WishboneRulz

I am the poster who created the thread/poll that this thread is talking about. Although I listed several things in my original post that I do not like about Halo 4 (I voted that I dislike most of the changes), I never said that I did not like the game. In fact in a later post on that thread, I stated that I actually enjoy the game. The thread was meant to see if people liked the changes to Halo or not, as well as which changes they liked or disliked, as I asked for voters to post an explaination as well. It was not meant to find out how many people hated the game or to start bash wars. I do want to say that all the points made in this thread are valid, but none of them can fully dismiss the results of the poll. The only point made in this thread that I disagree with is the one that says that people who just created their 343i account have opinions that count less than others that have been here longer. I have been playing Halo for more than a decade, but because I decided not to join the 343i forum 3 months before the game came out, my opinion is invalid? I don't think so. Anyway...I am aware that it is a small sample size, complainers complain, etc...but the votes are still there. To sum it up, I think 343 made a fine game and I do NOT think they failed as the creator of this thread stated. I do, however, look forward to them redeeming themselves with Halo 5. I am playing Halo 4 online and plan to continue playing it for the foreseeabe future. But I think it could have been so much better if they had chosen to improve the already established Halo formula rather than simply implementing "CoD" elements.

Even though I dislike most of the changes, it is still a pretty fun game. But it just feels like a mix between Halo and CoD rather than an improved Halo. A purely Halo game would have been better.

We all know that 343 has made some changes to Halo. Some subtle, some not so much. This question is in reguard to Campain and Multiplayer. Please vote and explain in a post. The only "CoD" feature that has been added that I like is the sprint, but then again, the spartans could just be faster in the first place. I find it hard to believe that a spartan could only hold a sprint for 5 seconds, game mechanic or not. And what is up with dropped weapons dissappearing? This is just terrible. It makes 90% of the fighting done with some sort of assault rifle. Booooring. If all I want to do is play with rifles, I'll play Battlefield 3. I loved how a good Halo match had rockets, needles, lasers, spikes, bullets and plasma blasts flying all over the place. Now it's either a fully or semi automatic rifle, unless you are one of the lucky ones that stumbles across a spawned weapon. This has got to be the worst change made by 343. And is it just me, or are shields far weaker in Halo 4 multiplayer? I feel like I kill/die much easier than previous Halos. If this was done to make room for the perks, then I say all of the CoD elements added to Halo 4 just need to be removed. I dont remember people complaining about previous Halo games needing to be more like CoD.

Even with the hardight shield it seems a little too imbalanced.

Also, how often do you see anyone actually survive a round? From my experience it's maybe once every fifteen rounds (not including cheaters who hide inside walls that haven't been fixed yet). I think either spartans need to be strengthened somehow or flood need to be weakend. This could also help make games last longer.

Flood is a very enjoyable multiplayer gametype. But, does anyone else notice that the games last only a few minutes and you spend 60% of your time waiting in the lobby for a new game to start? Maybe change it from 3 rounds to 5?