Given the listing of model names for human weapons in Halo Infinite, I think this would be an ideal time to implement multiple different models for each weapon type. A couple of good examples of this would be the MA5B or MA5D assault rifles or the BR55HB SR (Halo 3) and BR85 (Halo 5). I know the latest update stated that they were going to make every weapon feel unique, but they did also say there would be some crossover in roles. A good way of achieving this would be to make tradeoffs in certain areas of a weapon’s performance so as to make it so there is a tradeoff to choosing one over the other. For instance, if the MA5K were to be brought into the games for the first time, it could function as a direct competitor to the SMG. The tradeoff here would be the MA5K would fire slower than the SMG but would do more damage where the SMG would make up for its low damage with its trademark bullet hose firing rate. Ultimately if Halo Infinite is going to be a game for everyone, this should also be reflected in the weapon’s sandbox.
This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
Here’s an example from CE:
- The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
2 issues really. 1 being this goes against the sandbox teams design goals listed in the most recent infinite update. One of their goals was to clean of the sandbox and remove redundancies. Making multiple models does the exact opposite.
The second is that I think this only causes confusion towards the player. One good thing about Halos sandbox is you know how the gun functions by its looks and silhouette. Throwing in different models just creates inconsistencies in the player experience. Sure, H5 got around this with paint jobs, but for me, Id want my AR to function the same every time.
> 2533274840624875;3:
> 2 issues really. 1 being this goes against the sandbox teams design goals listed in the most recent infinite update. One of their goals was to clean of the sandbox and remove redundancies. Making multiple models does the exact opposite.
>
> The second is that I think this only causes confusion towards the player. One good thing about Halos sandbox is you know how the gun functions by its looks and silhouette. Throwing in different models just creates inconsistencies in the player experience. Sure, H5 got around this with paint jobs, but for me, Id want my AR to function the same every time.
The main issue with your argument is that with the plan to add more weapons post-launch, a level of redundancy will at some point become inevitable. With the idea of making multiple models for each weapon type one can get around the redundancy if they make certain weapons id. the BR75 and BR85 perform better in given situations. It should also be noted that those two in particular (as well as the MA5K) are different enough in their appearance from other weapons of their type to allay that confusion. There’s only so much variation one can make in a weapon’s sandbox like Halo before it starts to get out of hand, and they might as well make use of model names somehow, given that they went out of their way to use them this time. Again, if this is going to be a game with something for everyone that should be reflected in the weapons as well as the armor. And it also eliminates the argument for an armor/weapon toggle, given that MCC has started the franchise down that slippery slope.
> 2535435902217648;2:
> This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
>
> Here’s an example from CE:
> - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
Given that there will be weapons added post-launch, a degree of redundancy will at some point become inevitable. This can be avoided in this concept by making allowing for some flexibility in the weapons while at the same time making them more specialized. I’m not saying to bring in all the weapons from the entire franchise but allow for one or two additional types for some of the more basic weapons like the battle rifle or assault rifle. As for the argument that it would confuse the player, the BR85 and MA5K are different enough from the BR75 and MA40 respectively that if you make them perform better or worse in certain conditions it should minimize that confusion if not eliminate it. And on a slightly more trite note, it would eliminate the argument for an armor/weapon toggle given that MCC has started the franchise down that slippery slope. That way there truly is something for everyone as 343 keeps claiming. It also allows for the listing of model names to actually mean something, as one thing that shouldn’t be the case is for something like that to be thrown in for no reason, as currently seems to be the case. If there’s only one of each weapon type you might as well just call it by the name of the weapon type in question.
As their own weapons? No. I like the direction 343 wants to go with minimizing weapon redundancies and creating more elements of difference between weapons that would previously have filled the same, or a similar role.
As weapon skins? Absolutely. Being able to skin your BR in a 343 era appearance, or the Sniper with a more classic S2 design would be fantastic.
