Vaulting♥Frog

Console RTS games had limited caps simply because their hardware couldn't handle that many units in movement at one time. Notice how the game lags on Halo Wars when people have max units and are moving them. But there are many great RTS games out there with limited units as well as unlimited units. Sins of a Solar Empire is one that is massive in scope yet has limited units. Great game BTW. The SpellForce series of games all have limited units but are good games none the less. Having a limit on the amount of units is fine, though it should be a reasonable amount. Not the tiny stuff we got in Halo Wars. Over all though if there were to be another Halo RTS I personally think it should be PC exclusive in order to make best use out of the RTS features. The console, even the new generation stuff just isn't up to the fine controls needed, among other things.

One should always trust a random hobo drinking Scotch

If I raised a chicken, how high would it be?

I am still puzzled as to why people would want to play a game that allows others to destroy your gaming with their hacks...... but hey at least there is DLC for it.

Trust in the Scotch drinking hobo

I did a solo run through ODST just a few weeks ago and I probably will pick it up again soon.

I don't know if I would be up to trying to break a world record but I loved ODST's firefight. Though I only played it in house (LAN parties are awesome). Depending on the day I might be able to help.

No. You are thinking of the number threve (combo of three and five). Are individual state governments (speaking of the USA here) doing enough on their own to educate todays youth?

ODST's firefight was infinitely more difficult and fun to me. Also, Spartan Ops was a different beast that firefight was. It was designed to be a bridge between Halo 4 and Halo 5. As for it returning am with the others in wanting it back, but in its ODST style. Limited rounds wouldn't be a bad thing but ODST really nailed it for me. It was difficult beyond belief and fun at the same time. Firefight in Reach got stale really quick and felt, at least to me, way too easy.

Ok enough with the binary posts. They are taking up room and honestly they are getting annoying.

Why doesn't anybody consider the idea that you are blatantly betraying somebody if you are going out for revenge on somebody who betrayed you? The system doesn't always recognize the first betrayal as intentional but when you target that person and go after them, it does remember that they killed you and you are out for vengeance... I mean really people?

At this point no. Not inclined to buy a Xbone at this time. Do you think childrens TV shows these days help make children smarter?

So you want game breaking glitches to be available for use? Ok then.

Let the hate flow through you Twinreaper.

Dear sweet Jebus I think I know who it is and I am scared.

@MasterChiefMEAN Why does one have to have anger issues with a statement like that? I have never cared for multiplayer on any game (beyond Mass Effect 3) so my statement is accurate. Multiplayer can go stuff itself for all I care, the story is where it is at for me with gaming.

@Mayh3m Are you talking about an individual toggle for the animations or a playlist toggle for the animations? If it is based upon the individual would that not create an imbalance between those using animations and those who are not? One would come to the conclusion that those who do not use the animation would be able to assassinate far more quickly than those with the animation, thus creating an imbalance within the game. If 343i then decided to keep the assassination length the same between the animated and non animated assassinations then what is the point in not having the animations? The only way I could see this idea working is if the whole playlist turned off animations for everybody. Nobody gets the choice in game beyond choosing to be in that playlist. Since this would take up a whole playlist some people will probably be miffed that they are unable to play that playlist (lets say CTF) with out the animated assassination. Thus creating a new playlist in order to give those fans what they wish. In theory they would have to double the amount of playlists just so they could have one with and one with out the animations while still keeping playlists with different modes. That in turn will thin out the amount of players in each playlist and quite possibly overload 343i with maintaining that many servers.

Ok, final attempt at reasoning with you. No more attempts after this. The data you have provided, no matter how factual, is irrelevant. A person could come up with an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint to exist within a game, or an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint not to be in the game. No matter how many facts, charts, videos and other "proof" they cite however will change the fact that it is all in support of their opinion as to why sprint should or should not be included in the game. This is exactly what your posts are doing. You create wonderful posts full of "facts" (yet I still see personal experiences in them only) to support YOUR argument as to why sprint should not be in Halo. It is YOUR argument, thus it is your opinion. The arguing of opinions is a fruitless venture. Neither side is correct nor incorrect. And in the end the thread ends up with people being upset. Intelligent conversation is all well and good but I don't see that happening here. Instead the thread comes across as an "I'm right and you are wrong!" thread. Yes that is my opinion, you can choose to think differently. Isnt that magical? Keep in mind I am not here to argue the topic of the thread, merely pointing out the absurdity of the argument in the first place. Is this clear enough? I think it should be, and if you still do not understand it then honestly its your personal problem.

