Note: This topic isn't about whether you like or dislike the direction taken in recent Halo games like Reach, 4 and 5. Rather, its focus is on the viability of a new Halo game that innovates with the same philosophy as Halo 2 and 3 when innovating from their respective predecessors (supporting the core Halo formula by innovating through the sandbox) instead of the philosophy of Reach, 4 and 5 (reshaping the core Halo formula by innovating through fundamental mechanics). I like all FPS Halo games except Halo 4 and I prefer the method of the first two sequels and that's what made me start thinking about the subject but it's not actually the point of the topic.
It's been almost a decade since the release of Halo Reach and the start of a trend where mainline Halo releases would each try to change by adding new core pillars to the gameplay. Halo: Reach added Armor Abilities that players would choose at the start of matches. Halo 4 kept Armor Abilities while making Sprint a universal trait and added customizable loadouts, perks and the ability to call in random weapons when getting a high enough score. Halo 5 removed the features that caused disparities between players at the start of matches and replaced Armor Abilities with Spartan Abilities that are common to every player in a match.
Reception to these changes has been mixed on various fronts but what I'd like to focus on is an idea that is often brought up to defend the kind of change that has been seen with the franchise over recent years. It's the idea that these changes help Halo "keep up" with the current landscape of video games. That this approach to change is better suited to the contemporary market.
This is what I've been thinking about a lot recently because I believe that in the current market, Halo would be greatly rewarded by going back to its roots and I'm very interested in discussing that to see whether there is as much validity to my thoughts as I think. Because some of the things I'm about to bring up are things I may only have cursory knowledge and understanding of and so I'm looking to learn.
Variety in Multiplayer is celebrated
Just looking at the list of most played games on Xbox One, it seems like people are playing quite a wide variety of titles. Some of them may share a genre or a focus on a particular game mode but from what I've seen of these games (cause there's only a handful I've actually played a lot of), they play quite differently from each other. Just looking at the Top 5 FPS on that list, Apex Legends, Black Ops 4, Rainbow Six: Siege, Destiny 2 and Overwatch, they all appear to be pretty different from each other and to use different formulas in their gameplay. There are shared traits among a lot of the games on the list but overall, I think it's safe to say that there isn't a single mentality with which developers of these games created them. This is quite unlike the previous console generation where many games where adding perks, loadouts, progression systems, killstreaks and whatnot in response to Call of Duty's success.
Sprint and ADS are not considered essential
Sprinting as a core mechanic in modern FPS doesn't really seem to be considered essential, same with aiming down sights. In 2016, the reboot of Doom came out, didn't feature a Sprint mechanic or ADS, and it has done really well. I played and loved this game and for a while now, it's been what I'd always think of when thinking of how Halo could go back to not having Sprint/ADS. However, recently while thinking about this topic, I did a tiny bit research and found out that both Overwatch and Counter-Strike GO, two games that unlike Halo I've never played and thus don't know that much about, also don't have Sprinting and ADS as core mechanics (apparently in Overwatch, select characters have access to these features). Those games are also some of the most popular online games this generation, with Overwatch being pretty high on the list found above and CSGO consistently having hundreds of thousands of players online on Steam and being ranked in the top 3 most played games on that platform. That says to me that right now, Sprint/ADS aren't seen as pre-requisites for a popular online shooter.
(I would argue that they weren't even prerequisites when they were first added to Halo but that's besides the point)
The "Enhanced Mobility" trend is dead
At the start of this console generation, it looked like enhanced mobility in the shooter space was the new hotness. The first example that was notable to me was Titanfall and the freedom of movement was a pretty big reason for why I and many others were excited for it. Then we had Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Blacks Ops III, Titanfall 2, Infinite Warfare and maybe some other games I'm unaware of. In the middle of that released Halo 5, featuring enhanced mobility of its own with sprinting, a thruster pack, clambering and other stuff. But now I don't really see as many games releasing with those features. They haven't been present in Call of Duty: WW2 and Black Ops 4, both opting for a "boots on the ground" approach, and even Respawn Entertainment's new game, Apex Legends, doesn't have the same movement options as Titanfall. So, it seems to me like as a trend, enhanced mobility as died off.
"Returning to your roots" is free hype
A lot of franchises this generation have returned to their "roots" to great success. As mentioned above, Call of Duty: WW2 dialed back on the previous entries' futuristic settings and accompanying enhanced mobility in favor of a return to its WW2, boots-on-the-ground roots and apparently sold twice as many copies as the game it succeeded. Even before its release it felt like excitement for it was really high thanks to the change in direction. Doom's reboot returned to its roots and modernized its core formula to great critical and commercial success, thanks to which we now get to see them expand on it with a sequel. Even recently, Capcom has found commercial and critical success in the releases of Resident Evil 2 Remake and Devil May Cry 5, to games that capitalize on the aspects of their franchises that fans fell in love with a long time ago. Those are just a few examples among many and I really can't describe the gains from "returning to your roots" as anything other than free hype, because that's what it feels like to me.
