CandiBunni

Darth Carrot Darth Serenity Darth Candi Darth Vakii

They dislike them? When did they ever say that they disliked them, or even hinted at this? They haven't. If they do include armour abilities, I'm absolutely certain they'll take lessons from Halo: Reach and tweak just how they work. They won't just simply copy and paste them into Halo 4, they'll tweak them to fit the overall gameplay style and such.

Mhm, agreed. It shouldn't be Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST or Halo: Reach. It should be its own game. If I wanted to play something like past entries in the series, I'd play them. I want something fresh. Something new and exciting.

The only playlists that use Zero Bloom are the MLG and the Zero Bloom slayer playlists. Everything else uses either vanilla Reach or the TU settings. The TU adjustments to bloom have made precision weapons like the DMR, Needle Rifle, and Magnum far more reliable than their vanilla versions. Spamming is actually less effective and punished more now with the TU, and pacing your shots is actually a viable and rewarded tactic. In vanilla Reach, the bloom resets itself slower, which is a bad thing. This means that those who spam can get off shots far more quickly than those who pace, and this allows them to kill their opponent when they really shouldn't. In vanilla Reach, pacers had to wait far too long for their shots to become accurate again. That little bit of time that was shaved off for the bloom to reset has made a huge difference. Because the bloom is less wild and resets faster in the TU, pacing is actually rewarded more. Now when I properly time my shots, I don't have to wait as long to fire my next one. I am able to get out accurate shots far more quickly, and those that spam are punished more so now because of this.

@Cheebusal "Anybody who claims that AAs don't ruin the game and say that Invisibility and Armor Lock are fine are obviously not true Halo fans." Wrong. Just because someone doesn't dislike armour abilities or find any problem with them does not mean they aren't "true Halo fans". You cannot give any actual definition of a Halo fan. If they enjoy the game for what it is, and don't find issues with it, how are they not a fan? To you, armour abilities are a problem. Yet if I used the same logic, I could say that anyone who claims that the button combos in Halo 2 didn't ruin the game and were not cheating aren't true Halo fans. That type of argument can go both ways. There is no one definition of a Halo fan. Different people like different aspects of the Halo series. There are people who care only for the campaign, some for just the Forge and Theater, others who only play custom games, those who stick solely to matchmaking, and there are people who enjoy everything that each game has to offer (I happen to be the latter.). @iTz RyBacK No. The reason that people moved on and decided to stay with Halo: Reach rather than go back to Halo 3 is because they enjoy Halo: Reach more. If someone dislikes Halo: Reach, they're not going to play it. They're going to go back to what they're familiar with (Halo 3), or just go play something else entirely because they're tired of the older games, and don't feel that Halo: Reach was too much of a change from past games. Here's a news flash. ALL video games are put together to make money. That's what game companies do. They create a game and ship it to turn a profit. Bungie didn't leave because people complained about Halo: Reach. They had a contract with Microsoft to produce two more Halo games after Halo 3, and they did a damn fine job with their last two games. After finishing them, they were able to finally become independent and move onto new projects. The reason for their departure was not because people complained and disliked Halo: Reach. It was because they didn't want to stay under the control of Microsoft and wanted to move onto new IPs, to have the freedom to go about things in their own way. What kind of hoax are you talking about? There was a public beta and many video documentaries that were released for people to see just what Halo: Reach was going to be like. Bungie never stated that Halo: Reach was going to be the same, they said that it was going to be something new. Something fresh and a bit different than what we were used to. The consumer had multiple opportunities to both see and hear that Halo: Reach was going to be different compared to previous entries in the series. There was no trickery. Yes, Halo: Reach is different, but it still shares many of the same types of gameplay elements that past games have used. Halo: Reach is a Halo title, whether you like it or not. Just because it doesn't play just like Halo 2 and Halo 3 does not mean it isn't so. Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST are also Halo games. You can dislike them all that you want, but saying that they're not Halo simply because you don't like them, or because they don't share enough in common with past entries is just plain stupid. A game in a series doesn't have to be just like the ones that have come before it to be a part of that particular series.

