"Halo 5 is bad and here's why". . . Just stop.

I’ve been a fan of the Halo series since Combat Evolved. Halo 2 was a fantastic ground breaking game, and Halo 3 was super popular because of it’s predecessor’s success. Halo 3 was absolutely fun, not my favorite, but great for competitive play during it’s early life.

Halo: Reach was a very dark time for the series. This is the time when Halo looked to other games that were becoming successful (Namely Call of Duty) and tried to hard to implement features from those games. Call of Duty, in my opinion, is flawed in the sense of when two people charge at each other, their stats could be completely different and you wouldn’t know about it until the clash was over. The perks aren’t displayed, the type of weapon doesn’t matter because of all the different attachments. Customizable load outs. Reach began to implement these things like custom load outs, but nothing was more destructive to the core of Halo than the armor abilities. They were NEVER truly balanced well enough, and a select few dominated the ‘meta’ play, and there was no way to know what your opponent had before the clash. It creates a lack of clarity and changes the starting balance point that is needed for good competitive play. It’s ranking system was laughable, and pulled on the Call of Duty aspect of you have to play to unlock things.

Halo 4 by far, the worst Halo game that was made. It took things that Reach stole and distorted what Halo was even further. We still had custom load outs, with now the ability to spawn with a secondary weapon that could literally one shot an opponent. Custom loadouts here were a complete joke because you had to play an exorbitant amount of games to gain levels so you could simply unlock something someone else may already have. If you were unlucky enough to match against someone who was simply one level higher than you that could be the difference between them having a new armor ability at their disposal that you don’t. Armor abilities are still here, but they are more ‘balanced’ dare I say, but still there was the standard ‘meta’ ability that dominated play and was never tweaked. Sprinting is now universal, but still falls into the same flaw that other games of the generation fell into and that was you were constantly clicking the sprint button to try and move just a little more. Getting shot made your character stutter, and slow making some jumps impossible. The ranking system here was a complete joke. Ordnance drops were probably the coolest new feature to game. Communicating with the game master of war games to summon in a weapon, but the implementation was beyond flawed. Half the time you got the choice between a Needler, Sprint boost, or grenades. The balancing on the drops was non existent, and they made any strategy of map control non existent since you didn’t have to defend power weapon spots.

Now we’re in Halo 5. For once, (yes even with the ‘op’ autos) every single weapon has a use. The weapon balancing in Arena (Not Warzone) is incredibly balanced. I don’t run by a weapon and never think I don’t need it. Power weapon positioning is key. The ranking system is back in a truly competitive light. Arena, ranked, based games everyone starts out with the same setup, there are no hidden powers you don’t know about and it is going back to what Halo used to be, melee, nades, and shooting. I don’t have to worry about if someone has armor lock, or dash, or bubble, or some other thing that is hidden by a lack of clarity. Halo 5 you can clearly see the weapons they have, you know what the weapons can do. They have a thruster, but so do you. Halo 5 is the closest thing to ‘Halo’ we have had in almost a decade, and people are complaining that this isn’t Halo? Why? Because there is Sprint? Because there are thrusters? Because there is clambering? No good game is going to stay good if it doesn’t evolve. Sprinting is almost required in games by now, and Halo 5 I’m not constantly mashing it trying to take a few faster steps. I have to decide if I’m going to sacrifice my vulnerability for speed. Clambering? Opens up a whole new dimension of map creation that doesn’t have to cater to the one small group of people who decided to use a jetpack. Thrusters? This is probably the coolest thing because it allows for a truly skilled player to out maneuver and out shoot. Everyone has access to the same tools, and it just depends on how you use those tools.

Stop this “This isn’t Halo” because you’re hung up on nostalgia. Nostalgia doesn’t make something perfect.

The correct way to start something like that is: “Halo has these problems and here are possible solutions”

> 2535434981033996;1:
> Stop this “This isn’t Halo” because you’re hung up on nostalgia. Nostalgia doesn’t make something perfect.

Do me a favor and remove that last line and change the topic to "Why I love Halo 5"or the like. so this doesn’t get shut down. I don’t agree with everything you said, but the gist of it is on par. The only issue is people have a right to have opinions other than your own and that is part of the what the forums is about, as it stands your post might be considered non-constructive.