It seems to even have an effect on the people who weren't already into previous releases in those franchises. Because it's easier to get excited about something when the people who are targeted are very excited themselves. I've felt it myself with Doom 2016, which is based on a franchise that was created years before my birth but that didn't matter when I saw how passionate the fans of the series were about the reboot. I've felt it with Devil May Cry, a series in which the only game I'd fully played through was the divisive reboot but that didn't matter when that trailer played at E3 and made me think "Oh damn this is what DMC is supposed to be?!" and now DMC5 is one of my favorite video games.
I've even felt it with Halo. The first Halo game I played was Halo: Reach. Then I played Halo 4. And while playing those, I'd go online and see many people longing for a game in the vein of the original trilogy which made me curious about those games, made read and learn about them to the point where I also ended up wanting to try a new release in that style. That curiosity coupled with the general excitement surrounding the announcement of the Master Chief Collection meant I was really excited as well. And once the MCC came out, I understood. I ended up loving the way the original trilogy of games played, both in terms of campaign and multiplayer, to the point where even though I didn't grow up with "Classic Halo", I still became more of a fan of that than I am the newer ones.
The hype from a return to a series' roots has even been seen with the little that has been shown and discussed with Halo Infinite. The reveal trailer that was simple, hopeful and showed a new art-style inspired by the classic Halo art style has been very well received and it seems like the sentiment for what we've seen of Infinite's art style (with its simpler design Master Chief and the return of black undersuits) is much more positive that the one for the art style of Halo 4/5.
In conclusion, I just really think that signs point towards a Halo game made with the formula of CE-3 doing really well. Halo needing to adapt to the market is an idea that I've seen and heard very often in the past years, particularly since 343 took over the franchise with Halo 4, and with decisions that have been taken with the franchise since Reach, it's probably fair to say that trends are factored very heavily into the development of newer Halo games since they've seemingly lead to features being added even when those change the formula instead of supporting it. And so, if the trends are so important, if the market and adapting to it are so important, then I think that even with their importance taken into account, the market seems to be saying that all Halo Infinite needs to do in order to succeed, in order to achieve longevity and in order to compete, is to be Halo.
Do you feel that Halo Infinite would benefit from returning to its roots? Do you think that such a game would work in the current market? Do you think there's something I'm missing that could help me better understand why a classic Halo may not be viable today?
It's been almost a decade since the release of Halo Reach and the start of a trend where mainline Halo releases would each try to change by adding new core pillars to the gameplay. Halo: Reach added Armor Abilities that players would choose at the start of matches. Halo 4 kept Armor Abilities while making Sprint a universal trait and added customizable loadouts, perks and the ability to call in random weapons when getting a high enough score. Halo 5 removed the features that caused disparities between players at the start of matches and replaced Armor Abilities with Spartan Abilities that are common to every player in a match.
Reception to these changes has been mixed on various fronts but what I'd like to focus on is an idea that is often brought up to defend the kind of change that has been seen with the franchise over recent years. It's the idea that these changes help Halo "keep up" with the current landscape of video games. That this approach to change is better suited to the contemporary market.
This is what I've been thinking about a lot recently because I believe that in the current market, Halo would be greatly rewarded by going back to its roots and I'm very interested in discussing that to see whether there is as much validity to my thoughts as I think. Because some of the things I'm about to bring up are things I may only have cursory knowledge and understanding of and so I'm looking to learn.
Variety in Multiplayer is celebrated
Just looking at the list of most played games on Xbox One, it seems like people are playing quite a wide variety of titles. Some of them may share a genre or a focus on a particular game mode but from what I've seen of these games (cause there's only a handful I've actually played a lot of), they play quite differently from each other. Just looking at the Top 5 FPS on that list, Apex Legends, Black Ops 4, Rainbow Six: Siege, Destiny 2 and Overwatch, they all appear to be pretty different from each other and to use different formulas in their gameplay. There are shared traits among a lot of the games on the list but overall, I think it's safe to say that there isn't a single mentality with which developers of these games created them. This is quite unlike the previous console generation where many games where adding perks, loadouts, progression systems, killstreaks and whatnot in response to Call of Duty's success.
