ChristopherRyan

I don't understand why the game needs to "evolve" every release. "Hmm, we've got a great game hear, lets change it completely, because that will be fresh and new. Hey how come no one plays our game now? Oh right, because we changed it completely, and its not the game that people know and love anymore, its a mishmash of 'new and fresh' stuff" Halo would have been better off keeping pretty much the exact same gameplay from title to title. The gameplay worked great, all you need is new graphics, new maps, some new weapons, and minor improvements every 3 years. Bam, success. The reason Halo has failed is because every single game is so drastically different. Everyone has their own opinion and favorite game, thus we have various factions of people fighting over which style of Halo is the best. If Halo had kept to its roots, we wouldn't have this argument. All this "new and fresh, evolve" stuff is so unintelligent its not funny. What if they completely changed the way american football was played every year? What if one year, they made it so you any player could throw the ball forward, and the next year, they made it so you made 1 point every time you made a catch? The game would die, because some people would like to play it one way, and some people would like it the other way. That's why you don't see super successful games changing that much over time. Chess, Football, Soccer, Baseball, Poker, whatever, pick your poison. These games LAST, and people love them because they don't go changing all the time. Sure, they go through minor tweaks, but never so much to change the spirit of the game. I don't know if there's any way for Halo to succeed anymore. Halo has so many different kinds of fans, and so many different styles of gameplay, that anything they release will be hated by a lot of people. If they release Halo 4.5, the original community will rage, again, and if they release a good Halo game, ie, classic gameplay, they will lose all of the new fans they brought over with the newer features. You shot yourself in the foot, 343, best of luck to you. You should have been smarter, and saw that Bungie made the mistake of starting Halo down this path with Reach. You should have put Halo back on track. You should have released a good Halo game.

Well I understand if you're not an MLG guy. I'm not either, I really prefer to play with a motion stracker, as that's mostly what I played with for all of my Halo career. And everyone in Halo Reach's MLG is very good, way better than me. I think that Halo Reach's MLG gametype is one of the best out there, (if it had a motion tracker). Just for the sake of this movement discussion, go ahead and jump in Halo Reach's MLG, you'll immediately notice how fast you zip around the map. Halo 3 by comparison is very slow. I think its at like %120, which is a big difference, and definitely eases the "I just want to sprint urge". You find that you're moving quick enough, but you can also do everything you would normally do in a game, like look around, walk backwards, sideways, throw grenades, switch weapons, reload, everything. No-sprint is actually very freeing, as you can move fast, and do everything you normally could when "walking". Well, I mean yeah, it is, sorry. People who have issues like that are just going to be a little bit worse at video games because they have that challenge. All video games will be slightly more challenging because you have less of a capability to see. But that doesn't really mean the fairness and integrity of the whole game should be torn down for the benefit of that minority. And what if you were able to spawn default with both the BR/DMR AND the AR (in the same spawn, not two separate spawning choices)? That would allow for two completely different weapon styles to be used, and thus different styles of gameplay. That would give you a little variety as well, and you would be able to choose the more appropriate weapon for the task at hand.

How does slow gameplay get lumped in with no loadouts? You always have the freedom to go and pick up a gun. I would agree that Halo 3's default movement speed was low. Have you ever played MLG Halo 3, or MLG Reach? The movement speed is pretty quick.

Disagree %100 Answers in bold People starting with the same weapon/capabilities = fair People starting with a different weapons that they are comfortable with =/= fair Spawning people with different weapons in attempt to get them on the same level by allowing them a weapon they are comfortable with is a poor attempt at fairness. The BR/DMR are precision oriented weapons, and the AR is a spray and pray bullet hose, with much less requirement for skill. the skill involved with using the AR is about surviving long enough to get in range, and is more movement based, like a shotgun. Of course, there is the option of spawning players with both the DMR/BR and the AR, kind of like in Halo CE, that would be fair too. The main point is, everyone should spawn in as an exact clone as one another, personal capability aside

So fix the betrayal boot system, don't just take away friendly fire.

