I completely agree. Halo 4 looks like its deviating from the formula that made the previous Halos a success. More excited for the next Bungie game, and it's not even formally announced.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat hate to be a buzz kill but this is more about game mechanics than story elements :/[/quote]When was the last time game mechanics defined the story of Halo? The story of Halo on the other hand has defined multiplayer. For example, we have Covenant weapons because the story of Halo includes the Covenant and their weaponry. In Reach, as soon as the Spartan IIIs were introduced into the games, Spartan III became the player model. Same deal with Spartan IVs in Halo 4. Multiplayer is generally influenced by the changes in the single player universe. I think that people need to stop saying "Halo is Halo because the game doesn't play like Halo 3." Story defines what Halo is, not gameplay. Without a story, Halo would be another sci-fi shooter with a few cool guns. No meaning, no background, nothing. [Edited on 05.18.2012 9:11 PM PDT]

hate to be a buzz kill but this is more about game mechanics than story elements :/

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bottle hygene ITT: People with no priorities getting depressed over a video game and not real world problems. [/quote]I gave up over those issues a long time ago. What can my small contribution do to change things? A drastic change comes from finding the source of the problem... in the end, it's poor vs. rich (not in the millionaire sense). Some people get jobs easily. Some people have difficult jobs. What's my point? People are too busy. That's why I come on here, to take time off, to chill. Some time later when I'm actually able to do more than just donating or researching, that's when I'll be doing better contributions. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ROBERTO jh [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sliding Ghost [/quote] The probable reason why it feels like they are focusing on multiplayer this time 'round is because that is all they have talked about. It is a paradox, but this to me suggests a bigger focus on campaign and story than ever before (which they have said, btw). They do not want to spoil too much on the campaign, so they go for the multiplayer in terms of marketing. They appreciate the campaign, so they leave it alone.[/quote]Well, that quelled some of my fears. Thanks. [Edited on 05.18.2012 4:57 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Spartan1995324 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ROBERTO jh So do tell me, why is the same courtesy not extended to 343i? Why are they not given the same leniancy that Bungie was given? Because as it stands, it sure looks from here that it has nothing to do with actual quality, and more everything to do with company loyalty, a simile for "nostalgia" and "hero worship." Now, be honest, to not just the person I quoted, but to all, be honest with [i]yourself[/i] this time: is that true?[/quote]No, because I am actually willing to give 343i a chance. I am a Halo fan, not a Bungie fanboy. Bungie is a great company, but just because Halo isn't being made by them doesn't mean its not Halo. People need to chill out and take games for what they are, games.[/quote] Agreed; was directing it at those who don't give chances. I appreciate that some people have patience on here.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ROBERTO jh So do tell me, why is the same courtesy not extended to 343i? Why are they not given the same leniancy that Bungie was given? Because as it stands, it sure looks from here that it has nothing to do with actual quality, and more everything to do with company loyalty, a simile for "nostalgia" and "hero worship." Now, be honest, to not just the person I quoted, but to all, be honest with [i]yourself[/i] this time: is that true?[/quote]No, because I am actually willing to give 343i a chance. I am a Halo fan, not a Bungie fanboy. Bungie is a great company, but just because Halo isn't being made by them doesn't mean its not Halo. People need to chill out and take games for what they are, games.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sliding Ghost [/quote] The probable reason why it feels like they are focusing on multiplayer this time 'round is because that is all they have talked about. It is a paradox, but this to me suggests a bigger focus on campaign and story than ever before (which they have said, btw). They do not want to spoil too much on the campaign, so they go for the multiplayer in terms of marketing. They appreciate the campaign, so they leave it alone. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] scmitar1 I have no worries as to what 343 are doing with the campaign, since it can't be worse than Reach anyway. As for multiplayer, they're taking all the WRONG steps. Instead of marketing to their current audience of Halo fans, they're marketing to the CoD audience, something that has ruined countless franchises already. 343 isn't making Halo because they want to, they're doing it for money. And that upsets me.[/quote] The irony here is that people give CoD way too much credit. Everything that has something that CoD had automatically means it is trying to be CoD. Innovation is taking an existing idea and making it your own. Nothing they have said or revealed implies they are simply copying CoD. There are ideas popularized by them in H4, but that means CoD owns the right to those ideas and every idea that resembles them? H4's features instead are made its own. CoD's loadouts were not restricted by game-type, and CoD made no effort to balance its weapons. Nor did they offer several, completely unique loadouts to each map to prevent long time players from dominating newer ones. CoD's special ops had no plot, and much less a fully cinematic one with a whole new cast of characters. CoD's perks were more instrumental, not simple things like carrying an extra magazine or grenade. Is 343i doing it for the money? You would be a fool to believe any company does not do it for the cash to at least some degree. To what degree is the question. Consider the times: Halo is a sinking boat. They need to revitalize it to keep it alive for the fans. How do they do that? By marketing it to the masses. You can't be so elitist as to believe that Halo should belong to only those who were there from the beginning, or only those who play a specific way. That's tantamount to saying "this is MINE! And NO ONE else's!" What makes Halo unique in the gaming world is its near infinite ways you can play. When was the last time you played hockey in CoD? Or skeeball? Or mario kart double dash with ATVs? Or Grifball? All 343 Industries have done is add to the preexisting playstyles, they have not taken any away. Don't like those new features? Then just play with traditional rules, or even the classic playlist they are bound to have. You do not have to play with anything resembling another franchise anymore than you have to play hockey. *omg they're so unoriginal, they totally ripped off NHL* You never hear anyone say that about Reach do you? Because it is a game, a game meant to have fun in. If you can't just relax and play the game for what it is then I wonder how you can get any real satisfaction out of life if you get that worked up because your favorite franchise innovated on ideas from a prime competitor. If that logic was consistent, then no franchise, ever, in history, can be fun for you. You know that Halo invariably ripped off Quake in its pacing and arena shooter style? Why do you not trash Bungie for doing that? Nor do you trash them from taking the concept of the Ringworld from Larry Niven, or the space marines from James Cameron. The design of the Pelican is about as close to a copy paste as you can get, from the dropship in Aliens. No one complains there. Why? Because Bungie took the ideas from other great franchise's [i]and made it there own[/i]. So do tell me, why is the same courtesy not extended to 343i? Why are they not given the same leniancy that Bungie was given? Because as it stands, it sure looks from here that it has nothing to do with actual quality, and more everything to do with company loyalty, a simile for "nostalgia" and "hero worship." Now, be honest, to not just the person I quoted, but to all, be honest with [i]yourself[/i] this time: is that true?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bottle hygene ITT: People with no priorities getting depressed over a video game and not real world problems. [/quote] We choose to spend our free time on here. It's a game forum, we talk about games here. I choose to talk about world issues in person, it would be out of place here and you could talk to a friend about on Facebook or something.

