Why all this hate on 343i?

[Twinreaper]

First off, the bloom that you and everyone else is complaining about, was worse in Halo 1. SO if your gonna say that the Ogre Twins had their "skill" inhibited by bloom in Reach, that is just a fail comparison and excuse. You cannot compare skill across titles. Every single title has a different core global.globals setting defined. Of coarse yes, people will retain or be able to use some skill from a previous title, but they simply cannot just pickup a controller and rage out to the top of the pack from the start. Each new title brings new map control, new mechanic variables etc.... You say AA's and bloom for Reach took skill out the pro's hands? I say it opened up a whole new level of skill that everyone HAD to work for...not just pick up the controller and play the same gameplay over and over. AA's and bloom have long been a "hiding behind" feature of all the pros for a while now. It's finally time someone stands up and just admits that their skill in Reach is lesser instead of constantly coming up with excuses as to why they lose. But of coarse they won't. They will all just continue to hide behind poor excuses such as randomness, luck, AA's, unbalanced spawning etc... For everyone out there, show me pulled tag data that supports "random" or "Luck" in a weapon mechanic. Luck and random do not exist...there is data to control everything in the weapon.

 

X-Ray vision aside, you don't know how it's going to be used. It's possible it will only be a "heat vision" type of usage where you briefly can see every biped in your FOV for a few seconds. This is much different than the first impression people get by thinking walls will suddenly become transparent for minutes on end. Armor Abilities have yet to be elaborated on, and you cannot just simply assume that because we had them on Reach, that they will carry over the usage into Halo 4.

 

One thing does bother me. You call out people who use cammo and sniping from afar.....yet you (MLG, not you in particular) will backup and say that BxR or BxB in Halo 2 or Halo 3 was aye ok? Little hypocritical isn't it. In fact ask around the MLG circuit. Guarantee everyone says that button combos are just fine. Well I guess they are crying because cammo AA and sniper is something ANYONE can do, and not just a handfull of people who had to use a "cheap button combo" to get the easy "handed to" kills. Sniping with cammo AA is just as much a skill as anything. Using any wepaon with cammo reveals you, and the sniper contrail will point you towards the sniper. If your not good enough to make your way to him by evading his shots or out smarting him...then I see no reason why he does not deserve the kills he got.

[Constantly]

No. Everyone's skill was inhibited by the bloom in Halo 1. They went from bloom to no bloom; where shots became more accurate in Halo 2. Accuracy was rewarded. By re-introducing the bloom in Reach they have inhibited that skill once again.

 

How do you think map control is going to work in Halo 4 when weapon spawns become random? Gonna hold down the whole map are ya? Or does this help further level the playing field?

 

I'm failing to make the connection you're making between comparing a glitch in the game (which took a level of skill to utilize) to a mechanic built into the game that allows snipers to always get the first shot on someone. It's not hypocritical. If you could BxR someone from across the map, then ya, I'd say it is.

 

Why take the BR, which is arguably the most loved weapon in the game, out? That would have to be a weird bloom wouldn't it? They took it out so they can add a weapon that would ultimately be less accurate UNLESS they shoot slower, giving people spraying their AR's more time. Thanks for all the single shot weapons Reach, you've left a bland taste in my mouth after that one.

 

People adapted and loved the previous titles. I pick up what you were throwing down with that. But why did Reach fall short, especially if it "opened up a whole new level of skill"? Halo 3 was MLG's proverbial poster boy. Reach's future isn't looking so good. And don't blame it on other games. People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD.

[fzdw11]

No. Everyone's skill was inhibited by the bloom in Halo 1. They went from bloom to no bloom; where shots became more accurate in Halo 2. Accuracy was rewarded. By re-introducing the bloom in Reach they have inhibited that skill once again.

 

How do you think map control is going to work in Halo 4 when weapon spawns become random? Gonna hold down the whole map are ya? Or does this help further level the playing field?

 

I'm failing to make the connection you're making between comparing a glitch in the game (which took a level of skill to utilize) to a mechanic built into the game that allows snipers to always get the first shot on someone. It's not hypocritical. If you could BxR someone from across the map, then ya, I'd say it is.

