CandiBunni

I think 1 to 10 scales are pretty stupid for the simple reason that if everything below a 5 (average) is crap, why even have all of those extra numbers to begin with? A scale of 1 to 5 works much better. I'd give Black Ops II a 4/5.

I'd like it please~

There are not a lot of ex-Bungie employees at 343 Industries. There's maybe a handful, but the rest of them are new people, all with different experience in different fields of video game development. Some have worked on other franchises like Metroid Prime and Call of Duty for example.

Bungie explained this to us. They stated that you were in a team consisting of Spartan III's apart from Jorge and that Noble Team had been issued Mark V armour. This isn't the fault of the Halo wiki.

If you don't wish to see it then press X when you die. It skips the cutscene and just sends you right back into the game. That's your way to get rid of them in matchmaking. You can disable them in Custom Games.

1. You may not be knocked out of scope, but this has been replaced by flinching, which I feel has more of an impact than just getting knocked out of your scope. If you've ever been trying to snipe someone and gotten hit it throws off your aim quite terribly, forcing you to readjust your aim and compensate for every hit you take. It's not as easy as you may think. 2. Sprinting is a natural part of the game now, just like jumping. Anyone who can't accept that is simply going to have to get over it. You may not like some features and mechanics that have been added, but they're here to stay. Ordinance is similar to care packages in Call of Duty, yes. However I don't find them to be implemented badly, nor do I think that they're a game breaking feature or make the game feel less like a Halo game. I can say the same about instant spawns. If given the choice between instant spawning and a countdown timer, I'm really indifferent. I've rarely run into a problem with the instant spawn system and it rarely makes me rage or feel cheated, if ever. These features hardly make the game Call of Duty in space like some people are calling it. The physics, the feel of the weapons when you fire them, the jumping, the movement, the grenade throwing, it all feels just like I expect a Halo game to feel. It all feels very familiar, so much so that I could pick it up and go "This feels like Halo.". 3. They're implementing a ranking system that is set for release sometime next year. It won't be visible in game, but you will be able to check Halo Waypoint for it. It may not be in the game as some people wished, but at least they're still getting a ranking system and can view it in some form. It isn't difficult to visit the Halo Waypoint app or website and check it out. Think of this as a compromise of sorts for those who were in favour for a ranking system and those who either did not want ranks visible or simply didn't care. Also, I play the game to enjoy the gameplay. I feel that the gameplay comes before all else, including a ranking system. My incentive for playing are the different unlocks to customise my appearance and playstyle. It's been more than a month since release and people are still playing.

I find it funny that the video says "This game has been out for over a month and you still haven't fixed this yet.". Yes it's only been out for a single month. That isn't a very large amount of time. Is it really too difficult to be patient, wait for them to take in the feedback from players, look into it, and come up with the best solution they can? You're demanding weapon re-balancing, bug and glitch fixes, etc. and you expect all of this to be fixed in only a month after release? Think about it. They've got to find out what a large portion of the fanbase are complaining about, analyse these complaints and see if they have any merit, determine whether or not there's something they can really do to either fix it or make it work better, then actually work on the patch(es) that will fix those things. Not to mention once they do that they'll need to have the patches verified by Microsoft before they're released. They're working on things. In one of the previous bulletins they announced that there is a second patch in the works after the one we just received.

They were giving what the community asked for. Whether or not they were running "damage control" does not matter. What matters is that they listened to the changes the community really wanted and created a title update with those changes in mind. I don't happen to think Halo 4 is crappy, far from it actually, but that's also a moot point. Why isn't it as likely for them to fix their own game compared to a game they stepped in on? That makes absolutely no sense. How did you come to that conclusion?

So because they haven't patched these two things just yet that means they never listen to the community? The game has only been out for a little over a month, give them some time. Even games like Halo 2 and Halo 3 had issues, and I can guarantee they weren't all solved in less than a month. Give them some time to collect data and take in the feedback they're receiving. They already said they're working on a second title update/patch upon release of the first, maybe it'll deal with the gameplay issues that people are really complaining about. They have listened to the community. Do you remember how people were screaming for a Title Update for Halo: Reach to fix the bloom, armour lock, etc.? When 343i was finally able to take control they released an update that did just that. The bloom was reduced to 85% which felt a lot better overall, and armour lock was altered to have its energy reduced depending on what type and amount of damage you received while in it. 343 Industries also did some other matchmaking updates and finally sorted the playlists out into three separate categories, which looks a whole lot nicer. People were dying for SWAT in Halo 4 and guess what? 343i added the SWAT playlist.

Those who got them for free probably weren't supposed to get them for free. They're 800 MSP and that's the price they were meant to be. Those with the Map Pass and LE will obviously be able to download this map pack and the next two because they've pre-payed for them. Yes it stinks that some were able to get them when they shouldn't have (unless there was some sort of contest held to give a few people the maps for free), but neither 343 Industries or Microsoft have to give those who did pay any sort of compensation. Nor should they.

