Halo Gameplay: Why it Has changed for the Worst

Games Other Halo
1

Before I start, I want to say this is not a hate post against Reach or any other Halo game but rather the warping of Halo gameplay that has occurred and traditional gameplay core concepts that have been disregarded. This is an attempt to compare the two fundamentally different versions of Halo created and bring light to the warping of the gameplay that has ultimately taken place and express why it has been for the worst. I have played this game 10 years and loved every second of it until Reach, to me it destroyed the soul of Halo multiplayer and wasnt true to Halo gameplay core game mechanics or its player base. Reach was the opposite of what makes Halo gameplay great and I will explain why.

Halo was never about choosing a playstyle off spawn. Halo multiplayer is “Two men Enter the better Man wins” this entails a even playing field in which the better player and ultimately team will come out on top. This is just another way of saying Halo is a skill-based game and that in any given encounter/game the better player/team will come out on top. This remained true throughout the whole Halo trilogy, never had asymmetrical advantages off spawn or forced team roles play a part in deciding the game. The Arena style Sandbox gameplay of Halo is about adapting your playstyle through the Sandbox items placed strategically on the map and using your wits and in game prowess to survive. Never are you locked into any role within one live, your role entirely depends on how you choose to adapt to ever-changing game situations using the weapons you start with and the Sandbox items readily available. The multiplayer of Halo is multi-faceted and about adapting to ever-changing game situations on the fly, never has it been a pre-meditated act where you “choose” how to play that defeats the whole purpose of a Sandbox game and the open-ended approach to battles in Campaign and multiplayer the game has always possessed.

Halo never needed reticle bloom or mechanics to reduce weapon accuracy to give more depth to its shooting mechanics or lengthen encounters. The depth was already provided by the shield system and core movement mechanics as well as the varying weapon mechanics. In Halo you play as Masterchief he is able to control weapons with perfect accuracy that would tear the arms off the average soldier. The whole premise of playing as Masterchief is being the ultimate super soldier who is seemingly impervious to weaknesses the average soldier would encounter. I know Reach was different because you did not play as MC but as part of the Noble Six team, but simply put playing as a nerfed character is not as much fun as being the ultimate badass and that reflects in the gameplay. Not only is the “nerfed” gameplay of Reach less appealing when it comes to weapons and movement but it simply isnt what Halo promised to be the first time I played Halo and assaulted the beaches in The Silent Cartographer feeling like nothing could stop me, or split-screening with friends and feeling more empowered as a player than ever before. If there is one thing Halo CE did better than any other Halo is that it empowered you as a player and made you feel like MC. Your ability was the only thing restraining you. Halo should at no point have game mechanics such as reticle bloom that factually limit you as a player. Nor should the game force you into a role-style of play, the Sandbox and core mechanics of Halo are set up to empower the player at no point in time should they limit you in the way they are set up(Reach does this and its why it doesnt “feel” like a Halo game).

Halo was never about “realistic” game mechanics or immersion through realism, it has a beautiful and fascinating Sci-fi universe that immerses you through creativity,colorful and alien environments, and a sense of wonderment that makes you want to explore it. Nobody plays Halo for a super realistic war experience, people play Halo because it takes you into a world you have never seen before and the universe takes a life of its own that exists only in our heads but we get to explore the unknown depths of it and learn about it.

Halo was never a “squad-based shooter” where you have to rely on your teammates to fulfill different roles, you play as Masterchief the ultimate Spartan warrior you’re supposed to be able to feel like you can take down entire armies by yourself and that should be reflected in the gameplay and has been until recently. Most players would rather have “overpowered” elements exist in the game, than feel like MC and yourself as a player are getting nerfed more and more every release. In Halo 3+Reach in both campaign and multiplayer you are nerfed as a player and you no longer feel like “The one man army” that MC is. In campaign weapons and movement mechanics are nerfed, and in multiplayer “Team-shooting” and a forced rush style of play have become the dominant elements in the game. This takes a lot of the fun out of the game and makes the player too reliant on his teammates to kill anything again almost forcing a “role” style of play that Halo was never about until Halo 3 and Reach. I remember being able to put up 30 kills by myself in Halo CE and Halo 2 in a 4v4 DM you felt like a one man army, now every evenly skilled game ends with players within 1-3 kills of each other this is the MAIN problem with the game right now the individual player is limited by the game mechanics instead of empowered ala Halo CE. The remedy to this is Faster kill times and skill-based mechanics to allow players to feel like “the one man army” that Halo CE promised us from the beginning.