 

Why take the BR, which is arguably the most loved weapon in the game, out? That would have to be a weird bloom wouldn't it? They took it out so they can add a weapon that would ultimately be less accurate UNLESS they shoot slower, giving people spraying their AR's more time. Thanks for all the single shot weapons Reach, you've left a bland taste in my mouth after that one.

 

People adapted and loved the previous titles. I pick up what you were throwing down with that. But why did Reach fall short, especially if it "opened up a whole new level of skill"? Halo 3 was MLG's proverbial poster boy. Reach's future isn't looking so good. And don't blame it on other games. People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD.

 

The bloom for a BR would have been the same as the DMR, the only difference, instead of 1 shot being spread throughout the bloom, you would have 3 shots. As for the DMR being slower, giving the people with an assault rifle a chance, is this: the DMR was meant to be a mid/long to long range weapon. It was not designed to substitute the automatic weapons for short to short/mid range. People trying to spam the DMR in close quarters when their opponent has an AR are just asking to be killed. You switch over to a weapon better suited to that type of combat.

 

Yes, people adapted to the changes in Halo 2 and Halo 3. they loved the games. Reach fell short because, unlike in Halo 2 and Halo 3, people refused to accept the changes. Not because they were "bad" and not because "AL is overpowered". People refused because they felt Halo drifted too far off the beaten path that they knew and loved. They never wanted Reach to succeed, because they couldn't adapt to the new play style. And yes, Reach has a new play style, one that was never seen in a prior Halo game.

 

And you also put it right on the shoulders of the people in your last two sentences. "People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD." Why were people looking for a new game?

[Constantly]

The bloom for a BR would have been the same as the DMR, the only difference, instead of 1 shot being spread throughout the bloom, you would have 3 shots. As for the DMR being slower, giving the people with an assault rifle a chance, is this: the DMR was meant to be a mid/long to long range weapon. It was not designed to substitute the automatic weapons for short to short/mid range. People trying to spam the DMR in close quarters when their opponent has an AR are just asking to be killed. You switch over to a weapon better suited to that type of combat.

 

Yes, people adapted to the changes in Halo 2 and Halo 3. they loved the games. Reach fell short because, unlike in Halo 2 and Halo 3, people refused to accept the changes. Not because they were "bad" and not because "AL is overpowered". People refused because they felt Halo drifted too far off the beaten path that they knew and loved. They never wanted Reach to succeed, because they couldn't adapt to the new play style. And yes, Reach has a new play style, one that was never seen in a prior Halo game.

 

And you also put it right on the shoulders of the people in your last two sentences. "People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD." Why were people looking for a new game?

 

I'll answer that with a quote: "Halo drifted too far off the beaten path that they knew and loved. Reach has a new playstyle, one that was never seen in a prior Halo game."

 

I played and played Reach trying to like it. I REALLY wanted to like it. But the gameplay was not the same. Thus, the experience was not the same. This was a different game and one that I couldn't get into. So I went looking for a better one.

 

The AR guy gets more time to fire. That was my point. Not what weapon you should be using. So you could either say that they increased the viablitly of the AR at long range or decreased the DMR's at short range.

[fzdw11]

The AR guy gets more time to fire. That was my point. Not what weapon you should be using. So you could either say that they increased the viablitly of the AR at long range or decreased the DMR's at short range.

 

But it is absolutely about what weapon you are using. Why should a weapon that's designed for optimal use at mid/long to long ranges beat out a weapon designed specifically for short to short/mid range? The AR at long range is near worthless, the DMR will tear them apart. On the flip side of that, the DMR at short range isn't nearly as worthless as the AR is at long range, but the AR should still win, and most of the time does as long as the person knows how to aim and shoot.

 

As for the rest, I can respect that you didn't enjoy Reach. That's your opinion and everybody is entitled to one. I think you and I have gone back and forth on this quite a bit, actually. While Halo did drift, like I stated previously, to me it still felt like Halo. Was it the same Halo? Absolutely not, it was a new Halo. One that I personally liked better.

[Constantly]

But it is absolutely about what weapon you are using. Why should a weapon that's designed for optimal use at mid/long to long ranges beat out a weapon designed specifically for short to short/mid range? The AR at long range is near worthless, the DMR will tear them apart. On the flip side of that, the DMR at short range isn't nearly as worthless as the AR is at long range, but the AR should still win, and most of the time does as long as the person knows how to aim and shoot.

 

As for the rest, I can respect that you didn't enjoy Reach. That's your opinion and everybody is entitled to one. I think you and I have gone back and forth on this quite a bit, actually. While Halo did drift, like I stated previously, to me it still felt like Halo. Was it the same Halo? Absolutely not, it was a new Halo. One that I personally liked better.

 

I'm really not trying to argue your DMR, AR thing. My point was something else.

 

Let me ask you this. Did you play Halo 2 and 3? If so, how much? Have you played any of them recenty? Did you play higher-end stuff/ competitively? I'm asking you this because you prefer Reach and I want to understand it. I ask that you answer, but try to keep from bringing up Reach.

 

I'm not trying to be a d*ck with these questions. And I'm not going to say anything negative about any of your answers. After all, there was no wrong way to play Halo 2 and 3

[Krinn3]

I find it hilarious when people get on these forums and start raging about skill. Why? Why does it matter? I'll be honest, im not a competitive player, but ive been told before that i have a good k/d and that i play well. I dont try to, i just have fun with the game. I do things i think would be awesome if it works, or do things that are just stupid fun. I've played H1, H3, and Reach ( i unfortunately missed the boat on H2). Why do people insist on playing a game to try to be the best? Sure sometimes i get a little competitive, but i always try to have the most fun possible with a game. Taking everything so seriously only sets yourself up for frustration and rage qutitting.

 

I hate to be this guy, but a game is just a game. It was designed for you to have fun. And before this is used against me, i know there are tournaments for games, and that people can win prize money, but the intended purpose of video games is to have fun. Halo is one of the funnest games i have ever played, but when ppl start talking MLG to me or about skill, it does nothing but make me laugh at the fact that thats what these ppl have to be good at to feel like winners. (I'm not singling anyone out with this comment btw.)

[fzdw11]

Loved Halo 2 and 3 each respectively, however didn't have XBox Live when 2 was out, so never had the opportunity to play it there. Played it a ton over LANs, though. Just about every weekend there was a LAN at somebody's house. Did the same thing with CE. Didn't want to purchase it again when it came out for PC, though, so that's that.

 

Halo 3 was similar in experience. Didn't get Live until I think late 2009, but tons of LAN's prior to that. But, from the time I had Live till Reach came out (and I didn't jump on the Reach bandwagon until Christmas 2010), I got in 466 games playing roughly on average one night a week. 466 games, most of which were social due to my gf (now wife) wanting to play, and her not having a Live account. What few ranked games I did play (64 total), got me to a lowly high skill of 14 in Lone Wolves with maybe less than 25 of my ranked matches being played there. (Checked numbers on b.net, didn't count total games played in Lone Wolves since it's not available easily enough.)

 

As for playing recently, the most recent experiences in each was going back through the campaigns on Legendary, since it was something I never got around to doing, but no MM.

 

So to answer your question about higher-end/competitively, no, never had the opportunity to really delve into it.

[Twinreaper]

I also respect your views on reach, but I do take issue with people and their misconceptions about bloom. Bloom was never argued about in Halo 1 at all. Halo 2 had bloom but it was a constant, not gradual bloom. Halo 3 had the same constant defined bloom, but was a bit different in settings compared to Halo 2. Overall, peoples issue is only with the precision weapons. Noone ever talks about the bloom settings on any other weapon...why is that? No really, answer it for me. I fail to see why so many people are so hung up on pinpoint weapons. To me, it sounds like that's their only skill then, pinpoint weapons. I'm trying to understand it but noone has really offered any good viable explanation for it.

 

Map control will still work, but it was already stated that the random weapon drops can be figured out and actually timed. That was directly taken from Frankie himself. The interpretation that all weapon drops will be completely random at all times was taken out of context. If I ever do get my hands on another jtag or dev console, I will try my best to provide you or anyone else with tag data that may reveal the timing and fluctuations in the netgame tags.

 

You do have to realize though, the gaming market right now is extremely volatile, and did not help Halo gain sales with Reach. As I had stated before, if the market was not as flooded with next gen titles and you took out major contenders like BF and CoD, people would only be left with an obvious choice in FPS title. I will say that Reach's evolution did not help much, but it is soley not to blame for it's decline or less than stellar performance. It's easy to blame game mechanics when a title fails....unless that is, you do some real research and come to realistic conclusions about a games marketability and competition.

 

I mean look, I get what you are saying about Halo 4's outlook and I agree I don't like the direction it is heading. I'm a hardcore Halo modder, been around since H1 and created hundreds upon hundreds of content extensions for all titles except Reach. I'm with you in wanting a more Halo 2/ Halo 3 gameplay playing field, but realistically I look at things from a dev and company view as well. It makes sense that Halo HAS to evolve to truely stay competitive with other titles.

 

To answer your question from my end, I have played more hours/days/weeks/years than I can count. I still play halo 2 to this day, and run servers for both halo 2 and Halo 1. But I do prefer Reach's attempt at MM. I am a casual gamer, and I liked the pace Reach provided and the options in playing. I liked the refined "error angle" (bloom) mechanic that they perfected. I say perfected because a true "error angle" should not be a pre-defined radius...it should grow or change depend on how the weapon is used. Now I never played Halo 2 or Halo 3 competitively outside my own servers or with CñR. But I liked a lot of new mechanic techniques they introduced. For me Halo 2 and Halo 3 will always fall short with the shotty tag work invloved. Had a little more care been taken in the wepaon tag handling designs....it could have been a much better game, Halo 3. Halo 2 was doomed from the start and is still very much a broken failed version of Halo. The only thing that saved it was the MM and the coming of Xbox Live that was introduced because of Halo 2.

[Constantly]

I find it hilarious when people get on these forums and start raging about skill. Why? Why does it matter? I'll be honest, im not a competitive player, but ive been told before that i have a good k/d and that i play well. I dont try to, i just have fun with the game. I do things i think would be awesome if it works, or do things that are just stupid fun. I've played H1, H3, and Reach ( i unfortunately missed the boat on H2). Why do people insist on playing a game to try to be the best? Sure sometimes i get a little competitive, but i always try to have the most fun possible with a game. Taking everything so seriously only sets yourself up for frustration and rage qutitting.

 

I hate to be this guy, but a game is just a game. It was designed for you to have fun. And before this is used against me, i know there are tournaments for games, and that people can win prize money, but the intended purpose of video games is to have fun. Halo is one of the funnest games i have ever played, but when ppl start talking MLG to me or about skill, it does nothing but make me laugh at the fact that thats what these ppl have to be good at to feel like winners. (I'm not singling anyone out with this comment btw.)

 

I think this is a good post. And I can see how someone who feels this way would be able to enjoy Reach. Not saying there is anything wrong with it. I would love to like Reach.

 

It's not about being the best for me. It was more fun to be in a BR battle with someone than to be floating up in the air raining down on people. I liked the fact that you could avoid being rushed by the sword guy simply by backing up. The way I was killed in Halo 3 was more enjoyable than the way I'm killed in Reach and same goes for the way I kill people. And essentially that's all the game is.

[Constantly]

Loved Halo 2 and 3 each respectively, however didn't have XBox Live when 2 was out, so never had the opportunity to play it there. Played it a ton over LANs, though. Just about every weekend there was a LAN at somebody's house. Did the same thing with CE. Didn't want to purchase it again when it came out for PC, though, so that's that.

 

Halo 3 was similar in experience. Didn't get Live until I think late 2009, but tons of LAN's prior to that. But, from the time I had Live till Reach came out (and I didn't jump on the Reach bandwagon until Christmas 2010), I got in 466 games playing roughly on average one night a week. 466 games, most of which were social due to my gf (now wife) wanting to play, and her not having a Live account. What few ranked games I did play (64 total), got me to a lowly high skill of 14 in Lone Wolves with maybe less than 25 of my ranked matches being played there. (Checked numbers on b.net, didn't count total games played in Lone Wolves since it's not available easily enough.)

 

As for playing recently, the most recent experiences in each was going back through the campaigns on Legendary, since it was something I never got around to doing, but no MM.

 

So to answer your question about higher-end/competitively, no, never had the opportunity to really delve into it.

 

I think that when you play high-end/competitively you get a really good understanding of how the game works. You understand why people go to different places in the map. You get to know exactly the radius of a grenade, which jumps you can make, where you need to position yourself, the best way to take out a sniper, etc. You get to understanding in such great detail every facet of the game and how you can utilize it to your advantage. These are the things that make the game awesome.

 

These are the same things that are disrupted by added features. Things that casual gamers really don't seem to notice or mind but people who used to play competitively will give up on completely.

 

They may add features that people can tell you to accept or learn to adapt, but in the end you just don't want to. They're not as fun as they were in previous games. It's not worth the time.

[fzdw11]

Ah

I think that when you play high-end/competitively you get a really good understanding of how the game works. You understand why people go to different places in the map. You get to know exactly the radius of a grenade, which jumps you can make, where you need to position yourself, the best way to take out a sniper, etc. You get to understanding in such great detail every facet of the game and how you can utilize it to your advantage. These are the things that make the game awesome.

 

These are the same things that are disrupted by added features. Things that casual gamers really don't seem to notice or mind but people who used to play competitively will give up on completely.

 

They may add features that people can tell you to accept or learn to adapt, but in the end you just don't want to. They're not as fun as they were in previous games. It's not worth the time.

 

Ah, so we get right down to it then, don't we? So just because somebody doesn't play competitively means they don't learn to do those things anyway? And to say that those specific things are what makes the game awesome? Really? Learning the exact radius of an exploding grenade makes the game awesome? You've gotta be kidding me. This right here is why people call MLG silly, a waste of time, pointless, try hards. This. I can go back through Halo 2, and I still know what jumps I can make, what jumps I can't, etc. Learning a game isn't reserved strictly to competitive play. Does competitive play help you learn it, make you learn it? Absolutely, but just because somebody doesn't play competitively doesn't mean that they haven't learned it as well.

 

And because these things are now "disrupted" by added features, the competitive player gives up? Isn't that being a hypocrite on the competitive players part? They are competitive, but these new features "changed how I play, so I'm not going to play. I give up." Adding features to a game tends to improve the game for the better. Now did Reach get everything right? No, of course not. They could have done things better, absolutely. But to give up on a game simply because you don't want to learn something new? I laugh at that "competitive" player.

 

Not wanting to adapt is what causes the downfall of franchises. Not wanting to change a thing leads to the same game being produced year after year, and eventually the fans get frustrated by it. They stop finding enjoyment in it. They stop buying it. They're not as fun as they were in previous games. Because, in the end, it's not worth the time.

[Constantly]

Ah

 

 

Ah, so we get right down to it then, don't we? So just because somebody doesn't play competitively means they don't learn to do those things anyway? And to say that those specific things are what makes the game awesome? Really? Learning the exact radius of an exploding grenade makes the game awesome? You've gotta be kidding me. This right here is why people call MLG silly, a waste of time, pointless, try hards. This. I can go back through Halo 2, and I still know what jumps I can make, what jumps I can't, etc. Learning a game isn't reserved strictly to competitive play. Does competitive play help you learn it, make you learn it? Absolutely, but just because somebody doesn't play competitively doesn't mean that they haven't learned it as well.

 

And because these things are now "disrupted" by added features, the competitive player gives up? Isn't that being a hypocrite on the competitive players part? They are competitive, but these new features "changed how I play, so I'm not going to play. I give up." Adding features to a game tends to improve the game for the better. Now did Reach get everything right? No, of course not. They could have done things better, absolutely. But to give up on a game simply because you don't want to learn something new? I laugh at that "competitive" player.

