I’ve been seeing alot of cognitive dissonance and denial in concerns to the weapon attacments when 343 seems to be providing us clear evidence that it should AT LEAST be considered a possibility
the cover art BR having a red-dot instead of a acog-like scope
the “scopeless br” or possible “MA5K” in the multiplayer trailer
343’s previous preference of for using trendy game mechanics that may or may not be used in franchises like (but not limited to) call of duty
i think the writing is on the wall here guys, lockes BR had a red dot on it…that wasnt an accident, it was deliberate …stop trying dismiss the strong POSSIBILITY
> I’ve been seeing alot of cognitive dissonance and denial in concerns to the weapon attacments when 343 seems to be providing us clear evidence that it should AT LEAST be considered a possibility
>
> the cover art BR having a red-dot instead of a acog-like scope
>
> the “scopeless br” or possible “MA5K” in the multiplayer trailer
>
> 343’s previous preference of for using trendy game mechanics that may or may not be used in franchises like (but not limited to) call of duty
>
>
>
> i think the writing is on the wall here guys, lockes BR had a red dot on it…that wasnt an accident, it was deliberate …stop trying dismiss the strong POSSIBILITY
There’s also a possibility that there will be unicorns with rainbows coming out their butts because it hasn’t been denied either.
It’s all artwork. None of it is actual “evidence” of anything other than there will be guns in the game. Stop reading into things too much and wait until things are actually shown in about 12 months.
This particular subject is already being discussed:
https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst246491_Halo-5-Guardians--Weapon-Attachments.aspx
And, as I said before, weapon attachments would just make all the ‘randomness’ that people seem to hate so much worse. Plus, trailers are just trailers and cover art is just cover art. Nothing about gameplay is confirmed in any of it.
> > I’ve been seeing alot of cognitive dissonance and denial in concerns to the weapon attacments when 343 seems to be providing us clear evidence that it should AT LEAST be considered a possibility
> >
> > the cover art BR having a red-dot instead of a acog-like scope
> >
> > the “scopeless br” or possible “MA5K” in the multiplayer trailer
> >
> > 343’s previous preference of for using trendy game mechanics that may or may not be used in franchises like (but not limited to) call of duty
> >
> >
> >
> > i think the writing is on the wall here guys, lockes BR had a red dot on it…that wasnt an accident, it was deliberate …stop trying dismiss the strong POSSIBILITY
>
> There’s also a possibility that there will be unicorns with rainbows coming out their butts because it hasn’t been denied either.
>
> It’s all artwork. None of it is actual “evidence” of anything other than there will be guns in the game. Stop reading into things too much and wait until things are actually shown in about 12 months.
stop reading into things prior to a halo launch?
is halo 4 the first halo you’ve been associated with?
'you honestly think 343 would release official promo material with random meaningless details …to a community known for combing and comparing details of any little thing
your post illustrates perfectly the denial I’m talking about
The SMG in ODST had a red sight. What’s your point again?
> The SMG in ODST had a red sight. What’s your point again?
And a silencer.
I do believe remaining neutral until more information comes out is the best course of action. A red dot sight wouldn’t be of any use to Spartans(how would that sight benefit anyone with a Smart-Link?), but Locke’s BR does look like it has one.
> > > I’ve been seeing alot of cognitive dissonance and denial in concerns to the weapon attacments when 343 seems to be providing us clear evidence that it should AT LEAST be considered a possibility
> > >
> > > the cover art BR having a red-dot instead of a acog-like scope
> > >
> > > the “scopeless br” or possible “MA5K” in the multiplayer trailer
> > >
> > > 343’s previous preference of for using trendy game mechanics that may or may not be used in franchises like (but not limited to) call of duty
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > i think the writing is on the wall here guys, lockes BR had a red dot on it…that wasnt an accident, it was deliberate …stop trying dismiss the strong POSSIBILITY
> >
> > There’s also a possibility that there will be unicorns with rainbows coming out their butts because it hasn’t been denied either.
> >
> > It’s all artwork. None of it is actual “evidence” of anything other than there will be guns in the game. Stop reading into things too much and wait until things are actually shown in about 12 months.
>
> stop reading into things prior to a halo launch?
>
> is halo 4 the first halo you’ve been associated with?
>
>
> 'you honestly think 343 would release official promo material with random meaningless details …to a community known for combing and comparing details of any little thing
>
>
> your post illustrates perfectly the denial I’m talking about
The point was that it’s just artwork. You’re not seeing anything with actual substance. So many people have pointed this out in other threads about things like this.
Artwork is Artwork. CGI trailers are just artwork. Not even all Gameplay is legit. Look at the H2 reveal from back in the day. It had the BR as a burst fire at the hip and single shot in scope. It also had huge levels that were demoed that didn’t even make it into the game. If things like that aren’t always correct, what makes you think a simple piece of artwork is completely correct down to that small of detail?