2

Halo was never about forcing weapons into roles or rock-paper-scissors combat. Halo CE came along and gave you a pistol that wasnt just a puny sidearm you drop or switch out as soon as you get one of the better weapons it was as effective as the player using it. It gave you a sniper rifle that wasnt restricted to long range combat but left it to the players skill and creativity to decide where and when he utilizes it, it gave you a rocket launcher that functioned like a actual rocket launcher blowing the -Yoink- out of multiple enemies/vehicles if aimed correctly but having long reload times and limited ammo making you play intelligently with it. It gave you a shotgun that behaved like a shotgun, a CQB weapon killing in 1-shot if used correctly. It gave you an AR that was a capable CQB/mid-range weapon no longer was it a weapon that you simply dropped/switched out as soon as you found a better one.

What you see most controversially starting with Halo 2 SMG starts is strict weapon roles being forced into the game. I could go into great detail about it and its implications on gameplay, but simply put the Sandbox became more linear and the battles became more rock-paper-scissors. No longer were battles skill-based but rather pre-determined with longer range weapons like the sniper and CQB weapons like the sword dominating their niches with no chance for the player with the BR or SMG to win these battles. Again the overlying concept I want to get across is that weapons and players were forced into “roles” and battles became more linear and games became less dynamic. This was continued in Halo 3 where the concept of the “utility” weapon and versatile weapons was deemed unfitting for Halo, but rather a forced role style of play with weapons was enforced. This is sub-optimal for a number of reasons in Halo, but most importantly because in Halo you need to spawn with versatile spawn weapons to be able to defend yourself off spawn. This off-sets the “opening rush” for the power items and makes it so controlling the power items is not guaranteed victory, and that just because you get the sniper you can get beat by someone with the utility weapon, or just because you have a shotgun camping in the base a AR or PR if used correctly can win these battles this is what it is missing from Reach.

Halos power-ups created a successfully balanced offensive and defensive dynamic with just TWO power-ups by placing these power-ups on different areas of the map and putting them on timers where they supplemented gameplay not dominated gameplay. Weapons like the PP and PR were added to off-set the over shield giving an effective counter as well as being effective CQB or combo weapons. The camos counter was good “camo eyes” or splash damage weapons like the bruteshot later added in the series. In Halo CE+ Halo 2 you see ALL the power items being utilized on most of the maps, and the timers being much shorter than its successors making for dynamic gameplay where this offensive and defensive dynamic was constantly shifting. Movement was encouraged by these power items as was strategy. Controlling different areas of the map where these power items were located became key, and thus map control was constantly shifting unlike in later titles where after the opening rush map control becomes the dead center of the map. No longer were players and teams coordinating on different areas of the map, but rather forced together into the middle and forced to team-shoot to achieve kills.
With no rhyme or reason for player movement, This severely stagnated gameplay and make it slower and less strategic. No longer was coordinated gameplay seen here by H2 FB Here encouraged. Rather a mindless “rush” style of play was encouraged where players needed to get to the other side of the map as soon as possible to help with team-shot and clean up kills. Free-lancing if you will was encouraged running around the map aimlessly with no punishment for stupid decisions due to AA’s and faulty starting weapons, rather than strategic movement depending on game situations. The strategic style of play Halo CE created and Halo 2 partially continued was forgotten and disgraced. Again, this forced a linear style of play upon players and teams making the game less interesting and fun to play. I don’t expect everyone to follow my train of thought as I know not everyone has the experience and views on the game I do. However, to everyone who reads this what game would you rather play? The non-linear, dynamic, strategic, and skill-based Halo game? Or the more linear, mindless, nerfed, and forced team “role” style Halo game? I think the obvious answer to that lies in what Halo game play represents.

You see this carefully cultivated balance and gameplay dynamics is what makes Halo multiplayer great. Not loadouts, not a false sense of skill, not a false sense of choice from excess game mechanics, not asymmetrical advantages or team roles, what makes Halo gameplay great is the core game mechanics and overlying game elements combining to create what we know as Halo game play. This is Halo, this is why we play the game, please lets keep it that way and stop the warping of the gameplay.

3

Pro tip: Don’t post huge blocks of text, space your ideas out so they aren’t intimidating to read.

4

Thank me if you agree, I want to hear you’re guys opinion on this!!

