o0MrCheesy0o

Kid, I've got over 9,000 posts on B.net. Post your B.net handle before you start spewing insults at me. Like I've said before, people have always complained about bloom and AAs right from the start, but it was less vicious than it is now as no one had actually played the game back then. When the beta rolled out people got a taste of the changes, and some people got a reinforced opinion that these changes were bad. They were still hesitant as everyone was relying on the crutch "it's just a beta!" Now, when the game finally shipped and nothing much had changed since the beta did people really get flaming. Point is, people have always complained. It was only a set minority who were happy with the radical changes. These two threads introduce the ideas of sprint and jetpack to the 'Reach' community. These threads were posted before the beta too... the consensus was "no". http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=38060089 http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=34817490&postRepeater1-p=1 And this AL hate thread is older than 5 months. http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=50642241&postRepeater1-p=1 And again, like I said before. Ideas sounded good to some when they were on paper, and maybe they still sounded good when they got to play with them for a while. It's only when you've lived with 'em for a long time do all the flaws really become apparent. That's why there appears to be a lot more hate now then before. My main point is though, Bungie didn't listen to the community. Bungie gave the community something and that was it (Reach started development after Halo 3. The community didn't really have a say as to what goes in and what goes out). Bungie tweaked their ideas as they saw fit based on data they received from players, but they didn't listen to the community. If they did we wouldn't have jetpacks in arena. Hell, we wouldn't have bloom or AAs in a couple of playlists. Anyway, I'm done with talking to you. I think you've failed to comprehend my first post, so why would another help.

You're right, it is a bloody good read. In fact, it's inspired me to make a competitive map. Of to Forge once again!

People like you piss me off. Why? Because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Who wanted jetpacks, bloom and all this other crap? Oh, the community? Right, you speak for the whole community, don't ya? If you were actually active on B.net, or knew what you were talking about you'd realize how dumb you sound right now. I don't mean to be mean, but please get your facts right. Let's search B.net, shall we? Who wants jetpacks, guys?! http://www.bungie.ne...ter1-p=1#457996 http://www.bungie.ne...er1-p=1#2536099 http://www.bungie.ne...er1-p=1#4574214 http://www.bungie.ne...er1-p=1#7417014 http://www.bungie.ne...er1-p=1#7031040 There's actually very few threads on B.net that put forth the notion of jetpacks being in Halo, and those that do are filled with people saying "NO!" with a few exceptions, but that's always expected. The majority never wanted jetpacks in Halo. Doesn't stop crazy 12 year old kids from making a thread about jetpacks though... Now, let's look for bloom. Nope. No threads came up in my searches outside of the Reach forum. Didn't seem like anybody wanted bloom. Complaints about melee? A few in the Halo 3 forum, but nothing really relevant. No one suggested the silly mechanic we now have. The only complaints I've found are a ) the huge lunge and b ) the fact that the player who has the most health, regardless of who smacked first, wins (Halo 3). Now, if we're talking about the Reach forum... well, before players played the damn game some of the ideas sounded good to some people (on paper, ideas always sound better than when they're executed), but at the same time there was a lot of hate for them before the game or beta even came out. I know I was against bloom and AAs right from the start. Even with the people that liked the ideas, they didn't suggest 'em. It was all Bungie's doing. Like I've pointed out, the majority of players were against jetpacks from Halo 2 all the way to Halo 3 (at least, the people on the forums). There were threads discussing the idea, and the resolution was: NO! Yet, Bungie decided it was a good idea to put 'em into Reach. Yup! Bungie really listened to the community, didn't they? Hm.... Anyway, back to ideas sounding good on paper, but not when they're executed. And this is completely true. Once players got a taste of what the ideas were really like a lot of people changed their opinions. Bloom, for instance. On paper it was a system that separated the good players from the bad. In reality it just added randomness and gave the bad players a chance against the good. It didn't do what it advertised. A lot of people hated it, and other ideas Reach brought forth, thus they went back to Halo 3. It's not that they asked for 'em and decided they didn't like it, it's that Bungie just gave it to us (even though there was strong protest against certain features *cough* *cough* armour lock *cough*). They don't 'listen' to the community as much as you make out. As they say, they make the games that they wanna play. I have no idea what Halo 4 needs, but I know what I want it to be like. Halo 2. Oh, last thing. Majority of the time when you ask someone, "what would you like the next game in the series to be like?" they'll say, "like the previous games, but better!" Not, "change practically everything we loved!" Only a few outliers say that... so yea, Bungie did good on listening to the community... if the outliers count as part of the community...

