I’m starting to believe Halo 5: Guardians will feature weapon attachments, which I’m very on the fence about. And I have two sources to prove my case and worries:
In two sections of the Halo 5: Guardians Beta Trailer we see Battle Rifles, the first is at 10 seconds, the second is at 23 seconds. In BOTH these cases we see no scope whatsoever on the top of the rifle.
Then in the Halo 5: Guardians Cover Art we see another Battle Rifle, this one with what appears to be a Reflex Sight on it, and neither the Holographic Sight from Halo 4, or the ACOG sight from Halo 2/3.
Does this imply the existence of weapon customization within loadouts in Halo 5? Does this make anyone else as nervous about the game as I am?
Personally I’m just happy I’ll get to play the Beta before I decide whether or not it’s worth getting this one…
The ODST SMG had a red dot sight, and there was no weapon customisation in that game…Also the BR in the beta trailer has a 72 round clip. I don’t know if this implies a new weapon coming to the sandbox, or if it means that 343i have doubled the ammo capacity of the BR.
I think the latter is less likely, but since the weapon looks FRIGHTENINGLY similar to the Halo 4 BR, then i believe this is indeed a major concern. Luckily the beta will release a full year before launch so that 343i can take as much feedback as possible.
I had the idea: what if scopes get attached or removed depending on the map/gametype (or level in regards to Campaign)?
Assuming “72” stands for the clip size, that and the removal of the scope could also be an indication of adjustments of the weapon sandbox, especially in regards to starting weapons.
After all 343i only said returning to “equal grounds” or something along these lines. That doesn’t have to mean “identical starts”, considering we also see Spartans holding different (starting) weapons in the trailer.
So perhaps they are planning on making starting weapons like AR and BR actually equal to each other because to this date they have never been.
Anyway that are just conclusions build on assumptions.
Trailers are trailers, and cover art is cover art. None of those confirm anything about the upcoming gameplay experience. Those two things are just to build hype.
Now, with the community flipping out over the ‘randomness’ of perks and customizible loadouts, I don’t think adding in weapon attachments would fly so well with the majority. I don’t want to have another used up spot in my loadout in order to aim farther or have more accuracy with my Battle Rifle.
So, over all, nothing is confirmed, and weapon attachments would just make things worse.
The only way I could see ‘attachments’ working is if they worked as a sort of ‘weapon forge’.
In custom games players would be able to adjust properties of weapons for a particular gametype.
The ‘red dot’ or ‘extended mags’ would physically represent the changes made to the weapon, but they would be applied universally to each weapon within a particular game.
It would not be that one players BR has a scope while another one has extended mags. All BRs would have the same properties, so everything remains fair.
This system would have several advantages, it allows for a more diverse weapon set for campaign and co-op, while still maintaining balance in a traditional multiplayer sense.
Now that I am thinking about it more, it would be a great way to bring back weapon variants in different games. You could theoretically recreate the CE AR, or have both the standard SMG and ODST variant.
> The only way I could see ‘attachments’ working is if they worked as a sort of ‘weapon forge’.
>
> In custom games players would be able to adjust properties of weapons for a particular gametype.
>
> The ‘red dot’ or ‘extended mags’ would physically represent the changes made to the weapon, but they would be applied universally to each weapon within a particular game.
>
> It would not be that one players BR has a scope while another one has extended mags. All BRs would have the same properties, so everything remains fair.
>
> This system would have several advantages, it allows for a more diverse weapon set for campaign and co-op, while still maintaining balance in a traditional multiplayer sense.
I still don’t know if I like that -_-.
On the bright side I don’t think weapon attachments would be as bad as Tactical Packages or Support Upgrades. So it wouldn’t be a total loss if those were gone. I’m a little worried about replacing Spartan Abilities though. Especially since SA’s have appeared to be capable of harming players. I’ll be happy if it means no more AA’s just like before with WA’s and Perks. But only if SA’s aren’t as bad as AA’s were.
Heck, if SA’s aren’t customizable and everyone can do all of them and there are no AA’s that’d be awesome in comparison to the Reach/4 formula.
> > The only way I could see ‘attachments’ working is if they worked as a sort of ‘weapon forge’.
> >
> > In custom games players would be able to adjust properties of weapons for a particular gametype.
> >
> > The ‘red dot’ or ‘extended mags’ would physically represent the changes made to the weapon, but they would be applied universally to each weapon within a particular game.
> >
> > It would not be that one players BR has a scope while another one has extended mags. All BRs would have the same properties, so everything remains fair.
> >
> > This system would have several advantages, it allows for a more diverse weapon set for campaign and co-op, while still maintaining balance in a traditional multiplayer sense.
>
> I still don’t know if I like that -_-.
>
> On the bright side I don’t think weapon attachments would be as bad as Tactical Packages or Support Upgrades. So it wouldn’t be a total loss if those were gone. I’m a little worried about replacing Spartan Abilities though. Especially since SA’s have appeared to be capable of harming players. I’ll be happy if it means no more AA’s just like before with WA’s and Perks. But only if SA’s aren’t as bad as AA’s were.
>
> Heck, if SA’s aren’t customizable and everyone can do all of them and there are no AA’s that’d be awesome in comparison to the Reach/4 formula.
That is exactly how they’re doing it according to a tweet made by brad welch. 343 have also said they may not pursue a reward system for multiplayer and are returning to equal starts. Weapon attachments fly in the face of all of those characteristics. The br you saw in the promo art (yes promo, it’s not cover art) was likely just an artistic choice, which could also be said for the br in the beta trailer. Of course, I could be wrong, maybe they’re making the br fully automatic while keeping its marksmen capabilities intact. Who knows at this point.
