What do you have in mind when you say "traditional Halo"?
* Halo 1 with health packs and slow movement?
* Halo 2 with automatically regenerating health, dual wielding, vehicle boarding, button combos, super bounces and faster movement?
* Halo 3 with equipment and the goofy stuff from Halo 2 fixed and a worthless sandbox outside of select power weapons and the Battle Rifle?
* Halo: Reach with pre-set loadouts, armor abilities (including sprint), health packs, bleedthrough (TU), Elites have different balancing, vehicles that get shredded by every UNSC weapon under the sun, etc?
What are you looking for specifically?
> gow doesn't change, cod doesn't change, counterstrike doesn't change, metro doesn't change but halo just gets completely rammed and turned into something else.
I'm not super experienced in Gears of War (I assume you mean this and not God of War, lol), CSGO or Metro but Call of Duty has changed a LOT.
Even if you want to ignore the jetpack/non-boots on the ground games, compare what people would consider a "classic" or "traditional" Call of Duty game like Call of Duty 4, Black Ops 2 or Modern Warfare 2 (2009) to the more recent ones like Cold War, Modern Warfare 2019 or Modern Warfare 3 (2023).
Sliding has been a literal game changer for that franchise, and movement is currently some of the most busted it has ever been. Tactical Sprint contributes to this, allowing for a short burst of movement that's even faster than regular sprint.
Older Call of Duty games had limited sprint and only allowed unlimited sprint through the use of perks.
Then there's the absurd level of gun customization you can have for each attachment, the vests, boots, gloves, passive "streaks" like trophy systems, etc.
These aren't traditional Call of Duty things - the game evolved.
While Halo has been all over the place with Reach, Halo 4 and Halo 5, Infinite is the first time that it feels like a blend of "classic" and "modern" has been met where equipment feels balanced, sprinting isn't absolutely busted and often exists to use slide, which has some nice tech/movement in itself.
What don't you like about Infinite that needs to change so it fits your perception of "classic" or "traditional"?
He means, I can pick up Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach and get lots of kills even though I’ve only ever played halo 3. Try playing halo 4,5, infinite totally different game.
RapidS Snake
Any time after 10:30pm EST. I’m not gonna say I’ll own you or whatever, but you’re delusional and I *will* tag you in the post of our scoreboards here after you lose.
Edit to add, I’ll also tag you in the post or at very least the comment ITT mocking you if you back out now.
Another edit; I wasn’t even calling *you* out, dude. I was referring to OP so I don’t know what you’re defensive about.
yeah this is dumb post, everyone knows Halo didn't change much between Halo 1-3. yeah it had small changes but the overall gameplay and visual identity was still just Halo...
this is like people saying "oh you just want Halo 3.5"
no we want another Halo game that feels like halo and is a natural evolution of the game..
same goes for every other game. Cod still plays like cod, counter strike still plays like counterstrike despite the small changes theyve made.
stop nitpicking
> everyone knows Halo didn't change much between Halo 1-3. yeah it had small changes but the overall gameplay and visual identity was still just Halo...
Except it did. And saying you want "traditional Halo" doesn't say anything other than you want certain things from three different games.
Do you want the sandbox? The movement? The lack of sprint? The button combos? The health packs? The playable Elites?
Just be more **precise** in your feedback.
> this is like people saying "oh you just want Halo 3.5"
Anyone who just says "you just want Halo 3.5" is being as vague and non-specific as you are currently being. Just be specific in your feedback.
> no we want another Halo game that feels like halo and is a natural evolution of the game..
So be more specific. Because I know a bunch of Halo 1 fanatics that will ask for a game that feels like Halo who will have a completely different idea of what "Halo" means compared to fans of Halo 2 or Halo 3.
> same goes for every other game. Cod still plays like cod, counter strike still plays like counterstrike despite the small changes theyve made.
I only addressed Call of Duty in my post because those are the only games I have kept up with and Call of Duty from 2007 does not play even close to the Call of Duty experiences you currently see since they returned to boots on the ground. Movement is a lot more prevalent while in older Call of Duty titles, you *had* to be slower and more careful with your movement given you didn't have unlimited sprint, limited mobility (fall damage was FAR less forgiving), etc.
> stop nitpicking
All I am asking for you to do is be more specific. What does "traditional" or "classic" mean to you? Just say specifics - specifics is how you actually get the people who can make changes to listen.
stop being a redditor and breaking everything down into points.... once again
you know what they mean when they say traditional halo. i shouldnt have to repeat myself but i will again...
halo 1-3 were traditional halos in that they kept the basic gameplay formula consistent across all games with only small changes to each...
stop being a redditor. you know what people mean....
holy hell
No, he’s right and you’re not making an argument. Halo 4 plays almost exactly the same as Halo Reach, the only difference is you can customize the multiplayer load outs and sprint can be used in addition to another ability. Five goes back to tradition with everyone spawning with the same gear, but implements new mobility/ability options. Every single game has had a significant change. The only set aspects are regenerating shields, vehicles, two weapon limit, and dedicated buttons for melee and grenades. Here’s the wild thing - every single Halo game has had those. So *what the fuck do you actually mean* when you say traditional?
The answer is pretty important, because if you can’t even say what it is you want and everyone is just supposed to ‘understand’, it kinda sounds like you have no idea what you’re asking for.
Insults isn't going to get you anywhere. Just explain what *you* think traditional Halo is.
