How Balance (Almost) Ruined the Halo Series

Photo-1
Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Editor's note: Michael looks at how the quest for balance changed the feel of the Halo series, and how the Reach beta's Invasion mode looks like a return to form for the franchise. It was definitely a hit at our most recent Game Night! -Demian


"Everyone, stick to the plan!" my teammate urges as the match begins. We all know the drill by now, though, a mere two days into the Halo: Reach beta, well enough to instinctively hop over the railing, mash the left bumper to sprint forward, and fire off our supplies of grenades the second the game starts.

One-flag Capture the Flag on Sword Base, the azure map with multiple levels and ramps, plays out the same way every time. The flag's defenders have little choice; they can wait until our grenade bombardment lets up and hope they're not too late, or go around the back way, allowing us to steal their precious flag, though flanking us in the process. Few teams choose the latter strategy.

 Games on Sword Base unfold the same way, every time.

This is, technically, a very balanced experience. The red and blue teams take turns defending and attacking, always spawning in the same locations, usually with the same armor abilities. Attackers choose sprint to get to the flag quickly. Defenders choose armor lock, the temporarily impenetrable shield, to survive the avalanche of grenades. Once the flag makes it out into the main courtyard of the level, which rarely takes long, members of each team fall back to the tried-and-true, jetpack-enabled Airborne loadout.

The attackers attempt to launch the flag into their base using the gravity lift, which may or may not have been its original purpose, and the defenders attempt to shoot them. Respawners redouble the grenade spam, and clusterfucking ensues.

 

It's difficult to defend the flag, but it's also difficult for the attacking team members to carry it all the way to their base, even with the (perhaps unintentional) advantage provided by the central grav lift. (For some reason, I like to imagine that developer Bungie envisioned players running, pack-like, through the level's cramped corridors, working together and checking around every corner, rather than spamming grenades into the middle of the level while the flags floats up and down helplessly. If that's the case, their vision was, sadly, not achieved.)

Regardless, this experience is a far cry from those halcyon days of Halo: Combat Evolved. This is the complaint most frequently leveraged against Bungie's beloved franchise, and even discounting the heady influence of nostalgia, the detractors have a point.

My formative years were spent right here.

When the original Xbox's sci-fi green, quasi-holographic dashboard greeted my 13-year-old eyes for the first time, I was mesmerized. When Captain Keyes handed me that fabled pistol, I hardly knew how to thank him. Getting the feel for the new controller, innovative game mechanics, and unearthly graphics was an incredible experience, one made infinitely better by the fact that I shared it with my closest friends. Though technically young, we were hardened veterans of the frenetic battlefields of GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, and thanks to Halo's multiplayer, making the transition from Nintendo's trusted quirks to Microsoft's unexplored frontiers wasn't as hard as we had feared it would be. We were lucky trailblazers.

Our favorite map was, of course, Blood Gulch. We'd spend the match's opening moments firing pistols slugs at one another while scrambling toward the Scorpion Tank in an all-out race for supremacy. Whomever controlled the tank controlled the entire level.

The first of us to reach it usually headed for the hills -- literally -- jamming the Scorpion behind the elevated rocks at the far end of the canyon, raining military-grade death down on anyone and everyone who dared move. The others, like those left behind at the Rapture, tip-toed through the shadows and clambered up the hill, intent on toppling the Scorpion God, lest more judgments crash down from on high. These efforts were usually in vain, and matches often ended with vast differences in scores.

The Battle Rifle eliminated experimentation.

It was fun to watch on the Scorpion God's portion of the screen as you bobbed up and down between the gulch's hills, brashly attempting to reach the rocket launcher and fire off one desperate shot before oblivion arrived via the tank's main cannon. Equally fun was teaming up, if only temporarily, to man a Warthog and distract the tank with errant chain-gun fire and tenacious meandering long enough for a fourth player to get the jump on him. Experimentation was the name of the game, and this proved true on all maps, through single-player and multiplayer, in every game type and every scenario.

Something happened, though, during the creation of Halo 2. Balance came to the fore at the expense of experimentation, and the three-round-burst Battle Rifle joined the fray. All players were equal, provided they didn't try to pick up any other weapon. The masses of Xbox Live and the elitists at Major League Gaming controlled the tides of gameplay, influencing updates, weapon tweaks, and matchmaking playlists -- elements that hadn't even existed a few years earlier. Vehicles were gimped by the rocket launcher's shiny new lock-on feature, and the 'Gulch, remade as Coagulation, was an over-sized mess.

