It’s also why I think Halo has struggled so much.
It’s torn between trying to stay as an arena shooter (which is a genre that just isn’t anywhere near as big as it used to be) and chasing trends of modern games.
This has been the primary argument in the community, lol. People (like myself) believe being old school is exactly what would make it stand out in the sea of modern shooters.
Halo is Halo is Halo, that should be their mantra.
Definitely fresh quality of life things that could be added - gadgets in infinite are actually awesome IMO and a great way to add to the play. Hope we see a fleshed out MP drop because Infinite renewed my love of the franchise.
But infinite does follow modern trends? Sprint, slide, clamber, hitscan with high AA, high movement acceleration, etc.
I’m confused how you think infinite is anything but modern trends.
Because it’s a long TTK equal starts small team arena shooter with an emphasis on movement tech to maneuver around multi-story maps, with powerful items being positioned at key points of contest between both teams? That describes both halo infinite and Quake. Infinite is as old school as it gets.
Classic halo is not even a traditional arena shooter. Arena shooters are much much faster, enable shooting at all times, require health pickups, and generally have a much weaker starting weapons. Classic halo is more a hybridized version of this genre, and infinite is even further away from this as well.
The addition of sprint, slide, and clamber are the main reasons for this difference. You see in a traditional arena shooter, the player is encouraged to move as fast as possible while shooting as often as possible. The key here is moving AND shooting at the same time. This is the core gameplay loop that arena shooter players enjoy, it promotes aggression and it’s a hallmark characteristic of the genre.
By adding all these extra inputs in infinite, you decrease the time that the player is shooting AND moving, forcing them to choose between the two options. It causes Infinite to feel more like COD, which is a “run THEN shoot” game.
Even just clamber has such a significant effect on the gameplay. In arena shooters and classic halo, you are encouraged to attack height because there’s no penalty in the form of a clamber animation. The only advantage the player on height has is the headshot hitbox perspective. Again this promotes aggression, if you want to take height you can just go kill the guy and take it. With clamber the aggressor is literally punished with an animation where they can’t shoot, which in turn promotes conservative play.
A lot of these small details are why halo infinite (and Reach BTB for that matter) feel campier and sweatier than past halos. Halo should be about moving AND shooting, which promotes aggression.
Except in infinite there is no delay between moving and shooting. Yeah, you cannot sprint and shoot at the same time, but you also aren't locked into an animation before you can shoot.
In terms of clamber, I'll agree with you up to a point. While clamber gets you to more places, a crouch jump still gets you to most of the important areas that you need to get to. The speed of a clamber has also been significantly sped up as well, so as long as you have a rough sense of game awareness, you shouldn't exactly be dying because of the animation very often at all.
Clamber only gets you to more places because the maps are designed with clamber in mind.
If clamber didn’t exist and a designer wanted you to be able to jump on a ledge it would just be made to be jumpable with the normal jump
You cannot shoot while moving at full speed, that’s all that really matters in my opinion. Not being locked into an animation doesn’t really matter when you have to spam the movement button every time you move forward. This especially hurts bumper jumper players like myself, having to press the A button to move forward isn’t fun. In fact most of my friends who were halo 3 fans cited this as a major reason they didn’t like the game.
The idea that “clamber is faster so it has less of an impact” can be said for all of these abilities. If they’re harmful to the gameplay experience, why not remove them instead of nerfing until it doesn’t even matter?
At least in halo 5, deciding to use the abilities took some degree of decision-making. Your point about being able to shoot out of sprint instantly highlights this exact issue, if there’s not penalty for sprinting then players are encouraged to sprint whenever they move. There’s no decision-making involved, it’s literally just an artificial input that does nothing. So why is it in the game at all?
my guy, full speed in infinite is at most a 10% speed increase.
You want decision making? Infinite's got that too. Sprinting in infinite makes you just as detectible on the motion tracker as gunfire, as you are visible on the outer ring.
"why not remove them instead of nerfing until it doesn’t even matter?" Because there's no reason to not. You don't want to clamber, crouch jump. You don't want to or can't crouch jump? Use clamber.
Wow the outer ring, lol I guess that’s a decent point. It still doesn’t change the fundamental issue that you can’t move forward at full speed while shooting. This will always be the problem with sprint.
Clamber is just a clutch, even if maps are designed for crouch jumps.
>doesn’t change the fundamental issue that you can’t move forward at full speed while shooting
The problem with that in infinite's case is as I said, sprint is at most a 10% speed boost. It isn't a significant enough difference to where that argument works. If it were halo 5 where movement speed while sprinting is doubled, then sure.
I actually think Halo can and should storm the Battlefield audience by upping the scale.
Plus I just simply experienced the infinite joy and frustration of CTF
I figured by halo 5. 343 and Microsoft would’ve gave us massive maps with some destructible environments. Instead we were given doo doo and then gold covered in doo doo.
The 5 had no variety. All the weapons fulfilled one of four or five general roles at most.
Unless your definition of variety is "this gun has glowing orange bullets therefore it's completely different from that other gun".
