Anyone else feel like Halo 2 Anniversary (multiplayer) is underrated. It is exactly how modern halo should feel like. Just change the weapon sounds and art to the campaign H2A and you have a polished halo game. I think 343 should use this game to build off of instead of halo 5.
Seedonator I was thinking 343 should have the multiplayer of Halo 2 anniversary with every map remade as a side game with halo 6 . Kinda like modern warfare remastered, but you only pay 60 bucks for halo 6 and comes halo 2A mp for free.
Reminds me of the interview with the Tony Hawk developer. "And all the suits decide 'Well, clearly people don't want skateboarding games anymore' Well, yes they do! They want a better one!" The market is still there, you just need to give them a game that's actually good. Fav if you'll approve it, I'll link to the video in question.
Hey is it ok if I make a response to your video? You made great points but I want to propose a solution to the debates and divides on classic and new formulas.
Going back to a game's roots should be encouraged, but people shouldn't only focus on that. COD WW2 is very successful because it went back to its roots, yet it has been picked apart by content creators like yourself on how mediocre it actually is. Instead of developers focussing on going back to the game's roots they should focus on how to improve and innovate whilst still remaing true to the game's roots.
Actually it went back to the WWII setting but didn't go back to it's roots as a game with no extra abilities (sprinting, sliding, no diving to prone, no health regen) in sequels after sequels. If only they made a COD game with no extra base traits/capabilities ala COD1.
@@katie6666 I have played it, replayed and bought its sequel, the 2016 reboot is nothing special, it is good but at the same time it's not so classic nor original, dont get me wrong, is a good fps full of violence and an awesome level design, but no more than that (the sequel instead, improve and expand all of this)
@@llamadasinrespuesta4631 'nothing special', doom 2016 is one of the few AAA games that actively encourages push forward combat with every element in its gameplay. Granted with the power of hindsight and release of doom eternal it has some exposed some of the flaws in doom 2016 such as the ridiculously high ammo count, the easily spam able hologram grenade that breaks the AI, the op super shotgun and siege mode for the gauss canon and repetitiveness of the level design in the 3rd act of the game. But it still doesn't take away from how great and unique that game is. Especially compared to everything else on the AAA market
Yooka-Laylee was NOT a bad game. It wasn't an excellent one either, I admit that, it lacked a little bit of polish and parts of its gameplay were just misguided (looking at you Kartos and Rextro)... but a lot of, if not MOST of the bad response the game got was because of misconceptions by players and critics alike. I can't even count how many times I've heard people complain about not being able to reach certain jig- I mean pagies and being pissed that they had to backtrack to earlier sections and even stages, unlocking new moves to get to places they were teased with earlier instead of progressing forward in a linear fashion. It seems like these people either didn't know or didn't understand what a Collectathon is, and likely never played one. It's a similar situation that we recently saw with Cuphead, where somebody criticized the game for its difficulty, when that was the entire point of the game! Likewise, most criticism towards Y-L wasn't directed at the game itself, but its genre as a whole. Almost nobody was willing to meet the game on its own terms. In this context I recommend the video "In Defense of Yooka-Laylee" by KingK, where he not only tries to explain what the game was set out to be, but he even lists and cites said criticism that completely misses the entire point of the genre. I wasn't blown away by Y-L either, but from past experiences with Collectathons, at least I knew what I was getting myself into, and that's also EXACTLY what I got out of the game. The link to KingK's video, for anbody interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dvN3I5vMeyU.html
TBH I think half the people who sucked Banjo Kazooie's dick didn't even like it and only pretended to because Microsoft had it, so they could complain. Then they get a game straight from the developers, with their own vision and they demolish it.
Another argument is that game franchises shouldnt go on forever and should just end. Do we really need a bunch of sequels to Halo for the next 30 years? It becomes difficult to think of fresh ideas when u have sequels upon sequels and u have done everything u can creatively
Good point. I love Halo, but I can't imagine this game going on forever. But what companies could do is make "spin-off" games or completely new games that might draw inspiration from a beloved franchise. For instance Titanfall instantly grabbed my attention because it reminded me of two of my favorite game series; Halo and MechWarrior. TF's futuristic look reminded my of Halo, and the titans gave it the MechWarrior feel. Ultimately it was (to me at least) a very cool combination of two games.