> On the bright side I don’t think weapon attachments would be as bad as Tactical Packages or Support Upgrades. So it wouldn’t be a total loss if those were gone. I’m a little worried about replacing Spartan Abilities though. Especially since SA’s have appeared to be capable of harming players.
Hijacking and assassinations are already “spartan abilities” that can harm players, given Frank’s definition of spartan abilities being akin to boarding and dual wielding. I personally wouldn’t be too worried about melee-range abilities that can harm players.
As far as the possibilities for attachments goes, I am not worried about weapon attachments / variations that everyone in a given match has at spawn, even if those attachments / variations may change between gametypes. As long as everyone starts the same, I don’t have any issues in principle.
I would be worried if there were personal customizations that affect the characteristics of the weapons.
I want HUD customization… like range meter that the DMR or sniper uses.
> I would be worried if there were personal customizations that affect the characteristics of the weapons.
If you bring an AR to a BTB map you’re gonna have a bad time.
Likewise, if you use a 4x scope on a CQC map, or a 2x scope on a much larger map.
I’m not particularly worried about attachments, so long as its not Extended Mag + Underslug Grenade Launcher + Silencer that disables motion sensor, or any of that nonsense.
Choice doesn’t really matter when every choice except one is inferior for the situation. You rarely ever see people with DMR’s on a map like Skyline, and for good reason.
> was likely just an artistic choice, which could also be said for the br in the beta trailer.
They purposefully went out of their way to make the BR look different in two pieces of media. That’s quite suspicious.
> > I would be worried if there were personal customizations that affect the characteristics of the weapons.
>
> If you bring an AR to a BTB map you’re gonna have a bad time.
> Likewise, if you use a 4x scope on a CQC map, or a 2x scope on a much larger map.
>
> I’m not particularly worried about attachments, so long as its not Extended Mag + Underslug Grenade Launcher + Silencer that disables motion sensor, or any of that nonsense.
>
> Choice doesn’t matter when every choice except one is inferior for the situation.
You probably know that I agree with you on loadouts, etc. From a purely objective standpoint, I agree with you here. However, given the statements from Frank, Bonnie, and others concerning arena and equal starts, should they do something like this, that kind of objectivity won’t matter to a whole host of players who will be incredibly disappointed.
Moreover, there are few things that even a large portion of the MP player pool agree upon. To you and me, the ability to choose may be entirely irrelevant. There are plenty of others who would disagree.
Assuming they did have attachments, I’m sure they would have a (multiple) ‘classic’ playlist(s).
It would be a very poor move on their part not to, given all the backlash they received from Halo 4’s lack of classic settings. It’s been beat into their skull so much I’m sure they know better. People are already worrying about Spartan Abilities, so there’s even more incentive to make a classic gametype.
Off-topic I wonder if anyone would mind cosmetic scopes (i.e. they just change your crosshair/scope color/etc without impacting magnification).
> Assuming they did have attachments, I’m sure they would have a (multiple) ‘classic’ playlist(s).
>
> It would be a very poor move on their part not to, given all the backlash they received from Halo 4’s lack of classic settings. It’s been beat into their skull so much I’m sure they know better. People are already worrying about Spartan Abilities, so there’s even more incentive to make a classic gametype.
>
> Off-topic I wonder if anyone would mind cosmetic scopes (i.e. they just change your crosshair/scope color/etc without impacting magnification).
I don’t mind any cosmetic customizations in the least - even if they affect the external appearance of the weapon.
The scope is slightly tilted. How is everyone thinking that equates to it being a Reflex/Red dot sight?
What does it matter really if they include weapon customisation? As long as it’s only cosmetic, then it wouldn’t matter, because customisation is sort of pointless in halo if it actually affects gameplay, because it’d be very minimal.
> I had the idea: what if scopes get attached or removed depending on the map/gametype (or level in regards to Campaign)?
>
> Assuming “72” stands for the clip size, that and the removal of the scope could also be an indication of adjustments of the weapon sandbox, especially in regards to starting weapons.
> After all 343i only said returning to “equal grounds” or something along these lines. <mark>That doesn’t have to mean “identical starts”</mark>, considering we also see Spartans holding different (starting) weapons in the trailer.
> So perhaps they are planning on making starting weapons like AR and BR actually equal to each other because to this date they have never been.
>
> Anyway that are just conclusions build on assumptions.
Frankie did say “equal starts” though in an interview at E3.
In this video at around the 11:27 mark, Frank O’Connor starts talking about Halo 5 and specifically says “equal starts.” Of course, the way they talk about the beta being a small segment of the multiplayer could mean that equal starts are only in certain game types, but until they give us more information all we know is that equal starts are in.
Some people want really detailed customization, personally I like things simple. Just give me the basic gun and throw me in the arena. Weapon attachments, even if they are purely cosmetic, are totally unneeded if you ask me. I have no interest in them at all.
> >
>
> Frankie did say “equal starts” though in an interview at E3.
>
> In this video at around the 11:27 mark, Frank O’Connor starts talking about Halo 5 and specifically says “equal starts.” Of course, the way they talk about the beta being a small segment of the multiplayer could mean that equal starts are only in certain game types, but until they give us more information all we know is that equal starts are in.
Yes, but “equal” does not necessarily have to mean “identical”.
> Yes, but “equal” does not necessarily have to mean “identical”.
It does in Halo and Frankie knows it.
> > Yes, but “equal” does not necessarily have to mean “identical”.
>
> It does in Halo and Frankie knows it.
I just say that “equal” is a well used word because it does not specify like “identical” does. So in the end I would not be surprised when the mentioned “equal starts” would not be identical.
Plus, when the trailer only relates to a certain gametype which focuses on “equal starts” (which apparently should mean identical starts in Halo), why do we see Spartans holding different (starting) weapons then?
