[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cay330 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] derka derka Halo 4 and Halo Reach are two different games. Typical gamer, judging a game before they've even played the finished product.[/quote] Halo Reach signalled a major move away in the series from the simple gameplay where there were not many factors to a game other than hard teamwork, power weapon locations & objectives to one where there's far less need for map control & one that's FAR more similar to this CoD style (because it is CoD style, that's what made it uber-mainsteam on consoles) of just run around the map getting kills individually & focussing on the objective far less (if there is one). It's not a healthy mix for 'core' Halo players & doesn't lend itself to high longevity, just compare Reach's current players at its current time in the lifecycle to H3's players 2 years after it came out. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] GodZillla the original halos were never just about teamwork ...they supported the lone wolf...halo4 is more about teamwork than any other halo game [/quote] That's bullcrap. Two competent people working together in H3 can take down a team of 7 incompetents easily in an objective gametype. The same cannot be said for Reach, due to the lower movement speed, worse spawns & a game which just doesn't lend itself well to teamwork anywhere near as much as 3 or 2 does.[/quote] Thank you for the input. Two brains is always better than one :)

Halo 4 complaint thread #113,613,713,713,619,385,713,761,236,936,236 is in the books.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] derka derka Halo 4 and Halo Reach are two different games. Typical gamer, judging a game before they've even played the finished product.[/quote] Halo Reach signalled a major move away in the series from the simple gameplay where there were not many factors to a game other than hard teamwork, power weapon locations & objectives to one where there's far less need for map control & one that's FAR more similar to this CoD style (because it is CoD style, that's what made it uber-mainsteam on consoles) of just run around the map getting kills individually & focussing on the objective far less (if there is one). It's not a healthy mix for 'core' Halo players & doesn't lend itself to high longevity, just compare Reach's current players at its current time in the lifecycle to H3's players 2 years after it came out. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] GodZillla the original halos were never just about teamwork ...they supported the lone wolf...halo4 is more about teamwork than any other halo game [/quote] That's bullcrap. Two competent people working together in H3 can take down a team of 7 incompetents easily in an objective gametype. The same cannot be said for Reach, due to the lower movement speed, worse spawns & a game which just doesn't lend itself well to teamwork anywhere near as much as 3 or 2 does. [Edited on 10.03.2012 10:20 AM PDT]

the original halos were never just about teamwork ...they supported the lone wolf...halo4 is more about teamwork than any other halo game reach sucking was the fault of AL and bloom ...both have been rectified halo with or without sprint doesnt make a difference...sprint is better i think and getting shot slows you down anyway in halo4 so chillout and for goodness sake....campaign and spartan ops are the only game modes that are actually taking palace in the halo universe ...everything else is a combat sim on infinity ...so they can have all the flood they want and itll still match canon