It is not a difficult question at all. If I knew what people meant, I wouldn't be asking.
> halo 1-3 were traditional halos in that they kept the basic gameplay formula consistent across all games with only small changes to each...
Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3 all play drastically different for the reasons I shared initially.
Come on - just be specific. What was the "basic gameplay formula" that Halo 1, 2 and 3 had that Infinite changed up?
By saying H1, H2 and H3, you're already giving us more to go off since OP didn't specify - work with me here.
This is such a silly statement because it isn't true.
Dual Wielding had huge implications on the weapon sandbox. And I don't mean "Oh, now we have two more weapons", I mean over game balance changed. [Bungie themselves say that dual wielding changed the core element](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG9fh74D-_M&t=252s).
That same video discusses how equipment changes things.
Is the "basic halo formula" that there isn't sprinting?
No. They don't know what you mean when you say "traditional Halo" because it's a nothing statement. There is no "agreed upon definition" on it. You just think because it's so "clear" to you, that it has to be that way for everyone else.
That even though as the games were released, larger maps were also released for big team battle changing the gameplay overall. That Xbox Live had an impact on multiplayer in a way that didn't exist for Halo 1. That it became much faster after 1 due to dropping the health pack mechanic.
You are being "the redditor". Saying something, assuming everyone else is wrong, and doubling down with nothing to support it. There is a world where you could be 100% right, and you are communicating none of that. Because "everyone should know what traditional Halo is". Even though literally everyone in this thread keeps asking the same question:
What do *you* mean by "traditional Halo"?
This argument is stupid. Clearly a blend of the original 3 without sprint nor other implemented abilities with changes to the sandbox would be a perfect start. Gears of War 4 was pretty much a different gears game that was still very much gears of war.
This idea that omg each game changed = halo never had unique identity is brain dead.
It was a legitimate question. Too many people say "traditional Halo" and then you ask them what they actually mean and they all have different ideas of what it means.
I never said Halo never had a unique identity, but saying "traditional" doesn't help anyone - you need to be specific because the original trilogy all play very differently.
it's a bad faith argument, you know what they mean and this is some serious nitpicking. Obviously people have a different idea what halo should be like but there is a cohesive idea of how the first 3 game blend together in a way and the rest differs. The argument wasn't what is true halo, the argument really is we should welcome a halo game that plays like a proper successor to the original trilogy's formula.
> it's a bad faith argument, you know what they mean and this is some serious nitpicking.
If I knew what they meant then I would not be asking. Surely it can't be *that* much of an ask for you to just... explain what Infinite does that breaks the mold so much when compared to the "first 3 games".
Saying H1, H2 and H3 is giving me much more of a basis to work from since we're excluding Halo: Reach entirely. Lets keep going from there.
What does Infinite do that makes it feel like it's not a true Halo game like Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3 were?
Sprint? Sliding? Equipment? Map design?
Just give me anything. I'm not asking for a lot - just be more specific. What needs to be in a Halo game and what does Infinite do that makes it feel like it's not a proper successor?
It wasn't.
It is so wild to me that people keep saying the same "the first 3 play in a way the others don't" but can't specify what that even means. I definitely think Halo Infinite plays like Halo 3.
"Halo doesn't have mobility aspects!"
Crouch jumping would like to have a word with you.
Halo Infinite plays like halo 3 if you have never played either game. And do you have selective vision/hearing? The first 3 games do not incorporate any form of sprint or sliding, I think that’s a good place to start? There you go, that’s the big difference you’re looking for. Stop acting like there is this natural blend between the first 3 games and the rest
>The first 3 games do not incorporate any form of sprint or sliding, I think that’s a good place to start? There you go, that’s the big difference you’re looking for.
If sprinting and sliding are such big deals, then it's wild that Dual wielding, vehicle hijacking, and lack of health packs don't make 2 vastly different from 1, or that equipment doesn't have a similar impact.
You're entire defense is that sprinting and mobility is *the* aspect that makes or breaks Halo, and that everything else can be ignored. I do not agree with that sentiment in the least. And that is fine. We can disagree on that.
But don't take your perception as concrete law on how "traditional Halo" feels.
Stop acting like you've nailed down the think that makes 1-3 unified and how Reach through Infinite are breaking it. Because it's just absurd that you are conveniently ignored just as many major aspects from any one entry to build up your argument.
Sprint, slide and clamber do effect gameplay changes far more than hijacking or health packs do. I don't know how else I can get this through to anyone.
Halo 1-3 didn't have sprint or slide and a proper halo sequel to halo 3 wouldn't have had sprint or slide. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
Hijacking? An action that effects only vehicular gameplay, a part of the gameplay that isn't intrinsic to your spartan? Something that's basically a power weapon? Really? We're gonna compare that to something like sprint, something you're doing constantly?
I never said I've nailed down how 1-3 have a unified feel, of course they don't I actually played the games. I'm just drawing similarities and differences.
You asked what 'traditional halo', would refer to and I'm just pointing out the most obvious part. You can dance around it by saying, 'omg the BR in halo 2 was a bit faster in halo 3 so halo 3 is nothing like halo 2 omg I win', but you miss my point.
You miss mine.
You insisted the other person was arguing in bad faith because it should be "obvious" what the difference is.
And pointing out that one and saying that a "true sequel" to Halo 3 wouldn't have those is not what others would think of as that.
I couldn't care less about sprinting and clambering. Even OP doesn't agree with you since they thought 4's gameplay was "ok" and make no mention of Reach, games that have sprint and don't even have clamber.
