Using fun facts against Smart scope is hilarious

To anyone here complaining about Smart Scope from a “fiction” perspective, let me bring something to your attention.

The “fiction” of Spartans’ helmets being cybernetically linked to their weapons is actually just a tiny fun fact that isn’t even known by the majority of people who play the games.

This fun fact was made up as an explanation as to why there was no Smart Scope to begin with. I’m not saying that the developers knew that Smart Scope would eventually be added to Halo. I’m saying that, at the time of Halo 1’s release, shooters either didn’t have ADS or the developers didn’t think it was right or how to pull it off correctly at the time.

So what we got in the game was the classic Halo zoom, as if the scope of the gun was all we could see. Now I know that I’m not speaking just for myself when I say that lots of players just assumed that Spartans (and Elites) were actually physically looking through the scope of their gun while zoomed in. It just wasn’t presented as an ADS animation.

The fiction was made as an effort to explain why players were all of a sudden completely zoomed in with their scope, with no way to communicate the character physically aiming with his weapon to players whether it was because they had no time or money to add it in or simply because ADS wasn’t a thing in first person shooters or at least not popular in them.

Our Spartans and Elites have always been aiming down sights. Speaking of Elites, how are they aiming? Are they cybernetically linked too? Why else would every gun’s scope look different?

Battle Rifle Zoom

Carbine Zoom

Sniper Rifle Zoom

Look at the pictures below and tell me that these Spartans are not aiming down their sights.

Master Chief

Red Spartan with Sniper Rifle

Artsy Fartsy Picture

Complain all you want about how Smart Scope affects gameplay, but don’t try to tear it down with Halo fun facts. This is the natural progression of zooming in with a gun in first person (if you’re going to have aiming in an FPS that is).

Besides the slight accuracy buff on automatic weapons smart scope didn’t really change anything when I played the beta, I thought it was cool that all the weapons had holographic sights instead of iron sights that blocked your vision… I just figured it was an aesthetic change. The way it’s presented in Halo 5 seems to make a lot more sense when you think about it, what about marines that don’t have fancy helmets? All these weapons don’t have any sights besides scopes on ranged weapons, do marines just fire blindly at aliens hoping that they’ll hit the target? A little hologram that appears above the weapon make way more sense lore-wise… but in a game I don’t care about lore I only care about gameplay. And based on what I played in H5’s beta, I think smart scoping works really well.

Ha this is actually an excellent thread. Count me in as one of those who originally just assumed that Spartans were using ADS but there was no animation for it. Last year I read The Flood (or Fall of Reach, I forget which book) that actually contains the “scope linked to visor HUD” canon explanation, but I never thought really about WHY they decided to go that route. I 100% agree that the explanation was only created because in 2001, shooters didn’t have ADS, and they needed to say something. It is exactly the same as the nano-bots upgrading Chief’s armor before Halo 4, an explanation everyone hates that was really only created to justify an artistic change, just like the smart link was merely to explain a technical limitation from a game released 14 years ago.

Also the point you make about how Elites obviously have to ADS since they lack the Spartan’s enhancements is perfect as well.

The bottom line is using lore to justify gameplay changes in multiplayer is really questionable, no matter if it’s 343 saying “well, Spartans can sprint in lore,” or a fan-fanatic yelling that ADS has no place in Halo because “Spartans don’t use ADS!!!”

The only way I like to see lore influence MP is in justifying why the multiplayer battles are even occurring. Every other game has some sort of explanation or context for the multiplayer conflict (CS: GO has Counter Terrorists vs. Terrorists, BF and COD always have X-nation vs. Y-nation or A-group vs. B-group). “Red vs. Blue” doesn’t really have any element of that, so I thought War Games simulation was an admirable effort to bring that context element to Halo MP. However it isn’t essential, and I think using lore to justify gameplay changes almost never works. This thread is an excellent example of that.

