Sova

Similar to your loadouts comment, I'd suggest even going as far to take out sprint. This also made the "golden age" halo games far superior because you had to make smarter decisions about where you went. Also, Sprinting is just clunky and annoying.

Graphics aren't everything my friend. I'd go back to Halo 2 in a heartbeat given the chance just because the physics of that game are untouchable. As for Bf3. I'm a huge fan of it because of how it is based around squad teamplay. You HAVE to work as a team to win. One person can't control the game. And I think Halo is similar in this fashion. Plus, bf3 you need to know how to use every weapon to be able to be good, you need that skill. A noob in bf3 will get crushed if they don't actually take the time to learn the game. Huge skill gap in bf3. But of course, bf3 has its problems too. Every game does. I just hope CoD's influence will fade.

I agree that you have to change and add new things to a game, I mean, CoD really is the same game over and over. The problem that I think Tripwire is getting at though is taking that element out of a game that separates the good from the bad. Something that CoD does really well is exactly what Tripwire is voicing its opinion against and that's adding in things that make the game easier to play for "noobs" and "casuals." It is debatable but more often than not I see luck being an extremely big indicator in determining the outcome of randomness. Ordinance drops on maps are random, weapons within the personal ordinance drops are also random, spawns are quite random. Those three are determined by luck. My problem with Halo 4, which I think Tripwire developers would agree with, is upping the frequency of power weapons. Example: a person who is terrible with the starting weapons gets enough assists, kills to get an ordinance, calls it in, and what does he get? a Incineration cannon or rockets. Weapons that don't take much skill to use. You can't control them getting it either. That's drastically different from Halo CE, 2, 3, and even Reach where weapon spawns needed to be controlled and time accordingly. A good team will know how to work a map to their advantage, that no longer is the case because drops are randomized. But that's just one example of compressing skill gap.

It takes luck to overcome randomness.

Yeah, the point I was making is CoD, because of how successful it has become, is the new "standard" in which I think many FPS's are compared to. Battlefield has always had a tough time competing with CoD, mainly on console, and the Unreal and Quake have gone by the wayside. All are great games, but CoD is a giant because of how easy it is to take up. I just find it interesting that Halo has actually used some of these same marketing strategies that CoD has, specifically lowering skill gap by increasing randomness and frequency of power weapons. Halo is quite different from CoD though and still has that skill element to it. You can't win in the upper echelon of the game by yourself, you need quality teamwork and people who can actually outplay the other side. That said, I still think Halo is implementing way too many elements that take away from the original formula.

We here a lot about how call of duty and halo are the leaders in FPS gameplay. There are plenty of us here who will say that CoD is taking over even in Halo while some might disagree. Just because I found this interesting I wanted to post something relevant to the matter. I was reading upon an article about one of my favorite games (Red Orchestra 2) and Tripwire's leading developer for the game. His thoughts on FPS gameplay is quite intriguing. Basically his view is that Call of Duty and its engine is ruining the current FPS generation because of how linear it is. I quote: "I make it sound like there was a combative conversation, probably because I get a little emotional when I think about it. But it was really a calm discussion of, “What don’t you like?” and “It doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” Almost every element boiled down to “it doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” And really, watching some of these guys play… one of the things that Call of Duty does, and it’s smart business, to a degree, is they compress the skill gap. And the way you compress the skill gap as a designer is you add a whole bunch of randomness. A whole bunch of weaponry that doesn’t require any skill to get kills. Random spawns, massive cone fire on your weapons. Lots of devices that can get kills with zero skill at all, and you know, it’s kind of smart to compress your skill gap to a degree. You don’t want the elite players to destroy the new players so bad that new players can never get into the game and enjoy it. I’m looking at you, Dota. [laughs] Sorry." Parallels can easily be drawn between this and Halo. Let's put it in the context of Halo. Halo 2- very balanced, power weapons were not of a plenty as they are in Halo 4, movement was slower (had to make better decisions), no bloom, etc.. Halo 3- similar to halo 2 but no hitscan (increased randomness), power weapons still not of a plenty however you had equipment (lowered skill gap), tie-beatdown system (problem same as equipment) Halo Reach- unbalanced because of abilities, variety of power weapons (especially the ease of using the sniper rifle), bloom (increased the randomness a lot), sprint(allows for easy getaways now) Halo 4- always a power weapon on the map and anyone can call in their own power weapon with an ordinance in specific playlists, abilities still there, sprint put in (movement a lot faster) Those are just some of the things that have effected the game play in multiplayer. Sure there are counterarguments to some of them, but I think it's fair to say that when you increase the randomness, introduce more weaponry that doesn't take skill (boltshot much?), and increase the actions/abilities at your disposal, you level the playing field that much more and it turns away people, specifically elite players, because of how cheap or easy the game can be. Let the flaming begin...

