I could explain why narratively it made no sense to add loadouts to Halo 4, but I'm not going to. Partially because I know that the people who keep asserting that Halo 4 is better with the addition of load outs tend to be the people who don't really care much for narrative. So to level with their stupidity I'm going to explain purely from a gameplay perspective why the addition of load outs (which isn't a huge leap from the mistakes of halo reach) completely muddles Halo gameplay and changes the experience for the worse.
Let's analyze what made Halo a successful shooter when it initially came out. One might argue it was the space marine setting that drew people to Halo. Others could claim the extensive weapon selection and multiplayer were the deal sealers. But I argue it's the limitations placed on master chief that made Halo a tension filled experience that allowed players to quickly negotiate different scenarios of their impending death. When ever one got into a conflict in Halo there was always a crucial decision to be made, engage or not engage. This same conflict and decision can be made several times in the matter of a few seconds within the game, creating a fast paced thrill of making decisions given the weapons you have, the weapons near you, and the strategic position of you and your enemies. Compare this to MW, where players either wait to catch the enemy or are caught by the enemy, usually ending with the imminent death of whoever is at the receiving end. MW is a game that is more preoccupied with technical skill, while Halo is a combination of technical skill and overall intuition.
Now I can already here the cries of refutation. One might argue that the sniper in Halo serves a purely technical role. This is partially true, but since players can't choose to be a sniper (in the old Halo), then it was up to the player to decide how much technical skill they wanted to use when donning the sniper. Another argument is Modern Warfare requires a lot of intuition as well. This is false. Often Modern Warfare is a game determined by skill and luck. Sure there are plenty of dumb things you can do in a MW match, but if both teams have reasonably intelligent players, then the game usually devolves to who has the quickest and most accurate shot. Compare this to Halo, where team coordination and gun combinations can cause a myriad of scenarios that require players to constantly rely on intuition to make decisions. Now I don't want to get into nuts and bolts, but simply put there are far too many intangibles that go into play for a Halo shootout, compared to MW. What I mean by this is that the function of several different guns in halos, usually create particular advantages that can prove to be more useful depending on the situation. In Modern warfare it just seems like the guns are on 3 axis plane of reload time, accuracy and power. Also, let's take into consideration the introduction of shields versus no shields, which makes certain gun cycles much more useful than others.
It all boils down to various cycling dichotomies: situational vs tactical, skill vs intuition, gun specs vs gun choice, etc. Now the question of which one is better is completely based on preference. Some people enjoy the test of skill and the element of luck that is involved in MW, while others enjoy the conflict negotiation that comes with Halo. Regardless of what camp you are in, it should be agreed upon that each game is contributing a unique experience to the genre. In this context, the push to become more like MW by Halo is an unwise one. Not only is Halo not a better MW than MW, it simply wasn't built to be like MW. So no, I don't like the new Halo because it destroys what players love about Halo and replaces it with this uninspired trend of copying the top selling game in the industry instead of creating actual new content.
Let's analyze what made Halo a successful shooter when it initially came out. One might argue it was the space marine setting that drew people to Halo. Others could claim the extensive weapon selection and multiplayer were the deal sealers. But I argue it's the limitations placed on master chief that made Halo a tension filled experience that allowed players to quickly negotiate different scenarios of their impending death. When ever one got into a conflict in Halo there was always a crucial decision to be made, engage or not engage. This same conflict and decision can be made several times in the matter of a few seconds within the game, creating a fast paced thrill of making decisions given the weapons you have, the weapons near you, and the strategic position of you and your enemies. Compare this to MW, where players either wait to catch the enemy or are caught by the enemy, usually ending with the imminent death of whoever is at the receiving end. MW is a game that is more preoccupied with technical skill, while Halo is a combination of technical skill and overall intuition.
Now I can already here the cries of refutation. One might argue that the sniper in Halo serves a purely technical role. This is partially true, but since players can't choose to be a sniper (in the old Halo), then it was up to the player to decide how much technical skill they wanted to use when donning the sniper. Another argument is Modern Warfare requires a lot of intuition as well. This is false. Often Modern Warfare is a game determined by skill and luck. Sure there are plenty of dumb things you can do in a MW match, but if both teams have reasonably intelligent players, then the game usually devolves to who has the quickest and most accurate shot. Compare this to Halo, where team coordination and gun combinations can cause a myriad of scenarios that require players to constantly rely on intuition to make decisions. Now I don't want to get into nuts and bolts, but simply put there are far too many intangibles that go into play for a Halo shootout, compared to MW. What I mean by this is that the function of several different guns in halos, usually create particular advantages that can prove to be more useful depending on the situation. In Modern warfare it just seems like the guns are on 3 axis plane of reload time, accuracy and power. Also, let's take into consideration the introduction of shields versus no shields, which makes certain gun cycles much more useful than others.
It all boils down to various cycling dichotomies: situational vs tactical, skill vs intuition, gun specs vs gun choice, etc. Now the question of which one is better is completely based on preference. Some people enjoy the test of skill and the element of luck that is involved in MW, while others enjoy the conflict negotiation that comes with Halo. Regardless of what camp you are in, it should be agreed upon that each game is contributing a unique experience to the genre. In this context, the push to become more like MW by Halo is an unwise one. Not only is Halo not a better MW than MW, it simply wasn't built to be like MW. So no, I don't like the new Halo because it destroys what players love about Halo and replaces it with this uninspired trend of copying the top selling game in the industry instead of creating actual new content.
No comments:
Post a Comment