> 2533274800197828;3:
> Ha this is actually an excellent thread. Count me in as one of those who originally just assumed that Spartans were using ADS but there was no animation for it. Last year I read The Flood (or Fall of Reach, I forget which book) that actually contains the “scope linked to visor HUD” canon explanation, but I never thought really about WHY they decided to go that route. I 100% agree that the explanation was only created because in 2001, shooters didn’t have ADS, and they needed to say something. It is exactly the same as the nano-bots upgrading Chief’s armor before Halo 4, an explanation everyone hates that was really only created to justify an artistic change or technical limitation in one of the games or novels.
>
> Also the point you make about how Elites obviously have to ADS since they lack the Spartan’s enhancements is perfect as well.
>
> The bottom line is using lore to justify gameplay changes in multiplayer is really questionable, no matter if it’s 343 saying “well, Spartans can sprint in lore,” or a fan-fanatic yelling that ADS has no place in Halo because “Spartans don’t use ADS!!!”
>
> The only way I like to see lore influence MP is in justifying why the multiplayer battles are even occurring. Every other game has some sort of explanation or context for the multiplayer conflict (CS: GO has Counter Terrorists vs. Terrorists, BF and COD always have X-nation vs. Y-nation or A-group vs. B-group). “Red vs. Blue” doesn’t really have any element of that, so I thought War Games simulation was an admirable effort to bring that context element to Halo MP. However it isn’t essential, and I think using lore to justify gameplay changes almost never works. This thread is an excellent example of that.

I agree, Gears of War excelled there because it was COG vs Locust, no explanation needed there :slight_smile:

> 2533274800197828;3:
> Ha this is actually an excellent thread. Count me in as one of those who originally just assumed that Spartans were using ADS but there was no animation for it. Last year I read The Flood (or Fall of Reach, I forget which book) that actually contains the “scope linked to visor HUD” canon explanation, but I never thought really about WHY they decided to go that route. I 100% agree that the explanation was only created because in 2001, shooters didn’t have ADS, and they needed to say something. It is exactly the same as the nano-bots upgrading Chief’s armor before Halo 4, an explanation everyone hates that was really only created to justify an artistic change or technical limitation in one of the games or novels.
>
> Also the point you make about how Elites obviously have to ADS since they lack the Spartan’s enhancements is perfect as well.
>
> The bottom line is using lore to justify gameplay changes in multiplayer is really questionable, no matter if it’s 343 saying “well, Spartans can sprint in lore,” or a fan-fanatic yelling that ADS has no place in Halo because “Spartans don’t use ADS!!!”
>
> The only way I like to see lore influence MP is in justifying why the multiplayer battles are even occurring. Every other game has some sort of explanation or context for the multiplayer conflict (CS: GO has Counter Terrorists vs. Terrorists, BF and COD always have X-nation vs. Y-nation or A-group vs. B-group). “Red vs. Blue” doesn’t really have any element of that, so I thought War Games simulation was an admirable effort to bring that context element to Halo MP. However it isn’t essential, and I think using lore to justify gameplay changes almost never works. This thread is an excellent example of that.

Very true, but I appreciate the attempt to reconcile the updates with the lore. But the nano-bots explanation for the MC’s gen 2 armor was some of the laziest and most uncreative crap. It would’ve been better to just say that it’s a visual design update with no canonical explantion–deal with it. Now we have a magic wand (nano-bots) in the halo universe that can magically do anything.

But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?

You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.

Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.

> 2535432359236232;6:
> But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
>
> You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
>
> Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.

While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).

Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?

> 2533274833600810;7:
> > 2535432359236232;6:
> > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> >
> > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> >
> > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
>
>
> While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
>
> Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?

See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.

> 2535432359236232;8:
> > 2533274833600810;7:
> > > 2535432359236232;6:
> > > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> > >
> > > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> > >
> > > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
> >
> > Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?
>
>
>
> See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.

So it makes the AR more useful in mid range while zoomed in, how is this a bad thing? Also, I was talking about the fiction of smart scope when I created this thread, not the gameplay.

> 2533274833600810;9:
> > 2535432359236232;8:
> > > 2533274833600810;7:
> > > > 2535432359236232;6:
> > > > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> > > >
> > > > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
> > >
> > > Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.
>
>
>
> So it makes the AR more useful in mid range while zoomed in, how is this a bad thing? Also, I was talking about the fiction of smart scope, not the gameplay.

