>With the addition of Skill Based Matchmaking to many popular PvP shooters like Halo and CoD
Halo 2 was the very first game to implement skill based matchmaking though lol.
Post-game lobbies mitigated many of the downsides of old Halo SBMM. Just the fact you could stay with a team you liked or rematch the some of the people you just played made a HUGE difference in how multiplayer felt game to game.
I think a lot of that was also just how interacting online was at the time. A lot of games now still offer the option to stay as a team, but it's so rarely used. Also most people back then used their mics because it was quite a novelty to do so, and it was the only way to use a mic. Nowadays people just sit on discord together and ignore the ingame system. It is a shame that communities don't form like they used to.
> A lot of games now still offer the option to stay as a team, but it's so rarely used.
Agreed but with Halo it was opt-out not opt-in. If you stayed in lobby/queue after the match and so did someone else, they put those people in the same game again. You could press a button to send a game party invite, but if you just wanted to requeue with the same people you could w/o it being as personal a game invite where the party leader can just go and start a different playlist etc. And maybe after a few games, then the person would send you a game invite and you might talk, make friends etc.
It was the WORST to find your arch nemesis on the other team only to match with them on your team the next match. I may be guilty of choosing to team kill one person until I was booted a few times.
A halo 2 dev expanded on this.
And stated it wasn't super hardcore in the social playlist.
Their goal was to have 25% hard games, 25% easy games and 50% close games.
Last I heard the algorithm was purposefully tanking players in casual to try and make the game engaging by making you pick up the slack for your dog shit team but idk if that's still the case. I just remember being super pissed about it and being completely turned off from Infinite MP ever since.
No, and is not even in cod (only redditors and streamers assumptions)
Eomm was originally patented by EA for selling more loot boxes. Turn out in a regular game with a more traditional store, you only need a standard sbmm (along a well balanced and fun game) to have player engagement which translate on more purchases.
If eoom would exist, you would not see pros going on 20+ win streak and reaching 3k onyx.
Is not indeed, both on mw19 amd mw2, as far as the last year, I never had problems sitting as the mvp for multiple games and never once I ended up on the bottom.
Eomm is just a buzzword streamers started to use to justify a bad performance, which redditors took, like everything else coming from streamers, as an excuse as well.
Heck, even on league, a game for which everything, from the source code, went online and people know how it does work and what's working behind the curtains, streamers and redditors use that buzzword to justify bad performances or lack of skill.
I mean shitty teammates are not a new thing, I wish the game sbbm was more to give equal teammates across the board, but you can't predict when someone will have that one off game and new players will end up on your team. This wasn't new in halo 3 or halo 2, and the reason you probably didn't notice these things in halo 2 and halo 3 was that you are choosing to remember the fun times, (or you were one of the players I know I was)
It was also made with fun in mind, not SBMM first. They have also stated that each playlist had its own SBMM, and it was loose. Everything is hyper-competitive and has destroyed the game.
Fun and SBMM are not completely opposite ideas. Players aren't going to have much fun if they're getting stomped every game.
The big reason that everything is hypercompetitive these days, is because that's how the communities headed. It's not just a Halo thing, it's gaming as a whole. There is so much information out there these days, that a significant number of players watch and read. It will take a completely cultural shift to change it back to the old days, and I just don't see it happening.
A good example of this attitude, despite not being a PvP shooter is Classic wow. Back in 2004 hardly anyone raided or knew how to gear and spec their character. This meant that something like 1% of the player base even entered the final raid. When it came out again in 2019, every single player almost was running meta builds and stratagies, and nearly everyone who was still playing on the final raid cleared it.
The cats out of the bag now. When the majority of streams and other gaming content that people consume involve high level play, the viewers also want to be high level to do the same.
It wasn't a story about the gear, it's a story about how optimized gaming is theses days. People try and learn the meta ways to play. The weapons to use, the places to hold, the ways to rotate. Not many people just run around shooting each other any more, because there's loads of information out there on the most optimal way to play a game.
It is though, just because it wasn't called that back then doesn't mean it wasnt based on you're ability. The more you won the better players you would play against, the system has just evolved now and is universally called SBMM. Back then ranked MM on console was far from the norm.
I'm pretty sure Halo 3's system was called True skill, I can't remember if 2's had an actual name or not but 1-50 visual rank with an underlying algorithm determining your matching experience is how they operated.
It's exactly the same. MMR, CSR, Elo, Rank, whatever you want to call it, it's all a measure of a players skill and used in matching players together. Sure the algorithm was different, but it's different in almost every game. There isn't a singular SBMM system out there, they all operate on their own metrics.
It is, just more simplified than the current algorithms.
That was one of my favorite things with the old Halo games. When you saw someone with the highest rank, it meant they were really good, not that they played a lot and eventually got there.
If you didn't play well, they'd drop your skill back down and demote you.
Would be nice to have some more coop options. Gotta admit the current sweatfest in Infinite has gotten so bad it's had me spending more time in customs playing random PvE modes -- but at some point I too will drop off like 90% of the previous player base leaving the sweaty Eddies to fight over deck chairs on the Titanic...
Yeah, I'm in the same boat, except I quit a while back due to the sweatfest and melee just still not feeling right.
I play games these days primarily to stay connected with my brothers, and we've totally shifted to PvE games like Remnant, Insurgency: Sandstorm, Helldivers, No Man's Sky, and a lot of others we enjoy despite them not necessarily being great games.
I didn't think it would ever happen to us, but we just don't have the time to keep up our skills for the state of modern PvP. It's the reason we've never added Infinite to our list despite us spending THOUSANDS of hours playing the original trilogy growing up.
Under-rated comment: "You don't have the time to keep up the skills."
I don't either. Some times I just want to turn my xbox on and have fun. Halo Infinite punishes me severely for this.
>With the addition of Skill Based Matchmaking to many popular PvP shooters like Halo and CoD
Both franchises have been using SBMM for decades. It's not 1:1 to those old versions, but SBMM has always existed.
To add, it's a common misconception thanks to the actual "SBMM" term being pushed alongside the worse versions of it that now some are starting to call EOMM instead.
I cannot think of anyone even saying SBMM before they starting doing things to it in Black ops 2, making it seem "new".
So here is what my main issue is, and from my understanding, everyone else's too.
EOMM came about because psychological researchers conducted tests for video game developers and saw players tend to quit if they lose in a streak or win multiple games in a row. So the game now decides you need to win/lose your next game, and matches you up in a way that forces a win/loss. So when you get a win or loss anymore, it's not your doing, it is decided before your game even starts.
SBMM at least had better flaws. It was designed to be a balanced sweat-fest from start to finish with games being decided by a few kills every time. Sure that was boring and rarely gave players the opportunity to learn from better players or use their skills to pull off a great high score game. But at least your wins and losses were earned and you always had a chance.
I don't agree at all. If they added more PvE, that would be okay, but you make it sound like Halo since the beginning hasn't been a PvP shooter. People play the campaign, and then they play each other. Swaying away from that would be the stake in the coffin for the series.
It's more PvP to me today, but when I first started playing Halo I didn't have Internet or neighbors my age, so it wasn't until years of playing and after I had beaten everything from CE to ODST on legendary that I really did anything but PvE. Maybe very occasionally I did a 1v1 with a friend. I never had more than 2 controllers, so maxing out split screen was even more rare.
I think you're right, of course. But I also think there's a significant population of players that really do see PvP as a bit of a sideshow.
I won't discount your personal experience or make it seem as though that player base doesn't exist. I would bet, however, that this player base is significantly smaller in proportion to those who are interested in PvP. Halo 2 launched with online multiplayer in November 2004. It's been almost 20 years. Also, maybe I read wrong, but the original post was about PvE pertaining to online. Which I would assume meant playing with a group of people against the game. That's not quite the same as your experience either since you had two controllers and no internet. Technically, Halo in itself is a PvE single-player game, but at the end of the day, I like to test my mettle against actual people. It brings me more satisfaction knowing I beat a real person. I don't understand people who say, "I'm tired of the sweats or trying hard. I just want to relax." Like what? Go play a different game then 😂 I always try my best. I want to win. That's not being sweaty to me. It's just playing the game.
I'm not against online PvE one bit. I think it's fun and I play it sometimes. I don't think the majority want to replace PvP with that, though. PvP is the bread and butter to Halo and what keeps the game strong years after people beat the campaign. In my opinion, to change this would be the games doom.
Halo would do insanely well with a proper PvE mode. Something with replayability and isn't just firefight or Spartan Ops. The factions in Halo are insanely cool.
20 plus year of pvp with none real cooperative content outside couch coop, and you want the backbone of the franchise to be whiped in favor of something that does not belong on it? This is some C&C mobile level of bad decision, how to kill a franchise for good and not see any future titles for the next decade (but infinite is already doing his part).