No it's not true at all. Just a silly rumor started by the fact that Halo 2's 'servers' were shut down. The only reason you can't play Halo 2 online anymore was because the original xbox servers were shut down, not Halo 2's 'servers'. You won't be able to play Halo 3 online when MS decides to shut down the 360's servers. So don't panic. Halo 3 won't get it's throat cut quite yet.

It looks ugly and messy. I don't like it... at all...

Equipment were pretty bad too though. Speak for yourself, OP. Chang is only needed if it brings about something good. Needless change just for the sake of 'innovating' is stupid. Anyway, all AAs can burn in hell. Even sprint and evade. Give me one pro for either of them to be in Halo 4. There isn't one, and if there was I would be able to counter with 5 cons.

Get rid of AAs entirely! Problem solved. Also, Halo's not a class based shooter. It was bad enough having different AAs to choose from at spawn, let's not touch the weapons.

My honest opinion? I think it's a stupid idea. I can just imagine some of the designs the community would come up with... oh good lord-

First up, this isn't 343's home (late, I know, but...). If you're looking for their official boards head on over to halo.xbox.com/forums/. > implying Halo 3 is on the same grounds as Halo 2. Not even close, buddy. I'd love the restoration of Halo 2's online multiplayer, but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. 343 certainly haven't said anything about it. We can hope though.

Because if you want that you can go play the imaginary star wars battlefront 3. These threads always manage to make me cringe and they remind me why the community isn't in charge of Halo 4's development. Thank gawd. Now, this is something I can agree with. Halo, all the way up to 3, had pretty epic title screens. ODST and Reach were a bit lack luster...

ZB is indeed a ton of fun. Though, you're not the only one still using camo and AL. I just encountered a team using camo on Countdown... it was a frustrating match to say the least. Can't wait till there's a ZB playlists with all those wretched AAs out of here!

Like... only 1 or 2 guys at 343 are from Bungie. Plus, I know one of 'em got fired. So, if you really wanna play with someone who was fired by the creators of Halo... just sayin'.

I noticed this too. Which got me thinking, what happens when you go into an empty space in CEA that's not actually empty in CE. You'd be clipping through the geometry if you switched to classic mode... unless CEA's collision maps are the same as the classic mode.

Something bad happened here recently?

I definitely see it as a possibility. 343 and Microsoft just love pumping out whatever the fans want, apparently. I'm not looking forward to it though. The games are good, but everything else is pretty sub-par. Plus, movies inspired by games never go well.

Comparing games isn't being mature. It's all opinion oriented and as such you can't claim one opinion is right and the other is wrong, for that is just an opinion. If you ask me, Quake 3 > all.