> 2533274908503435;5:
> > 2535435902217648;2:
> > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> >
> > Here’s an example from CE:
> > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
>
> I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
> 2535435902217648;7:
> > 2533274908503435;5:
> > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> > >
> > > Here’s an example from CE:
> > > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
> >
> > I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
>
> I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
Just stripping away a bunch of weapons that aren’t classic isn’t going to suddenly make Halo the king of gaming again. You may not want to admit it, but there it is. Those days are gone whether you want to admit it or not. There’s no sense doing something that will play favorites with the fanbase now given that it will have no real benefit. I know you classic fans think that classic is the only way to go, and that any argument in favor of classic is automatically right but in this case you’d be deliberately alienating one or both of the other camps in the community to get your way for something that will ultimately not get the groundbreaking, chart-topping result you want.
> 2533274810177460;6:
> As their own weapons? No. I like the direction 343 wants to go with minimizing weapon redundancies and creating more elements of difference between weapons that would previously have filled the same, or a similar role.
>
> As weapon skins? Absolutely. Being able to skin your BR in a 343 era appearance, or the Sniper with a more classic S2 design would be fantastic.
Well at least you’re not just shooting the idea down entirely like some others in the community are. Just two questions though. One, would this approach extend into the campaign? And two, would the names of the weapons also change to reflect the different model? Again though, I can at least respect that you’re willing to give some ground on the idea at all, that kind of compromise is rare in this community.
I’m ok with multiple models of weapons, and lots of skins. The more ways to play and customise the better imo. I’m not sure 343i will have multiples, but I have nothing against it.
> 2533274908503435;9:
> > 2533274810177460;6:
> > As their own weapons? No. I like the direction 343 wants to go with minimizing weapon redundancies and creating more elements of difference between weapons that would previously have filled the same, or a similar role.
> >
> > As weapon skins? Absolutely. Being able to skin your BR in a 343 era appearance, or the Sniper with a more classic S2 design would be fantastic.
>
> Well at least you’re not just shooting the idea down entirely like some others in the community are. Just two questions though. One, would this approach extend into the campaign? And two, would the names of the weapons also change to reflect the different model? Again though, I can at least respect that you’re willing to give some ground on the idea at all, that kind of compromise is rare in this community.
Yes and yes. Also it would be cool if the skin changed the “weapon outline” that appears on the HUD when you stand over it to one matching whichever version it is, and be given the same, or similar sound effects to that version as well. In the campaign, it would be really cool if you could turn on an option that allows the game to randomly apply skins to matching weapons that spawn in the world, and make the campaign feel just that little bit more visually interesting.
> 2533274908503435;4:
> > 2533274840624875;3:
> > 2 issues really. 1 being this goes against the sandbox teams design goals listed in the most recent infinite update. One of their goals was to clean of the sandbox and remove redundancies. Making multiple models does the exact opposite.
> >
> > The second is that I think this only causes confusion towards the player. One good thing about Halos sandbox is you know how the gun functions by its looks and silhouette. Throwing in different models just creates inconsistencies in the player experience. Sure, H5 got around this with paint jobs, but for me, Id want my AR to function the same every time.
>
> The main issue with your argument is that with the plan to add more weapons post-launch, a level of redundancy will at some point become inevitable. With the idea of making multiple models for each weapon type one can get around the redundancy if they make certain weapons id. the BR75 and BR85 perform better in given situations. It should also be noted that those two in particular (as well as the MA5K) are different enough in their appearance from other weapons of their type to allay that confusion. There’s only so much variation one can make in a weapon’s sandbox like Halo before it starts to get out of hand, and they might as well make use of model names somehow, given that they went out of their way to use them this time. Again, if this is going to be a game with something for everyone that should be reflected in the weapons as well as the armor. And it also eliminates the argument for an armor/weapon toggle, given that MCC has started the franchise down that slippery slope.
no one is arguing that redundancy won’t happen. But making 2 brs with slightly different effects isn’t the way to go about things. You have to look at things from a gameplay perspective. If I’m running around a map and I see a BR silhouette, when I pick it up, I expect a BR. The player should not need magical knowledge on its slight variations to know how that BR should be used. They essentially made a Plasma BR with the plasma carbine or whatever it’s called (from the demo). The player can identify it cause of its look so they know how it shoots (burst), and only need to know what plasmas effect is. Once we start getting into range variation for the same type of gun, it becomes unnecessary and unintuitive.
