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.

BANNED FOR NOT WORSHIPPING PEPSI CHRIST!!! ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR YOU!!!

Again, as I've said, I don't mihd changes, but I want the game to at least stay true to its roots. Halo was always a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooter. Sprint strays away from what used to be Halo's nature and formula. I don't mind mechanics like ADS, flinch, thruster pack, even ground pound, because those changes at least fit within the realms of what was Halo's formula. As I've made clear, I'm not really asking for a re-skin of Halo 3, I want changes to the game, but at the same time I want the game to stay true to its roots. Have new features that complement the formula instead of completely altering it. Again, ADS, flinch, thruster pack, and ground pound weren't in the classic games, yet I'm fine with those. You know why? Because these change don't cause the game to stray from its roots. There's a difference. I never said it wasn't balanced, In fact it's quite the opposite, I said it actually was balanced, so please do not put words in my mouth, that's rude. I simply said that it doesn't really resemble what was Halo's formula. That's my problem, I want Halo to resemble, you know, Halo. Again, as I keep saying, the game should stay true to its roots. The sprint mechanic on its own is balanced, it just doesn't really belong within Halo's formula. I'd love to see this implementation of sprint in a new arena FPS, but I want to Halo to continue resembling Halo. It's like the series is having an identity crisis that started since Reach. Halo should be Halo, it shouldn't turn into something that isn't Halo. If you're going to continue putting words in my mouth, saying I want the game to be an exact re-skin of Halo 3 and saying that I claimed H5's sprint to be unbalanced, when I never actually said EITHER of those things, then I'm not really interested in talking with you about the matter. Because that's kind of rude, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion and/or debate here, When you're debating with someone, you don't just put words in their mouth and try to change what they were saying, that's a pretty shallow move and doesn't really help prove your case in the slightest, in fact, it kind of ruins the credibility of your entire argument.

Hey, the name is zRexx. I'm a good friend of Jack's. I'm an aspiring youtuber as well as a passionate critic of the gaming industry. I mainly focus on competitive play and I really enjoy having gaming-related debates (as long as the participants aren't getting emotional and throwing insults at each other). As you can see to the left of this page, I am a very heavy pepsi addict, and although a 6-pack a day may sound unhealthy, always remember that Pepsi is the drink of the gods. I usually tend to be very foul-mouthed and you'll often see me exchanging some vulgar yet playful trashtalk here and there, so yeah, just remember it's all just for fun (if I trashtalk in that certain way, you're usually on my good side). My humor often revolves around pure stupidity, sometimes overplaying stereotypes. Sadly it seems I'll have to control it on these forums, but hey, it is what it is. What else can I say? I'm a Brony and a Power Rangers/Super Sentai fanboy. That means I have the power of friendship AND the pterodactyl on my side. You don't mess w/ me boi. But yeah, generally I'm a very nice guy. If ya feel like chatting or playing some games down the road, feel free to hit me up with a PM, I can add you to my skype (that's the best way to get ahold of me).

I agree in that Halo's overall tone and mood doesn't really match what it used to be, it strays away from its roots too much. Classic Halo had this energetic, upbeat feel to everything despite the nature of war, making you feel like this bold, courageous hero. ODST and Reach were depressing, they were polar opposites. Now, I'll give those titles some leeway because they were technically spin-offs. Halo 4 though? I mean, the art style was there, the lore was there, but the mood was too somber for the most part. There were some major exceptions, I won't lie, like remember the battle aboard Infinity's hull, where you defended it from the combined forces of the Didact and the Covenant? The mood there was spot-on, but everything else, it just misses the mark. However, I'll have to disagree with you on the endings. Combat Evolved didn't end on the most positive note either. If anything, Halo 3's ending was a callback to Halo CE, with how Guilty Spark tried to interfere, how they escaped the ring's destruction via warthog, and how Chief and Cortana were left all alone, floating in the endless void of space while reflecting on about how the battle was finished, yet feeling a little somber at their current predicament.

