A disgruntled Halo fan voicing His opinion

The issue i see with reach and h4 is that bungie/343 thought they needed to add customisation, gimmicky features and additional exp progression to keep halo relevant and compete directly with CoD. This focus led to certain elements not receiving any attention or being omitted, by choice, entirely (ranked playlists/rankings). 4 years (?) later, halo is dad (and CoD is suffering - they are nearly at the same point halo was with reach IMO) and the endless complaints concerning what halo has become have had limited impact on the core design philosophy, firstly of reach, then h4 and now to a certain extent, h5.

The concept of features such as sprint and armor abilities being needed in halo is absurd. If they are included in H5, whoever is making the design decisions is stubborn and not willing to admit their mistake. We, the halo diehards that keep this ship from sinking, are the ones that suffer as a result. It makes me feel sick. That a franchise is preying on it’s former glory to move units and not respecting the community historically is awful. The closest comparison i can draw in terms of game franchises is that of Diablo 3 vs Diablo 1/2. If any of you are D1/2 fans then you know what i’m talking about.

Returning to my original point, maybe the key to halos continued success and future did not lay in customisation, qimmicky features and exp progression in the first place, but were defined in the core mechanics and resultant gameplay of the first three games in the series. It was all mapped out, in a large, perfectly formatted blueprint. Yet what we witnessed with reach and h4 was blasphemy, a real kick in the guts of those who supported halo for so long.

Personally, i find it aggravating and disappointing that such a well defined blueprint could be so misinterpreted, time after time.

H4 and Reach should not factor into the design of any future halo’s, except to identify what SHOULDN’T be done.

The key to a successful halo 5 multiplayer lies within halos roots, in CE-3.

I want Halo back.

I don’t trust Halo anymore. All the media releases i hear are now carefully constructed marketing ploys. They contain just enough carefully worded phrases to keep me interested, to keep me thinking, “this is the halo that brings HALO back”. It happened in reach, it happened in h4 and i feel like it’s happening again in h5.

“Arena style MP”

“Equal starts”

Just words.

Prove it otherwise 343, please.

Slow Clap

I agree with you completely.
343 are you listening?

I’m going to agree and disagree with you here. I think there definitely are lessons to be learned from Reach and Halo 4 regarding what works and what doesn’t, but I certainly didn’t see Halo 4 as a “kick in the guts” by any stretch. I enjoyed Halo 4’s multiplayer, I enjoyed the game as a whole. I felt like I was actually contributing and achieving something even if I was on the losing side or not getting as many kills. How much this contributes to a ranking could probably do with a tweak, and if we see the return of Halo 2’s ranking system then fine, but I think the ideal is in the middle somewhere.

I’ve not played Halo 3’s or Reach’s online multiplayer much for reasons that I’ve talked about elsewhere; but I’ve played every Halo (with the exception of Halo Wars and Spartan Assault) since the first Halo on the original XBox so I think I’ve supported it as long as anyone. I think Halo 4 did a lot of things right, it didn’t all work but as I alluded to above, if Halo 5 is somewhere between 4 and its predecessors then I will be a very happy Halo fan.

Agree with OP.

Halo moved away from its core gameplay style in minor ways… But a lot of minor ways that changed the way we play considerably. I felt this having gone back to play Halo 3.

It’s not all bad, some additions have made for some fun and interesting game play.

I acknowledge that they need to turn a profit and let’s face facts, that’s bottom line.

What I would like to see… Is perhaps a ‘classic’ mode where the game is more strictly forced to play like the legacy gameplay. No sprint, no abilities or perks, just pure core halo with over shield and cloak pick ups. From what I know this is already offered?

I don’t know, it’s a hard juggle. I do feel that sprint has to go. It’s never been a halo thing and really shouldn’t be. IMO.

> Agree with OP.
>
> Halo moved away from its core gameplay style in minor ways… But a lot of minor ways that changed the way we play considerably. I felt this having gone back to play Halo 3.
>
> It’s not all bad, some additions have made for some fun and interesting game play.
>
> I acknowledge that they need to turn a profit and let’s face facts, that’s bottom line.
>
> What I would like to see… Is perhaps a ‘classic’ mode where the game is more strictly forced to play like the legacy gameplay. No sprint, no abilities or perks, just pure core halo with over shield and cloak pick ups. From what I know this is already offered?
>
> I don’t know, it’s a hard juggle. I do feel that sprint has to go. It’s never been a halo thing and really shouldn’t be. IMO.