It isn't cheating. Spartan Ops is a perfectly legitimate way of earning experience and ranking up. Your friend says that 343 Industries said it's cheating and they can't change the XP amount because they made the missions already? Who do you think set the values for how much experience you currently earn to begin with? If it's something that the developers purposefully included within the game then it isn't cheating. Things like hacks, button glitches, and other exploits are.

To the OP: Then as soon as you spawn, press start and select your next loadout. Really this isn't that difficult. To Corter: Some people would like to know exactly someone killed them, and the kill-cams let them do so without having to wait for the game to end, find and load up the game in Theatre, and then find that one death they're curious about. For those that want it, it's there for them. For those who don't care for it, you can simply skip it. Yes, some gametypes don't have instant respawn, but I do believe some gametypes also disable kill-cams. I'm not sure which do as I mostly play Infinity Slayer, but I haven't noticed kill-cams in some gametypes I've played like Dominion and CTF. I could be wrong, but I don't know.

If you don't want to view it every time you die, just immediately press the X button. As for the final kill-cam of a match, you're just going to have to deal with that one. It's only about a second or two long, and is it really that big a deal? I don't think waiting an extra second or two is going to cause any harm.

I think they work best for keeping the enemy from pursuing you or for defending an objective. If your shields are popped and you head down a narrow enough pathway, toss one behind you to keep them from chasing you down. If you're trying to defend your flag in CTF or prevent them from entering one of your bases in Dominion, these grenades can come in handy.

There wasn't much in the way of gender customisation in previous games either. In Halo 3 it merely changed the voice work for your Spartan. In Halo: Reach it did that, and gave you a female model. In Halo 4 it does the same, giving you female voice work (though voices in MP don't play that often) and a female Spartan model. It's funny how you say it's sexist, yet you're not giving any examples as to why it is such. What about how most games portray male characters as huge muscle-bound jocks? Not every guy has huge muscles, shaves their head, or grunts like some kind of barbarian any time they exert themselves. Someone could just as easily argue that the way guys are being portrayed is rather sexist/stereotypical because of what I previously said. How is the game, or the developers design choices, sexist or chauvinistic? Please, do explain. Just to let you know, I am aware that a lot of games make their female characters rather stereotypical, but they also do the same for guys. It's done for both genders, not just females.

"There are other ways to make the game more interesting and not so old that don't effect gameplay at all, Halo doesn't need perks or custom loadouts to allow it to evolve." What would those ways be? I see people saying time and time again that they "don't mind change so long as it's good change" or that there are other ways to change it or add onto it that don't mimic other shooters or affect gameplay. None ever give any examples, so what ways do you think would make it more interesting? The gameplay needs to be changed. I do not want to keep playing with the exact same mechanics, exact same features, and never have anything altered or added. That makes the series dull and far less enjoyable. When I buy a new game, I want a new experience. I want gameplay to be tweaked, expanded upon, or otherwise altered to make it stand out from the other games in the series. I don't want to relive the same exact kinds of experiences I have in the past. Simple aesthetic changes will not keep most players interested and coming back for more, no matter how much you may believe otherwise. The reason others come back to games like COD, Battlefield, etc. is because of all of the unlocks, all of the depth they've added to the multiplayer in the form of customisation. This customisation is not cosmetic, but allows you to play based on your preferred playstyle, and the tactics of your opponents. Unlocking these things, and just having so much to help you play just how you want to is far more addictive for a lot of people. You have to change up the gameplay to keep things fresh, fun, interesting for the majority of the playerbase. You say that would keep the game from being repetitive, but that's far from the truth. No matter the cosmetic changes, if it plays the same, it will become repetitive. That is why developers alter how a game plays, why they add new features and mechanics, and why they bother creating a new game in the first place. They want to flex their creative muscles and give the players something to play with that they haven't before. Also: Sprint is now a standard feature just like zooming, melee, and jumping. People need to understand and accept this! "Halo 4 has catered to the uncompetitive players and not so much the competitive players." Of course they have! The competitive and MLG crowds are but a minority of the overall playerbase and catering to them over the majority (the casual crowd as you'd call it), would be foolish. Not only would that result in possibly less profit, but you would risk alienating and losing a majority of your fans. If you want to play competitively you should do it in every match you play. No one is stopping you from playing competitively, even when there is no visible ranking system. MLG happened to really enjoy the game, and once they've finally finished setting up the MLG gametypes and rules for Halo 4, I'm sure you can frequent that section for all of your competitive needs if you don't want to do so in regular playlists.

You're not using it for its intended range then. It's not meant for medium and longer ranges, so it should be obvious that its performance will suffer. It's meant to be used in close ranges, and has some use in medium range if you pace yourself properly, but they have made it clear that the magnum is not meant to match weapons like the DMR, BR, etc.