Alright, lets not degrade ourselves to calling each other stupid. That's not a valid argument. Baconshelf, your logic is flawed. "Camping" weapon spawns isn't an unfair advantage. The weapons are on the map, everyone has the exact same capabilities and weapons off spawn, thus everyone has the exact same capability to fight over the weapons. Especially on team-based, symmetrical maps, which is what most maps should be like. Asymmetrical maps aren't necessarily the most fair maps. Loadouts, on the other had are not fair, by nature. This point is non-negotiable, stemming from the meaning of the word "fair". Yes loadouts, they give people the opportunity to play with a certain utility weapon, and various balance-ruining perks, but people no longer are spawning into the map with the exact same performance and capabilitites, thus the game is not fair. I assume most Halo players were better than you, and you had a hard time picking up the weapons you enjoyed to play with, let alone power weapons. This doesn't mean the game was unfair. And people usually fight more over power weapons, not other utility weapons on the map like the carbine, or the BR, which would be available in loadouts. Sure, I love listing the pitfalls of sprint! -Halo is a high kill time game, compared to a game like COD, were you only need to land 2 or 3 bullets to get a kill. In a game like COD, there is risk/reward element to sprint, because if you sprint into a bad situation, you are killed outright. Where as in Halo, if you sprint into a bad situation, the kill times are high enough to give you the time to turn and run. Sprint is a risk/reward system in COD, but a reward/reward system in Halo. This is why sprint is called a get out of jail free card, because you can just hold a button to get away -When you are in a gunfight in Halo 4, and you know you are going to lose, all you need to do is sprint away. The person who would have killed you now can't, because to pursue you, he must sprint as well, and while both of you are sprinting, neither of you can shoot, meaning that all the while your sprint is being used up, time is elapsing, and your sheilds are coming back. This is why sprint can actually decrease the pace of the game: a sprinter can someone to beat him, then run away, multiple times before someone finally kills him. This is why sprint makes Halo 4 play so differently from previous Halos. If you want to run away in Halo 3, you just move, and your pursuer can still shoot you in the back, because you don't have the ability to trade your ability to fire for a faster movement speed. -Sprint encourages double beatdowns. -The maps in Halo 4 are HUGE, because now, we have sprint. Meaning all of your gunbattles are much further away, grenades are less useful, and map design is generally poor. you have to sprint around for a while just to find someone, and fights are longer range, and less interesting. -On the other hand, in a no-sprint game, the maps would be small, and games are action-packed, as you need not look far for an opponent. And the pace of the game is faster, because you can't prolong engagements by running away. -The base movement is lowered to account for sprint, meaning that strafe is much less effective. The average speed between sprinting and not sprinting is about the same as the base movement speed in no-sprint MLG games. If you guys like loadout, sprint games, go play destiny, or COD, or titanfall, or pretty much any other shooter right now. The market is ABSOLUTELY SATURATED with those kinds of games right now. Halo doesn't need to compete for a spot among those games, it needs to offer an OG Halo game. And stop with the "oh you just want Halo to be your way" argument, that's a stupid argument, and %100 goes both ways.

The problem with loadouts is that no matter how well balanced the starts are, it is impossible to have entirely balanced starts simply because loadouts will be different from one another. Thus the game is unfair, and unbalanced, and more about who can build the best loadout, and less about who can play the game the best. I don't know why people keep coming back to this whole "oh we need something new, and fresh", idea. Wrong. New graphics, new weapons, new maps, and refinement to the original formula is enough, and plenty. Why do we need to change the way the game plays on a fundamental level when we can just improve the finer points? Why risk something new, again, split the community, again, and fail again. Its time to learn the lesson. How many times do you need to smack your face against a brick wall to realize that it hurts? I don't know about you, but for me, its usually once, or none. Bungie smacked their face against the wall the first time with Halo 2, dramatically increasing kill times, a second time with Halo 3, with the introduction of equipment, and a third time with Reach, with the addition of AA's. 343 has dutifully continued the face-smacking tradition with Halo 4, I'll spare you the list, and could possible be going in for round 2 with Halo 5. The brick wall is chuckling at this point, not cracking. All this "new and fresh" stuff like equipment, AA's, loadouts and sprint only take Halo further and further away from it's original formula (which, GASP, actually worked, was fun, and was sustainable for several years). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. To be blunt, this 'new and fresh" attitude encourages change simply for the sake of change, not at all for the sake of gameplay quality. Halo has failed SPECIFICALLY because it tries to come out with these new ideas that fundamentally alter gameplay, title after title. When the new game comes out, sure some people like the changes, but a lot of other people (core fans) think "what the hell, this is totally different from the last game". Why trade out the old fanbase for the new, every title, when you could keep the old, and continue to build upon it, by releasing games that are more similar than different to their predecessors. Games that are FAIR and FUN and CHALLENGING. No reason, really, other than corporate greed, and foolishness. Since CoD is doing well, and has features XYZ, Halo would to better to implement those features, right? Not that bad of logic at first glance, but c'mon, have we not learned the lesson yet? So to this attitude of "fresh and new", I say, that is the reason Halo is failing. Stop it with the fresh and new, and go back to consistency. Halo NEEDS to go back, downgrade, as you say. Halo has always found strength in its simplicity. It would take courage, and dignity for 343 to come out and say "we were wrong, but now we are going to do the Halo franchise right, and offer the original Halo formula". It is cowardice to follow trends. Do I need to cite population statistics?