They don’t need to make a classic “mode”. They need to make the whole multiplayer like it was before. I didn’t enjoy Halo 3’s multiplayer as much as I did Halo 2. Maybe it was that I enjoyed Halo 2’s maps much more and maybe I didn’t like the power ups in Halo 3. But, they need to get back to that core gameplay that the original poster was talking about.

If they do that and have great maps, people will play. Will it be number one for as long as Halo 2 was on top, to be honest, probably not. But, it will have a strong fanbase and population for a very long time. It surely won’t die as quickly as Halo 4.

> > Agree with OP.
> >
> > Halo moved away from its core gameplay style in minor ways… But a lot of minor ways that changed the way we play considerably. I felt this having gone back to play Halo 3.
> >
> > It’s not all bad, some additions have made for some fun and interesting game play.
> >
> > I acknowledge that they need to turn a profit and let’s face facts, that’s bottom line.
> >
> > What I would like to see… Is perhaps a ‘classic’ mode where the game is more strictly forced to play like the legacy gameplay. No sprint, no abilities or perks, just pure core halo with over shield and cloak pick ups. From what I know this is already offered?
> >
> > I don’t know, it’s a hard juggle. I do feel that sprint has to go. It’s never been a halo thing and really shouldn’t be. IMO.
>
> They don’t need to make a classic “mode”. They need to make the whole multiplayer like it was before. I didn’t enjoy Halo 3’s multiplayer as much as I did Halo 2. Maybe it was that I enjoyed Halo 2’s maps much more and maybe I didn’t like the power ups in Halo 3. But, they need to get back to that core gameplay that the original poster was talking about.
>
> If they do that and have great maps, people will play. Will it be number one for as long as Halo 2 was on top, to be honest, probably not. But, it will have a strong fanbase and population for a very long time. It surely won’t die as quickly as Halo 4.

Agreed, classic settings must be the basis of Halo’s core throughout a majority of the playlists , not stuffed into a “mode.”

That means equal starts, no perks, PO or AAs. I am not opposed to preset starts, because if you’re forced to use Br starts, then there needn’t a rule to say you can’t use the Carbine equivalent.

After we get that figured out, then we focus on Power ups on the map, potentially the return of equipment, and “new” Spartan Abilities.

It also needs to be understood that in order for a game to be viable, it must evolve. No Halo game should be exactly like another for this very reason. The original Halo crowd has grown up, graduated college, had kids, etc. Some may still play, but the people that loved the most popular game on consoles then isn’t the same now.

It also needs to be understood that back in the day Halo was King because there was no compeition in FPS, and it was revolutionary. Since 2007 however, the competition has amped up its game and appealed to a different generation/demographic.

Have you played the latest CoD, or Battlefield game, or Titanfall? You basically have to have ADD to keep up with everything and be good. You hand all of those kids a fat Xbox Original controller and give them Halo 2 on a CRT, and first they’ll ask why the graphics are so bad, then they’ll ask why they move so slowly, then they’ll say they’re bored and it isn’t as much fun as insert new game here.

With each new generation of gamers, a game MUST evolve in order to do the very reason it was created. MAKE MONEY. The evolution we’ve seen in the last two full Halo installments shows that, and although Bungie/343 haven’t gotten it completely right yet, there are some implemented changes that should stick and that they got right.

As an Old School Halo player, I do agree with you to a point. But I do also recognize the business standpoint. I haven’t played much Halo 4 as a result of the changes, although I did play a lot of Reach despite its flaws. I’m going to reserve all judgments until December when the H5 Guardians beta drops.

> The issue i see with reach and h4 is that bungie/343 thought they needed to add customisation, gimmicky features and additional exp progression to keep halo relevant and compete directly with CoD.

Actually, Bungie was using Reach as a “what if?” platform to try out some things they always wanted to try since CE (see their last Halo ViDoc). The ideas they tried out were not “stolen” from CoD or any other game. It just happens that most game developers come up with the same ideas at the same time. There are only so many things you can do with an FPS. Bungie had no fear of losing fans to CoD because they understood (as we should understand) that they are different games. No one necessarily drops one game for the other.

