VivaLebowski

The design choice with the Elites probably came from them reverting to a more pre-covenant design. The races of the post war covenant probably have allot more autonomy now so they are doing their own thing. I just like how the covenant are more ugly, more alien and more badass looking all at the same time.

I disagree with the OP, just wanna make the point...change is not what made Halo great. Halo's initial vision was what made it great and going to Halo 2 and Halo 3 just upgraded and expanded the vision. Not changing it. It was a matter of innovating and introducing new elements in a world where these elements did not formerly exist...not changing the basic gameplay formula from game to game. The bottom line is 343's changes are a big change to that, the old style of Halo just went out the window, and while the next iteration might be Halo and it might have a whole lot in common with previous iterations, it is going to be a whole new experience. This isn't to say change is bad. Change is neither. What 343 is doing here is a change and that is neither a good nor a bad thing by itself. It depends on what the change is. The loadouts are indeed a blow to the uber competitive Halo community beacuse the game is no longer exactly symettrical BUT most Halo players are not part of that community , nor is that Community the biggest player, financially speaking. Personally, I don't give a damn what they want...I want a game which is fun first and foremost. Doesnt matter how competitive it is. If loadouts ruin that, well I'll have something in common with the super competitive types. If not, they can play another game.

It turning out that allot of the Forerunners are really, really bad would be more interesting to me. They've stayed at the fringes of the story being these pseudo-devine, but pretty much good (since they are fighting the flood) guys for too long. It would be interesting if it turns out they started trying to exterminate themselves along with the Flood. And no one lecture me on the book. Please.

In other games where you have aiming down the sights and a greater focus on recoil, accuracy, etc. you need prone for the greater accuracy. Halo does not have "aiming down the sights" in the sense that COD or BF do and does not need prone as a result.

I always played as an Elite in H3. I always preferred playing as Elites in Reach. Being an elite is something near and dear to me. But this is not a "Oh, dont buy the game beacuse of this!" big deal. If your not going to buy the game over a cosmetic thing like this, albeit a large and influential cosmetic thing but cosmetic nontheless, thats your problem. Id be allot more inclined to support a strong move to get Elites in H4 if Elite players didnt act so crazy about it.

The title pretty much says it all. Anyone know?

Looking forward to the reveal of whatever Elite content they have planned considering I play Elite whenever possible, very happy to hear Jen Taylor is returning, the default map loadout is a classy and well thought out move, very very happy to hear that they plan on changing the names of Spartan Ops and what not. All in all, the info here really helped calm my nerves. Props to 343 for the info and Adam for the excellent post.

Can I haz a link?

You mean all those arguments in your previous post dependent on the assumption that I was rejecting the existence of subjectivity? Saying anything can be classified as a thing is a bit like saying any Human can be classified as a Human. Thanks for the obvious. Safe to say, a thing is a thing no matter how when and why we classify or do not classify it as such. How was I supposed to know that you are going to interpret "thing", in the context of a point about tangible external objective reality, as including an intangible internal phenomenon. Your argument in a nutshell: Your thoughts are jumbled, don't blame me if your stupid. Your just trying to make up for something stupid you said previously because its making you lose this argument. Truly, an objective argument if ever I've heard one. I'm not the one who is talking about forgiving others...*ahem* lack of objectivity. Oh, God forbid, I said you didn't know something! Oh man, I might actually suggest that I think your wrong next. What a proud @sshole I must be, huh? But, if, hypothetically, if I was to talk down about someone who I intervened in an argument on the behalf of, and start talking about how "I'm going to forgive your lack of objectivity". Oh no, that's not condescending at all. And this totally isnt sarcasm. Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponents positions and trying to make points against those misrepresented positions. You: Have you accepted that subjectivity exists? But, heres the bottom line: This argument is going nowhere and spiraling off into incoherency. I'll blame both of us hows that? So I;; try to get it on track: My basic point is that our opinions are subjective but objective reality is not. You pointed out that arguing against this guy is pointless because everything on here is subjective. I disagree with that because this guy is defying any objective standard. He's going against more than common sense. And there's nothing wrong with point that out, and also that he/she/it is being rather melodramatic. Our respective opinions are subjective BUT because they are contradictory, either we are both wrong or one of us is right and one of is wrong. There are arguments which do not necessarily have that feature but this is not that argument. Opinions can be and usually are either right or wrong. There is such a thing as undeniable, rock solid, reality...the OP either overreacted or he did not. He cannot have both overreacted and not at the same time. He either did or he didn't. There is nothing subjective about that tangible reality. If you disagree with any of that, than please, argue with that instead of us getting tied down in semantics. Otherwise, we really don't disagree and one of us has misunderstood the other.

