nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Knight wrote:nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Loads of games that old are relevant. Counter Strike and call of duty spring to mind.
nick_md wrote:Knight wrote:nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Loads of games that old are relevant. Counter Strike and call of duty spring to mind.
Yet Halo isn't. It's done. The two examples you give are grounded in realism, which is probably why they persist. (I prefer the fantastical ftr, I love halo).
Halo is finished outside its core base. This isn't me saying it's shit, it's just how it is.
Minnesänger wrote:Well, they haven’t. I mean, I played a lot of destiny, but fighting hive at light level one feels the same as at level 850. The tight AI and emergent gameplay is gone in place of MMO-lite-lite mechanics and numberwang. Great games, still, but they’re no Halo 1-3.
nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Diluted Dante wrote:nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Doom would like a word.
Knight wrote:nick_md wrote:Knight wrote:nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Loads of games that old are relevant. Counter Strike and call of duty spring to mind.
Yet Halo isn't. It's done. The two examples you give are grounded in realism, which is probably why they persist. (I prefer the fantastical ftr, I love halo).
Halo is finished outside its core base. This isn't me saying it's shit, it's just how it is.
Yeah perhaps. And I think you could argue that chasing relevance (at no point did halo ever need a sprint mechanic) is what made things go wrong quality wise in the first place.
nick_md wrote:Deffo, chasing relevance is halo's demise. As soon as they added a sprint, I was out.Knight wrote:Yeah perhaps. And I think you could argue that chasing relevance (at no point did halo ever need a sprint mechanic) is what made things go wrong quality wise in the first place.nick_md wrote:Yet Halo isn't. It's done. The two examples you give are grounded in realism, which is probably why they persist. (I prefer the fantastical ftr, I love halo). Halo is finished outside its core base. This isn't me saying it's shit, it's just how it is.Knight wrote:Loads of games that old are relevant. Counter Strike and call of duty spring to mind.nick_md wrote:I don't know why we expect a game nearly 20 years old to still be relevant. It'll appeal to the core fans but outside that, it's had its day. That's not a slight btw. Franchises like Mario can apply themselves to different genres, stay fresh, mix things up. Halo and its ilk can't. It's done. Halo is done. It'll still release games that are great, but the glory days are long since over.
Djornson wrote:
Agree with this. I mean, sprint was a huge problem for me. Changes the game massively. I thought Halo 5 MP still had its following in esports though, does it not? I guess im not completely following what you mean by 'Halo is done.'
yourfavouriteuncle wrote:I thought Infinite was some open world kinda thing? Pretty sure that’s what has been hinted at and is also why the first trailer had a menagerie lolling about the place?
Kernowgaz wrote:Have you got the X? I’ve googled it and there’s an issue for some, just feels really random.
Mmm bizarre, cheers.SonicBoomBoy wrote:Kernowgaz wrote:Have you got the X? I’ve googled it and there’s an issue for some, just feels really random.
Yes on the X
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!