[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hongu Please note: This is directed towards fez479's comment on the first page. I'm new, and sort of a noob, and I don't really know how to reply to other's messages, so just pretend this is a reply to his post. I don't understand how you can compare Halo 4 to Call of Duty. It seems like you're just searching for some asinine reason to hate on Halo 4 and 343i, but I'll hear you out. Let's go over some features in the multiplayer that many tote around as 'plagiarizing' Call of Duty, shall we? 1. Sprinting - This is an extremely common practice nowadays in video games. The fact that some people still claim this as as knock-off of Call of Duty is just fishing for some excuse to latch onto. 2. Pointstreaks - Okay, I will admit, there is some slight similarities here, but it is extremely minor. Once again, rewarding players for kills and performance is quite a common feature in many shooters nowadays. The rewards and system themselves aren't too similar either. In Call of Duty, you pick a certain Killstreak reward for a certain amount of kills. In Halo 4, your ordinance randomly appears after a few successful kills, and you get the chance to obtain weapons or power-ups. Not many similarities there. 3. 'Perks' - The fact that people even dare to call these perks is ignorant. Yes, any feature that gives your character a certain customizable ability must be a knockoff of Call of Duty! Because they were totally the first to practice this, and Halo was definitely the first to 'copy' it. None of them are even similar, the only I can think of is having two primary weapons. 4. - Loadouts - Still not getting you here. Many games, even before Call of Duty, have granted the ability to freely choose certain weapons and equipment to your liking. 5. - Armor Abilities - No, not even close. Nothing, I mean NOTHING about Armor Abilities even come close to resembling Call of Duty. Seriously, I don't understand. ...That's all I can think of at the moment. Gun camos also come to mind, but whoever complains about that I really do not understand. But I DO see where you are coming from. The gameplay generally feels faster paced, more intense, a bit reminiscent of Call of Duty. Halo has been known to take things a bit slower, and I understand how the sudden evolution of gameplay can leave some devoted fans scratching their heads. Most modern first-person-shooters play similar to Halo, and, yes, Call of Duty. In general, the FPS is a tired genre that is slowly running out of ideas. The fact that most developers have exhausted every feature they can think of isn't too surprising, and the fact that Halo 4 has joined the practice shouldn't be either. Also, get this. Most likely, many of the reasons you probably think Halo 4 is ripping off of Call of Duty, BUNGIE HAD INTRODUCED TO HALO PRIOR. So simply putting the blame on 343i really makes you show your true colors. But who knows, maybe I could be wrong. I mean, I wasn't even here when Halo: Reach was released, so I don't know your opinion on that game. Please don't take this as a threat or me attacking you, I'm simply stating how I disagree with your claims. [/quote] I'd like to start out by saying that I really liked 343 before any information came out about Halo 4. They stepped in and did what Bungie refused to do: patch the game, and fixed of my major qualm about Reach (more on my thoughts on Reach later), which was Armor Lock. I was very excited about Halo 4, and sadly all that excitement turned into anger as soon as the first info about Halo 4 came out. Now onto your numbered arguments: 1. I have to admit that I kinda like Sprint. It's turned Halo 4 into a much faster paced game, which it seems to have needed. That's one thing I'll say I can't complain about Halo 4: the base gameplay. Most of it I very much like (hate that the AR is so good, though. Just another example of Halo 4 ruining competitive play and moving towards CoD). 2. The killstreaks are one of the major Call of Duty elements that have been added into the game, and I would really like Halo to do without them. It just adds a viable camping aspect to the game as well as kinda disrupts the balance between those who own the power weapons and those who don't, either making it harder for you to come back or easier to lone wolf it. Not teamplay. Not fun. Not Halo. 3. I find it really interesting that you think that perks are okay because this is actually the #1 reason why I refuse to get this game. I can't even believe that you refuse to admit that any of these perks are similar when every single one is (Dexterity = Sleight of Hand, Shielding = Juggernaut, Mobility = Marathon, Firepower = Overkill, Resupply(something they SPECIFICALLY added into the game) = Scavenger, Grenadier = Extra Pockets, Ammo = Bandolier, Explosives = Danger Close, Wetworks = Dead Silence, Ordinance Priority = Hardline). Perks make the game so random that it just adds tons frustration and wtf moments, and are also quite unbalanced. To say that perks aren't CoD because every game uses them now is absurd. Every game uses perks because they want to be like CoD! I don't want Halo to be like CoD. I want it to stop using perks. I want Halo to not have random and unbalanced gameplay, and perks are the main offender. Gameplay customization is often (Tribes does well) the culprit for unbalanced, unable-to-be-competitive gameplay. 4. I don't think you get what I'm saying. I don't care who made these crappy game mechanics. Call of Duty popularized them so I'll refer to them as CoD mechanics. The fact of the matter is that they suck. They don't work. They ruin gameplay. This game tried to make the customization balanced, but they were stupid and added the Lightrifle (kills in 3 shots to head compared to BR/DMR's 5 and shoots just as fast) and the Plasma Grenade (always has been better than Frag and still is) to the mix, creating obvious potential for imbalance. 5. Eh. I don't really think that Armor Abilities are too CoD-ey (neither do I think I said that...), but they can be annoying. I'd rather just everyone have a Jetpack/Thruster Pack. It certainly makes the game imbalanced when you take into account the ranking system, which queues me to talk about some of the other CoD mechanics in the game. Extras: 6. Ranking system. Now Reach had a crappy ranking system like this before, but it didn't affect gameplay, and now it does. You are forced to not have an AA besides the preset class (Hologram), and those who play the game more than you can use the Lightrifle and Plasma Grenades. Sounds balanced, and fun. 7. Points system. There's no reason why Halo moved from 1 point a kill to 10 points a kill besides to be more like CoD. Not to mention that nowadays you get more points for stylized kills, which ruins the game. I want to win because we killed them more, not because we stuck them more. 8. Spartan Ops. C'mon, they didn't even change the name of this crap. This is just Spec Ops with a story. Now obviously you don't know much about Halo because Halo was always very fast paced until very recently when Reach and, to and extent kinda maybe, Halo 3 came out. I will definitely say that the FPS genre is in no way finished because it's not that it is running out of ideas, but that EVERYONE KEEPS DOING THE SAME IDEA: Call Of -blam!- Duty. There are some very original ideas out there (Tribes for example is completely different than any FPS game, though not a new game of course, and hopefully Destiny will be very original). I want to talk a little bit about why I liked Reach and not Halo 4. Reach was a strategic game. Pros hated it because it kinda screwed with marksmanship, but they were a bit too stubborn. I liked Reach because the default settings (AR, Magnum) were very marksmanship oriented and allowed for a lot of strategic planning with AAs. The magnum could outshoot an AR in ANY situation if you were a good shot, and I have always loved the magnum (since Halo CE). That's why I liked Reach. P.S. Don't pretend like your obvious passive aggressive attitude isn't disrespectful/clearly an attack. [Edited on 12.10.2012 9:24 PM PST]