Why everybody says that "Halo is Dead"

[Dawido]

There is multiple videos about youtubers saying how much Halo is dead franchise, but why? Because you didn't liked the new season in Halo Infinite multiplayer or what? You may say that crowbcat made video about it, but half of this video is just gamers with anger issues destroying they setup because they couldn't find match for Halo MCC.
I think that Halo community leads too much on radical nostalgia, I seen how people says that "there is no going back to good old days", but, from what I seen all Halo games are almost the same in mechanics and gameplay, with additional changes, so it seems that these people are just scared of change, and gonna hate new Halo games just because they aren't 100% like 1-3, but does it mean that you just want the same game again and again? Idk, maybe Halo campaign community and Halo multiplayer community are two different communities, because I just play Halo for campaign for now and I don't have any problems.
What Halo Infinite multiplayer changed so much that you already say how dead franchise is? Maybe it's just Halo community making from little issue an big problem.
Like really, explain to me why "Halo is dead"? From what I seen Halo Infinite has pretty decent campaign and overall, it don't have any big problems, so maybe the problem is that Halo fandom gonna hate everything new and just stick to they safe games?

[bradams]

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

I'm pretty sure you are literally the only person in the world who doesn't think that Halo 4 felt like a bad CoD ripoff.

I know its an odd thought, but if literally everybody else feels one way, and you are the only person who feels different, maybe...its not everyone else who's wrong.

But none of y'all ARE everyone else? If anyone of you actually played 4 and call of duty at the time you would realize how stupid look.

Medal of honor did the two weapons only first so I guess halo ce is a rip off of that. No? It isn't? Because that's such a stupid comparison too make like the comparisons 343 get?

I am someone who played both, and there was a significant amount more in common between Halo 4 and CoD, than Halo 3 and CoD. There's more in common between Halo 4 and CoD than just 1 little thing, like your completely inaccurate MoH and Halo CE comparison suggests.

Halo 3 movement was slower, ttk was longer, and things like map knowledge and teamwork were how you secured victory. Then CoD MW2 came out, and it had faster movement, faster ttk, loadouts, perks, and killstreak rewards. You pretty much won by camping. Teamwork didn't matter. Map knowledge barely mattered. The only thing the 2 had in common was a first person view. Then Halo 4 comes out, and what were the changes added? Sprint, to increase movement speed (Like CoD, not Halo 3), faster ttk (while not as fast as CoD, still changing in CoD's direction), loadouts (like CoD, not Halo 3), perks (like CoD, not Halo 3), and wouldn't ya know it, killstreak rewards (like CoD, not Halo 3). Halo 4 had almost an IDENTICAL formula to Modern Warfare 2, except it was worse, but with a Halo skin on it, and as someone who played them all as they released, I felt exactly that. I played Halo 3 online like crazy till MW2 came out, then I played that online like crazy till Halo 4 came out, which I played for less than 1 month before going back to MW2 because it was essentially a better version of what Halo 4 did. You played Halo 4 like you played CoD. You don't fight alongside your team to secure power weapons and hold important positions, you pick promethean vision and camp corners for cheap kills until you get a killstreak weapon like the SAW that absolutely melts everything. Halo 4 was crappy CoD, plain and simple. If it plays exactly the same as CoD, its still a CoD clone, even if your character looks more like Master Chief than "Generic American Hero Soldier".

I get that you love 343, probably have a friend or family member who works there or something, but stick to your defense that their games suck because Microsoft makes them suck, because that one is actually reasonable. This false comparison of "2 games with 1 thing in common = 2 games that have everything in common except for art style" comes off as disingenuous and silly.

[KairanShadow]

Publicado originalmente por OKMB:

Publicado originalmente por acSiegemaster:

>reach and 3 launched with years ago
Forge didn't have scaling, object recoloring/retexturing, prefabs, scripting, etc etc etc etc though? 3 forge didn't even have phased physics, and honestly forge lagged hard behind even predecessors, let alone contemporaries, until 5's forge brought forge up to par, and Infinite's is where it finally goes above average.

Also the whole "games came out complete" ♥♥♥♥ is nonsense. Games had ♥♥♥♥ cut all the time.
Also I didn't know H4 had low TTK, low focus on vehicle combat, etc etc. Or that H5 had wallrunning and highly mobile mechs.
Oh wait they didn't. Yet people still parrot the stupid "4 iz cod 5 iz titunful" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that keeps getting fed to them.

