DracoAvian

Right. Play Halo 3 again and tell when Sergeant Johnson actually accomplishes one of his objectives. Seriously, that game's tagline could have been "Finish Johnson's Fights" instead of "Finish The Fight." Personally, I love Commander Palmer. I was sold on her character when she sizes up The Chief on Requiem. I love her confidence and swagger. I want that from a combat officer. Maybe some people think that makes her a *****, but I laughed until it hurt when she tore DeMarco down at the start of Spartan Ops. That was freaking gold. I'd be willing to place a hefty bet that if Palmer would have been cast as a male she wouldn't be receiving nearly as much hate.

I disagree wholeheartedly. A new soundtrack for a new game. Each soundtrack is great in its own way. Each soundtrack sets the mood for its respective game. I think that Halo 4's soundtrack was indicative of the game as a whole. Where H3 felt intensely of awe and finality, H4 had anger and loss. It is darker, grittier, and less hopeful than any other score we've heard so far. Halo 4 is good. Halo 4's soundtrack is good. H4 wasn't made by the developer we know and love. H4's soundtrack wasn't composed by the man we know and love. H4 is not my favorite Halo, but is still absolutely good. H4's soundtrack is not my favorite, but I'm absolutely looking forward towards the next installment.

Dear merciful Lord. Crazy fire physics and animations paired with fast attack vehicles? Scary and potentially game crashing. You actually "kinda" can create your own warthogs by adding a passenger with a specific weapon. The power weapons are all fun to use until you're invariably murdered 5 seconds later by half the enemy team wielding plasma pistols and stickies. Time for the shameless plug! http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/30288-possible-warthog-improvements/ Take a look! Maybe you'll get new ideas. I'd love to hear them.

Oh it could. Starcraft 2's campaign was very RPG oriented. I'd love to see something like that. Start small with just 'hogs and marines and build up to a massive combined arms force. If somebody tries this I'd really like it to be on PC as well. Console isn't the way to play RTSs. There are a few exceptions, but they are few and very far between.

I like your ideas, and even like the thought behind this weapon. I see one problem though. If the weapon is balanced as a 4-shot BR then scoped it would take 12 shots while scoped with perfect accuracy to kill an enemy. That is a cripplingly looooong time-to-kill. I suppose you could have it so that the bullet damage isn't equal round-of-ammunition for round-of-ammunition, but that just feels wrong. I do like the idea of damage ranges being inversely related though. It is not without merit. I think a better way to do it, would be to simplify loadouts. Game-rules would decide whether it is Covenant, UNSC, or Promethian loadouts and just go from there. That way the faction weapons aren't directly competing with each other for dominance. You could have the LR behave very similarly to the DMR when scoped and the BR when unscoped, and it wouldn't necessarily be to the detriment to multiplayer. It could even be a boon; forcing players such as myself to use things other than the DMR and frag 'nades for once. Of course you run into the problem of some faction loadouts being more popular than others... I remember voting for only the UNSC gametypes in Reach because I preferred the human weapons.

I absolutely loved Reach's style of customization. I liked the relatively low number of armor pieces and helmets because the augmentations you could put on them were so cool! It just helped to personalize the spartan even more. I've noticed a few of you like looking like a tank! I prefer to look lean, fast, nimble, and stealthy. My favorite setup was the Operator helmet w/ black visor, Hazop shoulders, Recon chest, the UGPS tacpad, and the FJ/Para knees (they look the best while kneeling, IMO). EDIT: The helmet mods sadly aren't available in "Vanity." That and there is this odd reflection in the visor.

I like disks too, but mostly for the disk sharing aspect. I bought the game Space Marine nearly as soon as it came out. A good buy for me (I'm addicted to Warhammer), but not that great for all my friends. It was nice to be able to share a game that my friends normally would've just passed by.

I'm not sure how the ships would be implemented... I'd sure love absolutely massive maps made from the interior and exterior of frigates and corvettes. Realistically the competitive multiplayer would be confined to a small area of the ship, but it would allow machinima makers, forgers, and custom gamers massive spaces in which to experiment. I'd love to see invasion brought back but with mammoths and scarabs. I think that as the attacker moves up, they'd have these super-heavies to spawn in offer fire support. It would be an interesting sudo-objective to defend or destroy them. I'd also love to see variants on loads of vehicles. Different variants suit different game types and different game sizes. I really want to see the falcon again. That thing was probably the best air vehicle in terms of just flying around. So much fun.