Personally I feel that just comes down to worldbuilding. If a world can't interesting outside the context of a game, what hope is there for a franchise that just keeps pumping out the game in that limited universe? Mass Effect, Halo, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, etc. all have massively interesting worlds. You can have a sequel there and a sequel there and over here and over there and you wouldn't really get bored because you keep learning more. Mass Effect made the choice to leave its lore behind and build a new one... which was odd. Halo is doing it poorly, they're not exploring anything interesting. Bethesda is doing a fantastic job at making their worlds playable, but their games on the other hand are slipping. Take a look at Appalachia. It's a fuckin' awesome setting for Fallout, it's rich with so much lore. You know the river in the toxic part of the map is upstream from the river in the Pitt DLC in Fallout 3? The one that's extremely toxic? The problem with those games is always the game part of it. And then you have Assassin's Creed. Which doesn't realise it has its own universe. It keeps making games in interesting real world settings, but nothing in interesting Assassin's Creed settings, then tries to shoehorn in AC worldbuilding to justify the setting. Why was the Brotherhood founded in the most interesting time period for Egypt? Why is Odyssey even called Assassin's Creed? Using interesting real world settings is of course a good idea, but there are other areas AC should explore instead, for instance we knew the Templars gained majority dominance over the Assassins in the modern era, so why do we not have a game to explain when that happened? Especially since that sounds like a good opportunity for a spy-based game in Cold War Berlin or WW2 Europe in general (and we know the Assassins were in good favour with Churchill from Syndicate's WW1 missions). But no, pyramids, greeks, and vikings are cool. In my eyes, franchises should absolutely go on, so long as their internal world goes on. There's no point in a game getting sequels if the universe that connects them isn't interesting.
If your asking if games should go back to having their identity intact then yes, there's no reason for franchises to do anything otherwise. (unless it's not working) But the most common misconception is that people want re-skins of their favorite game or most nostalgic, which isn't true. Games needs to innovate while keeping the foundation the same. Great video by the way! Absolutely agree!
I've been thinking on the sprint mechanic in games and a lot of them really dont need it. Call of duty for example could benefit from removing sprint because the maps are small enough to where they can be designed without sprint in mind and maybe a boost to base movement speed. Also, with third person action/adventure games with an open world u sprint more than u dont so why not have u run fast by default or have a faster mode of transportation (ik a lot of them have vehicles and fast travel) and have a button that'll slow u down when u need it. Playing some of the older assassins creed games made me realize it too cuz there were like 4 different movement speeds (waking, fast walking, sprinting, and free running). Imagine titanfall where ur gun is always at the ready but u can still move the exact same way u do normally but if u wanna slow down or go stealthy u could just crouch. Black ops 3 would feel a lot smoother if there was no definite sprint mechanic but just a good movement speed. Overwatch doesnt have sprint, only as an ability for soldier 76. Csgo u dont put ur gun down to move fast. Rainbow six siege definately doesnt need sprint with its close quarters environment. I think game devs feel they need to have it for some weird reason, like its pressured to be in every game. If u dont know what im talking about just think about sprint for a second. Not the bs excuse of real life, we are talking about a game. What does it do that couldnt be done without it? (Answer is nothing) Im taking about a button for sprint that may or may not restrict u from using weapons or abilities
I think it's because gamer's these days are impatient. Everybody needs to get to the action super fast. Like what's the rush? In Halo 5, finding combat takes like 10-15 secs off of spawn.
Sterling Burton its not so much about that. More like why cant we just move that fast or have the level design not require a sprint mechanic. I feel like a lot of games would feel snoother without a sprint mechanic, especially one that cause u to not be able to use weapons or abilities
Toby Hendricks this is a good shout. Breath of the Wild, I think, is a good example of this. BoTW succeeds at creating a sense of exploration and adventure. Halo 4 is a good example of a game failing to do this by being much more frenetic than its predecessors. Halo CE-3 provided a very cerebral experience, whereas Halo 4 and especially 5 are more visceral.
