Is Halo meant to compete against CoD and Battlefield?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Halo 4
  3. Is Halo meant to compete against CoD and Battlefield?

User Info: Artoo_D2

Artoo_D2
5 years ago#1
I can't put my finger on it, but the series always felt like a middle ground between Call of Duty and Battlefield. Not as fast paced as CoD, but no huge emphasis on specialized classes either. I know Reach implemented loadouts, but those felt like minor additions only to please folks who love perks. I thought Reach lacked a sense of direction because of this, like it wanted to retain its classic slow gameplay, but at the same time, the way other shooters play are changing.

Not sure what point I'm trying to make, but I've kinda gotten bored of it. Reach felt like a perfected Halo 2, but it didn't really feel like it had anything new to introduce to FPSes. So I guess the question is, what should I expect from Halo 4?

User Info: Famine_10f4

Famine_10f4
5 years ago#2

Its in the shooter category so I could only assume it would be competing with other shooters.

User Info: Busy_Man123

Busy_Man123
5 years ago#3

Halo is meant to be a game. Video game wars are lame.

User Info: bobfather7

bobfather7
5 years ago#4
I would hope that Halo 4 is more like Halo 2 and 3 than Reach. Halo is about fluid gunfights, not getting cheap kills because your opponent was sprinting when the battle started.
(\../).. |#[_]#| |[_]|
(o.O) |+[_]::| |+ :| (O.O) (::) (>^_^)>

User Info: Born_Stellar

Born_Stellar
5 years ago#5

well, reach was a disappointment in comparison to the rest of the main series. to me it represented a decline in bungie's ability to create games of the same standard as they used to. and yes, halo is supposed to be able to compete against games like CoD and battlefield, but reach just wasnt of the same calibre and thus fell behind rather quickly (when looking at xbl activity).

but now bungie has passed the torch onward, and in my opinion this was for the best. I'd always wished they'd go out with a bang, but regretably all they managed was a rather disappointing crackle. better that than see them bring further decline to the franchise though.

User Info: Duwstai

Duwstai
5 years ago#6
Born_Stellar posted...
well, reach was a disappointment in comparison to the rest of the main series. to me it represented a decline in bungie's ability to create games of the same standard as they used to. and yes, halo is supposed to be able to compete against games like CoD and battlefield, but reach just wasnt of the same calibre and thus fell behind rather quickly (when looking at xbl activity).but now bungie has passed the torch onward, and in my opinion this was for the best. I'd always wished they'd go out with a bang, but regretably all they managed was a rather disappointing crackle. better that than see them bring further decline to the franchise though.

I... actually agree.

*head splodes*
XBL: eL Sm3gmA ::: PSN: Smegtico
"so continue to not care, while a bunch of fat pre teen kids teabag you"- shrub999

User Info: Born_Stellar

Born_Stellar
5 years ago#7

great, now change your gamertag for goodness sake.

User Info: Famine_10f4

Famine_10f4
5 years ago#8

Duwstai posted...
Born_Stellar posted...
well, reach was a disappointment in comparison to the rest of the main series. to me it represented a decline in bungie's ability to create games of the same standard as they used to. and yes, halo is supposed to be able to compete against games like CoD and battlefield, but reach just wasnt of the same calibre and thus fell behind rather quickly (when looking at xbl activity).but now bungie has passed the torch onward, and in my opinion this was for the best. I'd always wished they'd go out with a bang, but regretably all they managed was a rather disappointing crackle. better that than see them bring further decline to the franchise though.

I... actually agree.

*head splodes*
---
XBL: eL Sm3gmA ::: PSN: Smegtico
"so continue to not care, while a bunch of fat pre teen kids teabag you"- shrub999


As do I...

User Info: PatchTuesday

PatchTuesday
5 years ago#9
Born_Stellar posted...
well, reach was a disappointment in comparison to the rest of the main series. to me it represented a decline in bungie's ability to create games of the same standard as they used to. and yes, halo is supposed to be able to compete against games like CoD and battlefield, but reach just wasnt of the same calibre and thus fell behind rather quickly (when looking at xbl activity).but now bungie has passed the torch onward, and in my opinion this was for the best. I'd always wished they'd go out with a bang, but regretably all they managed was a rather disappointing crackle. better that than see them bring further decline to the franchise though.

I don't know that it said anything about Bungie's ability. To me it just seemed like they were weary of making Halo. And even then I'm always going to give them credit for Reach - there was some ambition, and some drive to inject some new life and features while trying not to stray too far from the formula of the first three. Execution was a little underwhelming but I think that's mostly because their heart wasn't in it.
GT: Stringslayer420

User Info: GTAChaosMan

GTAChaosMan
5 years ago#10
halo...is a series meant to be made before those games were..
XBL GT: EJ SPARTAN 117
I got GTA IV at about 12:40 A.M. on April 29, 2008
  1. Boards
  2. Halo 4
  3. Is Halo meant to compete against CoD and Battlefield?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived