for it, until it turned into a straight up shotgun fest. A team that remained in cover, used suppressive fire, and moved as a unit could win the game. I don't want games that reward lone wolfing, I want games that require me to work as a team. In halo 4, I rack up boatloads of kills by being a lone wolf/flanking machine. There is no need to teamshoot (most of the time).
The games have progressively gotten worse as far as weapon balance, map balance, and gameplay mechanics are concerned. That's the problem is that there really isn't just one "catch all" problem.
1974 Mustang anyone? I get what lanierb is saying but I don't agree with the position Halo 4 is not Halo. Halo 4 is not even a lesser Halo. In many ways, it's a greater Halo. For me it's been a disappointing ride at times but the issues I have are quite different from many around here.
So, if it is a different ride, is it a better or worse ride?
Unless it is the same, it is different. If it is different, it's either better or worse. So, is Halo 4 a better or worse ride than Halo 1? Halo 2? Halo 3?
"Benign" isn't an option, unless you want to also count "malignant". So, Halo 4 is, overall, a worse experience from that of previous Halo titles because of community content and interaction, right?
Is that the only way you're willing to qualify a comparison? Or, is the community content and interaction your usual measuring stick for the franchise's titles?
I responded thusly.
That's awfully cute, but you're already said something critical about 343. Do they take away your foam beer coozie because of that or what?
There's nothing wrong with being critical. You're just trying to run from it, for some weird reason.
Constructive criticism isn't negative tripe. I know the Internet can bring some pretty shitty stuff out of people, and empowers folks to be total dickholes because they're mostly anonymous, but in this forum, folks are pretty consistent and constructive. I've seen some of the hell that's on Waypoint and Reddit with people essentially saying that 343 can do no good, which is also not true. If you're fairly sure that 343 doesn't read anything here (which you're probably right), why not Tweet the pertinent stuff to the decision makers or cross-post the useful stuff to places they do read? I certainly do the latter.
Wait, what? I just woke up. Actually have a pretty good clip of the beginning of the Composer mission. I'll post it when I get the film fixed up and uploaded.
Edit: clip posted in my Mythic Halo 4 thread.
At least here, for the most part, we have decent discussions about the state of Halo. Are we to bury our head in the sand and pretend everthing is coming up roses? "Negative tripe", well I guess we see where we all stand...lol
I think it's obvious many of us still enjoy the game, but have a desire to see tweaks and improvements. This is just an outlet to speak with like-minded individuals. Yes there are better places to post our problems, but those places are often like herding cats. Here we can have real conversations without the trolls.
I enjoy the game. My main problem is something I had hoped this site would help me with - and that's find more peeps to play. People that play on a regular basis. I'm still looking too.
lulz "hippocrite"
People don't like to give up on series that they have spent hundreds of hours on. Inevitably a newer version will come out and all the population will flock to it - giving them no choice but to move to that game or get left in the barren wasteland of zero population. It's a forced exodus from a game that they love to play, so they want the new one to be similar but just updated graphics and maps. So that way they can continue to play what they love.
Having the population move to the new game is forcing you to give up your game. That's why people get angry when the new one is such a departure in quality or features.
I think it's really worth doing some soul-searching on H4. Sure, it comes out as negative sometimes, because you end up second guessing the game, but there's a really interesting question about what direction to take the game. The evidence suggests that H4 wasn't all that successful, at least relative to previous Halo's and COD, so that opens up the question as to what to do next.
To me, the potential problem with making Halo more COD-like is that COD is really good at what it does and I don't see Halo becoming better at COD-style play than COD is. So is it better to be "Call of Halo" or just to embrace being different from COD, and move back toward a game that required more depth of play, where map control and weapon control and teamwork were critical. I don't claim to know the answer, but I do feel like with the current trend they are running a real risk of losing the old Halo fans and not gaining many of the COD fans in return.
^ this is a quality post. Bravo.
someone edited my last post!