> 2533274840624875;12:
> > 2533274908503435;4:
> > > 2533274840624875;3:
> > > 2 issues really. 1 being this goes against the sandbox teams design goals listed in the most recent infinite update. One of their goals was to clean of the sandbox and remove redundancies. Making multiple models does the exact opposite.
> > >
> > > The second is that I think this only causes confusion towards the player. One good thing about Halos sandbox is you know how the gun functions by its looks and silhouette. Throwing in different models just creates inconsistencies in the player experience. Sure, H5 got around this with paint jobs, but for me, Id want my AR to function the same every time.
> >
> > The main issue with your argument is that with the plan to add more weapons post-launch, a level of redundancy will at some point become inevitable. With the idea of making multiple models for each weapon type one can get around the redundancy if they make certain weapons id. the BR75 and BR85 perform better in given situations. It should also be noted that those two in particular (as well as the MA5K) are different enough in their appearance from other weapons of their type to allay that confusion. There’s only so much variation one can make in a weapon’s sandbox like Halo before it starts to get out of hand, and they might as well make use of model names somehow, given that they went out of their way to use them this time. Again, if this is going to be a game with something for everyone that should be reflected in the weapons as well as the armor. And it also eliminates the argument for an armor/weapon toggle, given that MCC has started the franchise down that slippery slope.
>
> no one is arguing that redundancy won’t happen. But making 2 brs with slightly different effects isn’t the way to go about things. You have to look at things from a gameplay perspective. If I’m running around a map and I see a BR silhouette, when I pick it up, I expect a BR. The player should not need magical knowledge on its slight variations to know how that BR should be used. They essentially made a Plasma BR with the plasma carbine or whatever it’s called (from the demo). The player can identify it cause of its look so they know how it shoots (burst), and only need to know what plasmas effect is. Once we start getting into range variation for the same type of gun, it becomes unnecessary and unintuitive.
It would also be nice if they are specific in how they introduce new weapons. Redundancy will happen, don’t get me wrong. But if they make a point to add new weapons in two specific ways we can minimize it. The first will be the slow way, where they look for a missing role they can fill and craft a brand new weapon to fill it. This will mean the least redundancy, with any redundancy mostly coming from unintended overlap or being a compromise that had to be made to create the weapon.
The second would be the quick way, which is basically how they would bring in weapons from previous titles. Pick a fan favorite gun and add it to the game. I’ll use two examples to explain how they could still reduce redundancy while doing it though. If they brought back the DMR, they could reduce redundancy with it and the BR by having no BRs spawn on the new maps it is appears in, at least when it comes to base maps in matchmaking. Another example is if they brought back the M6D Magnum, it would obviously dominate hard enough to be treated as a power weapon. So on the few maps it spawns on, there will only be one in a central location like something special.
> 2533274908503435;8:
> > 2535435902217648;7:
> > > 2533274908503435;5:
> > > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > > > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> > > >
> > > > Here’s an example from CE:
> > > > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
> > >
> > > I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
> >
> > I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
>
> Just stripping away a bunch of weapons that aren’t classic isn’t going to suddenly make Halo the king of gaming again. You may not want to admit it, but there it is. Those days are gone whether you want to admit it or not. There’s no sense doing something that will play favorites with the fanbase now given that it will have no real benefit. I know you classic fans think that classic is the only way to go, and that any argument in favor of classic is automatically right but in this case you’d be deliberately alienating one or both of the other camps in the community to get your way for something that will ultimately not get the groundbreaking, chart-topping result you want.