Sprint may be balanced but... I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots. I don't know about anyone else here, but when it came to classic Halo, I always associated the game with being a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. I feel sprint kind of goes against Halo's nature. While I do have a preference for faster-paced games like Doom, there was never anything inherently wrong with Halo's formula (aside from weapon balance but that's another topic), the slower paced nature worked just fine with the series. It's like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd much rather have Halo maintain its unique identity instead of having a full-on identity crisis. I don't have an issue with change, but I feel if a game series incorporates changes, it should at least stay true to its roots. With sprint, I feel that it doesn't fit within the original formula. When it comes to ADS, I'm actually content with it, because Halo's gunplay always had a heavy emphasis on precision, and the ADS played into that well (if it slowed down movement speed, then I'd have a problem). I didn't mind flinch either (I made another topic for that, go ahead and read it ,if you wish to debate that is). But the difference with sprint is that instead of it complementing the formula, it changes the formula. I think with how they're currently balancing it, by stripping away the shield recharge while sprint, it's actually a good mechanic in itself, I just don't think it belongs in Halo, I feel it would have much more of a place in its own game, rather than trying to cram it where it doesn't fit. The problem of it being unbalanced and broken, that's solved. But as for the problem of the feature not really fitting within what was Halo's distinct formula, that's still kind of an issue.

Well, they take skill to get, I never denied that, but they certainly take very little skill when you get down to using Perhaps you COULD dodge the Rocket Launcherr if this was a different type of game where you moved much, much faster (it might still be overpowered but at least there would be a fair chance of dodging it), but when you look at Halo's movement speed vs. the projectile speed, blast radius, and splash damage of the Rocket Launcher, it just isn't really a feasible option. Unless you're on Reach and everyone starts with evade, but that's not really how the main game plays. You can reliably dodge against the more typical weapons because they fire single bullets, and when it comes to grenades, you can dodge them due to the detonation timer, but with the Rocket Launcher, it explodes immediately upon impact and the area of effect is so massive, it's HUGE, and if you're at least a little bit inside of it, you're dead. You can't usually jump out of the way, that just isn't a reliable option, because of how tthe blast radius is the size of an elephant and you're automatically dead if caught even a little bit inside (it's not like you need a direct hit or a near-direct hit to get an instant kill). As for thrusting in H5, it may sound good in theory but when you get down to it, the thruster pack is going to have a cooldown of at least 4 seconds. So pretty much, you can easily dodge the first Rocket, but afterwards you're fragged (substitute for the f-bomb) because you can't thrust again in time to dodge the second blast coming your way. The Rocket Launcher has two rounds per clip, and it's not like it has an immensely, painfully slow rate of fire or anything. So yeah, you dodge one, then he fires another, good luck. If you could use two thrusts straight in a row, it could possibly work (although I'd have to see it in action), but that's not how H5 is going to play. You thrust once, you have to wait a 4 second cooldown, and the person is going to fire another rocket before that happens. I used to be OBSESSED with Halo Reach and Halo 4 as a teenager (even though I hate them now), I played those games every day after school. I NEVER had someone dodge a Rocket I fired, whenever I had a Rocket, I got at least two kills. And I wasn't even really the best at Halo for the most part. I was pretty good at Halo 4 for a while, but that's not saying much, because Halo 4's skill ceiling is pretty low. It's a very rare occurence to where you can actually counter a Rocket user. The fact of the matter is, the Rocket user always has it easy on him. There