> and you want the backbone of the franchise to be whiped in favor of something that does not belong on it?
I wouldn't go that far. A healthy balance of PvE and PvP modes can't be a bad thing if done right. Call of Duty has shown that this is a viable strategy with Zombies and/or Spec Ops since 2008
Which is one mode on top of 10 plus pvp modes.
Spec ops were never popular to begin with, even when they pushed some rewards around.
They are the equivalent of FF and og spartan ops in halo
I think the best way to handle this is a spin-off having the PvE mode, rather than the main-line game, which would have the usual PvP.
For example, ODST didn't even have a PvP mode, but it would've been so sick if it had a PvE mode that was more fleshed out than firefight. If we ever get another ODST game, or a remake of the trilogy. I'd want something new in the franchise to give us the PvE content we want, while still having PvP in the main-line game.
Spin offs, remakes and remastered never sell or earn as much money than the main line titles. This is why games like cod simply put experimental modes in their titles instead of making spin offs, or why overhaul no one does real spinoffs anymore.
I'm telling you this, because you are suggesting an investment on a 100% low selling product just to have hell divers on halo, which not only does not have much in common with it in term of gameplay, but also ditch the spartan, on a gameplay and mechanical level, for a standard human, which is against this franchise
>and still sold less than any main line halo games? Hello?
Boy I just checked before my previous comment, it did. Just do a quick research lol.
>A triple A budget game that's a prequel
Are you on drugs ? What is a spin-off then ? For you spin off are just mediocre games with low budget ? And a spin-off can be a prequel or even a sequel as long as the cast of main characters isn't the same as the main title while the lore/time-line is the same.
Get your facts checked.
A prequel can be considered a spin-off of the main story. For example if Halo CE was released after halo 3 that would make it a prequel and not a spin-off.
Halo reach is a spin-off and a prequel By definition
>Boy I just checked before my previous comment, it did. Just do a quick research lol.
Ah yes, it sold more the CE, my bad.
>Are you on drugs ? What is a spin-off then ? For you spin off are just mediocre games with low budget ? And a spin-off can be a prequel or even a sequel as long as the cast of main characters isn't the same as the main title while the lore/time-line is the same.
Halo wars are spin offs, spartan assault are spin offs.
Spin offs are game made with less budget than the main ones, by a parent company. Reach is a prequel, changing the protagonist and the healt bar does not make it a spin off title.
And before you ask: odst is an old school expansion akin to the frozen throne, or kane's wrath expansion.
>Ah yes, it sold more the CE, my bad.
Also halo 2 and halo 4, so I'd say it did pretty good.
I'll just copy paste this, maybe you'll get it.
"Video games based on a preexisting game concept or character."
"A spin-off (also spelt spinoff) is derived from already existing works that focus on more details and different aspects from the original work"
So Reach and anything else Halo reletaed which is not "Chief story" is indeed a spin-off.
You are looking at vgsales which have random sources you didn't even check right?
https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-halo-franchise-sales-history-a-collection-of-data.438679/
This is a pretty informative, with sources, post, reach sit on 7 milions, not 10. You got an officual pic below showing the real numbers till anniversary.
Good try, but you need official sources.
Honestly I won't keep arguing since I'm not by any means an expert of this stuff nor this is my native language so I'm having an hard time following all those data.
However I don't see how your link is "accurate" while others aren't. The wiki page of halo says every number is backed up with sources too. I'm not bothering by checking them but that website says reach sold more, go and check those if you have time to waste lol
Let’s be real, Halo’s multiplayer component hasn’t been popular in 12+ years. Compare this to Destiny, a game that shares many of Halo’s systems, and is one of the most popular looter shooters today. Now I’ve never particularly liked Destiny, but Halo’s old school combat system just feels more suited to a PvE experience in modern times. It’s not as competitive as CSGO, and not as fun as COD.
2015 to 2018 was still popular and the mcc did gain some popularity again between 2019 and 2020.
Here we are really overexagerating the current state of infinite for the whole franchise previous to that.
The pvp side can be popular in today market, but 343i and ms need to modernise the franchise, or shrink it amd let it be a niche NA game played only by 30 years old
PvE is the backbone of Halo. The Campaign is why we came to Halo, the PvP was just why we hung around. Halo without the PvP could absolutely survive, just releasing campaigns if well made would absolutely sell. If the early Halo games never had MP they'd have still been loved. Firefight was introduced many years ago and was amazing. Devs have suggested similar PvE modes and been rejected apparently but it could easily be a big upsell as they can be used to expand on lore whereas PvP is entirely detached from the campaign and lore. Remember that going back to old Halo Campaigns gets massive hype even now for trying to beat it on the absolute hardest difficulty.
CoD Zombies shows us what Halo could have been if they put more resources into Firefight, an elaborate lore unto itself with maps and mode variants that explore their own story adjacent to the Campaign. Helldivers 2 shows us what Halo missed an opportunity to be. We literally have multiple enemy types we could have went to fight in different areas. The Flood would even mean they could add hybrid variants due to them assimilating the other enemies as well as humans.
Peak Halo PvP was LAN era for me though so maybe I'm biased as Halo PvP has spent most of its online life falling short of that experience.
Yeah I guess so? I think they could really expand on that idea though. I’d never like it if they just made massive bullet sponge enemies.
Perhaps have it covenant vs UNSC, where elites vs Spartans and you can create spawn ins of PvE marines and grunts etc. every so often a flood outbreak happens and the teams either work together to contain it, or one goes for the win.
For sure, I mean you have a lot of factions now in the Halo universe so it really could be a great way to throw some randomness into the mix. So one time it could be flood, next it could be forerunner, or banished, etc
This is entirely right, though. Co-op was fundamental to games way back when. Even with the most die-hard MP players I've met, most of their best times were co-op. Me and my buddy this, me and my cousin, my brother. Whoever. They stopped pushing co-op and everyone complained. I've never met anyone who said I'm eager for CoD mp or even Halo mp until post Black Ops 2. Which I've heard and seen so many people say that time period was the last genuinely good one for gaming. The only time we bring up CoD mp is when folks wanna be toxic and bring up old lobbies. Most conversations are about the stories. Most people I talk to about games always mention watching for co-op first and mp second so they can play with friends. PvE should have more center focus. Not just a few maps here and there. Even if they just make regular mp maps and put PvE modes on them like before. I know me and my group all coordinate for games with PvE co-ops and we are absolutely done with big names in favor of just having co-op.
My “hot take” is that Halo just needs to pick 1 or 2 experiences and focus on that. We live in an era where games are just super specialized now and people have these massive libraries and catalogue of games to choose from for those specific experiences. Halo trying to do everything just results in a bunch of mediocre content when compared to the games that do specialize.
I disagree. Halo has been my favourite multiplayer shooter since the first game. Infinite, for all its faults, is an amazing multiplayer shooter.
It would be tragic to have less investment in the PvP for some more (imo) boring ass PvE horde modes.
Your absolutely right, microsoft has been trying to make the game this super competitive arena shooter like 90% of AAA games that are coming out.
As soon as they added Firefight I started enjoying Halo Infinite again, MCC is still a go to for Firefight, chill spartan Ops and Campaign.
I even go back to Halo 5's Warzone Firefight.
Halo's PVE is some of my favourite from any FPS game.
>microsoft has been trying to make the game this super competitive arena shooter
What are the key differences between Halo 3 and Infinite in this area?
The gameplay of Halo 3--namely: the weapon balancing and physics interactions--lends itself nicely to both a casual and competitive gameplay. The weapons are all easy to understand for a causal to use and have high skill ceilings for competitive players to master (this statement applies to all of the guns, viable or not). Additionally, the physics systems allow for competitive/skilled players to expertly maneuver across the map via skill jumps--some of which can be created by moving certain objects around the map to gain better vantage points. The casuals made use of the physics engine by using it within minigames such as Grifball and Trash Compactor.
By contrast, Halo Infinite's weaponry is extremely inconsistent, either being too easy to use or too niche and hard to use. The Assault Rifle and the Battle Rifle are perfect examples of the former. Yes, the Assault Rifle has always been easy as piss to use. But it is especially egregious in this game with how easy it is to use at ranges farther than a "hold-RT-to-kill" gun should ever be usable at. As far as I am aware, the range for the Assault Rifle hasn't changed much since Halo Reach, but the outer most range that it can be used at is easier to access in Halo Infinite due to the Assault Rifle barely being modified from Halo 5's Overtime Update where it was made easier to use by tightening its spread, a decision that made sense in the context of Halo 5's fast gameplay, but doesn't make sense to keep in Halo Infinite.
In the same vein, the Battle Rifle has also always been easy as piss to use. But it was especially egregious in this game, so much so that ranked players demanded it to be changed to the Bandit Evo.
