Why did the series abandon this feature? I understand Reach due to it being before H1 and ODST since you are a not a super soldier but H4 should of really added it. You could make some really effective combos like dual wielding a SMG and Plasma Rifle or Mauler and Plasma Pistol. I know many people said it was OP but it was not as effective long range like the BR and Carbine. Personally I’d love to see it return, would you?
> Why did the series abandon this feature?
Because it hurts competitive multiplayer. Either the weapons become OP when doubled up or are UP separate. Grenades, melee, and equipment/AA use are disrupted. All in all, it’s a gimmick than only really adds cool factor.
Then again, my running opinion is that Halo was, is, and can continue to be more than just a competitive shooter. Following that, dual-wielding might not belong in Halo the ranked matchmaking experience, but it certainly can belong in Halo the game.
It’s not OP at long range and I think it should be up to the user if they wanna use nades and equipment as a sacrifice.
I miss dual-wielding. It was a fun feature in Halo 2 and Halo 3. I felt that ODST, Reach, and Halo 4 suffered a bit from its removal.
Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
With the way it was implemented, dual wielding hurt the balance of the weapons sandbox. There was the problem of if you make a dual weapon strong enough solo, it was over powered when dual wielded. Likewise, if they made a dual wielded pair balanced, it made the individual weapon useless and meant that half the weapons sandbox was useless on it’s own. To add to the frustration, the ability to mix and match dual wield-able weapons complicated the problem exponentially, on top of how it disrupted melee, grenades, and switching weapons. From a developer standpoint, it was hated and the easiest solution was to get rid of it.
Personally I think dual wielding can return, but not in the fashion it had in past Halo games. In the vein of older arena shooters such as Unreal and Marathon, I think the starting side arm weapons should be able to be dual wielded, but only paired up with the same weapon. If loadout sidearms are limited to UNSC weapons, it would make it really easy to do. When you come across a matched sidearm, it is automatically equipped to you, and essentially upgrades your sidearm to the level of your primary weapon. Since it functions like an upgrade, both gun behave like one in gameplay. Your fire trigger fires both weapons, alternating fire for semi-auto guns, and doesn’t restrict your ability to use grenades, melee, and other actions that would make you lose them in the past. I think the only way you lose them is by swapping a weapon or dying, as the dropped guns should become one even when another player picks it up.
I’ve given it quite a bit of thought and this is probably the best way for dual wielding to return without the negatives that came with it before.
> It’s not OP at long range and I think it should be up to the user if they wanna use nades and equipment as a sacrifice.
Yeah, i know. It’s a lame excuse for not adding in dual wielding. If anything its under powered. The Shotgun still did more damage that Dual-Maulers, Plasma Pistol and Magnum combo works just as well and PP BR combo,SMG and PR combo is just extremely weak even thought in concept it sounds extremely powerful.
Normally when i play Halo I purposely handicap myself so i can get a greater challenge out of normal players. In Halo 3 I would constantly dual-wield because of how weak it was.
If anything the excuse as to why there is no more dual wielding is because it requires really difficult balancing. So instead of making dual wieldable weapons 343i is just taking the path of adding guns that are what specific dual weapons were meant to be.
I agree, it should be back. Its absence in ODST was understandable, as ODSTs probably couldn’t physically do it, and we had the silenced magnum which wouldn’t have been able to be dual wielded anyway but was still awesome.
As for Reach, it literally shoved the fact we couldn’t dual wield in our faces. AI could dual wield, the plasma rifle had an ammo counter added on both sides so we would have been able to see it when dual wielding (it wasn’t there in Halo 3) It was like Bungie wanted us to be annoyed about the lack of it. Halo 4 should have had it too. Halo 5 really needs to have it.
> > Why did the series abandon this feature?
>
> Because it hurts competitive multiplayer. Either the weapons become OP when doubled up or are UP separate. Grenades, melee, and equipment/AA use are disrupted. All in all, it’s a gimmick than only really adds cool factor.
>
> Then again, my running opinion is that Halo was, is, and can continue to be more than just a competitive shooter. Following that, dual-wielding might not belong in Halo the ranked matchmaking experience, but it certainly can belong in Halo the game.