When Bungie made Reach they left the hood open because they knew things would have to be altered. They were committed to a schedule and they had to move on. 343i came in with the mindset of many of the most vocal critics and concluded that what was “wrong” with Reach was bloom and some AA’s that seemed overpowered. They also had their own ideas as to what “we” liked in a multiplayer experience. They made the changes they thought would work, and when the fans didn’t come roaring back they gave up and concentrated on H4. They still believed they were on the right track and they upped the ante with H4, which would have been fine except they wrote the code so tight that making changes caused more problems than they solved. H4 pushes the 360 beyond it’s limits. Because H5 is server-based and the Xbox One is a superior machine, they should have the flexibility to do whatever they want and make it playable, as they could have with Reach.

Halo’s core gameplay is not much different from any other console FPS, so just sticking to the core will not catapult Halo back to the top. What put CE at the top was the constant influx of new players. What put H2 on top was this new online multiplayer thing that Bungie had to figure out all by themselves. Halo 3 was a bigger game with more stuff. What was constant in all three of those games was that it was hard to be good, and everybody wanted to be good at the game. Gamers are stubborn about that. H4’s glaring flaw is that it’s easy to be good enough. You can’t brag about being good at an easy game.

Reach and 4’s problems have less to do with the stuff they put in, and more to do with how they handled it. If you’re concentrating on the effective range of a weapon when your Forge maps don’t work in multiplayer, you’re not really concentrating on the game. On the other hand, the obvious solutions are not necessarily the easiest. We should all just sit back and let them do what they’re going to do. When something blows up (and it will) my judgement will be based on how they handle it.

> It also needs to be understood that in order for a game to be viable, it must evolve. No Halo game should be exactly like another for this very reason. The original Halo crowd has grown up, graduated college, had kids, etc. Some may still play, but the people that loved the most popular game on consoles then isn’t the same now.
>
> It also needs to be understood that back in the day Halo was King because there was no compeition in FPS, and it was revolutionary. Since 2007 however, the competition has amped up its game and appealed to a different generation/demographic.
>
> Have you played the latest CoD, or Battlefield game, or Titanfall? You basically have to have ADD to keep up with everything and be good. You hand all of those kids a fat Xbox Original controller and give them Halo 2 on a CRT, and first they’ll ask why the graphics are so bad, then they’ll ask why they move so slowly, then they’ll say they’re bored and it isn’t as much fun as insert new game here.
>
> With each new generation of gamers, a game MUST evolve in order to do the very reason it was created. MAKE MONEY. The evolution we’ve seen in the last two full Halo installments shows that, and although Bungie/343 haven’t gotten it completely right yet, there are some implemented changes that should stick and that they got right.
>
> As an Old School Halo player, I do agree with you to a point. But I do also recognize the business standpoint. I haven’t played much Halo 4 as a result of the changes, although I did play a lot of Reach despite its flaws. I’m going to reserve all judgments until December when the H5 Guardians beta drops.

I have an issue with the underlying basis for this argument. Sure, a game should evolve to keep itself relevant, fresh and comparable to it’s competitors. In the case of Halo though, the evolution of the game has had negative impacts on Halo’s success and future. I don’t think the downfall of Halo should be contributed so heavily towards other games ‘evolving’ or entering the console market also. I don’t think Halos early success should be contributed so heavily to the lack of FPS competitors in CE, or the newness of XBL with H2 or the ‘size’ of H3. For a game to be loved it must first and foremost be good. Halo has tried to incorporate small changes to so many of its core aspects in an attempt to keep itself fresh and in doing so has lost sight of what made it so amazing in the first place. This to me is the most important reason for its downfall and what should shape the development process of H5.

As an FYI, i played a lot of reach also (around 3000 games). I had the mindset the entire time that 'it will get better, just give it a chance". It never really did get better though. This made me bitter towards reach and for the same reasons, led me to stop playing H4 after around 200 games. It felt like groundhog day.

Basically, i don’t want that to happen again, to me or to other like minded halo fans. The key to it not happening again lies in what made CE,2,3 such great games. I would hope that 343 understand this better than me.

I feel the same way, OP.

It feels like they are using buzzwords like “arena” and “equal” almost as a way to bait old Halo fans back after they drove them off after Halo 4.