Also i like how people imply that swathes of people are getting banned from forge when really it was 1 guy who got reportbombed. Infinite forge still has way more intricate and creative stuff than any pre-5 forge has or ever will.

And even with those limitations, people still utilized the tool on launch to catapult Forge creations to wide-adoption. There's a reason people still talk about the hey-day of Reach and 3 Forge when discussing Forge, and not the technically superior Halo 5 Forge.

People didn't use these systems on launch because they weren't there, and they missed the chance to capitalize on the launch playerbase by a country mile. I struggle to think of any contemporaries to match Forge on console, and the only ones that I can remember from that same time period on PC were a lot harder to use on a technical level than a simple map editing tool.

We aren't talking about Cut Content. All games have cut content. We're talking about features that were removed only to be added later or were removed wholesale. Forge was not in Halo 5 on launch. While it came out and was technically superior than 3's Forge and Reach's Forge (4's Forge is awful), no one talks about it because it came out too late to make a significant difference. If you can't determine the difference between "cut content" and "removed features," there's no helping you.

As to your "point" about Call of Duty and Titanfall, do you know what the word "like" means, when used in the context of comparison? I didn't use it because I didn't expect anyone to be as pedantic as yourself, but "like" means to compare two similar things.
The reason people make those comparisons with Halo 4 and Halo 5, is because they became LIKE Call of Duty and Titanfall. They DID NOT BECOME Call of Duty and Titanfall. 4 and 5 were instead developed for the explicit purpose of becoming LIKE Call of Duty and Titanfall to appeal to those audiences who did not already play Halo because it was not LIKE Call of Duty and Titanfall, which were more popular at the time. Loadouts, Killstreaks, Perks, art design shifts, story shifts, movement mechanics were all changed to become LIKE more popular games in an attempt to take market share from them.

The keyword, in case you missed it somehow, is that LIKE

First of all 343 has always been apart of forge modes development before the company even got it's name at that, prior it was just a nameless group helping Bungie finish forge mode and halfway through Bungie announced they weren't going to stick with the series, 343 has been behind 3's and Reach's, the only reason 5 and infinite didn't roll out with forge because both where much more massive than the 360 era forge modes. Infinite is already more of a modding tool that Forge was always a console limited imitation of.

And none of you were using "like", that's some major backpeddeling, you kept referring to them as "clones" and if 4 or 5 are clones so is the rest of the series.

Publicado originalmente por OKMB:

No one here is saying that Halo created a new genre. I don't think you know what that word means. People are saying that Halo was distinct from other games on the market by design. Its unique elements were dissimilar to contemporaneous games that released around it, and the areas that were unique enabled it to have a large audience.
This series brought a lot of innovation to mainstream attention. Two weapon limits were not well-implemented before now, vehicles alongside infantry was not well-recognized, sci-fi military settings like this one were not well-explored. Console FPS was absolutely vitalized by the introduction of a game seemingly explicitly designed for it. This historical revisionism to say "Well, ackshually Halo was never that popular and was never that unique NERRRR" is completely and utterly wrong, and a desperate attempt by 343 fans to defend the gross incompetence of the studio that they go out to bat for.

But of course, what I've written doesn't actually matter. I'm done talking to both of you, if you're not going to read what I write.

Yeah you want us to listen to you lie constantly? Revitilized fps consoles? It was a flagship game for Microsoft that was also amazing on it's own in the early 2000s for microsofts first ever console and it was a launch title, Stop deluding yourself into thinking it would be just as popular (especially pre youtube, social media) without them. And FPS on consoles already had acclaimed games like Golden eye in 1996 and the ps1 medal of honor games in 1999 back when they were considered the best fps games for console. The fact you take any ounce of realism as "revisionism" is down right delusional and projection, None of us are saying Halo was never that popular, outside of you thinking it kept 1 million active players after call of duty 4, something call of duty 4 itself didn't achieve with 4 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ versions on each gaming platform. ♥♥♥♥ even today https://steamcharts.com/top

CS:GO, a now F2P and no monthly subscription required game barely breaks 1.5 million in a 24 hour peak, and you're trying to lie to my face and say halo was able to do that for over a year back in 2007 with a $10 monthly paywall for any kind of multiplayer. Which again, CoD4 had free multiplayer for 3 of it's 4 versions. CoD couldn't even average 500k global because while gaming was on the rise, it was no where near as commonplace until after 2010 specifically with the next console generation. You refuse to acknowledge the actual issues with 343 and instead make up crap and scream LA LA LA LA the second your arguments get criticized like the coward y'all are.