Despite what you may believe, Halo: Reach is, in fact a Halo game. Why is this? Halo: Reach takes place in the exact same universe as the other Halo titles. It features the same types of weapons, enemies, vehicles, and the story of Halo: Reach is grounded in the Halo universe. So yes, it is a Halo game. Just because Halo: Reach decided to change some things about the Halo gameplay that we've been used to does not mean that it isn't Halo. I play Halo: Reach, and it still feels very much like a Halo game to me. There are still plenty of similar gameplay elements in Halo: Reach. Perhaps you're just not looking properly or at the right things to see this. The energy shields. The weapon sandbox (guns, grenades, and the functions for armour abilties). The vehicles. The floaty jumping. Forge. Theater/Saved Films. Firefight. The epic campaign which spans a good 6 to 10 hours. The emotionally driven music. The slew of customization options, multiplayer options, and matchmaking playlists. The customization of your individual player character to make you truly you. I could go on, but I think you get the point. There is still very much that is similar between Halo: Reach and past Halo games. Like Peanut said. If Halo: Reach had stuck with the exact same formula, people would have still complained. There would have been many complaints from people about how the game was just like Halo 2 and Halo 3, how it didn't change anything, how there wasn't any reason to play it because it played just like previous games. No, they're not the same game. You know what though? That's a good thing. If I wanted to play the same exact style of gameplay as Halo 2 or Halo 3, I'd play one of those games. I play a new game to...you know...actually play a new game. I don't want the experience to be exactly the same as previous entries. There's already a series that does that, and it's called Call of Duty. Do you really want Halo to follow more closely in the footsteps of it and release a game that has the exact same type of gameplay in each entry? Doing that will quickly cause stagnation, and will also lead to a lot of hate by both the fans, and the general gaming public. "Oh hey, another Halo game. Guess what...it's a Halo game! Nothing new being brought to the table, just the same gameplay you've grown to expect since Halo 2." See how that might work? People will and have left the Halo series because it has seen very little change. They've left because there are bigger and better games out there, and they're tired of playing the exact same style of gameplay entry after entry. I'm "old-school" too. Halo: Combat Evolved was my very first Halo experience, but Halo: Reach is my favourite in the series in terms of actual gameplay. I played Halo: Combat Evolved, then Halo 2, followed up by Halo 3 and Halo: Reach, then finally ODST. (Out of order, I know.) I've still yet to play Halo Wars, but I do know that it is a fantastic game. People need to learn to accept change. The entire Halo fanbase needs to realise that sticking to what works, sticking to the exact same formula will actually do more harm than good for Halo. It's time for change. It's time for the series to evolve. There will be changes, whether we like them or not. What we need to do as players is learn to adapt to these changes and accept them.

I'm currently in a relationship. Do you enjoy having carrots stuck in your ears?

It was bad for zombies. Humans were able to use the gravity lift to gain an unfair positioning over them, and the zombies were completely at their mercy as they tried to use the lift to get to the humans. Not to mention how difficult it is to actually manage to launch yourself over to that area in the first place. The bottom vent was another problem. Humans would constantly camp in that area, leaving only one possible entry point for the zombies. The zombies would have to rush inside, and the humans would have far too easy a time picking them off in that small space. Because it only had one possible area of entry, and because it was such a small space, the vent was especially bad. There was practically no room for the zombies to maneuver in.

Well we had health in every Halo game. You might not have seen it, but we did have health in Halo 2 and Halo 3. There just wasn't any way of seeing it, or any need to. I think that it recharged as well over time, just like your shields. However all that I meant was that I just hope that they don't significantly reduce the number of shots ours shield and health can take before we die, just to increase the pace of the game. I'd rather see them do something with other things in the game to accomplish this.

It has been stated in an interview that Halo 4 is to be faster than what we're normally used to in a Halo game. I'm personally excited to see just how that plays out, though I hope it doesn't mean that things like our health and shields will be significantly lowered to allow for this faster pace.

Shower. (Though I never get the opportunity to takes baths, so who knows if I'd actually prefer them instead) Apples or oranges?

White chocolate. Do you enjoy Rage Against The Machine? (A band)

Right handed. Which would you rather eat: a banana or a carrot?

It could have been because it was such an old choice. They also might have removed it due to the ability to use the gravity lift to gain an unfair positioning over the zombies. They would have to take the lift to get to you, and it would make them far too easy of a target as they attempted to do so. The air vent/tunnel was also a very cheap way of staying alive, so that could be another reason.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Master Chief perhaps starting off with his Mk. VI armour in the beginning of the game, then quickly having it transformed into the (what I'm guessing is) Mk. VII armour that we've been seeing. Hayabusa could be interesting to see with the improved graphics, but I'd personally prefer all new armour instead of sets that we've already seen before. If past armour variants do return, I'd like to see them altered enough so that they don't seem to just be the exact same designs just with a higher poly' count. Master Chief is a Spartan II, and I don't see how he would possibly become a Spartan IV unless they're enhanced Spartan IIs, or there is technology that can convert the Master Chief into this new breed of Spartan. I don't really see very many similarities in the Master Chief's new armour and that of the Spartan IVs that we saw in multiplayer. Certainly not enough to say he looks exactly like a Spartan IV.