I mean seriously, they keep pushing the fact that they are returning to the glory days, yet they still shove such a broken mechanic like sprint into the game?

“Sprint has become an FPS standard! Get over it and stop whining!”

Instant kill times are also an FPS standard. 343 should take out energy shields and turn every gametype into swat! Yaaaay! :smiley:

I wholeheartedly agree with Sawtooth Grin.

I played reach for about 2 weeks (like, 12 hours a day, taking holidays at work and all) and never played it again.

Bloom on guns?

Jetpacks?

Loadouts?

Seriously?

Now there are those on here who are saying it was a ‘what-if?’ type scenario. To that I say – I doubt it. If they wanted to be reasonable in doing a ‘what-if?’ then they could have built a playlist that included these new additions.

They didn’t.

They built something they thought would compete with the previously inferior (in all important ways) CoD series. Cash is a wicked thing; it changes people at the core. Bungie were no different in the end, and 343 ignored all of Bungie’s good/original workings (ranked playlists, trueskill system, a 1-50 grading schema that relied solely upon wins and losses, not individuals sitting in corners trying to fluff up their own individual statistics).

There are some actors and directors out there who’d rather make a good film instead of a film that makes ridiculous amounts of money. They still make plenty of money, but they don’t create soulless pieces of work at the lowest common denominator that makes society angry. They stay true to themselves and earn the respect of critics and fans alike. Bungie should have stayed that way.

And then the sheer stubbornness of 343, who in refusing to acknowledge the series was in decline, and moreover, in decline as a direct result of this new and hideous direction, were basically saying to the core/diehard fans “we know better than you and we will do as we see fit, we don’t care that you are loyal and concerned customers, we are above feedback and opinion, we know it all”.

Halo multiplayer, for those on here bleating about the new direction being anything other than a wasteful failure, either didn’t play Halo when it was a ruler, and rewarded skill, planning and teamwork (and, more literally, rewarded winning instead of selfish individualism irrespective of result), or must have sucked at it (to those who sucked I say – go play CoD, you can sit in a corner with a claymore and go 9/6 and feel as though you’ve achieved something).

Halo 3 multiplayer is the best multiplayer game I’ve ever played. Here’s why:

  1. You start as equals – no ghost pro, no loadouts, no suppressors, no target finders on your OP’d automatic rifle that has no kick, just a largely superficial choice of what helmet to wear or what species to be. Same guns, no perks, no kill/scorestreaks. No advantage or disadvantage. Equality – may the best player win.

This was fantastic as you had to earn every inch of ground you gained as a player. You had to strategise and work as a team to lock down rockets, get the powerups, control sections of the map.

  1. The rankings system – no reward for sitting on it 19 hours a day by default – you had to WIN. A LOT. I see CoD players with ‘Prestige Master’ and they have K/D’s of 0.68 and score per minutes of 224. They’ve played 52 days and remain absolute junk.

In H3, after about 2 hours of gaming, you’d never see these players again if you won enough. Halo USED TO reward people for winning and playing the game as a team, communicating. Now you just sit on it for hours and get some rubbish classification system that is ambiguous and ill-formed instead of a trueskill ranking that is easy to follow and rewards the correct elements of gameplay (winning, teamwork, communication, improvement, strategy).

  1. Evenly matched contests – as per point 2, after burning your way through the bottom-dwellers you’d have to fight tooth and nail against an increasingly difficult enemy. This was not random; this was specifically due to the rankings system. The higher you got, the harder it became.

I played a lot of CoD after Halo betrayed me, and I feel empty inside going 32/4 and roaring a bunch of no-hopers to death with swarms and dogs. Nothing (gaming-wise) compared to beating a bunch of cracking players 50-48 in a game of Slayer, or sneaking home a biting victory in KotHill.

  1. Rewarding strategy, teamwork and communication and promoting skill and control – no arbitrary spawns, no carepackages containing chopper gunners, nothing but pure promotion of equality and skill.

Sprint for the BR, control those rockets, get those powerups, control those spawns, count that hill timer.

It sickens me that these companies’ objectives seem to be levelling the playing field to ensure the most amount of talentless hacks buy their game. If you make a proper skill and ranking system (OR IF YOU MERELY USE THE ONE THAT YOU ALREADY OWN!) the playing field is ALREADY LEVEL! See how everyone wins? It’s actually more consistent in ensuring players play against peers.