IP laws are annoying aren't they? Technically you don't own Halo 4, you just own the right to play their game.

Point I'm making is that I completed something that rewards me with exp but never got that exp because i was capped. How bogus is that? Lost EXP...fail 343i

Is anyone else really peeved that due to one not having a specialization unlock code they don't get to gain exp throughout the entire time between specialization unlocks. Backstory: I didn't play halo before NOvember whatever, but that was cause i was abroad and when i got back i bought halo 4. I've played every halo since CE like a loyal jester entertains his king. So yeah, I didn't get a specialization code like everyone else. And I know there are lots out there who didn't either. But I still played even when I reached the lvl 70 cap. I still went for the challenges like everyone else, I still got commendations for completing my DMR, Suppressor, Light Rifle. But guess what! I log on today wiht the hope that i'll be reimbursed for all that experience I supposedly would have gained if I had a specialization unlock, but no. I find out I basically wasted my time because I wasn't rewarded. It's not so much that the cap irks me but what really made it infuriating is that the commendation rewards, which are a hefty amount of experience if you complete all the way to master, are not allowed to be done over. So I spent all my time using a light rifle and DMR when normally i'd just use something else and I don't get rewarded for it. The sad part is that this is built into the game. It's not a challenge per say. It's something you can do on your own time how ever long you want and complete when you want. Some tell me I'm wrong in all this. Please. I put in just as much time as the guy who got to level 100 whatever but I still have to start from scratch all because I didn't play before a stupid, made up, nonsensical date.

Could that have been any more difficult to read?

Yeah, they are basically experimenting to see what the strongest playlists are each week and then will finalize it all in the new year. Sadly, I think this has upset a lot of people because you have fun with a playlist then its gone for awhile. Patience is key I guess. What I worry is that they'll finalize their playlist next year and update it once and be done with it so they can work on Halo 5...sadly this is how the gaming industry is working right now. Always working towards the next product. View Halo 4 matchmaking from release to the upcoming update as their version of a Beta...basically we are all guinea pigs right now who are somehow working out the kinks for 343i. It's up to them to decide what works and what doesn't. Hopefully they'll get it right. If they don't...well, I'm off to Fifa.

People are getting smart and learning that the computer offers the best selection of video games. (I'm being sarcastic of course). I think you may be right. Gaming really doesn't hold the revolutionary feel it did when XBL first came out. I think the younger generation is getting into other things like iPads, mobile aps, handheld gaming devices, and all that other junk. At the same time us older people who grew up with a xbox 360 are starting to enter the real world or moving on in life. My guess though is that there will be another boom in the gaming industry as soon as microsoft releases their next generation console. The xbox 360 has been around for a long while now (7 years) and the first microsoft console has been around for over a decade. So it's about time that something knew comes about that will take the gaming community by storm.