It doesn’t hurt competetive multiplayer if balanced properly. Dual wielding gave you benefits and drawbacks. While you did get double the firepower, you also took longer reloading, and couldn’t use equipment/grenades. Also, only the smaller weapons could be used, so you could be outmatched easily. It could quite easily be implemented without hurting competetive multiplayer.
> With the way it was implemented, dual wielding hurt the balance of the weapons sandbox. There was the problem of if you make a dual weapon strong enough solo, it was over powered when dual wielded. Likewise, if they made a dual wielded pair balanced, it made the individual weapon useless and meant that half the weapons sandbox was useless on it’s own. To add to the frustration, the ability to mix and match dual wield-able weapons complicated the problem exponentially, on top of how it disrupted melee, grenades, and switching weapons. From a developer standpoint, it was hated and the easiest solution was to get rid of it.
>
> Personally I think dual wielding can return, but not in the fashion it had in past Halo games. In the vein of older arena shooters such as Unreal and Marathon, I think the starting side arm weapons should be able to be dual wielded, but only paired up with the same weapon. If loadout sidearms are limited to UNSC weapons, it would make it really easy to do. When you come across a matched sidearm, it is automatically equipped to you, and essentially upgrades your sidearm to the level of your primary weapon. Since it functions like an upgrade, both gun behave like one in gameplay. Your fire trigger fires both weapons, alternating fire for semi-auto guns, and doesn’t restrict your ability to use grenades, melee, and other actions that would make you lose them in the past. I think the only way you lose them is by swapping a weapon or dying, as the dropped guns should become one even when another player picks it up.
>
> I’ve given it quite a bit of thought and this is probably the best way for dual wielding to return without the negatives that came with it before.
That way is a lot less dynamic and also would offer a significant advantage in loadouts if it was availble in them. It also provides a very large advantage with no disadvantage. Every weapon/mechanic in Halo has to provide disadvantages for all of its advantages. The rocket is an instant kill but has little ammo and takes ages to reload. The sniper is a 2 shot/1 headshot kill but is difficult to use at close ranges and renders the user blind to close ranged attacks when zoomed.
The way it was in Halo 3 worked fine, but Bungie made two major problems. Firstly, they placed weapons in doubles so that people could dual wield them easily. They should be difficult to find two of. Also, Bungie didn’t properly balance them. In Halo 3 they were actually under powered. Using them in multiplayer was basically a ticket to death.
If implemented in Halo 5, the guns should be balanced so that (in shots taken to kill a shielded target) the SMG is beaten by the AR, which is beaten by dual SMGs, which is beaten by the SAW (using SMG for an example, but this would apply to any gun). If implemented as it was in H3 but balanced like this, it could quite easily work.
NO NO NO NO NO!!! Please God No God NO!!!
I hated duel wielding as you can probably guess. It wasn’t in ODST for reasons stated, it was taken out of Reach because MArcus Lehto hated it and didn’t want it in his game. I agree with him it ruins the golden triangle and needs to forever go away.
> I miss dual-wielding. It was a fun feature in Halo 2 and Halo 3. I felt that ODST, Reach, and Halo 4 suffered a bit from its removal.
There you go. There’s no real need to try and explain why, it was fun and we miss it. It doesn’t matter that it creates sandbox issues, those issues can be fixed. 343i are made up of industry veterans, I’m sure they can figure out.
Ugh please no. Dual wielding destroyed the auto weapon sandbox and started this whole ‘secondary’ weapon nonsense.
The sandbox still hasn’t recovered from the damage it did. Reach had gotten close and Halo 4 at least made auto weapons lethal again, but much of the auto weapon sandbox are still bullet hoses designed around dual wielding.
Bottom line was that it was a flashy mechanic with the depth of a spoon. It added nothing we couldn’t do before and we didn’t have to sacrifice any of the golden triangle to do it.
It should not come back aside from special cases like spartan assault.
I prefer not. Sidearms can be plenty useful without needing to wield two of them. I tried it in Halo 2 and 3, and found it very lacking.
The only fun exceptions were dual needlers in H2 and dual spikers in H3. 
I’d rather some new innovations to the golden triangle, like a modified melee system that doesn’t extend engagements beyond the time it takes to assassinate a character. It would make for better gameplay than dual wielding, and it would be a great opportunity to show off XB1 graphics.
> Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
Not Reach. Mark V armor doesn’t support dual wielding.
Yes OP it should return. I don’t care if it was gimmicky it was awesome and made you feel like a badass which is really all that’s important in the end. Also it doesn’t disrupt gameplay at all.
> > Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
>
> Not Reach. <mark>Mark V armor doesn’t support dual wielding.</mark>
I’m not too sure that your ability to hold two objects in your hand is heralded by the armor that you’re wearing. The only reason that it wasn’t in Reach was because Bungie didn’t want to make an animation for it while sprinting.
Regardless of that, I’d be more than happy to find out taht dual-wielding remains buried in the past forever. Ultimately, it drastically decreased the quality and variety of the sandbox and made a lot of weapons useless on their own.
Look at the Plasma Rifle. In CE, it was a perfectly unique weapon that was very different from the Assault Rifle. It could be fired semi-automatically, had headshot multipliers, plasma stun damage, and was far more accurate. Using the CE Plasma Rifle the same way that you’d use the Assault Rifle would get you killed, as would using the Assault Rifle the same way that you’d use a Plasma Rifle.
However, come Halo 2, we see the Plasma Rifle turn into a mini bullet-hose that’s only difference from the SMG was a paintjob, and extra shield damage; that’s it. It turned into a complete reskin. And it was all because of dual-wielding.
Let’s look at the Magnum. In CE, it had its own unique purpose and practical uses. It was an all-around useful and versatile weapon that was desireable in anyones hands. However, come Halo 2 and 3, we see the Magnum get nerfed to hell not only because of the mindset that “sidearms must be useless”, but also because it was dual-wieldable.
We STILL haven’t got our CE Plasma Rifle back, nor have we abandoned the idea of ‘sidearms’.
Thanks dual-wielding.
> > Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
>
> Not Reach. Mark V armor doesn’t support dual wielding.
>
> Yes OP it should return. I don’t care if it was gimmicky it was awesome and made you feel like a badass which is really all that’s important in the end. Also it doesn’t disrupt gameplay at all.
This is one of the rare times I agree with you, Sir Marty.
> > > Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
> >
> > Not Reach. <mark>Mark V armor doesn’t support dual wielding.</mark>
>
> I’m not too sure that your ability to hold two objects in your hand is heralded by the armor that you’re wearing. The only reason that it wasn’t in Reach was because Bungie didn’t want to make an animation for it while sprinting.
>
> Regardless of that, I’d be more than happy to find out taht dual-wielding remains buried in the past forever. Ultimately, it drastically decreased the quality and variety of the sandbox and made a lot of weapons useless on their own.
>
> Look at the Plasma Rifle. In CE, it was a perfectly unique weapon that was very different from the Assault Rifle. It could be fired semi-automatically, had headshot multipliers, plasma stun damage, and was far more accurate. Using the CE Plasma Rifle the same way that you’d use the Assault Rifle would get you killed, as would using the Assault Rifle the same way that you’d use a Plasma Rifle.
>
> However, come Halo 2, we see the Plasma Rifle turn into a mini bullet-hose that’s only difference from the SMG was a paintjob, and extra shield damage; that’s it. It turned into a complete reskin. And it was all because of dual-wielding.
>
> Let’s look at the Magnum. In CE, it had its own unique purpose and practical uses. It was an all-around useful and versatile weapon that was desireable in anyones hands. However, come Halo 2 and 3, we see the Magnum get nerfed to hell not only because of the mindset that “sidearms must be useless”, but also because it was dual-wieldable.
>
> We STILL haven’t got our CE Plasma Rifle back, nor have we abandoned the idea of ‘sidearms’.
>
> Thanks dual-wielding.
The magnum in CE was not supposed to be a 3-shot kill. That was stealthily added in-last minute.
> > Why did the series abandon this feature?
>
> Because it hurts competitive multiplayer. Either the weapons become OP when doubled up or are UP separate. Grenades, melee, and equipment/AA use are disrupted. All in all, it’s a gimmick than only really adds cool factor.
That’s more how DW was in H2 and H3. OP and then UP in H2, UP in H3 with a bunch of overlooked consequences such as weak individual weapons, dropping the second weapon when meleeing, inability to use AAs.