 

Not wanting to adapt is what causes the downfall of franchises. Not wanting to change a thing leads to the same game being produced year after year, and eventually the fans get frustrated by it. They stop finding enjoyment in it. They stop buying it. They're not as fun as they were in previous games. Because, in the end, it's not worth the time.

 

No.

 

You flipped that around exactly like an angry girlfriend of mine would.

 

You totally missed my point and took offense to that. My B.

[fzdw11]

Didn't take offense to it, just pointing out the flawed logic, is all. Rebuting what you had to say. Isn't that what a friendly debate is all about? So tell me, what did I flip around, and what point did I miss?

[Constantly]

You missed the point of the whole post. Try re-reading it as if some MLG player didn't pick on you in school.

[fzdw11]

If I missed the whole point of the post (which you like to claim a lot, by the way, just saying), then why not make the point clear for me? What I took from it is pretty simple. Tell me if I'm wrong, and then tell me what you meant by it.

1. When you play competitively, you get a really good understanding of the little nuances of the game. My refute? You can get the same by playing the game, regardless of being competitive or not.
   
2. By adding features, the nuances that you claim you learn by playing competitively are destroyed. My refute? Competitive gamers giving up on things seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why would somebody that's "competitive" not try to better themselves and their play by learning how to use the new features to their advantage?
   
3. They added these features that people who play competitively don't want to learn (adapt to), and that they don't find fun (which I have no problem with, mind. If you don't find it fun, you don't find it fun, that's your opinion.). My refute? Not adapting (changing things, adding features, etc) a franchise leads to the downfall of said franchise. If the game always stayed the same, people would become bored with it.
   

So again, if I misunderstood, let me know where, cause I really am curious.

[Havoc]

Just don't make Halo 4 like Reach! It is the worst Halo to date in fun/competitiveness!

[Bubonic Blood]

You know why 343 is not like by me? Because their decisions. YES! 343 is comprised of older bungie employees including some newer employees, but that DOESN'T matter. They scrapped all the music, they have gotten RID of the playable ELITES. And if you've been a die-hard Halo fan for a long time, then you should be pissed off too, considering that the elites have been playable in most of the series. It's like 343 took a large dump on us and said, " Here, try this guys" and you guys are just eating it up.

 

Being hit with a a significant warning! I missed this post initially.

 

Absolute Dog

Edited April 12, 2012 by Absolute Dog
A warning to the poster and readers. Cyan denotes alterations in the post.

[Unease Peanut]

You know why 343 >>>>>>>>>>>? Because their decisions. YES! 343 is comprised of older bungie employees including some newer employees, but that DOESN'T matter. They scrapped all the music, they have gotten RID of the playable ELITES. And if you've been a die-hard Halo fan for a long time, then you should be pissed off too, considering that the elites have been playable in most of the series. It's like 343 took a large dump on us and said, " Here, try this >>>>>>>>>" and you guys are just eating it up.

So I am not a true halo fan because I have faith in 343i?

 

Personally I dont care about the playable elites.

Have you heard the music? It sounds freeaking awesome!

 

I have faith... so should you

[Ccup-mann]

 

So I am not a true halo fan because I have faith in 343i?

 

Personally I dont care about the playable elites.

Have you heard the music? It sounds freeaking awesome!

 

I have faith... so should you

This is the attitude that everyone should have, be positive everyone, adapt to change, have faith in 343

[Bubonic Blood]

So I am not a true halo fan because I have faith in 343i?

 

Personally I dont care about the playable elites.

Have you heard the music? It sounds freeaking awesome!