It's hard to convince someone on a subjective matter (yes I could use more details and examples). But i'm not here to win someone over. I know what I know and if someone else doesn't take it the same way, then so be it. The FPS genre is a naturally competitive one and everything that has happened since Reach has impeded this value. This is where I stand. And thanks for the offer. [Edited on 10.03.2012 10:09 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974[/quote] 1.) Then I don't see why strong theses are required in writing. Not only that, but you were talking about how Halo 4 is going to be another Reach, but then you started going into how the way your Spartan looks is bad and determines how a game will play. 2.) Okay. 3.) No. It's not like there's a way for someone to automatically spawn a power weapon at will. You still have to work for it, and it's not guaranteed that you'll get the kill. 4.) I don't see how it subtracts from competitive play when it adds another dynamic that requires more caution, thus requiring a more complex style of play. Again, it's not guaranteed that you will get a Shotgun in a re-rolled ordinance drop, let alone a re-roll, so stop depending on someone having a power weapon to try to make your point valid. I also don't see how having an individual playstyle when on a team is bad. People lone wolf all the time, it's not like they're bound to lose if they do. 5.) Again, I don't see where these definitions are coming from. Casual, competitive, kids... the only reason why they've come about is because MLG hotshots and big ego'd players alike come around town and act like they're so great that now I'm supposed to be insulted or a "casual" because I endorse a developer making a game the way they want, and not what some whiny sub-community wants? Sure. Still don't see how that's a middle finger to my ally, more like a middle finger to all the people who have the feel to complain. 6.) Not entirely sure about movement speeds, but what you saw and what everyone else as individuals see are two different things. Even I said that most gameplay I see is mainly lone wolf but that doesn't mean that every game of Team Whatever is a bunch of lone wolves working towards a goal. It's just a unfortunate event for the both of us. Sometimes it's fortunate as well. Once again I can't understand how an alteration in movement speed with the press of a button automatically means everyone runs their ways. Physically it can mean that everyone rushes a power weapon, or rushes to support a teammate. It's subjective. 7.) I don't even... So focus on development is a bad thing? 8.) Okay, so what I'm getting from this is what people who are knew to the FPS genre shouldn't even attempt to play a gametype that strays greatly from a shooter, simply because they don't know how to play the actual game first? Oh my. I can see why so many of you call these people casuals but I doubt they give a damn about what people think. What's wrong with this gametype being something more? What's keeping MLG from being "something more"? In the grand scheme of things, MLG is "something cool" that a bunch of guys came up with as well. 9.) Okay then. One less person to worry about, but then again it may be one more person to hear about how they "wasted $60" on trying a game they felt so strongly against. Your fault if you "just wanted to try it". Shouldn't have gotten it if you felt so bad about it. 10.) Briefly stated above for me as well. 11.) I sincerely doubt people buy video games to gain armor permutations and shiny guns just so they can feel happy. You know what, no. If this is the true, by-the-book definition of what a kid is then that is truly sad, and I've just lost all total respect for MLG as a whole. And even so, they have to earn those things so they technically [i]do[/i] end up beating opponents with a weapon, as you say, so it's not like they can play the game without putting anything in Multiplayer and get everything they want. 12.) So because armor permutations are awarded while playing through a game and ranking up, it's suddenly a loss in what the FPS genre is. And because of this, the entirety of the game, it being an FPS, is ruined, all because armor perms are rewarded when achieving a certain rank or something of the sort, and thus the game is bad and poorly designed. lol There's no connection in that. I think you don't like having to work for silly armor perms, maybe? If you want to continue to talk, just PM me. I have to leave soon. [Edited on 10.03.2012 10:05 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Metalignus Then don't buy it. I won't judge until I've tried it out. Also, it's how pathetic how much people are crying over changes in a video game franchises.[/quote] It feels good to vent; everyone does it and/or wants to. I'm sure there's some natural psychological explanation to this.

Then don't buy it. I won't judge until I've tried it out. Also, it's how pathetic how much people are crying over changes in a video game franchises. [Edited on 10.03.2012 9:25 AM PDT]

Halo 4 and Halo Reach are two different games. Typical gamer, judging a game before they've even played the finished product.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BerzerkCommando TL;DL. And I don't care so have a nice day. [/quote] WOOOOO!!!!!