And look what happened to that guy! In many games I refuse to use weapons out of honor. Some would call it spite, but I call it honor. The thing I dislike about the AR is as follows. When I'm facing down two opponents with precision weapons of any nature I can take my DMR and 'nades and usually get one of them and occasionally get both. When facing down two ARs I die. When I fight one on one against a precision weapon I can usually walk away with shields. When I fight one on one against an AR I'm nearly always taking health damage. I don't think it is a matter of weapon power, but the playstyle that is used with the weapon. When I get out DMR'd or BR'd I feel that I was outplayed. When I'm downed by an automatic weapon I don't feel that skill was a factor in that fight. All that said, I do like a powerful AR. It entices less skilled players to keep or start playing and that inflates the player base. This leads to better connection speeds because of the large pool of players with which to put together in matchmaking. Better connection speeds means more fun games for me. It makes my precision weapons better! My official stance on overpowered/underpowered weapons/abilities/classes/what-have-you I think the best way to look at weapon balance is to observe how many people use which weapons. If a majority of the players are using a single weapon as their main weapon then it is probably deserving of a nerf. If a certain ability is almost never used by the community it is most likely deserving of a buff. If there are seven primary loadout weapons and two or three of them are used widely by the community then why have the others? 100% of players divided by 7 load-out weapons equals about 15% of players. That is how I believe a well balanced game would have its weapons disseminated among the players.

I'm a self proclaimed wheelman, and Halo 4 is really, really, really mean to warthogs. I think the biggest reason is the ability to spawn with both the plasma pistol and sticky grenades. So I don't use plasmas out of principle. Frag grenades take some getting used to, but I usually can get them to land where I need them to. ... Kind of interesting because in H3 I was always looting the sticky spawns. They were pretty dang fun and useful.

I saved probably three minutes there. But there is no need to be mean. I've lost plenty of disks due to scratches, breaks, and demonic possession but I've never had anything bad happen to my hard drive. In my experience it is safer for me to rely on downloadable games.

So I won't be able to download my game to the hard-drive and play without the disk? That's... kind of a bummer. I like that with most of my games all I don't have to dig through the DVD/Game collection to find a case with the wrong disk in it. :3 I had an itch to play Reach yesterday and went through a few campaign missions without having to locate that disk. As far as sharing downloaded games... I didn't realize that was even a thing. Huh? Everyone here has said something about it only being for timed demos. What is a timed demo? Sounds... dumb. To be completely honest most of the announcements have just made me more confused... The biggest factors for me in order of decreasing importance will still be: What system my friends will be getting, what the exclusive titles will be, and the price of the console. The Xbox 360 was an easy choice for me, but with my friends leaning towards the PS4 I honestly don't know which one I'll be getting at this juncture.

I honestly don't know whether I'll be getting the Xbox1 or the PS4... My stance on the console wars has always been, "Get what your friends have." They seem to be leaning towards the PS4, but I kinda wanna hold out for Halo 5. I guess it'll depend on Halo 5 then. If 343 really shines and puts out a game that'll be fun for a long time then I'll probably be able to persuade my friends to get the 'ole Xbone amd play some MP with me. As it stands, the price point makes the cheaper console more appetizing for the always-close-to-broke college student.