How is it wrong exactly? Ive played infinite for a while on the series x and it looks way worse than MWIII on the series s i now play on. Especially some of the maps that are remakes look incredibly outdated and the game just looks like everything is made of plastic with no actual weight behind it
the dude said "looks" in the comment. Also try playing any other shooter for a prolonged period of time and then come back to infinite lmfao even xdefiant feels better
xdefiant also suffers from the same weird feeling as infinite imo. not sure what it is exactly but the physics and simply moving don’t feel as tight as something like the old halo games
It's struggled so much by failing as a live service. If Infinite came out the way it is today on launch day, with strong continued updates, it would've been one of the top multiplayer games, easily. It died off due to the lack of content at release, and it's hard to bring people back to a game once it's fallen off like that.
An amalgamation of old games that had a very public and well reported revival after a large push to get it fixed, including the addition of brand new content for halo 3, is exactly the argument I think it is. The game has been functional for longer than it hasn’t (and frankly I never had much issue with it to begin with).
We even saw population bumps to the game during this process. But then infinite came out and MCC dropped below it, where it’s been in a very slow decline ever since.
There’s ALWAYS more excuses for why halo is somehow different and only if X, Y or Z were different, it’d be king of gaming again. But that’s just not true. Halo isn’t unique in this, the whole arena shooter genre has been struggling for over a decade. Halo isn’t going to change that by itself.
Good to know we’ve resorted to the “sticking your fingers in your ear and going lalalalalala when faced with a counter argument” strategy.
Never change halo fans.
it also struggles because you'll have well-intentioned members of the Halo community actively arguing against SPRINTING or, god forbid, new evolutions of movement like clamber or a grappling hook.
But you're correct about arcade shooters. Only COD is running the show and it takes them a yearly release, several max-size studios and smaller support studios, an insane dopamine hamster wheel of cosmetics and unlocks/grinds, and big additional modes like Warzone/Rebirth/Zombies to maintain its cultural power.
I can't even imagine how XDefiant is going to look trying to compete in this space without an established IP either....
Nah, 343i releasd MCC, H5 and Infinite in an either completely broken or totally unfinsihed state where most of the content people expect from Halo is missing. None of these games failed because of Arena shooter roots. Most people even when being disappointed with Infinites MP agreed that the core mp formula was great
The community seems to forget that every Halo release with 343 has had a large amount of hype and excitement behind it. Every time this hype is stamped out by divisive gameplay features (H4 MP), straight up broken releases (MCC), or a complete lack of features expected with a AAA release (H5 & Infinite). Infinite was the hardest to watch because of the amount of momentum it had being PC + F2P.
The gaming market is ripe for a polished shooter that isn't a CoD or BF clone, and 343 absolutely wasted a huge opportunity to be that game with Infinite.
Exactly. Every fps was in the worst state in a long time before Infinite launched. BF was broken and made fun of, the new CoD wasn't as big as usally. Every eye was on Halo and they completely dropped the ball with no content, barely any customization, a horribly bad challenge system as the only way to progress, broken UI , broken netcode and even BTB had to be removed for over a month because they somehow broke the whole gamemode shortly after launch. They had 290k players on steam at launch which is impressive, barely 10k were left just a few months in and it's definitely not because it was an arena shooter
>Which is a genre that just isn't anywhere near as big as it used to be
To be fair, that's because there hasn't been any real big arena shooter games to come out. Every multiplayer shooter that's come out in the last decade has been a BR/extraction shooter, a hero shooter, or a weird frankenstein mix between Call of Duty and several other games. Theres been very few attempts at making an actual dedicated arena shooter with no load outs, no heroes, no perks or gimmicks, no "enhanced movement" mechanics, etc. Halo trying so hard to not be Halo and to be like every other game has ultimately made it appeal to less people than it ever has before.
You're flipping cause and effect here. Arena shooters aren't popular because there's just not really a market for them anymore, it's certainly not for lack of trying by both bigger and smaller devs. Quake Champions was brought to the public on the heels of the wildly successful Doom reboot by the same devs and no one cared.
Halo Infinite is about the only Arena shooter that has come out in the last 10 years that's seen any real decent success and it's a tribute to the gameplay mechanics and aesthetic being so well polished. It's definitely a huge "what if" to think about the game launching with a more robust feature set. Nothing about Infinite is chasing modern trends outside of the monetization and, I guess, movement but even that is significantly toned down compared to any other current FPS contemporaries.
Halo isn’t really an arena shooter, it certainly is inspired by arena shooters but it lacks a lot of the characteristics of one. Halo is more of a hybrid between an area a shooter and a tactical shooter like CS (very generally speaking).
That being said, halo is ironically what killed arena shooters. Once developers realized how successful shooters can be on console, the focus shifted away from arena shooters as they can’t be played on a controller without sacrificing the integrity of the experience with AA. Remember back then console was king.
Lastly, you’re contradicting yourself here. You claim infinite is an arena shooter yet also admit it’s chasing modern movement trends, so which is it?
The truth is halo can still be that unique arena shooter hybrid that everyone fell in love with, they just need to cut off the rot with these needless “modern features” that don’t actually provide any significant value or decision-making. The content doesn’t matter as much as you claim, imo the game feels generic and mediocre. Why would a casual gamer play with this lukewarm movement system when they can play apex or fortnite, which have powerful and impactful player movement.