ITT: People with no priorities getting depressed over a video game and not real world problems.

I feel the same, I'm really displeased about the visuals as well. The covenant look stupid and so does the chiefs armour. I'm very excited about the world itself, however. Looks very promising. But I swear to god. If they show Chiefs face I will flame and scream and kick and tantrum like never before. I hate game companies need to 'CoDernise' everything today, nothing's fresh.

I have no worries as to what 343 are doing with the campaign, since it can't be worse than Reach anyway. As for multiplayer, they're taking all the WRONG steps. Instead of marketing to their current audience of Halo fans, they're marketing to the CoD audience, something that has ruined countless franchises already. 343 isn't making Halo because they want to, they're doing it for money. And that upsets me.

I've been depressed about the course of Halo for quite some time. My trust of 343 diminishes everyday. Simply because even though the campaign might turn out better than H3 and Reach, the emphasis is still on multiplayer. These are my main issues: 1. While I'm glad that Limited Edition doesn't have game affecting stuff (making Grunt Funeral preorder was a terrible decision), it's sad that the maps make up $30 and that the $10 is mostly mp content and avatar gimmicks. The 90 min special version film isn't worth it if it means I have to spend money for things that don't appeal to me. Hopefully, some kind sir will upload the thing to YouTube or record it or something. The decision not to appeal to campaign players has left me devastated. This could have been my first time getting a Limited Edition. But this is not the only reason for my apathy. 2. Even though CEA's mp was Reach, it felt more like a finished product than CEA's campaign, which only looks nice (on some levels). I'm not going to go in-depth about my campaign disappointment (or I'd be covering things like skulls and tricks making this post even longer). [url=http://wanderson75.net/archives/3959]This article[/url] should cover some of them for me. Installing to the hard drive didn't seem to improve the loading very much (only when I switch to classic graphics is there faster loading) and it didn't eliminate the loud noise the Xbox 360 makes... 3. It would seem Spartan Ops missions requires Gold. [url=http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postsm862711_Question-Pertaining-to-Those-Without-Live.aspx]This[/url] doesn't alleviate my concerns and there's no way I'm going to get Gold just so I can play 1 game. 4. No Elites in mp (particularly in Custom Games and Forge). Playing as an Elite helped me to relate to campaign Elites and felt more fun than playing as a Spartan (particularly in Reach). I enjoyed Firefight Versus. Things that may change my mind about H4: -Chief able to push vehicles. One of the things that I actually liked about Reach was the infinite armor lock glitch. I could move freaking vehicles!! The only other time I felt this way was in CE, where I could move Scorpions and Pelicans by meleeing -obedient friendly AI -a decent pistol (like ODST's, only a bit stronger) -Hunters that actually hunt -options: create checkpoint, 2 sensitivities, hud control -English speaking enemies (it's slightly more easier to anticipate them when I'm hearing their commands, though I'd rather see near sighted, deaf enemies like in CE) -vehicles that don't just ram into walls but they bounce like in CE, Covie vehicles with better hover height, Banshee support in campaign (H3's Banshees were horrible in campaign), UNSC counterpart to the Banshee, vehicles that don't flip like they were origami paper, H2 Wraith -CE Zealots [Edited on 05.18.2012 8:06 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Slamage It's taking Halo and making it into something different. It's not like Halo. Cortana is to die, Master Chief is going to possibly be a sappy emotional character, like Samus Aran in "Metroid: Other M". Master Chief looks like a cross between Crysis and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The Master Chief is going to be a SUPER HERO not a Soldier, warping the gameplay mechanics that stuck and worked and ditching it which very commonly ruined many great games. They're adding perks which is really stupid, in the past Call Of Duty borrowed some ideas from Halo and incorporated it into their games, now Halo is borrowing ideas from Call of Duty and incorporating it into Halo. Forerunner vision *sigh* Forerunners are the predecessors of Humans. And the music does not sound like Halo at all. I don't see how a new war could be pulled out of nowhere, Halo 3 ended everything perfectly, it gave you a sense of completion. my favorite characters like: Johnson is dead, Guilty Spark is dead, The Gravemind is dead, and Truth is dead. I am not going to be excited for this game, I don't get why people are getting so excited for this game. :([/quote] One at a time: 1) We do not know if she dies, only she goes Rampant. That doesn't mean death, just insanity that can be overcome. 