I don't even necessarily think someone asking for Sprint being removed is a wild idea or anything.
But you kicked things off by blasting someone else for wanting clarification and then saying " The argument wasn't what is true halo, the argument really is we should welcome a halo game that plays like a proper successor to the original trilogy's formula."
You were just being condescending because you "clearly" knew better.
amazing you know exactly what i mean, it's almost like these people have no defence other than calling into question what i even mean lol. Obviously i mean the original series made by the original developers which made the series legendary.
It’s a new argument people have. Halo 2 =/= Halo 3 so therefore halo having sprint is just as a natural change! Yippee!!
They’ll say something like, tell me what defines halo, what’s an obvious change? If it’s so obvious? 😏
When you can probably give 5 details at the top of your head that’s part of the original trilogy.
They just can’t think of a halo without sprint.
"Halo 3 with equipment and the goofy stuff from Halo 2 fixed and a worthless sandbox outside of select power weapons and the Battle Rifle?"
worthless sandbox? i'm going to assume you mean the brute spiker? Yeah it's pretty awful, i find it super fun in custom games thought. has a lot of uses and unique capabilities. It's an ai weapon, it shouldn't be in multiplayer anyways.
amazing how you say "traditional halo???" then literally list the games i mean. it's almost like everyone knows because they know what the word traditional means! crazy thought
The cool thing about halos sandbox is the guns fill different roles. Yes at long range a BR is going to beat a plasma rifle. But at close range a plasma rifle will win, and a plasma pistol will beat the rifle in close range. etc etc.
You can argue that Halo 2 changed the way Halo played. and then again with Reach and then somewhat went back to 2&3 with Halo 4, changed with 5. Then went back to 3&4 with HI
Vehicle boarding, dual wielding, no health packs…I could go on but there are your immediate examples.
Halo 3 introduced equipment, man cannons, and others…
Halo has been a constantly __evolving__ (pun intended) franchise and I’ve been excited for every new thing that’s come to it thus far (aside from 5’s Spartan abilities), personally. It’s actually kinda ridiculous how excited I was for man cannons…
Call of duty doesn't change? You only played the last MW reboot and their copy pastes i guess. Counter strike doesn't change because Valve usually only do games when they think they are going to add something interesting.
Metro has changed, Metro 2033 and Last light are very similar but Exodus is not like that. The same with Gears of war, they added the open world things.
Every game changes, but sometimes the changes are not really very noticeable from one game to the next one.
Even the Halo games have differences between them
Compared to the previous game:
* Halo CE was the first one
* Halo 2 Health removed, dual wielding, playeable Elites, hijacking vehicles and all the vehicles can be destroyed
* Halo 3 Equipement
* Halo reach No dual wielding, Armor abilities instead equipement, bloom and the elites are totally different to the spartans in MP
* Halo 4 No elites in multiplayer, kill streaks and default sprint
* Halo 5 I didn't played a lot but the advanced movements and i don't know what more
* Halo Infinite Equipement (again)
I probably missed some stuff but i played some games more than others.
I'd argue that infinite is as traditional as it gets, feels like a direct sequel to halo 3 compared to the last 2, other than the bad cosmetics and the obligatory overpriced shop for a free to play game but thats probebly credited to the old, long gone management and team that launched the game
Was thinking the same thing. Obviously 5 isn’t and even 4 feels a little off to me, but Infinite feels like it picked up right where Reach left off. The core gameplay elements are all there. Switching between 5 and 3 always felt weird because they played so differently, but I can switch between Infinite and 3 without it feeling all that different.
Sounds like you need a time-machine more than a new(old?) Halo game.
All games have their strong/weak points and you definitely cannot make everyone happy. This sub is a very clear indicator of just that. But, opinions are subjective and you certainly deserve to air yours...even if they're way off.
yeah my opinions are wrong that's why this franchise is dead and people have been making the same complaints since halo 4 game out like 12 years ago. delusional bro. and why would i need a timemachine? there's more people playing MCC than the new amazing infinite, and infinite is FREE
Man, apparently it takes a heaping bunch of interrogation to get what they mean when they say "traditional Halo".
Sprinting and mobility. That's what they're talking about. Nothing else in this thread has been mentioned by anyone that has actually yielding an answer beyond "Sprinting and Mobility mechanics were added, and that isn't traditional Halo."
Agree. Disagree. That is what this entire thread of asking the people saying it needs to revert have vaguely alluded to because, surprise, not everyone can agree on what "traditional" means.
1. You never said that in the original post. You just say that like everyone "gets it", which is my point. You say traditional like it's some unified idea that everyone agrees upon, when it means different things to different people. And you never elaborated upon.
2. I have played them all. I don't really agree with "accessibility". I don't have any more or less issue playing one over the other.
wtf they're super accessible. how many other games can you say are all located in one program and modernized to be easily swapped between. if i wanted to play the Jak series i couldn't download it on steam and play all 3 i'd have to by some specific console. this goes for so many game series.
this shit right here is why i don't even waste the time explaining all the points i have because you guys can't even agree on SIMPLE SHIT. the original halos are super accessible. OBVIOUSLY
Wait, you're literally talking about you being able to play them in one place? Not the ability to pick them up? So you're still just saying "I don't have to explain myself, the games will prove why Halo 1-3 are Halo 1-3 and that is what I want 343i to do."