So you’re saying that people shouldn’t give criticism in order to improve the series? Yeah, no, people have every right to complain. What would have happened if nobody can complained about Halo 4, stating that it was the best game in existence with no flaws? Not only would Halo 5 have all of the issues it does now, but it would be a continuation of Halo 4’s “Handicap Halo” mentality. Halo 5’s gameplay is very much an improvement over Halo 4, and that came about through people giving criticism.

So you know what? If there’s something people don’t like about the game, they should be encouraged to share their thoughts. Those thoughts are then listened to by 343i, and then that feedback is used to make improvements. That’s how you make a good product, by listening to the consumers.

So you like stuff about Halo 5? Great! Go and enjoy it, and let those who wish to see improvements share their ideas. There is nothing to be gained by sitting back and telling people to just shut up and accept the game as it is, all because you can’t stand to see people disagree with you online.

I don’t like Halo 5 as much as others, but let’s say there won’t be any ridiculous posts of saying older Halos are better from me.

Usually, when I have highly negative opinions on something, I rather keep it in my thought rather saying them in public.

> 2535434981033996;1:
> Halo: Reach was a very dark time for the series. This is the time when Halo looked to other games that were becoming successful (Namely Call of Duty) and tried to hard to implement features from those games. Call of Duty, in my opinion, is flawed in the sense of when two people charge at each other, their stats could be completely different and you wouldn’t know about it until the clash was over. The perks aren’t displayed, the type of weapon doesn’t matter because of all the different attachments. Customizable load outs. Reach began to implement these things like custom load outs, but nothing was more destructive to the core of Halo than the armor abilities. They were NEVER truly balanced well enough, and a select few dominated the ‘meta’ play, and there was no way to know what your opponent had before the clash. It creates a lack of clarity and changes the starting balance point that is needed for good competitive play. It’s ranking system was laughable, and pulled on the Call of Duty aspect of you have to play to unlock things.

I am going to ignore most of your argument except for this part as I think someone else can explain it better than i could.

Whenever people say Reach copied COD with custom loadouts I ask: “can you choose what weapon to bring in before the game starts?”, “can you choose what type of grenade you want?”, " can you mess with the loadout in anyway possible before the game starts?"

Halo Reach had custom loadouts, but the only thing custom about them was the abilities as the weapons stayed the same for many, if not most of the playlists. Also, you an clearly see a guy has a jetpack from the thing on his back and it was easy to shoot guys like that out the air, sprint barely did anything, active camo was broken but got better in 4, armor lock was basically a free kill if you weren’t stupid, hologram was very rarely useful, evade was…evade. My point is the abilities weren’t that bad if you adapted to them. Other than that, Halo Reach copied nothing from COD that broke the game or even made Halo resemble it in the slightest. I agree it wasn’t balanced though, as well as a major change in the formula. But it still was a competitive game as anything where you play against other players to win, can be competitive. Also Halo 5’s ranking system is an utter joke compared to the original trilogy so both games have that in common, then the customization system is a favorite for many in the community.

Finally, Halo Reach may have been quite a change and started off badly, but it is still a really good Halo game that had the funniest customs outside 5 with a nice atmosphere for those who enjoyed the game. It was so enjoyable that on a regular day 10,000 people are playing the game, despite it being 6 years old and 30 Fps.

> Custom loadouts here were a complete joke because you had to play an exorbitant amount of games to gain levels so you could simply unlock something someone else may already have

What, that’s absurd. Don’t you realize that almost every game has a progression based loadout system? It’s practically required at this point.

Well said mengg… I hear you loud and clear!

I agree, topics like those are pretty annoying, but people won’t stop posting and posting about them posting probably doesn’t help

> 2533274808386392;4:
> So you’re saying that people shouldn’t give criticism in order to improve the series? Yeah, no, people have every right to complain. What would have happened if nobody can complained about Halo 4, stating that it was the best game in existence with no flaws? Not only would Halo 5 have all of the issues it does now, but it would be a continuation of Halo 4’s “Handicap Halo” mentality. Halo 5’s gameplay is very much an improvement over Halo 4, and that came about through people giving criticism.
>
> So you know what? If there’s something people don’t like about the game, they should be encouraged to share their thoughts. Those thoughts are then listened to by 343i, and then that feedback is used to make improvements. That’s how you make a good product, by listening to the consumers.
>
> So you like stuff about Halo 5? Great! Go and enjoy it, and let those who wish to see improvements share their ideas. There is nothing to be gained by sitting back and telling people to just shut up and accept the game as it is, all because you can’t stand to see people disagree with you online.

