{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Barack Obama:
7/8/2013 7:59:48 PM
35
Is a Straight-Up Halo 3 Clone All That Bad?
Seriously, now. Did the original trilogy's formula need all that much change?
Was there anything particularly [u]wrong[/u] with the multiplayer?
As clichéd as this may sound, maybe Halo [b]didn't need change.[/b]
Halo 3 was great(and more importantly, fun) enough with just a few new weapons and vehicles. Equipment brought about new strategies and mixed up battles enough without completely compromising the way the core gameplay functioned.
What about a new Halo with just interesting new weapons, vehicles, and items?
As a refresher, here's what Halo 3 brought to the table:
[spoiler]Spartan Laser
Gravity Hammer
Brute Spiker
Mauler
Spike Grenades
Firebomb Grenades
Plasma Cannon
Missile Pod
Flamethrower
Hornet
Mongoose
Brute Chopper
Prowler
Elephant
Bubble Shield
Power Drain
Regenerator
Trip Mine
Invincibility(SP)
Deployable Turret(SP)
Invisibility(SP)[/spoiler]
Was that seriously not enough content for a sequel? Games like Halo 4 just offer a slew of generic weapons and abilities. Nothing interesting whatsoever.
Not to mention, Halo 3 gave us what are now considered staples of Halo - Forge and Theater.
English
#Gaming
-
7 RepliesCOD received hate because nothing changes. Halo receives hate because there are changes.
-
I wonder how Reach would've been received if: - Sprint was default for all players (and being fired upon would lower your speed, ala H4). - AA's were map pick ups instead of load-out items (for standard gametypes at least, like Team Slayer). - The game was TU'd a lot sooner, by Bungie.
-
3 RepliesPeople bitch about CoD never changing and now they want halo to never change? Seems legit.
-
5 RepliesSure Halo 3 was great, but I would like some new things along with what Halo 3 brought to the table. Mainly, what I think people mean is "The core of the game". The weapon balance, the vehicle strength, the physics, stuff like that. I like equipment and power-ups WAY more than armor abilities, because the abilities are a lot stronger when they aren' t available whenever you want to use it. Regeneration Field saved my life a bunch in H3, yet I didn't even think it was working when used in Halo 4. Active Camo was great in H3 because you were completely invisible and didn't become visible by running. AA's reduce the ability's power and really just ruin them. So for a new Halo game, take all of the great things Halo 3 offered, and add to it. Halo 3 added to Halo 2 by taking a lot of what made H2 great, and simply adding more.
-
Yes. Because we wouldn't get anywhere new.
-
1 ReplyHonestly, I feel that Halo 3 was a very good but highly over rated game in hindsight. I'm glad that Bungie took the risk to change up the formula for Halo Reach. It's simple, if I want the Halo 3 experience I'll simply play Halo 3. If I want something else I have the choice to play Bungie's Halo Reach or 343's Halo 4. I like that with the Halo franchise I don't get a carbon copy of the last game released every year like certain "other shooter" franchises.
-
9 Replies[quote]Did the original trilogy's formula need all that much change?[/quote]Yes, it was a one gun game that took custom loadouts to fix. [quote]maybe Halo didn't need change.[/quote]Halo is ever changing and eternal. There's a reason why the original was called Combat Evolved. [quote]Equipment brought about new strategies and mixed up battles enough without completely compromising the way the core gameplay functioned.[/quote]You'd be suprised how many people felt equipment was a bad edition. [quote]What about a new Halo with just interesting new weapons, vehicles, and items? [/quote]That's what every Halo has done since Halo 2. [quote]Games like Halo 4 just offer a slew of generic weapons and abilities.[/quote]You could say the same thing about every Halo game. [quote]Not to mention, Halo 3 gave us what are now considered staples of Halo - Forge and Theater.[/quote]One of which was neglected, even by its creators, and the other forced you to use glitches and gamebreaking techniques to make something worthwhile.