may be some exceptions to where a Rocket user gets taken down, but those are the rarity. I mean, alright, during a reload, he has a chance of getting killed. I'm not the type to lie. But again, he gets two rockets per clip, so around 80 to 85% of the time, he's going to get at least two kills without even having to really use any effort (when it coes to actually using the weapon). A lot of the time, it's even more than two kills, it's very easy to get two people with one shot. Besides that, the fact of the matter is, a player is usually going to get some kills without trying. I don't think you're trying to suggest that players have to actually practice with the Rocket Launcher to get good at it, that's a little absurd, don't you think? Practice isn't usually needed unless you're going against some pros or semi-pros, and even in that case, it still wouldn't be all that much. Here's what I use to determine balance: Does the weapon take a significant amount of skill to use? Are there reliable ways to counter the weapon? Does it dominate other weapons in almost (if not) all situations? To put it simply, is there usually ever a situation where you would want to put the gun down? Okay, so does the Rocket Launcher take a significant amount of skill to use? No, it's pretty easy. Are there reliable ways to counter the Rocket Launcher? Successfully countering the Rocket Launcher is a sparse rarity rather than a semi-common sight, so I wouldn't consider your methods "reliable" if they rarely ever work under usual circumstances. Does it dominate other weapons in almost all situations? Well, I can't ever see a time where I'd ever want to use an AR, BR, DMR, Carbine, Light Rifle, Storm Rifle, Suppressor, Shotgun, Scattershot, Sword, Hammer, Magnum, Plasma Pistol, or Boltshot over the Rocket Launcher. That's 14 weapons, that's an awful lot. And unless you're an A-Grade competitive player, I can't imagine you ever wanting to even use a Sniper over the Rockets either, it's usually too much of a hassle by comparison for the average player at least (in MLG tournaments, it's a different story, but that's the exception rather than the rule). So Halo's Rocket Launcher fails to meet any of these standards. Because Quake 3 Arena has a skillful Rocket Launcher, I'll use that in comparison. Does the weapon take a significant amount of skill? Due to the very fast-paced nature of the game, and how you can only get a one-shot-kill on a direct hit, this means you really need SIGNIFICANT leading and predicting skills. This skill isn't just restricted to very long range like in Halo, no, you need it every where, from close range, to mid range, to long range, there's no easy way out here. Are there reliable ways to counter the weapon? Keep moving in a figure-8 pattern because it will constantly change up your movement direction which will make it more challenging for the enemy to predict and lead, the splash damage and blast radius isn't that OP to where it's nearly impossible, and you move fast enough to where you can actually rely on this tactic. Does it dominate other weapons in almost all situations? Aside from one gun (which SHOULD be better balanced, Quake isn't exempt from balance either), every weapon is an equally viable choice depending on the specific situation. The Rocket Launcher is the jack of all trades weapon, but everything else has a more specialized, niche role that it makes them ever so important under those specific circumstances. For example, if a player is in a hallway, the best weapon to use is the Plasmagun because it rapid-fires these large, spherical projectiles that are hard to dodge in a tight corridor (due to limited space to move around). If a player is on the center platform and you need to push him back to prevent him from reaching a powerup, you pull out the Lightning Gun because its continuous energy beam has devastating knockback. No weapon is really "the best". The balancing method I explained leads to overall greater depth. You need strategy to determine which weapon is right for the corresponding situation, which is a complex task when every weapon is equally viable in their own ways. All players need gunplay skill no matter what weapon they happen to choose. All players can reliably counter each other. With Halo's balance, it's just grab the big gun and KABOOM, there's not really all that much to it by comparison.