2) They have flat out said that he will not be running off on monologues. He remains a man of few words, it's just that we get to know him more as a person. Character development does not equal melodrama, as this forum seems to think. 3) So? Different company, different style. 4) He has always been a super hero. Superhuman strength, speed, intelligence and agility are not superhero traits? Hell, he's more superpowered than the Goddamn Batman. 5) I'm going to first off say that if Halo had remained the same, it would THEN be exactly like CoD. 6) Now: not perks, modifications. You can carry an extra clip, or grenade, amongst other, similarly small stuff. Whoop-dee-doo. 7) Forerunners being human predecessors does not mean anything in regards to Forerunner Vision. How...how does that mean anything? 8) Marty himself has personally endorsed the music; of all people on earth, you therefore say that the creator of the Halo music is not fit to judge the music? You may not LIKE the music, but if Marty says it is Halo, it is Halo. 9) Now here... *laughs* ...here my friend is where you are very wrong. Halo 3 left us with: a severely volatile political situation, no explanation as to the existence of the Precursors, no details on the Forerunners final resting place, no explanation on whether humanity managed to uptake the Mantle and fulfill their destiny, no explained reason why the human race was special, and left us hanging on a thread which had Medicant Bias--one of the masterminds behind galactic events--[i]telling[/i] John that his fight is not over followed by the reveal of the alleged Forerunner resting place. The galaxy is threatened by 6 still primed Halo Rings, a living Flood threat that, regardless of what you think, survives to this day and many very confused Covenant client races because 3000 years of religious dogma, and 30 years of genocide does not go unanswered. The Gravemind is not dead--he tells you that you only delayed him--and apparently has every intention of returning. Halo 3 DID accomplish: a very desperate cease fire between the humans and Covenant. That's it.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YakZSmelk [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Spartan1995324 Multiplayer sells Halo, but singleplayer ALWAYS defines what the multiplayer will be like.[/quote] I will have to disagree with this, from an end-user outlook it might seem that single-player comes first, but I think when it comes to pre-production multiplayer plays a larger role in defining the gameplay mechanics than singleplayer does. Multiplayer features the base gameplay of the title where as single/co-op gameplay can be scripted directly into the level. Take for example Halo 3, equipment (IMO) was a direct result of trying to mix up the multiplayer experience. With forerunner equipment, your most likely correct in saying it driven solely by the single-player, not going to argue that since I still think all Forerunner are dead :). [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Spartan1995324 I never said what sells better. I said the story is what makes Halo HALO. When people think of Halo, they think of Master Chief not their multiplayer Spartan.[/quote] This is not a fact this is an opinion, what about all the players that do not play the game for single-player? And the goal of making Master Chief faceless was so that players could assume the role, it could easily be viewed that Master Chief and the multiplayer spartan are the character. It's all just a matter of point of view.[/quote]Your right multiplayer mechanics and single play mechanics are similar. Multiplayer probably came first. And in past Halo games, multiplayer and single player were separate but you still had single player influences, such as Covenant weapons. Look at Halo Reach as well. Spartan IIIs were introduced into the games, and your multiplayer model was a Spartan III. But in Halo 4, multiplayer is but a small portion of the larger world developed in single player. Spartan IVs are introduced into the game and story and we are playing as Spartan IVs. They now have a cannonical reason for red and blue Spartans to be fighting each other. The universe that single player takes place in is the same that multiplayer takes place in. Changes in the single player universe affect multiplayer in one way or another.