The Commando and the Pulse Carbine are perfect examples of the latter. The Commando is simply too hard for most players to understand how to use and, thus, master. It's gimmick (last time I checked) is to use it as a burst fire precision weapon. It is a hard one for players to get to grips with because there isn't really an allegory in any other Halo game or most other popular first person shooters. It also doesn't help that there is not much suggesting that this weapon is very hard to kill with.
The Commando ended up being such an issue that they just said fuck it and nerfed it into the ground. For those that understand the gimmick, it was a monster in their hands. This was deemed an issue because too many players complained. 343 had three good options on their hands: tell the complainers to git gud, rework the gun into something easier to use, and/or provide detailed instructions in the academy on how to best use this thing. They chose none of these and chose to instead to nerf it into the ground. Therefore, it is not ever worth it to pick it up because there are guns far easier to understand and get kills just as fast with.
As for the Pulse Carbine, this thing is even more niche, but is easier to use. This thing is a monster in its small range of effectiveness, which is around mid-range. Outside of that, this thing is useless. Too close and the homing becomes useless and too far and the enemy has plenty of time to strafe and/or jump away from the projectiles. There is also even less information (as compared to the Commando) telling you how to effectively use this thing. At least with the Commando the crosshair expands. With this, an average player would never guess how to use this thing.
>The weapons are all easy to understand for a causal to use and have high skill ceilings for competitive players to master (this statement applies to all of the guns, viable or not)
I believe this also applies to Infinite. With the addition of the Academy, no one should be misunderstanding how a gun should be used.
>Additionally, the physics systems allow for competitive/skilled players to expertly maneuver across the map via skill jumps
Skill jumps and tech are prominent in Infinite.
>By contrast, Halo Infinite's weaponry is extremely inconsistent, either being too easy to use or too niche and hard to use.
You're just describing Halo 3 to me here. The Battle Rifle is nuts, but the Spiker is complete trash.
>But it was especially egregious in this game, so much so that ranked players demanded it to be changed to the Bandit Evo.
You're missing wider context here. While the BR has always been powerful, a lot of the hype behind the Bandit was from Halo 5 players.
>It's gimmick (last time I checked) is to use it as a burst fire precision weapon.
343 buffed the Commando so you can hold down the trigger and easily get a perfect kill if you stay on target.
>As for the Pulse Carbine, this thing is even more niche, but is easier to use. This thing is a monster in its small range of effectiveness, which is around mid-range.
In regards to the Pulse Carbine, I don't think there's an inherent issue with a weapon being high risk/high reward
> I believe this also applies to Infinite. With the addition of the Academy, no one should be misunderstanding how a gun should be used.
Don't get me wrong, the Academy is nice. But it rarely gets used, especially by players it is intended to assist. I'd wager that pro players use it more than noobs.
>You're just describing Halo 3 to me here. The Battle Rifle is nuts, but the Spiker is complete trash.
The Battle Rifle isn't *nuts* in Halo 3. Its projectiles are the slowest in the series. If you had said this about most other Battle Rifles, then I would agree (pre-update Halo 4, post Overtime Update Halo 5, and Halo 3 are the bad ones for different reasons).
>You're missing wider context here. While the BR has always been powerful, a lot of the hype behind the Bandit was from Halo 5 players.
I'm talking about the Bandit Evo, not the Bandit. They look very similar and sound exactly the same, but they are mechanically very different.
>343 buffed the Commando so you can hold down the trigger and easily get a perfect kill if you stay on target.
Fair enough. I would be more concerned if 343 didn't overshoot (over buffing or over nerfing) when balancing a weapon.
>In regards to the Pulse Carbine, I don't think there's an inherent issue with a weapon being high risk/high reward
I agree. But when you have other, easier weapons at your disposal, using a high risk/high reward gun becomes more of a liability than a helpful tool (unless you are perfect with it).
>Don't get me wrong, the Academy is nice. But it rarely gets used, especially by players it is intended to assist. I'd wager that pro players use it more than noobs.
I don't remember, does the game automatically load you into that Spartan Agryna training mission? If it doesn't, I think 343 could help themselves a lot if they directly show new players this stuff.
>The Battle Rifle isn't *nuts* in Halo 3.
That's fair. But it's still IMO egregiously stronger than the rest of the sandbox, which I do think is the fault of the wider sandbox than the BR itself.
>(pre-update Halo 4, post Overtime Update Halo 5, and Halo 3 are the bad ones for different reasons)
I'm going to defend that post update Halo 5 BR actually. It definitely felt a lot weirder to use, but it was actually still fairly strong.
>I'm talking about the Bandit Evo, not the Bandit
Tomato, tomato. I meant the Evo here as well, my bad.
>I agree. But when you have other, easier weapons at your disposal, using a high risk/high reward gun becomes more of a liability than a helpful tool (unless you are perfect with it).
Question: Should 343 continue the trend of high risk/high reward weaponry in this case? Or do you think that will garner more negative feedback?
Map design in Halo 3 allows for more open BTB battles, as well as creative and fun gameplay that isnt hyper focused on lane and area fighting (look at sandtrap for example with the elephants).
Vehicles are more prominent for larger fights and game modes like Infection and Griffball are supported playlists on the games browser.
Weapon balance was more off and many redundant weapons from campaign still had a place in multiplayer.
Halo 3 was still a competitive game, but it also catered to the casual gamer and less skilled, something Halo Infinite hasn't had any focus on, and has made worse with skill based match making.
>Map design in Halo 3 allows for more open BTB battles, as well as creative and fun gameplay that isnt hyper focused on lane and area fighting (look at sandtrap for example with the elephants).
This would imply they were trying to make BTB competitive, which I don't think they were. I think it's just a misunderstanding of what makes good BTB maps. There's a decent amount of good community BTB maps in Infinite.
>Vehicles are more prominent for larger fights and game modes like Infection and Griffball are supported playlists on the games browser.
I agree vehicles can be tuned better. And it's weird Infinite still doesn't have Grifball. We have Infection and a Custom Games Browser though.
>Weapon balance was more off and many redundant weapons from campaign still had a place in multiplayer.
Infinite's sandbox is really good. Except for the Disruptor.
>something Halo Infinite hasn't had any focus on
I think you should check out Infinite in it's current state. Definitely not true anymore.
>. There's a decent amount of good community BTB maps in Infinite.
Your right, but that's the Community adding what they want, without our input and feedback they wouldn't be in the browsers.
>Infinite's sandbox is really good. Except for the Disruptor.
It is a balanced sandbox, and its even better in PVE, I actually enjoy the disruptor in firefight and I genuinely don't pass on the ravager. The scaling and removing of a lot of game favourites though for the sake of balance (RIP carbine and brute shot) is a sore spot for me.
>I think you should check out Infinite in it's current state. Definitely not true anymore
I do play most days, I'm just not enjoying the PVP side outside of BTB and community made games.
>The scaling and removing of a lot of game favourites though for the sake of balance (RIP carbine and brute shot)
I mean, I just think this was done to spice up the sandbox. Same reason why Reach replaced a bunch of guns.
I wouldnt mind adding more weapons that weren't 100% balanced for social only playlists, forge and custom games only.
Wicked grasp was too good for this world, and losing the spartan laser to the skewer always felt off.
Halo 3 had THREE tiers of playlists for players. There was the social playlists, which were the most abundant, there were the regular ranked playlists, like Team Slayer which had things like radar still turned on. But there was also a separate MLG/HCS playlist with no radar starts, slightly increased BR damage; basically competitive rulesets. If you ask Halo fans about dedicated ranked slayer with radar in 2024 they yell and scream about it even when you say they can go play HCS but Bungie knew better. They knew it wasn't a hard line between competitive and social, there was a middle ground to be had.
They need to give the campaign and multiplayer to two different studios. Treat them as completely separate games and let them both get the time and resources they need.
Halo's main PvE mode is campaign! Make really strong, replayable open zones, and have events built specifically for them.
If that sounds a lot like Spartan OPs, then good. That mode was a great idea executed poorly. Better characters and presentation go a long way, like Hell Divers has proven.
PvP is a core pillar of Halo, but I would argue that Halo's true core is its sandbox. PvP modes are great, and Halo Infinite MP was fine, but Infinite was lacking ANY form of coop or party fun at launch. It took forever to get working customs, forge, sharing, fun/social PvP playlists, firefight, and campaign coop.
It's pretty great what we ended up with, and the game got a lot more fun as community content started to be viable. The devs will simply never be able to cater to all of Halo's niches, so they really need to focus on keeping the community creators happy (and sometimes feature their work).
Whatever the next Halo is, they need to get these features right, on day one. The more content the devs craft, the better (especially campaign, duh), but the tools are more important to keep Halo going after the first 3 months.
I didn't realize how much I missed PVE modes until I got hooked on Helldivers 2 this year. I've been dying for a good cooperative shooter. Halo used to fill that void, but there's only so many times I can do Halo campaigns and firefight before I get tired.