Who cares if I can put a black or pink bandana on my soldier, or whether he’s black, white, asian, male, female? I stand against none of these colours or genders, but seriously who cares?

I don’t care if they include that in the game, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ACTUAL GAME ITSELF!

CoD: GHOSTS is an actual embarrassment. Halved HP so ‘everyone gets a go’, ridiculous spawns, so nobody can learn or practice map control, and not even proper radars, so it’s literally just a random free-for-all in the worst possible way. I don’t want Halo to go that way any further than it already has.

Winning a game of FPS multiplayer shouldn’t be random. It shouldn’t depend upon whether you happened to get a fortunate spawn, or you happened to have something good pop-up in your care package.

AND - get rid of sprint, just make the soldier move slightly faster to move in line with modern tech. Absolute equality. No gimmicks.

It should all be down to skill. Control. Knowledge. Teamwork. Communication.

Is anyone listening?

Aside from the few diehards on these forums that knew of and loved a life of properly crafted FPS multiplayer?

My thoughts are no, they are not listening. They are riding around jetpacks and choosing what colour goggles they want on their helmets.

I’d like to remind you, and anyone who thinks with the same mindset as you, that we have not seen a single millisecond of Halo 5 gameplay. So, you’re skeptical, but aren’t we all?

343i have already confirmed the removal of AAs, doesn’t that ring a bell? You’re judging Halo 5 as a flawed game, with the same poor design decisions made with Reach/4 without even seeing what the damn thing looks like!

Heck, the game even has a beta coming this fall with TMCC, 10 months before it even releases, for a whole 3 weeks, so you can save the complaining until then.

Now, this isn’t intended to be a personal attack against anyone, but i seriously don’t understand why people like to jump the gun about things they know next to nothing about. If you don’t like what you see, simply don’t buy the game.

> > It also needs to be understood that in order for a game to be viable, it must evolve. No Halo game should be exactly like another for this very reason. The original Halo crowd has grown up, graduated college, had kids, etc. Some may still play, but the people that loved the most popular game on consoles then isn’t the same now.
> >
> > It also needs to be understood that back in the day Halo was King because there was no compeition in FPS, and it was revolutionary. Since 2007 however, the competition has amped up its game and appealed to a different generation/demographic.
> >
> > Have you played the latest CoD, or Battlefield game, or Titanfall? You basically have to have ADD to keep up with everything and be good. You hand all of those kids a fat Xbox Original controller and give them Halo 2 on a CRT, and first they’ll ask why the graphics are so bad, then they’ll ask why they move so slowly, then they’ll say they’re bored and it isn’t as much fun as insert new game here.
> >
> > With each new generation of gamers, a game MUST evolve in order to do the very reason it was created. MAKE MONEY. The evolution we’ve seen in the last two full Halo installments shows that, and although Bungie/343 haven’t gotten it completely right yet, there are some implemented changes that should stick and that they got right.
> >
> > As an Old School Halo player, I do agree with you to a point. But I do also recognize the business standpoint. I haven’t played much Halo 4 as a result of the changes, although I did play a lot of Reach despite its flaws. I’m going to reserve all judgments until December when the H5 Guardians beta drops.
>
> I have an issue with the underlying basis for this argument. Sure, a game should evolve to keep itself relevant, fresh and comparable to it’s competitors. In the case of Halo though, the evolution of the game has had negative impacts on Halo’s success and future. I don’t think the downfall of Halo should be contributed so heavily towards other games ‘evolving’ or entering the console market also. I don’t think Halos early success should be contributed so heavily to the lack of FPS competitors in CE, or the newness of XBL with H2 or the ‘size’ of H3. For a game to be loved it must first and foremost be good. Halo has tried to incorporate small changes to so many of its core aspects in an attempt to keep itself fresh and in doing so has lost sight of what made it so amazing in the first place. This to me is the most important reason for its downfall and what should shape the development process of H5.
>
> As an FYI, i played a lot of reach also (around 3000 games). I had the mindset the entire time that 'it will get better, just give it a chance". It never really did get better though. This made me bitter towards reach and for the same reasons, led me to stop playing H4 after around 200 games. It felt like groundhog day.
>
> Basically, i don’t want that to happen again, to me or to other like minded halo fans. The key to it not happening again lies in what made CE,2,3 such great games. I would hope that 343 understand this better than me.

