zRexx

If Halo 2 was supposed to have loadouts, how come nothing about the subject appears when I do a Google or YouTube search of "Halo 2 loadouts"? In addition to the evenness, loadouts diminish the skillgap somewhat because that's less weapons you're required to earn on the map, and you simply get your preferred weapons at spawn. Instead of having to use map control, you just get it handed to you at spawn, which obviously makes things easier in that regard. What's harder, earning a weapon or having it given to you? It may not be a major downfall of the skill ceiling, in that it destroys most emphasis on skill in the game, but any amount of lowering the skill gap is considered a flaw in my book. FMV means full motion video. The term pretty much refers to CGI or live-action cutscenes, ones that don't use the in-game graphic engine. Of course, this means the person was wrong about the act of opening doors being in FMV. Here are the five major core aspects the made Halo unique upon the FPS genre and gave the game its identity. Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision. Slower paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. Regenerating shields emphasize strategic retreats, which requires a dimension of skill all its own 2-weapon limit adds an element of strategy in that you have to carefully select your preferred armament Arena shooter gameplay These are essentially the major aspected that differentiated Halo, this was the formula used throughout the entire trilogy. No other arena FPS had featured combination of all these elements working in play. This is what made Halo unique. Cortana, Johnson, the Arbiter, Guilty Spark, the Prophets, the Brutes, and the Gravemind display a lot of character in-game. Chief also had quite some character too, it was just done subtly. Realistically, not everyone has a super-strong personality, there are those that blend in with the crowd. I have friends in real life who are the exact same. Chief's personality that he was the stoic, stone-cold war machine that did as he was told and never displayed any signs of emotional weakness; he also had extreme determination to accomplishing goals, in that the odds would always outnumber him, but he would always press on in the face of imminent danger. Just because he isn't over the top and doesn't fall into a character cliche/trope, that doesn't automatically he lacks personality, it's just done in a fairly subtle manner. I don't know what you're talking about personality, but Lacky's personality was just as subtle (only thing that characterizes him in-game in that he cooperated with the Chief unlike Del Rio), Del Rio was just the stupid d-----bag commander who treats the protagonist like garbage for no reason, and Palmer only displayed personality in Spartan Ops, where she was pretty much the stereotypical tough girl. Not that cliches/tropes are bad, I enjoy them if done well because it either leads to comedic effect, or it just makes the story over the top, but it's not a requirement. I can agree with Miranda though, she had zero personality, it wasn't done subtly, she just had zero. The main reason for this is that her main purpose in the story was scrapped. Originally, she was going to be the traitor character. After he father's death, Miranda would've fully blamed in on the Chief and held him responsible. Then she would go to make a deal with the Prophet of Regret to sabotage Chief's armor with a bomb, akin to making a deal with the devil. She was supposed to be the traitor but they decided to cut it from the story entirely, so she just exists. She exists just to be there and do nothing for the story. That's why you didn't feel bad, because she's an empty shell. (By the way, Miranda died in Halo 3, not in Halo 2). The original trilogy had a good story as well. Let's go over the list of good plot elements. This will be very long but it'll prove my point tenfold. Firstly, the overall message of the Halo games. Teamwork overcomes all odds, even when your enemy has greater technology and they've put you down to the brink of extinction. You can do anything as a team if you put your mind to it. A very great message indeed. The unveil of the Flood, essentially the main highlight of the original game, and also an awesome tribute to Aliens. Very creepy and atmospheric (at least at the time). 343 Guilty Spark's unexpected betrayal, learning that Halo is a superweapon and wipes the Galaxy clean of sentient life. Back in the day, this was a MAJOR plot twist, no other shooter really did something like this. Most shooters before then were extremely basic and one-note in their stories, aside from maybe Marathon (Bungie's FPS that preceded Halo) Fighting against endless odds to save your Captain, however you rush as fast as you can and it's too late, he's been consumed by the Proto-Gravemind, an unfortunate demise. You then continue fighting in the Captain's honor and destroy Halo. Throughout Halo 2, seeing the Covenant up close and witness their culture, as well as how they function as a society, it's a pretty fresh take. You actually get to know more about your enemies. Thel Vadam being dishonored by his kind and treated like rotten filth is actually pretty dark. Just because he failed his mission he's treated as an outcast, a lesser being than the rest of his people. Then you feel like a bad--- when he becomes the Arbiter. Chaos later goes down as the Flood infest High charity. Arbiter learns that the Prophets are liars and that the "Heretics" were right all along, a major step in character development. Even more chaos ensues during the Great Schism. The Elites rebelling against the Brutes and the rest of the Covenant (well, canonically some Grunts and Hunters are part of the separatists too, they just left them out of the game to avoid confusion between allies and enemies during gameplay). Playing as Chief as a lone wolf during the three factions duking out. Having to actually WORK with the Flood. Being told what to do by the Gravemind. You'd never expect that coming. Chief having to leave Cortana behind to chase down Truth and save Earth, promising to come back to her. Things seem very grim as it feels like the end of the world, this is it. You're not even sure if you can keep your promise. The Elites uniting with the Humans in a shaky alliance, as a last-ditch-effort to defeat the Covenant. Having to put aside your prejudices and past events for the greater good. That's a pretty important message, one could say it's even a good analogy toward racism and how we overcame it. The Brutes are also an enemy that make you pumped up. These guys are b---ards, they're aggressive, arrogant, and full of s---, you want to put them back in their place and wipe them out for good. They're the enemy you love to hate. Also a perfect contrast to the Elites. The Flood landing on Earth. This perhaps one of the greatest "HOLY SH--" moments of the original trilogy. It's like, now you know you're doomed. 