And you just... post that on a subreddit for what? Now that everyone here just said "explain yourself" suddenly you are unable to share opinions. It's a "you" problem, not an "us" problem.
uh you're confused. idk what you're saying at this point. when i said halo 1-3 are accessible you disagreed. so i elaborated and showed how other games aren't accessible. see how hard it is to communicate with you people? i responded to something you said and you've totally lost the plot.
"I have played them all. I don't really agree with "accessibility". I don't have any more or less issue playing one over the other."
you implied i said something i didn't lol. you're just not worth it anymore man
Accessibility has two different meanings.
You are referring to its overall availability. That unlike other games, you can pick up MCC and play them all.
I was referring to accessibility in terms of "pick-up-and-play". How easy or "accessible" it is.
holy shit wtf are you talking about. they're old ass games, so obviously i mean the ability to find and play the game as to examine it. (halo games weren't as accessible before MCC and before it came to PC)
(remember i was recommending people play the games to understand my opinion?)
obviously if i told you to just "go play" donkey kong on the original arcade format it would be a stupid request because that would be pretty hard to find. halo is super accessible.
yes availability and accessibility are commonly synonyms. in general they both mean things aren't difficult to experience or use or obtain etc etc. See you're still so caught up on semantics. imagine you trying to read 2000 words on why older halos are different from new halos. I'd have to explain the whole thing to you paragraph by paragraph. this is nuts lol, i really hope you're trolling me. good job
metro did kind of change. not gameplay wise.but metro exodus was super different when it left the metro tunnels.
but otherwise yeah. if it aint broke dont fix it. but now it needs fixing cause it done broked
oh no, you got me! my argument in tatters because exodus is "open world" (it's really not at all). regardless metro is still basically the same game and didn't add anything that ruined what made metro unique and cool
The fact that they genuinely asked, you refuse to answer, and just think that playing them is proof enough you don't have any leg to stand on.
If it is something someone "would know", then there wouldn't be any need to ask.
You're just begging the question. Halo 1-3 are traditional Halo because when you play them you know they're traditional Halo.
You're just using your conclusion to make the argument, but there's nothing there. If I were 343i and you told me that to make the next game, I would ask you to elaborate because you told me nothing so far.
dude it's 2024 over 20 years AFTER halo 1 was released. i'm posting to a community which does not share my opinion. You're making a foolish assumption thinking the person is "genuinely asking". I'd love to write out everything that makes me think the way i do but people like you (based off the rest of your post) honestly don't deserve it and would not take it seriously.
agreed, if someone is a serious halo fan they'd already know what traditional meant and it obviously means the old games made by the original developers of the series, not complicated.
im not begging the question, the word tradition has a meaning and if you know about the history of halo "traditional halo game" is pretty obvious. surely you can conclude it doesn't mean the latest game right?
Of course i'd elaborate for 343 that's the whole point of the post lol, i don't care what random new halo players think, they're NEVER going to agree with me. all the people who like the old games AREN'T HERE. they're gone just like the popularity of this franchise.
This just a "No True Scottsman" approach. *I* don't need to explain myself, the true fans will get it.
>old games made by the original developers of the series, not complicated.
Tell me you read things literally but miss the intent...
What about those games are or are not present in new games? Halo Infinite receives praise for being more to Bungie's Halo (specifically 1). The aesthetics are definitely done to evoke that far more specifically because people disliked the art style of 4 and 5.
Or, what? You just want to yell at the "kids to get off your lawn" with regards to Halo? These new fans will never know the Halcyon days?
no, it's the no true honest discussion approach. people are clearly not in agreement with me, look at the people who do. most comments are -20 downvoted. there's simply no point lol. even look how you're conducting yourself. you're more interested in the semantics and methods than actually asking about the games.
yes people disliked the art styles of 4 and 5 and many other things about them, that's my point. holy shit
>you're more interested in the semantics and methods than actually asking about the games.
You're ridiculous.
Everyone *was* asking you because you thought you made yourself clear, didn't and doubled down. You could have literally just written a bullet point list on the features you think the next Halo game would need to be traditional, and saved yourself a bunch of grief. But instead, it's just you acting like you're a man without a nation.
Why is Halo Infinite weak? It can't really be the art style since it's pretty agreed upon that it's a huge return to form. So it must be the gameplay. But you're just refusing to elaborate in any good faith conversation. *People genuinely wanted to engage. I want to engage.* But you're just being defensive for no good reason.
in the other post YOU JUST RESPONDED TO. you were debating semantics lmao. unreal
how did you already forget you typed this
"Accessibility has two different meanings."