I’m not saying to not criticize the game. I’m simply saying stop saying this isn’t Halo when it’s a huge step in the right direction.
Many times, though, it’s not constructively criticizing the game it’s complaining about something and almost rage like way. It’s easy to complain.

We must commend the successes all the same as critique the failures. If you say where things are good, companies can get a good sense of direciton on where they should be focusing their development.

> 2533274819302824;7:
> > Custom loadouts here were a complete joke because you had to play an exorbitant amount of games to gain levels so you could simply unlock something someone else may already have
>
>
> What, that’s absurd. Don’t you realize that almost every game has a progression based loadout system? It’s practically required at this point.

Halo: Reach, though I don’t very much care for the game, it wasn’t as bad as Halo 4. Halo Reach at least the unlocked stuff wasn’t game play related and was just customization unlocks. In a way Halo 5 has the same system, but it’s just masked as req points.

Halo 4’s progression based system meant that you had to actually buy weapons to use in your load outs. It put people who play it casually at a much greater disadvantage than those who play religiously.

Halo 5 req points, though they have game play items in it doesn’t put people at a disadvantage when playing in ranked scenario.

> 2535406272231884;6:
> > 2535434981033996;1:
> > Halo: Reach was a very dark time for the series. This is the time when Halo looked to other games that were becoming successful (Namely Call of Duty) and tried to hard to implement features from those games. Call of Duty, in my opinion, is flawed in the sense of when two people charge at each other, their stats could be completely different and you wouldn’t know about it until the clash was over. The perks aren’t displayed, the type of weapon doesn’t matter because of all the different attachments. Customizable load outs. Reach began to implement these things like custom load outs, but nothing was more destructive to the core of Halo than the armor abilities. They were NEVER truly balanced well enough, and a select few dominated the ‘meta’ play, and there was no way to know what your opponent had before the clash. It creates a lack of clarity and changes the starting balance point that is needed for good competitive play. It’s ranking system was laughable, and pulled on the Call of Duty aspect of you have to play to unlock things.
>
>
> I am going to ignore most of your argument except for this part as I think someone else can explain it better than i could.
>
> Whenever people say Reach copied COD with custom loadouts I ask: “can you choose what weapon to bring in before the game starts?”, “can you choose what type of grenade you want?”, " can you mess with the loadout in anyway possible before the game starts?"
>
> Halo Reach had custom loadouts, but the only thing custom about them was the abilities as the weapons stayed the same for many, if not most of the playlists. Also, you an clearly see a guy has a jetpack from the thing on his back and it was easy to shoot guys like that out the air, sprint barely did anything, active camo was broken but got better in 4, armor lock was basically a free kill if you weren’t stupid, hologram was very rarely useful, evade was…evade. My point is the abilities weren’t that bad if you adapted to them. Other than that, Halo Reach copied nothing from COD that broke the game or even made Halo resemble it in the slightest. I agree it wasn’t balanced though, as well as a major change in the formula. But it still was a competitive game as anything where you play against other players to win, can be competitive. Also Halo 5’s ranking system is an utter joke compared to the original trilogy so both games have that in common, then the customization system is a favorite for many in the community.
>
> Finally, Halo Reach may have been quite a change and started off badly, but it is still a really good Halo game that had the funniest customs outside 5 with a nice atmosphere for those who enjoyed the game. It was so enjoyable that on a regular day 10,000 people are playing the game, despite it being 6 years old and 30 Fps.

Except you completely could. Maybe not in some game modes, but you could create your own loadouts and change all those things.

Armor abilities were just like a form of perks from Call of Duty, and in your rant you agree that they were near impossible to balance and the focus went towards a select few for ‘meta’ gameplay reasons. The maps had to be made in a way that one ability could favor a path more than if you took another one. I.E. Getting to a higher ledge because you have a jet pack, and can put people at a disadvantage in more ways than it was intended. Counter play should be available to everyone. This is another aspect of Halo 5 that I enjoy; there isn’t any place on any map that can’t be accessed or gotten to that others can’t also get to, or gain multiple paths to said location.

Reach may not have been completely a copy of Call of Duty, but it pulled heavily from it. So much so that they went full dive into that system with Halo 4 which is where most the people stopped playing. Many people quit citing, “If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I would go get Call of Duty.” To say that Reach didn’t draw on it at all is a pretty ignorant statement.