343 Guilty Spark overcoming the past and trying to cooperate in your efforts to save the Galaxy. Same kind of thing with the Humans and Elites. Johnson being held captive by the Brutes and being relentlessly pummeled, before being used as a tool to activate the Halo array. Everything seems over as the Ark is activated. The Prophets seemed to have won. But the Flood come back, surrounding you with tanks. You want to fight them but they offer to help you (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). You storm onward in one last attack, this is the last chance. Rescuing Cortana is a very emotional part of the game as well. You enter the Flood Hive itself as a one-man army. You push onward through everything they toss at you and you reunite with your once-lost friend, Now you're ready to kick some a-- and destroy the Flood once and for all. Johnson's death. Being burned alive to a rotting crisp. You want to help him but he's not able to make him. A major loss on Chief's part, probably his first ever display of emotion where you can tell he's sad. At the end of the game where Lord Hood and the Arbiter makes their final goodbyes, reflecting on the war and knowing that it's all over. The epilogue where Chief and Cortana having been separated from the rest and drifting into the empty reaches of space, with the Forward Unto Dawn burned in half due to the portal closing. They've won the battle and discuss how it's all finished, but then they reflect on their current predicament. Chief enters cryo-sleep and the legend ends there. The story closes on a very somber note, open to interpretation (until Halo 4 came out). I don't know about you, but that all sounds one HELL of a story, that's a sci-fi EPIC right there. Not saying that Halo 4 is a bad campaign, I think it's an excellent campaign. But implying that the original trilogy was a bad story and had no character, that doesn't really hold true. If you don't enjoy it, at least have valid reasoning and don't make such empty claims where you provide zero backing. Other than all that, I agree with everything. Cortana and Chief's relationship was handled well, and Cortana's death was very emotional. The Knights, alongside the Crawlers and Watchers, added great variety to the enemy selection. They were only really annoying if you didn't know how to approach them. And also regarding how you pointed out some of the unrealistic things of Halo, I also want to point out that they're still using pump action shotguns in 2552, even though semi-automatic shotguns exist in the modern day and Halo takes place over 5 centuries into the future. But pump action shotguns are satisfying to use so I accept it as an artistic design choice. As for dual wield though, it's kind of unbalanced. It's not game-breakingly unbalanced to where it significantly destroys the skill-gap of the game, but still unbalanced nonetheless. Essentially, the only downside to dual wielding are the lack of grenades of melee, but in all honesty, that's not really much of a downside when you have twice the firepower at your disposal. I would've preferred it if single-wielding had more accuracy and range than dual wielding, so it would actually have more of a use. At least this would add an element of strategy to the game. But as it is implemented in Halo 2 and Halo 3, there's really no strategy to it. Why ever use one SMG or one Magnum when you can use two? There's not really much of a thought process. It's the same thing with Rocket Launchers, how there's no strategical thinking involved, it's always go for the Rocket Launcher because Rockets defeat all. It's like having Rock, Paper, Scissors, but making Rock immune to everything and win every single time (by the way, if you want to comment on my criticism of Rocket Launchers, look for my "weapon balance" thread, so we don't derail the topic). It's not AS bad as Rocket Launchers but the same principle applies. One thing is clearly better than the other. There's little reason to ever single wield an SMG, Plasma Rifle, or Spiker versus dual wielding. Where's the strategy in that? In addition, dual-wielded weapons often suck when single wielded. Dual SMGs are useful, but single SMGs suck. As for split screen, I also agree with you there. There's no reason why they couldn't just cut the framerate in half for people using split screen, so at least they can give players an option. Sure, the game was designed around 60fps and would screw up if it dipped below, but that's not really an excuse, because it's the developers' fault for building the game in such a poor manner. Bad development choices isn't an excuse, it's their fault for doing that in the first place. They simply should've planned for such a scenario where the framerate would go below 60, again, there's no excuse. They're professional AAA game developers so I expect better. Since when is the idea of simple convenience, obsolete? Why does multiplayer HAVE to be online? Why can't I play with my roommate, sibling, or visiting friend in the same room? There's no logical reason for me NOT to be able to. It's called convenience. And not everyone who plays Halo does it online. Maybe it's the majority, but it's not a MASS majority. Everyone I