: I'm honestly getting tired of all the "Innovaaaayyshuuun!"
: commentary I see in every other gaming-related thread on the web. I
: subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of
: thought. I don't care for change for the sake of change, innovation for
: the sake of innovation. I'd rather play something highly iterative but
: well-polished and fun than play something "innovative" but
: mediocre. There's been many series that changed drastically for no good
: reason and suffered for it. Look at all the series that suffered greatly
: when they tried to shift from 2D to 3D in the mid to late 90s & early
: 00s, a transition that necessitated a lot of changes in gameplay design.
: Some genres that thrived in 2D ended up marginalized when gaming went 3D,
: most notably platformers. Mario was the only one that made the transition
: unscathed, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that can keep
: changing things up and actually have genuinely good results from it.

: Halo always worked best when it was on a level playing field. The first three
: games had everybody spawn with identical attributes and gear. Reach
: changed this a bit by adding armor abilities and loadouts, but these
: loadouts were all presets and no abilities had to be unlocked, so
: technically it was still more or less even. But Halo 4 tried too hard to
: emulate COD. Even though Halo had averted this for years even though every
: other FPS tried to make themselves more like COD following the original
: Modern Warfare, it eventually caught up to it when 343I took over. There
: were custom loadouts complete with perks as well as care packages
: ordnance drops earned by getting kills, plus you had to unlock most
: spawning weapons and abilities. Really, if you play Halo 4 MP with shields
: disabled, you're basically playing COD in Space. The only thing missing is
: ADS. The problem with custom loadouts, perks, and rank-based unlocks is
: that it's a unbalanced snarl. That's one of the things I hate most about
: COD. Not only is some rookie starting off is at a severe disadvantage, but
: the wide array of starting abilities and gear you get over time is
: nigh-impossible to balance properly. This wasn't a concern back in COD2,
: when there were no perks, no killstreaks, and no unlocks. You had six
: weapons to choose from (an SMG, an LMG, a bolt-action rifle, a semi-auto
: rifle, a sniper rifle, or a shotgun) and a single preset pistol and that
: was it, and I thought it was the best MP the COD series ever had. But in
: 2007 any notion of balanced gameplay was thrown out for the sake of adding
: a "player investment" system (a euphemism for "Skinner
: box").

: It's too late for COD. The changes introduced nearly seven years ago are now
: expected for that series. But it's not too late for Halo. It can and
: should go back to the balanced, level playing field that made it different
: from all the other "me too" COD wannabes. It's not the first
: time Halo has lost some feature that was added mere for the sake of
: change. Dual wielding was introduced in Halo 2, and while it had a large
: initial "Wow!" factor, it was tough to balance properly and it
: was ultimately an unnecessary change that added no depth to the gameplay.
: Realizing this, Bungie de-emphasized it in Halo 3 and eliminated it
: entirely in ODST and Reach; 343I did not re-add it in Halo 4. Custom
: loadouts, perks, etc., ruin the feel of Halo and they are ultimately
: unnecessary changes that add no depth to the gameplay. It only added a hot
: mess of complication. And ultimately it wasn't even innovative since it
: was just aping COD. The end result of changing the Halo formula into some
: bizarre Halo/COD hybrid was Halo 4 having the most rapid drop-off in
: matchmaking population ever in the series. Having things to go back to a
: level playing field isn't a "nostalgia trip." It's sticking with
: a formula that works and works well.

: So to turn it around on you, if you want a game with an unbalanced
: clusterhump of perks, custom loadouts, and the like, why not just go play
: COD? Why not let Halo be Halo, at least in terms of core gameplay? There's
: plenty of ways to change things up without wrecking competitive balance in
: MP. Maybe more interactivity in the environments. Maybe bring back
: Invasion as a truly large-scale (16v16 minimum) conflict on huge MP maps.
: Maybe really expand what Forge is capable of so that players have greater
: flexibility in defining custom play spaces. Y'know, changes that would
: actually be good, not changes designed to capitalize on the industry's
: obsession with sacrificing balance for the sake of the almighty rewards
: schedule. Besides, when was the last time anybody did anything truly
: innovative in an FPS anyway? Let some other studio try to push the
: boundaries of FPS MP. Not every game has to try to reinvent the wheel, not
: that Halo 4 was doing that at all in the first place, mind you.

The problem with this line of reasoning is something you mentioned yourself: COD switched from a "level playing field" to a player reward system, and did the game series grind to a halt? I'm sure they lost a lot of fans, but they also pushed that series into supernova mode, and every subsequent COD release became one of, if not the biggest seller of that year. To COD, change was very good. And don't say all the millions of COD fans are mindless drones either, I'm a fan of COD and occasionally dip into it for a fun game with my friends. Keep in mind that Halo has it's fair share of mindless drone "fans" as well.

I'm not saying that Halo should emulate COD, I agree that ultimately doing so contributed to Halo 4's popularity drop, but if Halo remains stagnant and "old school," then they will wind up shedding new fans, which is what they need for continued survival, and a steady downfall will kill the franchise. Innovation is good, they just need to find better ways to do it.