Halo has been a great series up until Infinite when Microsoft thought 18 month contracts with a brand new engine that was worked on by FIVE SEPARATE TEAMS DUE TO EXPIRED CONTRACTS caught up to them and you feel like victim blaming because you didn't like a new company taking over the franchise why else would you nothing burgers for things that weren't actual problems. Infinite has a lot of problems that should never have existed to begin with and none of them outside stability is going to be addressed as long as you idiots keep crying sadly over the previous games, knowing damn well nothing will be done about that. You don't want Halo to be great again, you want it to remain in an awful state so you can cry about it.

[KairanShadow]

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

But none of y'all ARE everyone else? If anyone of you actually played 4 and call of duty at the time you would realize how stupid look.

Medal of honor did the two weapons only first so I guess halo ce is a rip off of that. No? It isn't? Because that's such a stupid comparison too make like the comparisons 343 get?

I am someone who played both, and there was a significant amount more in common between Halo 4 and CoD, than Halo 3 and CoD. There's more in common between Halo 4 and CoD than just 1 little thing, like your completely inaccurate MoH and Halo CE comparison suggests.

Halo 3 movement was slower, ttk was longer, and things like map knowledge and teamwork were how you secured victory. Then CoD MW2 came out, and it had faster movement, faster ttk, loadouts, perks, and killstreak rewards. You pretty much won by camping. Teamwork didn't matter. Map knowledge barely mattered. The only thing the 2 had in common was a first person view. Then Halo 4 comes out, and what were the changes added? Sprint, to increase movement speed (Like CoD, not Halo 3), faster ttk (while not as fast as CoD, still changing in CoD's direction), loadouts (like CoD, not Halo 3), perks (like CoD, not Halo 3), and wouldn't ya know it, killstreak rewards (like CoD, not Halo 3). Halo 4 had almost an IDENTICAL formula to Modern Warfare 2, except it was worse, but with a Halo skin on it, and as someone who played them all as they released, I felt exactly that. I played Halo 3 online like crazy till MW2 came out, then I played that online like crazy till Halo 4 came out, which I played for less than 1 month before going back to MW2 because it was essentially a better version of what Halo 4 did. You played Halo 4 like you played CoD. You don't fight alongside your team to secure power weapons and hold important positions, you pick promethean vision and camp corners for cheap kills until you get a killstreak weapon like the SAW that absolutely melts everything. Halo 4 was crappy CoD, plain and simple. If it plays exactly the same as CoD, its still a CoD clone, even if your character looks more like Master Chief than "Generic American Hero Soldier".

I get that you love 343, probably have a friend or family member who works there or something, but stick to your defense that their games suck because Microsoft makes them suck, because that one is actually reasonable. This false comparison of "2 games with 1 thing in common = 2 games that have everything in common except for art style" comes off as disingenuous and silly.

wow way to admit you're being disingenuous and silly and continue lying because 4s ttk is the same as Reach, actually it's probably worse because it doesn't have the needler rifle, plasma caster, any UNSC flying vehicle, and the pistol has deals less damage than reach's

I also know you're full of ♥♥♥♥ because Promethean vision sounds busted on paper, but was actually garbage in game, it had the same range as the radar, *but the radar got neutered a change I never cared for and am glad they reverted* , and was very easy to counter. Hologram tricked Vision, there was a mod that removed you from it entirely and hid your name, And the invisibility ability also ignored it. You would kill one person then get assassinated by them if you camped that spot. The ordnance, as I have repeated consistently unlike you guys, doesn't work that way, you stay in one spot by the time you get a SAW you have given it to a more active player via RL to the face, you literally repeated OKMB without any changes despite the fact I also tore his crap argument to shreds, ontop of that mw3 and blops were out in between MW2 (2009) and halo 4.

There was no team play in 3 when it came to hoarding power weapons, and what "important positions?" you mean choke points, like in, Call of Duty? 3, and halo as a hole, barely has choke points outside forge maps made by players. 4 had more team play in that regard because the Mantis was such a broken game changer it took effort on both sides to take it down/ keep it alive. You couldn't pop the canopy with a sniper rifle like with tanks.

[bradams]

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

I am someone who played both, and there was a significant amount more in common between Halo 4 and CoD, than Halo 3 and CoD. There's more in common between Halo 4 and CoD than just 1 little thing, like your completely inaccurate MoH and Halo CE comparison suggests.