Just because people keep playing it doesn’t really mean much. During Halo 3’s lifetime there was still a huge fan base that played Halo 2 over Halo 3. Some people have an aversion to moving to another iteration, and with how poorly Halo 4 did, I’m not surprised people who came in at Halo: Reach wouldn’t want to move to Halo 5 out of apprehension. Geez how many people are still playing Team Fortress 2 and that game is how old? Some people just play for nostalgia purposes too. Why else do you think the Master Chief edition was in such high demand? Halo 2 was, I would argue, the golden age of Halo.

In my opinion, the best thing to come from Halo: Reach are the assassination animations, and I don’t think any Halo campaign mode was better than Reach. That’s the gritty dark lore of Halo that I enjoy the games for. I want to see Spartans be hardcore badasses.

> 2535434981033996;1:
> I’ve been a fan of the Halo series since Combat Evolved. Halo 2 was a fantastic ground breaking game, and Halo 3 was super popular because of it’s predecessor’s success. Halo 3 was absolutely fun, not my favorite, but great for competitive play during it’s early life.
>
> Halo: Reach was a very dark time for the series. This is the time when Halo looked to other games that were becoming successful (Namely Call of Duty) and tried to hard to implement features from those games. Call of Duty, in my opinion, is flawed in the sense of when two people charge at each other, their stats could be completely different and you wouldn’t know about it until the clash was over. The perks aren’t displayed, the type of weapon doesn’t matter because of all the different attachments. Customizable load outs. Reach began to implement these things like custom load outs, but nothing was more destructive to the core of Halo than the armor abilities. They were NEVER truly balanced well enough, and a select few dominated the ‘meta’ play, and there was no way to know what your opponent had before the clash. It creates a lack of clarity and changes the starting balance point that is needed for good competitive play. It’s ranking system was laughable, and pulled on the Call of Duty aspect of you have to play to unlock things.
>
> Halo 4 by far, the worst Halo game that was made. It took things that Reach stole and distorted what Halo was even further. We still had custom load outs, with now the ability to spawn with a secondary weapon that could literally one shot an opponent. Custom loadouts here were a complete joke because you had to play an exorbitant amount of games to gain levels so you could simply unlock something someone else may already have. If you were unlucky enough to match against someone who was simply one level higher than you that could be the difference between them having a new armor ability at their disposal that you don’t. Armor abilities are still here, but they are more ‘balanced’ dare I say, but still there was the standard ‘meta’ ability that dominated play and was never tweaked. Sprinting is now universal, but still falls into the same flaw that other games of the generation fell into and that was you were constantly clicking the sprint button to try and move just a little more. Getting shot made your character stutter, and slow making some jumps impossible. The ranking system here was a complete joke. Ordnance drops were probably the coolest new feature to game. Communicating with the game master of war games to summon in a weapon, but the implementation was beyond flawed. Half the time you got the choice between a Needler, Sprint boost, or grenades. The balancing on the drops was non existent, and they made any strategy of map control non existent since you didn’t have to defend power weapon spots.
>
> Now we’re in Halo 5. For once, (yes even with the ‘op’ autos) every single weapon has a use. The weapon balancing in Arena (Not Warzone) is incredibly balanced. I don’t run by a weapon and never think I don’t need it. Power weapon positioning is key. The ranking system is back in a truly competitive light. Arena, ranked, based games everyone starts out with the same setup, there are no hidden powers you don’t know about and it is going back to what Halo used to be, melee, nades, and shooting. I don’t have to worry about if someone has armor lock, or dash, or bubble, or some other thing that is hidden by a lack of clarity. Halo 5 you can clearly see the weapons they have, you know what the weapons can do. They have a thruster, but so do you. Halo 5 is the closest thing to ‘Halo’ we have had in almost a decade, and people are complaining that this isn’t Halo? Why? Because there is Sprint? Because there are thrusters? Because there is clambering? No good game is going to stay good if it doesn’t evolve. Sprinting is almost required in games by now, and Halo 5 I’m not constantly mashing it trying to take a few faster steps. I have to decide if I’m going to sacrifice my vulnerability for speed. Clambering? Opens up a whole new dimension of map creation that doesn’t have to cater to the one small group of people who decided to use a jetpack. Thrusters? This is probably the coolest thing because it allows for a truly skilled player to out maneuver and out shoot. Everyone has access to the same tools, and it just depends on how you use those tools.
>
> Stop this “This isn’t Halo” because you’re hung up on nostalgia. Nostalgia doesn’t make something perfect.