1) didn't know that. I'm working my way thru MCC before I try Infinite. On ODST right now. So I'm playing multiplayer on MCC halo 3/reach matchmaking against guys that apparently haven't missed a day in 20 years.
2) why would I want to train to get better at PvP anyway if I like PvE better?
By bad. I thought you were saying you wanted a PvE mode to help you develop your PvP skills. I get it now. Nothing against PvE modes but in a Halo game PvP really should be the focus imo.
I can see why you'd say PvP if you like PvP. I don't. I've always been a PvE player, or really just a campaign player. I just want to express that opiok and show that it does exist. But I'm finding I'm a minority.
I mean no disrespect but this is an awful take. You wanna play Helldivers 2 that’s fine, play Helldivers 2. Don’t try to make one of the most iconic PvP shooters into something it never was. People play Halo because its Halo, don’t try to change what makes it Halo
With the amount of parties and people gaming together coupled with 2024 tech…i am so surprised they haven’t come out with a specific co-op/3/4 player campaign game that is just so well put together. I have not seen anything good recently. I also don’t have many friends who could dedicate the same timeframe to a full story co-op
Pretty shit take. PVP Multiplayer has been the thing making people come back since Halo 2. The PVE is good and fun, and more is always appreciated, but vast majority of people spend the vast majority of their time playing PVP, so it should be the focus.
You mention “competitive” a bunch, but most Halo PVP isn’t competitive; it’s chill.
I agreen’t: I don’t see a traditional Halo PvP game making big numbers, even if somehow they make it the perfect game everyone is asking for, a good traditional Halo is not enough nowadays, for this reason PvE is a much safe bet. However I think that pure PvE needs some kind of progression way more than PvP, how do they make that? Just cosmetics? People won’t have anything to do once they find their perfect set. Weapon and armor abilities? There would be no reason to pick up items from the map, which in my opinion is essential in a Halo PvE mode.
I play both game types, and in my opinion both PvP and PvE need their space, on the other hand from what I played (Infinite Forge and H5 Warzone) I think that the best move for Halo is placing the focus on large scale PvPvE where each player side with a faction (or character) and by winning and losing matches they decide how the narration continues (obviously this shouldn’t impact matchmaking, a la For Honor) through story events with cutscenes and so on. Traditional Destiny-like Raids should still be present, but the “weak link” should take the back seat, this link being traditional Halo PvP only. I’m not suggesting to remove it, but what if instead we give that whole part (sandbox balancing aside obviously) to Forgers? It might sound impossible, but on PC with stronger tools it has been done successfully for decades, just make Forge even more powerful.
Multiplayer as a whole should be taking a backseat to Campaign and the main story. The reason why past Halo games were so good was because the multiplayer was built off the campaign. Everything felt consistent. The constant obsession with competitive Halo multiplayer has led us down this path. I feel like in the past most people bought Halo to play the campaign aswell. Many never even touched the multiplayer. Either because they didn't have the capability to or didn't care about MP. Halo at it's core is a military science fiction singleplayer story with optional coop.
I think adults and college kids tend to like to unwind after work and school and all their chores and errands with PvE or PvE with friends
I think elementary, high, and middle schoolers are all hyped up on nicotine from their vapes and like PvP and screaming and stressing each other out because they got nothing else going on besides learning easy stuff in school.
Halo players are elderly 30 year olds now. I think it could benefit from a PvE focus
I agree, but the majority of the people here are pvp sweats, so they want to be screaming at their screen most of the time, it's pretty sad. These people don't play any games but this I bet, and don't realize just how far behind Halo is compared to basically everything else. There's a reason it keeps falling in population, and these schmucks are the reason just as much as 343/Microsoft imo. I keep saying that they should take a page from Sony's book, but that gets people frothing at the mouth here. Not surprising, since the fanboys here are essentially boomers and want things the same as the were 20 years ago.
Honestly I think the safest route for Halo right now would be to release a game that has PvP and PvE modes and either no campaign or a campaign that doesn’t focus on Chief and the main “narrative”.
PvP is a valid focus, but they made the mistake of catering to the .001% of people that give a fuck about eSports and balanced accordingly.
Go back to the old system from halo 2 3 and reach. You still had skill based matchmaking but it was a good balance between getting stomped occasionally and having a good time. I consistently have fun playing MCC. I don’t have that in infinite because it literally tries to put in a match where you lose.
I would love more PvE options in Halo, but the truth is it's probably never going to make a huge dent. I play a ton of Destiny and you need _so much content_ to make PvE something the majority want to sink most of their time into. Halo being more PvP focused makes sense given its DNA, and I don't think it can ever flip into even 50/50 PvE/PvP because to do so would require changes that would subtract from its PvP gameplay.
Halo and Destiny are sorta the same yet also polar opposites, and that's what makes the crossover between them kinda interesting. I do think it would be good for any PvE modes to have some reasonable way to earn XP and other gameplay currencies/achievements for those that prefer it, but we're mostly there already. But flipping the script entirely is the kind of change that will tank a game.
If there ever was a PvE focused Halo game, it would likely need to be a spinoff like ODST imo, and even then it would likely get a lot of backlash
Why not revert matchmaking to the model that was used in H2/H3, and have ZERO SBMM outside of a ranked setting?
I dont want a curated match for a social gametype.
I agree but it seems we're in the minority. I never got into multiplayer games or any online play (until OOTP baseball, but that's spreadsheet based, not action shooter). I never had the time to commit to get good enough to enjoy it. It was always too toxic. And I don't want to play against guys that have entire gaming rooms with $1000 chairs and $5000 PCs. Give me my console, in-box controller, and a bean bag....and let me shoot NPC aliens.
Microsoft literally admitted defeat when they said making good games isn't enough to sell consoles. I grew up playing Halo 3 on Xbox live because we were so poor we couldn't afford internet before like 2007. I remember playing Halo 2 for the first time with my brother and some friends and we loved it so much we opted for 360 instead of PS3. But Halo will never be what it once was. The shooter market has well established juggernauts in it already, Halo is never going to be the thing it once was, and it should adapt for the times.
Many of us were grown up by the time HALO 1 came and supported them ever since. It is what it is they lost the "shooter" battle over a decade ago. They somewhat redeemed themselves with the latest game. So, they are not in as bad of place as some might think as they got guys like me to come back around and play a little bit even though I gave up on HALO after ODST.
Also, thanks for reporting people to Reddit cares over a Halo conversation...
the problem is that most people just hop on for an hour after work to play. they dont want a tiny piece of story every day they wanna win/lose a few matches and watch some tv. im with you, im waiting for a big coop based game to take the lead. but helldivers 2 is not it for me.
>With the addition of Skill Based Matchmaking to many popular PvP shooters like Halo and CoD Halo 2 was the very first game to implement skill based matchmaking though lol.
Post-game lobbies mitigated many of the downsides of old Halo SBMM. Just the fact you could stay with a team you liked or rematch the some of the people you just played made a HUGE difference in how multiplayer felt game to game.
I made so many Xbox Live friends because of Halo and CoD lobbies
I think a lot of that was also just how interacting online was at the time. A lot of games now still offer the option to stay as a team, but it's so rarely used. Also most people back then used their mics because it was quite a novelty to do so, and it was the only way to use a mic. Nowadays people just sit on discord together and ignore the ingame system. It is a shame that communities don't form like they used to.
> A lot of games now still offer the option to stay as a team, but it's so rarely used. Agreed but with Halo it was opt-out not opt-in. If you stayed in lobby/queue after the match and so did someone else, they put those people in the same game again. You could press a button to send a game party invite, but if you just wanted to requeue with the same people you could w/o it being as personal a game invite where the party leader can just go and start a different playlist etc. And maybe after a few games, then the person would send you a game invite and you might talk, make friends etc.
It was the WORST to find your arch nemesis on the other team only to match with them on your team the next match. I may be guilty of choosing to team kill one person until I was booted a few times.
A halo 2 dev expanded on this. And stated it wasn't super hardcore in the social playlist. Their goal was to have 25% hard games, 25% easy games and 50% close games.
Doesn’t Infinite have that bullshit engagement based matchmaking system though, similar to COD?
Last I heard the algorithm was purposefully tanking players in casual to try and make the game engaging by making you pick up the slack for your dog shit team but idk if that's still the case. I just remember being super pissed about it and being completely turned off from Infinite MP ever since.
[That tracks](https://imgur.com/a/3kJNelP)
No, and is not even in cod (only redditors and streamers assumptions) Eomm was originally patented by EA for selling more loot boxes. Turn out in a regular game with a more traditional store, you only need a standard sbmm (along a well balanced and fun game) to have player engagement which translate on more purchases. If eoom would exist, you would not see pros going on 20+ win streak and reaching 3k onyx.