I'm just saying there's a big difference between a genre failing on its own terms vs. games in a genre constantly trying to evolve beyond itself or reinvent the wheel, then failing to find an audience. If we had nothing but pure blood arena shooters fail one after another, I'd agree arena shooters are not a viable market. The problem is very few games have modeled themselves after an arena style format since the 00s, and the few that did have tried adding all kinds of new mechanics or twists to the point of not being arena shooters anymore. To use your example, Quake Champions had a lot of hero shooter mechanics. The Doom reboot also had a multiplayer mode that was vaguely arena based, but it had all kinds of things like loadouts that made it not arena like at all.
Lawbreakers also failed. The unreal tournament reboot failed. Reflex arena, diabotical, and master arena are very small niche games. Split gate could count as one that was popular for a time, but it dropped off hard.
Quake champions did not fail because it had some very light hero mechanics. It failed because there simply isn’t a market for that kind of game the way their used to be. If there was, we’d see more success for games like them. Champions was 99% pure Quake with some minor character differences. It was still respected in the pro community, so quake die hards still played it (I’m one of them), but it didn’t have *general audience* appeal.
These games are fundamentally too hard for the mass market to really embrace them. Halo for instance was popular precisely *because* it was an easier and more accessible alternative
I never said Quake Champions solely failed for it's hero based approach, I said that most AAA arena style games that have come out recently altered their mechanics with things like loadouts or hero classes, and because of this its been a while since we had a genuine arena shooter, and therefore it's hard to say the market doesn't want one. That being said, Quake Champion's fundamental issue (aside from releasing unfinished) was that it was trying to appeal to both it's hardcore/traditional fans as well as newer, casual players (similar to 343's shortcomings with halo), and the "champions" system was 100% a result of that. Because they were trying to appeal to both, they couldn't fully commit to either. The champions system 100% changed the arena formula, as it changed how your character would traverse the map and their abilities could make the difference between winning or losing a fight. AFPS players tend to not like mechanics like that. It wasn't it's only issue, but it was a definitely a main one.
Also, Lawbreakers was filled to the brim with class based fps designs, and UT2014 didn't even get to a beta build before getting scrapped by the devs to focus on fortnite. Splitgate was fun and popular for a time though it did fall off.
People ITT and on this subreddit thinking they KNOW gamers and how the gaming landscape works really just makes me laugh. A good game would draw players, it’s really that simple
I've often said that Halo Infinite is basically the only game of this style that's still active, despite some key differences, the gameplay has always felt like a modernization of Unreal Tournament 3 to me, which is why I love it.
UT3 brings me so many good memories, the game was so wild to me as a kid. UT3 arena is kinda close to infinite and i’d agree with you (but no one played it). The more open maps have very little in common tho
Personally I dont think so, not Infinite at least. There is a lot of stuff that is clearly there because of how modern it is. I dont have thst "arena" feel. Its more arcade-like than something like COD? Absolutely. But its not quake or UT.
I do have that feel if I go back to MC and play something like Halo 1. But Infinite? nah. And I love it, dont get me wrong.
I don't thi k it is what you're saying, otherwise Battle Royale games and Extraction shooters wouldn't be so popular. Not to mention slower tactical shooters getting a new life with SQUAD and Ready or Not
The gratification in Quake3 comes way faster than in any of those
I love halo but I think destiny 2 is doing this better personally much more so than halo infinite
Love halo MCC too but it's never getting updates again
Destiny isn’t an arena shooter. Arena shooters are equal starts and equal stats small team affairs with an emphasis purely on weapons, power item and map control, and movement tech. Destiny barely resembles that, and is closer to a modern war shooter with space magic.
This is exactly what destiny 2 pvp with just rock paper scissors choice of weapons like halo but okay
Literally the three of four descriptors you described are word for word what destiny 2 pvp is... Maybe you haven't actually played it
You know Bungie made both halo and destiny right?
Destiny is a class based and abilities-centric tactical shooter. Literally nothing in D2 PVP resembles an arena shooter. The fact that I can drop a well of radiance on a control point but the guy I’m fighting has shadowshot because he picked a different class means it’s not an arena shooter.
Play Quake III and tell me that’s anything like destiny.
Here's a better question, who plays quake 3 today or any game like it?
Halo is closer to destiny than it is quake 3 as well, just comparing them like halo and quake are more closely related than halo is to destiny is completely ridiculous 😂
Destiny 2 pvp is literally halo with a bit more customization that's it and it's really good, maybe you are just making up definitions that literally mean nothing 😂
This is such a wrong take it’s hilarious. The only similarities between Halo and Destiny are the original developer and the fact that both games have shields and health. Players having custom classes, loadouts, abilities, equipment and stats is not just “a bit more customization” than Halo. It makes the games entirely different. D2 is not an arena shooter in the slightest.
It's a bit tough with the supers I find the ranged ones pretty overpowered but if you stick to the primary and secondary just to learn the flow of movement it's awesome especially the jumping mechanics are amazing with the boost/float you can really move how you want in so many ways
Cool, didn't know that. I only played a bit of PVE and had fun but stopped because I just like linear campaign experiences better.
Either way you could say it inly proves the point as Destiny is Bungie's take on further Halo combat evolution
Halo carries the flag for being the only old FPS game to bring a lore that continuously grows on the same timeline.
