KylieDog said:
|
I disagree.
Quite firmly really.
As I've exemplified, copying "modern designs" is not a sign of success or even evolution and may only manage to detract attention from a game's core.
You say "new mechanics that are liked"...but can you actually decide what is liked by everyone? As I've said, Halo has been Halo for 10 years now, it's become a game for the fans, for the people that buy Halo because IT IS Halo and not something else. Had they changed the gameplay to something resembling Killzone 2 - which I am a fan of -, I would not have been as happy with the game as I am now.
A game series should not be forced to adapt to some concessions of the modern age. No!
Gaming does not evolve as a whole. Gaming is not a single cellular organism that expands all at once, all the same. Gaming is a real chimeran hydra, with each head as different from the other as that one is from the rest. Gaming evolution is not linear and is not defined by one thread against another.
You bring forth the arguments of what would happen if all games would be Wolfenstein. I see what you attempted to counter, but you've missed a point by miles. The last Wolfenstein game had everything needed of a modern shooter...and it fell flat. Had someone made a retro style Wolfenstein game, I guarantee it would have gathered much more praise and success than its modern inspired official rebirth. When Doom came out it took from Wolfenstein what it needed and made something new of it. When Quake followed, it tooks what it needed again and built upon it. Half Life adapted the bits of gameplay from its forerunners and built on them, ushering in a new age for gaming. And so forth.
Halo is Halo. It has always been Halo and I hope it will always be Halo.Halo is the story of Master Chief and Cortana, of the Covenant and of the Flood, of the Forerunners and of our own path in the Universe, all wrapped in a gameplay that has suffered few mutations over time against its core.
Yes, not all games should be like Halo. But do not make Halo like all games either, as it would become a different beast then However, would it not be far more benefical for everyone if a developer would take what is good here, and what is good somewhere else, and create something new out of it? Like Uncharted for example, a mishmash of concepts and story bits that together formed a new franchize that is quite good and gathers quite some success - regardless of individual feelings towards the series -.
I believe in expectations being set on a game based on what it actually is and where it actually aims. I don't believe that ANY marketing stunt could have saved Halo 4 from being marked a cash grab, as I also do not believe it's a game made to gather new audiences. Why should it? It already has a HUGE fanbase that wants its Halo and will gather good sales regardless.
Isn't it maybe the same as with every single Nintendo propriety? Every year they release the same game, with better graphics, new levels, some tweaks...but basically the very same game. And it is loved for what it is, for what those that bought it wanted out of it. Wouldn't it be BETTER for everyone that moans about Mario being released for the 900th time to actually ask for something completely new?
The core problem is not games copying other games.
The core problem in gaming is that gamers have no effing clue of what they actually want and expect of a game. Had Halo become a Call of Duty clone, it would have been rallied against for that reason. It stuck close to home, it's being rallied against for this. You can't please everyone, can't meet every opinion, can't be perfect to everyone. There will be games of a certain type, and there will be games of another type, and nobody can decide against which is actually better. I've had in my life more fun in Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena than I've ever gathered in a military shooter a lá Call of Duty, Counter Strike or Battlefield. Can you honestly tell me your type of gaming is more advanced than mine because it lets you pretend to look down the barell of a virtual gun and because it takes only two bullets to down an enemy?
If so...I am sorry to be wasting both our times on this.