I’m more than willing to admit that those days are gone. I’m sorry if you took my statements to be confrontational. I was only trying to point out that it would be unwise to paint all classic fans as stubborn purists who don’t like change. Again, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
And despite your assumptions, I do not think that classic is the only way to go. I don’t expect you to dig into my comment history, because that would be annoying for you, but I can tell you that if you look back there, you will see me praising many things 343 has done. In fact, I like most of what 343 has done. The Infinite game demo made me excited for Infinite, and that included several aspects of newer Halo that I’d rather not see again. I’ve been a fan of Halo since 2001, and I’m also a fan of 343 in about 90% of what they’ve done… People are capable of liking more than one thing and capable of criticizing the things that they like.
> 2535435902217648;14:
> > 2533274908503435;8:
> > > 2535435902217648;7:
> > > > 2533274908503435;5:
> > > > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > > > > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here’s an example from CE:
> > > > > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
> > > >
> > > > I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
> > >
> > > I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
> >
> > Just stripping away a bunch of weapons that aren’t classic isn’t going to suddenly make Halo the king of gaming again. You may not want to admit it, but there it is. Those days are gone whether you want to admit it or not. There’s no sense doing something that will play favorites with the fanbase now given that it will have no real benefit. I know you classic fans think that classic is the only way to go, and that any argument in favor of classic is automatically right but in this case you’d be deliberately alienating one or both of the other camps in the community to get your way for something that will ultimately not get the groundbreaking, chart-topping result you want.
>
> I’m more than willing to admit that those days are gone. I’m sorry if you took my statements to be confrontational. I was only trying to point out that it would be unwise to paint all classic fans as stubborn purists who don’t like change. Again, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
>
> And despite your assumptions, I do not think that classic is the only way to go. I don’t expect you to dig into my comment history, because that would be annoying for you, but I can tell you that if you look back there, you will see me praising many things 343 has done. In fact, I like most of what 343 has done. The Infinite game demo made me excited for Infinite, and that included several aspects of newer Halo that I’d rather not see again. I’ve been a fan of Halo since 2001, and I’m also a fan of 343 in about 90% of what they’ve done… People are capable of liking more than one thing and capable of criticizing the things that they like.
At the same time, there is a real animosity in the fanbase, mostly between classic fans on one side and Reclaimer and intermediate fans on the other. And most of it is caused by the former’s treatment, be it directly or indirectly, of the latter. Most social media around Halo is swarming with the direct form of this treatment, and just giving classic fans too much of a foothold emboldens them to continue and even escalate their attitude toward the other two camps. Infinite is an opportunity to heal that divide and so far it’s done very little in the way of that reconciliation.
> 2533274810177460;11:
> > 2533274908503435;9:
> > > 2533274810177460;6:
> > > As their own weapons? No. I like the direction 343 wants to go with minimizing weapon redundancies and creating more elements of difference between weapons that would previously have filled the same, or a similar role.
> > >
> > > As weapon skins? Absolutely. Being able to skin your BR in a 343 era appearance, or the Sniper with a more classic S2 design would be fantastic.
> >
> > Well at least you’re not just shooting the idea down entirely like some others in the community are. Just two questions though. One, would this approach extend into the campaign? And two, would the names of the weapons also change to reflect the different model? Again though, I can at least respect that you’re willing to give some ground on the idea at all, that kind of compromise is rare in this community.
>
> Yes and yes. Also it would be cool if the skin changed the “weapon outline” that appears on the HUD when you stand over it to one matching whichever version it is, and be given the same, or similar sound effects to that version as well. In the campaign, it would be really cool if you could turn on an option that allows the game to randomly apply skins to matching weapons that spawn in the world, and make the campaign feel just that little bit more visually interesting.
It would also better reflect the weapons existing in the Halo universe at that time. For instance, I rather doubt that all BR85s and MA5Ds would have just stopped being used a year after Cortana’s manifesto, and as such there should still be a lot of them around. Frankly I’m surprised none of them even appeared in Shadows of Reach.