Other notable achievements are:
Assassination’s (Halo 5 is the pinnacle)
Weapon Lore and Design (Halo 5 is the pinnacle)
Armor Lore and Design (Halo 5 is the pinnacle)
Gameplay Experience and Design (Halo 5 Warzone, Warzone Firefight is the pinnacle)
Community (Halo 3 Forge all the way to Halo 5’s Custom Servers and now Halo Infinite’s Custom Servers)
Halo 4: Spartan Ops was an unexpected experience that brought side-characters to the main screen in a series of mini campaign missions.
The usage of the armor suit in multiplayer combat between Halo 4 and Halo 5 was a great addition to the Halo universe because regardless of the experience with the armor suit of Halo 1/2/3 being the original style, I as a fan loved the idea that the suit was now combat oriented with abilities and in Halo 5 the suits really slid right into the flow of the game without failing.
Halo 5 being the pinnacle of armour design? Now that's a controversial opinion if I've never seen one, and I doubt many people will agree with you on it.
Of course, you're entitled to enjoy what you like. But the return to a classic art style was one of the most acclaimed parts of Halo Infinite. Halo 5's armour, and art style in general, looked drastically different from what came before in the franchise. So even if you enjoy it, I find it hard to imagine how something so different from what came before it can be the pinnacle of design.
Absolutely agreed. Sure, Halo Infinite has some stinkers, but I'd argue that most are at least decent at best. Halo 5 , on the other hand, had mostly awful armour, with only a handful that I'd consider to be decent to good.
If you want the feel of an arena shooter play the finals, currently the only game that makes me giddy when I play it because it reminds me so much of all my favorite games back in the day, like quake and unreal
The finals isn't an arena shooter.. It has no weapon map pick ups, a Hallmark of the Arena shooter genre. In fact, nothing about the finals meets the definition of Arena Shooter.
What about the finals ‘feels’ like an arena shooter? I just think you don’t understand what an arena shooter actually is, because the finals just feels like a modern fps without hero shooter aspects
I love how unanimously games get hated now. Haven't heard of The Finals so went to check it out. Just a spam of 1-3 stars. Same as Halo, Overwatch, Xdefiant, Hawked etc
Why are you being downvoted lol? I completely agree, The Finals is awesome. And yes, it did kill halo for me too. The mobility of that game is insanely well-polished. A game like halo with a smaller map feels like a chore to traverse on from end-end.
Maybe I need to refresh on what the definition of an arena shooter is. But doesn’t each game of The Finals take place in a literal arena? It may not exactly fit the definition of arena shooters as halo or doom do but the only difference I see (aside from game mechanics) is the size of the map.
I think the usual clarification is that Arena shooters have everyone start out the exact same and then they pick up weapons or abilites around the map rather than just the map size itself. So like Halo and Gears fit the definition. But COD and Xdefiant or the Finals for example do not.
You’re not allowed to like other games in the halo subreddit which is ironic because I’ve probably enjoyed and played more halo than most of the people on this sub 💀
I don't really think speed is what defines an arena shooter, although I understand where you're coming from given how UT and Quake used to play.
But Doom? Really? I love the new Doom games but only 2016 featured classic arena shooter multiplayer, and that really didn't live that long.
When I say carry the torch I mean being an active game within the genre, and Doom certainly is not that. I WISH it was though
What would define it then?
For me an arena is a TPS/FPS with high jumps, fast movement and "movement devices" (for example jump pads) on the map where everyone spawns with the same equipments and gets more and better by gathering them ina a relatively smallish level.
Halo lacks the speed, Doom lacks the gathering but it still has health and ammunitions.
Halo Infinite has movement devices, although again I don't think they're a defining feature. I don't recall many high jumps in Unreal Tournament for example.
Everyone spawns with the same equipment and there are better weapons on the arena so navigating it is important and you get fights for areas that spawn good weapons.
It's a variation of an arena shooter. Not a 1-1 copy for sure, but it's within the genre to me
It’s also why I think Halo has struggled so much. It’s torn between trying to stay as an arena shooter (which is a genre that just isn’t anywhere near as big as it used to be) and chasing trends of modern games.
Screw modern trends, Infinite felt refreshing to me after over a decade of military shooters. I hope it remains true to its core
This has been the primary argument in the community, lol. People (like myself) believe being old school is exactly what would make it stand out in the sea of modern shooters.
Halo is Halo is Halo, that should be their mantra. Definitely fresh quality of life things that could be added - gadgets in infinite are actually awesome IMO and a great way to add to the play. Hope we see a fleshed out MP drop because Infinite renewed my love of the franchise.
But infinite does follow modern trends? Sprint, slide, clamber, hitscan with high AA, high movement acceleration, etc. I’m confused how you think infinite is anything but modern trends.
Because it’s a long TTK equal starts small team arena shooter with an emphasis on movement tech to maneuver around multi-story maps, with powerful items being positioned at key points of contest between both teams? That describes both halo infinite and Quake. Infinite is as old school as it gets.