Halo 3 movement was slower, ttk was longer, and things like map knowledge and teamwork were how you secured victory. Then CoD MW2 came out, and it had faster movement, faster ttk, loadouts, perks, and killstreak rewards. You pretty much won by camping. Teamwork didn't matter. Map knowledge barely mattered. The only thing the 2 had in common was a first person view. Then Halo 4 comes out, and what were the changes added? Sprint, to increase movement speed (Like CoD, not Halo 3), faster ttk (while not as fast as CoD, still changing in CoD's direction), loadouts (like CoD, not Halo 3), perks (like CoD, not Halo 3), and wouldn't ya know it, killstreak rewards (like CoD, not Halo 3). Halo 4 had almost an IDENTICAL formula to Modern Warfare 2, except it was worse, but with a Halo skin on it, and as someone who played them all as they released, I felt exactly that. I played Halo 3 online like crazy till MW2 came out, then I played that online like crazy till Halo 4 came out, which I played for less than 1 month before going back to MW2 because it was essentially a better version of what Halo 4 did. You played Halo 4 like you played CoD. You don't fight alongside your team to secure power weapons and hold important positions, you pick promethean vision and camp corners for cheap kills until you get a killstreak weapon like the SAW that absolutely melts everything. Halo 4 was crappy CoD, plain and simple. If it plays exactly the same as CoD, its still a CoD clone, even if your character looks more like Master Chief than "Generic American Hero Soldier".

I get that you love 343, probably have a friend or family member who works there or something, but stick to your defense that their games suck because Microsoft makes them suck, because that one is actually reasonable. This false comparison of "2 games with 1 thing in common = 2 games that have everything in common except for art style" comes off as disingenuous and silly.

wow way to admit you're being disingenuous and silly and continue lying because 4s ttk is the same as Reach, actually it's probably worse because it doesn't have the needler rifle, plasma caster, any UNSC flying vehicle, and the pistol has deals less damage than reach's

I also know you're full of ♥♥♥♥ because Promethean vision sounds busted on paper, but was actually garbage in game, it had the same range as the radar, *but the radar got neutered a change I never cared for and am glad they reverted* , and was very easy to counter. Hologram tricked Vision, there was a mod that removed you from it entirely and hid your name, And the invisibility ability also ignored it. You would kill one person then get assassinated by them if you camped that spot. The ordnance, as I have repeated consistently unlike you guys, doesn't work that way, you stay in one spot by the time you get a SAW you have given it to a more active player via RL to the face, you literally repeated OKMB without any changes despite the fact I also tore his crap argument to shreds, ontop of that mw3 and blops were out in between MW2 (2009) and halo 4.

There was no team play in 3 when it came to hoarding power weapons, and what "important positions?" you mean choke points, like in, Call of Duty? 3, and halo as a hole, barely has choke points outside forge maps made by players. 4 had more team play in that regard because the Mantis was such a broken game changer it took effort on both sides to take it down/ keep it alive. You couldn't pop the canopy with a sniper rifle like with tanks.

To address your first paragraph, name 1 place in my comment where I mentioned Reach. I'v got time, Ill wait.

And honestly, I didn't read OKMB's response to you, which I guess either strengthens my argument or makes no difference depending on if you think I'm lying, cause if I'm being honest, that means that apparently both they and I had the EXACT same experience with the game. Not that I expect you to believe I'm being honest, as that would mean admitting that Halo 4 was just a bad CoD clone.

That aside, its not that promethean vision was "busted", its that it was literally the only useful pick in the bunch, which it was by miles. What was its competition, purple fart? The ability that moved you in a direction SLOWER than had you just walked that distance? Or the nipple shield that only protected your chin to your knees and just made you a non-retaliatory opponent while you walked slowly forward getting shot in the forehead and the shins? Nearly every ability in that game sucked except for the vision. I also don't know how your argument is "vision is fooled by hologram", when you can tell the difference between a hologram and a player in half a second based on how basic a holograms movement is. Maybe invisibility wasn't terrible, I honestly can't remember, I just remember despising it. Any other CoD game that came out inbetween MW2 and H4 isn't really important, since all CoDs are essentially the exact same. It was cheaper to just change the brightness setting on MW2 and pretend its a different CoD game than shell out money on a new CoD that changes even less than that.