[quote]Entirely opinionated. New game, new developer, new approach to existing game mechanics, both native and foreign to Halo.[/quote] This is called an opener, a thesis, or argument that I present in the beginning which has the analysis within the coming paragraphs. You are not supposed to analyze this part. Only at the end of my rant will you be able to determine your stand on the thesis presented here. [quote]Nothing wrong with Armor Abilities other than Armor Lock, even after the TU, and that's not even in Halo 4.[/quote] Opinionated but I gave my stand, bluntly. [quote]instant, but -blam!- and useless camp promoting camouflage?[/quote] [quote]Not useless, not camp promoting. Promethean Vision counters that, and even the slightest movement makes you visible. It also doesn't take much to not focus so much on your radar, but your screen instead. Let the radar be the indication that a Camouflage user is nearby; don't try to use it unless you saw the original dot beforehand.[/quote] But yes a camo that only works when you sit still [i]will[/i] encourage camping. But you can't have it the other way around otherwise it will be super overpowering, right? Right. [quote]Promethean Vision is so ridiculously balanced I honestly see no way it could be overpowered. "X-ray vision" works in Blacklight and is much less restrictive in certain cases, so it can work in Halo 4. Also, it has a severely limited range and can be less useful if someone's using Stalker, so the whole "tear down all the walls" bit is unnecessary.[/quote] It's another pointless addition that only subtracts from competitive play. It will also simply slow down the pace of the game and encourage...more camping. Like jeeze, a radar within a radar? You're all set to hold your shotgun! It may also lead to more reckless and individual playstyle. "-blam!- you im going in hot, cuz i know [i]exactly[/i] where my enemies are at the moment." [quote]I have no qualms with Jetpack so I don't know why so many people started complaining about it.[/quote] That's good for you. So far you're telling me you endorse the casual, super unstructured gameplay that Reach and now Halo 4 is showing. The "middle finger to your ally" provocation. [quote]I don't see why Sprint was an Armor Ability to begin with. Should've been standard for a Spartan to be able to run, once Reach's base movement was introduced.[/quote] And supposedly Halo 4's movement speed has backtracked to pre-Reach levels. So, sprint, wtf are you doing here besides promoting individual play in a team-oriented shooter? You know how Call of Duty runs: go off into the map and do your own thing; fck your teammates, just run as fast as you can until you see an enemy. That's what I saw all the fcking time with sprint in Halo Reach. [quote]Showing off a revamped fan favorite with a brand new gametype-specific player model =/= "new MLG". In relation to everything else, there's not a lot of emphasis unless I'm missing something, which would still be ill in comparison to all the footage from PAX and the new maps. And the Mech.[/quote] MLG has always been a hot topic. Now Infection is being advertised as a hot topic too. Lots of focus on its development. Simple as that. [quote]Also, if there's so much emphasis on "little dumb things", to you that dumb thing being "Flood" which is like the "new MLG" to you, are you calling MLG dumb? A "slideshow"? Hm.[/quote] In the sense that it's popular. MLG has always been the center of gaming for most popular shooters. Infection is just . . . it's just something they thought would be cool and adopted it. A little [i]sideshow[/i] to the core gameplay that's involved in the Halo series. And now for some reason it's something [i]more[/i]. I sense a distasteful change in the game audience: people who don't know the first thing to a FPS. [quote]I'm pretty sure they're putting in a playlist where all you competitives can have your fun. You will adapt to the game. The game will not adapt to you.[/quote] Well actually I won't have to adapt if I see the game sucks. lol [quote]How is sprint encouraging people to lone wolf during team play? That's the only kind of Halo I've mostly played; four people who work alone to work together, thanks to the anonymity that is the majority Xbox LIVE; it's like an instant cue to be a jerk, which deters a lot of people from trying to communicate with randoms. In terms of your statement with Sprint, you're making an accusation and don't even support it. You're spouting nonsense right now.[/quote] Stated briefly above. [quote]Define "kid", because you and a lot of other flustered competitives have been acting like one since I don't even know when.[/quote] Kid: a casual or somebody who doesn't view the video game as more than a system that pops out rewards to make you happy, and who are devoid of everything else. You know, kids like shiny things. They don't really have the motive to play the genre they purchased; more interested in getting treats than trying to beat an opponent with a weapon (the point of an fps). [quote]Again, I don't see how having a variety in how you can personalize your Spartan is relevant to what you're arguing, or how Halo 4 is catering to "kids" in both gameplay and customization of how you friggin' look. Not only that, but both your Halo 3 and Reach Spartans have been customized to your tastes. You sound like a hypocrite.[/quote] At this point you should have realized the connection between the type of gameplay showcased in Reach and Halo 4 and the increased level of "customization" allowed in the respective games. They've been losing focus on what the genre entails. The FPS aspect of the game, [i]the main focus[/i], is being bended in unorthodox ways. In this case, poorly designed.