Haters gonna hate. I'll be having a blast playing Halo 4 while some of you guys are crying over some change.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Spartan1995324 Multiplayer sells Halo, but singleplayer ALWAYS defines what the multiplayer will be like.[/quote] I will have to disagree with this, from an end-user outlook it might seem that single-player comes first, but I think when it comes to pre-production multiplayer plays a larger role in defining the gameplay mechanics than singleplayer does. Multiplayer features the base gameplay of the title where as single/co-op gameplay can be scripted directly into the level. Take for example Halo 3, equipment (IMO) was a direct result of trying to mix up the multiplayer experience. With forerunner equipment, your most likely correct in saying it driven solely by the single-player, not going to argue that since I still think all Forerunner are dead :). [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Spartan1995324 I never said what sells better. I said the story is what makes Halo HALO. When people think of Halo, they think of Master Chief not their multiplayer Spartan.[/quote] This is not a fact this is an opinion, what about all the players that do not play the game for single-player? And the goal of making Master Chief faceless was so that players could assume the role, it could easily be viewed that Master Chief and the multiplayer spartan are the character. It's all just a matter of point of view. [Edited on 05.16.2012 1:16 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Slamage I don't get why people are getting so excited for this game. :([/quote] Gameplay. Even with CoD "elements" Halo will still have it's core gameplay which has brought us all back time and time again. The Universe is also incredibly Huge and the first 3 titles only introduced us to it, none of them really dug into the lure other than Humanity is fighting Covenant and the Flood is bad. 343i seems to really want to dig into the Halo universe and I don't think people should be that scared, for all we know Halo 4 could be the best Halo yet.

It's taking Halo and making it into something different. It's not like Halo. Cortana is to die, Master Chief is going to possibly be a sappy emotional character, like Samus Aran in "Metroid: Other M". Master Chief looks like a cross between Crysis and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The Master Chief is going to be a SUPER HERO not a Soldier, warping the gameplay mechanics that stuck and worked and ditching it which very commonly ruined many great games. They're adding perks which is really stupid, in the past Call Of Duty borrowed some ideas from Halo and incorporated it into their games, now Halo is borrowing ideas from Call of Duty and incorporating it into Halo. Forerunner vision *sigh* Forerunners are the predecessors of Humans. And the music does not sound like Halo at all. I don't see how a new war could be pulled out of nowhere, Halo 3 ended everything perfectly, it gave you a sense of completion. my favorite characters like: Johnson is dead, Guilty Spark is dead, The Gravemind is dead, and Truth is dead. I am not going to be excited for this game, I don't get why people are getting so excited for this game. :( [Edited on 05.15.2012 10:17 PM PDT]

