- FLASHDENMARK
- |
- Exalted Member
-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious - Spark
Posted by: Shadow Artiste
Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.
People love Call of Duty, that is why the game is so popular. People like the core gameplay of the game, that is why they don't change the game fundamentally, but only adding twists, and new features to keep the game more exciting(something Halo, 2 and 3 did)
Now what Bungie did with Reach is fairly controversial, if I may say so. Why change the fundamentals of a game that made Bungie so famous? Of course change should be made in order to keep the game new and fresh, but even something as simple as sprint is confirmed to completely alter the fundamentals of the game, why? If sprints changes the game that much, well what is AL supposed to then? Completely wreck the core gameplay?
What I am saying is that, Bungie(nor anybody else), should change the fundamentals of Halo, something we have loved for ten years with the same core gameplay, until Reach of course.
K.I.S.S
Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Let me point out your extremely flawed logic.
You're saying people shouldn't change a game too much because it will move it too far from what people are already familiar with.
Let's look at your own example, Call of Duty. C.O.D 3 had an established style, it had been going for years and had a good following. People knew what to expect from the style of C.O.D games and what the games played like. C.O.D 3 sold under 1.5 million copies. Then C.O.D 4 was developed and it introduced sweeping changes to the franchise, they added perks, levelling, unlocks and a lot of other features that drastically changed the nature of the game.
Now according to your logic, making this move will bring disaster to a franchise. According to your logic, altering the gameplay too much will ruin the fanbase. So what happened? By making revolutionary changes to the core, fundamental gameplay, C.O.D was able to become the biggest entertainment franchise in history.
So I hope you understand that change =/= damage or poor results. It's not that black and white. Change = risk. When people take risks like C.O.D did it can backfire or have tremdous results. I personally think Halo Reach is now in C.O.D's shadow cause Halo has kind of peaked. Eventually COD will peak too. It's natural. People like something new and fresh and innovative but eventually it will get stale and a new dominate franchise will emerge and have everyone's interest.
I understand what you are saying, but Reach undoubtedly brought any revolutionary elements to the table, nor did it gain any from it. COD was back then not so success and added cool new features to spice the game up, and yes it did gain an extreme amount of popularity, but Halo has always been success full(since CE) and had always almost been the same(up to Reach) and look at Reach, I really doubt it helped the franchise more than it fractured it, and if (big)change(s) is to be implemented, they should not be implemented half-assed like in Reach.