Fallout New Vegas is another example, Fallout is about factions, player freedom, and dark humor. fallout 3 lost that by making it more about shooting and removing a lot of choices to the player. The first human enemy in the game could not be reasoned with like in other fallout games, you had to gun him down. it also lost a lot of its rpg mechanics by making the player have a set story, family, and friends. the game will always remind you Amata is your friend, if you like her or not. fallout 3 also removed the top overview camera and turn base combat, a lot of fans were upset about this, Until new Vegas. New Vegas showed that a first person fallout game can work, it gave the player choice to side with whoever other than the brotherhood. It allowed the player full control with their characters backstory and how they speak to npc's with the improved dialog system to make the character come to life. The game was still in the first person perspective but the combat was never the main focus of the game. It was the Dialog, world building, story telling, and characters you met on your journey. it was never about going in caves shooting orcs {supermutants} and finding some power armor at the end. Sadly with the atrocity that is Fallout 4 I hope that Bethesda, or Obsidian, can return the franchise back to its roots.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with this video. While "going back to the roots" can be a good thing, just doing that alone won't be enough. Sure, 343i could make a Halo game that plays and feels just like the original Combat Evolved, but what if they stopped there? Well, you'd end up with a carbon copy of Halo CE of course! You can't simply go back to the roots because we've already been there. The main issue I see is a fundamentally flawed way of looking at sequel game development. Game developers are neither innovating or sticking to the roots of their games. Instead, they've opted to copy one another. For example, CoD and Halo decided to copy Titanfall's movement mechanics. CoD decided to take a futuristic setting and Halo opted to make "modernizations" to its core formula instead of staying true to the roots. The trick with developing sequels has been under the noses of these different developers for ages. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. All you need to do is add improvements and minor additions to the formula that add good synergy (a good example is the equipment added in Halo 3) and expand on the core system you've already created. Not rip it out and turn it into something else. Halo and CoD would benefit if more were done to increase the things you could do within those games. Adding additional features to the sandbox is always a nice touch. I remember when they had tanks back in CoD and I also remember when you could take multiple approaches to attack the enemy in Halo. This is what we need more of. How cool would it be to be able to simultaneously pilot a helicopter and assist your teammates who are on the ground with tanks and jeeps in a CO-OP mission in CoD? How cool would it be to be able to use a tank and storm the frontline while your buddy uses the sniper rifle to pick off those pesky Fuel Rod Cannon grunts? FPS games don't have to limit you to one walkway and a set loadout of guns. More options=better replay value and more experience within the same game. It's also a very efficient way to develop games.
I THOUGHT BY HALO 4 we would have big team battles with scarabs and pelicans and phantoms and crazy shit like that instead we got enhanced mobility breaking halos mobility which was unique different from any other game and they dumped it down the shitter
I’d argue that CoD did completely change its gameplay formula when it added sprint. CoD was never super popular before Modern Warfare, which Infinity Ward didn’t even want to name CoD.
Yes, yes, and YES. On that last point about having many games to choose from helping the gaming industry as a whole, I'd like to add that games need to feel different and unique for that to happen, and if gaming developers keep looking at "what's popular" or what will get sales instead of what got the game so many sales and fans in the first place, more and more games will feel the same, and as a result, suck
I feel like gamers have become complacent. They're so used to devs copying features from one franchise to the next that, gamers expect that if you can do "X" in "Y franchise" than you should be able to do "X" in "Z franchise". Innovation has come to a standstill. But people keep eating up everything that comes out. I know people that will buy a game simply because its new. Doesn't matter if its good or bad or if they like it. They're still gonna buy it. Feeding the devs and publishers to continue the choices their making. Devs and publishers know this, so they monetize the games right out the gate, and try to get as many people in the first couple weeks to pay to advance, knowing most will never pick it up again.
I haven't bought a new game in about a year at this point because 1. (I don't have the money) and 2. (The games in question simply aren't good enough to buy at full price).
Yeah man, the only game i have purchased in 2017 was CoD: WW2. And even then i kindof wish i didnt. Fortunately i was gifted PUBG and SW:BF2. But this year alone was horrible for titles.
I gotcha. I was in that mindset for years after watching a playthrough of The Last of Us. Bought my PS 4 Slim for that, Uncharted, and added Hellblade and HZD last year. 100% worth it. And I'm an Xbox fan at heart.
honestly I feel that game developers should make at least one game that goes back to their roots, just to see if it's still what the fanbase wants. if it flops, then it's not meant to be. just something I feel would help the industry a bit
Repost IK but the clamber video is 3 weeks old so... I'd be very curious to know your opinion on this: if sprint is to ABSOLUTELY remind in Halo, would you consider it as OK if, to sprint, you have to put your weapon on your back (instantly) but when you stop sprinting you need 1 full second to get your weapon in your hands and be able to shoot? And what about the same for clamber?
