CandiBunni

They did say "Holiday 2012" at the end of the teaser trailer, so it shouldn't have come to you as such a surprise that it would be released around that time. I'm glad it's not coming out too soon. I want them to have as much time as they need to really test and polish it up before shipping the final product.

It looks alright. I'm sure this is early gameplay footage, which might explain why their bodies seem so stiff and the colours and armour detail look rather plain. From the screenshots we've already seen and the small clips of gameplay from the first ViDoc (which look a lot better than these two videos in my opinion), I'm sure this isn't how it's going to look in the final release.

It's been ages since I've been to this topic. Would you mind telling me how I'm a snitch? Send me a private message if you'd like, I want to know why you think I'm a snitch.

Here is a list of what I did not like about Halo 2. (In no particular order) The combat in the campaign. I found fighting enemies in the campaign to be boring and nothing more than a chore. I don't know why this is, but I just don't have as much fun fighting them as I did in Halo: Combat Evolved. The level design. The levels, while pretty to look at, just weren't that fun to play in for me. The button combinations. These things might have been fun to figure out in custom games with friends, but I consider using them to be cheap and cheating when playing a legitimate match. The power of grenades. In other Halo games the grenades seem to have a reasonable amount of damage and AOE damage. In Halo 2 however, I've found myself dying from a frag grenade when I've been standing a few feet from it with full shields and full health. The same can be said about the plasma grenade as well. Where as standing on a frag in other Halo titles merely takes down your shields and possibly a small chunk of health, in Halo 2 it just kills you outright. What I'm pretty much saying is that I feel the grenades in Halo 2 are far too powerful. The exploitable locations on maps. There are spots in the maps on Halo 2 where I don't believe you were meant to have access to, or that they just didn't think about while designing them. These spots give players the opportunity to hide and wait out the rest of a match if they happen to gain the lead, or just hide there to avoid getting killed. It's cheap. The overall lack of polish. Halo 2 was rushed and didn't have the time it needed to become a truly great game. Since it was rushed and has such a lack of polish, in my eyes it's nothing more than good. If I were to score Halo 2, I'd give it a 3 out of 5.

Halo 4 will be released for the Xbox 360 and future titles will be released for the next generation Xbox console.

Why is the DMR not Halo? What defines Halo will vary depending on who you ask, and I for one have no problem with the DMR. I honestly prefer it to the Battle Rifle of Halo 2 and Halo 3, with or without bloom. The DMR does not beat everything at all ranges. Try using the DMR against a decent sniper at long ranges, or a clever shotgun-wielder, or someone sneaking around to stab you in the back with an energy sword. I'm sure a good player could kill you with a grenade launcher well before you could get off all five shots with your DMR. There are plenty of weapons and weapon combinations that I believe can counter the DMR, no matter if it's using 100% bloom, 85% bloom, or 0% bloom.

Halo: Combat Evolved Elite: "Don't you get back up!", "I would have been your daddy, but a dog beat me over the fence!", "Wort! Wort! Wort!"

You didn't actually beat the two that quit though. They chose to leave the game, so I wouldn't consider it a won or a loss for them. What I meant is that you would only be fighting against four other players. The game would still be even and fair, no team would have a player count advantage. Regardless if you have to still go against the two that didn't quit and the two that joined to take the place of the quitters, you're still only fighting against four opponents. That's still balanced as far as teams go.

3.1) If sprinting is an ability that every player is given and someone uses it to sprint away from you during a fight, then sprint after them. You're not helpless in that kind of situation, use your sprint to chase after them and put a bullet in their head. 3.3) Armour Lock has been confirmed by Frank himself to not be in Halo 4. 4) The DMR has a very long range and is five shots minimum to kill. Because of the incredible amount of range it possesses, the gun was given an incredible amount of spread the more often and faster you fired it. At longer ranges this made it a lot harder to kill an opponent, not to mention the ammo you would be burning through just to get one kill. 6) If a join-in-progress system were put into effect, you would only have to face four enemy players. People would not be able to join a game that has a full amount of players, and only enough players to kill the team(s) would be allowed to join. You would not have anything such as 4 v 6 or 4 v 9. "I'm having to beat more players than I should have to in order to get a win. If its a 4v4 I should only have to beat 4 players." You would not be beating more players than you should have to. The teams would only be allowed to have four players maximum on either side. You'd still only face off against four other players.