know in real life usually play games offline with their friends at home, because they aren't "gamers", they just casually pick up a game once in a while for entertainment, so they don't want to spend $10 a month just to play multiplayer. They're making it a hassle for these people. This is applies to almost everyone I know in real life, I'm one of the only few dedicated gamers in my social circle. What are you telling me? We have to cast these people out? Making it a hassle for people is a good thing? No, just no excuse. I like the Halo games (well, aside from Reach and 4), but the games were always rip offs. The single player offerings are very miniscule, there just isn't much to the single player portion of the games. Sure, the campaigns are good, but they're only like 6-8 hours long, that really isn't enough to hold a game on its own. And firefight? Well, that's only in Reach and ODST, but even there, yeah, have fun playing firefight all by yourself, it gets boring fast. The whole point of firefight is the cooperative experience. So the offline portion of the game is very lacking, The only way they could enjoy the multiplayer is through split screen, and even then, split screen only supports 4 players. Halo's the kind of game that's better for 8-person parties. But at least then they could use system link, right? You see, it was ALREADY a hassle to enjoy most of the game as it was. Most of the replayability is in the multiplayer. So you already bought the game for 60 dollars, SIXTY DOLLARS, but now you have to pay an additional ten dollars a month just to enjoy the game you already bought? It's like they're pick-pocketing you, they're trying to squeeze as much cash out of you as possible. And the problem? This holds even MORE true in Halo 5! Because now you can't play multiplayer AT ALL. It's a paywall now, there's no way around it. The only way you can enjoy the multiplayer is to throw more cash at them. It was already a hassle, but now it's more than a hassle. You want to enjoy the game you already bought? Well TOO bad, give me more money. That's the dictionary definition of a rip-off right there! And the funny thing is that Halo 5's campaign features a more cooperative-focused narrative, due to how the game is centered around squads. So the time where they need split-screen THE MOST, they decide not give it to you. If you buy a product, you should be allowed to enjoy it. Locking half of the game behind a paywall? That's anti-consumer. You already bought the game so why do you need to pay for it again just to enjoy it? It's like, you buy the disc, now you have to buy the multiplayer too. Just stop, Microsoft. It's a greedy, scumbag business practice that needs to end. It's actually MORE than half the game. Where do people get most their hours? Multiplayer. They'll play through campaign a few times, and go back once in a while for challenges, but the meat and cheese of the game is the multiplayer because it has the most content, you get the most out of it. Let's look at Halo 5's modes from the viewpoint of someone who just bought the game, but doesn't want to throw any more cash at Microsoft. There's Campaign, WarZone, Arena, and Forge. Well, you can't enjoy WarZone because that requires Xbox Live, you can't even play by yourself and stare at the wall. You can't enjoy Arena because you won't have anyone else to play with because of the lack of split-screen and LAN. Forge? Well have fun making a map and having no one to enjoy it with. So...you only get one fourth of the game? THAT'S RIDICULOUS. You BOUGHT the game, so you should be allowed to ENJOY the game. Why do people put up with this crap? NO! This should be something we actively discourage throughout the industry as consumers! Whether or not it affects any of YOU guys, it's still a scummy practice and it isn't right. It's the principle of locking everything behind a paywall.

People always try to make all these arguments saying that players counter the Rocket Launcher all the time, like it's semi-common practice or anything. Sounds good in theory, but does that ever actually happen? It's an extreme rarity, those instances are very few and far between. If I don't see it playing 8,000 matches worth of Halo, then something's fishy with that argument, it clearly isn't that common going by those statistics. Someone in the shoutbox said it was around a 5:1 ratio. So if you're in a hallway and you walk up to someone with a Rocket Launcher, all you have is a DMR, is the person trying to tell me that you have a 20% chance of winning? Uh, more like 5% percent, and actually, that's being too generous, it's more like 2%. People always use these arguments but they're only scratching the surface, it's like they don't even pay attention to what happens in the game. It doesn't matter what sounds good in theory when the game itself actually shows otherwise when its put to practice. People say, "Duhuhh, if yuu gud enuff you ken beet da rockets." But again, 8,000 matches worth of players? You're going to say EVERY single one of them are noobs? That's a pretty bold claim to make if you ask me. I think if the game was really like that, I'm sure it would've happened at least once out of the 8,000 matches. It's not even a 1:8000 ratio. The guy's saying it's a 1:5 ratio? Not even close. And it's not like I was decent at the game for the most part. I mean, there was about a 1-year period where I was pretty good at Halo 4 when I stopped playing (but that's not saying much, it's Halo 4), but the rest of my 5-year Halo experience? I sucked at the game, I was the absolute lowest. I had around a .45 KD ratio at that point. Why am I able to get a kill so easily then? It shows something is fundamentally broken with the game's design if you're at the absolute lowest of the skill gap, but you can still get 4 consecutive kills no problem without any effort required. That's not even counting my time playing Halo 3 when I first started playing FPS in 2008. I JUST started playing shooters at that point! I was about 11 years old! Why was I able to get kills so easily? There's no excuse.

