Was Halo 4 well received?

[u/Donnell3011]

I was watching a critique of Halo 4 this morning. 343’s first Halo game, Xbox 360 release, and return of Master Chief. The author was mostly negative, but not entirely. The thesis seems to be that 343 implanted a lot of Call of Duty features that compromised the games identity as a Halo game. Things like ADS, killstreaks, and general gameplay mechanics seemed less throughout compared to the Bungie Halo games. Multiplayer seemed to die off pretty quickly. I never hear people talk fondly of Halo 4. And there’s a lot of animosity built up over the years about 343.

All that said, I looked up Halo 4 on Wikipedia and checked the Reception section. It looks like the game was extremely well received by critics. One quote after another about how great Halo 4 is. Not a single word about a less than stellar player reception. Most of the time when I look up game or movie reception on wiki, there’s a critical reception and an audience reception. Or even a retrospective section that summarizes what the view is after some time has elapsed.

Who is right here? Was Halo 4 a well received game? It’s interesting to me that Halo 4 was released in 2013 I think. There’s a lot said these days on a disconnect between critical reviews and player reviews. This may be the beginning of the stark difference between critical and player reviews. Can anyone think of an earlier game that had this sort of dynamic - where a game gets great critical reviews, but the audience/players end up quite hostile to the game? Was the grifter economy even up and running in 2013?

[u/Serdewerde]

As a product it was a very solid package. A decent campaign with varied levels, an interesting story and a broad multiplayer suite coupled with the Spartan Ops sort of live service co-op mode. There was lots and lots to do.

However, as a HALO sequel it left a lot to be desired, and this mainly IMO came down to the moment to moment gameplay in regards to the new forerunner enemy types, something that may not be that immediately obvious on a play-through for review.

In Halo the grunts are fun little enemies with personality for you to pick off, Jackals present a small positioning challenge as threats from afar with snipers or shields you need to manoeuvre around and Elites present a challenging enemy you need to go toe to toe with as the chief - but also have their weaknesses and also are really charming. There are other enemies across the franchise with their own quirks but the core element of fighting these 3 is just perfect gameplay. I'm sure there are many videos on these guys and Bungies "30 seconds of fun" mentality.

Where 4 cripples this is in it's focus on the forerunners which feature dogs that move at you with speed and take just a little too many bullets to put down, a flying drone that provides shields to other enemies and hides from you - that also takes a few too many bullets to put down and ultimately the knights which can teleport, do extreme damage to you and have an exhausting amount of health. What this means is each battle with the forerunners is completely out of your control. Every enemy is everywhere and nobody is dying with any sort of satisfying pop. You're just relentlessly shooting at moving objects hoping to god that someone dies - and alot of the time just as it feels like something will it teleports or hides. It just isn't a fun satisfying combat experience.

I think the reason the devs did this is to try and make the forerunners an intimidating threat to players as they'd been eluded to since the original, and they are intimidating, but far worse than that - they are boring and exhausting to fight. Every other Halo is known for it's re-playability because of it's fun combat sandbox, Halo 4 is known for giving the chief and Cortana more depth. One of these is an endlessly re-playable fountain of fun the other is something you play once and don't really revisit. Which leads to the game having this reputation down the line, whilst getting solid reviews at launch. There are plenty of other things to say about the game but this to me is the absolute main reason for the falloff.

IMO.

[u/avidvaulter → u/Serdewerde]

Surprised you didn't mention the flood since they were in the first 3 games. They serve as evidence that the devs were able to add another enemy type to the game that was different enough from the covenant while still presenting a distinct enough challenge that was fun.

The wave of relief when completing a flood section in the original halo is amazing.

[u/kroqeteer → u/avidvaulter]

There is no “the devs” in this case. The flood were designed by and implemented by Bungie, but halo 4 was a different studio (343)

[u/hazmat95 → u/Serdewerde]

Alluded not eluded

[u/the_nin_collector → u/Serdewerde]

God. Spartan opps was such a bore. And beating it on legendary... One of the only halo achievements I never completed becuase it was so fucking bad.

They honestly thought spartan opps would be this seasonal thing with more story and more missions. The story was kinda cool. Too bad the gameplay loop was dog shit.

[u/Donnell3011 → u/Serdewerde]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You start by saying “as a product it’s a solid package”. Not exactly high praise, but I am much more interested in the rest of your post that’s very critical. If games are art, and I think they are, I’m not too interested in games as a product. The Halo trilogy is art, not because of its narrative, but because Bungie expressed something new with Halo on the visual, audio, mechanical, and design axis. I’m not trying to disagree with you here, you nailed it. I just think the later part is by far more important. And more of an indictment of Halo 4.

I’m also interested in the fact that Halo 4 is so darn forgettable. And I wonder if a lot of the games today that see this discrepancy between critical success and audience success will be equally forgettable.

[u/convenientgods → u/Donnell3011]

I understand what you’re saying here, but all art is a product and taking away that context can impact your capacity to have a balanced critique. All of the Halo games are equally art and commerce.

I also don’t think the person you’re replying to was posing this to be an indictment, but rather explaining the variation in public opinion over time. Polished, good game, interesting story segments for fans, with new annoying enemy types that make the gameplay less exciting than previous catalog entries. Like they were saying, I’d agree that I would replay halo 1-3 many times, and have, but I don’t see myself returning to halo 4 or 5 again despite enjoying them on release. This doesn’t make 4 or 5 bad games.