> Pro tip: Don’t post huge blocks of text, space your ideas out so they aren’t intimidating to read.

I did space my them out in paragraphs, sorry if it isnt the usual two paragraph thread but the subject matter called for more than that and I feel like there is issues raised in here that need to be discussed/addressed or we keep continuing down the wrong path. The ideas I heard were being implemented in H4 are troubling to say the least, and look to continue the problems presented with Reach.

5

I understand what you mean, and this is a really thought out statment until you got to halo 3. The Magnum was the utility weapon of CE, so saying that making a utility weapon in halo 3 was bad for gameplay makes no logical sense (IMO).

Unfotuneatly the gameplay is going to evolve, and it will keep evolving simply because that is what the game series demands.

Halo reach took it in the wrong direction simply through poor maps and bad textures/gameplay. There is nothing wrong with the AA save for jetpack and armor lock, its just the maps were not designed properly.

I rather enjoyed halo 2 as any weapon put into my hand could be used in a certain way, and effectively in that way. I dont get much of a sense of the weapons beign put into specific roles, but i can see what your getting at. Having weapons play roles such as CQB-Mid-Long wasnt the best idea, but it was a neccesary one if halo was going to continue to evolve.

WHat 343i should be looking at now, is what made the halo games great. CE-The utility pistol.
Halo 2, the explorability of the campaign and the way the maps played.
Halo 3, the return of dual weilding and the greatly desinged Multyplayr Maps.
Halo 3-ODST, the diversion into the ODSTs side of the story was a great add on to the series.
Halo Reach, beleive it or not, halo reach wasnt a terrible game. Its maps were simply porely desinged and th gameplay flowed badly because of it. This caused gameplay issues and made the game unfavourable to other games.

What 343 should have learned from reach was simply that changes need to be implemented properly, and maps should be made Gameplay>Aesthetics.

6

I agree. I went back for some Halo 3 yesterday after playing Reach and was like “…What happened?” Halo was better off without all the mechanics added in reach.

7

Holy -Yoink- that was a long post.

Just a thought here…

Could you send us some of your gameplay footage?
You’ve obviously played through the game.
But i want proof.

8

>

> I understand what you mean, and this is a really thought out statment until you got to halo 3. The Magnum was the utility weapon of CE, so saying that making a utility weapon in halo 3 was bad for gameplay makes no logical sense (IMO).

You must of mis-read it then because I did not say that. I have said all along a utility weapon is necessary for competitive Halo gameplay, and that starting with H3(Technically it was H2 but the patch fixed the problem with the H2 BR) with the introduction of the spread on the H3 BR it gave way to “role” weapons where the sniper dominated long range with ease and large asymmetrical advantages existed that were insurmountable given the weak and ineffective starting weapons you were given. With the utility weapon you can defend yourself off spawn no matter the situation, and turn the tide of battle using just the weapons you are given and utilizing everything on the map. This establishes fair gameplay where what weapon you pick up or choose is NOT the deciding factor but rather how effective you utilize said weapon. This makes for fair and skill-based gameplay and its why competitve players prefer this to the huge asymmetrical based gameplay of SMG/post-CE AR start gameplay. Balance problems have arisen in utility weapon starts because after Halo CE all the weapons were nerfed, buffing weapons like the AR and PR would be the optimal solution to this problem not nerfing all the weapons to fit roles that are non-existent in a game like Halo.

> Unfotuneatly the gameplay is going to evolve, and it will keep evolving simply because that is what the game series demands.

I understand that I have played all the Halo games extensively afterall and I feel that certain aspects of the game do not need to evolve but rather revert to what originally made the gameplay great in the first place most of which I outlined in this post. Are we foolish enough to think that everything Reach and previous Halo games changed and added was for the better and that people wouldnt favor reverting to what worked better before? Everyone has to understand just how fragile and calculated Halos gameplay is, it is not a game you can make sweeping changes to without accounting for other portions and various fanbases of the game. An example with Reach is nerfing all the starting weapons, but giving us movement enhancing abilties and CE like power weapons that were left unchecked. Combos like sprint+sword were not accounted for, as was camo+sniper and generally how rushed and chaotic the gameplay became with no rhyme or reason.

> Halo reach took it in the wrong direction simply through poor maps and bad textures/gameplay. There is nothing wrong with the AA save for jetpack and armor lock, its just the maps were not designed properly.