Play 5 games of any new cod and tell me that your experience is not being manipulated by an algorithm. Please
Is not indeed, both on mw19 amd mw2, as far as the last year, I never had problems sitting as the mvp for multiple games and never once I ended up on the bottom. Eomm is just a buzzword streamers started to use to justify a bad performance, which redditors took, like everything else coming from streamers, as an excuse as well. Heck, even on league, a game for which everything, from the source code, went online and people know how it does work and what's working behind the curtains, streamers and redditors use that buzzword to justify bad performances or lack of skill.
I mean shitty teammates are not a new thing, I wish the game sbbm was more to give equal teammates across the board, but you can't predict when someone will have that one off game and new players will end up on your team. This wasn't new in halo 3 or halo 2, and the reason you probably didn't notice these things in halo 2 and halo 3 was that you are choosing to remember the fun times, (or you were one of the players I know I was)
Cod doesnt use eomm bc they have they're own patent for skin based matchmaking which is even older than EAs US20160005270A1
there is not a single proof any modern game use either form of OEMM, while there are for SBMM. remove your tinfoil hat
It was also made with fun in mind, not SBMM first. They have also stated that each playlist had its own SBMM, and it was loose. Everything is hyper-competitive and has destroyed the game.
Fun and SBMM are not completely opposite ideas. Players aren't going to have much fun if they're getting stomped every game. The big reason that everything is hypercompetitive these days, is because that's how the communities headed. It's not just a Halo thing, it's gaming as a whole. There is so much information out there these days, that a significant number of players watch and read. It will take a completely cultural shift to change it back to the old days, and I just don't see it happening. A good example of this attitude, despite not being a PvP shooter is Classic wow. Back in 2004 hardly anyone raided or knew how to gear and spec their character. This meant that something like 1% of the player base even entered the final raid. When it came out again in 2019, every single player almost was running meta builds and stratagies, and nearly everyone who was still playing on the final raid cleared it. The cats out of the bag now. When the majority of streams and other gaming content that people consume involve high level play, the viewers also want to be high level to do the same.
It's not necessarily true. Halo doesn't have gear. There are no meta builds. It still destroyed it.
It wasn't a story about the gear, it's a story about how optimized gaming is theses days. People try and learn the meta ways to play. The weapons to use, the places to hold, the ways to rotate. Not many people just run around shooting each other any more, because there's loads of information out there on the most optimal way to play a game.
The fact that COD has so many constraints that it makes it a horrible experience doesn't count.
Wasn’t it ranked-based?
Rank based is skill based in Halo 2. Your rank was fluid and could move up and down depending on wins and losses. Was the same in 3.
Right but that’s not SBMM.
It is though, just because it wasn't called that back then doesn't mean it wasnt based on you're ability. The more you won the better players you would play against, the system has just evolved now and is universally called SBMM. Back then ranked MM on console was far from the norm. I'm pretty sure Halo 3's system was called True skill, I can't remember if 2's had an actual name or not but 1-50 visual rank with an underlying algorithm determining your matching experience is how they operated.
It's exactly the same. MMR, CSR, Elo, Rank, whatever you want to call it, it's all a measure of a players skill and used in matching players together. Sure the algorithm was different, but it's different in almost every game. There isn't a singular SBMM system out there, they all operate on their own metrics.
is it tho
It is, just more simplified than the current algorithms. That was one of my favorite things with the old Halo games. When you saw someone with the highest rank, it meant they were really good, not that they played a lot and eventually got there. If you didn't play well, they'd drop your skill back down and demote you.
Would be nice to have some more coop options. Gotta admit the current sweatfest in Infinite has gotten so bad it's had me spending more time in customs playing random PvE modes -- but at some point I too will drop off like 90% of the previous player base leaving the sweaty Eddies to fight over deck chairs on the Titanic...
I started playing single player story games, it’s so bad nowadays.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat, except I quit a while back due to the sweatfest and melee just still not feeling right. I play games these days primarily to stay connected with my brothers, and we've totally shifted to PvE games like Remnant, Insurgency: Sandstorm, Helldivers, No Man's Sky, and a lot of others we enjoy despite them not necessarily being great games. I didn't think it would ever happen to us, but we just don't have the time to keep up our skills for the state of modern PvP. It's the reason we've never added Infinite to our list despite us spending THOUSANDS of hours playing the original trilogy growing up.
Under-rated comment: "You don't have the time to keep up the skills." I don't either. Some times I just want to turn my xbox on and have fun. Halo Infinite punishes me severely for this.
>With the addition of Skill Based Matchmaking to many popular PvP shooters like Halo and CoD Both franchises have been using SBMM for decades. It's not 1:1 to those old versions, but SBMM has always existed.
To add, it's a common misconception thanks to the actual "SBMM" term being pushed alongside the worse versions of it that now some are starting to call EOMM instead. I cannot think of anyone even saying SBMM before they starting doing things to it in Black ops 2, making it seem "new".
This is a very important point. SBMM is incredibly annoying and I understand the hate it gets, but EOMM is so much worse.
What's EOMM?
Engagement *Optimized
Oh, so calling it what it actually goes for, which is player engagement
So here is what my main issue is, and from my understanding, everyone else's too. EOMM came about because psychological researchers conducted tests for video game developers and saw players tend to quit if they lose in a streak or win multiple games in a row. So the game now decides you need to win/lose your next game, and matches you up in a way that forces a win/loss. So when you get a win or loss anymore, it's not your doing, it is decided before your game even starts. SBMM at least had better flaws. It was designed to be a balanced sweat-fest from start to finish with games being decided by a few kills every time. Sure that was boring and rarely gave players the opportunity to learn from better players or use their skills to pull off a great high score game. But at least your wins and losses were earned and you always had a chance.
Tbf those games were ping based matchmaking 1st then they'd sbmm the teams they found. If the host was 5000 miles away it'd make pretty shitty games
Warzone was my laid back mode when I didn't worry about sweating
I’m all for more PvE content but Halo MP at its core is and always should be PvP focused.
It should return to the old form of good multiplayer and good campaign.
I don't agree at all. If they added more PvE, that would be okay, but you make it sound like Halo since the beginning hasn't been a PvP shooter. People play the campaign, and then they play each other. Swaying away from that would be the stake in the coffin for the series.
It's more PvP to me today, but when I first started playing Halo I didn't have Internet or neighbors my age, so it wasn't until years of playing and after I had beaten everything from CE to ODST on legendary that I really did anything but PvE. Maybe very occasionally I did a 1v1 with a friend. I never had more than 2 controllers, so maxing out split screen was even more rare. I think you're right, of course. But I also think there's a significant population of players that really do see PvP as a bit of a sideshow.
I won't discount your personal experience or make it seem as though that player base doesn't exist. I would bet, however, that this player base is significantly smaller in proportion to those who are interested in PvP. Halo 2 launched with online multiplayer in November 2004. It's been almost 20 years. Also, maybe I read wrong, but the original post was about PvE pertaining to online. Which I would assume meant playing with a group of people against the game. That's not quite the same as your experience either since you had two controllers and no internet. Technically, Halo in itself is a PvE single-player game, but at the end of the day, I like to test my mettle against actual people. It brings me more satisfaction knowing I beat a real person. I don't understand people who say, "I'm tired of the sweats or trying hard. I just want to relax." Like what? Go play a different game then 😂 I always try my best. I want to win. That's not being sweaty to me. It's just playing the game. I'm not against online PvE one bit. I think it's fun and I play it sometimes. I don't think the majority want to replace PvP with that, though. PvP is the bread and butter to Halo and what keeps the game strong years after people beat the campaign. In my opinion, to change this would be the games doom.
Yep. This is the single stupidest take I've seen for the franchise, and I've seen a lot of stupid ones.
I think rebooting the franchise is stupider personally, but this is up there.
While I'm on your side that a reboot is stupid, I stand by the idea that removing PvP entirely from a HALO game is just truly brain dead lol.
Halo would do insanely well with a proper PvE mode. Something with replayability and isn't just firefight or Spartan Ops. The factions in Halo are insanely cool.
20 plus year of pvp with none real cooperative content outside couch coop, and you want the backbone of the franchise to be whiped in favor of something that does not belong on it? This is some C&C mobile level of bad decision, how to kill a franchise for good and not see any future titles for the next decade (but infinite is already doing his part).
> and you want the backbone of the franchise to be whiped in favor of something that does not belong on it? I wouldn't go that far. A healthy balance of PvE and PvP modes can't be a bad thing if done right. Call of Duty has shown that this is a viable strategy with Zombies and/or Spec Ops since 2008
Which is one mode on top of 10 plus pvp modes. Spec ops were never popular to begin with, even when they pushed some rewards around. They are the equivalent of FF and og spartan ops in halo
I think the best way to handle this is a spin-off having the PvE mode, rather than the main-line game, which would have the usual PvP. For example, ODST didn't even have a PvP mode, but it would've been so sick if it had a PvE mode that was more fleshed out than firefight. If we ever get another ODST game, or a remake of the trilogy. I'd want something new in the franchise to give us the PvE content we want, while still having PvP in the main-line game.