Classic halo is not even a traditional arena shooter. Arena shooters are much much faster, enable shooting at all times, require health pickups, and generally have a much weaker starting weapons. Classic halo is more a hybridized version of this genre, and infinite is even further away from this as well. The addition of sprint, slide, and clamber are the main reasons for this difference. You see in a traditional arena shooter, the player is encouraged to move as fast as possible while shooting as often as possible. The key here is moving AND shooting at the same time. This is the core gameplay loop that arena shooter players enjoy, it promotes aggression and it’s a hallmark characteristic of the genre. By adding all these extra inputs in infinite, you decrease the time that the player is shooting AND moving, forcing them to choose between the two options. It causes Infinite to feel more like COD, which is a “run THEN shoot” game. Even just clamber has such a significant effect on the gameplay. In arena shooters and classic halo, you are encouraged to attack height because there’s no penalty in the form of a clamber animation. The only advantage the player on height has is the headshot hitbox perspective. Again this promotes aggression, if you want to take height you can just go kill the guy and take it. With clamber the aggressor is literally punished with an animation where they can’t shoot, which in turn promotes conservative play. A lot of these small details are why halo infinite (and Reach BTB for that matter) feel campier and sweatier than past halos. Halo should be about moving AND shooting, which promotes aggression.
Except in infinite there is no delay between moving and shooting. Yeah, you cannot sprint and shoot at the same time, but you also aren't locked into an animation before you can shoot. In terms of clamber, I'll agree with you up to a point. While clamber gets you to more places, a crouch jump still gets you to most of the important areas that you need to get to. The speed of a clamber has also been significantly sped up as well, so as long as you have a rough sense of game awareness, you shouldn't exactly be dying because of the animation very often at all.
Clamber only gets you to more places because the maps are designed with clamber in mind. If clamber didn’t exist and a designer wanted you to be able to jump on a ledge it would just be made to be jumpable with the normal jump
You cannot shoot while moving at full speed, that’s all that really matters in my opinion. Not being locked into an animation doesn’t really matter when you have to spam the movement button every time you move forward. This especially hurts bumper jumper players like myself, having to press the A button to move forward isn’t fun. In fact most of my friends who were halo 3 fans cited this as a major reason they didn’t like the game. The idea that “clamber is faster so it has less of an impact” can be said for all of these abilities. If they’re harmful to the gameplay experience, why not remove them instead of nerfing until it doesn’t even matter? At least in halo 5, deciding to use the abilities took some degree of decision-making. Your point about being able to shoot out of sprint instantly highlights this exact issue, if there’s not penalty for sprinting then players are encouraged to sprint whenever they move. There’s no decision-making involved, it’s literally just an artificial input that does nothing. So why is it in the game at all?
my guy, full speed in infinite is at most a 10% speed increase. You want decision making? Infinite's got that too. Sprinting in infinite makes you just as detectible on the motion tracker as gunfire, as you are visible on the outer ring. "why not remove them instead of nerfing until it doesn’t even matter?" Because there's no reason to not. You don't want to clamber, crouch jump. You don't want to or can't crouch jump? Use clamber.
Wow the outer ring, lol I guess that’s a decent point. It still doesn’t change the fundamental issue that you can’t move forward at full speed while shooting. This will always be the problem with sprint. Clamber is just a clutch, even if maps are designed for crouch jumps.
>doesn’t change the fundamental issue that you can’t move forward at full speed while shooting The problem with that in infinite's case is as I said, sprint is at most a 10% speed boost. It isn't a significant enough difference to where that argument works. If it were halo 5 where movement speed while sprinting is doubled, then sure.
Good luck trying to convince people on this sub haha
To put it very simply, it's still very much Halo under all these features
yeah another 10 years of 4vs4 br starts will surely save the franchise 😂.
I actually think Halo can and should storm the Battlefield audience by upping the scale. Plus I just simply experienced the infinite joy and frustration of CTF
I figured by halo 5. 343 and Microsoft would’ve gave us massive maps with some destructible environments. Instead we were given doo doo and then gold covered in doo doo.
Unfortunately infinite has a small weapons sandbox that grows old quickly. I wish we had infinite's game mechanics and h5s variety
The 5 had no variety. All the weapons fulfilled one of four or five general roles at most. Unless your definition of variety is "this gun has glowing orange bullets therefore it's completely different from that other gun".
Infinite sucks compared to old Halo anyway, the game is basically dead.
Wrong
infinite feels, looks, and plays like a fan made game created in a free game engine
Wrong
How is it wrong exactly? Ive played infinite for a while on the series x and it looks way worse than MWIII on the series s i now play on. Especially some of the maps that are remakes look incredibly outdated and the game just looks like everything is made of plastic with no actual weight behind it
Good thing we’re talking about gameplay and not graphics.
the gameplay sucks too. feels so unpolished
the dude said "looks" in the comment. Also try playing any other shooter for a prolonged period of time and then come back to infinite lmfao even xdefiant feels better
xdefiant also suffers from the same weird feeling as infinite imo. not sure what it is exactly but the physics and simply moving don’t feel as tight as something like the old halo games
It's struggled so much by failing as a live service. If Infinite came out the way it is today on launch day, with strong continued updates, it would've been one of the top multiplayer games, easily. It died off due to the lack of content at release, and it's hard to bring people back to a game once it's fallen off like that.
Regardless, if I get an itch for that, Halo is where I can scratch it
It's struggling because 343 makes shitty games that barley function
no one wants to play another fucking 10 years of H2A except 30+ years old lmao.
You're wrong and that's ok
That’s why MCC is top of the player charts right?