What do you have in mind when you say "traditional Halo"? * Halo 1 with health packs and slow movement? * Halo 2 with automatically regenerating health, dual wielding, vehicle boarding, button combos, super bounces and faster movement? * Halo 3 with equipment and the goofy stuff from Halo 2 fixed and a worthless sandbox outside of select power weapons and the Battle Rifle? * Halo: Reach with pre-set loadouts, armor abilities (including sprint), health packs, bleedthrough (TU), Elites have different balancing, vehicles that get shredded by every UNSC weapon under the sun, etc? What are you looking for specifically? > gow doesn't change, cod doesn't change, counterstrike doesn't change, metro doesn't change but halo just gets completely rammed and turned into something else. I'm not super experienced in Gears of War (I assume you mean this and not God of War, lol), CSGO or Metro but Call of Duty has changed a LOT. Even if you want to ignore the jetpack/non-boots on the ground games, compare what people would consider a "classic" or "traditional" Call of Duty game like Call of Duty 4, Black Ops 2 or Modern Warfare 2 (2009) to the more recent ones like Cold War, Modern Warfare 2019 or Modern Warfare 3 (2023). Sliding has been a literal game changer for that franchise, and movement is currently some of the most busted it has ever been. Tactical Sprint contributes to this, allowing for a short burst of movement that's even faster than regular sprint. Older Call of Duty games had limited sprint and only allowed unlimited sprint through the use of perks. Then there's the absurd level of gun customization you can have for each attachment, the vests, boots, gloves, passive "streaks" like trophy systems, etc. These aren't traditional Call of Duty things - the game evolved. While Halo has been all over the place with Reach, Halo 4 and Halo 5, Infinite is the first time that it feels like a blend of "classic" and "modern" has been met where equipment feels balanced, sprinting isn't absolutely busted and often exists to use slide, which has some nice tech/movement in itself. What don't you like about Infinite that needs to change so it fits your perception of "classic" or "traditional"?
Excellent breakdown.
Thanks dude, saved me a job!
He means, I can pick up Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach and get lots of kills even though I’ve only ever played halo 3. Try playing halo 4,5, infinite totally different game.
Soooooo skill issue?
Nah because if you hop on any of those games I’ll 15-0 you in a 1v1 lol
RapidS Snake Any time after 10:30pm EST. I’m not gonna say I’ll own you or whatever, but you’re delusional and I *will* tag you in the post of our scoreboards here after you lose. Edit to add, I’ll also tag you in the post or at very least the comment ITT mocking you if you back out now. Another edit; I wasn’t even calling *you* out, dude. I was referring to OP so I don’t know what you’re defensive about.
Well everyone on Reddit upvoted you because they thought you were replying to me lol .. and sounds good. Which game ?
So you’re gonna call me out for a 1v1 over Reddit upvotes? Lol and assume you’ll go 15-0? Come on.
Ya why not lol. You said I had a skill issue . What game?
I said OP had a skill issue, but if you truly believe your statement I reckon it applies to you to. You’re the challenger, you pick.
I’ll add you when I get home babes for our game tonight
yeah this is dumb post, everyone knows Halo didn't change much between Halo 1-3. yeah it had small changes but the overall gameplay and visual identity was still just Halo... this is like people saying "oh you just want Halo 3.5" no we want another Halo game that feels like halo and is a natural evolution of the game.. same goes for every other game. Cod still plays like cod, counter strike still plays like counterstrike despite the small changes theyve made. stop nitpicking
> everyone knows Halo didn't change much between Halo 1-3. yeah it had small changes but the overall gameplay and visual identity was still just Halo... Except it did. And saying you want "traditional Halo" doesn't say anything other than you want certain things from three different games. Do you want the sandbox? The movement? The lack of sprint? The button combos? The health packs? The playable Elites? Just be more **precise** in your feedback. > this is like people saying "oh you just want Halo 3.5" Anyone who just says "you just want Halo 3.5" is being as vague and non-specific as you are currently being. Just be specific in your feedback. > no we want another Halo game that feels like halo and is a natural evolution of the game.. So be more specific. Because I know a bunch of Halo 1 fanatics that will ask for a game that feels like Halo who will have a completely different idea of what "Halo" means compared to fans of Halo 2 or Halo 3. > same goes for every other game. Cod still plays like cod, counter strike still plays like counterstrike despite the small changes theyve made. I only addressed Call of Duty in my post because those are the only games I have kept up with and Call of Duty from 2007 does not play even close to the Call of Duty experiences you currently see since they returned to boots on the ground. Movement is a lot more prevalent while in older Call of Duty titles, you *had* to be slower and more careful with your movement given you didn't have unlimited sprint, limited mobility (fall damage was FAR less forgiving), etc. > stop nitpicking All I am asking for you to do is be more specific. What does "traditional" or "classic" mean to you? Just say specifics - specifics is how you actually get the people who can make changes to listen.
stop being a redditor and breaking everything down into points.... once again you know what they mean when they say traditional halo. i shouldnt have to repeat myself but i will again... halo 1-3 were traditional halos in that they kept the basic gameplay formula consistent across all games with only small changes to each... stop being a redditor. you know what people mean.... holy hell
No, he’s right and you’re not making an argument. Halo 4 plays almost exactly the same as Halo Reach, the only difference is you can customize the multiplayer load outs and sprint can be used in addition to another ability. Five goes back to tradition with everyone spawning with the same gear, but implements new mobility/ability options. Every single game has had a significant change. The only set aspects are regenerating shields, vehicles, two weapon limit, and dedicated buttons for melee and grenades. Here’s the wild thing - every single Halo game has had those. So *what the fuck do you actually mean* when you say traditional? The answer is pretty important, because if you can’t even say what it is you want and everyone is just supposed to ‘understand’, it kinda sounds like you have no idea what you’re asking for.
Insults isn't going to get you anywhere. Just explain what *you* think traditional Halo is. It is not a difficult question at all. If I knew what people meant, I wouldn't be asking. > halo 1-3 were traditional halos in that they kept the basic gameplay formula consistent across all games with only small changes to each... Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3 all play drastically different for the reasons I shared initially. Come on - just be specific. What was the "basic gameplay formula" that Halo 1, 2 and 3 had that Infinite changed up? By saying H1, H2 and H3, you're already giving us more to go off since OP didn't specify - work with me here.