Either way, Ill just let it speak for itself. If the entire internet says Halo 4 felt like CoD, and you and maybe that one other guy say it doesn't, I don't feel much need to say more. Statistically there will always be someone that HAS to argue against the known obvious. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if you said that the first release version of the promethean knight that instantly teliported cross-map behind cover anytime it took damage and fully healed in less than 2 seconds was good enemy design.

[KairanShadow]

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

wow way to admit you're being disingenuous and silly and continue lying because 4s ttk is the same as Reach, actually it's probably worse because it doesn't have the needler rifle, plasma caster, any UNSC flying vehicle, and the pistol has deals less damage than reach's

I also know you're full of ♥♥♥♥ because Promethean vision sounds busted on paper, but was actually garbage in game, it had the same range as the radar, *but the radar got neutered a change I never cared for and am glad they reverted* , and was very easy to counter. Hologram tricked Vision, there was a mod that removed you from it entirely and hid your name, And the invisibility ability also ignored it. You would kill one person then get assassinated by them if you camped that spot. The ordnance, as I have repeated consistently unlike you guys, doesn't work that way, you stay in one spot by the time you get a SAW you have given it to a more active player via RL to the face, you literally repeated OKMB without any changes despite the fact I also tore his crap argument to shreds, ontop of that mw3 and blops were out in between MW2 (2009) and halo 4.

There was no team play in 3 when it came to hoarding power weapons, and what "important positions?" you mean choke points, like in, Call of Duty? 3, and halo as a hole, barely has choke points outside forge maps made by players. 4 had more team play in that regard because the Mantis was such a broken game changer it took effort on both sides to take it down/ keep it alive. You couldn't pop the canopy with a sniper rifle like with tanks.

To address your first paragraph, name 1 place in my comment where I mentioned Reach. I'v got time, Ill wait.

And honestly, I didn't read OKMB's response to you, which I guess either strengthens my argument or makes no difference depending on if you think I'm lying, cause if I'm being honest, that means that apparently both they and I had the EXACT same experience with the game. Not that I expect you to believe I'm being honest, as that would mean admitting that Halo 4 was just a bad CoD clone.

That aside, its not that promethean vision was "busted", its that it was literally the only useful pick in the bunch, which it was by miles. What was its competition, purple fart? The ability that moved you in a direction SLOWER than had you just walked that distance? Or the nipple shield that only protected your chin to your knees and just made you a non-retaliatory opponent while you walked slowly forward getting shot in the forehead and the shins? Nearly every ability in that game sucked except for the vision. I also don't know how your argument is "vision is fooled by hologram", when you can tell the difference between a hologram and a player in half a second based on how basic a holograms movement is. Maybe invisibility wasn't terrible, I honestly can't remember, I just remember despising it.

Either way, Ill just let it speak for itself. If the entire internet says Halo 4 felt like CoD, and you and maybe that one other guy say it doesn't, I don't feel much need to say more. Statistically there will always be someone that HAS to argue against the known obvious. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if you said that the first release version of the promethean knight that instantly teliported cross-map behind cover anytime it took damage and fully healed in less than 2 seconds was good enemy design.

You claimed 4 was a copy because it had high ttk, Reachs ttk was higher on average

You are copying him because just like him, you're ignoring the perks that hard countered PV and also you're complaint is that 2 abilities suck so all but PV suck? that's 2/8 my guy and the jet pack is exactly the same as it's reach counter part, Hard light replaced armor lock (which many people stated was overpowered) and the only downside it had was not being able to regen shields while active. Thrusterpack sure was utter crap. You saying hologram was easy to spot though? It doesn't matter if it takes a second to realize it's fake, especially on console that's more time it takes for them to turn to your actual position and in that time you've been firing on them, they're also super easy to copy, so you can drop one at your feet and run like a bot just to spin around and assassinate the camper. man it's so weird how you just blatantly lie about how the game you never played was played, and then confuse halo 3 for call of duty by saying it had positions that needed to be protected.

And finally, your echo chamber isn't the majority, it was never the majority. Each halo game even bungie's plays wildly different from one another, that's part of Halo's charm especially with the master chief collection. It's amazing how you can't even bother to read any of halos wikipedia, and what first generation of knights? the 1.0 release before any patches in 4 or just 4 as a whole? In regards to "fast regen" they're exactly like brutes but with an elite shield, they're shield regens their health doesn't, the reason they constantly cross map(which is indeed bs but often jumping on the 3rd stop will let you avoid it) is because they're at critical health. Nah those watchers were the real worst enemy in the game, they could revive knights took way to many hits, and constantly flew behind cover. They were better handled in 5 and that's it, I just know how to deal with them

I'm glad you're willing to admit you're part of the stastic that has to constantly be contrarian, otherwise you wouldn't keep ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about previous games would you?