They already remade Ivory Tower for Halo: Reach and it's now called "Reflection". That being said, I would personally enjoy having more maps from Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 remade for Halo: Reach. I highly doubt that they will do so, but a girl can still dream about playing on a remade Chiron TL-34...

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he's saying. I can understand being let down that Elites might not be a choice for your multiplayer avatar, but there isn't any need to be so melodramatic and acting as if it's the end of the world. There's no need to act like the entire game won't be worth your time because they decided not to allow you to play as an Elite in multiplayer. Whether or not they are playable doesn't have very much of an impact on myself and a lot of other players, however I can understand that those who enjoyed playing as them in Halo 2, Halo 3, and occasionally in Halo: Reach might be let down that they're not a choice in Halo 4. If you were one who preferred playing as an Elite in multiplayer, being let down is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed with that decision. However you should try to look past this and just focus on what really matters. What really matters is how well the music, atmosphere, characters, etc. all draw you into this new campaign and experience. How much you enjoy the new additions and the changes they've made to the multiplayer. How many different crazy game variants you can come up with in custom games with your friends. Stuff like that is what I find more important than just what race I can choose for my appearance.

I'm not disappointed by what I've heard and read. That being said, I don't really have enough information to give an honest opinion on what has been released so far. There isn't enough footage or information to properly judge anything from Halo 4. I'm going to stay neutral and hold off on forming any final thoughts until I've played through both the campaign and multiplayer of the final product.

I was there when you were banned before. Pardon me if I can't recall every minute detail, but I believe you were banned because you were being disrespectful towards users in the shoutbox. I may or may not be remembering correctly. If they so choose, a moderator can remind you as to why you were banned. This isn't the place to discuss it, so let us both agree to drop it.

This is not the official 343 Industries website. The stat tracker here isn't the best. If you'd like to see a better one, you'd be better off visiting the official Halo website and signing into your Xbox Live account from there. They have their own stats system there, though I'm not entirely sure just how deep it is or how it compares to Bungie's. As for getting the ban hammer again, you were not banned for expressing your opinion on how things were being handled with Halo: Reach. You were banned for being rude and disrespectful towards others. You won't ever be banned for giving a reasonable, respectful opinion on things. You will only be banned by committing a major offense, or repeated minor offenses (showing a lack of respect towards members, advertising websites, tampering with the website or the accounts of the users, etc.)

That was not a jetpack. It was a thruster pack that has always been built into the Master Chief's armour, he's just never really used it before. I don't believe that I was unkind or rude when I offered my opinion/point. As for not everyone using proper grammar and showing respect, why should they not? Using proper grammar allows people to easily read and understand your posts, and it also helps others take you more seriously. I'm not sure if you realise this, but some people actually get headaches from trying to read posts that are typed out using "txt" speak. I myself have got the occasional headache from trying to do so. In regards to showing respect, why should someone not show others respect? There is absolutely no excuse not to show someone at least some sort of respect. Why is this? Well because if someone is going to post in a disrespectful manner, then I feel less inclined to show them respect myself. You say that you have proof that they're creating "perks" and making the system more like that of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3's ranking system. Well go ahead, show everyone here the proof you have. I would be glad to see it.