When the developers are incapable of pushing the genre further, then yeah absolutely it’s better to try to capture what the series did right in the first place
Exactly. A game's core principles should stay the same while innovating & improving the game around it's strengths & weaknesses. Games should be their own identities and variety. If I play Halo 5 & COD BOPS 3 which try to play like Titanfall ripoffs then I'll just play Titanfall instead. Halo should be Halo & COD be COD, not the same thing.
Much better on presenting the idea and maintaining a neutral stance this time, Favyn. I actually gave this one a good listen and feel inclined to agree with you :)
Would it of helped the story or any other significant part of characters if Zussman didn't get rescued twice rather it would be you being rescued in the last mission and Z being rescued in the first mission?
The thing about halo going back to roots and removing things like sprint clamber and ads is that a lot of kids will complain that is an outdated game and a boring game. The playerbase will probably low. Morrons cant realize that just because of one ability or mechanic that was very successful to a game it doesn’t mean that every game should have it in the future. Examples are sprint aiming down the sights and fast paced gameplay.
I enjoy playing the new COD the problem with the game is that they took something from destiny which im not a big fan of where people hangout in a socialized battleground and walk around like dont get me worng this idea could be good but for people that just want to play its a huge distraction and it get fusturating its kind of the same thing with titanfall only so much times can you go into titanfall and watch your player fall into the battleground until you are bored of it. As for going back to the roots I think it works look when studios try and evolve there games to much it becomes really shitty and it feels like the game has no balance look at a franchise like halo or even cod you have the games before the big movement systems and you had things like power posistions you had to time weapons know how spawns work and you can basically di-sect the game but when you add thing like jumping 50 feet in the air and jet packs in advanced movement systems it becomes chaotic and thats not what people want to play. I'm not the only one who thinks this way a lot of the poeple i used to play games with have abonded these games altogether and now play games that have got back to more traditional gameplay. Thats why i think basic gameplay can work in todays video game market look people want games that are unique if people wanted to play titanfall they would go play titanfall etc etc etc. I for one play halo 3 cause I like the simpleness of the game and how casual and competiveness it could be.
I don't really understand how halo going from no sprint to sprint (or clamber) is a change that alienates the core fundamental mechanics of a game any more than say Doom going allowing aim on a whole other axis/dimension or Grand Theft Auto going from a 2D top down driving game to the massive success it has become today. Even in call of duty's case, all the multiplayer changes that came with modern warfare were, to be fair, 'additions', but also possibly considered drastic alterations and perhaps an somewhat new fundamental formula, yet it is vastly praised(and I think rightly so) for the innovation it brought to it's franchise and to the industry as a whole, at the time. I can see what Favyn means in the video when he brings up some changes brought from other games to different ones that don't end up working out, but I don't think I agree with games necessarily strictly sticking with their principle core mechanics as tech advances, which have brought us to this point of a checklist of features any triple A shooter aims for, which were almost all previously innovative design changes sometimes put in existing game franchises/series(possibly considered as 'alienatin to their core principles' by 2018 standards), yet now it seems like everyone is screaming halt on games changing(which I know is not the argument in the video, but I don't see the point in the argument if not for another solution being presented, which favyn concluded is not the right course of action to suggest future action), so again I feel like gamers so not know what they want until it's presented to them.
Mega Man may have had the argument that "no sliding and charge shot is stale" kind of shit, too and that's why Mega Man 11 is being built off of possibly the Mega Man 8 formula. Mega Man X proves that a gameplay formula change (even for the worse) can be pulled off without rubbing fans the wrong way. People tend to think different experience is better and they also think different experience is worse, that's only opinionated. Would you object to Mortal Kombat being a 3D Fighting Game again even if it's back to it's 2D Roots?
You know, I don't mind being disappointed with a game that went back to it's roots and didn't win you over, it's when fans exaggerate how "bad" that said game is and constantly complain that series isn't good anymore is what I have a problem with. There's disappointment then there's just acting like an abused housewife wanting the good days back and is never going to happen.
RE7 was unique, not bad nor good. Cod ww2 is just your generic shooter, and doom said "fuck you" to the modern fps industry. Re7 and doom did it right, and cod is just, cod...