Maybe that is how shooters are going to be, just jam packed with all this stuff that makes people feel they are getting a good deal for 60 bucks. I just think what they get in return is a game that really doesn't require any great plan or skill to execute. In a way it seems most of these games are fought very passively where you react to what the other person does and to be honest, that's really not how halo was made in the first place. The idea of halo as a sandbox game was to really take the game where you wanted to go with it. I felt like I could do a lot more in the first 3 games than I could in Halo Reach or in the current installment. Now I feel like I'm making decisions based on what the other team was doing. Customizing my classes is just one way of doing this. In the old Halos you really had to work to make something happen, especially using teamwork, now its much more individualized. Ah well, i've come to terms to accept that the old halo style probably won't ever be born again, but one can hope right? Best way to seeing that possibility is to just keep pointing out what made halo great in the first place.

Ghandi is right in many ways on how halo really has declined in E-sports and popularity in general, especially with competitive community. But I think there is more to it than just a ranking system and playlists. Halo really has evolved into a game filled with a bunch of extra stuff that you equip to give you an edge in battle and I honestly think this hurts the competitiveness. The addition of new weapons and how they operate (bloom, no hitscan, general physics, grenade power) has really made gameplay not as streamlined as it used to be and maybe even unexciting and chaotic. I feel more than ever that Halo is now just a jumbled mess of explosions, bullets, and bodies. There's no real flow to a game and how it's going and I never get a real good sense on what is happening on a map like I did in the original series. It's a shame that it's gotten to this but I think it's not the developers fault necessarily. Most of what's happened with Halo has resulted from a combination of development choices, game competition with other FPS's, and new capabilities of software and design. That's my two cents on the matter, I just long for a near replica of Halo 2 gameplay again. Best moments of XBL happened then.

The effort to use the boltshot is almost nonexistent, anyone can really point and shoot the thing and get a kill. What takes effort is really only the timing, but the window of the charge is so big that its really easy to time it. At least in my experience it has been. Sure i could just stay at a distance but in maps like Adrift its near impossible to avoid the boltshot even with promethean vision. But that brings the other issue of forcing me to use a specific armour ability because of one secondary that is almost always preferred over the other secondaries.

Here's a wikipedia definition for Overpowered for you too. This may shed light on the boltshot/DMR debate. "For something to be deemed overpowered, it is either the best choice in a disproportionate number of situations (marginalising other choices) and/or excessively hard to counter by the opponent compared to the effort required to use it."

If I picked up a DMR and someone picked up a br that wouldn't be considered imbalance because you PICKED IT UP. Why can you not grasp this concept. On one level a game is balanced if the base player, note the word 'base', starts with the SAME exact weapons, ammo, and grenades. That makes gameplay a lot more fairer for everyone. You can say that the choice between weapons is balanced and this is true, but it doesn't necessarily lead to balanced interactions between 2 base players because of the drastic differences in the weapons. I want to also note that balanced doesn't necessarily mean that gameplay is fair, such as one of Bungie's lead designers has said, "every fight in Halo is unfair" and he is right to a certain extent because of the variety of weapons within the game, but what he doesn't acknowledge is that every player started out with the same exact class. This weapon start counter acted the imbalance created by pickup weapons. Also, personal attacks like, "same thing may happen where u dropped on ur head as a baby" need not be said in this thread. First, it makes you look childish and immature and second it doesn't give any legitimacy to your argument. So go troll someplace else.

