I loved Halo 4 multiplayer partially because I am actually good at it; it was my first game on Xbox Live. I do understand that not everybody agrees with me and that an oppinion, nobody is right or wrong. My question is why do classic players dislike Halo 5 multiplayer? Its weapons are well balanced, no loadouts(I had no problem with loadouts but many people did), and no instant reapawn(again, I didn’t have a problem). Is it because of sprinting, ground pound, and thruster? If Halo 4 and 5 played just like the older Halo’s(1-3), it would be boring. Halo needed a change. The argument that Halo 5 is too hardcore is false; I’m casual and I play ranked. Who cares about rank? I just have fun and try to win; it’s nice to see my rank go up but isn’t everything to me. Halo 4 had no ranking system and didn’t notice until weeks after playing. I don’t care in Halo MCC either. If my rank goes down then that just makes it easier, how is that a punishment? If I’m in a rank too low, it will go back up when I play well. It evens out in the end.
I’ve played since the beginning. Played them all, and played them all alot.
It feels the same to me. Some people are just very adverse to change, however small.
H5 probably has the most balanced multiplayer so far, and I think it’s fine. I’ve always been a very average player, and that hasn’t changed between any of the games, mostly because the core mechanics are always the same. I’ve never felt that a Halo game has been too different than it’s predecessors to pick up immediately, and that includes H5.
Because the game is too fast paced. I personally like it because it makes it more competitive but not when it gets so competitive it ruins the fun of the game (eSports and req packs).
I actually have played every Halo from the beginning, I just didn’t have Xbox Live back in the Halo 2 and Halo 3 days. I went back to the older games through Halo MCC. Halo 2 is fun but there are a lot of good players who know how to play it way better than me. I jump from Halo to Halo and they don’t feel that different to me. Player skill is a larger factor than which game. Though I really don’t like Halo 3, the movement is sluggish and weapon sounds are too quiet.
A lot of people aren’t as open to it after the changes to the series that occurred in Reach and H4… and perceptions on the series are warped as a result.
They just see that Halo changed (yet) again when really, a lot of original elements have returned to the series. It may be packaged a little differently and given a more modern “coat of paint,” but much of it is there.
A lot of people don’t really dig below the surface…
Reason: Haters gonna hate.
They hate the bad servers
I think it’s the hyper focus on competition, that might make the more casual players feel sort of out of their depth. I enjoy it as a casual, but others I know think it’s taken too seriously compared to other games.
> 2533274805919869;7:
> They hate the bad servers
Yup, I’ve had a fair amount of server issues from the get go. My biggest gripes have to do with the mess of a UI mostly. Gameplay wise the matchmaking has been pretty -Yoink- for me in WZ and especially BTB, plus the JIP rate is unacceptably high. I enjoy the new mechanics and expanded weapon sandbox but the other issues make it less/un enjoyable.
Former hater here.
For me, it was the stark contrast from the Halo 1, 2, & 3 where I have done the majority of my playing. I think there are a lot of people that sympathize with that feeling; that it’s ‘too different’ from the simple, less dynamic gameplay in the original series.
Halo Reach began the deviation from classic Halo which brought the jump to Halo 4. It made Halo seem very distant.
I’ve given H5 and chance and have been pleasantly surprised. It’s definitely geared for competitive play which I am greatly a fan of and it pays homage to much of what I was used to in the original series. Furthermore, it has added layers to gameplay to make it more dynamic (or chaotic/excessive in some circumstances).
To put it shortly, I think it’s just the change that is hard to swallow for many people.
> 2535416616313329;1:
> I loved Halo 4 multiplayer partially because I am actually good at it; it was my first game on Xbox Live. I do understand that not everybody agrees with me and that an oppinion, nobody is right or wrong. My question is why do classic players dislike Halo 5 multiplayer? Its weapons are well balanced, no loadouts(I had no problem with loadouts but many people did), and no instant reapawn(again, I didn’t have a problem). Is it because of sprinting, ground pound, and thruster? If Halo 4 and 5 played just like the older Halo’s(1-3), it would be boring. Halo needed a change. The argument that Halo 5 is too hardcore is false; I’m casual and I play ranked. Who cares about rank? I just have fun and try to win; it’s nice to see my rank go up but isn’t everything to me. Halo 4 had no ranking system and didn’t notice until weeks after playing. I don’t care in Halo MCC either. If my rank goes down then that just makes it easier, how is that a punishment? If I’m in a rank too low, it will go back up when I play well. It evens out in the end.
for a lot of people (not me), simple. People that were good at CE were good at H2. They had to learn some new things for H3, but were still generally good. Same went for Reach. But then when Halo 4 and 5 came, they had to learn A LOT more. They weren’t “good” at halo anymore. They started like everyone else. It’s mostly people that cant handle learning things back from stage 1, or that cant keep up with the pace of the game.
> 2533274849069111;8:
> I think it’s the hyper focus on competition, that might make the more casual players feel sort of out of their depth. I enjoy it as a casual, but others I know think it’s taken too seriously compared to other games.
Any game built around wins and loses is built around competition. Halo’s FPS formula of breaking shields before landing a killing shot and in turn lengthier TTK times has always required more skill than a twitch reflex shooter which ultimately leads the more casual masses to feel somewhat “out of their depth” in comparison to the franchise’s core player base. I wouldn’t call what 343i has done with Halo 5 a “hyper focus” on competition, but a focus towards balanced competition which does improve the competitive environment.