I think a standalone multiplayer is a good idea. Though not to say a campaign is a bad thing. There just needs to be an order in priority: Figure out the multiplayer formula FIRST, then spend time on the campaign. There should be enough time in a 2 or 3 year cycle to create a game. Keep in mind that a simpler game will be easier to balance. But don't release the game until its done. I hear the same thing over and over again: Halo needs to change from title to title to keep people interested. To this I say, hogwash! If the game is a good game by itself, the addition of equipment, armor abilities, sprint, and loadouts will only put that "goodness" in jeopardy. The only new things Halo needs from game to game is better graphics, refinement, better netcode for less lag, better newer maps, and the like. KEEP THE GAMEPLAY THE SAME

I agree with you. I don't know if you've noticed, by I modified this theoretical system to not change the way the melee looks. See the whited out section above. Melees would be 2 hits to kill, and you would be able to one-hit backsmack Yeah mostly the point of this whole idea is -to take away the risk of accidentally triggering an animation- -add a tactical affect and incentive to assassinating -create more unlockables that don't change gameplay (different knivess wouldn't offer different function in any way.

Sigh.. It is depressing, I know. And I'm sorry, I feel like a jerk for saying what I said above. I just see so much potential for fairness and balance in Halo. There are lots of smart, competitive players out there, but a lot of them aren't playing shooters, because there is no balanced shooter that is relatively modern. If Halo took this niche, and offered a balls to the wall, balanced, fair, competitive, no-bull**** game, I swear, it would take the gaming industry by storm. Even the most competitive games out there right now aren't perfectly balanced. Games like LOL, starcraft, DOTA. They aren't, and simply can't be perfectly balanced because of unequal starts. There just isn't a fair game out there to play, and I can't fathom why 343 wants to be part of this stupid rat race of games that are only attractive because of gimmicks. I swear, Halo has the potential to be playable for the next 10-20 years, like counterstrike has. If only they could open their eyes and see... thanks for putting up with me guys, I know I'm zealous.

Ah, I see, you turned off magnetism as well. That explains it. We know that we need auto aim and magnetism to make these games playable, I'm not arguing to take away those elements, although both auto aim and bullet magnetism were ludicrously high in Halo 2. I'm just saying that if you removed error, and reticle bloom, players would be able to fire their guns at the max fire rate without any ill affect. I'm arguing that there shouldn't be a disadvantage to firing precision weapons at the maximum rate, and that any introduced randomness decreases the player's control over the game, and also competitive merit. We shouldn't remove bullet magnetism, or auto aim outright,. We just need to try and keep it as low as possible while still maintaining playability. Halo Reach had remarkably low bullet magnetism, and that makes the ZB Reach DMR the truest test of a player's utility weapon accuracy: No error, little magnetism, and appropriate auto aim. I respect what you are saying at the end of your post, about what "I want". I only voice these opinions because of my observations of community trends in opinion. I am a very open minded person, and perhaps I am a little too impressionable. I was gung-ho for loadouts and sprint, because I had no idea what the actual affects on gameplay would be. But after the dust had settled, and I had read the opinions of other people on the internet, I realized that these features I had thought would be good for halo ultimately played a large part in the downfall of Halo. You have to realize that my posts don't contain solely my own opinions, but the best regurgitated logic and theory from all over the internet. I cannot say outright that my opinions are any more valid than the next guy's, but at the same time, I can't pretend that everyone's opinion is equal in merit and logic, and have a big happy hold hands kumbaya over our differences. Some people simply go online and post their opinions without any thought or logic, simply because they can. I think that 343 industries has read these posts and incorporated that malformed logic and non-existent theory of casuals who don't know much about the design of video games into Halo 4, and the results are just that: A game effectively created with no logic, theory, or intelligent design; a game that is woefully unsuccessful and un-fun. I know this might seem harsh, and I must apologize for this, but I do believe that some opinions are "right" and "wrong". I believe that people who think sprint is good for Halo are wrong. I believe that people who think loadouts are good for Halo are wrong. And I also believe that people who believe that inaccurate guns with heaps of error are wrong, please do not take offense. I'm not here to be condescending or a jerk, but I care a lot about the future of Halo, and I will do everything I can to present logic and theory based arguments in attempts to change the opinions of people on the internet, as other people's arguments has affected my own. So when we talk about this function or that feature, I will go back and forth with logical arguments tirelessly, because I don't hold my own opinion in any great esteem. Instead I value logic, and theory. I never want these discussions to degrade to "yeah well you just want Halo to be YOUR way", because that is not true. I want Halo to be the best it can be, nothing more.