Jazzii Man your thread is built upon the premise of opinion. I am surprised you cant see this. Each and every one of your posts is directed towards proving your opinion of why sprint should or should not be included in the next Halo game. Evidence for both sides is, considering the subject matter, pointless as it is, in its entirety, and opinion based argument. I have no issue with your counter arguments, nor with any arguments put forth to deal with them. The problem is that none of you can figure out that it boils down to personal opinion on the matter and neither side is correct or incorrect. If you can not see this basic fact behind this subject matter then that is your issue. Now then I think I have had enough of this thread. Hopefully it will disappear sooner rather than later.

@rrhuntington I do know that C&C had some of their games over on the console as well as other series trying their hand at RTS console games. Unfortunately none were well received as the controls just don't operate correctly on a console. The console controller just isn't built for the micromanagement used in RTS games. Even the custom interface that was developed for Halo Wars fell far short of what an RTS can, and should, be able to do. As an RTS it is ok for being an intro simply because it has some very basic features of RTS games in it. However, Halo Wars falls short in comparison to PC RTS games. The lack of fine unit controls, fixed locations for bases... I don't really want to go on but I could. Keep in mind, I find Halo Wars the best RTS on a console to date, but that isn't saying much when you look at its competition. If they were to do another RTS Halo game then it really should be designed for PC as it would create a far more usable interface and open the game up to far better possibilities.

If you are really looking to contact 343i then your best bet is to head over to waypoint.com as that is their official website. That being said they occasionally have people looking around here so it might be seen all the same. Oh and while those things created for some amusing games, they broke the game itself. In a separate playlist I could see them being around but in all honesty they broke gameplay so badly that I couldn't understand how people could play the game.

In all honesty I find this argument boils down to this: I have to account for one more thing while playing a game and I just don't want to. I understand that you personally don't enjoy sprint (though after reading a few of your posts you seemed to be on the fence for a while) but that doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be in the game. As Twin stated, all of your experiences with it are just that, your experiences. They do not apply to others. It doesn't matter if you don't like the feature or not, the game itself will be developed along the lines of vision the developers decide to go down. As for the rest of your argument I have no desire to deal with it. Others can go back and forth with you over something that is purely opinion.

Jenkins

1: Why necro this thread? 2: MLG was and is an abomination. The idea behind it was amazing, unfortunately humans do what humans do best. Screw it all up. People decided it was the be-all-end-all of competitive gaming. If it weren't MLG settings then you were a "noob" which didn't deserve to exist much less play the game. Any other settings are "casual" and even that word was turned into something dirty. Once other sites got onto the market they developed their own settings but the attitude was still the same: "if you don't play by these specific settings then you should crawl in a hole and die." Should there be a place for high level competition? Absolutely. Should it have 90% of the game being unused? Why not. Can people handle such a setting? Absolutely not. I really wish there could be a high level competition area but unfortunately people are too damn stupid to grasp the concept of different forms of competition. More to the point people don't really understand the use of the term "competitive". What most people are asking for is "fair competition" where everybody has equal chance. Well guess what, not a single game in history has that. Human elements are completely random so no game is ever "fair". You can minimize things by forcing people to use specific maps, settings and weapons but that only goes so far. What gets even better is trying to decide who's version of "fair" is the one to be used. Personally I think it is fair if I have a fully automatic incineration cannon with bottomless clip and cant hurt myself while everybody else is stuck with plasma pistols that have enough charge for 1 shot. To me that is fair. Doesn't make it fair from other peoples perspective. Reality is we all have our own perspectives on what is fair and what isn't. Even with MLG settings and even numbers on both teams people will call it "unfair". Example: "Well you guys have *insert gamertag here* on your team so its unfair!" My personal perspective on competitive gaming? Playing competitive is all about what you bring to the table. If you want to be competitive then you will be, settings be damned. It is a choice. If you choose not to be competitive then that is your problem, don't come crying to people saying it isn't competitive when you choose not to play it in such a manor. I am probably rambling by now but it is what it is. Need a shorter version? Here you go: MLG can rot in a gutter and stay away from Halo and every other game out there from my perspective.

Vaulting♥Frog wonders if Vaulting♥Frog could be a random hobo walking through crossfire with a bottle of Scotch in hand. Vaulting♥Frog doesn't like to play the game but Vaulting♥Frog would love to randomly appear. Vaulting♥Frog would consider it a random encounter much like walking through grass in Pokémon. Vaulting♥Frog warns everybody that if Vaulting♥Frog's bottle of Scotch is shot then Vaulting♥Frog will destroy you all on a sub-atomic level.