 

I have faith... so should you

 

That's not what I said obviously. Why should I have faith in a company that is ruining the beloved Halo series? The fact that they removed playable elites from Halo is just evidence to support my theory that some of their newer employees like Kiki Wolfkill are the reason that this game is going to be horrible. I've been a fanboy too long, always turning my cheek to their stupid decisions, but they have the nerve to say that they listen to the fans....and turn around and remove something that I've never even seen a complaint about! People bitched constantly about AAs, like I gave a **** about that, but come on! They're hopeless! They've conformed to the generic shooter of 2012 and they don't deserve my faith. Obviously if they had an IQ above 60, they'd know they would get a negative reaction from limiting the possibilities and preference options. I mean, they talk about a new game mode called "Spartan OPs" which is going to have the same objective as "Spec OPs" from CoD, and I'm glad that it will have a new game mode, but that just supports the fact that they've conformed to 2012's generic fps. It's like they think that everyone wants a "realistic" game. What the **** is realistic about a video game? Halo was the different shooter, and when people rated video games, they usually compared it to Halo...but now...I just couldn't see that happening anymore.

 

Honestly, if you have been in love with Halo since it's original release, then you'd probably understand that just because things evolve, doesn't mean we should have to follow it when it starts rolling down hill.

[fzdw11]

That's not what I said obviously. Why should I have faith in a company that is ruining the beloved Halo series? The fact that they removed playable elites from Halo is just evidence to support my theory that some of their newer employees like Kiki Wolfkill are the reason that this game is going to be horrible. I've been a fanboy too long, always turning my cheek to their stupid decisions, but they have the nerve to say that they listen to the fans....and turn around and remove something that I've never even seen a complaint about! People bitched constantly about AAs, like I gave a **** about that, but come on! They're hopeless! They've conformed to the generic shooter of 2012 and they don't deserve my faith. Obviously if they had an IQ above 60, they'd know they would get a negative reaction from limiting the possibilities and preference options. I mean, they talk about a new game mode called "Spartan OPs" which is going to have the same objective as "Spec OPs" from gay ass CoD, and I'm glad that it will have a new game mode, but that just supports the fact that they've conformed to 2012's generic fps. It's like they think that everyone wants a "realistic" game. What the **** is realistic about a video game? Halo was the different shooter, and when people rated video games, they usually compared it to Halo...but now...I just couldn't see that happening anymore.

 

Honestly, if you have been in love with Halo since it's original release, then you'd probably understand that just because things evolve, doesn't mean we should have to follow it when it starts rolling down hill.

 

If I may ask, what has you so worried about 343? They scraped the music? Funny, I saw the video yesterday with them talking to the composors and producers, and if the music in the background was any indication, then I think the music is going to be great. Yeah, they don't have Marty anymore, but who's to say that it wasn't his choice to not continue with the series?

 

Honestly, playable Elites, while fun at times, meh. I rarely used them, typically went with a spartan. And my friends? Out of all of those who play, only 1 ever choose to be an elite over a Spartan. I rarely saw elites in Matchmade games in Halo 3. Is taking out elites really that big of a deal? In my mind, no. Could they have left them in? Maybe, but why did they take them out? We don't know, they may have a good reason.

 

As for "Spartan Ops" vs. "Spec Ops" - Yes, the names are similar. Yes, they have a similar function. But if you can't accept that without change, series tend to disappear in the night, then you could say goodbye to Halo regardless of whether you wanted it to go away or not. How is taking an item from another game (which, keep in mind, all game companies do), incorporating it into a new game and making it unique to that new game, a bad thing? We don't know how Spartan Ops is going to play. We're assuming it will be like Spec Ops from CoD, but that's just speculation.

 

It's still too early and we don't have enough information to fully form an adequate opinion on what 343i is doing with the series. So until then, I have faith that they will do it justice.

[Twinreaper]

Constantly, that comment about MLG kids picking on him in school was uncalled for. Don't try to be an internet tough guy, and please be kinder to the members here. I personally take issue with your analysis of competative players learning the workings of the game better than casual. If you wanna go that route pal, I can first hand tell you I know how the game works better than ANY MLG kid. I'm an old school generation 1 modder from back before Halo. I have taken apart, recompiled and created more assets than I can count, and I KNOW the workings of the game far better than anyone else. That is a FACT.