I mean I'm still gonna buy halo 4. I liked Reach and I don't know why everyone is complaining, it was a great game. And what does everyone mean by "it wasn't a good halo game"? Like who cares if it wasn't a good halo game? it's a good game on its own and thats all that matters. And you wanna know why 343i works so hard on the sideshow and not MLG? Because MLG doesn't change from game-to-game!!! It's the same(or very similar) settings in all games played on symmetrical maps. The sideshow requires creativity and new innovation. MLG just requires someone to do a copy and paste of previous MLG settings/maps from other games.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] KINTON01 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974 And can someone tell me where in the hell the flood is coming from? Clearly I missed something because last I heard Cortana told us the flood was wiped out. Not to mention they look completely retarded now.[/quote] Yes you did miss something. If you had put a little effort into researching for your damn rant you'd know that Flood is a game type sort of replacing infection. The Flood skin is for your spartan when the become infected. I personaly have nothing against Reach it was different than Halo 3 and I respect and like the change. It just got a tad boring after playing it so much. Halo 4 may have COD implements but I don't play COD it will be nice to see how those are displayed and work in H4. Everyone says Reach is a bad game but you forget Halo Wars just leave 343 be and play a different game on November 6th.[/quote] I meant story-wise. Kinda why the little paragraph was separated from the body of my rant.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right? This is not how logic works. You guys are assuming that Halo 4 is the exact same as Reach, when that simply is not true. You're also forcing the opinion that Reach and everything in it was bad, when that isn't the case either. Reach had good concepts that were not designed well, and that's partly because they were new to Halo. If 343 looked at their reception and data and made the necessary changes to fix and balance them, then there shouldn't be any problems. [/quote] [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right? This is not how logic works. You guys are assuming that Halo 4 is the exact same as Reach, when that simply is not true. You're also forcing the opinion that Reach and everything in it was bad, when that isn't the case either. Reach had good concepts that were not designed well, and that's partly because they were new to Halo. If 343 looked at their reception and data and made the necessary changes to fix and balance them, then there shouldn't be any problems. [/quote] The real difference between Halo 2 and Halo 3 is that Halo 3 was all around more polished. It simply improved everything that Halo 2 offered, and expanded. Hit boxes were fixed (more exact), aim assist toned down, no bullet magnetism, cleaner motions, and it just felt all around more dynamic. Halo 2 felt rigid in the sense that gameplay was inflexible and less dynamic. The smallest things like a little recoil of a sniper shot in Halo 3 aggregate to make an all around better feel. It's just...cleaner. Hard to describe, really. So in the end, if someone who has never played Halo 3, played Halo 2, they would end up preferring Halo 3 to Halo Reach once they've given each a shot. They are much more similar in game design and mechanics when compared to Reach. Going from Halo 3 to Halo 2 might feel like a drop back but going from any of the Halos to Halo Reach is just skipping to another series really.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974 If you hated/dislsiked Halo Reach, what the hell is going to make you like Halo 4? Halo 4 basically has everything bad that Halo Reach has and more.[/quote] Entirely opinionated. New game, new developer, new approach to existing game mechanics, both native and foreign to Halo. [quote]Armor abilities [i]again[/i]?[/quote] Nothing wrong with Armor Abilities other than Armor Lock, even after the TU, and that's not even in Halo 4. [quote]instant, but -blam!- and useless camp promoting camouflage?[/quote] Not useless, not camp promoting. Promethean Vision counters that, and even the slightest movement makes you visible. It also doesn't take much to not focus so much on your radar, but your screen instead. Let the radar be the indication that a Camouflage user is nearby; don't try to use it unless you saw the original dot beforehand. [quote]X-RAY vision? WTF? May as well just tear down all the walls in every map.