I'll ignore the first part of your post because, to me, a game is as competitive as the players make it. A ranking system could aid in making players more competitive, but if they want to play competitively, they shouldn't need a ranking system to do so. That's my opinion, you're free to disagree with it. That's fine. I really have no interest in a ranking system, as even though I always try to go positive and win, I don't let it get in the way of me simply enjoying the game. Yes, I believe Halo 4 stuck to the very core of how Halo feels and plays. I have played both Call of Duty and Halo 4. Yes Halo 4 and COD share some similar mechanics and features, but people seem to forget the other things that really have an impact on how a game plays and feels. However the way the games play and how they feel are vastly different. The physics still feel like that of a Halo game. When I fire a weapon, throw a grenade, jump, or just move, it all still feels just like what I would expect from a Halo game. I can go and disable the loadouts, the tactical packages and support upgrades, and the ordinance, and it all feels just like the Halo of old to me. I'm perfectly capable of recognising that Halo feel with all of these features enabled as well.

If Halo stayed true to its roots and didn't progress or add any new mechanics or features to the series, it would be safe to assume it would not get anywhere near the numbers you're thinking. People have grown tired of the same exact formula game after game. If Halo didn't add any new features or mechanics, didn't evolve, people would not care for it. It would be doing exactly what Call of Duty has been doing year after year, yet everyone bashes that series to no end for that alone. A game can stick to its roots and still add new mechanics and features yes, and I do believe Halo 4 has done just that. I for one would not buy another Halo game if the multiplayer stayed the exact same, or saw such small changes each release that it didn't warrant purchase. I for one do not want small changes over time. The Halo series has had plenty of time to evolve. It's either step up and change now, or let the series become just another stale, run-of-the-mill FPS series. Small, incremental changes just won't cut it in today's market, nor will staying nearly identical to its predecessors. Yes there are features and mechanics that are present in Call of Duty, but these are also present in a lot of other shooters. Do you know why that is? It's because people love those features. It keeps them playing and coming back for more. It makes sense to take those things, apply them to Halo, and balance/tweak them to suit Halo's style. 343 Industries has also done this exceptionally well in my opinion. Yes people are able to create custom loadouts and tweak their player to suit different situations, but that adds more depth to the game. All of the customisation they've given us to alter our playstyle depending on how we play adds more depth to the game, I do not see how anyone can dispute this. Now you cannot simply think "We'll both spawn with this and this." Now there are so many possibilities, and you need to be on your toes. You need to be ready to choose whichever weapon or ability you think would best suit both the map you're on and the way every player is performing. I can safely say that if Halo 2's multiplayer was offered on Xbox Live, you would not see the numbers you used to. I would even say they would not even be close to what they were when the game was up on XBL. Why is this? A lot of people have moved onto other games, grown up and now are far too busy to play like they once did, no longer have any interest in the series (for one reason or another), or find that there are far more games on the market that they would rather play. For the most part I feel Halo 4 is very well balanced. The only gripes I have with said balance is that, I feel, the DMR needs to fire slower and/or possibly bloom a bit more when spamming, the Boltshot should have a reduced overcharge range (only range, not damage), and the Supressor should maybe receive a small (and I do mean small) damage boost.

It's far from underpowered. Considering it's a close quarters weapon, it fires quickly, and the bloom causes very little inaccuracy at close quarters, it's a good weapon. I've spammed it in a last-ditch attempt at killing my attacker, and it's worked quite well. Don't forget it's a magnum, a sidearm. It isn't supposed to be incredibly powerful and on par with weapons like the DMR, BR, Carbine, etc.

I'm not sure if those that bought the LE can rank up past SR70, was that ever said? I don't recall seeing anyone past that level, but please correct me if I'm wrong. (I honestly can't remember. xD) Perhaps they've decided to cap it at 70, or it's some kind of unexplained error? We should all be able to rank up past that soon, so until then just try playing to have fun with the game. As for experience earned when playing at 70, I agree that they should let it carry over once the cap is lifted.

I know that the Lightrifle takes 4 shots to kill when scoped, but when unscoped it is a 5 shot kill. You can test this in Forge or Customs to see for yourself. The Magnum takes 6 shots, however.

None of your complaints really have much weight to them. I mostly use the BR and I can take down someone using the DMR just fine. The DMR takes the same amount of shots as the BR and Lightrifle, and fires pretty much at the same rate as the BR. I do think the DMR needs to fire just a bit slower, but overall the weapon balance seems pretty good. It was only impossible for you to get a kill because you were A.) not paying attention. or B.) not very good at the game. Plenty of people, myself included, do just fine killing others and going positive. Plenty of people, myself included, also have little trouble out playing a DMR user. It isn't the game that is voting on which map to play. It's the playerbase. It isn't the game that is causing you to play so poorly so often. It is you.