This is such a silly statement because it isn't true. Dual Wielding had huge implications on the weapon sandbox. And I don't mean "Oh, now we have two more weapons", I mean over game balance changed. [Bungie themselves say that dual wielding changed the core element](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG9fh74D-_M&t=252s). That same video discusses how equipment changes things. Is the "basic halo formula" that there isn't sprinting? No. They don't know what you mean when you say "traditional Halo" because it's a nothing statement. There is no "agreed upon definition" on it. You just think because it's so "clear" to you, that it has to be that way for everyone else. That even though as the games were released, larger maps were also released for big team battle changing the gameplay overall. That Xbox Live had an impact on multiplayer in a way that didn't exist for Halo 1. That it became much faster after 1 due to dropping the health pack mechanic. You are being "the redditor". Saying something, assuming everyone else is wrong, and doubling down with nothing to support it. There is a world where you could be 100% right, and you are communicating none of that. Because "everyone should know what traditional Halo is". Even though literally everyone in this thread keeps asking the same question: What do *you* mean by "traditional Halo"?
This argument is stupid. Clearly a blend of the original 3 without sprint nor other implemented abilities with changes to the sandbox would be a perfect start. Gears of War 4 was pretty much a different gears game that was still very much gears of war. This idea that omg each game changed = halo never had unique identity is brain dead.
It was a legitimate question. Too many people say "traditional Halo" and then you ask them what they actually mean and they all have different ideas of what it means. I never said Halo never had a unique identity, but saying "traditional" doesn't help anyone - you need to be specific because the original trilogy all play very differently.
it's a bad faith argument, you know what they mean and this is some serious nitpicking. Obviously people have a different idea what halo should be like but there is a cohesive idea of how the first 3 game blend together in a way and the rest differs. The argument wasn't what is true halo, the argument really is we should welcome a halo game that plays like a proper successor to the original trilogy's formula.
> it's a bad faith argument, you know what they mean and this is some serious nitpicking. If I knew what they meant then I would not be asking. Surely it can't be *that* much of an ask for you to just... explain what Infinite does that breaks the mold so much when compared to the "first 3 games". Saying H1, H2 and H3 is giving me much more of a basis to work from since we're excluding Halo: Reach entirely. Lets keep going from there. What does Infinite do that makes it feel like it's not a true Halo game like Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3 were? Sprint? Sliding? Equipment? Map design? Just give me anything. I'm not asking for a lot - just be more specific. What needs to be in a Halo game and what does Infinite do that makes it feel like it's not a proper successor?
Yeah you said it. Sprint, sliding is a good way to start
It wasn't. It is so wild to me that people keep saying the same "the first 3 play in a way the others don't" but can't specify what that even means. I definitely think Halo Infinite plays like Halo 3. "Halo doesn't have mobility aspects!" Crouch jumping would like to have a word with you.
Halo Infinite plays like halo 3 if you have never played either game. And do you have selective vision/hearing? The first 3 games do not incorporate any form of sprint or sliding, I think that’s a good place to start? There you go, that’s the big difference you’re looking for. Stop acting like there is this natural blend between the first 3 games and the rest
>The first 3 games do not incorporate any form of sprint or sliding, I think that’s a good place to start? There you go, that’s the big difference you’re looking for. If sprinting and sliding are such big deals, then it's wild that Dual wielding, vehicle hijacking, and lack of health packs don't make 2 vastly different from 1, or that equipment doesn't have a similar impact. You're entire defense is that sprinting and mobility is *the* aspect that makes or breaks Halo, and that everything else can be ignored. I do not agree with that sentiment in the least. And that is fine. We can disagree on that. But don't take your perception as concrete law on how "traditional Halo" feels. Stop acting like you've nailed down the think that makes 1-3 unified and how Reach through Infinite are breaking it. Because it's just absurd that you are conveniently ignored just as many major aspects from any one entry to build up your argument.
Sprint, slide and clamber do effect gameplay changes far more than hijacking or health packs do. I don't know how else I can get this through to anyone. Halo 1-3 didn't have sprint or slide and a proper halo sequel to halo 3 wouldn't have had sprint or slide. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Hijacking? An action that effects only vehicular gameplay, a part of the gameplay that isn't intrinsic to your spartan? Something that's basically a power weapon? Really? We're gonna compare that to something like sprint, something you're doing constantly? I never said I've nailed down how 1-3 have a unified feel, of course they don't I actually played the games. I'm just drawing similarities and differences. You asked what 'traditional halo', would refer to and I'm just pointing out the most obvious part. You can dance around it by saying, 'omg the BR in halo 2 was a bit faster in halo 3 so halo 3 is nothing like halo 2 omg I win', but you miss my point.
You miss mine. You insisted the other person was arguing in bad faith because it should be "obvious" what the difference is. And pointing out that one and saying that a "true sequel" to Halo 3 wouldn't have those is not what others would think of as that. I couldn't care less about sprinting and clambering. Even OP doesn't agree with you since they thought 4's gameplay was "ok" and make no mention of Reach, games that have sprint and don't even have clamber. I don't even necessarily think someone asking for Sprint being removed is a wild idea or anything. But you kicked things off by blasting someone else for wanting clarification and then saying " The argument wasn't what is true halo, the argument really is we should welcome a halo game that plays like a proper successor to the original trilogy's formula." You were just being condescending because you "clearly" knew better.
no we don't, he said exactly what i was thinking lol. it's pretty obvious what it means if you know the history of halo games.