I'm a little peeved that the Elites will be unplayable. It seems that overall, the game is becoming less like Halo. I want the spawns to be the same--that creates a flow to the game. When everyone is heading to rocket launcher, it opens up new pathways and creates the opportunity for strategy. If the spawns are random, then the battles are random, and the skill is lost. Now, if it was something like Gears where the spawns didn't change, but the weapons did, I would be pleased. That was something Gears 3 pulled off well. It created basically two maps in one. This swapping of spawns just cuts off all flow from the game.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ROBERTO jh [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ROBERTO jh [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] anton1792 I don't care much for MP. Maybe these changes would have interested me, maybe not. I pretty much lost interest though when they pulled another war with the Elites and Covenant right out their asses though.[/quote] Fighting a few Elites now = full scale war with Elites.[/quote] Well where else are they getting a fleet from? That and the fact that they just wrote a 300 page book about how peace is impossible. And their art direction is more in line with video game monster to shoot rather than an actual character that you would want to understand.[/quote] How big is the fleet? Why are they there? What purpose does the fleet's existence serve--are the rogues, rebels, scavengers, pirates or government? Is the Arbiter actually leading the enemy Elite forces? Will the ally Elites be in Halo 4? What has been going on in the past 5 years? Is Arbiter dead? Is Parangosky dead? Is Hood dead? Did ONI fail? What has this Ancient Evil been doing over these past 5 years? Could it have influenced galactic events? If ONI knows of the Didact within that five year time (Primordium) what role has he played? Who attacked Telcam and why? Until these questions can be answered--especially the size and nature of the Elite fleet, because as we already know, they are not equipped like government military--conclusions can not be jumped too.[/quote] Most of that is actually pretty irrelevant. Only the end point is important - I.E. The presence of Elites as antagonists. Therefore only questions relating to that point are important. That would be questions regarding the fleet, its motivations and its identity. All that other stuff is a means to an end and pretty pointless. The Arbiter being dead or alive isn't going to make me feel any less contemptuous of 343i when they pull another war out of thin air, because to me that's just an ass pull. They are not equipped like standard military because supplies are running low. I thought that was obvious... It will be a universal thing among the Covenant and not necessarily related to any one group. If they have a fleet, then they must have a pretty decent supply chain for food, fuel, weapons, soldiers etc. Far easier for that to come from the former Covenant Empire than pirating. I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the only thing I pointed out either. Something about art direction, and how it looks like a general throwaway shoot-n-kill enemy. The recent novel also had its entire theme based upon how the two should remain enemies, and should not and can not reconcile ever. They even made up new reasons for prejudice and war. I find it hard to believe that they would do all of that and then not make them enemies again. In the A-Z video Frank O'Connor basically implies antagonism when assessing the Elites as the most likely group to rise back up to their former might. Put it all together. I doubt 343i are half as interested in detailed universe building as they are in just creating more games. Recent work smacks of too much laziness for it not to be.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] tukolthegreat i red that while your getting pulled by that planet there are some covenant boarding the frigate that will attack you INCLUDING -blam!- ELITES WTF 343 [/quote] Political, religious and cultural turmoil, and in-fighting. Those Elites do not represent ALL Elites. I wonder if these forums will achieve common sense one day.... [Edited on 05.15.2012 7:59 PM PDT]

Give the game a chance. It'll be great. [Edited on 05.15.2012 7:52 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PISTOLSQUIRREL [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4]This entire thread[/url][/quote] I died XD

Im pretty depressed... but im hoping it turns out well..

I'm not depressed. I was depressed when I heard about how Reach was being made. Now I just don't care about new installments. Remember how we all felt about [i]Halo: Recon[/i]? I've got none of that left. It used to be an epic story and canon with an awesome set of games to go with it. Now it's just a video game with some books that are absolutely necessary to duct-tape the Jerry-rigged plot together. I'll buy Halo 4, but it won't bet 10% as much of my time as Halo 3 did. I just won't care. Multiplayer will be fun. Campaign will be a waste of time.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cowgoesmoo [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Arbitor 259 you forgot the changes to chiefs armor, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTv6tWI9gZQ]He's master Grief now[/url][/quote] That's hilarious![/quote] I love it. OT: Halo 4 is gunna be a Halo Reach 2.0