Oh boy. I want to state this in the beginning in hopes that I don't get randomly slammed for thinking there is nothing wrong with halo 5 or that people complaining is not important. Everyone's feelings are important regardless of how they choose to show them. I'm not saying all of halo 5's complaints are like this. But this link to a post that i'm about to show is a general idea of what kind of hate halo has received through out it's life span. This kind of hate is not unique to halo 5. The point of this post rather is to help people understand why this kind of post shouldn't be taken seriously ever. his/her frustration should be. But not the logic they present. https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0acdaee3cc4156fd4/topics/halo-s-development-should-be-consistent-like-cod/55deb698-a108-4112-b56b-67e0f28f305c/posts Before I give bullet points on this post (and point out the flaw in each point) lets define what a logical fallacy is. [u]In philosophy, the term formal fallacy for logical fallacies and defined formally as: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.[/u] In other words there is a flaw in their reasoning. But the argument is presented in such a way that it seems smart. A quick example would be something like "Because bulletstorm had a very low online population count bulletstorm wasn't a good game." This is flawed because there are examples of games out there that have low populations but the gameplay itself is actually rather well done. titanfall is a good example of this. Population is also a vague term. Do they mean current active users? Or number of all time unique users? or are they referring to the average amount of players on during any given day? You don't know. So the sentence sounds smart. It uses words or a phrase left open enough that any individual could connect the dots an may see how the sentence is true. Anyway lets get into the actual post. ~The poster believes that call of duty is constantly a top seller because the series stays consistent. Or to put it more bluntly they don't believe out of the ENTIRE franchise that the games have changed. Even more so they believe it still all feels the same. [i]The flaws here are numerous. If we just looked at change alone we have several examples. Kill streaks used to not exist. customizing those streaks used to not exist. New gun types have been added in. New movement systems have been added in. The only truly consistent thing in the franchise is the mechanics around shooting. You still slow to a crawl when you ADS and the gun becomes far more accurate. Even the kill times have wildly changed. Ghosts/BO3 are widly known for being the fastest TTK in cod history. Call of duty is sucessfull for a variety of reasons. It's multiplatform and it's easy to pick up. The game makes you feel good for every action you do. etc. consistency might be a part of the reason but it's not the major one. Nor the only one. Hence the logical fallacy.[/i] ~The poster believes that halo 5 plays like call of duty. their logic is basically "you can thruster in black ops 3 and you can thruster in halo 5. therefore they play the same. [i]Oh boy. Lets just disregard for the moment that the OP hasn't even played halo 5 outside the beta which did make some changes to the full game. Just because a game has similar mechanics doesn't mean the game overall plays the same. That would be like me accusing any game ever that uses ADS the same way cod does as playing exactly like call of duty. I know this sounds silly to you. But that is because I summarized it. In reality when someone makes this kind of point they state it in a rather lengthy way that makes them sound similar. Usually by listing numerous examples. That is often another way to try and confuse people into thinking you know what you're talking about. But at the end of the day they don't play the same. Because the mechanics translate over differently. Not to mention the base of the game is entirely different. In cod you die near instantainously. In halo you take much longer to die. That right there is enough to set them apart from "playing the same." Halo 5 has ADS. but unlike most modern shooters it doesn't make much impact on the guns performance itself. it also doesn't slow you down and you get kicked out of it when being shot. While other shooters have done something similar to that it's not very common and more importantly it's not done by call of duty.[/i] ~The poster believes they know how halo 5 plays based upon past experiences with 343's titles and from watching several hours of footage of halo 5. [i]Of all the logical fallacies in his posts this is by far the closest one to making any kind of sense. You don't need to play a game to get the gist of how things typically work. and in a series there is usually consistency. Developers tend to make more of the same when making games. However passing over unbiased time spent actually trying something is a sore mistake and is very important to forming a well rounded opinion. And while dev's tend to make more of the same that's more on a broad spectrum. It doesn't dabble into details. Anyone with eyes can see that halo 4 played massively different then halo 5. But to the poster because it's made by 343 and they have seen the game in action they know how it is. I assumed that reach was terrible because they destroyed the original book lore when it got retconned. But after I set that aside and just played it rather then thinking about it I came away liking the story more then I originally did.[/i] ~The poster believes that the reason why halo 1-3 were sucessful is because they didn't change much if at all. and that if said changes were supposedly huge to how the game plays then 2 and 3 would have failed because reach 4 and 5 changed drastically and failed. He's basing this on population. [i]Halo CE had few weapons but a balanced sandbox where every gun was unique and useful. We had a health system and shield system. Melee's all did the same damage and had no lunge. Halo 2 brought dual wielding which changed the sandbox in a variety of ways. melee damage could vary based upon the weapon you had in your hand. no more health system. Halo 3 made the BR non hitscan which limited it drastically at range. Melee damage aside from 2 power weapons was normalized. Still no health system. I could go on. The point is factually there were a lot of changes. And while outloud some of them seemed minor most of them made drastic changes to combat. The poster is referring to it feeling the same. Which is contradictory just based on the fact that he hasn't really played halo 5 so he can't really say how it feels. On top of that if you compare halo 5 to all of the halo games it's factually closer to classic halo then reach or 4 was. They are referring to the "halo" feel. which is strafing, 4 shotting your opponent, bouncing nades, and finding interesting was to traverse the map faster VIA movement. all of which halo 5 features. And I've already been over the population argument in my example.[/i] ~The poster believes true classic original fans that like halo 5 do not exist or are in very small numbers. The Poster also believes that if we simply removed all of the new fluff like ADS and the spartan abilities and went back to classic halo that halo would once again be at the top for FPS games. The poster also frequently posts percentages or general statements without anything to really back them up. [i]People have already pointed out in the thread that they have been playing since CE and enjoy halo 5. I am also in that boat. And he's done nothing to back the small numbers claim. If classic was literally all halo needed to become popular again then games like the MCC would be flourishing. and classic playlists that have been added in the past would have worked. The MCC was a mess at the beginning. and classic playlists were not there in the begining. But while those are indeed factors I would argue they are largely irrelevent. See when you are a fan of something or "fanboy" if you prefer you love something to death. You wouldn't let small things like a date keep you back from going and enjoying it. Am I saying that those people are not actual fans? No. I however believe that if it's really all that they needed to enjoy the particular game/playlist was for it to be there in the beginning and working that they would have came back and played it eventually. However the population for those playlists never really grew. and MCC while it does have a steady population it isn't knocking down any doors in terms of popularity. So just going classic isn't enough. The franchise needs change to be relevant. How much change and what kind of change is a different debate that I don't feel like writing up at the moment. Without getting too far into the think tank there is several reasons for halo's decline that are important to know. But in my opinion the only one you really need to hear is that halo simply isn't what the consumers at mass want anymore. Arena shooting in general at least for console gaming has fallen off the radar nearly in terms of popularity. FPS genre as a whole has been seeing a decline over the years. So even if 343 brought exactly what the die hard fans want and launched with it I severely doubt it would peak at the top let alone have a steady population over more then 6 months.[/i] I would post more but it seems like i've hit the character limit. Hopefully the post taught some people something new or at least gave something to think about.