Right, and my point was that fiction is leaking into the gameplay and changing it.

The SMG, Sword, and Shotgun are all close ranged weapons. Why do they need scopes? I would even argue that the AR doesn’t need a scope either. Just tighten it’s spread to accommodate mid-range combat, and make it as powerful as Halo 4’s AR, which was one of the most effective versions of the AR in the franchise.

> 2535432359236232;10:
> > 2533274833600810;9:
> > > 2535432359236232;8:
> > > > 2533274833600810;7:
> > > > > 2535432359236232;6:
> > > > > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> > > > >
> > > > > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
> > > >
> > > > Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So it makes the AR more useful in mid range while zoomed in, how is this a bad thing? Also, I was talking about the fiction of smart scope, not the gameplay.
>
>
> Right, and my point was that fiction is leaking into the gameplay and changing it.
>
> The SMG, Sword, and Shotgun are all close ranged weapons. Why do they need scopes? I would even argue that the AR doesn’t need a scope either. Just tighten it’s spread to accommodate mid-range combat, and make it as powerful as Halo 4’s AR, which was one of the most effective versions of the AR in the franchise.

Well if I had to guess why they did it I would say because a huge part of getting good at Halo is learning when to zoom and when to fire from the hip. It’s something that is second nature to experienced players and they want to bring that learning curve to every weapon in the game.

I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.

> 2533274833600810;11:
> > 2535432359236232;10:
> > > 2533274833600810;9:
> > > > 2535432359236232;8:
> > > > > 2533274833600810;7:
> > > > > > 2535432359236232;6:
> > > > > > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So it makes the AR more useful in mid range while zoomed in, how is this a bad thing? Also, I was talking about the fiction of smart scope, not the gameplay.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Right, and my point was that fiction is leaking into the gameplay and changing it.
> >
> > The SMG, Sword, and Shotgun are all close ranged weapons. Why do they need scopes? I would even argue that the AR doesn’t need a scope either. Just tighten it’s spread to accommodate mid-range combat, and make it as powerful as Halo 4’s AR, which was one of the most effective versions of the AR in the franchise.
>
>
>
>
> Well if I had to guess why they did it I would say because a huge part of getting good at Halo is learning when to zoom and when to fire from the hip. It’s something that is second nature to experienced players and they want to bring that learning curve to every weapon in the game.

I suppose, but those weapons I listed don’t really take a good deal of skill to use in the first place. The sword and shotgun especially, since they both kill in one shot/strike. There really isn’t any learning curve for those weapons. Just get close enough for the reticule to turn red, pull the trigger, get a kill. Rinse and repeat.

> 2533274822366750;12:
> I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.

Sorry that I’m not a UNSC/Covenant weapon engineer and have no idea what you’re talking about.