I love the idea of this. Your idea has merit. RTS interested people are pretty well outnumbered by the FPS interested so populating the game correctly "shouldn't" be the main problem. The idea that having Spartans as independent from their "commanders" in FPS mode means that the world will have to be constructed with FPSs in mind as well as RTSs. This will either mean commanders will have a hell of a time commanding units effectively or the maps will lack the depth needed for a FPS. Balancing such a game would be difficult because on an RTS friendly map the Spartans would ALL be Splaser/Snipers. On an FPS friendly map the Spartan loadouts would be more diverse but the commander's role would be impossible. Although I like the idea, implimenting it while satisfying my RTS and FPS itch at once seems like a pretty tall order. Check out Nuclear Dawn. From what little of it I have played there always seems to be one of two outcomes. Either the commander sucks then the "players" have no fun or the "players" suck and the commander has no fun. Ew... MoW. I'm not a fan of that game. I'm not good enough to command my tanks and each individual infantryman with the level of detail and exactitude required of that game However, I've always thought that most of my "Halo the RTS" dreams would be answered with a Mod of an exsisting title. I wouldn't say no to warthogs and scorpions rolling around blasting stuff to bits. Halo Wars was and still remains a fairly solid FPS experience. The campaign story and missions are compelling enough for me to go back for the occassional playthrough. The multiplayer aspect of that game, however, is complete and utter garbage. I've never played a game against Covenant in which I wasn't the victim of their "Hero Rushes" and I've never played a game against UNSC that didn't result in the biggest turtle-fest in the world. And if I were to hand out the award of "Greatest Console RTS" I would hand it to Tom Clancy's EndWar every single time. If you haven't played it, at least check out the demo of it on Xbox LIVE. You'll need your mic. You use voice commands and your controller to give your units their orders. It flows fantastically once you get the hang of it and I honestly think that this would be the direction that a Halo RTS should take. P.s. The demo only covers the basics of EndWar. In this game units are persistant. Each individual unit, not just unit type, has their own personality. These units have a unique callsign with a unique voice actor as their CO. There is an armory system that allows you purchase upgrades and skills for your units between battles. Even with its elementary rock/paper/scissors unit matchups it still has a surprising amount of depth.

I personally loved ODST right off the bat simply because of the voice actors. (Firefly, Battlestar, and Nolan North anyone?) I still really enjoy the game because of how fleshed out each character seems to be. Everyone has their own name and voice, their preferred weapons, and their own mission (with the exception of DARE... although now that I mention it, what could they have done without spoiling the surprise of her mission or survival?). It was a side of Halo we hadn't seen outside of novels or comics. It showed some aspect of proper human cities (not a lot of recognizable features in H2 to be honest. There was a tunnel and I think there was a fountain). It showed the AI superintendent as actually helpful (those weapon caches are brilliant!). And on top of all that being a regular human (if you can call special forces badasses "regular") didn't bother me at all. It was actually pretty enjoyable feeling alone and vulnerable. Reach was fantastic though. Probably my favorite Halo title when you consider everything together. My favorite aspect about it was that you played as your Spartan in every part of the game. In every other halo you've played as the Chief, the Arbiter, or as another ODST character; someone other than yourself and switch over when you entered multiplayer. I didn't realize how much I liked that until Halo 5. Somehow... I dunno, but Reach is just more to my liking... Atmospherically... That's not to say that 343 didn't do an admirable job with H4. Spartan Ops would be so much more enjoyable if we could set up real difficulty barriers. Simply uping the difficulty just means we die a few times more before we complete the mission. Skulls would be the simplest way I think... Just add Iron! If you die, you're dead until your squad completes the mission or wipes. I really like how they've been patching and rebalancing weapons. That is excepting of course my DMR! That thing was by far the best weapon in the game. It was deserving of the nerf for sure, but it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it. It is still useable and powerful, but not ridiculously so. Now lets talk about the bull****, I mean boltshot.

I do not like the idea of attachments. Whilst it does sound like those Modern-Military-FPSs that is not why I don't like the idea. Every possible combination of attachments on each weapon acts like a completely unique weapon when it comes to weapon balance. The poor thing about it is that people will eventually find "the best gun combo" and just roll with that. It'd be like the M16A3+Hvy Barrel+Grip+Red Dot in BF3. I enjoy the variety Halo has to offer. Less weapons = easier to balance = most likely a better balanced game. It also means that people will be less inclined to drop "their gun" and scavenge weapons from fallen players. I already dislike how quickly weapons disappear in the game and this seems like a reason to let 343 keep it the same. I would not want "earned support" to be anywhere near multiplayer at all. I don't like ordinance anyways because it makes map control (an idea that was always extremely important in Halo) less of a factor. In some cases it makes map control completely worthless. Ordinance gametypes, depending on the map, are "which team got the most launchers or snipers." Map control is what made Halo "HALO" for me. It made it different from other FPSs that allow you to sit right where you spawn and still be effective. In my opinion belittling map control it was a step in the wrong direction. I do like the idea of support in Firefight modes though. If 343 should be so kind as to bring firefight back, I cannot think of a terribly compelling reason why we shouldn't be able to call in 3rd party support. An ODST squad deployed VIA Drop Pods, air cover from Pelicans, Falcons or Hornets, or a simple vehicle or heavy weapon drop.