Everybody has there own preference,people like YOU need to stop with that nostalgia argument.Maybe we just don’t like the game because we don’t like it regardless of liking previous games

> 2535434981033996;10:
> > 2533274808386392;4:
> >
>
>
>
>
> > 2535406272231884;6:
> > > 2535434981033996;1:
> > > Halo: Reach was a very dark time for the series. This is the time when Halo looked to other games that were becoming successful (Namely Call of Duty) and tried to hard to implement features from those games. Call of Duty, in my opinion, is flawed in the sense of when two people charge at each other, their stats could be completely different and you wouldn’t know about it until the clash was over. The perks aren’t displayed, the type of weapon doesn’t matter because of all the different attachments. Customizable load outs. Reach began to implement these things like custom load outs, but nothing was more destructive to the core of Halo than the armor abilities. They were NEVER truly balanced well enough, and a select few dominated the ‘meta’ play, and there was no way to know what your opponent had before the clash. It creates a lack of clarity and changes the starting balance point that is needed for good competitive play. It’s ranking system was laughable, and pulled on the Call of Duty aspect of you have to play to unlock things.
> >
> >
> > I am going to ignore most of your argument except for this part as I think someone else can explain it better than i could.
> >
> > Whenever people say Reach copied COD with custom loadouts I ask: “can you choose what weapon to bring in before the game starts?”, “can you choose what type of grenade you want?”, " can you mess with the loadout in anyway possible before the game starts?"
> >
> > Halo Reach had custom loadouts, but the only thing custom about them was the abilities as the weapons stayed the same for many, if not most of the playlists. Also, you an clearly see a guy has a jetpack from the thing on his back and it was easy to shoot guys like that out the air, sprint barely did anything, active camo was broken but got better in 4, armor lock was basically a free kill if you weren’t stupid, hologram was very rarely useful, evade was…evade. My point is the abilities weren’t that bad if you adapted to them. Other than that, Halo Reach copied nothing from COD that broke the game or even made Halo resemble it in the slightest. I agree it wasn’t balanced though, as well as a major change in the formula. But it still was a competitive game as anything where you play against other players to win, can be competitive. Also Halo 5’s ranking system is an utter joke compared to the original trilogy so both games have that in common, then the customization system is a favorite for many in the community.
> >
> > Finally, Halo Reach may have been quite a change and started off badly, but it is still a really good Halo game that had the funniest customs outside 5 with a nice atmosphere for those who enjoyed the game. It was so enjoyable that on a regular day 10,000 people are playing the game, despite it being 6 years old and 30 Fps.
>
>
> Except you completely could. Maybe not in some game modes, but you could create your own loadouts and change all those things.
>
> Armor abilities were just like a form of perks from Call of Duty, and in your rant you agree that they were near impossible to balance and the focus went towards a select few for ‘meta’ gameplay reasons. The maps had to be made in a way that one ability could favor a path more than if you took another one. I.E. Getting to a higher ledge because you have a jet pack, and can put people at a disadvantage in more ways than it was intended. Counter play should be available to everyone. This is another aspect of Halo 5 that I enjoy; there isn’t any place on any map that can’t be accessed or gotten to that others can’t also get to, or gain multiple paths to said location.
>
> Reach may not have been completely a copy of Call of Duty, but it pulled heavily from it. So much so that they went full dive into that system with Halo 4 which is where most the people stopped playing. Many people quit citing, “If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I would go get Call of Duty.” To say that Reach didn’t draw on it at all is a pretty ignorant statement.
>
> Just because people keep playing it doesn’t really mean much. During Halo 3’s lifetime there was still a huge fan base that played Halo 2 over Halo 3. Some people have an aversion to moving to another iteration, and with how poorly Halo 4 did, I’m not surprised people who came in at Halo: Reach wouldn’t want to move to Halo 5 out of apprehension. Geez how many people are still playing Team Fortress 2 and that game is how old? Some people just play for nostalgia purposes too. Why else do you think the Master Chief edition was in such high demand? Halo 2 was, I would argue, the golden age of Halo.
>
> In my opinion, the best thing to come from Halo: Reach are the assassination animations, and I don’t think any Halo campaign mode was better than Reach. That’s the gritty dark lore of Halo that I enjoy the games for. I want to see Spartans be hardcore badasses.

