Stop right there. What I mean is that a mass of gamers are saying they want change in a video game (like Halo, ala the same old thing), but those same gamers are playing a game like CoD that doesn't change at all. I'm thinking gamers today lack the concept of being rewarded for their kills or completing objectives. Everything is demanded to be so fast now. Whatever happened to checkmates when playing? Sure, the games may take skill, but it's rather skill in button mashing and hand-eye-coordination than strategic thinking. You know how I know Halo Reach isn't broken/stupid like CoD? I can still use strategy and tactics interchangeably to win. CoD misses the need for strategy, which makes it a dull-ass game with no gameplay quality in the end. I'm only using CoD as an example because it's the latest trend in what most consumers want, hence why Halo 4 has to resort to the faster gameplay style.Originally Posted by Pooky
Reach wasn't a failure because it lacked quality. It failed because the market is filled with the desire for games like CoD and BF3. Quantity over Quality in terms of points. A shallow reward from gameplay isn't a reward at all in my book. Reach at least offered the quality pointmaking we saw in previous Halo games: it just suffered from a lack of external support (the gamers who spoke up and wanted change wanted arena-style maps or hashes of old maps that wouldn't work with the game's design) and a devolving sense of balance because of the opinions brought forth by a increasing wayward playerbase.
Bookmarks