> 2533274908503435;15:
> > 2535435902217648;14:
> > > 2533274908503435;8:
> > > > 2535435902217648;7:
> > > > > 2533274908503435;5:
> > > > > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > > > > > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here’s an example from CE:
> > > > > > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
> > > > >
> > > > > I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
> > >
> > > Just stripping away a bunch of weapons that aren’t classic isn’t going to suddenly make Halo the king of gaming again. You may not want to admit it, but there it is. Those days are gone whether you want to admit it or not. There’s no sense doing something that will play favorites with the fanbase now given that it will have no real benefit. I know you classic fans think that classic is the only way to go, and that any argument in favor of classic is automatically right but in this case you’d be deliberately alienating one or both of the other camps in the community to get your way for something that will ultimately not get the groundbreaking, chart-topping result you want.
> >
> > I’m more than willing to admit that those days are gone. I’m sorry if you took my statements to be confrontational. I was only trying to point out that it would be unwise to paint all classic fans as stubborn purists who don’t like change. Again, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
> >
> > And despite your assumptions, I do not think that classic is the only way to go. I don’t expect you to dig into my comment history, because that would be annoying for you, but I can tell you that if you look back there, you will see me praising many things 343 has done. In fact, I like most of what 343 has done. The Infinite game demo made me excited for Infinite, and that included several aspects of newer Halo that I’d rather not see again. I’ve been a fan of Halo since 2001, and I’m also a fan of 343 in about 90% of what they’ve done… People are capable of liking more than one thing and capable of criticizing the things that they like.
>
> At the same time, there is a real animosity in the fanbase, mostly between classic fans on one side and Reclaimer and intermediate fans on the other. And most of it is caused by the former’s treatment, be it directly or indirectly, of the latter. Most social media around Halo is swarming with the direct form of this treatment, and just giving classic fans too much of a foothold emboldens them to continue and even escalate their attitude toward the other two camps. Infinite is an opportunity to heal that divide and so far it’s done very little in the way of that reconciliation.
There is plenty of animosity on both sides. I find myself in the middle-ground that you have dubbed the “intermediate” camp, so I have been able to observe both “reclaimer” fans and “classic” fans throw plenty of trash at each other on these forums. It’s not one side or the other, it’s both making things problematic. As I said, I like most of what 343 has added to the Halo story, but certainly not all. And from a gameplay perspective, newer Halo feels like a generic shooter with a sci-fi spin. H4’s MP was basically a COD clone if we’re being perfectly honest.
As an aside OP, I’d recommend getting off of mainstream social media platforms altogether. This forum and a few gaming youtube channels are my only connections to social media, and it has done wonders for my mental health. If you find yourself getting worked up over what people are saying on social media (like happened to me before I severed ties to that world), trust me and just don’t engage in that -yoink- flinging competition.
> 2535435902217648;17:
> > 2533274908503435;15:
> > > 2535435902217648;14:
> > > > 2533274908503435;8:
> > > > > 2535435902217648;7:
> > > > > > 2533274908503435;5:
> > > > > > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > > > > > > This feels like it would muddy the sandbox. A major complaint with regard to H5’s having variants on weapons was that it meant some weapons became obsolete and useless while others became so essential that they were the only ones ever used. I’d rather we have a very limited overlap between weapons. There should be some so you can pick and choose depending on preference and environmental factors, but not so much that it really wouldn’t matter if you chose one CQB weapon or another.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here’s an example from CE:
> > > > > > > - The pistol and the shotgun were both effective at mid range. You could pick either one and do well in a mid-range engagement. However, if you wanted something with long-range capabilities, you needed the pistol more than the shotgun. Conversely, if you wanted to fight up close, a shotgun was the clear choice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I acknowledge this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s better than just discarding things because the classic crowd started whining. To clarify, I’m an intermediate fan, meaning I play all the games, so don’t try to say I just hate old halo, as I know some on that side of the divide are wont to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t think it’s fair to say the “classic crowd started whining”. Suggesting that something isn’t a good idea isn’t whining. There’s a reason Halo used to be the most popular franchise in the world and now it’s more than a few pegs short of that title (like quite a few at this point). So it would be reasonable for one to assume the classic crowd has a leg to stand on when they say something in Halo isn’t working too well and should be changed or reverted back to when the franchise was actually widely popular.