Though the return of Halo's Assault Rifle boded well for Halo 3, the same issues persisted in multiplayer. It was fair for every player; it was difficult for one team to gain a distinct advantage, and it truly wasn't as fun as it used to be. It's hard to articulate where the magic went, but for fans, the difference was palpable. Halo 3: ODST's Firefight mode went miles in the right direction, though spotty connections and a lack of matchmaking (my friends and I live worlds apart by now, after all, and we rarely have similar schedules) made it ineffectual, a blip on the radar.

Firefight, though excellent, was largely overlooked.

Halo: Reach may be Bungie's last chance to recapture some of that old magic. The first few days of the multiplayer beta, which began on May 4, demonstrated that they were certainly trying. The Internet wept at the removal of the Battle Rifle, though many players shed tears of joy. Its replacement -- the DMR -- is a far more subtle weapon, capable of great damage but with numerous weaknesses. That's as it should be.

Something was still awry, however, and it struck me as my friends and I -- the same ones I devoured the original Halo with over eight years ago -- stormed the Sword Base's flag for the umpteenth time.

"This is not why I play Halo," I said, half aloud.

"What?" responded my friend.

"This is not why I play Halo," I reiterated. The discussion that followed led to a revelation. After years as a Halo fan -- the kind that reads the books and scours the Wiki, not the MLG kind -- I could finally put into words some of what I had been feeling for years. I missed the experimenation. The discussion ended with a pang of hope, however, as the following day Bungie's true ace in the hole, Invasion mode, was due for release.

Elites and Spartans are no longer evenly matched.

Invasion pits Spartans against Elites in a three-part game of Territories-meets-Capture the Flag. Spartans desperately try to hold their ground as the agile, powerful Elites storm a simple complex from either side. The Spartans eventually retreat into a larger base, with new objectives to defend against the Elites before either team can claim victory.

Players are no longer evenly matched; Elites now possess a versatile dodge maneuver, allowing them to negotiate an advantage against Spartan players in almost any face-to-face confrontation. Spartans possess generally superior weapons and vehicles, however, and the equipment in play becomes more lethal as a match progresses. In the end game, energy swords and grenade launchers replace plasma rifles and DMRs, and vehicles, including that good old Scorpion Tank, spawn in for extra chaos.

Teamwork is important for both sides but especially for Elites, who must decide whether to storm the Spartans' base guns blazing or opt for the more stealthy Assassin loadout. During the final phase of most matches, players have a huge range of choices. Spawn far from the action and hop in a vehicle, or ask your teammate to kindly find a quiet corner so you can join the game at his or her side?

Elites can choose the deadly energy sword, the long-range needle rifle, the plasma rifle, or the needler. Spartans have an even harder decision between the DMR, Shotgun, Grenade Launcher or Assault Rifle, each with different armor abilities. Players must attack and defend multiple objectives, only some of which must be completed for the game to continue. Strategies are endless; teamwork, wit, and yes, experimentation, win matches.

Invasion is what I've been looking for all these years. Halo has come a long way, and I would have never guessed that it would take an experience so vastly different from the original game to finally achieve a similar feeling. If Bungie can deliver even more come September, Reach may be the actual Halo-killer the industry has been seeking for so long. Is it balanced? Sometimes. Is it perfect? No -- and thank God for that.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (19)
Me_001
May 11, 2010

Halo has been a decline in the most recent iteration (i.e. Halo ODST). I tried the beta and it left me unimpressed.  Invasion sounds like loads of fun though.I didn't get a chance to play a round of it over the weekend, but it sounds like it is just what the series needed. Yay for experimentation!

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
May 11, 2010

I agree 100%. For Slayer and Capture the Flag matches, Combat Evolved reigned supreme. There was still fun to be had in Halo 2 and 3. Fiesta Crazy King on Ascension, Cat & Mouse on Coagulation, speedy, low-gravity bound Vampire matches on Sandtrap, they were all fun. But for straight up deathmatches, the original was where it was at.