> 2775209234672000;12:
> > 2533274849069111;8:
> > I think it’s the hyper focus on competition, that might make the more casual players feel sort of out of their depth. I enjoy it as a casual, but others I know think it’s taken too seriously compared to other games.
>
> Any game built around wins and loses is built around competition. Halo’s FPS formula of breaking shields before landing a killing shot and in turn lengthier TTK times has always required more skill than a twitch reflex shooter which ultimately leads the more casual masses to feel somewhat “out of their depth” in comparison to the franchise’s core player base. I wouldn’t call what 343i has done with Halo 5 a “hyper focus” on competition, but a focus towards balanced competition which does improve the competitive environment.
The lack of more casual modes (Grifball, Infection, Action Sack, WZFF) at launch really made it feel like competitive modes were the priority and I think drove a good number of casuals away early.
> 2533274804649077;13:
> > 2775209234672000;12:
> > > 2533274849069111;8:
> > > I think it’s the hyper focus on competition, that might make the more casual players feel sort of out of their depth. I enjoy it as a casual, but others I know think it’s taken too seriously compared to other games.
> >
> > Any game built around wins and loses is built around competition. Halo’s FPS formula of breaking shields before landing a killing shot and in turn lengthier TTK times has always required more skill than a twitch reflex shooter which ultimately leads the more casual masses to feel somewhat “out of their depth” in comparison to the franchise’s core player base. I wouldn’t call what 343i has done with Halo 5 a “hyper focus” on competition, but a focus towards balanced competition which does improve the competitive environment.
>
> The lack of more casual modes (Grifball, Infection, Action Sack, WZFF) at launch really made it feel like competitive modes were the priority and I think drove a good number of casuals away early.
Not sure I agree that Grifball is a “casual” mode, but I get what you’re saying. A complaint I’ve had with 343i has been how they’ve gone about handling playlist availability at release. To me it makes a lot more sense to make most modes and game-types available at release while condensing and replacing as time goes on, but I’m sure development schedules affect their decisions and ability to reallocate resources much more than I, as a general consumer, can fully understand.
> 2535416616313329;1:
> I loved Halo 4 multiplayer partially because I am actually good at it; it was my first game on Xbox Live. I do understand that not everybody agrees with me and that an oppinion, nobody is right or wrong. My question is why do classic players dislike Halo 5 multiplayer? Its weapons are well balanced, no loadouts(I had no problem with loadouts but many people did), and no instant reapawn(again, I didn’t have a problem). Is it because of sprinting, ground pound, and thruster? If Halo 4 and 5 played just like the older Halo’s(1-3), it would be boring. Halo needed a change. The argument that Halo 5 is too hardcore is false; I’m casual and I play ranked. Who cares about rank? I just have fun and try to win; it’s nice to see my rank go up but isn’t everything to me. Halo 4 had no ranking system and didn’t notice until weeks after playing. I don’t care in Halo MCC either. If my rank goes down then that just makes it easier, how is that a punishment? If I’m in a rank too low, it will go back up when I play well. It evens out in the end.
Ranking system mixed no memorable mp maps, ground pound, stabilizers,and smart link are why I dislike it
> 2775209234672000;14:
> > 2533274804649077;13:
> > > 2775209234672000;12:
> > > > 2533274849069111;8:
> > > > I think it’s the hyper focus on competition, that might make the more casual players feel sort of out of their depth. I enjoy it as a casual, but others I know think it’s taken too seriously compared to other games.
> > >
> > > Any game built around wins and loses is built around competition. Halo’s FPS formula of breaking shields before landing a killing shot and in turn lengthier TTK times has always required more skill than a twitch reflex shooter which ultimately leads the more casual masses to feel somewhat “out of their depth” in comparison to the franchise’s core player base. I wouldn’t call what 343i has done with Halo 5 a “hyper focus” on competition, but a focus towards balanced competition which does improve the competitive environment.
> >
> > The lack of more casual modes (Grifball, Infection, Action Sack, WZFF) at launch really made it feel like competitive modes were the priority and I think drove a good number of casuals away early.
>
> Not sure I agree that Grifball is a “casual” mode, but I get what you’re saying. A complaint I’ve had with 343i has been how they’ve gone about handling playlist availability at release. To me it makes a lot more sense to make most modes and game-types available at release while condensing and replacing as time goes on, but I’m sure development schedules affect their decisions and ability to reallocate resources much more than I, as a general consumer, can fully understand.
Grifball has never really been casual ever since the playlist update, sadly. Besides that, it’s really just bad timing and the whole #HuntTheTruth issues that caused people to hate halo 5. When the hunt the truth controversy was around, people were pretty nick picky with halo 5’s MP, as most felt that they were mis-lead, and hoped that the muti-player would be 100% perfect. I think that explains some of the hate.
Let’s not forget that MCC was (and is) still a broken mess. At least 343i made halo 5 playable at launch.
Micro dlc leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths even if it’s optional
I love halo 5’s multiplayer
I think Halo 5’s multiplayer is the best out of them all. The fast-paced playstyle is the way I like it.
> 2535442303795050;16:
> Let’s not forget that MCC was (and is) still a broken mess.
While the Master Chief Collection WAS a broken mess at release and for some time afterwards the truth is that the game has been in much better shape for a long time now. This is not to say that there aren’t a few minor issues that still exist and that the matchmaking isn’t plagued by low-population numbers, but these are problems that are apart from the broken mess it was at release.