> 2535432359236232;13:
> > 2533274833600810;11:
> > > 2535432359236232;10:
> > > > 2533274833600810;9:
> > > > > 2535432359236232;8:
> > > > > > 2533274833600810;7:
> > > > > > > 2535432359236232;6:
> > > > > > > But why change it at all? It does nothing good for gameplay, and the way aiming used to work has already been established in what? 6 Halo titles?!?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You know what I don’t like about canon excuses? “Spartans should be able to [insert gameplay gimmick here]”. I don’t care what Spartan’s should and shouldn’t be able to do, Halo’s gameplay has already been established with the first three games. I understand people want to experiment with different things, but if stuff is just getting shoehorned in because of canon, then someone is doing something wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gameplay > Realism. Smart scope is an attempt to bring realism into gameplay. I don’t see that as a good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While I agree that gameplay should always come first, having realism in gameplay doesn’t hurt unless it’s extremely out there (ARMA, DayZ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Realism, or rather, immersion, matters for a lot of people. I find a game more enjoyable if I can get immersed in it, which doesn’t happen too often nowadays for me. What’s wrong with having cosmetic changes? Smart Scope isn’t actually changing the way aiming works, just how it looks. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with graphical upgrades, so where are you drawing the line here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See, you would think it’s a cosmetic change when looking at it in terms of the BR, DMR, etc. But look at the Sword, Shotgun, SMG, AR, etc. None of those guns (except one single-player instance of the SMG) had a scope before. Now they do. Believe it or not, that’s going to change gameplay significantly. We’ve already seen how SS affects AR spread. That’s where I would draw the line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So it makes the AR more useful in mid range while zoomed in, how is this a bad thing? Also, I was talking about the fiction of smart scope, not the gameplay.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, and my point was that fiction is leaking into the gameplay and changing it.
> > >
> > > The SMG, Sword, and Shotgun are all close ranged weapons. Why do they need scopes? I would even argue that the AR doesn’t need a scope either. Just tighten it’s spread to accommodate mid-range combat, and make it as powerful as Halo 4’s AR, which was one of the most effective versions of the AR in the franchise.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well if I had to guess why they did it I would say because a huge part of getting good at Halo is learning when to zoom and when to fire from the hip. It’s something that is second nature to experienced players and they want to bring that learning curve to every weapon in the game.
>
>
>
> I suppose, but those weapons I listed don’t really take a good deal of skill to use in the first place. The sword and shotgun especially, since they both kill in one shot/strike. There really isn’t any learning curve for those weapons. Just get close enough for the reticule to turn red, pull the trigger, get a kill. Rinse and repeat.

Well maybe there will be more to it once we see it’s effects on the whole weapon sandbox.

> 2533274833600810;14:
> > 2533274822366750;12:
> > I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.
>
>
>
> Sorry that I’m not a UNSC/Covenant weapon engineer and have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you have no clue on what the lore explanations for zoom are, then why are trying to justify it’s absence in Halo 5? This is kind of the case right now.

> 2533274822366750;16:
> > 2533274833600810;14:
> > > 2533274822366750;12:
> > > I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry that I’m not a UNSC/Covenant weapon engineer and have no idea what you’re talking about.
>
>
> If you have no clue on what the lore explanations for zoom, then why are trying to justify it’s absence in Halo 5? This is kind of the case right now.

I explained how the lore you’re pointing out is merely a fun fact.

Except if it’s functionally the same thing, what’s the point in changing it in the first place? And now everytime I scope in I lose my peripheral view because the scope sides block it out, whereas in the other games, the sides would be more opaque, but still transparent enough to get a full view. It makes no sense, like changing the rocket launcher or shotgun.

> 2533274833600810;17:
> > 2533274822366750;16:
> > > 2533274833600810;14:
> > > > 2533274822366750;12:
> > > > I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry that I’m not a UNSC/Covenant weapon engineer and have no idea what you’re talking about.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have no clue on what the lore explanations for zoom, then why are trying to justify it’s absence in Halo 5? This is kind of the case right now.
>
>
>
> I explained how the lore you’re pointing out is merely a fun fact.

So Spartans having the ability to uplink their visors with their firearm’s scope is merely, according to you, a fun fact? Not an official lore explanation for not having to put their visor up against a scope?

> 2533274822366750;19:
> > 2533274833600810;17:
> > > 2533274822366750;16:
> > > > 2533274833600810;14:
> > > > > 2533274822366750;12:
> > > > > I was in the process of writing a lengthy rebuttal, but then I saw that you are disregarding future technology (visor integrated scope) in favor of modern technology (firearm attached scopes). And you have a lack of understanding on covenant combat harness technology, so you’re arguement for that instantly loses it’s credibility.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I’m not a UNSC/Covenant weapon engineer and have no idea what you’re talking about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have no clue on what the lore explanations for zoom, then why are trying to justify it’s absence in Halo 5? This is kind of the case right now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I explained how the lore you’re pointing out is merely a fun fact.
>
>
> So Spartans having the ability to uplink their visors with their firearm’s scope is merely, according to you, a fun fact? Not an official lore explanation for not having to put their visor up against a scope?

It isn’t widely known amongst players. You really have to dig for it to find it. It’s a useless piece of “lore” because it was merely used as an explanation as to why zooming in with your gun is instantaneous. How come Elites can aim in the exact same way?