The issue i have is that you seem to be stricter when defining Halo's roots versus every other game. With Halo, its literally every little variable and factor under the sun, you pay attention to all the specifics and nitty gritty details, whereas with Doom or Resident Evil, you seem to just generalize them based on their respective genre/sub-genre. With Doom its "big guns, moving really fast", with RE its "survival horror", but with Halo, its like 4 million different elements. I can get behind the idea of every game having different roots, but to me, it seems like you give certain games special attention over others. Like you'll analyze one particular series' formula with all sorts of depth, but with other franchises, you just cherrypick 2 or 3 extremely broad, barebones surface-level elements and hey, thats all thats relevant Remember how people used to say Halo 5 was return to form because hey, it was an arena shooter. I believe you ranted about this once, arguing that merely labeling Halo as an "arena shooter" and nothing more is a surface level overgeneralization, that being an arena shooter does not automatically make it Halo because theres so much more to it (paraphrasing here). But you do the same thing with other games. To you, Resident Evil is JUST survival horror, and Doom is JUST 90s-style FPS with no further distinctions If you want to define each series differently, so be it, but at least look at them with an equal amount of detail.
I actually did... multiple times in fact. Don't recall you explaining your standpoint why some games should be viewed with depth, while others should be extremely generalized... or anything of that fashion.
+zRexx The main point was that all games are different, all games have different roots, all games can change in different ways, etc. Did I really go in to more detail concerning Halo here? No. But I have done so in the past so that's why when you watch this video you view it with a pre-existing bias. When truthfully I was "general" about EVERY game I talked about here. I also made a point that not every game that "attempted" to go back to their roots succeeded, and that the end of the day it's completely subjective. So that's why I think your criticism was unjustified.
I'm not solely talking about this video, im talking more about general trends i notice across all your videos *Any time* you talk about Doom or Resident Evil, you speak about its formula in a generalized way. I even recall with your Resident Evil REVIEW, you went down a checklist of the basic fundamentals to survival horror, and when describing what you consider to be the series' "roots", these were the only aspects you cared to place attention on With your analysis Halo, I never see such generalization. Show me a video where you highlight a few barebones, surface-level design elements and say, "Ok THIS is Halo’s formula, any change is fair game as long as it doesn’t affect these aspects.” You never do that. Instead, you start treating every little design nuance of the game as if its integral to the formula And sure, you’ve argued that Halo’s formula is more sensitive to change, and that’s why all the little bits matter more, but beyond stating it, you never really explain further. What IS Halo’s formula exactly and HOW is it more sensitive to change than something like Doom, for example? Unless you can explain the proper context, that doesn’t fully address the double standard. Because upon my own inspection, Doom’s “Glory Kill” system is just as drastic of a change as Halo 5’s clamber. It affects the surrounding game design on a similar magnitude, so what’s really the distinction to be made with this? Also yes, I get your point that “As long as a game changes to make itself more unique, then its okay” (paraphrasing), but this leads me to another question. If Halo quit being a combat-focused game and tried inventing a totally new & different genre, would you be okay with that? Like, extremely little trace of what it originally was, yet completely independent from everything else that’s out at the time. The only thing leftover is the general universe, lore, and aesthetic, but aside from that, completely unrecognizable. Would you really be content with this scale of change to your beloved franchise, just because its done to revolutionize the industry instead? Also, does a series like Ninja Gaiden also fall into this category, where it was once an action-platformer, but then turned into a hack n’ slash when that genre started booming. It remained “unique”, finding its own distinct niche in the genre and contrasting itself with other hack n’ slashes, but at the same time, by moving to that genre, it was also riding off a popular trend that other franchises recently started, just with its own take. It falls into this middle space between doing its own thing and copying other games. So by your standards, was this a good or bad thing? "The main point was that all games are different, all games have different roots, all games can change in different ways, etc." And yes i understood this part before you explained it. I'm more attentive than it initially appears (Keep in mind I intend no disrespect here and im actually a fan of your videos. I watch you an insane amount, like your commentary style, and we agree on some very essential things, so plz don’t take my words the wrong way, if i seem condescending with my critique)