There is no evidence of jet packs in Halo 4. The only ability that we can actually confirm to be in the game is "Sprint". It does not mean armour abilities are returning, and could just be a basic feature that everyone has at all time. 343i has stated that they never used the term "perks" to describe the systems they're using. They've also said that everything will be directly related to you being a Spartan IV, and that the systems they're implementing will not simply be mirror images of what you see in other shooters. They're not going to simply take a feature another game uses and just slap it into Halo 4. And really? "****ty" games? Is that why they get great reviews and have lots of people that play them on a daily basis? They're doing something right, otherwise people wouldn't be spending their time online in their multiplayer. Have you seen any of the maps in their entirety? Have you played on them to see how they play? No, you have not. You have no idea how the maps are going to play, or how well or poorly they're designed. 343i has already said that they're not just taking spaces from the campaign and placing them into multiplayer. They're building multiplayer maps from scratch and with competitive play in mind. Halo: Reach is far from the worst game ever. I could name quite a few games that are miles worse than Halo: Reach. It's, at the very least a good game. At the best, it's a fantastic game. Who on Earth do you think you are insulting the new Halo developers? You have absolutely no legitimate reasons to dislike them or to be showing them such disrespect. They're not dumb. They're quite intelligent and know what they're doing. They're doing their best to make sure that whatever changes there are improve upon the experience and are balanced. They're taking lessons from the successes and failures of past Halo games, and keeping those things in mind while they develop Halo 4. Have you played Halo 4? Have you seen any final gameplay or tested the game in it's near final or final state? No, you have not. You have absolutely no idea how Halo 4 is going to turn out. Until you've played the final product and seen all it has to offer, you cannot offer an honest, well informed opinion on it's overall quality. This isn't their official website by the way. The official website is http://www.halo.xbox.com . If you plan on going there to voice your opinion, here are a few tips. Use proper grammar. Refrain from insulting 343 Industries, or anyone for that matter. Make sure that you've checked whatever information you come across for authenticity. Don't take things out of context, and don't believe every rumour that you hear. Show some respect. Your OP makes you seem very rude, by the way.

Halo 4 honestly shouldn't be identical to Halo 3. It should have things that are similar, but it shouldn't just be Halo 3 with a fresh coat of paint. Personally, even though I absolutely love Halo: Reach and think it's a fantastic game (it also happens to be my favourite Halo game), I would prefer that they build off of Halo 3 for Halo 4 instead. I know that may not make very much sense, but it's how I feel. I would prefer any extra abilities to be placed upon the map, rather than be given to you upon spawn. Sprinting is fine as something that everyone starts off with, but anything besides that needs to be a pick-up. That's something that I believe would have improved how Halo: Reach plays, but oh well. If you'd like to know what I think would have improved Halo: Reach right off the bat, here's a list below. 85% Bloom as the standard setting, if not 0% Bloom. (Zero Bloom would require some weapons to have reduced firing rates and/or reduced damage however, due to how accurate they would then be.) Any armour abilities, except for sprint, should be pickups placed around upon the map. Sprint would be fine, in my eyes, as a starting ability. Armour abilities (besides Sprint) should have only have one or two recharges before they're removed and you have to wait for them to respawn again. Either that, or remove them from the player as soon as all of their energy is consumed. Again, Sprint could be an exception. Everything to use the post-TU settings, if it was affected at all. Campaign and Firefight included. This one is a maybe. What I mean by that is that it wouldn't matter too much to me if it was or was not: Reduced Frag Grenade damage and/or blast radius. Plasma's would be remain the same, if not have reduced range as well.

I don't see how you could feel like you're playing a future Call of Duty. The two games play nothing alike. "...that they added custom loadouts" No, they don't have custom loadouts. You cannot choose which weapons you start with, nor grenades. The only thing you're choosing is your armour ability. Everyone still starts off with the same weapons and grenades. The only place where this isn't the case is in Invasion, but you don't get to actually customise anything. You're choosing a preset loadout. I think that it's completely fine in there. I don't have any problem with armour abilities, not even with armour lock. I know how to play against each ability, no matter which I might be using myself. I would prefer that armour abilities be pick ups, and only certain abilities be on certain maps, but it's not that big of a deal that it's not like that. Though if this were implemented, I wouldn't have a problem with everyone starting with Sprint.