Elaborate, what game modes could you create a loadout on reach besides custom firefight and custom games? Oh wait, there is no other playlist you can do it in -_-

Also, could you please tell me all the things that were taken from COD and put into reach? I just don’t see it. As far as I’ve seen the only thing taken from it was…actually I can’t even come up with anything as armor abilities function and act completely different from perks in COD.

In your sensless bashing of Halo Reach you forgot to explain how in your argument, I probably did the same but I would rather see evidence, something I could plop in my Halo Reach disc and see what they took from COD. Actually I don’t even need to put the disk in because its always in, as halo 5 can’t even make me think about taking it out.

Also this:

> “If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I would go get Call of Duty.”

Was a line used primarily for Halo 4, and so far I have concluded those who use it for Reach where either nostalgia blind, childish, or an actual child.

>

Um, outside of Custom games settings, you couldn’t customize the loadouts in Reach at all. In most gametypes (save for Invasion and its variants, Elite Slayer, and Firefight, and maybe Infection), the loadouts were all the same except for Armor Abilities. Everybody had the same set of 5 preset loadouts with the same weapons and grenades. On top of that, the AAs were visible on the Spartan model with a coded color to distinguish each ability save for Jetpack. As for the AAs themselves, I can’t disagree that they are imbalanced, but how game breaking they are really just depends on personal experience, and, in my personal experience, they weren’t that bad except for Armor Lock. Other than that, and a progression based unlock system, which didn’t unlock anything save for cosmetic stuff, there was pretty much nothing else that you could say was copied from CoD.

I’m not trying to say that Reach is perfect, in fact I know it isn’t perfect. I am trying to say that it was a generally good game and IMO better than Halo 5. If you disagree, then fine, but I disagree that Halo 5 is a good Halo game. It is a Halo game, don’t get me wrong, but not a good one. That’s the thing though, whether it is a good Halo game or not is up to personal preferance, and telling people they shouldn’t be able to voice their distaste for the game simply because they disagree with your idea of a good Halo game is ludicrous.

I just got banned because the match crashed and sent me to main menu and add me an unfare loss in swat wtf 343? If yhou are going to add a ban system first check if it works well in every situation!

I went into this thread ready to hate on you but it turns out I agree with everything you are saying.

The whole part about Halo needing to “evolve” is something I’ve been telling people since the beginning.
Halo 5 has many flaws but the whole movement system isn’t any of them.
It’s modern, it feels good, and IT WORKS.

If we were to stay with the old movement system like Halo 3 has it would be way faster. Like DOOM fast. Do you want that? I sure don’t.

> Halo: Reach, though I don’t very much care for the game, it wasn’t as bad as Halo 4. Halo Reach at least the unlocked stuff wasn’t game play related and was just customization unlocks.
> In a way Halo 5 has the same system, but it’s just masked as req points.Halo 4’s progression based system meant that you had to actually buy weapons to use in your load outs. It put people who play it casually at a much greater disadvantage than those who play religiously.
> Halo 5 req points, though they have game play items in it doesn’t put people at a disadvantage when playing in ranked scenario.

This is the part where I completely ignore all the intricate justifications you have for your position and just say:

That just sounds like a lot of nostalgia bro. It’s not 2001 anymore, Halo needs to evolve. Every other game has progression based unlocks which impact gameplay so Halo should as well.

> We must commend the successes all the same as critique the failures. If you say where things are good, companies can get a good sense of direciton on where they should be focusing their development.

Pretty much nothing is good. Just because the franchise took a small step back after the massive atrocity that was The 4 doesn’t mean we’re suddenly “on the right track”.

Can somebody explain why all games are required to have sprint?

> 2535456165221911;17:
> Can somebody explain why all games are required to have sprint?

It’s probably not best to discuss that here, but the gist of it is that people like the immersion and feeling of going faster (even if they don’t actually go any faster and would go just as fast as if we had a game with no sprint but increased base movement, like Doom).

I guess I could agree on the fact that halo is going way too far with all the new gear but you can’t blame 343 or Bungie. They’re just trying to make the game better, even if it’s not appreciated!!!

I don’t think Halo 5 is bad, I just think its not as good as previous Halo games. The campaign and lack of split screen are what bother me the most. The BTB maps also aren’t great, the older ones were designed better and looked way way better cosmetically. I’m not crazy about how the unggoy and kigyar look in Halo 5 either.

I do like the new abilities though and the weapon variations are cool. I think the req system was a terrible way to replace actually earning armor, but the req system is cool for power weapons. I also really like breakout and war zone.