"But they also want to play Halo too." They clearly don't enjoy Halo TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned. "You have to cater for both sides!" You can cater to both sides by giving each side their own game. "I hardly see how sprint abandons it? I have said this a lot but I'm saying this again, your making this bigger than it actually is. Sprint makes you move, faster and make the game a bit more faster paced, speeding up the rate you find engagement's." How about you stop ignoring me every single time I answer your point? A major aspect that made Halo's gameplay unique was that it was a slower paced alternative to the traditional arena shooter. By make the game fast paced, you completely abandon one of the major aspects that defined Halo from a gameplay standpoint. In addition, sprint is not really required to speed up the rate you find engagements, you also have to take into account the map design. If the maps are scaled accordingly in order to compensate for the slower pace and make it so you can navigate the map well enough, then there's really no need to have sprint in the game As for the other mechanics I listed, I showcase that they don't really stray away much from Halo's formula. Sprint dramatically changes the entire pacing of the game, an aspect that made it very unique. How do the other elements stray from Halo's formula? Thrusting is simply a sidestep (works if the distance is just right), flinch merely makes it so you have to continually re-adjust your aim, and clamber I'll have to see in action (but as of yet it doesn't appear to violate Halo's core gameplay principles). Visible power weapons (I'm guessing you mean the spawn timers and waypoints), well yeah, that right there is lame because is lowers the skill ceiling and holds players hands, because instead of having to memorize weapon spawn times, the game does it for you. For reference, let's look at the major aspects that set Halo apart in terms of gameplay and defined the core of the series: Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision. Slower paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. Regenerating shields emphasize strategic retreats, which requires a dimension of skill all its own 2-weapon limit adds an element of strategy in that you have to carefully select your preferred armament Arena shooter gameplay How does flinch violate those core principles? How does thrusting violate those core principles? How does clamber violate those core principles? Only problem I see with clamber is if it lowers the skill ceiling. But unlike all these things, sprint violates one very major aspect of the gameplay, the slower pace. That is major element what made Halo different from all the other shooters, its pacing was more unique. I keep bringing this up but you keep ignoring it time and time again, simply because you apparently unable to argue with it. "Yes because you cannot seem to accept that some people might like Halo 4 and Reach and the series needs to have a middeground." Just because I think a game is a pile of ----, that doesn't mean I'm a purist, all it means is that I think it's a pile of ----, nothing less, nothing more. (I had to censor the expletives) "But they enjoy Halo games!" Again, they clearly don't enjoy it TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned. "You said the game was perfect and I briefly objected. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/41650-343-just-doesnt-get-it-1-50-ranking-made-halo/ Go read the first post by Azaxx, he puts it into words far better than I ever could or care to." The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. ****ty ranking system or not, the game still plays the same at its core. Again, I'm talking about of the major, core aspects of the gameplay. I never said Halo was "perfect", but in terms of the actual core that's there, nothing is really wrong with it (aside from maybe power weapons, but that's another subject). There's difference between a game's core, and all the side elements that surround the core. The core consists the big things, the major gameplay elements that make the series unique. An insignia that decorates your nametag is not the core of the game, it's just an aesthetic or title on your profile, and it also helps you match up with similar skilled players. It affect the actual gmaeplay. "See that's hypocritical. You said that map navigation was a big thing and was half the game but then its almost brushed off sarcastically." It's always half of the game with anything, it doesn't matter the type of shooter. Every second you're fighting someone, there's always another second you're looking around the map for your next opponent. That's with ANY game. It's not like you stand in a single corridor the entire time and endless targets just pour out with no break in between, you're ALWAYS going to search for targets at least half the game, there's always a short break in between engagements where you're finding your next target. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the game is, there's always a point where you're trying to find someone, unless you overcrowd the maps. The only real exception may be TitanFall, and that's only because the maps are littered with enemy AI in addition to the human players. Are you implying that Halo 5's just going to be spraying ammo all over the place at endless targets? No, half the game is still going to be map navigation. Again, every second you're fighting an enemy, there's always another second where you're navigating the map for the next target. So once again, enough with ignoring my points. You didn't even acknowledge my argument where I detailed the core elements of Halo's gameplay and showed that sprint is clearly violation of one of those major aspects. It seems whenever I prove you wrong, you act like you're oblivious to it and blindly walk past it, like the argument of mine never even existed at all. You also ignored my argument in response to what you said about the ranking system, where I expressed the fact that it's merely a title/aesthetic that may or may not help with matchmaking, rather than being an element that actually alters the gameplay at its core. It's funny, because instead of actuallty hearing out every major point in my argument, you intentionally choose to completely ignore it and spew the same things over and over again. When you're debating with someone, you can at least be fair, and answer every major thing the opposition has to say. Ignoring the other side is a very shallow debating tactic. The more you ignore my arguments, the more I'm going to make your shallow methods apparent to those reading. Either learn to debunk my arguments or accept them, if you can prove me wrong, prove me wrong, but don't just full-on ignore what someone has to say, that's very, very low. You simply don't do that in a debate dude. "I'm not going to comment on the rest of the stuff because its not relevant." I don't know, there's a lot of relevant things I've said that you've completely ignored, without even acknowledging it. Probably because when someone may possibly show you're in the wrong, you're way too egotistical and arrogant to bring it up during the debate. Instead of directly answering everything the opposing side has to say, you intentionally leave out very important details within their argument just to make it easier on yourself. At least when I debate with someone, I actually pay attention to what they have to say and answer them instead of rudely pushing it aside and pretending they never said those things to begin with. It's called having a fair, two-sided debate, you ever heard of such a thing? But instead you prefer to sabotage the opposition's argument by purposely leaving out key details in your response, because that's how terrible you apparently are at debating. When the opposition has to repeat the same exact portion of their argument 3-4 times because you don't even answer what they have to say, that simply shows how faulty you are at this whole thing. You aren't proving anything with such shallow tactics.

I'm so badass I ate a happy meal in under 30 seconds, and I also ate the toy! AND THE BOX!

Whether or not I use it, it's still a major aspect that affects the pacing of a match. That's like saying with Halo 4 "The game has loadouts, but YOU can have BR starts if you want." It's the game as a whole. In addition, I'd only be penalizing myself for not using sprint. Sure, the penalty exists, but that only really matters in the middle of combat engagement. It's still a major part of map navigation. If I'm trying to get from Point A to Point B and no one is around, and I choose NOT to sprint, that's going to hurt me in the end because (a) I'll get to map pickups slower and ( it'll take a little longer for me to find people to kill, which will make it harder to get to and maintain first place. I'm content with Halo changing, but at the same time, I want Halo to maintain its unique formula. Changes should complement the formula rather than completely abandon it. It's not that hard to do, it just takes some creative thinking, and these are professional game designers so I don't expect itto be that hard. They should have new features that spice things up but not something that destroys the unique formula that was in place. ADS, Flinch, Thrusters, even Ground Pound, they actually work with the formula. Sprint? It goes against what was Halo's core nature. Again, there was nothing really wrong with Halo's formula, so what's the point of abandoning it?