+zRexx Well firstly I'd like to point out that I have indeed made a video about Halo like the one you described. I feel like I describe Halos formula and show that " change is fair game as long as it doesn't affect these aspects" in my video "How to Innovate Halo Without Changing its Formula" I'm very proud of that video and if you haven't seen it yet give it a watch. I think it does a good job of showing what the Halo formula is to someone like me. (But keep in mind it's still subjective) In my Resident Evil 7 review I feel I personally highlighted why it felt like Resident Evil at its core. Obviously it had a drastic perception shift but other than that a lot of the original elements are there. One of the most distinct is its level design. How it opens up and expands as you progress. Concerning Doom, I just simply haven't talked about it that much. I haven't made a video on Doom but maybe I will someday . But overall I think the single player is handled better than the MP. Personally I think Single player games have a bit more room to try new things. And the "glory kill" system is a good example of that . It's actually pretty interesting and unique if you really want to get in to it. Considering the other games and ideas you mentioned . Again it's subjective. Would I like Halo to completely change what it is in order to be completely NEW? No... If it works then that's awesome and that means there's a brand new experience out there but also keep in mind drastic change and simply being unique doesn't automatically make a game good. Your ninja gaiden example is reflective of the situation I mentioned with RE4. Sometimes a game changes a lot and people still love it. Look at Prince of Persia, World of Warcraft , and even a game like Super Mario. Sometimes drastic change has its merrits. But I also don't think that means you are forced to abandon the old way. Despite 3d Mario games being made and doing well...they still do 2d Mario games. And they could do the same for Prince of Persia, ninja gaiden etc. Hell they could do it for Halo. Hope that helps you understand my perspective a bit more :)
Wade Dewell I have been playing halo since I was 7 and now I can’t even recognize it anymore I played Halo 1 over 100 times Halo 2 I’ve played it at least 200 times and Halo 3 250 times I’ve played Halo 4 12 times and fucking “Halo 5” 2 times
cody barriger i would have never in my whole life touched halo 4 if it wasnt in the master chief collection but because it was i played the first 3 missions and i was just like THIS GAME IS CRAP!! And then i went strait to halo 2 anniversary. Also im never buying halo 5.
Seedonator Halo 4 and 5’s gameplay and gunplay is awful and Halo 5 feels like a bad marvel movie I would rather see halo cancelled then see “Advanced Movement” in Halo 6
+Epicforger 12345 no, I'm pretty much done interacting with him. He's not worth arguing with anymore. His arguments are based almost entirely on logical fallacies and honestly a lot of them completely ignore logic entirely. I've even attempted to speak to him in private and offered to play a few games and show him first hand what I'm talking about. But he's content to just live in some fantasy world where he's always right. I've talked with him enough to know there's nothing more to discuss.
+Bad At Halo Show why do you even watch my content? Pretty clear you go in to every video pessimistic looking to confirm your bias. I've never discussed this concept in detail before and Halo was barely even mentioned. I mean are you serious dude?
Halo 5 mechanics fit perfectly for another scifi game, but not halo I always say that 343 has potential to create a great scifi game, but because Microsoft wants to keep milking a game thats no longer been created by it's original creators 343 is forced to keep making a franchise they them self don't even care anymore (sirriestly let halo die and make something new and fresh, look at Sony throwing away killzone for Horizon zero dawn, and see the success that brought to the Ps4 and the devs)
if 343 don't wanna make halo then thats where the problem is, they should work on a new ip and another dev team that likes classic halo should develop halo
Good I hate that opening cinematic of halo 5 so fucking much. Completely breaks the concept of Spartans in the whole franchise and makes them look like fuckin superheroes
Alex Frost none of that nonsense. The series was always grounded and realistic. Spartans were never unstoppable behemoths. They were the best of the best with superhuman traits but nothing beyond belief. They still used military tactics and died just like any other soldier. When did anything master chief or the Spartans in reach or halo wars 1 compare to stuff you’d see from the avengers or justice league? That mountain hoping cinematic is so absurd it simply breaks the franchises internal logic of what Spartans can do.
Read a book, any Halo book, even the _really_ early ones. They were capable of just those things, minus the thrusters and thruster abilities. They always described them as being near-unstoppable behemoths
NOT necessarily, take COD WW2 for instance: the game LOOKS similar to the best COD game, World at War, but the problems afflicting it are part of the parasitic ideology which created MW3, BO3, and Infinite Warfag. A game can change it's aesthetic, a game can change it's point of focus, but a game ceases to become itself when it changes the SPIRIT of the thing. A return to roots in name only is just that, IN NAME ONLY. It's the SPIRIT that the initial game made manifest that should be recaptured, if that's there then any changes WILL conform to that design philosophy.