They said something like loadouts, though they've given no details as to just how they will work. Only that the systems/features in Halo 4 won't be "mirror images" of things that you see in other games. So you're not going to see a feature in Halo 4 that'll be like it is in, say, Call of Duty. However there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there will be weapons of the same type that are better than one another. Like, in your example, a sniper rifle that's better than another sniper rifle. I very much doubt that they're going to go ahead and do something like that. More than likely we will have the same style of weapon sandbox that previous Halo games have used. Where there is only one or two of each type of weapon, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. They have also said that you will not be able to pick power weapons from it. So the whole fear of "your opponent has a better sniper than yours", or with any other weapons is something that you needn't worry about.

Well you do get different control schemes which affect the melee button. I don't want a certain button to be the universal melee button, I like having multiple schemes to choose from, and Bumper Jumper has always been my favourite.

Every weapon in the game(s) takes skill to use. Different weapons require different amounts of skill. I personally don't care either way if we spawn with the BR or an AR type weapon. Personally I'd like for us to spawn with both. A BR as our primary (meant for medium to long ranges), and an AR for our secondary (meant for close ranges).

I'm dedicated to Halo as well. I've been playing since Combat Evolved and I enjoy the TU far more than vanilla Reach. Vanilla Reach, to me, just seems broken and unfinished when compared to the Title Update. Oh, just letting you know. Team Slayer isn't TU. Team Slayer is still Vanilla Reach. They created a new Slayer playlist called "Super Slayer" for those that enjoy the TU. They don't apply these changes to piss people off either. They apply them because people enjoy the TU, and they want to give those that enjoy it some playlists of their own.

"What do the media mean when they say "perks?" " Well, I think they’re talking about performance-enhancing abilities from Call of Duty, if we’re going to be perfectly honest. I should clarify that we never used the terms “perks,” other than when asked about them. That was a term coined in questions about our admittedly mysterious content. The systems in Halo 4, and I say that in the plural because there is no single element that defines that aspect of our game, are interconnected and related directly to your in-game experience as a Spartan IV, but they’re not exactly like any specific existing template or scheme. We’ll be explaining more about the Campaign and Multiplayer systems as the year progresses, but suffice it to say that the new features we’re hinting at for Halo 4 will not be mirror images of the stuff they’re being compared to now in online conversations. "

There is a difference between a jetpack and thruster pack, you know. Also, you can't really confirm something like the jetpack or the thrusters in the Master Chief's armour will be in the game just because it was in the trailer. At least not something that we'll be able to use during gameplay. In the game in some way? Maybe. Something that we can use during gameplay? Not really, no.

Happy Birthday highplainsdrifter~! You're finally legal. =P

It obviously wasn't that big of a fail if it "stole" so many players. Why would they play a game that they think is terrible? They wouldn't. Or at least they shouldn't, because it makes absolutely no sense to do so. If people prefer Halo 3 to Halo: Reach, the smart thing to do would be to play Halo 3 instead. Some people have just moved on from Halo. It's been pretty much the exact same arcadie gameplay ever since Halo 2, and people just aren't as into it as they used to be. Bigger and better games have been released, and people have decided to play those, rather than a game that they've possibly played to death. As for pandabare's question, Halo 3's matchmaking is still the exact same to my knowledge.

Not the simple press of the button, but using those abilities to outsmart and outplay your opponent, yes actually. It's not that hard to counter armour lock, nor is it difficult to find out where someone using active-camo is. Like I said, using them to outplay and outsmart your opponent does take skill. How much skill is debatable, however.

It doesn't have to do with the fact that he asked for members to relax. He did not clarify who specifically he was addressing his disappointment (for lack of a better term at the moment) to. He used phrases like "All of you", "each and everyone of you", "you all". I was doing nothing more than pointing out that I had done none of the bashing that he was calling out on. That's it. He happened to agree that he probably should have been more clear and called out the members specifically. He and I have already resolved this in private messages, so there isn't any need to bring this subject up any further. Hopefully that cleared it up for you.