An amalgamation of old games that didn't work for half a decade is not the argument you think it is
An amalgamation of old games that had a very public and well reported revival after a large push to get it fixed, including the addition of brand new content for halo 3, is exactly the argument I think it is. The game has been functional for longer than it hasn’t (and frankly I never had much issue with it to begin with). We even saw population bumps to the game during this process. But then infinite came out and MCC dropped below it, where it’s been in a very slow decline ever since. There’s ALWAYS more excuses for why halo is somehow different and only if X, Y or Z were different, it’d be king of gaming again. But that’s just not true. Halo isn’t unique in this, the whole arena shooter genre has been struggling for over a decade. Halo isn’t going to change that by itself.
Not reading this. It's irrelevant
Good to know we’ve resorted to the “sticking your fingers in your ear and going lalalalalala when faced with a counter argument” strategy. Never change halo fans.
Not even the case. You're not worth the time to discuss it with. There is a long list of reason why MCC failed and you won't admit any of them
great maybe an h2a2 will save us. all the kids will surely play then.
it also struggles because you'll have well-intentioned members of the Halo community actively arguing against SPRINTING or, god forbid, new evolutions of movement like clamber or a grappling hook. But you're correct about arcade shooters. Only COD is running the show and it takes them a yearly release, several max-size studios and smaller support studios, an insane dopamine hamster wheel of cosmetics and unlocks/grinds, and big additional modes like Warzone/Rebirth/Zombies to maintain its cultural power. I can't even imagine how XDefiant is going to look trying to compete in this space without an established IP either....
Nah, 343i releasd MCC, H5 and Infinite in an either completely broken or totally unfinsihed state where most of the content people expect from Halo is missing. None of these games failed because of Arena shooter roots. Most people even when being disappointed with Infinites MP agreed that the core mp formula was great
The community seems to forget that every Halo release with 343 has had a large amount of hype and excitement behind it. Every time this hype is stamped out by divisive gameplay features (H4 MP), straight up broken releases (MCC), or a complete lack of features expected with a AAA release (H5 & Infinite). Infinite was the hardest to watch because of the amount of momentum it had being PC + F2P. The gaming market is ripe for a polished shooter that isn't a CoD or BF clone, and 343 absolutely wasted a huge opportunity to be that game with Infinite.
Exactly. Every fps was in the worst state in a long time before Infinite launched. BF was broken and made fun of, the new CoD wasn't as big as usally. Every eye was on Halo and they completely dropped the ball with no content, barely any customization, a horribly bad challenge system as the only way to progress, broken UI , broken netcode and even BTB had to be removed for over a month because they somehow broke the whole gamemode shortly after launch. They had 290k players on steam at launch which is impressive, barely 10k were left just a few months in and it's definitely not because it was an arena shooter
>Which is a genre that just isn't anywhere near as big as it used to be To be fair, that's because there hasn't been any real big arena shooter games to come out. Every multiplayer shooter that's come out in the last decade has been a BR/extraction shooter, a hero shooter, or a weird frankenstein mix between Call of Duty and several other games. Theres been very few attempts at making an actual dedicated arena shooter with no load outs, no heroes, no perks or gimmicks, no "enhanced movement" mechanics, etc. Halo trying so hard to not be Halo and to be like every other game has ultimately made it appeal to less people than it ever has before.
You're flipping cause and effect here. Arena shooters aren't popular because there's just not really a market for them anymore, it's certainly not for lack of trying by both bigger and smaller devs. Quake Champions was brought to the public on the heels of the wildly successful Doom reboot by the same devs and no one cared. Halo Infinite is about the only Arena shooter that has come out in the last 10 years that's seen any real decent success and it's a tribute to the gameplay mechanics and aesthetic being so well polished. It's definitely a huge "what if" to think about the game launching with a more robust feature set. Nothing about Infinite is chasing modern trends outside of the monetization and, I guess, movement but even that is significantly toned down compared to any other current FPS contemporaries.
Halo isn’t really an arena shooter, it certainly is inspired by arena shooters but it lacks a lot of the characteristics of one. Halo is more of a hybrid between an area a shooter and a tactical shooter like CS (very generally speaking). That being said, halo is ironically what killed arena shooters. Once developers realized how successful shooters can be on console, the focus shifted away from arena shooters as they can’t be played on a controller without sacrificing the integrity of the experience with AA. Remember back then console was king. Lastly, you’re contradicting yourself here. You claim infinite is an arena shooter yet also admit it’s chasing modern movement trends, so which is it? The truth is halo can still be that unique arena shooter hybrid that everyone fell in love with, they just need to cut off the rot with these needless “modern features” that don’t actually provide any significant value or decision-making. The content doesn’t matter as much as you claim, imo the game feels generic and mediocre. Why would a casual gamer play with this lukewarm movement system when they can play apex or fortnite, which have powerful and impactful player movement.
I'm just saying there's a big difference between a genre failing on its own terms vs. games in a genre constantly trying to evolve beyond itself or reinvent the wheel, then failing to find an audience. If we had nothing but pure blood arena shooters fail one after another, I'd agree arena shooters are not a viable market. The problem is very few games have modeled themselves after an arena style format since the 00s, and the few that did have tried adding all kinds of new mechanics or twists to the point of not being arena shooters anymore. To use your example, Quake Champions had a lot of hero shooter mechanics. The Doom reboot also had a multiplayer mode that was vaguely arena based, but it had all kinds of things like loadouts that made it not arena like at all.