Sure, it's possible to counter a Rocket Launcher, but those instances are extremely rare, very few and far between. That just doesn't happen in everyday matchmaking, I've never had a time where I got a Rocket Launcher and didn't earn a kill, no one could counter it. And I'm not even an A-Grade competitive player, in fact, that was the time before I got good at Halo (sadly I'm not good anymore because I stopped playing). Like, literally never. That never happened to me, there's not even one exception. I always got a kill with Rockets whenever I picked up the weapon, no one ever countered it. People say that "Well no, there are lots of ways to counter the Rocket Launcher". There's saying it and then there's seeing it in action. When put to the test, that's not usually how it plays out. Again, it's an extreme rarity where someone gets a Rocket Launcher and the opposing player counters it (and that's me implying that it happens at all, when I've never seen it in-game).. If countering was at least a semi-common practice, then how come when I used to play Halo Reach and Halo 4 almost every day after I got home from school, I never had such a situation occur? That doesn't add up. It was the same with my experience in Halo 3. I've played over 4,000 matches of Halo 4, I played over 3,000 custom games on Reach, and I think I played about 1,000 matchmaking games. Never once happened to me. It's clearly not because I suck, as literally every other person I've ever played with (whether it's a friend or some random on matchmaking) has never countered my Rocket Launcher, unless they themselves had a similarly powerful weapon. I'm not just talking about ME, it's literally everyone else I've ever played with. Everyone. And that's A LOT of people. 8,000 matches total on both Reach and Halo 4, probably another few thousand on Halo 3. So I think I have good enough statistics to go by. But nonetheless, I was clearly talking about skill on part of the Rocket Launcher user, not the person on the other end. The Rocket Launcher user has it VERY easy. Little to no skill involved with the weapon at all, just mindlessly blast away the target. Aim, what's that? Just because I say an aspect of something has no skill, that doesn't automatically mean I'm solely basing it off the fact that I keep dying. That's everyone's first fail argument "You say it takes no skill because you suck!" In reality, that's an empty assumption that has zero backing to it. Even if I did suck (which I actually do now), that doesn't automatically mean my personal skill level is the basis of my argument, especially when you take into account that I'm not just talking about myself, but also 8,000 matches worth of players. It clearly has nothing to do with my skill at that point. And the fact that I suck at the game, that makes it even more apparent that the Rocket Launcher is fundamentally broken by design, because I don't even have to TRY to get a kill with it. Just pick it up and BOOM. I don't even have to be skilled to use it. I suck at the game and I get kills that easy, all the time, just as long as I have the Rocket Launcher? Ridiculous. This is top-notch competitive gaming right here, a weapon that's essentially a free kill.

Slightly faster? You're implying is an extremely minor, slight difference. This isn't like a 5% difference in movement speed dude, the pace of movement is changed DRASTICALLY when sprint is involved. You did purposefully ignore that part of my argument. I said: "Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots." "People are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place." What did you do? You repeated yourself by bringing up how sprint penalizes players in the middle of combat engagement, completely ignoring me when I brought up the aspect of map navigation which is essentially half of the entire game. Either attempt to argue the point I made or accept it. You don't just completely ignore a major part of the opposing side's argument, that's another shallow debating tactic. "A whole new IP just to make Halo purists happy? No thanks." Not just to make Halo purists happy, it's to appeal to both sides. This way Halo maintain its unique identity while the other side still gets the type of game they want. Why should Halo have to sacrifice it's unique identity for people who don't like Halo's identity? If don't like how Halo, they can simply play something else, there's no actual REASON to abandon the Halo formula. Why should Halo accommodate itself for the people who aren't into the style of game that Halo is, especially when there's nothing wrong with it? In addition, you keep calling me a purist, when in all honesty, Halo's not even my favorite shooter franchise, I prefer Quake 3 Arena and classic Doom way over Halo, but again, nothing was really wrong with Halo's formula (aside from maybe power weapons), it's just a matter of what kind of gameplay style you prefer. There's a difference between being a "purist" and wanting Halo to be itself. You keep trying to use all these terms in an immature, derogatory fashion, even when they don't even apply to the situation. "You get rid of stuff like sprint and your almost alienating part of the fanbase." It's not really alienating part of the fanbase, if there exists a brand new franchise that serves mainly to accommodate those people and offer the different gameplay style that they enjoy. "Its just sprint, its not that radical, it makes you move faster," Again, Halo was never a fast-paced game, it was a slower-paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter. By making the game faster, you're straying away from the core formula that defined its gameplay and gave it a unique identity. You are once again ignoring my points, I see. "By Ground pound I mean all the moves, like the ground pound or the side step for example. It makes it more tactical and oh so slightly fasterpaced." Again, ignoring my points I see. How is ground pound fast paced in the slightest? The move requires a charge-up time to perform in addition to targeting your opponent, it's not an instantaneous slam at the ground. That's like the Spartan Laser a fast weapon, it isn't. "I do, Assassins Creed and Call of Duty." That's not really explaining your point though. Why does the formula NEED to change? Just because you give the names of two franchises, that's not really giving the exact reason as to why the formula apparently needs to be abandoned (at least according to you). If you can't provide an actual reason, than your argument simply revolves an empty claim which has zero credibility. "How about the ranking system? Halo 2/3 were plenty bad but that is another topic...." The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. Also, if you're going say that Halo 2/3's core formula was plenty bad, then actually go in depth and explain your argument in detail. Again, an argument doesn't really have any credibility if you don't go to the lengths to explain the reasoning behind the claim. That's just debating in general, that applies to anyone and anything, it's just one of the basic rules of debates. "Also if moving from engagement to engagement is as important as you say it is. Then I'm happy sprint is around, I don't want to spend half the match looking around for fights." Uh, really? You're