Okay, I will not deny that Halo 4 is a total abomination (at least outside the campaign). In fact, I strongly agree with that viewpoint and Ithere's no denying that Halo 4 was a dumbed down experience that focused way too much on catering to lazy noobs. I despise this game just as much as anyone else. However, I think some people go a little too far sometimes, like grasping at straws just to find any potential ammunition to throw at the game, without having any logical reasoning behind a few of these criticisms. I am in firm belief that the game did have some good elements to it. Although the good elements clearly didn't make up for the bad, we should at least still acknowledge what the game DOES have to offer. It has a solid campaign, an absolutely beautiful art style, satisfying gunplay (despite the aim assist), awesome weapon designs, and fun armor abilities (though let's be honest, they seriously should've been implemented as pickups because the loadouts are stupid). One criticism particular that I hear is regarding the flinch mechanic, in that the reticule will fling in a random direction upon getting shot (essentially recoil). People downright bash this just on the sake that it's random. However, the difference between flinch, and other random-based mechanics such as ordnance, is that there's no unfair luck-based advantage or disadvantage that the randomness brings. It doesn't create an uneven playing field. It's not like ordnance where one player gets lucky and has a rocket launcher spawn right next to him out of randomness, while the other player is just forced to deal with it and is put at an unfair disadvantage for no actual reason. With flinch, all players receive the same exact amount of recoil. So when you get down to it, it really just comes down to which player is better at quickly adapting and re-adjusting their aim. Adapting to random events, that's technically considered a skill. Again, it's not like either player has it easier for them. If it's a BR on BR fight, both players exhibit the same level of flinch, and their flinch direction has the same level of randomness. Both players are required to quickly adapt to the same type of scenario on both sides. One person said to me, "You can't adapt to randomness!", but that's not really true. You adapt to it as it happens. That's what adapting is, you're not always prepared for what's specifically going to happen the next moment (in this case, what direction your reticule will be flung), but you have to compensate for it while it's happening and learn to quickkly re-adjust your aim. Your mind has to quickly register "The reticule has gone left", and move your crosshair to the right to compensate for it. It's also called reflex. As long as both players experience the same level of challenge and are on an even playing field, what's really the issue here? Now in another scenario, let's say that it's Light Rifle vs. DMR, but the DMR happens to have a smaller level of flinch (this is all hypothetical, I don't know the actual stats of which weapon has more flinch). Even in that case, the DMR takes a lot longer to kill than the Light Rifle, so although the Light Rifle exhibits much more flinch, the situation is still balanced. When it comes to different weapons with different amounts of flinch, it can easily be compensated for by using the other attributes to balance it out. With de-scope on the other hand, you don't really need the skill of adapting. You're always going to know beforehand that you're going to get knocked out of scope, and so you're easily able to prepare it. There's nothing like "I can't always be prepared for everything, but I can learn how to adapt to a situation as it occurs, and use reflex to compensate for it." I'm a de-scope is a worse mechanic than flinch, but this is one thing that flinch really has in its favor when you really get down to it. De-scope has its own type of skill in that, when knocked out of scope, you have to keep your crosshair on the opponent while aiming from the hip (that is, until you can zoom in again). So when you get down to it, both features require a lot of skill, it's just different types of skill. Skill isn't really a black-and-white thing, it comes in many different forms. It's comparing apples to oranges, you can't really lay them out and compare them side-by-side because they're entirely different things. Each gameplay mechanic brings their own aspect of skill to the table. It's all just a matter of what fits your personal preference, there's nothing inherently wrong with either of these features. One person who I argued with one said "A first person shooter mainly comes down to aiming and shooting. Flinch is broken because it changes the direction you aim in." So, he says a first person shooter is all about aiming, and I can't deny that, in fact I agree. That's actually why flinch can be seen as great. It makes it so you have to keep re-adjusting your aim. So if you want to get to technical about it, aiming actually plays a much bigger role with flinch, because you have to aim all over again after every hit you take, instead of being able to continuously keep your reticule on target. I mean, he got technical with his argument, so why can't I? Unlike a number of other mechanics I see the devs trying to bring into Halo, including classes, ordnance, sprint, etc, flinch actually fits within the realms of Halo's original formula. Halo's gunplay had a strong emphasis on fine-tuned precision, more so than other games (especially compared to other arena shooters). So having to continuous re-adjust your aim to land headshots, I feel it captures the essence of Halo's roots perfectly. You see, most people target change. Unlike others, I'm perfectly content with a game series having new mechanics as long as (a) the changes aren't of poor design, and ( it stays true to the series' roots. Sure, it's a rare scenario where developers try to incorporate some moderate changes but not alter the core of the game (most of the changes in Halo Reach and Halo 4 fail to do this), but it can be done with a little creativity, and I actually encourage a game to change as long as it meets these standards. With Sprint, although they balanced it, it still doesn't stay faithful to what was originally Halo's core, But Flinch on the other hand? It really does nothing against Halo's nature and when you get down to it, there's nothing really broken about it. (Also yes, I know about the stability perk. The reason I haven't brought that up is because I'm talking about flinch in itself, perks/classic are like an entirely different mechanic. But yes, stability did break the game in regards to flinch and should've never been in the game. Flinch as a mechanic, though, is perfectly fine when you get down to it. Most people I see complain about flinch are talking about the randomness, a complaint that I fully debunked here.)