[FLASH ASSANOVA]

takes longer than a minute to find a game

[KairanShadow]

Publicado originalmente por GFSA03:

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

You claimed 4 was a copy because it had high ttk, Reachs ttk was higher on average

You are copying him because just like him, you're ignoring the perks that hard countered PV and also you're complaint is that 2 abilities suck so all but PV suck? that's 2/8 my guy and the jet pack is exactly the same as it's reach counter part, Hard light replaced armor lock (which many people stated was overpowered) and the only downside it had was not being able to regen shields while active. Thrusterpack sure was utter crap. You saying hologram was easy to spot though? It doesn't matter if it takes a second to realize it's fake, especially on console that's more time it takes for them to turn to your actual position and in that time you've been firing on them, they're also super easy to copy, so you can drop one at your feet and run like a bot just to spin around and assassinate the camper. man it's so weird how you just blatantly lie about how the game you never played was played, and then confuse halo 3 for call of duty by saying it had positions that needed to be protected.

And finally, your echo chamber isn't the majority, it was never the majority. Each halo game even bungie's plays wildly different from one another, that's part of Halo's charm especially with the master chief collection. It's amazing how you can't even bother to read any of halos wikipedia, and what first generation of knights? the 1.0 release before any patches in 4 or just 4 as a whole? In regards to "fast regen" they're exactly like brutes but with an elite shield, they're shield regens their health doesn't, the reason they constantly cross map(which is indeed bs but often jumping on the 3rd stop will let you avoid it) is because they're at critical health. Nah those watchers were the real worst enemy in the game, they could revive knights took way to many hits, and constantly flew behind cover. They were better handled in 5 and that's it, I just know how to deal with them

I'm glad you're willing to admit you're part of the stastic that has to constantly be contrarian, otherwise you wouldn't keep ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about previous games would you?

So this is what an abusive relationship looks like.

Nah an abusive relationship would be screaming and saying how bad everything is compared to before nitpicking every detail than the second any defense pops up you scream louder

[abirdwitharms]

:)

[bradams]

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

To address your first paragraph, name 1 place in my comment where I mentioned Reach. I'v got time, Ill wait.

And honestly, I didn't read OKMB's response to you, which I guess either strengthens my argument or makes no difference depending on if you think I'm lying, cause if I'm being honest, that means that apparently both they and I had the EXACT same experience with the game. Not that I expect you to believe I'm being honest, as that would mean admitting that Halo 4 was just a bad CoD clone.

That aside, its not that promethean vision was "busted", its that it was literally the only useful pick in the bunch, which it was by miles. What was its competition, purple fart? The ability that moved you in a direction SLOWER than had you just walked that distance? Or the nipple shield that only protected your chin to your knees and just made you a non-retaliatory opponent while you walked slowly forward getting shot in the forehead and the shins? Nearly every ability in that game sucked except for the vision. I also don't know how your argument is "vision is fooled by hologram", when you can tell the difference between a hologram and a player in half a second based on how basic a holograms movement is. Maybe invisibility wasn't terrible, I honestly can't remember, I just remember despising it.

Either way, Ill just let it speak for itself. If the entire internet says Halo 4 felt like CoD, and you and maybe that one other guy say it doesn't, I don't feel much need to say more. Statistically there will always be someone that HAS to argue against the known obvious. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if you said that the first release version of the promethean knight that instantly teliported cross-map behind cover anytime it took damage and fully healed in less than 2 seconds was good enemy design.

You claimed 4 was a copy because it had high ttk, Reachs ttk was higher on average

You are copying him because just like him, you're ignoring the perks that hard countered PV and also you're complaint is that 2 abilities suck so all but PV suck? that's 2/8 my guy and the jet pack is exactly the same as it's reach counter part, Hard light replaced armor lock (which many people stated was overpowered) and the only downside it had was not being able to regen shields while active. Thrusterpack sure was utter crap. You saying hologram was easy to spot though? It doesn't matter if it takes a second to realize it's fake, especially on console that's more time it takes for them to turn to your actual position and in that time you've been firing on them, they're also super easy to copy, so you can drop one at your feet and run like a bot just to spin around and assassinate the camper. man it's so weird how you just blatantly lie about how the game you never played was played, and then confuse halo 3 for call of duty by saying it had positions that needed to be protected.

