Poll: What are your thoughts on Halo 4?

[laggyteabag]

Halo is one of my favourite franchises I know of, every Halo game I have played I have enjoyed to some extent. I support Halo 4 and I will buy it, sadly however, I feel that Halo 4 doesn't need to exist because Halo 3 ended the Master Chief story perfectly and it doesn't need a to carry on.

 

[Vigormortis]

If the way 343 Studios handled Halo Anniversary is to be any indication of what to expect from Halo 4 then....well....I will be avoiding it like the plague.

Seriously, Anniversary was a $40 abomination.

 

[repeating integers]

If the way 343 Studios handled Halo Anniversary is to be any indication of what to expect from Halo 4 then....well....I will be avoiding it like the plague.

Seriously, Anniversary was a $40 abomination.

What was wrong with it, exactly?

 

[WorriedSandwich]

I wholeheartedly loved Halo 3, and disliked Halo: Reach. I haven't played anything by 343 Studios, nor the Reach map pack, nor Halo CEA, but from what I've heard they're pretty good.

All in all, I;m very interested in Halo 4, but I haven't got a clue on wether it will be mind bogling fantastic or dissapointingly mediocre, or anything in between (Microsoft isn't stupid enough to release Halo 4 as a bad game).

 

[Delock]

Considering I know almost nothing about it, I can only comment on what my extrapolation based on what I do know.

Honestly, it could be a rather good game that uses the fact that it doesn't have to be tied down to the same mythology of the previous Halo games, bringing new factions, both allied and enemies, new weapons, and a new plot structure (even if it is just "Stop universal destruction" you could go back to that interesting premise of Halo 2's beginning where it is trying to stop a much larger force, which looks to be Reapers robots, from destroying a smaller, inferior force, friendly aliens perhaps).

Yes it is unnecessary and I feel it probably would be better if this wasn't Halo 4 and rather just a part of the universe with a different character than Master Chief (hell, you could still bring him back if you're playing as some future-future marine that's just below a SPARTAN II by meeting him along your journey).
Only time will tell though if it's purely a cash in or if 343 is just unable to let go of a universe that they meticulously crafted and cared for by devoting countless hours to bring to life.

 

[ubersyanyde]

Well it's being made by a company which worked very closely with Bungie on the other Halo games, 343, so they can't really do anything terrible because of a lack of knowledge or lack of communication with the fans.
However there isn't really that much more to add to the multiplayer in either unless they completely change the formula, which I can imagine would p*** off a good number of hardcore fans.

Overall I think they'll make a good effort to keep up Bungie's legacy and should sell a lot of copies but won't do anything too revolutionary to the franchise. Oh, and Cheif, where in the world did you get that jet pack from?!

 

[Lilani]

I really don't care. I couldn't be arsed to you tell the difference between the last three if you asked me to.

 

[Razor Z7]

I will be picking it up, because I loved Reach and all the other Halo games. I think that it being released once a year is a fine move, it won't fall to the CoD Syndrome.

 

[Korten12]

currently pretending it doesn't exist. i have no faith in 343.

Why?

I'm not keeping my hopes up really. 343 can be made of ex-bungie employees, sure. I'm not to sure if they will keep the same lovable chief though. I mean they want to explore his character more but I am not to sure how you do that with a mostly silent protagonist like him. I just hope they leave his helmet on. Let's keeps the mystery. I don't think I shall be buying it, i'm not to optimistic.

Well we sort of already know what he looks like, from these:

Spoiler

We can get a pretty good idea for what he looks like.

OT: I am VERY Much looking forward to it. As a person who is highly invested in the Halo Lore, I think Halo 4 will be really good.

 

[Korten12]

I'm hoping for significant changes, otherwise uninterested.

Such changes would you want?

 

[Kingme18]

They'd better change it up a lot, because this series is painfully tired at this point. A classic example of running a good franchise straight into the ground.

People complain a game doesen't try something new, then they complain that the new addition sucks, making it another game.
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you dont.

And that's fine, they can take a hike. A lot of old school Half-Life fans were pissed about Half-Life 2 being a complete departure from the first game; the rest of us were glad we got something new. I'd rather these franchises err on the side of newness than risk becoming so stale.

Completely disagree. I dont think keeping it the same is the only answer, but always radically changing it isn't. That's what new IP's could be for.

That's not really my point. They don't need to turn Halo into a 3rd person platforming submarine sim, but recycling the same gameplay ad nauseum is not going to cut it either. You can introduce large gameplay changes without destroying the core of the game. The Elder Scrolls have done that with every single game.

I've heard Reach was a good step in that direction, but I haven't played the campaign yet.

