> 2535418141657688;1:
> Infinite’s art style is…too classical and it doesn’t look like a 2021 game at all and there lots people exist that prefer the 343 time art style than bungie time one.Halo 5 multiplayer is my fav multiplayer in the series so when I got the test I’m a little disappointed
said no one ever
> 2533274804813082;139:
> > 2533274876991706;137:
> > People who prefer 343’s art style don’t understand Halo.
>
> A bold claim. Explain Halo then. Go on, explain it to me, since apparently I don’t understand it.
>
>
>
>
> > Want prood Bungie’s halo and its art style were more popular than 343’s? Statistics. Halo 3 is the most popular and successful Halo to date.
>
> Prove that is because of the art style.
>
>
>
>
> > Halo’s mythos and core is simplicity and militarism, mythos and wonder. That’s butchered by 4/5.
>
> In what way. Especially considering that Halo 4 and 5 vastly expanded the mythos and scope (ergo the sense of wonder) beyond anything during Bungie’ tenure.
>
>
>
>
> > Whether you like it or not, your eccentric power rangers are categorically inferior designs.
>
> Categorically: in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct. Prove it.
Explain halo? Ok, simplicity yet depth. That is the gameplay, the story and the art. If you need more, you won’t ever get it.
Prove that its because of the art style? The art style is part of the sympton of 343 trying to follow trends. To make halo trendy and cool, to reinvent it in their own eyes.
But in reality they just made COD in halo 4 and similarly their art whilst certainly inspired was not Halo in essence.
Halo 4 & 5 expanded the mythos, but I chose quality over quantity. Expansion isn’t inherently good and their interpretations of the Guardians were sad and bland.
I can prove it, majority approves of the older art style than the new one. Want evidence? Just look around.
> 2533274876991706;142:
> Explain halo? Ok, simplicity yet depth. That is the gameplay, the story and the art. If you need more, you won’t ever get it.
How very succinct, and completely nonsensical. Regardless, that is Halo to you. A subjective take that, if you ask me, barely scratches the surface. Especially in regards to the story, it has never been simple.
> Prove that its because of the art style? The art style is part of the sympton of 343 trying to follow trends. To make halo trendy and cool, to reinvent it in their own eyes.
Cool opinions, no facts.
> But in reality they just made COD in halo 4 and similarly their art whilst certainly inspired was not Halo in essence.
Ah yes, because who could forget the adventures of Spartan Soap-409 and his war against the Russian Aliens or what have you. And the art not being “halo” in essence, I’m guessing that’s the “simplicity yet depth”? Cool.
> Expansion isn’t inherently good and their interpretations of the Guardians were sad and bland.
And do tell, what interpretation is that? Art Style or Function? You’re welcome to your own opinions, but I’d certainly say that a massive Forerunner construct with the ability to disable global systems and deploy ground troops, policing an entire solar system is far from bland.
> I can prove it, majority approves of the older art style than the new one. Want evidence? Just look around.
Motioning to a handful does not prove the majority.
> 2533274804813082;143:
> > 2533274876991706;142:
> > Explain halo? Ok, simplicity yet depth. That is the gameplay, the story and the art. If you need more, you won’t ever get it.
>
> How very succinct, and completely nonsensical. Regardless, that is Halo to you. A subjective take that, if you ask me, barely scratches the surface. Especially in regards to the story, it has never been simple.
>
>
>
>
> > Prove that its necayse
>
> Did you mean “necessary”? Prove that what is necessary?
>
> Also it has not gone unnoticed that you cannot prove your claims about Halo 3.
I had obviously posted prematurely. That much is obvious, you’re so aggressively trying to be right.
Also I never said Halo 3 was the most popular because of the art style - I don’t have to prove that. I can only point out the obvious. Its everything, not to mention the fact a majority of the fanbase approves of the return to a Halo 3 inspired Chief.
If the 343 art style was anything close to popular, it’d be obvious.
> 2533274876991706;144:
> I never said Halo 3 was the most popular because of the art style - I don’t have to prove that.
ahem
> 2533274876991706;137:
> Want prood Bungie’s halo and its art style were more popular than 343’s? Statistics. Halo 3 is the most popular and successful Halo to date.
You were saying?
> 2533274804813082;143:
> > 2533274876991706;142:
> > Explain halo? Ok, simplicity yet depth. That is the gameplay, the story and the art. If you need more, you won’t ever get it.
>
> How very succinct, and completely nonsensical. Regardless, that is Halo to you. A subjective take that, if you ask me, barely scratches the surface. Especially in regards to the story, it has never been simple.