And finally, your echo chamber isn't the majority, it was never the majority. Each halo game even bungie's plays wildly different from one another, that's part of Halo's charm especially with the master chief collection. It's amazing how you can't even bother to read any of halos wikipedia, and what first generation of knights? the 1.0 release before any patches in 4 or just 4 as a whole? In regards to "fast regen" they're exactly like brutes but with an elite shield, they're shield regens their health doesn't, the reason they constantly cross map(which is indeed bs but often jumping on the 3rd stop will let you avoid it) is because they're at critical health. Nah those watchers were the real worst enemy in the game, they could revive knights took way to many hits, and constantly flew behind cover. They were better handled in 5 and that's it, I just know how to deal with them

I'm glad you're willing to admit you're part of the stastic that has to constantly be contrarian, otherwise you wouldn't keep ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about previous games would you?

Meh, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. While I agree that most of the Halo's felt different, they all felt different unique, while when I played 4, I just felt like I was playing a bad CoD ripoff. If you didn't, fine, but something about it clearly made people feel that way or the claim that 4 feels like CoD wouldn't be as popular as it is, and I can only speak for my experience that I played Halo 3 online for probably a thousand hours, same with MW2, but Halo 4, maybe 20 hours at best, before going back to MW2 because it felt like that's what it was trying to be anyway.

All that aside, I suppose my original point wasn't to convince you that Halo 4 was provably a CoD copy, my point was that, I played it, and that's what I felt it was. Same with the other user, same with tons of people on the internet, so that comment of "nobody takes anybody who thinks Halo 4 felt like CoD seriously" is just dumb. Tons upon tons of people felt that way, and not every single one of those people is just a 343 hater. I'm not even a 343 hater, really, I just think both of the Halo games iv played that are made by them are terrible (4 and Infinite), but on the same hand, I absolutely despised ODST and didn't care for CE either, so its not like I consider Bungie to be some development hero either. I just play games, same as the majority, and to me, 4 felt like CoD. I'm bored of commenting on it further.

[McScrandy]

Publicado originalmente por Dewido8:

Publicado originalmente por Capps122:

you dont sound like you actually want an answer

Ok sorry.
I just you know, I'm new to Halo and I don't understand all that hate on games, I don't see any big problems with any Halo game, I finished Reach and now playing CE, so I still gonna have to try 2-4, but as I know there isn't very big problems in campaign or multi of Halo Infinite, so what's problem? Because they wanted you to pay for cat ears?

if you think people hate this game because of overused weapons and cat ears then you are actually a ♥♥♥♥♥♥

[KairanShadow]

Publicado originalmente por bradams:

Publicado originalmente por Shadow426:

You claimed 4 was a copy because it had high ttk, Reachs ttk was higher on average

You are copying him because just like him, you're ignoring the perks that hard countered PV and also you're complaint is that 2 abilities suck so all but PV suck? that's 2/8 my guy and the jet pack is exactly the same as it's reach counter part, Hard light replaced armor lock (which many people stated was overpowered) and the only downside it had was not being able to regen shields while active. Thrusterpack sure was utter crap. You saying hologram was easy to spot though? It doesn't matter if it takes a second to realize it's fake, especially on console that's more time it takes for them to turn to your actual position and in that time you've been firing on them, they're also super easy to copy, so you can drop one at your feet and run like a bot just to spin around and assassinate the camper. man it's so weird how you just blatantly lie about how the game you never played was played, and then confuse halo 3 for call of duty by saying it had positions that needed to be protected.

And finally, your echo chamber isn't the majority, it was never the majority. Each halo game even bungie's plays wildly different from one another, that's part of Halo's charm especially with the master chief collection. It's amazing how you can't even bother to read any of halos wikipedia, and what first generation of knights? the 1.0 release before any patches in 4 or just 4 as a whole? In regards to "fast regen" they're exactly like brutes but with an elite shield, they're shield regens their health doesn't, the reason they constantly cross map(which is indeed bs but often jumping on the 3rd stop will let you avoid it) is because they're at critical health. Nah those watchers were the real worst enemy in the game, they could revive knights took way to many hits, and constantly flew behind cover. They were better handled in 5 and that's it, I just know how to deal with them

I'm glad you're willing to admit you're part of the stastic that has to constantly be contrarian, otherwise you wouldn't keep ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about previous games would you?

