VivaLebowski

Dual wielding might seem redundant, but if you ask people, everyone seems to have something they love. My friend loves double SMG's, I see other people posting love for the Maulers. 343 should just make it painfully obvious that dual wielding is awesome for CQC, even better than the AR but has big accuracy falloff versus the AR. Might be interesting to see Double Needlers return too...yeah they might be overpowered, but thats why you limit the spawn rate and clip size of Needlers on the map.

I dont care too much how it happened, all I know is that the new Chief model looks seriously badass. Yet one more reason why I am cautiously optimistic that 343 is going to do this thing right.

I'm definitely supportive of moving back to 3's ranking system BUT I don't think there was anything wrong with the way Reach did it with Armor since it was all Cosmetic. That said, I think certain pieces of armor should be reserved for achievements or in game commendations, so yeah, a mix is best. Say, for example, to get the Shotgun shells you need to get a certain KD with the shotfun, or to get the camo, neck cloth like the one Jun had, get a number of assasinations. That way, the most bad ass pieces are reserved for people who really hone their skills or put effort into one thing so they can really show off their status. Though its true that we can't really say because we don't know how any of the armor systems are gonna work and what is cosmetic versus what changes your abilities and what not.

Too true! Though that's really only with Reach. The Halo 3 Warthog did not suffer nearly as bad from this...they definitely overdid the physics with Reach, yet one more way they made Vehicles in Reach suck by comparison to 3.

ike other people have said the best route is to have the choice. Vehicles have always been a blast in Halo for me, but actually having gotten into Battlefield with Bad Company and BF3 on the consoles, that stuff really shows you how intense and immersive having the first person take on Vehicles is. Driving a tank in BF is such an effing blast, but being able to switch into 3rd person is also really cool and helpfull. I think Halo can be the same way. I think the trend should just be more towards first person in general, but ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS give people that choice. After all, having 3rd person vehicles, turrets, is pretty well established and its cool to be able to actually look at your stuff and get that peripheral view. At the same time, Halo was conceived as a first person game for a reason, and even though I will always be a Halo fan over any other series, Battlefields 1st person assassinations > Reach's 3rd person assassinations and Battlefield 1st person Tank > Reach 3rd person Tank.

I have allot of problems with Reach, but Sprint did not invalidate its core "Halo-ness" it simply didn't. Yeah, it changed the "gameplay" but as I already covered and I'm sure you agree, you can't judge something simply because it changes Halo's gameplay. I was playing Big team Slayer on Sandtrap in H3 just a few hours ago...boy, it felt good. And looking back, if I could sprint somewhere and everyone else could, would that really alter my feelings about the game? No. At worst, we can say Sprint isn't really a good or bad feature. You have this notion for what "Halo" gameplay is and I challenge you to define it. For me its a few things: A good degree of symmetry on both teams, good gameplay and aesthetically pleasing map design, straightforward vehicular combat, etc etc. I can go on. If Reach went wrong with Sprint at all, it was maybe not making it universal. If 4 has Sprint for everyone and now no one can choose Armor Lock, I will be happy. Point is, Sprint does not inherently go against what is Halo gameplay. You seem to disagree, so identify what element it is thats so important and then explain how Sprint contradicts that. Also, in sales, Reach beat Halo 3. It was not a flop. I think allot of Halo fans, myself included, agree that Reach was definitely not all it could be, but don't throw the word flop around because A) Reach wasn't a flop and how well it did financially doesn't have that much to do with how good a game it is.

Heres a bit of a rant about two arguments I am always reading. 1) "But that's not Halo!" -Traditionalist Halo player complaining about changes. 2) "Adapt" -Progressive Halo player complaining about people complaining about changes. Neither argument means much of anything because neither argument really says much of anything about the nature of the change being made. The first argument isn't as bad because there are a few cases when it actually applies...for example, I personally don't think the perk system in Call of Duty detracts from Call of Duty but it certainly does not belong in Halo, so I guess its okay to say "But that's not Halo!" but then (for example) when people talk about something like universal sprint or 1st person vehicles, people say "but that's not Halo!". Yeah...its not Halo because it hasn't been in Halo. Might as well say Brutes "aren't Halo" (before Halo 2) or Forge isn't Halo (before Halo 3). What I'm wondering is what is this strange intangible "Halo-ness" which we are comparing these new elements to? Then you get people saying "adapt", like when talking about changes in Reach. This is even worse than the previous argument because at least saying something wasn't Halo was making some sort of value judgement about something...with "adapt" we could be talking about any change in the book and the progressive Halo player might blindly insist that the change is for the best and that we should blindly keep singing the particular Halo game (and its developers) praises even though people might very well know in their heart of hearts that the new element is at best neutral in terms of improving the game and at worst completely stupid. Point is, the community should just judge a particular element by its own merits, not based on a need to freeze Halo as it currently is, or to deceive yourself into thinking that the last Halo is as good or better than the last.