 

But look guys, this is all getting way out of hand. This thread in particular is a shining example of why no game company of individual dev will ever take this community seriously. This thread alone shows the great dividing line that has fractured this now fragile and broken community way past any turning point. The Halo community has become the proverbial laughing stock of the gaming world. We used to hold a lot of credibility, and now we are nothing more than a bunch of segregated cry babies whom can't even calmly talk or argue with any valid points or glimmer of comradery. This alone is what killing Halo for us, and it does not look to me as if it will change unless soemone finally stands up and calls for communal understanding and peace. You want 343i to take us seriously? You want 343i to make a game we want? Well thats great, but before any of us can put a say in, we need to start healing the wounds we created amongst ourselves first.

 

Bubonic, I respect you as a member but I have come to expect more from you in terms of dealing with members in the threads. I found your post to be quite insulting. Please remember that you are an older member here and a role model of sorts for your high knowledge of the Halo Universe. Please try to keep the hate and rants in check for me, please? End rant, and end participation in this thread.

[DerpWithAGun]

Halo is not CoD, it NEVER will be. So running around as a augmented super soldier who's bones are made from titanium, weighs 1 tonne and has shields is CoD? 5 bullets to the head is CoD? Spartan Ops is not CoD. Just because it has "Ops" in it's name doesn't mean that they copied CoD. Ops is abbreviated for Operations. Just because CoD used the word Operations doesn't mean that no other FPS can use it. "OH NOES! CoD has firearms in it that shoot bullets omgz Halo also has firearms nah I'm leaving Halo it copied CoD!!!" Elites not being able to be played is not a big deal. I can understand the fustration for people who make Machinima. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/7547-halo-4-dmr-image-interesting/ Look at Biggle's post. Top right of that picture it sais: "Competitive multiplayer focuses on Spartan IVs. Elites will not be playable." See this phrase here? It talks about Competitive Multiplayer . Custom games or social playlists are not competitive which means there is a still a glimmer of hope that Elites are playable in custom games. Don't go around saying 343i stuffed up when they didn't. I also think the music is FANTASTIC! Quit whining about how this game will be a failure when no one has seen any proper gameplay footage or any information about custom games, forge, ect. The only people who know are 343i employees.

[Constantly]

If I missed the whole point of the post (which you like to claim a lot, by the way, just saying), then why not make the point clear for me? What I took from it is pretty simple. Tell me if I'm wrong, and then tell me what you meant by it.

1. When you play competitively, you get a really good understanding of the little nuances of the game. My refute? You can get the same by playing the game, regardless of being competitive or not.
   
2. By adding features, the nuances that you claim you learn by playing competitively are destroyed. My refute? Competitive gamers giving up on things seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why would somebody that's "competitive" not try to better themselves and their play by learning how to use the new features to their advantage?
   
3. They added these features that people who play competitively don't want to learn (adapt to), and that they don't find fun (which I have no problem with, mind. If you don't find it fun, you don't find it fun, that's your opinion.). My refute? Not adapting (changing things, adding features, etc) a franchise leads to the downfall of said franchise. If the game always stayed the same, people would become bored with it.
   

So again, if I misunderstood, let me know where, cause I really am curious.

 

First, the MLG kid reference was because you immediately opposed my post without realizing that I wasn't claiming that casuals can't figure out the game as much as competitive people. You're opinion was biased and you took that and ran with it. It was my attempt to try and find common ground and maybe help you understand where I was coming from. That was my point.

 

1. Agreed. Again, I wasn't arguing that. But then I think competitve players will go the extra mile to figure stuff out. Like watching videos or checking in custom games. Not the point, on to #2

 

2. Because, for me, those new features aren't fun. H3 had me coming back because I enjoyed it's features and wanted to learn/master them. That's what good games do. That's where Reach failed for me.

 

3. So were their options to radically change the game or face having people leave out of boredom? CoD doesn't seem to have that issue. It just seems to me that they could have done things differently.

 

Twinreaper: When I say a "better understanding" by competitive players it's because they are the ones who usually are putting more time into the game. Their not modding, tearing anything apart, they're just becoming more aware of what's going on the more they play. That's not to say (and I didn't say) that casual gamers don't understand the game.