Great video. Hey I might make a video response tot his just because I found your points very interesting. Like if you are willing to watch it that would be great. But thanks for all the hard work you do for gaming Favyn. I in particular think these points are valid for the Halo series and a video I'm going to try to make is an idea of how to possibly satisfy both the old and new Halo fans. My idea I admit is far fetched but I want to try. I'll share the idea in my video. Thanks for everything and keep up the good work. Just finished the video the link is here. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rnigFJ_JcxE.html
OH NO YOU DID NOT JUST SAY DOOM 4 IS CLASSIC DOOM Doom 4 gave the bird to classic Doom's gun labyrinth level design. The jump jets and clamber completely change the multiplayer and single player mission design and the Glory Kill system undermines the core concept of a gun labyrinth. The idea is that as you move through the level you collect resources like ammo and armor to sustain yourself and mix and match guns to specific enemies. The ammo you have on hand determines your playstyle. If you were low on health and armor but had alot of Rocket ammo, you would hang back and shoot from afar to minimize damage. If you were full on Ammo and Health you would feel safer going in guns blazing knowing you could take the DPS. In Doom 4 the glory kill system and chainsaw ensures you'll never ever run out of ammo or health. If you even get into critical health just glory kill an Imp and get 80% health back for very little effort. Out of ammo on your favorite gun? Chainsaw a Zombieman and get completely refilled. Every single combat arena funnels you into a pocket of the map that forces you to kill a certain number of enemies over and over. You're not killing enemies to progress. You're killing enemies because the game tells you too and will not let you progress without it, putting an artificial cap on your session until a quota is filled. The OG ID devs knew what they were doing when it came to building these maps, because they knew that they needed to ensure that players could play through them over and over and not get bored or get sick of the game. Promoting a basic level of mechanics to build off of and a system that rewarded exploration and investigation to improve your character. Now in Doom 4 the only level that even has a hint of that kind of creativity or versatility is the Foundry. The rest of them are a series of combat arenas connected by platforming and corridors. I could go on and literally copy-pasta your own videos about clambering and jump jets from your other videos and keep going on and on about how they "break map and game flow". Doom 4 is very similar to 5 in what it does with it's gameplay (although we both know which one is superior), which is why I'm puzzled as to why you praise it for "going back to it's roots" when it strays from it even further than Doom 3 did. Still a great game, but it's nothing like classic Doom.
I did. I just think it's kinda weird to claim Doom 4 stays true to it's roots when it really doesn't follow the same type of rules Romero or Carmac set in place.
+Mega Guy43 doom litterally couldn't have levels built on top of each other due to design limitations. Couldn't aim on the Y axis. This video, as I clearly stated , is not about "keeping everything the same". The point, is to change in ways that maintain the spirit and essence of a title. (Which in it of itself is subjective). But as you yourself stated...Doom 4 was good and very well received. You coulf argue the things it changed are acceptable. Not necessarily strictly beneficial, but accepted.
+Favyn also I didn't "praise" doom. Nor did I say it was " objectively successful in returning to it's roots". I simply pointed out that it tried to as a design philosophy. My whole point of the video was to show multiple games that claimed to return to their roots while also pointing out how various games did it differently . Some more successful than others. If you had watched my video before rushing down to comment you would have seen that. You've watched my stuff for awhile. Am I one to not be consistent? Am I one to not explain my points throughout a video? Gotta give me a chance to explain for you criticize me.
Well, I'm more talking about the dynamic of combat and how the philosophy of the OG ID devs isn't very prominent in the layout of the campaign. The pacing of combat in the Original Doom games was more organic and served to funnel the player to their objective as they sought out action while Doom 4 really tries to restrict the player into set arenas for combat. Doom 4 is only a Doom game in the sense that you kill daemons with really big fucking guns and the OST. Not much else. Personally, I wouldn't mind the whole jump-jet or executions, Brutal Doom and other mods has had those things for years. However, in my eyes the Glory kill system changes too much about the dynamic of combat and the way the player actively looks for resources to be ignored. It promotes a hyper aggressive, neigh suicidal look at combat that reminds me more of MGR than classic Doom in that way (although it may have been a thematic choice given the Doom Slayer's character in the Doom Lore but it's still not classic Doom). The main differences between most of the games you mentioned is that they ALL built off of a formula. Mario Odyssey is still Galaxy on paper but with a lot more complex and depth given to the level design. Same goes to Titanfall Hat in Time. All of them really didn't change the dynamic of their respective systems but more in how the player interacted with them. If you're talking about the "roots" of a particular franchise being more in spirit of things, then the basis for what is the "spirit" has to be defined.