Think about it this way. Think about any game that is or was Revolutionary. Think about DOOM, or Goldeneye, or any Civlization or Roller Coaster Tycoon game. No sequel is as good as the original, because as soon as rival companies realized how successful the revolutionary game was, they mimicked it, improved it, put their own spin on it, and saturated the market with it.

Have you played Blood Stone, or the most recent DOOM game, or RCT 3? They are fundamentally different games than the original, because they had to change somewhat to sell copies. No successful entertainment series can survive for a lengthy amount of time and bring in ludicrous amounts of profit with each installment.

I loved Halo 2. But if I played it today for the first time, I don’t think I would like it. Why? There are games that are way better than it (possibly inspired by it) that are out today. The reason I want it and love it so much is because of nostalgia. Because back in 2004 it was the first real XBL game that connected you with your friends in an online shooter experience. If GTA V would have been released on the same platform at the same time as H2A (and only H2A, not the MCC), GTA V would blow it away, because it’s a fundamentally better game.

You have to take everything with a dose of reality, of the industry at the time of Halo’s “peak”, and of the current gaming generation and climate. After the MCC, I honestly think Halo will decline in popularity until its death. The MCC will probably fail to usher in the new generation of gamers, and those that pick up Halo 5 will be dropped into a story they don’t understand, or a multiplayer that their friends aren’t playing/or one that doesn’t interest them. And all of us old school Halo players will more than likely nitpick Halo 5’s multiplayer to death, holding onto it mostly for the campaign. You’re -Yoink!- if you do, -Yoink!- if you don’t.

Bottom line, Halo needs to make up its mind what it is. Is it a reinvented game based on the Halo concept to keep up with the current gamers? Is it a dead series that needs retired? Or is it a series that panders to the Halo crowd, which is aging and playing video games less and less?

Microsoft goes where the money is. We’ll see where that direction is next fall.

> I’d like to remind you, and anyone who thinks with the same mindset as you, that we have not seen a single millisecond of Halo 5 gameplay. So, you’re skeptical, but aren’t we all?
>
> 343i have already confirmed the removal of AAs, doesn’t that ring a bell? You’re judging Halo 5 as a flawed game, with the same poor design decisions made with Reach/4 without even seeing what the damn thing looks like!
>
> Heck, the game even has a beta coming this fall with TMCC, 10 months before it even releases, for a whole 3 weeks, so you can save the complaining until then.
>
> Now, this isn’t intended to be a personal attack against anyone, but i seriously don’t understand why people like to jump the gun about things they know next to nothing about. If you don’t like what you see, simply don’t buy the game.

So you confirm you are sceptical but then don’t understand why I am?

And as for a reason to ‘jump the gun’ as you choose to put it - I say based on the last 3 pathetic releases, that have almost destroyed the Halo franchise, I reckon I’ve been more than patient in waiting for this fix.

So the point of my posting, in response to someone with similarly concerned and disgruntled viewpoints, was to attempt to be the change I want to see.

It’d be worse if I just sat at home b1tching to nobody, I may as well document the issues as I see them in the faint hope that somebody with some control views and listens.

And as for the whole ‘don’t buy the game’ thing - I haven’t been. Not since Reach (which I sold 2 weeks after purchase as it was horrible).

But, as far as I can see it, this is the final straw for Halo, and despite how poor it has been since H3, I’d love nothing more than to see it return to its past glory (especially given how easy that would be). Nothing compares to it and that’s all due to the ranked trueskill system and equality amongst loadouts.

So the whole ‘don’t buy it’ thing falls down by the principle that if myself, and others like me, indeed choose not to buy it, things may go bad permanently.

Instead, I type out a reasoned response to another reasoned discussion point as to how to make a game that people like. Evolution is a bizarre concept when given over to the wrong hands. Coca Cola tried that in the 80’s with ‘New Coke’ and people rioted.

Sometimes things are just perfect. Coke changes the label on its cans and bottles now and again, and has different promos, but the core and fundamental and defining ingredients remain the same.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Halo had a perfect ‘Coke’ formula and then destroyed it. Then, when true/original fans complained they, instead of listening, chose to bury their heads in the sand and power on stubbornly and blindly towards further failure and depopulation.