Sprint and ADS are not considered essential
Sprinting as a core mechanic in modern FPS doesn't really seem to be considered essential, same with aiming down sights. In 2016, the reboot of Doom came out, didn't feature a Sprint mechanic or ADS, and it has done really well. I played and loved this game and for a while now, it's been what I'd always think of when thinking of how Halo could go back to not having Sprint/ADS. However, recently while thinking about this topic, I did a tiny bit research and found out that both Overwatch and Counter-Strike GO, two games that unlike Halo I've never played and thus don't know that much about, also don't have Sprinting and ADS as core mechanics (apparently in Overwatch, select characters have access to these features). Those games are also some of the most popular online games this generation, with Overwatch being pretty high on the list found above and CSGO consistently having hundreds of thousands of players online on Steam and being ranked in the top 3 most played games on that platform. That says to me that right now, Sprint/ADS aren't seen as pre-requisites for a popular online shooter.
(I would argue that they weren't even prerequisites when they were first added to Halo but that's besides the point)
The "Enhanced Mobility" trend is dead
At the start of this console generation, it looked like enhanced mobility in the shooter space was the new hotness. The first example that was notable to me was Titanfall and the freedom of movement was a pretty big reason for why I and many others were excited for it. Then we had Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Blacks Ops III, Titanfall 2, Infinite Warfare and maybe some other games I'm unaware of. In the middle of that released Halo 5, featuring enhanced mobility of its own with sprinting, a thruster pack, clambering and other stuff. But now I don't really see as many games releasing with those features. They haven't been present in Call of Duty: WW2 and Black Ops 4, both opting for a "boots on the ground" approach, and even Respawn Entertainment's new game, Apex Legends, doesn't have the same movement options as Titanfall. So, it seems to me like as a trend, enhanced mobility as died off.
"Returning to your roots" is free hype
A lot of franchises this generation have returned to their "roots" to great success. As mentioned above, Call of Duty: WW2 dialed back on the previous entries' futuristic settings and accompanying enhanced mobility in favor of a return to its WW2, boots-on-the-ground roots and apparently sold twice as many copies as the game it succeeded. Even before its release it felt like excitement for it was really high thanks to the change in direction. Doom's reboot returned to its roots and modernized its core formula to great critical and commercial success, thanks to which we now get to see them expand on it with a sequel. Even recently, Capcom has found commercial and critical success in the releases of Resident Evil 2 Remake and Devil May Cry 5, to games that capitalize on the aspects of their franchises that fans fell in love with a long time ago. Those are just a few examples among many and I really can't describe the gains from "returning to your roots" as anything other than free hype, because that's what it feels like to me.
It seems to even have an effect on the people who weren't already into previous releases in those franchises. Because it's easier to get excited about something when the people who are targeted are very excited themselves. I've felt it myself with Doom 2016, which is based on a franchise that was created years before my birth but that didn't matter when I saw how passionate the fans of the series were about the reboot. I've felt it with Devil May Cry, a series in which the only game I'd fully played through was the divisive reboot but that didn't matter when that trailer played at E3 and made me think "Oh damn this is what DMC is supposed to be?!" and now DMC5 is one of my favorite video games.
I've even felt it with Halo. The first Halo game I played was Halo: Reach. Then I played Halo 4. And while playing those, I'd go online and see many people longing for a game in the vein of the original trilogy which made me curious about those games, made read and learn about them to the point where I also ended up wanting to try a new release in that style. That curiosity coupled with the general excitement surrounding the announcement of the Master Chief Collection meant I was really excited as well. And once the MCC came out, I understood. I ended up loving the way the original trilogy of games played, both in terms of campaign and multiplayer, to the point where even though I didn't grow up with "Classic Halo", I still became more of a fan of that than I am the newer ones.
The hype from a return to a series' roots has even been seen with the little that has been shown and discussed with Halo Infinite. The reveal trailer that was simple, hopeful and showed a new art-style inspired by the classic Halo art style has been very well received and it seems like the sentiment for what we've seen of Infinite's art style (with its simpler design Master Chief and the return of black undersuits) is much more positive that the one for the art style of Halo 4/5.
In conclusion, I just really think that signs point towards a Halo game made with the formula of CE-3 doing really well. Halo needing to adapt to the market is an idea that I've seen and heard very often in the past years, particularly since 343 took over the franchise with Halo 4, and with decisions that have been taken with the franchise since Reach, it's probably fair to say that trends are factored very heavily into the development of newer Halo games since they've seemingly lead to features being added even when those change the formula instead of supporting it. And so, if the trends are so important, if the market and adapting to it are so important, then I think that even with their importance taken into account, the market seems to be saying that all Halo Infinite needs to do in order to succeed, in order to achieve longevity and in order to compete, is to be Halo.
Do you feel that Halo Infinite would benefit from returning to its roots? Do you think that such a game would work in the current market? Do you think there's something I'm missing that could help me better understand why a classic Halo may not be viable today?