This is a cop out I have seen stated many times and it makes no sense to me. How were the maps not designed with AA’s in mind and what would you change about the current Reach maps to better allocate their use? To me it seems like the right things were done making longer hallways and multi-level maps it is just that AA’s promote a “role” style of play and create imbalanced asymmetrical advantages off spawn that make for chaotic gameplay instead of the carefully cultivated strategic gameplay/map set-ups that we have seen in the past. If AA’s were to be properly implemented, I would rather have use of ALL AA’s off spawn fitting with Halos even playing field and adaptive playstyle where you are constantly adapting to ever-changing game situations. How that would be done is switching between them using the D-pad but nonetheless that might have even played out even worse than having them as loadouts its easy to see why equipment might of been the better choice between the two.

> I rather enjoyed halo 2 as any weapon put into my hand could be used in a certain way, and effectively in that way. I dont get much of a sense of the weapons beign put into specific roles, but i can see what your getting at. Having weapons play roles such as CQB-Mid-Long wasnt the best idea, but it was a neccesary one if halo was going to continue to evolve.

There has always been “niche” weapons in Halo afterall we dont all run around with automatic insta-kill assault rifles with infinite range like other games, but never to the degree of having forced roles such as where the sniper is the only capable long-range weapon and can spawnkill the other team without worry because of ineffective starting weapons that cant challenge the sniper at long range. Or the sword+sprint/shotgun+sprint combo that is basically unbeatable in CQB if used correctly. I should of worded this better in the original post, but what has happened is that Halos “power weapons” and CQB weapons have increased in power with the inclusion of abilities like sprint and evade while the starting weapons and other multiple niche weapons have been nerfed. No longer is there a even battle between the sniper rifle and utility weapon, or the AR and Sword user but pre-determined battles. The strategic skill-based style of the game enforced by strong starting weapons/multiple niche weapons is no longer in effect but a “role” style of rock,paper,scissors where strategic play is not encouraged.

> WHat 343i should be looking at now, is what made the halo games great. CE-The utility pistol.
> Halo 2, the explorability of the campaign and the way the maps played.
> Halo 3, the return of dual weilding and the greatly desinged Multyplayr Maps.
> Halo 3-ODST, the diversion into the ODSTs side of the story was a great add on to the series.
> Halo Reach, beleive it or not, halo reach wasnt a terrible game. Its maps were simply porely desinged and th gameplay flowed badly because of it. This caused gameplay issues and made the game unfavourable to other games.
>
> What 343 should have learned from reach was simply that changes need to be implemented properly, and maps should be made Gameplay>Aesthetics.

I laughed at what you said made Halo CE great because simply a strong utility weapon is NOT what made it great there is so much more to the gameplay THAT WORKS than any other Halo game. What makes the original great is the same things that make Halo gameplay great as I explained, it just so happens that these elements shine more in the original than the other games. Does that mean the gameplay cant get better or improve? No, there have been many improvements to the gameplay and features that have enhanced the game. But, the gameplay has to make sense and I believe needs to draw from the original Halo titles the most to make for the best Halo gameplay.

9

> Halo never needed reticle bloom or mechanics to reduce weapon accuracy to give more depth to its shooting mechanics or lengthen encounters. The depth was already provided by the shield system and core movement mechanics as well as the varying weapon mechanics.

Actually, Halo has had just that since Day 1.

It’s called spread.

And as far as I’m concerned, Bloom exists because people wanted a pin point precision weapon. The goal was that you get to have a pin point precision weapon, but that the kill time for doing so at long ranges is too long to make the weapon effective for anything more than harassment. Much like using the AR in SCBs. Obviously this didn’t pan out.

> Halo should at no point have game mechanics such as reticle bloom that factually limit you as a player.

So by this logic, H4 should give players their radars when they are scoped, keep them scoped in when they are getting shot, allow them to move at full speed while crouched, allow them to carry as many weapons as they want, and shouldn’t have magazines on any of the weapons at all.

All of these mechanics limit you as a player.

> Halo was never a “squad-based shooter” where you have to rely on your teammates to fulfill different roles,

It’s been that too.

You have to rely on you’re teamates to hold and use the various Power Weapons on the map to ensure your win, because you can’t carry them all.

> I remember being able to put up 30 kills by myself in Halo CE and Halo 2 in a 4v4 DM

This sounds like proof that H2’s ranking system failed as a ranking system if you put you against noobs.

10

> Holy Yoink! that was a long post.
>
> Just a thought here…
>
> Could you send us some of your gameplay footage?
> You’ve obviously played through the game.
> But i want proof.