For armor I'd like to see plenty of aesthetic changes that add a layer of immersion inside of customization -Arm mounted displays like in Reach but that could be programmed with the game score, teammate status (could be as simple as alive/dead, or as complicated as giving their "shout-out" location and their current weapon as well), respawn status on weapons or vehicles (could be tied towards the specialization abilities like engineer), or perhaps objective status. If they really want to enforce the competetive spirit they could list your stats so far for the round or even your current nemesis. The idea is that your arm would always kinda be in your screen anyways, but if not you could do something as easy as looking down or pressing up on your d-pad to check for whatever information might be there. -Altering visors and HUDs for different helmets. This way players can choose what looks cool and feels right to them while they're playing the game and while they're watching their replays. I'd love to see the visor outline of the HUD a bit more pronounced to help illustrate this notion. -I've heard that some people vehicle camos and colors, but perhaps an adaptive color system for vehicles to either add a little individualism or team recognition inside the game. They could be as easy as while jumping into a tank, a few "adaptive paint" stripes sort of "matrix code" themselves into your team's color. They also had those cool team emblems: Hawks, Stingrays, Raptors, etc. On larger surfaces, say on the hood of a warthog or on the side of a base they could actually display the emblem. -I would absolutely love to have taunts. We have teabagging, but there really isn't any way you can express yourself otherwise... A respectful nod or salute to an opponent that fought with honor, a secret handshake for a fellow squadmate who did good that round, or celebratory fist shake as you run past a dead enemy with his flag. I wouldn't want them to be... mean or unsporting in nature... We still have teabagging for that. But they should be quick, subtle (no explosions, arcing electricity... basically no particle effects), and CANCELABLE. Perhaps you'd have to hold down the taunt button for the entire animation. -Vehicle taunts as well? Perhaps a banshee rocking its wings as it flies over a friendly base (although you can do that already) or a warthog crew raising a fist as they make a sweet jump. A mantis doing... mantis... type... stuff... I don't judge! I'm not really sure how enclosed vehicles could do much, but there is potential for human traits to be shown in ghost, mongoose, or warthog crews.

Maybe for a promethian vehicle they could have something that transforms from an air vehicle into a walker. I'm thinking air mode would allow for quick movement and as such would have less firepower than walker mode. I'd like to see some sort of targeting laser come off the main cannon like with the binary rifle. It could charge up like a splaser and disintegrate vehicles. I'm a sucker for those disintegrate animations though. I kinda just want to see more of them. As far as weapons go, there are some that I really want to see, but in reality I think less is more when it comes to competetive multiplayer. When it comes to vehicles however I feel that every variant should be available in MP. It would allow for forgers to make interesting set-piece engagements at the very least. I suppose in that sense having a large selection of weapons, even if many of them aren't exactly competetive, would be a boon to the community because machinima producers and custom game players would still utilize them.

Ordinance is probably my least favorite feature in H4. In my opinion access to power weapons and vehicles should be from map control, not on how many people you've slain. In H4, true skill isn't the deciding factor in Infinity gametypes. The deciding factor seems to be who gets the most sniper rifle drops. It makes map control is negligable. The game plays more like CoD in the sense that you play the map in a single player fashion, looking to give yourself the largest personal advantage, rather than taking up more exposed or assaultable positions in order to help cover different areas or open up alternate routes for your team. I like the idea of "drops" though... With the nextgen consoles it would not be out of the question to see gunships deliver weapon pods (like in H2's campaign) or vehicles for your team or simply across the battlefield for either team to scavange. On the topic of large maps, I'd like to see maps specifically designed and balanced for tanks and other vehicles. Sandtrap in H3 was so much fun for vehicles.

With the new hardware of the nextgen consoles I'd love to see some truely epic fights. Most of my concerns would be in the cinematic experience of the game, rather than the mechanics. -ODST drops on a large scale. -Massive tank battles complete with super heavies such as mammoths and scarabs. -Return of the Falcon? Some of the cinematic shots in reach were very cool because of the open cabin design of the Falcon. (Freaking fun to use in MP as well.) -I'd love to see marines redesigned. In my opinion they really did lose their "cool" factor.