Strangely, most of my Combat Evolved multiplayer experience came from Halo PC (A computer course I took in high school had a trial installed on every machine. whenever there was down time, a bunch of us would get into LAN matches. All that was available was CTF and Slayer on Blood Gulch only, but that's all we needed. Scorpion tanks were mysteriously missing, but Banshees, fuel rod cannons, and flamethrowers more than made up for it.

Even though I played the hell out of Halo 2 and 3's multiplayer, it never quite compared to that first experience. And I doubt even Reach's Invasion mode will ever make me relive that experience again.

Demian_-_bitmobbio
May 11, 2010

Nice post! Yeah, once we started playing Invasion at last Friday's Game Night, we never switched to any other mode.

Default_picture
May 11, 2010

Excellent break-down of multiplayer modes thus far. I, too, am eternally bummed that I can't just pick up and play Firefight via matchmaking.

I also agree that the multiplayer in Halo 3 is lackluster compared to the first two entries. I feel like it not only killed experimentation, but any sort of team work.

Reach is a completely different story. Starting a team off at a reasonable disadvantage (like defending your flag on Sword Base or playing for the Spartans at the start of Invasion) forces you and your team mates to congeal into something of a functional unit or lose. Needless to say, I'm really looking forward to Fall.

Great piece.

Redeye
May 11, 2010

I actually have a counter argument here: You don't miss halo 1, you miss the LAN environment. I've played halo 1 online on PC. It's a mess. The pistol is overpowered, the rush for power weapons and vehicles squealches all creative thinking, and every match is pretty much decided by who was on what team at the begining of the match. The problem, in my opinion, has never been the game balancing as much as the Xbox live experience. You are playing against people you don't like in an environment where winning is the only objective. People aren't trying to experiment or have fun they are just trying to wax your ass. I already see  the beginings of ways that invasion could be culled of it's experimentation by people deciding the 'best' way of doing things and sticking to it as well. It's just new, so that won't come into play until later.

With this many people playing a game, picking it apart, and then comparing notes afterward, their will always be degredation of the game's freedom of choice. Just like how fighting games evolve and congeal into merciless monsters the more they are played. LANs were insulated from this because of the limited amount of people trying to figure the game out. Halo 1 just never got 'solved' while you were playing it. While halo 2 and 3 got solved before your very eyes. Halo 3 especially because it was basically halo 2 with some smaller changes. Halo reach looks better now because it has so many new elements that people have to relearn things, I dread how brutal it's going to be once it gets 'solved' and people get as good with the DMR and pistol as they were with the BR.


With any luck the game will somehow avoid that fate, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


PS. One thing I will say about halo 1, however, is that it had the best map designs of the entire series. 3 in particular was very bad at maps.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
May 11, 2010

@Jeffrey You may be onto something with the LAN argument. Having everyone in the same room definitely created a different atmosphere than playing online with a bunch of strangers and that certainly had an impact.


But I think there were enough power weapons and vehicles in Combat Evolved to allow my argument to continue holding water. Having the multitude of choices did give a natural balance to the game. Maybe someone had taken the rocket launcher in the middle of the map, but there were still sniper rifles on top of the base and shotguns inside.

People develop their own play style, whether on LAN or online (though, I'll admit, the online landscape changes more slowly due to players not getting many repeat skirmishes with other players.) Personally, I like to snipe, so I would always try to get a rifle and a pistol and head to the cliffs near Red Base, even when the Banshee was available.

Just like in fighting games, we all have our main and then we try to be just good enough at everything else to be well-rounded. And also just like in fighting games -- the balanced ones anyway -- the game will change and evolve over time.

Once people in our LAN learned that my sniping was the key to my semi-constant victory, they changed the way they played to counter me. They would snatch the snipers before I could and would frequently patrol my ridge in Warthogs.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Today's winning strategy may be tomorrow's key to defeat.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is I don't believe Halo 1, 2, or 3 (and probably not Reach either,) can get "solved," so I don't believe that's what turned me off of 2 and 3.

