: Se Wu's thread about Halo lasting 30 years. Don't hold the games up against
: the past ones. Having Halo keep the same mechanics as always is like
: asking for progress to be stunted. Again, what if Mario had never moved to
: 3D with Mario 64?

: Halo's core mechanics SHOULD change and evolve. If in 30 years you are
: basically playing Halo CE then 343 will have completely failed.

The thing about Mario is that Nintendo actually innovated, and did it well, all without compromising what made Mario what he was. Well, except for Sunshine, which, while regarded as a good game, put off a lot of Mario fans for, among other reasons, not feeling quite like a Mario game. But Galaxy 1 & 2 and SM3DW were great, and New Super Mario Bros. brought 2D platforming back to the series and did it very well (and 2D Mario tends to sell better). But for the most part, Mario always felt like Mario, even after transitioning to 3D.

But other series weren't as fortunate. Hyokin referenced Sonic in that thread, and I think in some ways it's an appropriate point of comparison. Sonic did well with four consecutive 2D platformers on the Genesis, but, unlike Mario, Sonic hit the "polygon ceiling" hard, and for the last 15 years Sega has constantly been trying to reinvent the wheel and failed miserably for the most part. Incidentally, the most well-received Sonic games of the modern era were the ones that were closest to the classic formula. Sonic works best when it sticks to a 2D or 2.5D model with limited behind-the-back 3D parts and sticks to a more traditional high-speed platforming experience. That's probably the reason why most 3D Sonic games failed: They don't feel like Sonic (though Sonic 2006 and Sonic Boom being just plain broken didn't help).

Even Final Fantasy has to a lesser extent gotten this reception as it constantly seeks to reinvent itself by changing its combat systems, its party system, and its leveling system, all while neglecting world building and storytelling (X and XIII were extremely linear with no overworld, and XIII's storytelling and characters are divisive amongst fans). Ever since FFX's release in 2001, the series seems more like Final Fantasy in name only. It doesn't feel like Final Fantasy anymore, but rather like some other JRPG that has the FF attached to it for marketing purposes. Of course, I already know you hate old-school JRPG mechanics, so, y'know, whatever. Just trying to explain it through the lens of an old-school FF fan.

Now, I don't mind change and innovation in and of themselves, when they're done right. Halo: CE was itself a game-changer, being quite unlike any other FPS before it, and it's various elements — the big, open outdoors environments, the well-integrated vehicular combat, the two-weapon limit, and so on — combined to make for an amazing gaming experience, and while it's changed and added new things (few of which actually stuck besides boarding), it always felt like Halo. Mario got new power-ups, abilities, and unusual levels as time went by, whether it be the addition of flying and auto-scrolling levels in SMB3, or Yoshi in SMW, or the variety of new jumps in SM64 that took advantage of the third dimension (some of which were added to the 2D NSMB sub-series), or the mini-planetoid levels of Galaxy. But through all of that, it still was quintessentially Mario (again, except maybe for Sunshine). Mega Man added new moves to his repertoire as the series progressed, first adding a slide in 3, then the charged Mega Buster in 4, then the dash and wall jump in X, but never lost that distinct Mega Man-ness (other MM sub-series didn't feel very much like Mega Man, though, thus marking it as a series that works best within established bounds, namely a 2D side-scroller in the vein of the classic & X series).

But far too often we see innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation is often treated not as a means to an end, but an end unto itself, and something that is a prerequisite that trumps everything else. More often that not, innovation is considered more important than actual quality gameplay, and some reviewers and fans will let a mediocre game slide because it's innovative. But I'd rather play something iterative that's polished and well-executed than something that relies entirely on its supposed innovations but lacks polish or is just plain bad and/or boring. Some of the best games ever were highly-iterative sequels or new titles that borrowed liberally from well-worn video game tropes and mechanics. Zelda is essentially the same game every time at its core. TLOU didn't do anything new, but it's widely considered a great game (I've enjoyed it so far). Mega Man 9 backpedaled away from later 8-bit MM games by removing sliding and the charged buster, yet was one of the best digital games of the past generation. Shovel Knight is as retro as they get, yet has been well-received.

Of course, Halo 5 isn't really innovating, but rather imitating the rest of the multiplayer-focused FPS status quo. Like innovation, imitation isn't necessarily a bad thing either, so long as it's done well and in a way that doesn't clash with the established style and "feel" of the series. After playing Far Cry 3, I think certain aspects of its map editor would make great additions to Forge. After playing Battlefield 4, I think aspects of its large-scale MP combat could be used to expand the potential of Invasion, which I thought was an interesting game type that deserved more love. But the way the Chief (and other playable protagonists) in the Halo series handle when I'm controlling them is one of the things that give Halo its "feel." I expect Spartans to move a certain way. By copying various new types of movement added to the genre over the last few years, I have a feeling that it will result in Halo not "feeling" quite like Halo.

So, I don't mind Halo changing, but it depends on how it changes. I've always thought Halo would be best served not through overhauling core movement & shooting mechanics, but by making advances in campaign level design (it's pretty bad that AotCR remains the pinnacle of big, open level design after 13 years, while Halo 4 ended up being the most constrained in the series), expanding what Forge is capable of, improving MP map design, improving enemy and allied AI, and expanding established game modes. I really hope Halo 5 still "feels" like Halo, but what I've seen has set off serious alarm bells. It seems like 343i focusing on the wrong things.

It's almost like the ones with the final say on what Halo is to be now have decided that they want Halo back on top of the FPS heap and back as the flagship game of MLG and other e-sports groups, and to do that they feel they have to take a slice of CoD's pie... by emulating CoD and the rest of the FPS status quo. First it was adding the CoD-style Skinner box progression system of custom loadouts and rank-based unlocks, but after decided that didn't work. While Halo 5's emulation of Advanced Warfare is likely coincidental, it's part of a greater trend in FPS towards a certain play style, with thrust strafing, sliding, ground-pounding, ledge-grabbing, and double-jumps/hover jumps/other non-standard jumps being default abilities. Oh, and let's not forget about them bro-ing up the series, a non-gameplay change that I feel will not be well-received by long-time fans of the series if it does end up being as bad as it looks (alternately, 343i could end up portraying the S-IVs in the fiction in a negative light because of their cocky dudebro attitudes). If Halo can't last 30 years without making itself more like every other FPS on the market or changing every aspect of itself to such a point as to where it doesn't even resemble "classic" Halo anymore, then maybe it shouldn't last 30 years.

TL;DR, change and innovation are overrated. They can be good when called for and when done well, but that's rarely the case, and more often that not they're treated as a panacea for gaming often with little or any accompanying concern for delivering a polished gaming experience. I think 343i is changing the wrong things, and while I hope it's not as bad as it looks (apparently a lot of people think the changes in H5 do mesh well with the Halo formula, but I'll have to see for myself come next week), I have serious concerns about the direction the franchise is taking.