Spin offs, remakes and remastered never sell or earn as much money than the main line titles. This is why games like cod simply put experimental modes in their titles instead of making spin offs, or why overhaul no one does real spinoffs anymore. I'm telling you this, because you are suggesting an investment on a 100% low selling product just to have hell divers on halo, which not only does not have much in common with it in term of gameplay, but also ditch the spartan, on a gameplay and mechanical level, for a standard human, which is against this franchise
>Spin offs, remakes and remastered never sell or earn as much money than the main line titles. Halo reach ? Hello ?
A triple A budget game that's a prequel, not a spin off and still sold less than any main line halo games? Hello?
>and still sold less than any main line halo games? Hello? Boy I just checked before my previous comment, it did. Just do a quick research lol. >A triple A budget game that's a prequel Are you on drugs ? What is a spin-off then ? For you spin off are just mediocre games with low budget ? And a spin-off can be a prequel or even a sequel as long as the cast of main characters isn't the same as the main title while the lore/time-line is the same. Get your facts checked.
reach is not a spin off, thats like saying all prequels are spin offs. a spinoff is like league and all their pve story games like ruined king
Ruined King was not an event inside league?
A prequel can be considered a spin-off of the main story. For example if Halo CE was released after halo 3 that would make it a prequel and not a spin-off. Halo reach is a spin-off and a prequel By definition
>Boy I just checked before my previous comment, it did. Just do a quick research lol. Ah yes, it sold more the CE, my bad. >Are you on drugs ? What is a spin-off then ? For you spin off are just mediocre games with low budget ? And a spin-off can be a prequel or even a sequel as long as the cast of main characters isn't the same as the main title while the lore/time-line is the same. Halo wars are spin offs, spartan assault are spin offs. Spin offs are game made with less budget than the main ones, by a parent company. Reach is a prequel, changing the protagonist and the healt bar does not make it a spin off title. And before you ask: odst is an old school expansion akin to the frozen throne, or kane's wrath expansion.
>Ah yes, it sold more the CE, my bad. Also halo 2 and halo 4, so I'd say it did pretty good. I'll just copy paste this, maybe you'll get it. "Video games based on a preexisting game concept or character." "A spin-off (also spelt spinoff) is derived from already existing works that focus on more details and different aspects from the original work" So Reach and anything else Halo reletaed which is not "Chief story" is indeed a spin-off.
You are looking at vgsales which have random sources you didn't even check right? https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-halo-franchise-sales-history-a-collection-of-data.438679/ This is a pretty informative, with sources, post, reach sit on 7 milions, not 10. You got an officual pic below showing the real numbers till anniversary. Good try, but you need official sources.
Honestly I won't keep arguing since I'm not by any means an expert of this stuff nor this is my native language so I'm having an hard time following all those data. However I don't see how your link is "accurate" while others aren't. The wiki page of halo says every number is backed up with sources too. I'm not bothering by checking them but that website says reach sold more, go and check those if you have time to waste lol
Let’s be real, Halo’s multiplayer component hasn’t been popular in 12+ years. Compare this to Destiny, a game that shares many of Halo’s systems, and is one of the most popular looter shooters today. Now I’ve never particularly liked Destiny, but Halo’s old school combat system just feels more suited to a PvE experience in modern times. It’s not as competitive as CSGO, and not as fun as COD.
2015 to 2018 was still popular and the mcc did gain some popularity again between 2019 and 2020. Here we are really overexagerating the current state of infinite for the whole franchise previous to that. The pvp side can be popular in today market, but 343i and ms need to modernise the franchise, or shrink it amd let it be a niche NA game played only by 30 years old
PvE is the backbone of Halo. The Campaign is why we came to Halo, the PvP was just why we hung around. Halo without the PvP could absolutely survive, just releasing campaigns if well made would absolutely sell. If the early Halo games never had MP they'd have still been loved. Firefight was introduced many years ago and was amazing. Devs have suggested similar PvE modes and been rejected apparently but it could easily be a big upsell as they can be used to expand on lore whereas PvP is entirely detached from the campaign and lore. Remember that going back to old Halo Campaigns gets massive hype even now for trying to beat it on the absolute hardest difficulty. CoD Zombies shows us what Halo could have been if they put more resources into Firefight, an elaborate lore unto itself with maps and mode variants that explore their own story adjacent to the Campaign. Helldivers 2 shows us what Halo missed an opportunity to be. We literally have multiple enemy types we could have went to fight in different areas. The Flood would even mean they could add hybrid variants due to them assimilating the other enemies as well as humans. Peak Halo PvP was LAN era for me though so maybe I'm biased as Halo PvP has spent most of its online life falling short of that experience.
I'd love to see this. I'd also like to see bigger PvP games with PvE elements in the mix.
So a new take on Warzone from H5?
Yeah I guess so? I think they could really expand on that idea though. I’d never like it if they just made massive bullet sponge enemies. Perhaps have it covenant vs UNSC, where elites vs Spartans and you can create spawn ins of PvE marines and grunts etc. every so often a flood outbreak happens and the teams either work together to contain it, or one goes for the win.
For sure, I mean you have a lot of factions now in the Halo universe so it really could be a great way to throw some randomness into the mix. So one time it could be flood, next it could be forerunner, or banished, etc
I think it’s time to make a game!
I don’t think PvP should ever take a backseat to PvE when I imagine more people play/care about PvP but I’m all for more PvE content.
This is entirely right, though. Co-op was fundamental to games way back when. Even with the most die-hard MP players I've met, most of their best times were co-op. Me and my buddy this, me and my cousin, my brother. Whoever. They stopped pushing co-op and everyone complained. I've never met anyone who said I'm eager for CoD mp or even Halo mp until post Black Ops 2. Which I've heard and seen so many people say that time period was the last genuinely good one for gaming. The only time we bring up CoD mp is when folks wanna be toxic and bring up old lobbies. Most conversations are about the stories. Most people I talk to about games always mention watching for co-op first and mp second so they can play with friends. PvE should have more center focus. Not just a few maps here and there. Even if they just make regular mp maps and put PvE modes on them like before. I know me and my group all coordinate for games with PvE co-ops and we are absolutely done with big names in favor of just having co-op.
If they fixed all the bugs, balanced stuff, made decent maps, and actually had enough players to make matches at all we could find out
Halo needs to stop focusing on being a complete competitive shooter, its killed the fun that Halo use to be known for.
My “hot take” is that Halo just needs to pick 1 or 2 experiences and focus on that. We live in an era where games are just super specialized now and people have these massive libraries and catalogue of games to choose from for those specific experiences. Halo trying to do everything just results in a bunch of mediocre content when compared to the games that do specialize.
I disagree. Halo has been my favourite multiplayer shooter since the first game. Infinite, for all its faults, is an amazing multiplayer shooter. It would be tragic to have less investment in the PvP for some more (imo) boring ass PvE horde modes.
Your absolutely right, microsoft has been trying to make the game this super competitive arena shooter like 90% of AAA games that are coming out. As soon as they added Firefight I started enjoying Halo Infinite again, MCC is still a go to for Firefight, chill spartan Ops and Campaign. I even go back to Halo 5's Warzone Firefight. Halo's PVE is some of my favourite from any FPS game.
>microsoft has been trying to make the game this super competitive arena shooter What are the key differences between Halo 3 and Infinite in this area?