I dont know what you mean by send you some of my gameplay footage what would that accomplish? You are better off watching better players play the game than myself if you want to learn. I will PM you my Stats and old main GT if you’re really that interested and want proof lol.

11

And this relates to Halo 4 how?

12

> Halo was never about forcing weapons into roles or rock-paper-scissors combat.

Actually it’s been about that too.

You won’t be able to take a Rocket Launcher against a Sniper at long range and expect to win. You can’t take an AR against a Shotgun at CQC and expect a win.

> This is sub-optimal for a number of reasons in Halo, but most importantly because in Halo you need to spawn with versatile spawn weapons to be able to defend yourself off spawn.

Key word there: Weapons.

When you spawn you need to be able to defend yourself from the map pickups while at the same time still wanting to go get other map pickups.You should spawn with two weapons that allow you to defend yourself from spawn from most engagement ranges.

What shouldn’t happen is that we degrade the game down to one gun gameplay.

Halo defined itself from other shooters by limiting what you could carry. It forced you to make choices. Since players couldn’t carry the entire game’s arsenal on their back, they want one gun that does everything so they don’t have to make choices.

13

> And this relates to Halo 4 how?

If you can’t see the connection then I feel sorry for you.

14

> > And this relates to Halo 4 how?
>
> If you can’t see the connection then I feel sorry for you.

Actually I didn’t read. Im just sick of complain threads.

15

> >
>
> I laughed at what you said made Halo CE great because simply a strong utility weapon is NOT what made it great there is so much more to the gameplay THAT WORKS than any other Halo game. What makes the original great is the same things that make Halo gameplay great as I explained, it just so happens that these elements shine more in the original than the other games. Does that mean the gameplay cant get better or improve? No, there have been many improvements to the gameplay and features that have enhanced the game. <mark>But, the gameplay has to make sense and I believe needs to draw from the original Halo titles the most to make for the best Halo gameplay</mark>.

These are the parts i definitley agree with you on. I also agree with much above, and this makes more sense than most peoples posts on this site. I thank you for being logical.

I have alwasy said that halo needs to draw from the original games, i completely agree with that, 100%. But they also need changes, the smae gameplay gets way to boring after a while. However halo 4 may be taking the wrong path.

Halo 4 is going down a path where they are taking ideas from other games and throwing it into their own. That was not what halo was about. Halo was about new, spontanious ideas that no one had ever used and seen before, that is the halo i grew to love. But that halo seems to be forgotten as now you see them icorperating things other first person shooters have.

The only reason halo is and should be compared to other games is that it is a FPS, but 343 and bungie seemed to have strayed from that path, making halo more like other games in each game after halo 2. Thats not what we want, and thats not why I played halo.

Halo defined what FPS are today, so why are they copying them. They should contiue to be the inventors, not the by product of what other FPS have become.

Halo needs to draw from the original titles, and then add on to it, not just continue to change in a bad way. That is what i feel you were trying to say in your posts (at least, somewhat)

EDIT: There wer supposed to be more highlited parts but it deleted all the orgignal posts except for that part for some reason.

16

> > > And this relates to Halo 4 how?
> >
> > If you can’t see the connection then I feel sorry for you.
>
> Actually I didn’t read. Im just sick of complain threads.

If you didnt read why would you comment…

17

Haven’t seen you post for some time, but I swear every time you do its friggin’ GOLD.

18

Every weapon has always had a “niche” but what the OP is really getting at is that the niches have become far more strictly enforced than they were in CE.

For example, Halo CE - pistol vs. shotgun at close-mid. The shotgun will probably win, but the pistol has a chance since the 3sk can be very fast (although hard to land, especially close up). Likewise, at pure midrange, pistol vs. shotgun - the shotgun has enough range to win if the pistol user misses a lot of shots (which happened very easily in CE).

What has happened since CE is that the shotgun’s range has become far more limited but its power within close range has been enhanced. This happened basically by making the spread of the pellets much larger, so close range accuracy isn’t as important but the range is capped due to the pellets spreading out so far in a short distance. Additionally, shooting the utility weapon is far easier due to more bullet magnetism and larger hitboxes, so the utility weapon user is much less likely to miss shots at midrange. This is even worse in Halo 3 and Reach because strafing is less responsive.