To your point, it probably had a lot to do with map designs. Maps were simpler back then, allowing strategy to overtake running and gunning. Just comparing Blood Gulch and Sidewinder to Valhalla and Sandtrap, it's obvious what's wrong with the newer places: they're too complicated. Huge areas full of little nooks and crannies, complex structures and horribly hill-covered landscapes, most of the time, it doesn't matter how good you are, someone is going to get the drop on you because there is just too much of which to keep track.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Maybe I should turn this into an entry for Chris's "Extended Commentary" Field Week writing prompt.

Redeye
May 11, 2010

Don't worry, I love rambling ^.^. Anywho I think that I would argue that one differance between halo 1 and halo 3 that makes halo 1 more playable is having readily availible counters to super strong things. In halo 1 the sniper could beat the tank, the grenade could beat the hog, hiding and flanking could beat the ghost, pistol could beat the banshee, pistol could beat the sniper, many things could beat rockets, ultimately it was easier to switch tactics and succeed. In halo 3 when I spawn in on sand trap I feel helpless. I can't beat a vehicle on my own at all. I have to find the spartan laser, find the missles, or find another vehicle, or i'm dead. So the game is naturally limiting my choices. It's the same with a sniper. You don't spawn with the BR and even if you do it's not good against a sniper at range, so you don't have a readily availible counter. Some people love this, because it makes getting to the power weapon or vehicle first more rewarding, but to people like me who prefer small scale infantry weapons, strategy, and on foot combat to power weapons and vehicles, it makes the entire game less rewarding because other people are being rewarded for coveting things I wish I could ignore entirely.

I think we are both right to an extent, no game can be completely 'solved' but the fact that everyone and their brother online gravitates to the tactics they believe have 'solved' the game limits your choices with Halo's current balance, because the tactics they use are so effective at limiting you because you only have 2 or so effective responses to that tactic.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
May 11, 2010

@Jeffrey Excellent points, though I think I have to agree with Mike and disagree with you on one: the Battle Rifle.

It sounded like such a good idea at the time. Even throughout Halo 2, it all seemed alright (probably due to the dual-wielding distracting people,) but the BR did completely kill strategy in Halo.

As a sniper, I can't tell you how many times a guy with a BR would disrupt me and put me down, despite me having what's considered a superior weapon.

What's the point in picking up anything else when a BR works the best or second best in every situation? I gotta believe that's why Bungie kept it from being a default weapon in Halo 3 and eliminated it completely in Reach.

Photo-1
May 11, 2010

@Jeffrey- You have an excellent point about the LAN environment, although for the record, we really only played split screen. The feeling of helplessness that you describe is only one of the many problems that have cropped up in the increasingly complex world of Halo multiplayer over the years.

@Chase- The map design argument is one that has tickled the back of my brain, but that I have never really given much thought to. You have a seriously good point, though. The complexity of the playing fields and the quality of multiplayer gameplay have been diverging all along, though I think Boneyard shoots a hole through that particular argument; It's a huge map with multiple levels, objectives, vehicles, weapons, types of terrain and spawn points, yet it plays like a dream. Maybe that's because its games stay so focused at any given time- defend, attack, capture, or retrieve this objective, yes, but take them one at a time. Maybe it's something else entirely, though.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
May 11, 2010

@Michael That could be. I've only played one match on Boneyard so far, so I really haven't gotten a good feel for it yet.

I do know that Powerhouse and Swordbase are the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.
I miss Ascension. And Lockout. And Foundry.

Redeye
May 11, 2010

I like powerhouse alright. I would agree sword base is a mess though. It's 1 flag setup gives the attacking team way too many options and the defense way too few, and the flag route is either too short (the grav lift) or impossibly long (anything not the lift)

Default_picture
May 13, 2010

I think a huge part of the experimentation that made Halo 1 so fun came from the physics and objects themselves. There was an element of randomness that bouncing grenades, massive explosions and tumbling warthogs brought to the game that a lot of people had never seen before. When grenades, scorpions, warthogs, and rockets all came together, it wasn't fun because you knew who would be effectively countering who. It was fun because for about 10 seconds all hell was going to break loose, and there was no telling who would be walking away from it.  The uncertainty of "could this actually work?" helped to encourage more experimentation and play.

Chaos isn't necessarily what online players want though - As Halo games have moved online, they've started to feel more 'tactical' with a focus on consistency and predictability for competitive play. A lot of players want a match which is a test of pure skill, which is totally understandable. The popularity of Quake and Counterstrike is testament to that, but I loved the original Halo because it was something completely different.