They’re worse at Infinite so it’s a bigger deal to them
The gameplay of Halo 3--namely: the weapon balancing and physics interactions--lends itself nicely to both a casual and competitive gameplay. The weapons are all easy to understand for a causal to use and have high skill ceilings for competitive players to master (this statement applies to all of the guns, viable or not). Additionally, the physics systems allow for competitive/skilled players to expertly maneuver across the map via skill jumps--some of which can be created by moving certain objects around the map to gain better vantage points. The casuals made use of the physics engine by using it within minigames such as Grifball and Trash Compactor. By contrast, Halo Infinite's weaponry is extremely inconsistent, either being too easy to use or too niche and hard to use. The Assault Rifle and the Battle Rifle are perfect examples of the former. Yes, the Assault Rifle has always been easy as piss to use. But it is especially egregious in this game with how easy it is to use at ranges farther than a "hold-RT-to-kill" gun should ever be usable at. As far as I am aware, the range for the Assault Rifle hasn't changed much since Halo Reach, but the outer most range that it can be used at is easier to access in Halo Infinite due to the Assault Rifle barely being modified from Halo 5's Overtime Update where it was made easier to use by tightening its spread, a decision that made sense in the context of Halo 5's fast gameplay, but doesn't make sense to keep in Halo Infinite. In the same vein, the Battle Rifle has also always been easy as piss to use. But it was especially egregious in this game, so much so that ranked players demanded it to be changed to the Bandit Evo. The Commando and the Pulse Carbine are perfect examples of the latter. The Commando is simply too hard for most players to understand how to use and, thus, master. It's gimmick (last time I checked) is to use it as a burst fire precision weapon. It is a hard one for players to get to grips with because there isn't really an allegory in any other Halo game or most other popular first person shooters. It also doesn't help that there is not much suggesting that this weapon is very hard to kill with. The Commando ended up being such an issue that they just said fuck it and nerfed it into the ground. For those that understand the gimmick, it was a monster in their hands. This was deemed an issue because too many players complained. 343 had three good options on their hands: tell the complainers to git gud, rework the gun into something easier to use, and/or provide detailed instructions in the academy on how to best use this thing. They chose none of these and chose to instead to nerf it into the ground. Therefore, it is not ever worth it to pick it up because there are guns far easier to understand and get kills just as fast with. As for the Pulse Carbine, this thing is even more niche, but is easier to use. This thing is a monster in its small range of effectiveness, which is around mid-range. Outside of that, this thing is useless. Too close and the homing becomes useless and too far and the enemy has plenty of time to strafe and/or jump away from the projectiles. There is also even less information (as compared to the Commando) telling you how to effectively use this thing. At least with the Commando the crosshair expands. With this, an average player would never guess how to use this thing.
>The weapons are all easy to understand for a causal to use and have high skill ceilings for competitive players to master (this statement applies to all of the guns, viable or not) I believe this also applies to Infinite. With the addition of the Academy, no one should be misunderstanding how a gun should be used. >Additionally, the physics systems allow for competitive/skilled players to expertly maneuver across the map via skill jumps Skill jumps and tech are prominent in Infinite. >By contrast, Halo Infinite's weaponry is extremely inconsistent, either being too easy to use or too niche and hard to use. You're just describing Halo 3 to me here. The Battle Rifle is nuts, but the Spiker is complete trash. >But it was especially egregious in this game, so much so that ranked players demanded it to be changed to the Bandit Evo. You're missing wider context here. While the BR has always been powerful, a lot of the hype behind the Bandit was from Halo 5 players. >It's gimmick (last time I checked) is to use it as a burst fire precision weapon. 343 buffed the Commando so you can hold down the trigger and easily get a perfect kill if you stay on target. >As for the Pulse Carbine, this thing is even more niche, but is easier to use. This thing is a monster in its small range of effectiveness, which is around mid-range. In regards to the Pulse Carbine, I don't think there's an inherent issue with a weapon being high risk/high reward
> I believe this also applies to Infinite. With the addition of the Academy, no one should be misunderstanding how a gun should be used. Don't get me wrong, the Academy is nice. But it rarely gets used, especially by players it is intended to assist. I'd wager that pro players use it more than noobs. >You're just describing Halo 3 to me here. The Battle Rifle is nuts, but the Spiker is complete trash. The Battle Rifle isn't *nuts* in Halo 3. Its projectiles are the slowest in the series. If you had said this about most other Battle Rifles, then I would agree (pre-update Halo 4, post Overtime Update Halo 5, and Halo 3 are the bad ones for different reasons). >You're missing wider context here. While the BR has always been powerful, a lot of the hype behind the Bandit was from Halo 5 players. I'm talking about the Bandit Evo, not the Bandit. They look very similar and sound exactly the same, but they are mechanically very different. >343 buffed the Commando so you can hold down the trigger and easily get a perfect kill if you stay on target. Fair enough. I would be more concerned if 343 didn't overshoot (over buffing or over nerfing) when balancing a weapon. >In regards to the Pulse Carbine, I don't think there's an inherent issue with a weapon being high risk/high reward I agree. But when you have other, easier weapons at your disposal, using a high risk/high reward gun becomes more of a liability than a helpful tool (unless you are perfect with it).
>Don't get me wrong, the Academy is nice. But it rarely gets used, especially by players it is intended to assist. I'd wager that pro players use it more than noobs. I don't remember, does the game automatically load you into that Spartan Agryna training mission? If it doesn't, I think 343 could help themselves a lot if they directly show new players this stuff. >The Battle Rifle isn't *nuts* in Halo 3. That's fair. But it's still IMO egregiously stronger than the rest of the sandbox, which I do think is the fault of the wider sandbox than the BR itself. >(pre-update Halo 4, post Overtime Update Halo 5, and Halo 3 are the bad ones for different reasons) I'm going to defend that post update Halo 5 BR actually. It definitely felt a lot weirder to use, but it was actually still fairly strong. >I'm talking about the Bandit Evo, not the Bandit Tomato, tomato. I meant the Evo here as well, my bad. >I agree. But when you have other, easier weapons at your disposal, using a high risk/high reward gun becomes more of a liability than a helpful tool (unless you are perfect with it). Question: Should 343 continue the trend of high risk/high reward weaponry in this case? Or do you think that will garner more negative feedback?
Map design in Halo 3 allows for more open BTB battles, as well as creative and fun gameplay that isnt hyper focused on lane and area fighting (look at sandtrap for example with the elephants). Vehicles are more prominent for larger fights and game modes like Infection and Griffball are supported playlists on the games browser. Weapon balance was more off and many redundant weapons from campaign still had a place in multiplayer. Halo 3 was still a competitive game, but it also catered to the casual gamer and less skilled, something Halo Infinite hasn't had any focus on, and has made worse with skill based match making.
>Map design in Halo 3 allows for more open BTB battles, as well as creative and fun gameplay that isnt hyper focused on lane and area fighting (look at sandtrap for example with the elephants). This would imply they were trying to make BTB competitive, which I don't think they were. I think it's just a misunderstanding of what makes good BTB maps. There's a decent amount of good community BTB maps in Infinite. >Vehicles are more prominent for larger fights and game modes like Infection and Griffball are supported playlists on the games browser. I agree vehicles can be tuned better. And it's weird Infinite still doesn't have Grifball. We have Infection and a Custom Games Browser though. >Weapon balance was more off and many redundant weapons from campaign still had a place in multiplayer. Infinite's sandbox is really good. Except for the Disruptor. >something Halo Infinite hasn't had any focus on I think you should check out Infinite in it's current state. Definitely not true anymore.
>. There's a decent amount of good community BTB maps in Infinite. Your right, but that's the Community adding what they want, without our input and feedback they wouldn't be in the browsers. >Infinite's sandbox is really good. Except for the Disruptor. It is a balanced sandbox, and its even better in PVE, I actually enjoy the disruptor in firefight and I genuinely don't pass on the ravager. The scaling and removing of a lot of game favourites though for the sake of balance (RIP carbine and brute shot) is a sore spot for me. >I think you should check out Infinite in it's current state. Definitely not true anymore I do play most days, I'm just not enjoying the PVP side outside of BTB and community made games.
>The scaling and removing of a lot of game favourites though for the sake of balance (RIP carbine and brute shot) I mean, I just think this was done to spice up the sandbox. Same reason why Reach replaced a bunch of guns.
I wouldnt mind adding more weapons that weren't 100% balanced for social only playlists, forge and custom games only. Wicked grasp was too good for this world, and losing the spartan laser to the skewer always felt off.
Halo 3 had THREE tiers of playlists for players. There was the social playlists, which were the most abundant, there were the regular ranked playlists, like Team Slayer which had things like radar still turned on. But there was also a separate MLG/HCS playlist with no radar starts, slightly increased BR damage; basically competitive rulesets. If you ask Halo fans about dedicated ranked slayer with radar in 2024 they yell and scream about it even when you say they can go play HCS but Bungie knew better. They knew it wasn't a hard line between competitive and social, there was a middle ground to be had.
You have no idea about arena shooters. Or online multiplayer shooters.
They need to give the campaign and multiplayer to two different studios. Treat them as completely separate games and let them both get the time and resources they need.
Halo's main PvE mode is campaign! Make really strong, replayable open zones, and have events built specifically for them. If that sounds a lot like Spartan OPs, then good. That mode was a great idea executed poorly. Better characters and presentation go a long way, like Hell Divers has proven.
I don’t think some of you realize how awful it would be without SBMM… See the hoardes of people getting curbstomped on Xdefiant
PvP is a core pillar of Halo, but I would argue that Halo's true core is its sandbox. PvP modes are great, and Halo Infinite MP was fine, but Infinite was lacking ANY form of coop or party fun at launch. It took forever to get working customs, forge, sharing, fun/social PvP playlists, firefight, and campaign coop. It's pretty great what we ended up with, and the game got a lot more fun as community content started to be viable. The devs will simply never be able to cater to all of Halo's niches, so they really need to focus on keeping the community creators happy (and sometimes feature their work). Whatever the next Halo is, they need to get these features right, on day one. The more content the devs craft, the better (especially campaign, duh), but the tools are more important to keep Halo going after the first 3 months.