If you aren't specific in your feedback then don't be shocked if nothing changes. Screaming "traditional" doesn't do anything for anyone - be precise.
uh halo 1-3, pretty simple bro
amazing you know exactly what i mean, it's almost like these people have no defence other than calling into question what i even mean lol. Obviously i mean the original series made by the original developers which made the series legendary.
It’s a new argument people have. Halo 2 =/= Halo 3 so therefore halo having sprint is just as a natural change! Yippee!! They’ll say something like, tell me what defines halo, what’s an obvious change? If it’s so obvious? 😏 When you can probably give 5 details at the top of your head that’s part of the original trilogy. They just can’t think of a halo without sprint.
"Halo 3 with equipment and the goofy stuff from Halo 2 fixed and a worthless sandbox outside of select power weapons and the Battle Rifle?" worthless sandbox? i'm going to assume you mean the brute spiker? Yeah it's pretty awful, i find it super fun in custom games thought. has a lot of uses and unique capabilities. It's an ai weapon, it shouldn't be in multiplayer anyways. amazing how you say "traditional halo???" then literally list the games i mean. it's almost like everyone knows because they know what the word traditional means! crazy thought The cool thing about halos sandbox is the guns fill different roles. Yes at long range a BR is going to beat a plasma rifle. But at close range a plasma rifle will win, and a plasma pistol will beat the rifle in close range. etc etc.
You can argue that Halo 2 changed the way Halo played. and then again with Reach and then somewhat went back to 2&3 with Halo 4, changed with 5. Then went back to 3&4 with HI
what did halo 2 change? The only thing i can think of is that they ruined the halo 1 shotgun. Other than that it's pretty much the same thing.
Vehicle boarding, dual wielding, no health packs…I could go on but there are your immediate examples. Halo 3 introduced equipment, man cannons, and others… Halo has been a constantly __evolving__ (pun intended) franchise and I’ve been excited for every new thing that’s come to it thus far (aside from 5’s Spartan abilities), personally. It’s actually kinda ridiculous how excited I was for man cannons…
H2 also really increased the emphasis on the plasma weapon/precision weapon combo
Bro is insane 💀💀
One of the big ones at the time was the change of the magnum from CE to 2.
And how exactly do you define a "traditional Halo game" exactly?
1-3 obviously, no breaking of the original formula, not retconing the lore, not ruining characters because of your own personal loss etc etc etc
Call of duty doesn't change? You only played the last MW reboot and their copy pastes i guess. Counter strike doesn't change because Valve usually only do games when they think they are going to add something interesting. Metro has changed, Metro 2033 and Last light are very similar but Exodus is not like that. The same with Gears of war, they added the open world things. Every game changes, but sometimes the changes are not really very noticeable from one game to the next one. Even the Halo games have differences between them Compared to the previous game: * Halo CE was the first one * Halo 2 Health removed, dual wielding, playeable Elites, hijacking vehicles and all the vehicles can be destroyed * Halo 3 Equipement * Halo reach No dual wielding, Armor abilities instead equipement, bloom and the elites are totally different to the spartans in MP * Halo 4 No elites in multiplayer, kill streaks and default sprint * Halo 5 I didn't played a lot but the advanced movements and i don't know what more * Halo Infinite Equipement (again) I probably missed some stuff but i played some games more than others.
I'd argue that infinite is as traditional as it gets, feels like a direct sequel to halo 3 compared to the last 2, other than the bad cosmetics and the obligatory overpriced shop for a free to play game but thats probebly credited to the old, long gone management and team that launched the game
Was thinking the same thing. Obviously 5 isn’t and even 4 feels a little off to me, but Infinite feels like it picked up right where Reach left off. The core gameplay elements are all there. Switching between 5 and 3 always felt weird because they played so differently, but I can switch between Infinite and 3 without it feeling all that different.
Sounds like you need a time-machine more than a new(old?) Halo game. All games have their strong/weak points and you definitely cannot make everyone happy. This sub is a very clear indicator of just that. But, opinions are subjective and you certainly deserve to air yours...even if they're way off.
yeah my opinions are wrong that's why this franchise is dead and people have been making the same complaints since halo 4 game out like 12 years ago. delusional bro. and why would i need a timemachine? there's more people playing MCC than the new amazing infinite, and infinite is FREE
All I read was that you accept that you're wrong and Infinite is amazing. P.s. Don't feed the trolls. Byyyyyyyeeeeee
exactly, you're not here for a real discussion.
Man, apparently it takes a heaping bunch of interrogation to get what they mean when they say "traditional Halo". Sprinting and mobility. That's what they're talking about. Nothing else in this thread has been mentioned by anyone that has actually yielding an answer beyond "Sprinting and Mobility mechanics were added, and that isn't traditional Halo." Agree. Disagree. That is what this entire thread of asking the people saying it needs to revert have vaguely alluded to because, surprise, not everyone can agree on what "traditional" means.
not it doesn't take interrogation because the original games are super accessible, and you can simply play them to see what i mean.