I understand with Halo dead you got to diversify your videos but you really should have hit 343i hard in this vid Its so relevant for how Change can Cripple a franchise
halo 6 or whatever its called does need to go back to classic halo or the franchise will die simple as that if they keep copying other shooters cough* cod cough* me and my mates still play halo mcc cause we'd rather play an actual halo (even with how broken it is) halo 5 is fun yes but its not halo, it should of been a new ip not halo
what type of classic? halo ce (slow but with hight damage)? 2(a bit fast than halo ce and short maps, in some ways even more frenetic than halo 5)? because halo 3 (slow and random) and reach(unbalanced and casual) sucks like my ass...
When I got Halo 5 I immediately changed my control scheme to "Halo 4" and it felt like Halo to me. But everyone else who complained that it didn't feel like Halo used the default control scheme which I absolutely hate. So maybe they just need to switch the controls?
ThEsHaDoW343 No I get it, I would prefer classic Halo. My point is that, to me, I never felt like Halo 5 wasn't Halo until I turned back to default controls. What made Halo Halo to me was still there. It felt more like an evolution than something different.
You're at a heavy disadvantage if you use the click in joystick to zoom. The left trigger is just about mandatory if you want to win long range engagements.
.....wow im early, though you have to also realize that halos core is still the same you have 2 guns (any guns), grenades vehicles etc. Yes spartan abilities do stop the primary triangle of what you do but it is only for a couple seconds ex spartan charge, thrusters (made by halo and is unique and new), stabalisers, and ground pound, these are good abilities because u can see them working in classic maps. The things that truly should die in halo is sprint and clamber. If you say any moment that you cant do the triangle is bad then take out the moments you climb out of vehicles, and assasinations since u cand do anything. Halo cant go back to truly classic, halo ce (to me) is outdated and boring, abilities should stay my friends love modern halo and they probably wouldnt play classic halo, if you say then good they can play othet games then i ask you classic halo is still there you can play it right now why dont you play the classics?
A random elite where is classic halo still available in a optimal/playable state? Honestly, did you not ask yourself this question before asking others?
Hey, random elite! I'm glad you and others that you know love the new mechanics of the newest installments of the Halo series. I'm NOT here to tell you are wrong for liking something that is simply subjective. As a long-time fan of the "classic" playstyle of Halo, I simply would like to maybe go a bit deeper than "just play the classics." You probably watch Fav's videos and know that he goes deeper into how delicate the gameplay is balanced within Halo. Abilities like sprint, clamber, ground pound, etc drastically change how the maps are designed, how gun's time to kill are made, balancing power weapons and vehicles, how players move within the map and power positions within the map and so much more . I believe that Favyn is leaning towards changing how you interact with Halo's core concepts rather than changing them. Halo's core mechanics are based upon simplicity( like you said, carry any two guns grenades, going into vehicles, etc). The fewer things there are to balance, the more creative freedom you have to make more interesting choices when it comes to gunplay and map design. You CAN have Halo's core formula be fun, without changing the fundamentals( Favyn's video on that ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yz9GA6oTWTY.html). I won't be one of those people, and say that all people who hate "classic Halo" are a bunch of fags and all that junk. I just want a game that "feels" like Halo to me too, and I would like Halo to change to what I think is the "right" way to go. And probably the reason why we don't go back and play the classics is that those games have been out for years and we've played the crap out of those. We also want something that stays true the core values while being fresh in its own right. Hope this has been constructive, peace man.
Mr Hiscane first off i like constrictive critique, my post does seem a bit negative and im not trying to do that. I agree ive played halo since h2 and ive only gotten better as the years have gone on and since h4 continuing on to h5 ive gotten to be my best and constantly being towards the top (im my diamond so i aint no champ) and having fun. But when playing the old halo games i havent been having as much fun, my kills are lacking (im not a kd is everything but it feels good being at the top) and its been sucking the enjoyment out of me. Plus im in the 1% of ground pound kills and ive developed so much love for that spartan ability, all i want is for halo to be loved and if we go classic most of the people who play halo with me wont pick it up, plus im a bit bitter that people who quit halo years ago will immediatly come back while loyal newcomer fans will be dissapointed and stop playing. Wether it is classic or modern style of halo ill play ill adapt, who knows im actually decent at h2A so maybe if h6 is classic ill be even better time will tell.
Basically sprint means that map design has to be stretched in order to compensate for it. Look at Favyn's sprint vudeos, they explain it in more detail.