TwinReaper, You start to lose me a little when you talk about how it is harder to hit targets with error disabled. How can that be? How can it become more drastically more difficult to hit a target with a more accurate gun? Leading would be separate from this discussion, as that is an element of projectile speed, and/or connection quality. Leading offers a valuable skill gap, and I can't argue against that. Sure, if you are shooting at a moving target, your bullets will not land at the exact center of your reticle, but that is because your reticle, and your target are moving, and the projectiles take time traversing through the air. This is a separate function from the discussion of error, or inaccuracies in the guns. I'd love to hear your opinions on this. In my opinion, using projectiles over hitscan is an ideal system, but only if the netcode and connection of a game is good enough. Projectiles would offer a higher skill gap, but hitscan offers that instataneous feel, and I think it might be better for online games. The other element we could experiment with is gravity affecting bullets, that would really bring Halo onto another level in terms of skill gap and weapon realism. Lets put the BR aside for now, and just talk about semi auto weapons. Most of the semi auto weapons we have experience with have perfect, or close to perfect first shot accuracy, right? In other words, the first shot out of a pistol or dmr will land on target, as there is no or little error involved. And that perfect accuracy degrades with "spamming", correct? Are you suggesting that it is easier to shoot, or hit a moving target with a gun that degrades with accuracy? Or that it is difficult to hit a moving target while firing at the weapon's max speed? Is there some other element at play here, like an increase in bullet magnetism in relation to error? And what values have you been removing, specifically, the error on these guns, or auto aim and bullet magnetism functions? We're talking CE too right? Surely, if you reduce bullet magnetism it will be harder to hit anything. Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept that a less accurate gun is easier to use, and that a more accurate gun is harder to use, especially when we are just talking semi auto. I can kind of get it when we talk about the BR, as if you are off target, the spread could allow one or two of the bullets to hit, but not all. It seems to me that the guns would be a little more "honest" and simpler to use if there simply was no function in the game that could force your bullet to land outside of the inner reticle.