*sigh* What don't people get? You can't 'spam' if you don't have bloom. You see, the only reason people complained about 'spamming' in Reach was because if one person spammed with bloom on, and the other paced like you're supposedly meant to do the spammer still won sometimes. This angered people because the player doing the right thing: staying calm, aiming and controlling his shots lost to the guy wildly spamming, panicking and being inaccurate. The whole thing led to random outcomes. If you don't have bloom it gets rid of randomness. The player with the best accuracy wins, End of story. No one thinks this is bad. Well... except for the bad kids that can't aim... However, if you're not talking about the ZB gametype but are referring to the 85% bloom gametype then I agree with you to an extent. I believe the 85% bloom just adds more randomness than anything. It's not 'overpowered' though, it's just showing you that you're a bad player. Sorry, but I'm just being honest. The pistol is okay how it currently is. What's wrong with dying in "half-a-second" in close range battles? The other player had superior aim and won. Basically, calling the pistol OP is a case of "the other players better than me and I don't have a chance! WAAAAAAAAAA!" Aka, being butthurt at your lack of skill. With previous iterations of 'competitive' play in Reach the main weapon was the DMR, but with ZB we can also add in the pistol. The pistol excels at close to mid-range, whilst the DMR trumps the pistol at far and the more extreme end of mid-range. I don't see how adding in another weapon to the competitive sandbox is a bad thing. I know, it sucks. TS always has a crazy population, but the good playlists only manage to have a few hundred. That's why I play during the night and early morning (I'm on holidays, so I've got nothin' better to do ). The only problem with this is a get a lot of foreign host... I still manage to do okay though ;] I don't see how you could complain about it being way too hard though. The other team has better players. What's the problem? You want the game to bring those good players down with crappy gimmicks so you can stand a chance? Because that's what Reach originally did, and the majority of decent players didn't like it one bit. Though, the way the system matches players up could be greatly improved. I've had a few games with completely hopeless teammates, and after the game I'd avoid them using XBL's built in 'avoid' feature, only to get them on my team next game! I like it. So do many others. ZB is absolutely fantastic! Haven't had this much fun on Reach since it was released.

The question in the thread is completely different to the title's question-what is this, I don't even- Well, to be honest, I'm not expecting much from 343. From what I've seen in CEA 343 seem to be concerned greatly with making things look 'flashy' and 'cool'. That's not a good sign... plus, having them say they've removed things from Halo 4 that had already been successfully prototyped and implemented into the game because they felt too un-Halo like really worries me. Those kind of ideas should've been scraped long before they went into prototyping. Basically, what I'm expecting of Halo 4 is an extremely cheesy, flashy campaign with lots of explosions, and a multiplayer mode that just makes us wish we were back playing Halo 2. I'm also prepared for lots of 'gimmicky' ideas. 343 seem insistent on "changing things up". That went real well last time... didn't it, Reach?

lolgowmulitplayer. Sure, I'd like dedicated servers for Halo 4, but they have their own problems ya know?

I like the way this kid thinks. Though, I personally couldn't care what happens armour wise in H4. Everyone knows default's for kings.

Okay, I see a lot of people wanting sprint, even evade, to be permanent features in Halo 4... why? They're terrible ideas. Absolutely terrible. Do you know why Reach's maps sucked so much, and we didn't get one legendary map like Lockout, Guardian or Midship? It's thanks to sprint, amongst other things. But sprint dramatically alters the way players play the game and designers build maps. With sprint or evade we get a burst of speed, and to compensate for that speed maps need to be 'stretched' out more. People say that having sprint "speeds" up gameplay, but they couldn't be more wrong. It slows it down to a crawl. Maps get bigger, and when someone's one-shot it's possible for them to evade or sprint into cover; drawing out the encounter. Personally, for Halo 4 I want a competitive arena shooter. I don't want anything like bloom, AAs or equipment. Bring back the BR (or a utility weapon like it, better yet, re-balance the sandbox so weapons aren't bloody useless outside of their niche). Bring back competitive, medium sized arenas! With Halo 2, it really delivered when it came to good maps. I don't understand how map design went downhill after its release... especially BTB maps. I just don't find Reach's, or 3's maps fun to play on. Power-ups are also a must. NO load outs either. This isn't a class based game.

What did I win?

If Halo 4 has armour abilites, or any other big change I and others deem to be a gimmick I'll buy the most expensive edition of Halo 4 and burn it.

AAs haven't been confirmed. It's a misleading article. Besides, 343 know better than to include 'em in Halo 4.

OP, I honestly couldn't care less. It doesn't alter gameplay in the slightest so it doesn't concern me. Since Reach was a 'spin-off' expect Halo 4 to have the more traditional 'combat names'. Who knows, though.