I don’t agree with that division. It’s too simple and too “black and white”, and I’d be surprised if anyone genuinely belonged into either group. I don’t believe anyone actually wants Halo to be exactly like Halo CE, 2, 3, or any other existing Halo in that matter. Neither do I believe that anyone wants Halo to become like CoD.
People often don’t care to represent their opinions in a coherent manner. It’s not a secret that people on the internet don’t consider writing more than one paragraph worth the effort. That’s why you end up with hyperbolic one-liners such as “Halo Y should be like Halo X” or “Change is good”, and other conic sections.
It’s silly to claim that Halo is perfect as is, or was ever perfect at any point in time. There is always room for improvement. It’s equally silly to claim that all change is good.
It all comes down to philosophy of game design. There are two ways you can design video game. One is to consider it as a piece of art; to make one game and try something different with the next game. An artist strives for new designs and may completely abandon an old direction and experiment with a new one.
The other way to look at a game is a platform for challenge and competition. The designer decides the way in which they want to challenge the player. They decide to which extent they want to challenge the player’s mind and to which the players dexterity; the “theme” of the game. They work to perfect that theme. They work to increase the challenge of the game in the bounds of that theme.
Obviously, it’s not always so black and white, but I believe that’s the essence of the differences between how people think Halo should continue. Some people think the game will lose its appeal and originality if it doesn’t change all the time, like an artist who makes a master piece and then never comes up with anything new.
On the other hand, Halo has a strong competitive following. It’s undeniable that Halo has consistently devolved in terms of challenge and competitive value. They don’t necessarily think Halo should go back to whatever game they think is the best and stay there forever. All those games are far from perfect. It’s just that those games have features that have potential, and they have a strong core gameplay, on top of which new mechanics should be built; mechanics that further make the gameplay deeper by offering to challenges and strategies.
Ultimately, there are no “camps”. Everyone has their own opinion. But that opinion stems from how the person views games; as an art or entertainment medium which should always offer fresh content to provide replay value, or as a competitive medium which should have deep gameplay allowing players to evolve their skills and keeping them playing the game.
Personally, I think as far as a game series goes, it should remain true to its roots. If a developer or a player gets bored to the formula and wants a completely fresh experience, they should try a new game and come back when they feel like it. A franchise loses part of its soul when it’s modified drastically. And if it’s a game with a competitive following, those competitive players came there because the game supported the type of combination of skills they enjoy. Fundamentally changing how the game works will diminish that depth of the game.