>
>
>
>
> > Prove that its because of the art style? The art style is part of the sympton of 343 trying to follow trends. To make halo trendy and cool, to reinvent it in their own eyes.
>
> Cool opinions, no facts.
>
>
>
>
> > But in reality they just made COD in halo 4 and similarly their art whilst certainly inspired was not Halo in essence.
>
> Ah yes, because who could forget the adventures of Spartan Soap-409 and his war against the Russian Aliens or what have you. And the art not being “halo” in essence, I’m guessing that’s the “simplicity yet depth”? Cool.
>
>
>
>
> > Expansion isn’t inherently good and their interpretations of the Guardians were sad and bland.
>
> And do tell, what interpretation is that? Art Style or Function? You’re welcome to your own opinions, but I’d certainly say that a massive Forerunner construct with the ability to disable global systems and deploy ground troops, policing an entire solar system is far from bland.
>
>
>
>
> > I can prove it, majority approves of the older art style than the new one. Want evidence? Just look around.
>
> Motioning to a handful does not prove the majority.
2 I never said the story WAS simple. Stop trying to put words into my mouth to suit your pseudo-intellectual debates. Halo is simple if you want it to be, it can be just as enjoyable at face value of good green guy slaughters aliens. But it can also have depth if you look for it. 4/5 shove it down your throat with pitiful exhibition like the librarian or warden snoreternal.
Perks, ordinance drops, loadouts, are all ripped from COD. Advanced mobility in h5? Another trend popularised at the time of its development. Titanfal, COD (again).
Its not a handful. Nobody is confused about whether or not the last jedi split the star wars fanbase or whether the prequels were hated when they came out. Nor do people with common sense deny that Halo 4/5 are the least aesthetically popular.
> 2533274804813082;145:
> > 2533274876991706;144:
> > I never said Halo 3 was the most popular because of the art style - I don’t have to prove that.
>
> ahem
>
>
> > 2533274876991706;137:
> > Want prood Bungie’s halo and its art style were more popular than 343’s? Statistics. Halo 3 is the most popular and successful Halo to date.
>
> You were saying?
Understand that you are the exception.
You want to pretend its not obvious? That’s fine, this is like debating a flat-earther. But I don’t need to clinically debate you, the majority have gotten what we wanted for the art style.
We’ve already won. xD
> 2533274804813082;145:
> > 2533274876991706;144:
> > I never said Halo 3 was the most popular because of the art style - I don’t have to prove that.
>
> ahem
>
>
> > 2533274876991706;137:
> > Want prood Bungie’s halo and its art style were more popular than 343’s? Statistics. Halo 3 is the most popular and successful Halo to date.
>
> You were saying?
This is my last say on this as you are in pure denial. You want “proof” yet you know (or at least I hope you are smart enough) that there is not going to be any %100 evidence to show the majority disliked the newer art styles as there is never %100 proof on almost anything.
This thread alone of you simply plugging your ears going “lalala, no it isn’t” has been entertaining, but it’s clear that you are not here to be constructive in any sense.
I sure do hope you are not an adult with this mentality.
> 2533274887875135;2:
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But Halo 4 and 5s art styles were objectively bad and if 343 had stuck with it then infinite would have failed… HARD.
Agreed, they pretty much had to make it a return to form or pretty much everyone would probably continue playing MCC.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> I am not arguing these communities are not echo chambers, but rather that it is strange that all communities that talk about Halo are pro-Bungie echo chambers. There is never a pro-343 echo cambers (at least in terms of art style).
Only there’s not an absence of these communities. Looking to Facebook, there is a group called Halo Array that is largely positive of 343i’s art style. You won’t find exclusive fluffing of the art style, as it’s a group that enjoys all of Halo. However rarely will you find rampant criticism of the art style as you see on Reddit and often here. Incidentally, I’ve been in several Halo groups that begin as pure Halo appreciation groups, and are ultimately ruined by Bungie Purists who demean and attack people who are positive of the Reclaimer art style.
Additionally, following Halo on Facebook and Twitter, as well as some of the big-name developers, you find comments expressing positivity of the art style. Here on Waypoint we see many artworks that delve into that art style, expressing appreciation for it in ways that do not take a short time to do. The appreciation is there and evident, if you’re not looking for people who “Love 343, Hate Bungie”.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> …the assumption that people who prefer the older games never give constructive feedback is absurd or that because there are people who give bad-faith criticisms, any good faith actors who believe the same thing should be ignored.