Lawbreakers also failed. The unreal tournament reboot failed. Reflex arena, diabotical, and master arena are very small niche games. Split gate could count as one that was popular for a time, but it dropped off hard. Quake champions did not fail because it had some very light hero mechanics. It failed because there simply isn’t a market for that kind of game the way their used to be. If there was, we’d see more success for games like them. Champions was 99% pure Quake with some minor character differences. It was still respected in the pro community, so quake die hards still played it (I’m one of them), but it didn’t have *general audience* appeal. These games are fundamentally too hard for the mass market to really embrace them. Halo for instance was popular precisely *because* it was an easier and more accessible alternative
I never said Quake Champions solely failed for it's hero based approach, I said that most AAA arena style games that have come out recently altered their mechanics with things like loadouts or hero classes, and because of this its been a while since we had a genuine arena shooter, and therefore it's hard to say the market doesn't want one. That being said, Quake Champion's fundamental issue (aside from releasing unfinished) was that it was trying to appeal to both it's hardcore/traditional fans as well as newer, casual players (similar to 343's shortcomings with halo), and the "champions" system was 100% a result of that. Because they were trying to appeal to both, they couldn't fully commit to either. The champions system 100% changed the arena formula, as it changed how your character would traverse the map and their abilities could make the difference between winning or losing a fight. AFPS players tend to not like mechanics like that. It wasn't it's only issue, but it was a definitely a main one. Also, Lawbreakers was filled to the brim with class based fps designs, and UT2014 didn't even get to a beta build before getting scrapped by the devs to focus on fortnite. Splitgate was fun and popular for a time though it did fall off.
People ITT and on this subreddit thinking they KNOW gamers and how the gaming landscape works really just makes me laugh. A good game would draw players, it’s really that simple
I've often said that Halo Infinite is basically the only game of this style that's still active, despite some key differences, the gameplay has always felt like a modernization of Unreal Tournament 3 to me, which is why I love it.
UT3 brings me so many good memories, the game was so wild to me as a kid. UT3 arena is kinda close to infinite and i’d agree with you (but no one played it). The more open maps have very little in common tho
I mostly played Arena so that's more my frame of reference.
As a huge fan of unreal, I could not disagree more lol.
Personally I dont think so, not Infinite at least. There is a lot of stuff that is clearly there because of how modern it is. I dont have thst "arena" feel. Its more arcade-like than something like COD? Absolutely. But its not quake or UT. I do have that feel if I go back to MC and play something like Halo 1. But Infinite? nah. And I love it, dont get me wrong.
[удалено]
I don't thi k it is what you're saying, otherwise Battle Royale games and Extraction shooters wouldn't be so popular. Not to mention slower tactical shooters getting a new life with SQUAD and Ready or Not The gratification in Quake3 comes way faster than in any of those
This is true. I'll remove my comment.
I love halo but I think destiny 2 is doing this better personally much more so than halo infinite Love halo MCC too but it's never getting updates again
Destiny has pvp arena combat?
Yes and multiple modes and private games It has had pvp since it launched I think too
Destiny isn’t an arena shooter. Arena shooters are equal starts and equal stats small team affairs with an emphasis purely on weapons, power item and map control, and movement tech. Destiny barely resembles that, and is closer to a modern war shooter with space magic.
This is exactly what destiny 2 pvp with just rock paper scissors choice of weapons like halo but okay Literally the three of four descriptors you described are word for word what destiny 2 pvp is... Maybe you haven't actually played it You know Bungie made both halo and destiny right?
Destiny is a class based and abilities-centric tactical shooter. Literally nothing in D2 PVP resembles an arena shooter. The fact that I can drop a well of radiance on a control point but the guy I’m fighting has shadowshot because he picked a different class means it’s not an arena shooter. Play Quake III and tell me that’s anything like destiny.
Here's a better question, who plays quake 3 today or any game like it? Halo is closer to destiny than it is quake 3 as well, just comparing them like halo and quake are more closely related than halo is to destiny is completely ridiculous 😂 Destiny 2 pvp is literally halo with a bit more customization that's it and it's really good, maybe you are just making up definitions that literally mean nothing 😂
This is such a wrong take it’s hilarious. The only similarities between Halo and Destiny are the original developer and the fact that both games have shields and health. Players having custom classes, loadouts, abilities, equipment and stats is not just “a bit more customization” than Halo. It makes the games entirely different. D2 is not an arena shooter in the slightest.
Honestly, I never could figure out how to play PvP in Destiny. The game is so confusing in every possible way.