going to go there? Classic Halo's maps were mostly accommodated for the lack of sprint, you never really had to walk a mile to find the next target. There are a couple maps that are the exception, but again, that's the exception, not the rule. Almost all of the maps worked fine with Halo's slower pace, the maps were designed around that factor. Now you're really starting to go downhill with your argument, more than ever. Firstly, I keep bringing up a lot of major points that completely debunk your claims/arguments, and instead of trying to counter-argue them, you take the lazy route and ignore them because you don't really have anything smart to say in response. Secondly, you're making a lot of these arguments and you don't even provide any solid reasoning or logic to back them, they're just empty claims with zero credibility. What's even worse is that instead of correcting your shallow debating tactics and trying to have a more fair argument, you just say "You're making assumptions about me!", when it's very clear what you're doing. This is a very common thing people do when they're on the losing side of a debate but they don't want to give in and call it a day. Unlike you, I always debate in a fair manner, even if I strongly disagree with opposing side. During the entirety of this argument, you have: Put words in my mouth. Ignore several major points of my argument because you're unable to debate them. Used various terms in a derogatory fashion just because you disagree with someone over a video game. Make several claims without even going in depth and explaining them, resulting in zero credibility on your end. Refrain from taking responsibility and acknowledging all of these actions. That's very low dude. This isn't a good debate on your end, because you have to resort to all of this crap. That's very shallow. The only more shallow you could possibly get in this argument is raging, threatening to DDOS me, and shouting "im gonna drop your f-----g router!" Again, this is like Mario becoming Sonic and Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity and formula that deserves to be respected, unless there is something seriously wrong with said formula. So now if you really want to debate with me, do so in a mature and fair manner, and quit all this desperate, childish nonsense. Do not put words in my mouth, do not ignore major points in my argument because they prove you wrong, do not use terms in a derogatory manner, and while you're at it, actually take the time to in depth and try to prove your points instead of just throwing around a bunch of empty claims that really mean nothing if you can't provide a solid foundation. I'm here to have an intellectual, logical debate with someone, not to play all these childish games. I enjoy arguments but not when someone is acting rude and lacks proper debating skills, such as how you are behaving here.

"I am telling you that. I used the Spartan example a few posts back and its still valid. The guy not using sprint has got a higher chance of winning. So especially in games like FFA when you can get attacked from every angle you might not want to use sprint at all." So? Your point is? Sprint is still going to be used very often so it's still going to have an overall impact on the pacing of the game. And you know what further invalidates your point? That example you're using only applies to when you're in the middle of a combat engagement. Again sprint is still going to be a major part of map navigation, getting from Point A to Point B, that's pretty much half of the game right there dude. I love how you specifically chose not to answer that part of my argument because you have nothing really to say on the contrary. "A whole IP just to add sprint in? That is simply put a waste of money. How pointless would it be to reskin Halo 5 and not add sprint? Very pointless." Not necessary, it's a whole new IP to make a game that isn't Halo. If they don't want to follow the core Halo formula and they want to make a game that doesn't play like Halo, why not make a new game instead? Instead of cramming elements into Halo that don't belong in the formula, they can make a new formula altogether with a new franchise. If you're going to continue Halo, you should have it resemble Halo. When I watch Halo 5 gameplay footage, I see people sprint all the time. It doesn't matter if there's some kind of disadvantage, because at the end of the day, it's still being used very often so it's dramatically changing the pacing of the game which causes Halo 5 to stray from the series' roots. I'm not talking about "balance' here, I'm talking about Halo's formula and how a major aspect of it is being abandoned. "You have to understand some people actually like Halo Reach/H4 so 343 has to come to a middleground, sprint in Halo 5 is that middleground, and its a brilliant one at that. "it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games" Neither does Halo 5." It shouldn't BE a middle ground, it should resemble Halo. Halo shouldn't be something that it isn't. If people don't enjoy Halo's slower pace, they should just play a different game that ISN'T slower paced, there are options out there. Halo shouldn't have to sacrifice it's unique identity. The slower pace is part of what made Halo, Halo, this "middle ground" only causes the series to stray from its roots as a slower paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter. "Well the Ground pound thing makes everything more fast paced, and its not like making things slightly more fast paced is a bad thing." How is it fast paced? You have to charge it up, target your enemies, and then to boost to the ground in a slam. It's a somewhat slow move, it's not like you can just do it instantly at a whim. If it was an instantaneous move, you'd probably have something to go by, but this is kinda slow due to its charge-up. That's like calling a Spartan Laser a fast weapon. "Series need to evolve, not just change, but evolve." And why does it need to evolve exactly? People like you say "it needs evolve", but you have no solid reasoning to support that claim, you just say something without any backing behind it, it's really nothing more than an empty claim. What was wrong about Halo's original formula that a major aspect of it needs to be completely abandoned? And besides, you bluntly say "evolve" as if this gameplay style is automatically better than how it used to be. There's nothing "evolved" about this, it's not improved, it's just different than how it used to be. The term evolution refers to a factual improvement, something getting better. When you get down to it, there's nothing wrong with either gameplay style, neither is superior or inferior. It's simply the matter of Halo should resemble Halo. What reason is there for the formula to get abandoned? There is none, the formula was fine as it was. This is like Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter and Mario becoming Sonic, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity that deserves to be respected as long as there's nothing really wrong with it. Nothing was really "broken" about Halo's formula aside from how power weapons functioned (but that's a different argument, if you wish to debate on that, there exists a different topic).