[/quote] Promethean Vision is so ridiculously balanced I honestly see no way it could be overpowered. "X-ray vision" works in Blacklight and is much less restrictive in certain cases, so it can work in Halo 4. Also, it has a severely limited range and can be less useful if someone's using Stalker, so the whole "tear down all the walls" bit is unnecessary. [quote]And the only thing a jetpack does for you is gets you killed faster. In stead of being in view of 1 player, let the whole team see you: great! [/quote] I have no qualms with Jetpack so I don't know why so many people started complaining about it. [quote]Well if you guys enjoy sprinting on command, whatever.[/quote] I don't see why Sprint was an Armor Ability to begin with. Should've been standard for a Spartan to be able to run, once Reach's base movement was introduced. [quote]SO much focus on the little dumb things nowadays. Infection gametypes is like the new MLG; there is so much emphasis on this [i]sideshow[/i].[/quote] Showing off a revamped fan favorite with a brand new gametype-specific player model =/= "new MLG". In relation to everything else, there's not a lot of emphasis unless I'm missing something, which would still be ill in comparison to all the footage from PAX and the new maps. And the Mech. Also, if there's so much emphasis on "little dumb things", to you that dumb thing being "Flood" which is like the "new MLG" to you, are you calling MLG dumb? A "slideshow"? Hm. [quote]Don't we want quality arena competitive slayer? Don't we want games where map control and team work are essential factors in matches?[/quote] I'm pretty sure they're putting in a playlist where all you competitives can have your fun. You will adapt to the game. The game will not adapt to you. [quote]I swear since the release of Reach everything's been a one man show, encouraging people to give others the middle finger when asked to play cooperatively. Oh and sprint is one of the factors contributing to that.[/quote] How is sprint encouraging people to lone wolf during team play? That's the only kind of Halo I've mostly played; four people who work alone to work together, thanks to the anonymity that is the majority Xbox LIVE; it's like an instant cue to be a jerk, which deters a lot of people from trying to communicate with randoms. In terms of your statement with Sprint, you're making an accusation and don't even support it. You're spouting nonsense right now. [quote]Again, this game is (like Reach) always focusing on how to boost your ego.[/quote] As if MLG didn't do that enough. [quote]Reach wanted to make you feel special with all of your little perks and armor abilities to help you play "the way you want." Not to mention all of the emphasis on cool shiny customizeable armors.[/quote] wut Reach had no perks. Sprint became the only Armor Ability, besides the occasional Jetpack and Armor Lock, that I've seen within the past few months I attempted to play it. If you feel so bad about Armor Abilities when why didn't you just stay in the MLG hopper? Don't know what you mean by playing the way I want, either. [quote]It's been catering to kids, I swear.[/quote] Define "kid", because you and a lot of other flustered competitives have been acting like one since I don't even know when. [quote]Halo 2 had it perfectly fine with just being able to change colors and species.[/quote] I don't even see how that's relevant to what you're trying to argue. [quote]Halo 3 had a limited set which was alright; back then Bungie didn't need to focus so much on trivial things like different visuals to keep their community entertained. [i]*cough competitive play cough*[/i][/quote] Again, I don't see how having a variety in how you can personalize your Spartan is relevant to what you're arguing, or how Halo 4 is catering to "kids" in both gameplay and customization of how you friggin' look. Not only that, but both your Halo 3 and Reach Spartans have been customized to your tastes. You sound like a hypocrite. [quote]And can someone tell me where in the hell the flood is coming from? Clearly I missed something because last I heard Cortana told us the flood was wiped out. Not to mention they look completely retarded now.[/quote] I'm pretty sure Flood is still lingering somewhere. I don't know. Once again, I don't see how this relates to Halo 4 being "as bad" as Reach, or how it affects your precious competitive play. Same goes with your complaint of how they look. I don't know if you've noticed but [i]everything[/i] looks different. In all honesty if so many people are going to complain about how the game looks instead of plays, then I'd be more than happy if you all didn't buy the game and spare everyone the silly whining. [quote]/endrant for now[/quote] K.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MURDUR 587 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right?[/quote]Well that doesn't really work, since Halo 3 is Halo 2 2.0, which means logically they'd share a lot of traits, which means if someone doesn't like the traits of one chances are they'd dislike the traits of the other.[/quote] Halo 3 and Halo 2 are 2 vastly different games, and if you think otherwise you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