I just have to say, the OP made almost no sense, but I do agree with friendly fire. It just makes too much sense, you shoot your teammate, he gets hurt. You must play carefully around your teammates, or suffer the consequences. I think friendly fire was removed in Halo 4 to prevent general grieving, but mostly the stealing of power weapons. Here is a copy-paste from my ideal Halo build essay that covers betraying and betrayal penalties. Keep in mind, this system makes use of personal points, which are different from the kills you earn for your team. Let me know what you guys think We have all had it happen to us before: you manage to get the sniper rifle first off, and then your teammate starts firing at you. Or, you are about to return the flag, and someone starts to melee you. Some people are just selfish. In Halo 4, they made it so you can't do any damage to your teammates at all. This certainly solves the problem outright, but it also makes it so you can blatantly shoot or grenade your teammates. There is a certain challenge in not doing damage to your team that has always existed in Halo, and that should be retained. In Halo 3 and Reach, and maybe in Halo 2, I can't remember, you were given the option to boot your betrayer from the game if you were betrayed multiple times. This does some justice, but still makes it possible for people to betray you for the sniper at the beginning of the game, or for a flag return, or for whatever other nefarious reason. People know how to work the system, they know how to betray you, get what they want, and not suffer consequences. And if you are the victim of a betrayal like that, you can't go and kill your betrayer to get back the weapon that was rightfully yours, because the game will give the other guy the option to boot you straight off, as you retaliated; took revenge. The betrayal penalty system needs to do instant justice, and there needs to be no way to benefit from killing your teammates on purpose. In my game you will lose personal points for hitting your teammates, if the damage you do to them contributes to their death. If you accidentally do damage to a teammate, and his shields recharge, no harm no foul. But say you accidentally grenade your teammate for 56% damage, and then he is killed by the enemy. You will lose 56 personal points (this is represented as red numbers with a minus sign), and the enemy will gain 44 personal points and a kill. The same thing happens if you do damage to yourself, and then are killed before you get your shields back. The amount of effectual damage each player does to their collective team is displayed in the post game stats. For the most part, this function alone will cause players to be much more cautious around their teammates, especially with grenades. If you are betrayed even once, you will be presented with an option to kill your betrayer with the press of a button, and give him an additional 5 seconds onto his respawn time (10 seconds). You will also have the option to excuse the incident. You (the victim) will also spawn relatively close to where you were originally betrayed, and you will spawn instantly, rather than after the 5 second default respawn time without a wait; this is an attempt to leave the victim to play the game as undisturbed as possible, and to give him a chance to recollect his weapons. If someone else picks up the weapon in the process, well that's unfortunate. Furthermore, if the betrayer decides to quit the game in frustration of the long respawn timer penalty, he will not be allowed to re-enter matchmaking until the game he quit out of is finished. Though he will have the option to re-enter the same game that he quit out of. If you are betrayed twice by the same person, you will have the option to boot him from the game, and he will not be allowed to re-enter any games at all until the game you are playing is complete. There will also be no such thing as a teammate killing you by accident, but it counting as a kill from the enemy because it happened within a certain time value. Friendly damage is friendly damage regardless of when it happens.

TwinReaper, Thank you for taking the time to bring this evidence to the table. However I think the more important argument is not how these weapons have performed in the past, but how 343 will make their guns perform in the next Halo game. Sure, error has always been around, and the visualization of that error (bloom) is relatively new, but should these functions return in Halo 5? I would say absolutely not. No one likes to wait, and people have desperately been trying to increase the pace of Halo for years. MLG always ramps up movement speed in their gametypes, and most people prefer faster killing weapons. People usually cite the CE pistol as the best utility weapon, probably simply because it kills so fast at .6 seconds (although I think this is way too quick). People prefer the Halo 2 BR over all of the other ones, because it kills a little quicker. I would argue that it is time for Halo to leave these nonsensical functions that punish firing weapons at the maximum fire rate behind. It would be simpler, cleaner, and a truer test of skill to take the programmed randomness out of guns. So what that Halo has always had this element? That doesn't mean that its a good idea to keep it. Error is bad because it makes it possible for a precision gun to shoot in a direction that it isn't pointing, meaning a shot that is on target could miss, or a shot that should miss could hit. Players shouldn't be victim to this poor design. Error serves no purpose other than to force players to slow down, which no one wants to do, and adds unnecessary elements of randomness to the game, taking control away from the player. The guns in Halo should quite simply shoot where you point them, no questions asked (excepting guns like the AR and SMG, but those guns should also have way smaller maximum error values). The BR should have no spread, and no recoil. Bloom or error should not exist on the DMR or Carbine. There is just no reason for this nonsense

It's an unused button though, and leaving it as is means leaving it with no point, only aesthetics. Also, if you left it as is, you would still have the risk of accidentally triggering an animation by holding melee for too long. If you don't like assassinating, this function might be better for you, as you would never have to assassinate if you don't want to, and you would never trigger them on accident. You could just backsmack all day with no risk however, you would have to endure the longer respawn time if someone landed an animation on you, or here is a different option for the incentive to go for the assassination: they could be worth 2 kills, rather than 1, and you wouldn't have to endure a long respawn.