DISCLAIMER: This post will feature blunt criticism of the entire Halo series. If you don't like hearing strong negativity about the games you play, you should really consider turning away. Before we go into my criticsm, I want to stress that I really believe Halo has potential to be a really good competitive shooter and also stand out in its own flare at the same exact time. Just so I don't look like a hater, here's the unique things I like about the series, from a gameplay standpoint: Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision, mainly due to the main weapons in each game (Pistol in CE, BR/Carbine in H2/H3, DMR in Reach, and BR/Carbine/DMR/LR in Halo 4) Slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters, but still fast enough to be skillful and intense. (Newer games are straying away from the roots in this regard, which I find saddening because it makes it less unique). 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. Very skillful, although the skill of retreats were neutered in Reach and Halo 4 due to sprint. I like CE's system the best with the health bar. 2-weapon system adds a nice strategic aspect in that you have to carefully pick and choose your preferred armament. Okay, so you guys know now that I'm not just some hater. Of course not, I really just want this game to improve. So what's standing in the way from this being an A-Grade competitive arena shooter? Well, Halo Reach and Halo 4 may have their own set of ridiculous problems that are much greater, but I'm here to talk about what's affecting the whole series (that includes the trilogy). As the title suggests, the issue we have here is the horrendous weapon b alance. My problem is that the weapon pick-ups around the map are essentially god, they're very easy to use and take little effort or skill, it's pretty much a free kill. You might as well just have a glowing orb that you touch and it kills whatever enemy player is closest to you as you pick it up. That may be a slight exaggeration, but you understand where I'm coming from. Using a Rocket Launcher doesn't really take much skill at all, as well as many other explosives. CQC weapons such as Shotguns and Swords can be pretty damn easy to use as well, depending on the specific game. I often bring up this criticism and people respond by saying that the skill is in getting the weapons. I'm not denying that, I strongly believe that map control is very vital element of skill to a competititve FPS. But the thing is, that's really only half of it. What about actually using the weapons too? Then they'll say "Oh, if the weapons are difficult to use, no one will fight for them!" I'm going to bring up a couple other arena shooters, Quake III Arena, and Unreal Tournament. The weapons were VERY skillful in those games, yet players didn't seem to ignore them there, in fact it's quite the opposite, players ALWAYS controlled the map and battled for these weapons, even moreso than you see in Halo where a good portion of the playerbase sees on-map weapons as taboo. You want to know why the players still fought for these weapons? Because of two reasons. Firstly, many on-map weapons often provided certain advantages that made them more useful in specific situations, they were often more specialized than the starting weapon. Secondly, it's the damage potential. The Rocket Launcher in Quake III was fairly dodgable if the enemy player had twitch reflex, and it required players to really lead their shots (Leading with a Halo Rocket Launcher is rarely required, its only needed at long range). It also required a direct hit to initiate a one-hit kill (on an unarmored target, that is). The weapon had these other traits to compensate for the high damage, but nonetheless, the fact that you CAN kill a player one shot is more than enough to make it valuable. If a weapon has potential to kill in one hit, any smart player will go after it (why wouldn't they). As shown with the above paragraph, you don't need to make a weapon insanely overpowered to make it valuable, that's simply going overboard. Again, the fact of the matter is, the Rocket Launcher in Halo takes very little (if any) skill. You guys tell me, what sounds like overall more skillful and competitive gameplay? Only needing the skill to get a certain weapon, while using it is actually very easy. Needing skill to get that certain weapon AND also needing skill to use it effectively. That's really as black and white as you can get, two skillsets versus one. In addition, having terrible weapon balance like this, it really destroys a lot of emphasis on strategy. A large part of strategy in a shooter comes down to choosing the right weapon for the corresponding situation, you need to use your critical thinking skills to determine the right gun for the job and you have to do it fast within the heat of battle. In Halo, a lot of this simply isn't there. It's a very rare situation to where you'd ever use anything else over the Rocket Launcher. For the most part, the instance you would ever switch to another weapon is if you're at very long range. Where's the strategy in that? It's just "Use the Rocket Launcher! Always use the Rocket Launcher! Never not use the Rocket Launcher! The Rocket Launcher beats all!" It's very basic. People bring up metagaming, but no, this isn't metagaming, you don't have to be a genius to know that the Rocket Launcher dominates everything, it's a very obvious fact you would get by playing a single match. There's a difference between metagaming and obvious knowledge, this is obvious knowledge. Since when is there ever a Halo player who doesn't know that the Rocket Launcher is the best? Anyone knows it. There's not really any complex thinking involved here, it's absurdly basic. Overall, if each weapon had their own distinctive skillsets as well as each weapon having a specific corresponding situation/niche/role, that would add so much more complexity and depth to the game. But with this system? It's VERY basic by comparison. There's not a lot too it, and i feel it's an aspect we should improve upon. It's the one major thing that gets in the way. I'm not saying Halo is a stupid, easy game, but at the same time, it can be so much more than what it currently is.

The admins are 343 Industries themselves. You think I should quit HaloWaypoint and move here? I mean, I have the ability of making a new account and altering my IP so I become undetectable, but is it worth the energy, or would you say this is actually the superior forums?