Wow, that's low, you just took the Pepsi logo from my profile. I'M THE PEPSI GUY, NOT YOU! (jk, jk) But on a serious note, rules exist to maintain order. If they were meant to be broken, why would anyone try to incorporate them? Kinda obvious.

The reason I don't see it as too much punishment is because it constantly happens to both sides. It's not like you can't hit an enemy again as flinch keeps knocking you around, you can quickly re-adjust your aim and get some firepower in. I never really had that much of a problem in Halo 4 where I get shot first and the flinch ruins any chance of I have of fighting back, I can always re-adjust my aim and counter, your reticule doesn't move THAT slow. Really, it's more that Halo players are used to the old ways and have trouble getting used to it because it's an entirely different skillset at play. In fact, I had a little more trouble using descope because aiming that far from the hip is a little more difficult for me than quickly adapting to wherever my reticule gets flung. It all really just depends on what your strengths/weaknesses, that's what determines which is more challenging, neither is harder than the other. It's kind of like comparing apples to oranges, they're two entirely different skillsets involved.

You're right, Sprint IS a faster way of moving, and what does that result in exactly? It strays away from Halo's roots as a slower paced arena shooter, what it always was throughout the entire trilogy, that was a defining distinction upon the genre that made it unique. ADS complements an aspect the formula, sprint doesn't, because sprint goes AGAINST the formula instead, that's the problem I have with sprint. You're purposely leaving out the fact that Halo was always slower paced and that sprint completely abandons that core aspect. "But Halo 5 is not super fast paced. Sprint makes you move faster at the cost of your shields (If they are down) and your ability to actually win a firefight. So much so that I saw a lot of players in the beta simply not using sprint. Besides even with Sprint not in the equation Halo 5 is still much faster paced than Halo 3." Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots. Are you telling me that when I play a series of 20 slayer matches straight, no one's going to be using sprint to close distances faster? Of course not, people are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place. "The reason sprint is there is to appease those who actually liked Halo Reach and Halo 4." Okay? And that's why they could've just made a new, standalone IP and introduce the gameplay style there with sprinting intact, instead of having to stray from Halo's roots. There's no reason why they couldn't just make a completely different game instead. And although it may not stray away from the roots as much as other features do (such as classes, ordnance), the fact of the matter is that it still strays away from the roots to the point where it plays like a totally different game. Regardless of specifically how different it is, it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games. "By the way what I meant by tactical is. You have my options to be tactical because of the ground pound. Will you ground pound? Will you sidestep? It allows more options and so more tactical opportunities." Now that proves my point even more. Halo was never tactical in that specific regard, its movement mechanics were fairly basic. So yes, it is straying away from the roots. Thanks for making it more clear. "As I said before, even if Sprint went. Halo 5 will still be much faster paced than Halo 3." Maybe, maybe not, but we'd really have to see that in action first before judging (perhaps if we can disable Spartan Abilities in Halo 5). If that's the case though, then we should take more steps so the game doesn't stray from its roots like that. It's really that easy. Although your argument doesn't really seem credible here, because you're not really giving any examples to show me what you mean. What else about the movement, aside from the sprint, causes the pace to be so wildly different? Just throw some things out there. I honestly would've rather seen sprint as a pickup, functioning as an armor ability. Not starting with armor abilities like you normally see, I mean MLG's approach where they were treated as recharging powerups. At least with that, sprint only applies to the one or two players who picks it up, not everyone in the game is going to have it at all times so it wouldn't wildly affect the pacing of the game like it does here. They probably just plopped Reach's Sprint in, have it appear on the map instead of players starting with it, and essentially treat it as a powerup. Hell, I wouldn't even mind it if Reach's Armor Lock and Jetpack came back and was treated like a powerup.