Twitpic
May 13, 2010

Really interesting article, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

Profile_pic
May 13, 2010

I think your argument here is a bit misguided.

First, the Battle Rifle was essentially a reincarnation of Halo CE's pistol. A lot of hardcore Halo fans loved the pistol because it made games perfectly balanced. Everyone started with it, and a skilled pistol-user could take on anyone.

Those same fans were upset with Bungie for ruining Halo's balance by making the SMG the default starting weapon in Halo 2. As a starter, the SMG was deeply flawed, because you were at a disadvantage against every other person in the game until you picked up something better or a second dual-wield weapon. Plus, it was worthless at range, so if you spawned in the open on a big map, you were a sitting duck for camping snipers.

Bungie eventually realized their mistake and started spawning players with the Battle Rifle on larger maps.

(Sidenote: Dual wield was cooler on paper than in reality, and you can see that Bungie has moved away from it. It was marginalized in Halo 3, and now it's gone in Reach.)

I also agree with Jeff's argument that a big difference between your experience playing Halo CE and Halo 2 was the multiplayer environment. Also, you might just be nostalgic for a younger, sillier attitude that you took toward multiplayer nine years ago. :)

I mean, don't get me wrong, a big part of Halo CE splitscreen for my friends and me was "Warthog Wars." We'd each get in a 'hog and drive at each other at full speed. Thanks to Halo CE's ridiculous physics, this would cause our vehicles to launch into the air, flipping end over end.

You could argue that the pursuit of more realistic physics has eliminated Halo CE's dumb fun, but there's still plenty of zany mayhem to be had in Halo 3 if you look for it. My friends and I like to set up "Moon Melee" once in a while, which is basically low-grav/high-speed Sword/Grav Hammer free-for-all set on Snowbound. Rocket Race was a personal favorite too, and oh, how I love me some Grifball.

Photo-1
May 13, 2010

@Craig- Your mention of Hog Wars truly brought a huge smile to my face. I'm not sure if that's what we called it, but we did the exact same thing for hours on end.


It's true that nostalgia does play a big part in my love of Halo, but I think the point is that the Reach beta elicited a similar feeling from me, despite being brand new. As far as the battle rifle goes, I realize it was a replacement for the pistol, but I also feel that it was far more overpowered than even the original pistol was. Maybe I was just young (I wasn't that young), but I never had an issue with the power of the pistol. One explanation for that is the fact that CE was not played competitively. My experiences playing Halo 1 with more than 4 players- LAN parties- can be counted on one hand. Also, the SMG was the biggest waste of pixels ever.


I think the overall point is, despite my complaints, I love Halo, and I am excited as hell for Reach :)

Profile_pic
May 13, 2010

Yeah, I haven't played the Reach beta because I'm studying abroad without any access to consoles, but I'm dying to get into it.

I also didn't have an issue with the pistol when I first started playing, but that was because my friends and I hadn't really known how to use it.

A new friend introduced us to the pistol's true power: three headshots and you're dead. With a quick rate of fire and a ridiculous range for such a tiny gun, the pistol quickly dominated our matches.

I do love that multiplayer dynamic though. You think you're good at something, then you add one new person to the mix and you realize how much you've been missing. Happened to me with Smash Bros. Melee too.

So, I guess I understand where you're coming from with the BR, but I don't think it's something that changed in between Halo 1 and 2. People were playing (essentially) pistol-only matches over Xbox Connect long before the BR came around. What really changed was the way you played Halo and the pool of competitors that you had access to.

Bitmob_photo
May 14, 2010

Great article Mike, I agree with you all the way on the Halo 1-3 stuff, but I still haven't sunk my teeth into the reach beta yet.  If it's as you say, then I won't be able to hold off any longer.

Photo-1
May 15, 2010

Thanks Chris! Let me know if you ever fire it up.

Default_picture
May 16, 2010

I agree to an extent. You got it dead-on that the lack of experimentation has kept the sequels from reaching the glory days of CE. I however love the one-flag CTF this time around.

As a whole, all the new abilities involve serious shifts in the balance and are also this experimentation you speak of. Each time I die it often comes down to me thinking I maybe could have done better if I grabbed the shield instead of the sprint or etc.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.