There’s no conceivably reason to drop the second weapon while meleeing or restrict AA usage. Grenade usage makes sense. Damage drop while D/W like wise doesn’t make sense, but an accuracy and reloading penalties do.
I also can see a crucial choice being made in the matter regarding D/W if the two weapons replace your grenade and second weapon slots. You’re left with the choice between more upfront firepower or the ability to “double up” the damage and burst opponents down (grenade + headshot) or flush/kill enemies from/in cover or from around an objective.
Also: Given how players spawn with UP secondaries, letting them spawn two of them kills two birds with one stone.
> Then again, my running opinion is that Halo was, is, and can continue to be more than just a competitive shooter. Following that, dual-wielding might not belong in Halo the ranked matchmaking experience, but it certainly can belong in Halo the game.
Sure, it may be a poor choice, but why not let me make that poor choice if I’m not aiming for the competitive stars so to speak?
> The magnum in CE was not supposed to be a 3-shot kill. That was stealthily added in-last minute.
Accidentally.
> > > > Yes it should return the removal for odst was understandable. Reach and halo 4 should saw the return of it. Honestly if i can handle a situation where the person is duel welding. I think all these pro or competitive players should be able to right.
> > >
> > > Not Reach. <mark>Mark V armor doesn’t support dual wielding.</mark>
> >
> > I’m not too sure that your ability to hold two objects in your hand is heralded by the armor that you’re wearing. The only reason that it wasn’t in Reach was because Bungie didn’t want to make an animation for it while sprinting.
> >
> > Regardless of that, I’d be more than happy to find out taht dual-wielding remains buried in the past forever. Ultimately, it drastically decreased the quality and variety of the sandbox and made a lot of weapons useless on their own.
> >
> > Look at the Plasma Rifle. In CE, it was a perfectly unique weapon that was very different from the Assault Rifle. It could be fired semi-automatically, had headshot multipliers, plasma stun damage, and was far more accurate. Using the CE Plasma Rifle the same way that you’d use the Assault Rifle would get you killed, as would using the Assault Rifle the same way that you’d use a Plasma Rifle.
> >
> > However, come Halo 2, we see the Plasma Rifle turn into a mini bullet-hose that’s only difference from the SMG was a paintjob, and extra shield damage; that’s it. It turned into a complete reskin. And it was all because of dual-wielding.
> >
> > Let’s look at the Magnum. In CE, it had its own unique purpose and practical uses. It was an all-around useful and versatile weapon that was desireable in anyones hands. However, come Halo 2 and 3, we see the Magnum get nerfed to hell not only because of the mindset that “sidearms must be useless”, but also because it was dual-wieldable.
> >
> > We STILL haven’t got our CE Plasma Rifle back, nor have we abandoned the idea of ‘sidearms’.
> >
> > Thanks dual-wielding.
>
> The magnum in CE was not supposed to be a 3-shot kill. <mark>That was stealthily added in-last minute.</mark>
I believe it was added because a certain employee wasn’t good with the weapon (I can’t remember who it was).
Either way, just because it was a last-minute-decision doesn’t mean that it was a bad idea and concept. Having all weapons be useful and diverse is the kind of sandbox that I’d like to see, not one that scales the strengths of weapons to their size.
Pistols don’t have to be useless to make sense.
> I believe it was added because a certain employee wasn’t good with the weapon (I can’t remember who it was).
>
> Either way, just because it was a last-minute-decision doesn’t mean that it was a bad idea and concept. Having all weapons be useful and diverse is the kind of sandbox that I’d like to see, not one that scales the strengths of weapons to their size.
>
> Pistols don’t have to be useless to make sense.
http://trenchescomic.com/tales/post/the-legend-of-el-pistolero
It was accidental. I remember the Bungie post on it clearly and when this was posted, this just confirmed it.
Pistols can be useful, but with how the game is currently setup, none of the benefits of a pistol can be brought to bear.
Consequently, having the Magnum fit in with the rest of the rifle sized weapons runs the risk of destroying suspension of disbelief with a Noisy Cricket type weapon and crowds the sandbox with yet another precision weapon when we already have four.
> Sure, it may be a poor choice, but why not let me make that poor choice if I’m not aiming for the competitive stars so to speak?
Why try to balance anything?