I just want my favourite game back, and I make no apology for my justified concerns and long-listing sentiments. I’ve been given no reason to feel any other way.

> So you confirm you are sceptical but then don’t understand why I am?

Where did i say i didn’t understand your skepticism? All i said is, if you haven’t seen any gameplay, how could you judge that it will turn out badly? That applies to this line from the OP specifically:

“firstly of reach, then h4 and now to a certain extent, h5.”

Yes i am also skeptical, but unless you’ve seen the game, you cannot in any way, suggest that the game is/will be bad.

> And as for a reason to ‘jump the gun’ as you choose to put it - I say based on the last <mark>3 pathetic releases</mark>, that have almost destroyed the Halo franchise, I reckon I’ve been more than patient in waiting for this fix.

What 3 releases are you talking about? There’s only been two that have heavily been criticised for their MP; Reach and 4. You can’t count Halo Wars, because that didn’t have original FPS multiplayer. Again, wait until you actually see gameplay, whether that be via beta, or simply whatever public convention that MP footage is shown, or even where info drops about Halo 5 MP are given, THEN judge that its going to be terrible, and 343i haven’t learnt their lesson.

I agree 100% with 99% of what you said. (The other 1 % is reserved for future reconsideration.)

At this point it is very simple.

Don’t buy the game.

Wait until you determine that 343i has not been naughty and tricked you with their words.

Then if you are satisfied, then determine if you will buy the game or not.

Vote with your wallet.

> The issue i see with reach and h4 is that bungie/343 thought they needed to add customisation, gimmicky features and additional exp progression to keep halo relevant and compete directly with CoD. This focus led to certain elements not receiving any attention or being omitted, by choice, entirely (ranked playlists/rankings). 4 years (?) later, halo is dad (and CoD is suffering - they are nearly at the same point halo was with reach IMO) and the endless complaints concerning what halo has become have had limited impact on the core design philosophy, firstly of reach, then h4 and now to a certain extent, h5.
>
> The concept of features such as sprint and armor abilities being needed in halo is absurd. If they are included in H5, whoever is making the design decisions is stubborn and not willing to admit their mistake. We, the halo diehards that keep this ship from sinking, are the ones that suffer as a result. It makes me feel sick. That a franchise is preying on it’s former glory to move units and not respecting the community historically is awful. The closest comparison i can draw in terms of game franchises is that of Diablo 3 vs Diablo 1/2. If any of you are D1/2 fans then you know what i’m talking about.
>
> Returning to my original point, maybe the key to halos continued success and future did not lay in customisation, qimmicky features and exp progression in the first place, but were defined in the core mechanics and resultant gameplay of the first three games in the series. It was all mapped out, in a large, perfectly formatted blueprint. Yet what we witnessed with reach and h4 was blasphemy, a real kick in the guts of those who supported halo for so long.
>
> Personally, i find it aggravating and disappointing that such a well defined blueprint could be so misinterpreted, time after time.
>
> H4 and Reach should not factor into the design of any future halo’s, except to identify what SHOULDN’T be done.
>
> The key to a successful halo 5 multiplayer lies within halos roots, in CE-3.
>
> I want Halo back.
>
> I don’t trust Halo anymore. All the media releases i hear are now carefully constructed marketing ploys. They contain just enough carefully worded phrases to keep me interested, to keep me thinking, “this is the halo that brings HALO back”. It happened in reach, it happened in h4 and i feel like it’s happening again in h5.
>
> “Arena style MP”
>
> “Equal starts”
>
> Just words.
>
> Prove it otherwise 343, please.

Thier is a simple answer to this and a quick fix 343 should bring in Max Hoberman for the multiplayer.This should calm hard core fans down.

> Thier is a simple answer to this and a quick fix 343 should bring in Max Hoberman for the multiplayer.This should calm hard core fans down.

Yes, we’ll just ask the President of one company to demote himself to a mere designer in another company. How simple.

> > Thier is a simple answer to this and a quick fix 343 should bring in Max Hoberman for the multiplayer.This should calm hard core fans down.
>
> Yes, we’ll just ask the President of one company to demote himself to a mere designer in another company. How simple.

Is it a demotion if his company dose the multiplayer? ??? or even if he comes in as a consultant? ??