Meh, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. While I agree that most of the Halo's felt different, they all felt different unique, while when I played 4, I just felt like I was playing a bad CoD ripoff. If you didn't, fine, but something about it clearly made people feel that way or the claim that 4 feels like CoD wouldn't be as popular as it is, and I can only speak for my experience that I played Halo 3 online for probably a thousand hours, same with MW2, but Halo 4, maybe 20 hours at best, before going back to MW2 because it felt like that's what it was trying to be anyway.

All that aside, I suppose my original point wasn't to convince you that Halo 4 was provably a CoD copy, my point was that, I played it, and that's what I felt it was. Same with the other user, same with tons of people on the internet, so that comment of "nobody takes anybody who thinks Halo 4 felt like CoD seriously" is just dumb. Tons upon tons of people felt that way, and not every single one of those people is just a 343 hater. I'm not even a 343 hater, really, I just think both of the Halo games iv played that are made by them are terrible (4 and Infinite), but on the same hand, I absolutely despised ODST and didn't care for CE either, so its not like I consider Bungie to be some development hero either. I just play games, same as the majority, and to me, 4 felt like CoD. I'm bored of commenting on it further.

That's called false equivalency and Reach at the time was also receive the same "CoD clone" remarks because it cause for a more realistic art style then 3's ontop of the randomized load outs and sprint ability. 343 isn't Bungie and to a couple thousand people that is a grave sin, Halo 4 had haters before any teasers were even shown simply because Bungie left, the halo fan base acts exactly like Truths covenant, and if you're familiar with who that was run you'd know that's a derogatory statement. They think themselves the heretic elites from 2 but really, they act exactly like the brutes.

But you admit to going on forums demanding people not play the game or like the game you don't personally like, I'm aware Infinite has several issues that don't exist in other games, Infinite also has entire rotating development teams unlike most other games. The 343 that made Infinite is not the same that made 4 or 5 it's all different teams each time, and that's the fault of Microsoft not 343. Making a brand new engine popped that bubble on why limited contracts don't work. I'm giving this new team a chance because they've only worked with slip space for 2 months hands on, given how Microsoft dropped 10k employees in all their owned developer teams, it's a high chance the last team didn't get to teach the new team how Slipspace works. I actually quit the first year of Infinite because the weekly challenges were near impossible to do while having a job, on top of the weapon balance being exactly how it was in Bungie's first 3 games where every gun not a power weapon (even then skewer sucked) and the BR was trash you couldn't use. BUT they changed that in the winter update, most of the guns were tuned to be usable and challenges could now be done in a day, which is perfect because let's be honest here; challenges constantly make people through matches in order to complete them.

The game has improved a lot since the winter update, forge mode is a built in modding tool which is unheard of, Bethesda's G.E.C.K and Valve's Source modding tools were all external separate software. And it's getting more and more updates allowing people to make their own firefight or story missions. That isn't an easy task and it's going to pull people aware from other problems for the time being. But they're trying each week to figure out the crashing and instability issues anyways.

[Cthulhu, M.D.]

Too much hate, game is OK

[Psalms]

Honestly 343 should make it an extraction based shooter like Hunt Showdown.

[Rai]

Publicado originalmente por Dewido8:

I don't understand why people hate Halo 4,5,infinite , especially that 4 didn't made any big changes as I know.
It's seems that casual gamers are enjoying Halo games more than fandom itself

They're not actual fans

They're dew-chugging frat bros who are singularly focused on one MLG-spattered moment in time when Halo 3 was released

Us true fans who actually care about and pay attention to the story actually love the direction that 343 has taken the series, making the games and the stories feel larger than the same 5 months in 2552. They're utilizing the expanded universe and showing Spartans in action in a way that Bungie was afraid to for some reason

Unfortunately, despite the fact that 343 is the only thing keeping Halo alive after Bungie abandoned it to milk money out of people with Destiny, they still get tons of hate for moving the story in any direction other than "derp, the Flood is back again".

[Drewba]

Publicado originalmente por MoobiVR:

Publicado originalmente por Dewido8:

I don't understand why people hate Halo 4,5,infinite , especially that 4 didn't made any big changes as I know.
It's seems that casual gamers are enjoying Halo games more than fandom itself

I'm a casual halo enjoyer but this game has a lot of issues up to this point and the issues interfere with my pleasure to play this game. But in regards to halo 4 and 5 not making any changes, i beg to differ. Halo 5 had a more high octane movement system in place and had the Req System. Halo 4 tried to copy the loadout system from Halo Reach but add it's spin on it.

Totally agree. the game makes me impatient AF.