@Zl Malificient Where did I ever say that "subjectivity" does not exist? Where did I specifically say that? I just reread my arguments, so I want a ******* quote! I said "things aren't subjective" because "things" (meaning tangible reality) are exactly what they are. I never said that arguments and opinions aren't subjective. Subjectivity simply refers to how we view reality. Maybe if you want to include arguments and opinions as "things" in themselves (which they sorta, kinda are) you can say that a very very small caveat of "things" are subjective, but I was not thinking in those terms, and if you thought I wasn't you are the one who "misunderstood". Only an idiot would say that arguments and opinions are not subjective, because, as said before our perception is subjective. Subjectivity is not a real world phenomenon like gravity to be observed in nature...as I said, things are exactly what they are, quite independent of our silly perceptions of them. Saying subjectivity does not exist would be as stupid as saying disagreements do not exist...of course disagreements do not exist in nature in the respect that, for example, Transformers 2 was both a good and a bad movie. The movie might be good, it might be bad, or maybe its neither, but it cannot be two contradictory things at the same time..BUT people HAVE disagreements. Likewise Subjectivity exists. A cannot Contradict B, and both A and B be true at the same time, that's not possible. But obviously, I can think A and someone else can think B, so the "subjectivity" exists in the same sense that our "disagreement" exists. I would never say "subjectivity" does not exist, and I never did! Perhaps you misunderstand what I've been saying because you don't realize that there's a difference between what WE THINK and what ACTUALLY IS. You misunderstood what I was saying, not the other way round, so don't start patting yourself on the back over concessions which I never made. Asking me if I've accepted "Subjectivity" exists is like me asking you if you have accepted "Hitler" was bad. You never said Hitler was good, and I never said subjectivity does not exist. And to think you accused me of using a straw man argument! Your entire last post was one colossal straw man argument! Ps. Though in all seriousness, isn't this truthfully a more interesting and rewarding discussion than any one we could be having about video games. Keep the philosophy coming my friend!

They should avoid just trying to make the Forerunner weapons fill traditional niches like "Sniper" and "BR". The Forerunners are Ancient, Alien, and Superpowerfull, moreso than the Covenant. No reason to think they would have the same arsenal as the Humans, so why not get a little bit more creative than redundant retreads of "Here's a semi-automatic pistol", "here's an assault rifle", "here's a long range weapon".

@zLMalificent When I said the truth of the matter, I meant reality. Not what he thinks matters. Of course people's priorities are subjective...That's because our thought processes are f'd up. I can't follow your arguments here. I don't know what something is, I don't know what single situation your talking about. I don't know what specific assertion your referring to. Ditto with the previous counterpoint. I don't know what your point is. I might think myself smart but even I can't follow your arguments when your using all these big words. Do you think that's the case with this argument? Are we both neither wrong or right here? Is this entire argument your making subjective? Your probably thinking "well, obviously, I didn't mean to include this argument in that statement" since the statement need not necessarily include means it can still include...but I never meant to apply what I was saying to all arguments either. Here's my basis thesis: In arguments where you have two people putting forth two opinions which cannot both be right at the same time (I say, 2 + 2 = 5, he says 2 + 2 = 4), there are two possibilities...both people are wrong, or one person is right and one person is wrong. Sure, you might say, well that depends on what values we apply to the number two, or the equals sign, or 5 and 4, but in the end, in mathematics, completely independent of flawed human perception and reasoning, if you have 2 of a thing, and it meets another two, you have four. Even if no one says so...even if no one labels it as such, where once you had .. and .. you now have .... So yeah, some arguments are not necessarily exclusive...we don't have to be contradictory. But this particlar argument has two perceptions of reality which cannot both be correct at the same time. I percieve and argue that he overreacted, he perceives that he is completely justified in what hes saying and is not overreacting. These two "subjective" opinions cannot both be right because for one to be right excludes the other. Either he overreacted or he didn't. I mean, really, what are you criticizing here? You don't seem to think that all disagreements are completely subjective and neither right nor wrong...and here, we definitely have an argument which is objective in the respect that one persons position reflects objective reality (even if they hold that position for the wrong reason). Yet, your going after me because it seems to you unreasonable to even suggest "hey, you shouldn't dismiss an entire game just because of a cosmetic thing" ... I do not understand this one bit.

Not sure if your serious or just making fun of people who support 343. Whats the point of being a fan of something if you won't be dissapointd if it starts sucking?

Puce. Definitely Puce.

Forge is becoming God.

How come everyone is talking about "the new version of Firefight" when the GI article says that they have no plans to reintroduce firefight?

All hell just broke loose.

Correct, sir! It was on the tip of my tongue. What WE THINK is subjective. The truth of the matter is something else entirely. If Mr.Elite whats-his-face decides he cant play Halo beacuse the pixels on a tree don't quite meet his specifications. he's wrong to do so. He might not think he is...but he is. If he's not, that means I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, that just proves that not everythings subjective, just as me being right and him being wrong shows that things arent subjective. And its not as if we can both be right. Our "opinions" are exclusive and contradictory. We both have a right to them, but one of us has to be wrong. We are getting into deep territory here.

All I'm saying is, these "Sensible people" your talking about should stop using such high minded language as "Oh Ive been part of something for 8 years!" or "Well its a cause!" for something which matters about as much as Chicken **** in the grand scheme of things.

I did find the 343 Reach maps a bit more interesting than the Bungie ones, but the map design in Reach was substandard compared to previous halos across the board.

Your point, good sir?

Spartan Missions...no no no wait...Spartan Maneuvers...Spartan Activities...Spartan Flakes...Spartan Funtime. Goddammit, 343 isnt paying me! I shouldn't have to think to come up with a name which isn't dumb...that's their job. Hell, just think of a name for the Deep Space Mission, like Operation *BLANK* Manuevers or something and slap that on there.

When I read this I was thinking of the Super 8 Hotel. "You could go Bowling, or SCUBADIVING!"

Heres my theory about Reach; it failed beacuse it tried to retain classic Halo gameplay while introducing COD esque design elements. 343 is completely changing the game, so while they risk failing in implementing those changes, they will not fail because they change too little.

Doesn't sound like the best of Marty, still sounds pretty good though. If I were 343 and this guy, I would save the real good stuff anyway. As with everything, we'll just have to wait and see (or hear). Just hope he preserves some of Halo's weirdness and doesn't follow Hanz Zimmer too much. Really hope we get more of that style of music from the concept art video. It had a real feeling of Halo combined with Blade Runner combined with Inception.