Also the H3 CGI trailer had Master Chief sprinting and he didn’t spring in H3. There is another solid point that you are really reading into things way too hard.
You should focus more on MCC to get some definitive details about what is going on since we aren’t going to get anything for a long time on H5. At least not until after MCC comes out.
Considering I remember the Halo 2 reveal with the Tattoo and all, maybe that will give you an idea of how long I’ve been around for launches. Although you can go back and look it up on YouTube now. And it’s not denial, it’s reasoning. The devs and PR people have stated that they are moving back towards the classic feel of Halo and away from all the randomness of the last two installments. So why would they put in more randomness with weapon attachments? That would be ignorant. Do some research about what has already been stated and proven as fact before you come out with random accusations about things with no solid foundation and opposing facts already present.
Although they did say that H4 would be competitive. That was a joke lol.
OP has a good point. I would have already shrugged it off as being artwork and that it was concept this or that or anything else, but we have been given several instances where we see what could be interpreted as customizable weapons. The only idea that is pushing in the opposite direction on this is that 343 continually swears that the arena multiplayer will be “arena”. My hope is that 343 is simply figuring out what to put on the weapons, my fear is that the players will be figuring out what to put on their weapons.
> > The SMG in ODST had a red sight. What’s your point again?
>
> And a silencer.
Nobody made a big deal about the SMG in ODST because:
a.) the red dot sight and silencer weren’t detachable because weapons were not customizable.
b.) there were no matchmaking playlists, in ODST, in which this weapon could be used.
There’s also a possibility that weapon attachments / customizations will be in H5, but that they are game or map specific, not player specific. So within a given match, every player starts with the same weapon + attachment.
I would not have a problem with that, in principle.
I think given the explicit statements by Frank and Bonnie that the idea of personalized weapons customization is probably not in H5. If that idea is in H5, then 343i lost whatever credibility it had left after H4, and I don’t see the future of Halo faring too well.
Personally, I think they’re smarter than that.
> The point was that it’s just artwork.
So you’re saying they drew up two entirely different variants of the BR in two separate pieces of media just because it looked pretty at the time?
I highly doubt that. We can’t prove their intentions either way, but it’s not unreasonable to say something is up. They went out of their way to model the BR like this.
Weapon attachments would infer that H5G has loadouts and after the HALO 4 is too CoD like backlash it would be safer to assume that it’s a new or different version of a existing gun or that there could be variations on each weapon but players being able to modify various weapons would be a big time bomb waiting to explode
highly unlikely there will be functional red dots and stuff because I doubt 343 will add different weapon additions, they cleary say and talk about EQUAL starts.
> I highly doubt that. We can’t prove their intentions either way, but it’s not unreasonable to say something is up. They went out of their way to model the BR like this.
My thoughts as well.
> > The point was that it’s just artwork.
>
> So you’re saying they drew up two entirely different variants of the BR in two separate pieces of media just because it looked pretty at the time?
>
> I highly doubt that. We can’t prove their intentions either way, but it’s not unreasonable to say something is up. They went out of their way to model the BR like this.
One is concept art, where the slight tilt of the scope is somehow being seen as a red dot sight.
The other is a Halo 4 BR model that probably took an hour at most to remove the scope in whatever 3D modeling software they use.
These are unfinished concepts with around a year of development time to go. What they’re using could well be placeholders, and we’ve only seen 1 3D modeled BR so far.
>
The question is why did they remove/alter the scope? They could’ve drawn the BR as normal but they intentionally went out of their way to make it look different.
> WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Part of me is upset that you are likening me to a conspiracy theorist.
At the same time, I’m laughing my -Yoink- off.
> >
>
> The question is why did they remove/alter the scope? They could’ve drawn the BR as normal but they intentionally went out of their way to make it look different.
Why did they change the Bubble Shield’s design from the CGI announcement trailer to the final game? Because they felt like it.
> > The point was that it’s just artwork.
>
> So you’re saying they drew up two entirely different variants of the BR in two separate pieces of media just because it looked pretty at the time?
>
> I highly doubt that. We can’t prove their intentions either way, but it’s not unreasonable to say something is up. They went out of their way to model the BR like this.
I’m saying that it’s not gameplay, so there isn’t any legitimacy to that being the actual in game weapon. It’s a CGI trailer. They probably had Blur do it like they redid the H2 cutscenes for the MCC. They aren’t the actual in game models. So if you want to say “because it looked good at the time” then go for it. I’m saying they didn’t show any official assets to H5 gameplay at all and people are freaking out.
If you use your sense and listen to what 343 basically said, People hated the COD like structure of the game and they don’t want to do that. They want the Arena style gameplay and having weapon attachments isn’t the way to accomplish that. They are going for the “Classic” Halo style experience back. Of course they are going to have some new features, but they aren’t going to have something along the lines of attachments or loadout like features. Everyone is going to be on a level playing field and go from there. Do your homework before spitting out stupid accusations.