Reach was a GREAT step in that direction. What with the addition of armor abilities and such, though the gameplay was mostly unchanged. I know for a fact though that in Halo 4, they're getting rid of the Covenant as an enemy and introducing a completely new bad guy. As for the flood, I'm not sure.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

There's a Halo 4 now?

 

[Korten12]

I'm hoping for significant changes, otherwise uninterested.

Such changes would you want?

Mostly character related really. Gameplay won't receive a huge overhaul because, well, if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I'm hoping for a focused development on the main characters (at this point only Master Chief and Cortana).

Well they said that they will be exploring more of the MC's background (which I assume is just stuff from The Fall of Reach, since that shows him from before a Spartan to Halo 1.)

 

[Tupolev]

I don't have many thoughts yet on what the expect; based on what they've said so far, there are some directions they could take Halo 4 that could be incredible, and there are some directions that could be incredibly stupid.

 

[Thaius]

Halo 3 had a far greater focus on the relationship between the Chief and Cortana, and I think Halo 4 is the perfect time to really focus on that. I love the stuff they've talked about for it so far, with the exception of the changed armor (where exactly did he get new armor while in cryo on half a ship floating in the middle of nowhere outside of the freaking Milky Way Galaxy?).

As for whether it'll be good, I'm choosing to have faith in 343 here. If it sucks, sad day, and it'll be another example of the original creators being the only people that know how to make their games (Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, etc.). But a lot of 343 basically are the original creators, so I think this game stands a chance. I look forward to it hesitantly, but enthusiastically.

May I also say, while I loved both ODST and Reach, I do look forward to returning to the Chief and Cortana.

 

[Vigormortis]

If the way 343 Studios handled Halo Anniversary is to be any indication of what to expect from Halo 4 then....well....I will be avoiding it like the plague.

Seriously, Anniversary was a $40 abomination.

What was wrong with it, exactly?

As a fan of the original, this one felt off in just about every way. The "HD" rebuild was nothing more than a glorified texture reskinning. The engine was remarkably unstable and actually stuttered. (quite a feat 343, considering) And, the controls just felt awkward. I mean that. I actually went back and played the original again then played Anniversary. They just feel drastically different.

Then, to top it off, they just crowbarred in the Reach multiplayer. Instead of ADDING something to the experience.

So what was wrong with it, "exactly"? Simply put they had me pay them $40 to play an ugly, unstable version of a game I already own and an exact copy of the multiplayer from another game I already own.

As side note, I would appreciate it if people would save themselves the trouble of calling me a "Halo hater". I rather enjoy the Halo series. Granted, some games more than others. (2. cringe) So don't bother with the fanboy hate. It'd be a perfect example of "the preacher preaching to the choir".

[edit] Oh, one more thing. They promised "classic" Halo multiplayer. Yet, to play most of the "classic" maps requires buying a map pack. That's right. They charge 40 bucks and then expect you to pay even more to get the "full experience". Shameless money grab if ever there was one.

 

[Korten12]

If the way 343 Studios handled Halo Anniversary is to be any indication of what to expect from Halo 4 then....well....I will be avoiding it like the plague.

Seriously, Anniversary was a $40 abomination.

What was wrong with it, exactly?

As a fan of the original, this one felt off in just about every way. The "HD" rebuild was nothing more than a glorified texture reskinning. The engine was remarkably unstable and actually stuttered. (quite a feat 343, considering) And, the controls just felt awkward. I mean that. I actually went back and played the original again then played Anniversary. They just feel drastically different.

Then, to top it off, they just crowbarred in the Reach multiplayer. Instead of ADDING something to the experience.

So what was wrong with it, "exactly"? Simply put they had me pay them $40 to play an ugly, unstable version of a game I already own and an exact copy of the multiplayer from another game I already own.

As side note, I would appreciate it if people would save themselves the trouble of calling me a "Halo hater". I rather enjoy the Halo series. Granted, some games more than others. (2. cringe) So don't bother with the fanboy hate. It'd be a perfect example of "the preacher preaching to the choir".

[edit] Oh, one more thing. They promised "classic" Halo multiplayer. Yet, to play most of the "classic" maps requires buying a map pack. That's right. They charge 40 bucks and then expect you to pay even more to get the "full experience". Shameless money grab if ever there was one.

Also it wasn't advertised anymore then just an updated graphics, co-op, and updated controls (which are like Reach's which are exactly like Halo 3, and 2...)

My friend who played Halo 1 a lot, said hes said Annversary felt exactly the same, which from what I played of one, it did. It felt like I was playing Halo 1.

What...? Wait... WTF? No the multiplayer maps came with the game, and also you can play the Classic modes which make it EXACTLY like Halo 1... Now that is just misinformed...

Also you know why they used Halo Reach's multiplayer. Well Halo Reach was only about a year old when it was released and there was no point in splitting the Halo Reach/3 community anymore by making another Multiplayer.