Let's look at the other gameplay mechanics i've mentioned. ADS - Halo always had heavy emphasis on precision within its gunplay. ADS complements that. Thrusters - It's just a sidestep maneuver, that's really it. Flinch - So you just have to keep re-adjusting your aim? Uh... I don't see the deal here Ground Pound - It's prett much another melee attack, okay? You say sprint makes the game faster paced, but that's the point here. Halo was never really a super flashy, fast paced game. It was always a slower paced style of arena shooter. With sprint, it plays like an entirely different game. Look at Halo 5 and directly compare it to Halo Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3, Halo 5 is WILDLY different, the same core isn't even there. Again, Halo was a slower paced game, not a fast paced one. So what's Halo 5? A fast paced one. Is Halo 5 staying true to Halo's roots by completely altering the pace that defined the series' gameplay? No, it isn't. The core of the game is completely different, the only thing it really shares is the arena shooter elements. Just because it's an arena shooter means it shares the same exact core to its gameplay. Look at Quake, look at Doom. Those were also arena shooters, but they were vastly different games. There are many different factors and gameplay elements you need to take into account. One such element is pacing. Halo 5 is an entirely different style of game because it's pace is completely different. A slower paced game is now a hyper fast-paced one, the two gameplay styles are entirely different. You say that "Well the feature is more tactical so its Halo!" You treat the term "tactical" like it's black-and-white. Many different things are tactical. Battlefield is tactical, does that mean Battlefield and Halo are one and the same? No. Quake is pretty tactical, does that mean Quake and Halo are one and the same? No. "Tactical" comes in many different forms, it isn't just one single, solid, black-and-white attribute. It isn't all one-dimensional like that. You bring up these very broad terms but treat them like they are very specific gameplay traits, when in reality, you can make anything be tactical. By your logic, they should rename Battlefield to Halo because Battlefield is tactical as well so it must be Halo. That's not how it works. Again, there are many different factors you need to take into account. Comparing Halo 5 to Halo Combat Evolved is like comparing Mortal Kombat to Street Fighter (from a gameplay standpoint). Yeah, they both are in the same kind of genre, they're both 2-dimensional, one-on-one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage. But many elements, such as the pacing, causes them to be two entirely different formulas. "Personally I believe Halo's roots and formula are just nothing short of crap people use to push the Halo purist agenda. Because they usually use it as something to hide behind without fully explaining. (Don't worry this wasn't a personal attack on you indirectly if your wondering. That's just actually my opinion on it)" Errr, no not really. Halo's roots are just that: Halo's roots. It's the gameplay elements and conventions that lead to its unique core. Now, I can see somewhat where you're coming from. I don't agree that they should just keep releasing Halo 3 over and over again with a shiner coat of paint each time. I think change is VERY necessary. However, I believe changes should be incorporated in a way that it complements the formula instead of changing it entirely. That's why I don't agree 100 percent with the purists, I'm looking for more of a middle ground here. Halo should keep its identity but it shouldn't be a rehash at the same time. That's my problem with sprint, it just doesn't fit with that classic identity. Regarding Halo 5's "Return to form", again, let me go back to Mortal Kombat vs. Street Fighter. They're in the same basic sub-category of the fighting genre, that they're 2-dimensional, one on one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage, but a lot of the other elements, such as pacing, result in completely different gameplay formulas. Classic Halo is more like Mortal Kombat, it's slower paced, and has a more simple and streamlined approach. Halo 5 is more like Street Fighter, it's super flashy and fast paced, and has a lot of intricacy within its movement. Both styles are completely fine, but they belong in two different games. Mortal Kombat shouldn't ever start to resemble Street Fighter in the same way that Halo shouldn't ever start to resemble, well, Not Halo. Both games are overall balanced by nature, but at the same time, their different gameplay styles are part of their identity and what defines them, so they should stay true to those roots. Halo isn't doing this, and that's my problem. The changes they're implementing are balanced, but with Sprint, it isn't staying true to Halo's roots. Sprint itself is a mechanic I'm fine with (at least in its current implementation), but it doesn't really belong in Halo. I'd rather see a brand new arena FPS with this kind of sprint mechanic while at the same time, having Halo be Halo. There's nothing wrong with creating a new IP when you want to stray far away from a game's core. "I did not put words, I said that's how your argument came off as, not what you said. And it did come off as that." I specifically stated, "Sprint may be balanced but...I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots." In fact, that's how I started off the entire post, so there's no excuse for believing I meant otherwise. You very well know what I said. That's like reading an article but being blind to the opening sentence, the opening sentence is what everyone reads at the beginning. No one ignores the opening sentence like that, you read it and you know what I said, you WERE putting words in my mouth, so at least be honest and stop trying to deny it. "but then went to attack it for no reason" Attack it for no reason? Uh dude, I specifically stated my reason, it's that it strays away from Halo's roots. Stop saying I don't have a reason when I made my reason very well clear from the get-go. Now, to elaborate, these are the things I use to define Halo's core from a gameplay standpoint. These are the things that made the gameplay unique among arena shooters and don't even try to tell me that these weren't the major defining aspects of the series' gameplay; they very well were. Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision, mostly due to series' utility weapons. Slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. (AKA, not Sprint) Regenerating shield encourages strategic retreats. You need smart positioning to cut off all enemy sight lines, you need to constantly be aware of enemy locations, you need area denial tactics (specifically with the grenades), and you need patience instead of rushing. 2-weapon system adds a nice strategic aspect in that you have to carefully pick and choose your preferred armament. These are pretty much the major defining aspects of Halo's gameplay, prevalent throughout Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3, they were solid throughout the entire trilogy and it never diverged from these roots. Are you going to argue otherwise?

That's a good way of handling it, though. I've been apart of multiple sites where staff members receive special protections and are allowed to do things that other members may get penalized for. Like, an Admin can insult and shout at a normal user, but if the user says anything back, he/she gets banned. That's more common than you think. I'm glad to see this forum doesn't have that nonsense, you treat all members with equal expectations and that's how it should be. There should be zero tolerance for double standards.