-
Edited by Omega117a: 7/8/2013 9:50:31 PMIt would be better than Halo 2, albeit to a very small extent. Although Halo 1 lacked the multiplayer content of the later games, it's core mechanics ( no melee lunging, leading, considerably less aim assist/bullet magnetism, hard to camp maps) made it require far more skill than its sequels.
-
Why would a person want a direct copy of a game?
-
Nostalgia is bad.
-
You know what game is a straight up clone of the previous? Call of Duty. Do I really need to say anything else?
-
1 ReplyI feel that the problem now is not just unnecessary additions, but more of the removal of core features that made Halo 3 so great. The original trilogy felt like it understood that it was unrealistic, goofy fun. The colors were always vibrant, the weapons were diverse, and there wasn't anything to crowd the experience. There wasn't much to gain but a title from leveling up, which I consider so much more relaxed. Now Halo 4 is just a boatload of nonsensical customization where you choose from incredibly similar weapons and perks that in the end don't change the gameplay a whole lot. There's also way too much emphasis on unlocking new things. Also, new Halo lacks the community content that Halo 3 was known for due to the limited custom games options. I'd be ok with updates to the Halo franchise if they kept old features and didn't turn the whole thing into a giant cluster of character and class customization overload.
-
Reach was better than Halo 3 though.
-
You do know that when Halo 3 came out people said that Halo 2 was better right?
-
Edited by l7SE7EN7l: 7/8/2013 8:38:31 PMChange is good, it just needs to be done properly. As much as I love H3, I don't think they should remake it. That gives the opportunity to mess it up, they should just let it die a legend. As far as Halo 4 goes, it was major changes, and major changes are hard to get used to. I've looked at Halo 4 as Halo 5's beta test. They threw a Halo game out there that was way different than all the Halos before it, and got feedback on what people liked and didn't like. That way they could advance Halo, but know what the fans would approve of and enjoy. Frank O' Conner said: [quote]"So we know we have a lot to do. And we know we have a lot to learn. But we also know that we now have the capacity, the teamwork, the technology and the experience to do much better next time."[/quote] Personally, I believe they'll do a great job with Halo 5, and it will be much more successful than Halo 4.
-
Why not just play halo 3 then?
-
Halo got boring at 3 something needed to be done. I didn't want to end the franchise at 3rd but if one would ask me I'd have gladly liked another Halo inspired by Halo 1 and 2.
-
Equipment would have been better if it was placed well, putting it amongst complimentary power weapons was a terrible mistake i.e. regenerator on Pit sniper towers and Bubble Shield just up from shotgun on epitaph.
-
1 ReplyI always thought equipment sucked. Armor Abilities are much better.
-
-
As a series, Halo has been all about changing. The whole idea is that Halo takes the best/most popular features of current shooters and mixes them all together to create the perfect shooter, while adding Halo to it. Reach and Halo 4 were much larger steps from Halo 3 due to the new trend that there was in shooters.
-
Making new game sequels isn't about [i]fixing[/i] things; that's what updates are for. Sequels are meant to be [i]different[/i].
-
Customization inside gameplay is stupid. I remember getting into countless arguments with friends about whether COD or Halo was better. Everytime it seemed my friends would bring up 'COD has more customization'. This phrase is something that I have grown to despise. I don't want customization inside gameplay-- all that creates is a random gimmicky shit fest. Why couldn't 343 add customization in other ways? Halo has always had the best customization, just through other means like Custom Games and Forge. There was no need to bring it into gameplay and that's what ruined it for me at least.
-
If they fixed the awful netcode, added new equipment, guns, and vehicles, upped the base movement speed a bit (or include default sprint), expanded off of Reach's forge and brought back the Halo 3 forge features that didn't carry over to Reach's along with it, improved the graphics, brought over Reach's theater and made it able to support several people, had more custom games options, created more gametypes and brought over the new ones Reach added, and brought ODST's firefight to the table with less lag issues and the customizability of Reach's, I'd say it could be the ultimate Halo experience (IMO).
-
-
4 RepliesWhy buy a Halo 3 clone...when I have Halo 3?