Here are some revisions with the help of the guys over at TeamBeyond A player can score a one hit backsmack, but it would count as a melee (medal), and there would be no added respawn time. You cannot assassinate (animation) by holding the melee, so you will never be caught in an accidental animation. 2 Melees to the front gets the kill as well, rather than 3. Also, a player can choose to pull out their knife by pressing DOWN on the dpad, and perform an animation on an enemy, adding a flat 5 seconds to the spawn time, resulting in a 10 second respawn for slayer, or a 15 second respawn for objective. Players can unlock different knives, and skins for those knives. All knives perform the same. Holding a knife does not change base movement speed, you cannot throw your knife. Advantages to this system: -you can still backsmack, keeping with tradtion -no changes to melee speed or hits to kill are needed -you can still assassinate (animation), adding flavor to the game -there is a point to assassinating, being the flat added time to the victim's respawn -assassinating is risk/reward rather than risk/risk -you will never be caught in an accidental assassination animation -there are multiple knives to unlock, and skins for the knives, adding more non-gameplay affecting customization

Yeah, definitely! And to TUCK3R: Its pretty safe to say that Halo 4 is a lot like COD

Elites are a different size and shape, and are more difficult to headshot from behind, meaning that if you enable elite starts, you no longer have equal starts. I wouldn't want to see playable elites in competitive playlists for sure. Remember people playing as elites in Halo 3 swat? I think seeing them in social would be okay.

I think AA's are fine so long as they are implemented in the correct way, being map based pickups with fuel. Agree %100 with the notion that Halo 5 should be more relate-able to Halo 2 and 3 than Halo 4. Preach it loudly and often!

Even the spoiler section?? I'm impressed. Yeah I get you about the people you find in matchmaking. I wish there was a way to deal with that.

Yeah, I agree, I can see people being miffed by not being able to one hit kill from behind, though there is still an advantage to hitting a spartan in the back. In this way, some of the original spirit is retained. I think mostly, this feature is attractive to "casuals" because it allows for another item to unlock and customize, and will be attractive to "competitives" because there is the opportunity to gain a tactical advantage from the function in the form of a longer respawn timer for the victim. I don't think the double respawn time would be too frustrating for the victim. Some more notes: Yoinking becomes a serious problem: If a player takes the risk of assassinating an enemy, his teammates should not be able to so easily steal the kill. Yoinking is easy to achieve in Reach because the shields are broken long before the victim is actually killed. In this rendition, the kill should be achieved as soon as the knife enters the victim. The assassination animation would continue for a moment after the kill is achieved, showing the assassinating spartan pulling the knife out of the victim. In this way, the assassinator's teammates don't have a super easy opportunity to steal the kill. If the victim has little to no shields when he is assassinated, your teammates will have a better chance of achieving the yoink. Otherwise, yoinks on fully shielded victims shouldn't happen. If the assassinator is killed after the knife enters the victim, but before it is removed, the knife should remain in dead victim's player model. There shouldn't be any assassination animations that don't involve the knife.

I have brought up this point in my other thread, Ideal Halo 5 Design, http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/34384-ideal-halo-5-design/ I want to make a thread to discuss this point by itself though, as my other thread is extremely all inclusive, and might not be the best place one single element. Please excuse my redundancy for the sake of good, flowing discussion. I want to know the community's opinion about this revision. The main point of the revision is to add a tactical reason to assassinate the player (animation). I view it as a tactical mistake to assassinate a player in Halo Reach and Halo 4, as it takes time, and leaves you stationary. Also you can be yoinked, which is no fun. A nice aesthetic, and satisfying, but a mistake nonetheless. Here is how I would handle assassinations. First, a player will not be able to trigger assassinations by simply holding onto melee for a moment when behind a player. Rather, each player will have a knife (players can unlock different knives, and skins for said knives), which he or she must switch to by pressing DOWN on the d pad. Assassinating will be performed in the same way as in the past, but now, players must switch to their knife first, adding challenge to the feat. Players don't receive a higher base movement speed by pulling out their knives (what do you guys think of this?). Players cannot throw their knives. All knives have the same performance. Second, a successful assassination will cause the victim to endure a double respawn timer for that respawn. In this way, there is a reason, a reward, for going through the extra effort and risk of sacrificing your ability to do damage at range, to switching to your knife to perform the assassination, as you and your team will enjoy a short period of time where you have a numerical advantage over the enemy. Third, because of this function, melee must be nerfed to give the assassination function room. Instead of melee killing in two hits to the front, or one hit to the back, melee will kill in 3 hits to the front, or 2 hits to the back. This way, there is still an advantage to hitting a spartan in the back, and you can't simply one hit kill a spartan without going through the special effort of performing an assassination, like I have outlined above. A melee to the back, and then a melee to the front will result in a kill. A melee to the front, and then a melee to the back will kill (just to clear that up). How would you guys feel about a function like this in Halo 5?