Nowhere have I said anything of the sort. My statements on unconstructive criticism is in regards to unconstructive criticism, and does not broad-brush all criticisms. For example I was never a fan of the D79 Pelicans in Halo 4 and Halo 5, and am very pleased with the look of the current Pelican models, but you wouldn’t have found me voicing that opinion as “These Pelicans are trash. They aren’t Halo”.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> I am sorry, but your denial of statistics is concerning. It is an entire field of study that is aware of the biases of the groups asked and means of avoiding that. However, you just deny the results because it does not fit your impossible standards of having a “sample size” of 100%.
Even then, the statistics would not be accurate. I reject the “statistics” because firstly, we have no statistics. There is not a percentage out there of how many Halo Players prefer Bungie, 343i, or Both. Secondly, statistics are only considered accurate when they present consistent results. All too often polls and statistics are targeted, cultivated, and used to present misinformation. For there to be an accurate metric of showing Halo Fanbase preferences, optimally it would need to be a survey done routinely, as sometimes opinions change.
Consider if a hypothetical poll was done right at the close of 2015. Say that it showed, overwhelmingly, that Halo 5 was thoroughly hated by the Fanbase. Would it still be accurate in 2020, when fans were going back to play Halo 5 and saying ”You know, it’s actually not that bad. I can actually enjoy this Halo game”? Of course not.
That is largely my objection here. It’s an issue that cannot be proven one way or the other, and largely doesn’t matter.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> I know it is your opinion. I know what opinions are. But you are still attempting to use logic to back up your opinions, and that is where I take issue.
Why? Of course I would want to logically back up my opinions. They’re still my opinions, and not a statement of fact.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> Tell me, how many people in this thread are destructive in there criticisms. Now how many are constructive?
In the first two pages alone, 14 non-constructive and 8 constructive. Being fair, that is from both sides of the argument.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> And the line “I**t’s bad because it’s not Bungie” is a straw man. I think you are better than that.
A generalization, yes, but having gone around this circle many times, that’s the general gist. You can even see it in this thread, that Halo has “returned to form” and that Halo 4 and 5 “weren’t Halo”. It distills to the same sentiment; Bungie didn’t make it, so it’s not good enough. Even with the Tech Preview, some people are wanting a complete shed of everything “343”, and won’t be pleased until it’s a return to Halo 3.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> I agree with you that the notion of art being objective is silly, but now you are say opinion-based statements are vague and unhelpful.
I am also saying that they are vague and unhelpful. Objective claims are foolish to make, but that doesn’t pardon (in my mind) spiteful and unhelpful opinions being voiced as advice or feedback. “The look like Power Rangers”: what does that even mean? Their armor looks like cheap polyester costumes? They look like Zords? Or do they mean the power-armors from the 2017 movie (which ironically came out after Halo 5)? Are they referring to the color options that have always been varied and allowed for flamboyance? Or is it limited to the uniqueness of Fireteam Osiris?
Then ”It doesn’t look like Halo”. So what does it look like, then? COD is often given as an example but that’s just as nonsensical. Despite the various minor differences in design and form, weapons and enemies have always been recognizable. Even the Ibie’shan Kig-Yar were recognizable as some form of Kig-Yar.
The design of species and weapons has progressed in equal measure ever since Halo: CE, and even isolated to the Bungie games, there is a considerable amount of diversity in the way weapons and species look. So what exactly does it mean that it ”doesn’t look like Halo”?
Now, where we differ is that I have always encountered this statement made in a vacuum. I’ve never really seen a supporting argument behind it, and it’s just left as is with vague examples of what Halo is that always boil down to “What Bungie Did”. Even look recently at the meaningless “simplicity yet depth”. That means nothing.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> …(Please, don’t respond to each of those. I am sure you do not agree with many of them, but they are just examples.)
Examples of flaws, yes, but not in what makes something look Halo. That’s lighting, materials, color design. For something to be “not Halo”, first it needs to be determined what Halo is, which is admittedly a daunting and subjective topic in and of itself.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> I am scratching my head at the line I bolded in your quote. Yes, Reach is different from Halo 3, but it is by no means just as different from Halo 4.
The difference between the Sangheili in Halo 3 and Halo Reach is about as extreme as the difference between them in Halo 4. And yet the Sangheili retain the elements that make them recognizably Sangheili: four mandibles, two fingers and two thumbs per hand, digitigrade legs, two toes or “hooves”, elongated neck, reptilian build, etc.