1) a choice between weapons doesn't warrant an even match. Absolutely NOT. 2) I shouldn't be forced to choose a weapon based on the map size or what the other team is doing, that's what I have been meaning by unbalance in weapons. Say for example I'm playing abandon and the other team is using all DMRs and Boltshots while my team is using BRs and pistols. Which team wins? Depends on how each team is playing, but I give priority to the DRM/Boltshot team because they have a stark advantage for long and close range but not midrange. To overcome this disadvantage the team with BRs and Pistols needs to change their classes to counter whatever the DMR team is doing. The problem with this scenario is that it's making the player have to choose a class he may not want to use because of specific reasons. You could say that the person doesn't have skill because they can't adapt to DMR Boltshot play but my worry is that the DMR boltshot play is being largely favored over BRs and Pistols. Honest to god I can't kill people with my pistol because they usually beat me with DMRs and Boltshots and I would consider myself to be a pretty above average player in most situations. Do you all see what I'm getting at? A gun shouldn't be favored over another at the start, they should all be equally powerful to one another. I'm almost always going to choose the DMR and boltshot so why bother even including the BR, pistol, AR, storm rifle, etc. if almost EVERYONE is using a DMR and boltshot. The other unbalanced part in all this is that let's say that one team, which I'll call red team, is split between BR and DMR and I am on blue team using a DMR. For this to make sense let's say that everyone in the game is of equal skill. So I'm just running around the map looking for guys to kill, i come across a DMR guy and let's say i get the jump on him and out gun him, then I come across a BR guy and outgun him from a long range because i have the advantage, then I go down a tunnel and yet again there's a BR guy. HOWEVER this time he beats me because the BR is the better midrange gun and I am stuck with a DMR. This is where balance is crucial. In halo 2 and halo 3 EVERYONE had a fair advantage, barring any weapon pickups, no matter where you were because you started with the same weapon; therefore, it all came down to skill and not specific advantages I had with my BR over his. In halo 4 this is not the case, you could come across a guy with any combination of primary and secondary weapons and depending on the map and circumstances could be at a stark disadvantage from the start. Unbalance sir. I will call it that all day.

I miss halo 2 man, Best times i've ever had on XBL

That's practically the only usefulness it may have though. I'm saying every gun should have some practical purpose in almost every game. Also, wouldn't you agree that the pistol's bloom is way too much, ammo capacity is too small, and damage is fairly weak?

Are you saying that because everyone has a gun at the start that its an even match? Because the differences in the starting weapons is extraordinary and doesn't make it an even match.

The unbalance to the game In halo 2 and 3 you could tell by weapon spawns and your motion sensor (for nonMLG players) which team had what. It was something that has long been left out in Halo 4. No longer can you assume that someone on the other team has rockets or sword or whatever. In halo 2 and 3 and reach, if you saw rockets at its spawn, then you could be safe to assume the other team didn't have them thus you could calculate how you could approach the other team. Also, in halo 2 and 3 everyone started out with a BR and 2 frags and sometimes a secondary. This meant, coupled with what you knew about the map, that you could attack someone and feel confident that they didn't have some hidden weapon that they could easily kil you with. Halo 4 however allows for players to equip a boltshot and an armour ability. You have absolutely no clue that they start with that until after the fact. That's basically what the unbalance is. It's to where there are so many possibilities at the start that its almost impossible to garner what you can expect from the other team. At least in Halo 2 and 3 I knew, a priori, what I was up against. Now I have to experience it first to gain information. That's a huge difference from the halo formula.

The main problem with your logic of approaching the boltshot in a different way is flawed in that it forces people to act in a linear way. Hasn't 343i said that they made this game with an intention of making the possibilities endless in how a game is played out? The Boltshot inhibits this because it forces people to choose a certain ability or choose a certain path to avoid death. So, here's my question. You would be willing to let a guy who is no shields get away from you because you fear one weapon? Where's the aggressiveness that this shooter is supposed to create? Boltshot IS too strong for a secondary weapon. You can't say it isn't because never has there been a weapon that you could SPAWN with that takes 1 shot to kill someone. Also, most people put the boltshot as their loadout to counter other boltshots. That takes away from the usefulness of the pistol. Honest to god, every weapon in the game should have some utility to it. The fact that I can't really use my pistol because it's weak as crap against everything else is really disconcerting.

Um...OP says that statistics and fact-based information are annoying? Wait, what? Wouldn't you like to have concrete evidence of the shortcomings? Seriously dude, you just opened yourself to being called ignorant when you brush off information like that and say its annoying. Come on man, take it for what it is. Halo just aint king anymore and a lot of the original community has lost interest in it.