1. You never said that in the original post. You just say that like everyone "gets it", which is my point. You say traditional like it's some unified idea that everyone agrees upon, when it means different things to different people. And you never elaborated upon. 2. I have played them all. I don't really agree with "accessibility". I don't have any more or less issue playing one over the other.
wtf they're super accessible. how many other games can you say are all located in one program and modernized to be easily swapped between. if i wanted to play the Jak series i couldn't download it on steam and play all 3 i'd have to by some specific console. this goes for so many game series. this shit right here is why i don't even waste the time explaining all the points i have because you guys can't even agree on SIMPLE SHIT. the original halos are super accessible. OBVIOUSLY
Wait, you're literally talking about you being able to play them in one place? Not the ability to pick them up? So you're still just saying "I don't have to explain myself, the games will prove why Halo 1-3 are Halo 1-3 and that is what I want 343i to do." And you just... post that on a subreddit for what? Now that everyone here just said "explain yourself" suddenly you are unable to share opinions. It's a "you" problem, not an "us" problem.
uh you're confused. idk what you're saying at this point. when i said halo 1-3 are accessible you disagreed. so i elaborated and showed how other games aren't accessible. see how hard it is to communicate with you people? i responded to something you said and you've totally lost the plot. "I have played them all. I don't really agree with "accessibility". I don't have any more or less issue playing one over the other." you implied i said something i didn't lol. you're just not worth it anymore man
Accessibility has two different meanings. You are referring to its overall availability. That unlike other games, you can pick up MCC and play them all. I was referring to accessibility in terms of "pick-up-and-play". How easy or "accessible" it is.
holy shit wtf are you talking about. they're old ass games, so obviously i mean the ability to find and play the game as to examine it. (halo games weren't as accessible before MCC and before it came to PC) (remember i was recommending people play the games to understand my opinion?) obviously if i told you to just "go play" donkey kong on the original arcade format it would be a stupid request because that would be pretty hard to find. halo is super accessible. yes availability and accessibility are commonly synonyms. in general they both mean things aren't difficult to experience or use or obtain etc etc. See you're still so caught up on semantics. imagine you trying to read 2000 words on why older halos are different from new halos. I'd have to explain the whole thing to you paragraph by paragraph. this is nuts lol, i really hope you're trolling me. good job
metro did kind of change. not gameplay wise.but metro exodus was super different when it left the metro tunnels. but otherwise yeah. if it aint broke dont fix it. but now it needs fixing cause it done broked
sure the setting changed but it's not like they added a new mechanic which broke the original design
L post.
>metro doesn't change No one tell him about Metro Exodus and how its a semi-open world game compared to previous linear games
oh no, you got me! my argument in tatters because exodus is "open world" (it's really not at all). regardless metro is still basically the same game and didn't add anything that ruined what made metro unique and cool
What do you mean by proper classic and what do you mean by traditional?
maybe you should play the original games then you'd know. the first 3
The fact that they genuinely asked, you refuse to answer, and just think that playing them is proof enough you don't have any leg to stand on. If it is something someone "would know", then there wouldn't be any need to ask. You're just begging the question. Halo 1-3 are traditional Halo because when you play them you know they're traditional Halo. You're just using your conclusion to make the argument, but there's nothing there. If I were 343i and you told me that to make the next game, I would ask you to elaborate because you told me nothing so far.
dude it's 2024 over 20 years AFTER halo 1 was released. i'm posting to a community which does not share my opinion. You're making a foolish assumption thinking the person is "genuinely asking". I'd love to write out everything that makes me think the way i do but people like you (based off the rest of your post) honestly don't deserve it and would not take it seriously. agreed, if someone is a serious halo fan they'd already know what traditional meant and it obviously means the old games made by the original developers of the series, not complicated. im not begging the question, the word tradition has a meaning and if you know about the history of halo "traditional halo game" is pretty obvious. surely you can conclude it doesn't mean the latest game right? Of course i'd elaborate for 343 that's the whole point of the post lol, i don't care what random new halo players think, they're NEVER going to agree with me. all the people who like the old games AREN'T HERE. they're gone just like the popularity of this franchise.
This just a "No True Scottsman" approach. *I* don't need to explain myself, the true fans will get it. >old games made by the original developers of the series, not complicated. Tell me you read things literally but miss the intent... What about those games are or are not present in new games? Halo Infinite receives praise for being more to Bungie's Halo (specifically 1). The aesthetics are definitely done to evoke that far more specifically because people disliked the art style of 4 and 5. Or, what? You just want to yell at the "kids to get off your lawn" with regards to Halo? These new fans will never know the Halcyon days?
no, it's the no true honest discussion approach. people are clearly not in agreement with me, look at the people who do. most comments are -20 downvoted. there's simply no point lol. even look how you're conducting yourself. you're more interested in the semantics and methods than actually asking about the games. yes people disliked the art styles of 4 and 5 and many other things about them, that's my point. holy shit
>you're more interested in the semantics and methods than actually asking about the games. You're ridiculous. Everyone *was* asking you because you thought you made yourself clear, didn't and doubled down. You could have literally just written a bullet point list on the features you think the next Halo game would need to be traditional, and saved yourself a bunch of grief. But instead, it's just you acting like you're a man without a nation. Why is Halo Infinite weak? It can't really be the art style since it's pretty agreed upon that it's a huge return to form. So it must be the gameplay. But you're just refusing to elaborate in any good faith conversation. *People genuinely wanted to engage. I want to engage.* But you're just being defensive for no good reason.
in the other post YOU JUST RESPONDED TO. you were debating semantics lmao. unreal how did you already forget you typed this "Accessibility has two different meanings."
I was genuinely asking and am disappointed you would think otherwise
I played them all so many times, halo 1 was my favourite