Unggoy retained recognition as squat, carapaced ground troops with high-pitched croaking voices, three fingers and a thumb, and a reliance on methane rebreathers. They’ve always been god-awful ugly, even in Halo 3, and Halo 4 really just added detail to that.
As mentioned, between the Rhuutian and T’vaoan Kig-Yar species, the Ibie’shan were recognizable as Kig-Yar through their physiology and armaments (the point-defense gauntlet).
MJOLNIR suites saw an explosion of versatility and diversity in Reach, yet in 4 we actually saw a sense of uniformity return to UNSC ranks as a whole. With teams like Fireteam Majestic, armors were chosen based on their skillsets and roles, but still maintained a sense of uniformity that identified the squad as a unit.
Weapons retained much the same from Reach to 4, and where there was change it was no more dramatic than the redesign of the Needler, the introductions of the Focus Rifle and Plasma Repeater, redesigns of the Gravity Hammer, or redesign of the Assault Rifle.
From what we saw in regards to Forerunner designs in a few Reach multiplayer maps (we didn’t see much in the campaign), the change of their design wasn’t that dramatic. No more so than the change from Halo: CE to Halo 2 - which added far more complexity to design and function - and from Halo 2 to Halo 3 which furthered that complexity.
Additionally, there is the lore to consider in the visual changes. Everything we had seen up until Halo 4 had been Builder culture. Halo 4 is exclusively Promethean culture, and specifically that of the Ur-Didact. What’s more, I believe that as the Domain was opened after repairing (which happened around Halo 4 as Requiem began to come back online), more and more Forerunner artifacts and structures effectively came back to life. Designwise the change isn’t so dramatic that it’s unrecognizable, and canonically it makes sense.
While we’re on lore-based reasons for design, most of what we saw in Bungie’s Era took place in 2552, during the waning years of the Human-Covenant War. Only one year. Halo 4 takes place four years later, after a massive expansion of technology and production (including reverse engineering Forerunner and Covenant tech) that would have resulted in design changes and updates.
Now, to be fair, I’m not too keen on the explanation that was given for John-117’s new suit of armor. I would have much prefered to see the Mk. VI, and then after being aboard the Infinity, introduce the MJOLNIR [GEN2].
> 2533274814550076;140:
> For an example of a nuanced opinion: the Lich looks “like Halo”, but the Harvester looks like something from Warhammer. But these two things do not like they are from the same universe let alone the same faction.
Really it looks no different in design to a Scarab. However the Harverster, I would say, looks Sangheili, a culture that we haven’t really seen yet. This is reflected as well in the Type-57 Phantom seen in Halo 5, which has a more carapaced, organic look to it. Everything seen in 2552 is representative of the Hierarchical Covenant, and is loosely based on designs that came before. More mechanical, more cold and devoid of Sangheili culture. With the fall of the Covenant, and as the Sangheili recover what was theirs, we see more and more Sangheili crafts and designs. Machines that look organic, and take design from the native wildlife of Sanghelios, as it was before the Covenant.
> 2533274814550076;140:
> …There is so much originality [in Infinite], I am not sure what you are upset about.
I’m not, honestly. I’m enjoying almost everything I see, even the [GEN3] armor. I have a working theory that the [GEN2] looks the way it does because the UNSC opened up production and design of MJOLNIR platforms to corporations, and with the [GEN3] Halsey is back at the helm of design. However I don’t have complaints with the designs.
What I object to are purely claims that Halo 4 and 5 were objectively bad - meaning that it can be proven - and that staying with those designs would have resulted in Infinite’s failure (something that isn’t even on radar yet; it could still fail despite these changes). I object to blind loyalty and insistence that the Bungie Era Halo is the only Halo, and that everything else isn’t. I appreciate and enjoy almost all Halo content, including 343i’s aesthetics, and do enjoy seeing new renditions of older models without regressing to those older iterations.
> 2535449665894532;147:
> I sure do hope you are not an adult with this mentality.
I’m 34, but great chat. Thanks for providing example to so many of my points.
> 2533274804813082;132:
> > 2533274814550076;128:
> > Do you have any evidence of the contrary?
>
> No one has evidence to what “the majority” is. That is my point. Shifting the burden of proof for claims of “The Majority thinks…” does not supply that argument with evidence.
>
>
>
>
> > Because if there is none, then that means every part of the internet that talks about Halo (from these forums, to the subreddits, to more generalized game forums) are ALL just echo chambers by your logic. But doesn’t that tell you anything?