To all replies: Halo Reach is very different from the actual trilogy CE-3. In counterpart to the original trilogy, Reach moved away from the arena shooter concept and made the game more arcade. Halo 4 is even expanding on that with armor-abilities, killstreaks, loadouts, attribute-changing armor etc. That's why I (and a majority) didn't like Reach and that's why people can't love Halo 4 if they hated Reach for the mentioned reason. And please stop acting as if you fanboys are in the total minority, surrounded by haters. It's the other way. Everyone who criticizes Halo 4 in ANY way (it can even be a undeniable fact) you act like a horde of mad monkeys. [Edited on 10.03.2012 8:10 AM PDT]

Nice opinion you have there. If you are this desperate about Halo's past, why aren't you playing Halo 2 instead of complaining?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974 /thread[/quote] Agreed

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974 And can someone tell me where in the hell the flood is coming from? Clearly I missed something because last I heard Cortana told us the flood was wiped out. Not to mention they look completely retarded now.[/quote] Yes you did miss something. If you had put a little effort into researching for your damn rant you'd know that Flood is a game type sort of replacing infection. The Flood skin is for your spartan when the become infected. I personaly have nothing against Reach it was different than Halo 3 and I respect and like the change. It just got a tad boring after playing it so much. Halo 4 may have COD implements but I don't play COD it will be nice to see how those are displayed and work in H4. Everyone says Reach is a bad game but you forget Halo Wars just leave 343 be and play a different game on November 6th.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right?[/quote]Well that doesn't really work, since Halo 3 is Halo 2 2.0, which means logically they'd share a lot of traits, which means if someone doesn't like the traits of one chances are they'd dislike the traits of the other.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] P3P5I [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ben2974 Don't we want games where map control and team work are essential factors in matches?[/quote]Yes.[/quote] This is the single most important part of the game for me too. If they can get this right then I'd be satisfied. All of the bells and whistles should be an after thought.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A 3 Legged Goat [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right? This is not how logic works. You guys are assuming that Halo 4 is the exact same as Reach, when that simply is not true. You're also forcing the opinion that Reach and everything in it was bad, when that isn't the case either. Reach had good concepts that were not designed well, and that's partly because they were new to Halo. If 343 looked at their reception and data and made the necessary changes to fix and them, then there shouldn't be any problems. [/quote] this is why reach failed, but that doesn't mean that halo 4 will fail, actually IMO it looks like it improved on the things that reach failed with

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BerzerkCommando [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] I hated Reach, but it's because of the maps, campaign levels and story. Which has nothing to do with Halo 4. So why should I hate it?[/quote] Because people want you to have their opinions, even ones that butcher logic like the OP's. [Edited on 10.03.2012 7:57 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BerzerkCommando [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] I hated Reach, but it's because of the maps, campaign levels and story. Which has nothing to do with Halo 4. So why should I hate it?[/quote] It somehow makes sense to him

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MrMassakka I agree with OP. If you hated Reach you should logically hate Halo 4, because it expands on what Reach did.[/quote] And if you hated Halo 2, you should logically hate Halo 3, right? This is not how logic works. You guys are assuming that Halo 4 is the exact same as Reach, when that simply is not true. You're also forcing the opinion that Reach and everything in it was bad, when that isn't the case either. Reach had good concepts that were not designed well, and that's partly because they were new to Halo. If 343 looked at their reception and data and made the necessary changes to fix and balance them, then there shouldn't be any problems. [Edited on 10.03.2012 7:54 AM PDT]