> > > >
> > > > Just stripping away a bunch of weapons that aren’t classic isn’t going to suddenly make Halo the king of gaming again. You may not want to admit it, but there it is. Those days are gone whether you want to admit it or not. There’s no sense doing something that will play favorites with the fanbase now given that it will have no real benefit. I know you classic fans think that classic is the only way to go, and that any argument in favor of classic is automatically right but in this case you’d be deliberately alienating one or both of the other camps in the community to get your way for something that will ultimately not get the groundbreaking, chart-topping result you want.
> > >
> > > I’m more than willing to admit that those days are gone. I’m sorry if you took my statements to be confrontational. I was only trying to point out that it would be unwise to paint all classic fans as stubborn purists who don’t like change. Again, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
> > >
> > > And despite your assumptions, I do not think that classic is the only way to go. I don’t expect you to dig into my comment history, because that would be annoying for you, but I can tell you that if you look back there, you will see me praising many things 343 has done. In fact, I like most of what 343 has done. The Infinite game demo made me excited for Infinite, and that included several aspects of newer Halo that I’d rather not see again. I’ve been a fan of Halo since 2001, and I’m also a fan of 343 in about 90% of what they’ve done… People are capable of liking more than one thing and capable of criticizing the things that they like.
> >
> > At the same time, there is a real animosity in the fanbase, mostly between classic fans on one side and Reclaimer and intermediate fans on the other. And most of it is caused by the former’s treatment, be it directly or indirectly, of the latter. Most social media around Halo is swarming with the direct form of this treatment, and just giving classic fans too much of a foothold emboldens them to continue and even escalate their attitude toward the other two camps. Infinite is an opportunity to heal that divide and so far it’s done very little in the way of that reconciliation.
>
> There is plenty of animosity on both sides. I find myself in the middle-ground that you have dubbed the “intermediate” camp, so I have been able to observe both “reclaimer” fans and “classic” fans throw plenty of trash at each other on these forums. It’s not one side or the other, it’s both making things problematic. As I said, I like most of what 343 has added to the Halo story, but certainly not all. And from a gameplay perspective, newer Halo feels like a generic shooter with a sci-fi spin. H4’s MP was basically a COD clone if we’re being perfectly honest.
>
> As an aside OP, I’d recommend getting off of mainstream social media platforms altogether. This forum and a few gaming youtube channels are my only connections to social media, and it has done wonders for my mental health. If you find yourself getting worked up over what people are saying on social media (like happened to me before I severed ties to that world), trust me and just don’t engage in that -yoink- flinging competition.
While I’ll admit there’s shitslinging from both sides in the divide, what I’ve observed in general interactions between factions is that it seems to be considered more acceptable from one side than the other. For instance, a friend of mine was banned from the Halo Array group on Facebook (probably the worst offender) because he more or less told a classic fan to suck it up because they were whining about sprint. Meanwhile that group has multiple members who actively and directly insult Reclaimer and intermediate fans. And I wish that were the exception. I’m not denying that newer Halo titles have issues, but then all games do.
I seem to be noticing a few more Halo youtubers of late who are of a more moderate stance, but I still find there’s problem groups on that platform. Favyn is probably the easiest example to point out. Check out his “response” to Aozolai to see his attitude toward people who don’t outright hate Halo 5. Overall, I find that while the number of moderates (Ubernick, Halo Canon, Installation 00, and Ascend Hyperion for instance) is growing more prominent, the number of extremists is still unfortunately high. There’s really no escaping the polarization in this community, even here.
And part of the reason I posted this initial thread was to get the idea out there that maybe there should be more in Infinite, design-wise, for the Reclaimer fans given that they’ve represented the classic side well enough but have thus-far neglected the other side aside from one weapon and part of a helmet. I don’t mind that Jorge’s armor is in the game, so long as they also bring in distinctly Reclaimer designs as well (like Mark VI MOD for instance, considering that we still can’t seem to get that in multiplayer).