Bloom has been in every single Halo title. Halo: Reach uses a different version of bloom, but error angles have been in every single Halo title from the beginning. I don't happen to mind the Title Update bloom (85%). It feels a lot better than vanilla Reach. I suppose you mean that they can kill in a single shot to the head when someone is without shields. There's the DMR, Needle Rifle, and Magnum. That's three (Not counting the sniper rifle). Halo 3 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three. Halo 2 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three. Falling damage was in Halo: Combat Evolved, and play more of a role in how you navigated the maps in the multiplayer. Falling damage isn't nearly as bad as it was in Halo: Combat Evolved. You don't need to worry nearly as much about taking damage from falling as you had to in CE. Health packs were in Halo: Combat Evolved. You had non-rechargeable health in CE as well. Why is it only an issue in Halo: Reach? Sword block was removed with the title update, and I am personally glad that it is gone. There were already plenty of counters to the sword, and sword block made it nearly useless. The grenades do around the same amount of damage that they always have. The only reason they may seem stronger is because players aren't nearly as fast as in previous games. Assassinations aren't a negative. If you don't want to perform them, don't hold the button down. While someone is performing an assassination, they are completely vulnerable, so there's not really any possible issue with them. Worthless medals? So they want to give you a medal for performing a certain task, where is the issue with that? How are some medals worthless while others aren't? It's not the game's fault that people quit. It's the players. Someone quits when the gametype they want doesn't get picked, they don't like a certain map, or when they decide to rage. People who quit ruin the experience for others, and there isn't any good excuse for doing so, apart from something important in the real world demanding their attention. I agree that the ranking system isn't perfect, but it's not terrible either. Personally I would have preferred a system like Halo 3's, if not an improved version of that. What is wrong with the grenade launcher? You have to aim it to do any real damage. It's not like other grenade launchers in other games where you can just fire and forget. You can simply shoot it, but then it bounces and can completely miss if you don't aim and time it properly. When you charge it and choose to use a remote detonation, I do believe that the power of it is reduced. Not to mention that you're unable to defend yourself while you're keeping the grenade armed on the ground because you cannot shoot, melee, or toss grenades unless you want the grenade to go off.

This is a community website, no the official website of 343 Industries. If you're looking for that website, it's http://www.halo.xbox.com . This website does not look "****ty" in the slightest. I viewed those attached screenshots, and I saw nothing wrong with the one from this site. It was simple, yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Immediately coming here and telling everyone how poorly designed this website is and using words like "****ty" to describe it isn't going to exactly make a good first impression. It's a shame that this is also apparently how you were going to be speaking to the staff and members of the actual 343 website from the looks of your post. This website, like others have said, is easy to navigate and pretty simple. There's nothing wrong with it. Regardless, welcome to the site. Hopefully your attitude will improve.

-insert buzzer sound effect here- Oooooh, I'm sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Ms. Mystic". But hey, thanks for playing. If you'll step off to the side, my assistant will take you to claim a small gift for taking part in today's showing of "Guess who will post next". Here's hoping you have better luck next time. theorix?

Mr.Biggles Very kind (if not also a bit flirty) Fun to play Halo with Interesting to talk to (No one had posted for Mr. Biggles when I began to type out my response. A moderator is free to remove this post if they wish, or it could stay for others to respond to. Either is fine with me. Just be sure that if someone does respond to this post, that a moderator deletes that post as well as this one if they believe it to be necessary to remove mine.)

Halo: Reach sold around, from what I've heard, 9 million copies or so? That's not a flop in the slightest. As for the player base, there were many, many factors that contributed to the reduced player count of Reach. Some of those reasons may be the fault of Reach, however others are factors that were out of it's control. One thing is certain though. The release of big name titles before, during, and directly after the release of Halo: Reach were a part of why it saw a reduction in the numbers of players it had. A lot of people seem to spout out something like "I can accept good change. I can accept changes that improve the experience.". Yet none of them have ever given any examples as to what kind of change they think would benefit the game. They never list any types of changes they would like to the series, nor any changes that might improve the experience. I don't consider Halo: Reach a failure. It has one of my favourite Halo campaigns, and this is in part because I actually feel like part of the story now. It gives me an unbelievable amount of customisation for Custom Games and Firefight, allows me to set Matchmaking search criteria so that I get almost, if not exactly the kind of experience I want, and offers plenty of different game modes that I can play to my hearts content. That, coupled with the fact that I quite enjoy the gameplay, and think it's the best of any Halo game are a few reasons why it isn't a failure to me. I do believe that Halo: Reach didn't live up to its fullest potential and maybe didn't come close, but it's still an amazing game in my eyes.

Kill the King Respectful Tries to be nice to his fellow members

That's really a shame to hear. :c I really hope you stay safe and are able to return soon. Best of wishes and luck to you, Director~! -huggles!-