Obviously we are talking degrees here, a shotgun vs a pistol/BR/DMR in mid-range is a bad matchup for the shotgun in any of the games, but in 2-Reach there is almost zero chance for the shotgun user whereas in CE there is a real chance for the shotgun to win if they can make the pistol user miss a few times.

Similarly, in CE a plasma rifle could easily down a pistol user because the stun effect disoriented the pistol user and could lock him in place long enough that the plasma rifle holder could close the distance and finish with a melee.

TL;DR - engagements in Halo CE were determined not only by weapon choice but also by skillful use of the weapon. Due to a variety of factors (nerfing the range on all non-sniper weapons, dropping plasma weapon stun, much stronger bullet magnetism, larger hitboxes) weapon choice is now far more deterministic of battle outcomes than skillful use of the weapon.

19

OP,

Well written post on your opinions of the Halo series. I agree with most, if not all of them. Thank you for posting in a mature manner. More folks on these forums need to post like you.

20

> > Halo never needed reticle bloom or mechanics to reduce weapon accuracy to give more depth to its shooting mechanics or lengthen encounters. The depth was already provided by the shield system and core movement mechanics as well as the varying weapon mechanics.
>
>
>
> > Actually, Halo has had just that since Day 1.
> >
> > It’s called spread.
> >
> > And as far as I’m concerned, Bloom exists because people wanted a pin point precision weapon. The goal was that you get to have a pin point precision weapon, but that the kill time for doing so at long ranges is too long to make the weapon effective for anything more than harassment. Much like using the AR in SCBs. Obviously this didn’t pan out.
>
> I am going to assume you are talking about the H1 pistol(Because yes Halo has had spread on varying automatic weapons) and Absolutely no one in the universe ever holds down the pistol in H1.
>
> So, the pistol has no spread for all practical purposes and it has no effect on gameplay and the same is true with the hitscan H2 BR.Theres a big difference between Bungie implimenting spreads, and those spreads actually effecting gameplay. Bungie may have implimented spreads in the past, but as it didnt effect gameplay it doesnt really count. Besides the system behind reticule bloom is totally different than just spread anyway and that was the main issue with Reach. What you describe it as being a “tool for just harassment” is the negative of not having an effective utility weapon this is a necessity for competitive gameplay in Halo as I explained. The H3 BR spread and HR Reach bloom severely hurt the competitive side of the game and are mistakes that should never be made again.
>
>
>
>
> > Halo should at no point have game mechanics such as reticle bloom that factually limit you as a player.
>
>
>
> > So by this logic, H4 should give players their radars when they are scoped, keep them scoped in when they are getting shot, allow them to move at full speed while crouched, allow them to carry as many weapons as they want, and shouldn’t have magazines on any of the weapons at all.
> >
> > All of these mechanics limit you as a player.
>
> You obviously missed the “such as reticle bloom” part as that is not what I meant. I fully understand that some limitations make gameplay more varied and interesting but the shooting mechanics of Reach were factually set up to limit the individual player. As in the shooting mechanics(You know kind of the biggest deal about any FPS) should be left untouched and allow the player with the superior aim and decision making to win battles as was always was the case until H3+Reach. The point is that Halo CE empowered you as a player, Reach did not and tried to force players and weapons into “roles” and that reflects in the gameplay negatively.
>
>
>
> > Halo was never a “squad-based shooter” where you have to rely on your teammates to fulfill different roles,
>
>
>
> > It’s been that too.
> >
> > You have to rely on you’re teamates to hold and use the various Power Weapons on the map to ensure your win, because you can’t carry them all.
>
> Halo has never been a “squad-based shooter” anyone who has played actual Squad-based FPS like CS would never say it was. Just because you designate strategy in which players fufill different tasks sometimes does not make it “squad-based”. That is simply using strategy, and every FPS possesses this quality. Thats not what a Sandbox FPS or Halo is about. The player is able to fulfill all roles at different times during the same life you are not limited to one role.
>
>
>
>
> > I remember being able to put up 30 kills by myself in Halo CE and Halo 2 in a 4v4 DM
>
>
>
> > This sounds like proof that H2’s ranking system failed as a ranking system if you put you against noobs.
>
> Nope, Halo 2’s ELO ranking system worked fine. The problem was the cheaters who could not be effectively stopped. The first two Halo games simply emphasized individual skill/battles more by game mechanics and quicker kill times where a player was not stuck in a 1v1 battle for 10 seconds and team-shooting was not a dominant element in the game but a supplemental tactic. Whens the last you have seen a 44-0 gameplay?