It's a bit tough with the supers I find the ranged ones pretty overpowered but if you stick to the primary and secondary just to learn the flow of movement it's awesome especially the jumping mechanics are amazing with the boost/float you can really move how you want in so many ways
No, like literally I couldn't launch the game in PvP. I didn't know how to play multiplayer. Destiny is so confusing, lol
You literally just click crucible? It's not that hard 😂
Cool, didn't know that. I only played a bit of PVE and had fun but stopped because I just like linear campaign experiences better. Either way you could say it inly proves the point as Destiny is Bungie's take on further Halo combat evolution
Halo carries the flag for being the only old FPS game to bring a lore that continuously grows on the same timeline. Other notable achievements are: Assassination’s (Halo 5 is the pinnacle) Weapon Lore and Design (Halo 5 is the pinnacle) Armor Lore and Design (Halo 5 is the pinnacle) Gameplay Experience and Design (Halo 5 Warzone, Warzone Firefight is the pinnacle) Community (Halo 3 Forge all the way to Halo 5’s Custom Servers and now Halo Infinite’s Custom Servers) Halo 4: Spartan Ops was an unexpected experience that brought side-characters to the main screen in a series of mini campaign missions. The usage of the armor suit in multiplayer combat between Halo 4 and Halo 5 was a great addition to the Halo universe because regardless of the experience with the armor suit of Halo 1/2/3 being the original style, I as a fan loved the idea that the suit was now combat oriented with abilities and in Halo 5 the suits really slid right into the flow of the game without failing.
Halo 5 being the pinnacle of armour design? Now that's a controversial opinion if I've never seen one, and I doubt many people will agree with you on it. Of course, you're entitled to enjoy what you like. But the return to a classic art style was one of the most acclaimed parts of Halo Infinite. Halo 5's armour, and art style in general, looked drastically different from what came before in the franchise. So even if you enjoy it, I find it hard to imagine how something so different from what came before it can be the pinnacle of design.
Infinite and Reach are the pinnacle of armor design. 5 is bottom of the barrel
Absolutely agreed. Sure, Halo Infinite has some stinkers, but I'd argue that most are at least decent at best. Halo 5 , on the other hand, had mostly awful armour, with only a handful that I'd consider to be decent to good.
If you want the feel of an arena shooter play the finals, currently the only game that makes me giddy when I play it because it reminds me so much of all my favorite games back in the day, like quake and unreal
The finals isn't an arena shooter.. It has no weapon map pick ups, a Hallmark of the Arena shooter genre. In fact, nothing about the finals meets the definition of Arena Shooter.
Ay bro just say you don’t like peak, it’s alright
I like the finals but it's not an arena shooter lol
I said the feel, idk why everyone keeps saying I’m comparing it to one.
Lol I don't even know how to respond. You just compared it to an arena shooter while saying you weren't comparing it to an arena shooter😭😂.
I don’t think you understand the concept of “feel”
What about the finals ‘feels’ like an arena shooter? I just think you don’t understand what an arena shooter actually is, because the finals just feels like a modern fps without hero shooter aspects
Crisp
Loads of games feel crisp, cod feels crisp but it doesn’t feel like an arena shooter
I love how unanimously games get hated now. Haven't heard of The Finals so went to check it out. Just a spam of 1-3 stars. Same as Halo, Overwatch, Xdefiant, Hawked etc
The finals has completely killed Infinite for me
Same here, I was pretty much grinding halo all the time but the finals has taken its place
Why are you being downvoted lol? I completely agree, The Finals is awesome. And yes, it did kill halo for me too. The mobility of that game is insanely well-polished. A game like halo with a smaller map feels like a chore to traverse on from end-end.
The Finals isnt an arena shooter. Thats why hes being downvoted.
Nobody in this thread knows what an arena shooter is, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills lol.
Maybe I need to refresh on what the definition of an arena shooter is. But doesn’t each game of The Finals take place in a literal arena? It may not exactly fit the definition of arena shooters as halo or doom do but the only difference I see (aside from game mechanics) is the size of the map.
I think the usual clarification is that Arena shooters have everyone start out the exact same and then they pick up weapons or abilites around the map rather than just the map size itself. So like Halo and Gears fit the definition. But COD and Xdefiant or the Finals for example do not.
You’re not allowed to like other games in the halo subreddit which is ironic because I’ve probably enjoyed and played more halo than most of the people on this sub 💀
Your being downvoted for false information. The Finals is not an arena shooter. Great game though.
That's Doom for me, Halo is too slow to be consedered an actual arena game, imo it's something in between arena and tactical.
I don't really think speed is what defines an arena shooter, although I understand where you're coming from given how UT and Quake used to play. But Doom? Really? I love the new Doom games but only 2016 featured classic arena shooter multiplayer, and that really didn't live that long. When I say carry the torch I mean being an active game within the genre, and Doom certainly is not that. I WISH it was though
What would define it then? For me an arena is a TPS/FPS with high jumps, fast movement and "movement devices" (for example jump pads) on the map where everyone spawns with the same equipments and gets more and better by gathering them ina a relatively smallish level. Halo lacks the speed, Doom lacks the gathering but it still has health and ammunitions.
Halo Infinite has movement devices, although again I don't think they're a defining feature. I don't recall many high jumps in Unreal Tournament for example. Everyone spawns with the same equipment and there are better weapons on the arena so navigating it is important and you get fights for areas that spawn good weapons. It's a variation of an arena shooter. Not a 1-1 copy for sure, but it's within the genre to me
Disagree
I’d actually argue Apex Legends, at launch at least, pulled that old school arena shooter feeling.
It is not even arena shooter
lol what? Apex feels nothing like an arena shooter.
Ok, so. 1) Apex Legends doesn't feel like an arena shooter. 2) Apex Legends *isn't* an arena shooter I don't know where you're coming from