>
> It’s interesting that you bring up other parts of the internet. Here, 343i support gets ridicule and insults. Don’t deny it, I’ve seen it happen and have received no small amount myself. So why bother? It wears on people. Places like Reddit? That’s a joke, and creates it’s own echo chamber. Don’t agree with the Status Quo by supporting 343? Well, now your post is downvoted to the point where it’s hidden. On r/halo, literally eight people can decide if your opinion is seen or not.
>
> It does not provide a reliable metric for determining what the majority - if any - prefer. The only way that’s going to be gotten or shown is for every single Halo fan (or at least 80-90% of us) to be directly polled. Until then, it is a non-argument often won-out by Veteran Elitism.
>
>
>
>
> > Though out this entire thread, you have not been offering any argument to support the idea that the players who prefer Halo’s older arty style are not actually the majority.
>
> Because the claim that a majority of Halo players prefer Bungie’s artstyle is not my claim to support, or actively disprove as I have not made a positive claim to the contrary.
>
>
>
>
> > And, if you say it is impossible to tell what the majority of the community thinks, then why should 343 not listen to the vocal community? Why should 343 not use an art style that is reminiscent of the old style but still different? Why should 343 have to stick to their H4/5 style? I would love to hear an answer.
>
> In my opinion, I don’t think 343i should listen to non-constructive criticisms that fall along the lines of “It’s bad because it’s not Bungie”. I don’t think generalized and asinine complaints of “Gundams and Power Rangers” hold any sort of value or worth in terms of design. I think opinion-based statements like “It doesn’t look like Halo” are vague and unhelpful, and often tie back to the “It’s not Bungie” complaints.
>
> I think the Bungie artstyle should be left behind because 343i is not Bungie. Bungie’s time is over, and they are not coming back. Halo is 343i’s ship now. I think that forcing 343i into Bungie’s shoes not only stunts their growth as a studio, but that of the Halo Universe as a whole. It limits the visual culture to 2552 - yet even then, Bungie’s art style changed just as much as the change from Halo Reach to Halo 4 in many regards. Turning up one’s nose at 343i’s art style is also grossly disrespectful to the work of the artists for 343i, holding them to the style of others without even considering appreciating their contribution.
>
> In my opinion nostalgia is a hell of a drug, and people who are riding on it are holding back Halo as a franchise.
Kiltd has a point, this forum for the past 10 years has been an echo chamber of people riling each other up to spew just hatred on anything post H3. As someone who practically ghost reads these forums rather frequently it happens A LOT.
Any post relatively positive towards 343 is like a feeding frenzy for the most vocal anti-343 crowd to bully anyone who has anything positive to say off the thread until it gets locked. It’s too often I’ve seen people get told “they don’t belong here, or they aren’t real halo fans or even that they should kill themselves” for the simple fact they enjoyed Halo 4 or 5. A lot of you mistake the “majority of the fan base” with an incredibly vocal minority, anytime this gets brought up it’s the same people in the same thread that circle jerk each other into a massive ego trip. I could drop names to be specific, but check around on forums and you’ll find them pretty easily.
Content people will rarely say anything but you upset 1 person and they will tell the world, have you guys not noticed the amount of posts appearing in the forum in defense of Halo 5’s changes since the flight? In YouTube comments? On Facebook or Twitter?
Oh, gosh. I cannot keep doing this 
I have better things to do Sunday night than argue with a full-grown adult about armor in Halo.
I will say this:
> 2533274804813082;149:
> > 2533274814550076;140:
> > I know it is your opinion. I know what opinions are. But you are still attempting to use logic to back up your opinions, and that is where I take issue.
>
> Why? Of course I would want to logically back up my opinions. They’re still my opinions, and not a statement of fact.
I worded that poorly. I am not against you using logic at all, it is that the logic you did use is seriously flawed and continues to be. So much so, on top of saying stuff like this:
> > 2533274814550076;140:
> > For an example of a nuanced opinion: the Lich looks “like Halo”, but the Harvester looks like something from Warhammer. But these two things do not like they are from the same universe let alone the same faction.
>
> Really it looks no different in design to a Scarab.
I just think you are a troll. Seriously, I do not think you actually mean anything you are saying. It’s just contradiction, after contradiction, and goal post shift after goal post shift.
You know what? I am happy the game is looking like Halo again after the last two game’s ugly art styles were completely alienating from the core designs of the franchise. I am glad 343 is adding new gameplay mechanics that honor the original design philosophies without turning the game into Call of Duty or whatever. And no matter what you do or say, there is nothing that can change these totally 100% objective facts.