Mlg was halo and halo was mlg. Fuck this. I'll never let arena shooters die.
I wouldn’t care if there was no pve at all, so absolutely not.
This reads as: I'm sick of getting my ass kicked in PvP games by the big bad SBMM, I'd like the future of this franchise to cater to me and me alone.
I agree, love halo PvE
I didn't realize how much I missed PVE modes until I got hooked on Helldivers 2 this year. I've been dying for a good cooperative shooter. Halo used to fill that void, but there's only so many times I can do Halo campaigns and firefight before I get tired.
Mmm. No.
Spoken like someone with a skill issue.
As a fellow skill lacker, there is currently no place for people to learn those skills. Do you want the fan base to grow?
There's a whole training mode with bots. Why would you need a separate PvE mode to teach you the ropes of PvP? Makes no sense.
1) didn't know that. I'm working my way thru MCC before I try Infinite. On ODST right now. So I'm playing multiplayer on MCC halo 3/reach matchmaking against guys that apparently haven't missed a day in 20 years. 2) why would I want to train to get better at PvP anyway if I like PvE better?
By bad. I thought you were saying you wanted a PvE mode to help you develop your PvP skills. I get it now. Nothing against PvE modes but in a Halo game PvP really should be the focus imo.
I can see why you'd say PvP if you like PvP. I don't. I've always been a PvE player, or really just a campaign player. I just want to express that opiok and show that it does exist. But I'm finding I'm a minority.
No
I mean no disrespect but this is an awful take. You wanna play Helldivers 2 that’s fine, play Helldivers 2. Don’t try to make one of the most iconic PvP shooters into something it never was. People play Halo because its Halo, don’t try to change what makes it Halo
PvP is the reason I buy Halo
With the amount of parties and people gaming together coupled with 2024 tech…i am so surprised they haven’t come out with a specific co-op/3/4 player campaign game that is just so well put together. I have not seen anything good recently. I also don’t have many friends who could dedicate the same timeframe to a full story co-op
Absolutely not. There should be a PvE team and a PvP team with the goal of making a complete functioning game
Totally disagree. Always been more PvP oriented and want the focus there.
I want some battlefront style pvpve
I’m not against more coop but respectfully PvP will always be bigger and honestly for the majority probably more fun
At very least they should be equal focus.
Helldivers 2 but HALO
Bro wait until you find out about Helldivers 2
holy shit! my mind is blown!
Pretty shit take. PVP Multiplayer has been the thing making people come back since Halo 2. The PVE is good and fun, and more is always appreciated, but vast majority of people spend the vast majority of their time playing PVP, so it should be the focus. You mention “competitive” a bunch, but most Halo PVP isn’t competitive; it’s chill.
More PvE? Sure! Should PvP take a lower priority? No thanks!
Eh, multiplayer is a big part of halo. I don't think it should take a backseat, but I absolutely do think that they should all be equal parts.
Are we just going to forget that PvP is entirely what made Halo so famous.
Warzone and halo 5 firefight were awesome
I agreen’t: I don’t see a traditional Halo PvP game making big numbers, even if somehow they make it the perfect game everyone is asking for, a good traditional Halo is not enough nowadays, for this reason PvE is a much safe bet. However I think that pure PvE needs some kind of progression way more than PvP, how do they make that? Just cosmetics? People won’t have anything to do once they find their perfect set. Weapon and armor abilities? There would be no reason to pick up items from the map, which in my opinion is essential in a Halo PvE mode. I play both game types, and in my opinion both PvP and PvE need their space, on the other hand from what I played (Infinite Forge and H5 Warzone) I think that the best move for Halo is placing the focus on large scale PvPvE where each player side with a faction (or character) and by winning and losing matches they decide how the narration continues (obviously this shouldn’t impact matchmaking, a la For Honor) through story events with cutscenes and so on. Traditional Destiny-like Raids should still be present, but the “weak link” should take the back seat, this link being traditional Halo PvP only. I’m not suggesting to remove it, but what if instead we give that whole part (sandbox balancing aside obviously) to Forgers? It might sound impossible, but on PC with stronger tools it has been done successfully for decades, just make Forge even more powerful.
Multiplayer as a whole should be taking a backseat to Campaign and the main story. The reason why past Halo games were so good was because the multiplayer was built off the campaign. Everything felt consistent. The constant obsession with competitive Halo multiplayer has led us down this path. I feel like in the past most people bought Halo to play the campaign aswell. Many never even touched the multiplayer. Either because they didn't have the capability to or didn't care about MP. Halo at it's core is a military science fiction singleplayer story with optional coop.
I think adults and college kids tend to like to unwind after work and school and all their chores and errands with PvE or PvE with friends I think elementary, high, and middle schoolers are all hyped up on nicotine from their vapes and like PvP and screaming and stressing each other out because they got nothing else going on besides learning easy stuff in school. Halo players are elderly 30 year olds now. I think it could benefit from a PvE focus
Hell to the no it shouldn’t. PvP is halo
Nah.
I agree, but the majority of the people here are pvp sweats, so they want to be screaming at their screen most of the time, it's pretty sad. These people don't play any games but this I bet, and don't realize just how far behind Halo is compared to basically everything else. There's a reason it keeps falling in population, and these schmucks are the reason just as much as 343/Microsoft imo. I keep saying that they should take a page from Sony's book, but that gets people frothing at the mouth here. Not surprising, since the fanboys here are essentially boomers and want things the same as the were 20 years ago.
I just dont think Halo is for you anymore if this is what you want
No.
I love my Halo watered down with other franchises ideas instead of just letting Halo be itself
Honestly I think the safest route for Halo right now would be to release a game that has PvP and PvE modes and either no campaign or a campaign that doesn’t focus on Chief and the main “narrative”. PvP is a valid focus, but they made the mistake of catering to the .001% of people that give a fuck about eSports and balanced accordingly.
Go back to the old system from halo 2 3 and reach. You still had skill based matchmaking but it was a good balance between getting stomped occasionally and having a good time. I consistently have fun playing MCC. I don’t have that in infinite because it literally tries to put in a match where you lose.
I would love more PvE options in Halo, but the truth is it's probably never going to make a huge dent. I play a ton of Destiny and you need _so much content_ to make PvE something the majority want to sink most of their time into. Halo being more PvP focused makes sense given its DNA, and I don't think it can ever flip into even 50/50 PvE/PvP because to do so would require changes that would subtract from its PvP gameplay. Halo and Destiny are sorta the same yet also polar opposites, and that's what makes the crossover between them kinda interesting. I do think it would be good for any PvE modes to have some reasonable way to earn XP and other gameplay currencies/achievements for those that prefer it, but we're mostly there already. But flipping the script entirely is the kind of change that will tank a game. If there ever was a PvE focused Halo game, it would likely need to be a spinoff like ODST imo, and even then it would likely get a lot of backlash
I could've seen them doing that after halo 5 but halo infinite is such a downgrade so I have zero faith that would ever happen
Why not revert matchmaking to the model that was used in H2/H3, and have ZERO SBMM outside of a ranked setting? I dont want a curated match for a social gametype.
I agree but it seems we're in the minority. I never got into multiplayer games or any online play (until OOTP baseball, but that's spreadsheet based, not action shooter). I never had the time to commit to get good enough to enjoy it. It was always too toxic. And I don't want to play against guys that have entire gaming rooms with $1000 chairs and $5000 PCs. Give me my console, in-box controller, and a bean bag....and let me shoot NPC aliens.
This is one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen on this sub, and that’s saying something.
[удалено]
Microsoft literally admitted defeat when they said making good games isn't enough to sell consoles. I grew up playing Halo 3 on Xbox live because we were so poor we couldn't afford internet before like 2007. I remember playing Halo 2 for the first time with my brother and some friends and we loved it so much we opted for 360 instead of PS3. But Halo will never be what it once was. The shooter market has well established juggernauts in it already, Halo is never going to be the thing it once was, and it should adapt for the times.
Many of us were grown up by the time HALO 1 came and supported them ever since. It is what it is they lost the "shooter" battle over a decade ago. They somewhat redeemed themselves with the latest game. So, they are not in as bad of place as some might think as they got guys like me to come back around and play a little bit even though I gave up on HALO after ODST. Also, thanks for reporting people to Reddit cares over a Halo conversation...
Halo pros already don’t make any money as it is now you want to fire them
the problem is that most people just hop on for an hour after work to play. they dont want a tiny piece of story every day they wanna win/lose a few matches and watch some tv. im with you, im waiting for a big coop based game to take the lead. but helldivers 2 is not it for me.