For me, I need a balanced and fair game. I need to know that when I am beat, it isn't because of any function of the game is at fault, only my own tactical error. When I am killed by an unfair element of the game, I tend to freak out a little bit, and play more angrily. An unfair Halo game just makes me not want to play, and that's what it comes down to. I don't play Halo 4 because it is a mediocre game, and it is very unfair, and very unbalanced. 343 has pushed me away entirely from Halo 4. The only way I can enjoy halo in the slightest is by playing the Halo Reach MLG playlist, or the Halo 3 matchmaking. Both leave me wanting though, as most people in the MLG playlist are far superior players than I, and because there is no motion tracker, which is an element I prefer to play with. Halo 3 is great, but most games aren't BR starts, and the player is left outranged off spawn with the AR to those who have BR's, not to mention slow movement speed, projectile BR bullets and a lowish population. 343 needs to stop worrying about trying to boost sales by bringing in foreign elements that cater to "The Modern Shooter" crowd. They need to focus on creating a fair an balanced arena style gameplay experience first and foremost, of which there are non on the current market. If 343 is able to fill this niche well, they will see amazing success in their title, because it will be a fresh, new, and exciting experience for shooter fans. Releasing Halo 5 in the correct manner will allow 343 industries to reclaim almost all of their original audience, along with newcomers who simply just want to play a fair game that is decided by their skill as a player, not the strength of their loadout build, newcomers who are tired of the same old modern shooter formula that every title conforms to.

TwinReaper: Thanks for the support, I was worried I had worded my response to Hugo a little harshly, and maybe I did, but the fact of the matter is if we want to see 343 take the Halo franchise back into its arena shooter's roots, we must voice our opinions loud and often, and frequently regurgitate each other's good ideas. Let me remind you all that this writing was generated by rooting through the internet to find the "community's opinion". Most of this information I present you is the same that we see all over the internet, barring the positive opinions about Halo 4, which I can't consider community opinions, because the origin of these players is doubtful, seeing the tactics 343 used to grow (swap out, rather) their community. how many have even played Halo 3 or 2? Old and Ugly: I'm only curious, did you read the whole thing? Props if you did! I tread very lightly when I say this next bit: I don't think Halo (the original formula) is for you, my friend. The era of Halo 2 and 3 was the pinnacle height of the success of Halo not only on a business sense, but a game play sense. There is a false notion that Halo is a game that can and should be enjoyed by every last teenage boy, young man, and grizzled ancient alike, but that is not the case. It is simply impossible to please everybody all of the time, only some of the people some of the time. This is a bitter truth, and 343 has gotten themselves into a rather tricky situation, because they now have two separate and distinct audiences to choose from. I think we could all agree than an attempt to appeal to both at the same time would create a game that neither side is very happy with. There are many different genres of shooters out there, and many different games to play, thankfully. The most prominent being what I refer to as "The Modern Shooter", which I classify as a game that has aim down sight, sprint, load-outs, a vast plethora of un-lockable gameplay changing items, some kind of in-game kill-streak or performance reward, and generally, fast kill times. These games are fun more because there are lots of guns and toys to play with, and less because the actual gameplay is fun. They are also impossible to balance. Why did I just use the word impossible just there? Because that is the correct word to use. If you give the player to choose between Choice A, and Choice B, they will never be perfectly balanced, because of the simple fact that Choice A is not Choice B, regardless of how closely balanced they appear to be. On the other hand, we have arena shooters, which are characterized most notably by the notion that all players enter the match with the exact same capabilities, and they have the opportunity to "customize" their player in game by picking up items off the map, that everyone has equal chance to fight over and earn. One characteristic of arena shooters the 343 needs to focus on is the fairness aspect of the game, and the fact that the outcome of battles should be determined as much as possible by the performance and skill of the players, and less by the functions of the game. I'm curious as to why you "stick around" Halo, despite your dislike of the arena shooter genre, as you describe? I would assume that you are attracted to the fiction and universe of the game? The Spartans? The sandbox? The general sci-fi look? And again, Old and Ugly, thank you for your honesty, but also, thank you for your non-inflammatory response.

What a defeatist attitude. You may be right, but that doesn't mean we who care should stop trying. It makes little business sense to release a Halo like Halo 4, and I am trying to show 343 that logic. Very few people actually enjoyed Halo 4, so why whould anyone by a Halo 5 that is similar to Halo 4? On the other hand, multitudes of people enjoyed Halo 2 and 3, so it makes more sense to go with that formula.