I've been considering myself a warthog wheelman since the hey-days of Halo 3. I've driven the Warthogs a fair amount of time in both CE and H2. My favorite iteration of the Warthog was seen in Halo 3. It was powerful and an asset to the team. It could transport teammates towards vehicle and heavy weapon spawns. It could provide transport for objective runners. It could keep enemies on foot from storming across the map. It was also far from invincible. Guys toting around splasers, ambushing choppers, and the occasional guy with a plasma pistol and stickies, and the always equal parts terrifying and hilarious gravity hammer charge could end your run really quickly. I'm telling you all this because I feel that I have at least a decent grasp of what would constitute a decent "medium vehicle" build. Keep in mind that I believe the Warthog should be considered a power weapon in its own right. It spawns on the map, it can be used by either team, and it can be lost. I believe it should be useful in the hands of amateurs, but deadly in the hands of veterans. Well, here I go. Problems with Warthogs in General As it stands Warthogs are extremely vulnerable and only marginally useful as a rapid insertion or extraction vehicle. Many, myself included, call them rolling double kills. There are a few reasons, that I see, that make this the case. There also stands the case of the Warthog's major audio and visual makeover from Halo 3. In my opinion, this also attributes to the vehicle's ineffectiveness. -With the addition of load outs (A fine addition in my opinion. Well done on that front, 343.) the game changed drastically. Now, when one makes such a substantial change to a game there will be unforeseen consequences. The ability of a player to spawn with sticky grenades and a plasma pistol has had a profound effect on the survivability of Warthog crews. H3's Valhalla had two plasma pistol spawns and a couple of plasma grenades in each base. If used improperly then the weapons would be lost and a Warthog would have a window of opportunity in which they could engage the enemy team with little worry of retribution. Eventually that window would close and a reckless Warthog crew could again be attacked on the terms of the enemy team. As it stands the ability to spawn with sticky grenades and a plasma pistol effectively negates the impact a skillful warthog team can have on a match. A warthog team will always be on the defensive and never on the offensive. -Warthogs seem to have less mass than their H3 or Reach counterparts. This statement could be true, or an effect of a great many changes in engine and perspective (as we saw from the warthog top speeds moving from H3 to Reach). I come to this conclusion because of the effect small arms have on the vehicle physically. I'm sure other experienced drivers found the H5 Warthogs to be nearly uncontrollable under fire. I do not believe this phenomenon can be solely attributed to the inexperience of drivers. In my experience a few rounds from a DMR will can cause a Warthog to flip during a sharp turn. In addition, splattering enemies seems an unreliable tactic at best, although this may be in part to web coding, latency, or some other unseen reason. I believe it at least warrants further testing and investigation. As it stands I believe that an unreasonable amount of force is applied against Warthogs by loud out weapons. I additionally believe that warthogs do not impart enough force upon other objects during a collision. This makes driving the Warthog unrewarding experience even for the most skillful of wheelmen. -I believe that the effectiveness (and the effects) of weapons against vehicles should be given a great deal of thought, if not overhauled entirely. In my opinion weapons such as the rail gun and concussion rifle should be of a greater threat to warthog crews than load out weapons. Whilst anti-vehicle/material weapons destroy Warthogs with impunity (as they rightfully should), load out weapons impart what I believe to be is an unreasonable amount of damage. As it stands I believe that load out weapons deal too much damage to warthogs. This does not offer any profound risk/reward decisions regarding movement or power weapon acquisition when deciding to deal with an enemy Warthog. This means that the threat or actuality of a skilled Warthog team does not affect the game in a meaningful manner. -Whilst this isn't a "true" issue one can see, hear, and feel the subtle differences of the Warthog coming into H4. I've been in love with the warthog for a long time and I honestly believe that the visual changes on the warthog are nice, but saying I like the new "threads" sounds like I didn't love what it looked like earlier. I like both. Really! I'm not saying they should have both in the game... It may get confusing and I like a certain amount of... everything looking the part. A sort of a general overarching art design to the game (Collectiveness?) I don't think that having both models would be able to achieve that. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't the looks that count. I'm saying the most important part is personality. As it stands I do not believe the warthog is adequately portrayed as the beefy, throaty, off-roading, military beast it is. This detracts from the fundamental joy players receive from simply jumping into the driver's seat and hearing the Warthog's Machine Spirit awaken and prepare itself for glorious combat! Possible Improvements to Warthogs in General -I believe that giving the Warthog substantial armor against load out weapons would go a long way towards increasing the survivability of a warthog under fire. This would still leave the warthog vulnerable to heavy weapons and as such remain a balanced part of the game. The increased survivability would allow the warthog to have an appreciable effect in the game and thus restore the natural order. -I believe that an increase of the Warthog's mass would have a threefold affect. It would decrease the effect small arms has on handling, help to make the effects of a collision with a player more consistent (and by that I mean dying horribly like the jay-walking idiot he is), and help to restore the "off-roady" feel of the warthog. -I believe that the effect of weapons on warthogs should be fine-tuned if not overhauled. Medium level weapons like the rail gun should be a tool with which to engage a Warthog while Anti-Vehicle/Material weapons should pose an immediate threat. Load out weapons should be considered negligible except when used to engage exposed personnel. -Again, not a true improvement, but I want the Warthog to feel like the Warthog again. Look at what a simple sound overhaul did for the AR in Reach. It went from next to worthless in H3 to useful in Reach. Possible Improvements to Warthog Variants This next section is the product of a conversation my long-term gunner and I had a while ago. We were thinking about how to better balance the warthogs after going 40-something and zero in the gauss 'Hog. Effective, but in our opinion that kind of score was on the ridiculous side of things. We came to the conclusion that while each variant should be able to engage all targets, each should outclass the others at engaging a single type of enemy the archetypes we decided on were a Gun 'Hog vs. Infantry, a Gauss 'Hog vs. land vehicles, and a Rocket 'Hog vs. air vehicles. The following are some ideas we came up with during that conversation. -The Chain Gun Warthog AKA Gun 'Hog has a few odd things about it. I believe the gun overheats too quickly to effectively deal with groups larger than two enemies. It used to be that groups of any size caught in the open by 'Hogs were slaughtered. Smarter players on foot used cover and size to their advantage to evade the Warthog team. This also means that smarter players in H4 simply cannot be engaged effectively by Gun 'Hog crews because of the extremely finite amount of ammunition they can put downrange in a given firefight. As it stands I believe that the chain gun on the warthog should overheat less quickly. Accounting for the increased survivability idea that I wrote about earlier, this should allow a Gun 'Hog team to engage multiply exposed targets effectively and engage targets in cover with a small degree of success. With a greater longevity of fire the warthog would be considerably more effective at pinning enemies down and supporting teammates. -The Gauss Warthog AKA Gauss 'Hog is pretty powerful as it stands. In my opinion it is both too fragile and too lethal. A skilled team can engage and kill targets at any range. Whilst I believe the Gauss 'Hog should fulfill some sort of sniper-esque role, I do not think that it should be so wildly effective against infantry. I read a thread that had the idea of making it function similarly to the rail gun, but I can't take credit for it. It is an idea that merits further thought though. As it stands I believe the Gauss 'Hog is too effective against both infantry and vehicles. The addition of an overheating mechanic would serve to alleviate the 'Hogs massive firepower. After two or three shots in rapid succession enemies could engage or maneuver with relative safety while the gauss cannon cools down. -The Rocket Warthog AKA Rocket 'Hog is incredibly chaotic. With the occasion of the occasional lucky hit the Rocket 'Hog is the least powerful and most vulnerable of the 'Hog Variants. It doesn't even fulfill the role of AA especially well. After the Warthog fires off its volley (which is completely capable of destroying itself) it faces a very long reload time. As it stands I believe that if the Hog's Rocket Pods functioned identically to the Mantis's Rocket Pods it would make the Rocket 'Hog a valuable commodity. A skilled 'Hog crew could time their attack run precisely. Charged up rockets would be unloaded at a faster rate than what is current, meaning less scatter due to the 'Hog's movement. They could also engage single targets without leaving themselves completely defenseless. In addition a lock-on mechanic vs. air vehicles means the 'Hog can engage air vehicles with a degree of effectiveness. Any thoughts? Discussion is appreciated.