Well, dash any hopes of a meaningful discussion on the progression of design and what makes for the “Halo” Aesthetic.
> 2533274814550076;153:
> I worded that poorly. I am not against you using logic at all, it is that the logic you did use is seriously flawed and continues to be. So much so, on top of saying stuff like this:
No differeing in design. Four legs, mechanical and multi-jointed, an insectoid profile, and a central mining plasma beam that can be utilized as a weapon. Which of which am I describing?
Regardless, the Harvester was a new platform, and among the first introducing the emergence of Sangheili design for vehicles. Something we had never seen before. Yet it has a place in the Universe, and a function that retains the utility and application that the Covenant (and even the Remnants) deployed their vehicles and weapons. It’s not like it was harvesting souls or bodies or whatever things do in Warhammer. The criticism you gave is about as accurate as saying that the Cyclops was “too much like Mechwarrior”.
You’re free to think I’m a troll, and you’re free to be absolutely wrong. I’d demand you back up the accusation of contradicitons, but I know you won’t. Just like you haven’t provided anything, and are now ducking out because “better things to do”.
> You know what? I am happy the game is looking like Halo again after the last two game’s ugly art styles were completely alienating from the core designs of the franchise. I am glad 343 is adding new gameplay mechanics that honor the original design philosophies without turning the game into Call of Duty or whatever. And no matter what you do or say, there is nothing that can change these totally 100% objective facts.
Who’s trolling now?
> 2533274804813082;154:
> Well, dash any hopes of a meaningful discussion on the progression of design and what makes for the “Halo” Aesthetic.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274814550076;153:
> > I worded that poorly. I am not against you using logic at all, it is that the logic you did use is seriously flawed and continues to be. So much so, on top of saying stuff like this:
>
> No differeing in design. Four legs, mechanical and multi-jointed, an insectoid profile, and a central mining plasma beam that can be utilized as a weapon. Which of which am I describing?
>
> Regardless, the Harvester was a new platform, and among the first introducing the emergence of Sangheili design for vehicles. Something we had never seen before. Yet it has a place in the Universe, and a function that retains the utility and application that the Covenant (and even the Remnants) deployed their vehicles and weapons. It’s not like it was harvesting souls or bodies or whatever things do in Warhammer. The criticism you gave is about as accurate as saying that the Cyclops was “too much like Mechwarrior”.
>
> You’re free to think I’m a troll, and you’re free to be absolutely wrong. I’d demand you back up the accusation of contradicitons, but I know you won’t. Just like you haven’t provided anything, and are now ducking out because “better things to do”.
>
>
>
>
> > You know what? I am happy the game is looking like Halo again after the last two game’s ugly art styles were completely alienating from the core designs of the franchise. I am glad 343 is adding new gameplay mechanics that honor the original design philosophies without turning the game into Call of Duty or whatever. And no matter what you do or say, there is nothing that can change these totally 100% objective facts.
>
> Who’s trolling now?
The Harvester had six legs.
I thought you had better things to do than troll-- sorry, “argue about Halo”.
> 2533274804813082;156:
> I thought you had better things to do than troll-- sorry, “argue about Halo”.
Where is the argument?
So then just trolling?
Look bud, I can and am willing to discuss what makes for the Halo Aesthetic, and what fits within that Aesthetic. I’d love to talk about that. That can’t be done if you’re intent on playing Old MacDonald, flinging manure around as you are. Discuss, or move on with your better things to do.
> 2533274804813082;158:
> So then just trolling?
>
> Look bud, I can and am willing to discuss what makes for the Halo Aesthetic, and what fits within that Aesthetic. I’d love to talk about that. That can’t be done if you’re intent on playing Old MacDonald, flinging manure around as you are. Discuss, or move on with your better things to do.
You talk in bad faith, I talk in bad faith in return. Change your tone, then I would change mine. You do see where your bad faith arguments are, right? If not, I can point them out.
> 2533274814550076;159:
> You do see where your bad faith arguments are, right? If not, I can point them out.
That’d be a change. Especially considering in that prior post there are several acknowledgements of points that you’re making, and fair recognition of constructive criticisms of past and current Halo games. So yes, for once do provide some evidence. Show where these “bad faith arguments” are.
Additionally I’m not going to change my tone after spending several hours making a 2,000+ word post, only to have it largely ignored, nitpicked, and called “trolling”. You want hospitality you’re going to have to re-earn it.