Why the Battle Rifle should not be in Infinite

Games Halo Infinite
1

Introduction
Now I know that I probably will get a TON of hate for this one. And I might even deserve it, but at least hear me out. I love the Battle Rifle, it’s design and function always showed much more appeal to me than the more recent additions to the UNSC sandbox such as the DMR. But lately I have started having doubts about it’s place in the sandbox due to the recent terror of the battlefield and its horrifying ancestor, the Halo 5 Guardians Magnum and the Halo Combat Evolved Magnum. So I will tell you a story, in another time…in another console…

Part 1
The Magnum’s first debut in the Halo series was revolutionary in the history of FPS small firearms. It was an overall destroyer that, while not really good, was okay at just about everything. In short range battles with the Magnum, the Shotgun prevailed. In medium range encounters, the Magnum prevailed. In long range encounters, the Sniper Rifle prevailed. For shields, the Plasma Rifle prevailed. For support/suppression roles, the Assault Rifle prevailed. And for vehicle/driver destruction, the Rocket Launcher prevailed. What made the Magnum truly special was that in most of the roles above, can you guess who was in second place? That’s right, the Magnum took second place in most of these, and third place in everything else. The one thing that it does win in also shows it’s nature. The medium range role, right in the middle, was the Magnum’s melt-ation zone. For 3 years the Magnum held the role as the 100% all-rounder that was capable in any situation, then…everything changed…

Part 2
In Halo 2, many weapons returned with new vigor, functions, and weaknesses. Sadly, the Magnum was stripped of everything it stood for, balance, reliability, and the endless thirst for -Yoink!- souls. Thrown to the streets, the Magnum became a symbol of weakness and death(not in the good way). But who was responsible for this most villainous act? Who was so heartless, as to eliminate a worthy nemesis with a swipe of it’s hand to simply rule a monopoly among weapons? It was…the Battle Rifle. Bungie decided that the alien toaster hand-cannon was not suited for normal humans. And since Halo 2 was to focus more on the AI, this was a problem. The answer was obvious, a rifle was to hold the role of all-rounder. However, the developers decided to give the legendary handgun one…last…possession. It’s existence. The Magnum existed and lived, but was nothing but a being trapped in a useless body, incapable of giving another a signal or cry for help. So it lived on, dragging it’s useless undead corpse through the streets, searching for someone…anyone that could help. Ever since the Magnum has lived in a near-death state, always hungry, always thirsty, but never fulfilled, never granted the final comfort of death. Forced to watch the ever-so-successful Battle Rifle, live in wealth and popularity, usurping the life it once had…so…so…so long ago…

Part 3
Finally, after 11 years of torture, the Magnum returned with vengeance. Having searched for what seemed like near eternity, it finally found a person willing to help it’s kicked, burned, insulted, lame corpse. And that person…was 343 Industries, who was in the middle of developing Halo 5. Seeing it’s pain, the gentle giant took it into his care, and forged it into a monster (in the good way). Forged in the eternal fires of vengeance, designed by the hellish curse of immortality, and given the divine gift of outrageous bullet magnetism. The Magnum returned…packing heat, and thirsty for revenge. It tore through opponents, beat the greatest players down, and most of all…it got revenge. Not long after Halo 5’s release, the Battle Rifle was nerfed in just a way as it’s adversary had been dealt…so…so…so long ago…

Part 4
And now, as we wait for Halo Infinite’s glorious release. I will finally get to the point, after the long history lesson that I just gave you. Halo 5’s weapon sandbox suffered from what I call: the sequel redundancy effect. 343 likes to add new weapons for it’s new enemies and factions (who doesn’t) but doesn’t want to eliminate all the iconic weapons of the past, such as the Battle Rifle, and the Magnum. Here is the problem with this strategy. You end up with a LOT of weapons that do the exact…same…thing. For example, do you know just how many long/medium range role weapons there are? A BUTT-LOAD, that’s how many. You have the Covenant Carbine, the DMR, and the Light Rifle. Wanna hear my problem with this? You have 3 weapons…that do…the exact…same…thing. This is terrible for weapon balance. Now I suppose that you are wondering, so what does this have to do with the Battle Rifle and the Magnum? I will tell you, it has worlds to do with the Battle Rifle and the Magnum. The Magnum is known for being an all-rounder correct? A weapon capable of handling any situation? I suppose so, but guess who also turns out to be an all-rounder? That’s right, the Battle Rifle. Why else do you think that it replaced the Magnum and had the poor sidearm stripped of everything it owned? Because, Bungie knew that having two weapons that do the exact same thing was not optimal, especially for the desired role of all-rounder. 343 plans to partially revert to the old ways, but one thing that CANNOT go unchanged, is 343’s habit of having over 3 weapons that do the exact same thing. Now I suppose that you could say, well why not change the Magnum’s role in the sandbox? Well, for one, a small firearms entire purpose is to handle almost any situation. So I bet you can guess my reaction when someone tells me that 343 should turn the Magnum into a short range destroyer or a long range sniper…not much. So why not change the BR’s role, you ask? There simply is nowhere for it to go. We could change it into a long/medium range gun, but…that spot is already taken, by 3 guns, most importantly the iconic Covenant Carbine. We could change it into a short range attacker, but…that spot is also already taken, by 2 guns, most importantly the must-have Shotgun. We could change it into a…a…oh what am I saying, there is really nowhere for it to go!

Epilogue
Do you see my point? The Battle Rifle is a cool gun that has become iconic, just for the wrong reason. The Battle Rifle pushed it’s way in through brute force! (heh heh gid it) And not by finding a place in the sandbox that it belonged. And DON’T EVEN TRY to tell me that maybe 343 should remove the Magnum (“Take care Arbiter, what you speak is heresy!”). That would be like telling me that 343 could remove the Assault Rifle, I could legally shoot you for that. Probably with a Magnum out of spite. But I’m getting off-topic! This already hurts enough, don’t make it worse! I love the Battle Rifle, it is a cool gun! But it simply has never truly belonged in the sandbox ever since it tried to push the Magnum out of the spotlight by force. The point of this essay was to show you my thoughts(I’m so going to be fed to a brute for this), and well…to make you feel bad for the Magnum. But anyway, have I enlightened you? Or have I made a few billion enemies?

Heed my warning 343, the sandbox requires it.

2

Without even having to read all of this from the point where “sandbox” was mentioned, save for some skimming (dude, include a TL;DR if you’re going to do this), you will get criticism that, in your own words, you “might even deserve”.

This is a ridiculous argument. The idea that guns can’t be changed around or added because of the “sandbox” is ludicrous because each Halo game has it’s own weapon sandbox. It’s like people who use the sandbox argument to deter changes in Halo Infinite think that the weapon sandbox is carried over from each game. Yes, some of the sandboxes are similar (2 and 3 for example) but they’re all different iterations, have different weapons, weapon stats, and weapon versions.

Your argument is essentially that Halo CE’s magnum came first, Halo 2’s BR replaced it (which is viewed as… antagonistic?), and now the magnum is back in Halo 5 and Halo 5’s BR is pointless, so it should be removed from Infinite. Just because the magnum came first doesn’t mean it should be the default of every Halo game. The response is very simple; change the BR to act how a BR should act (the go-to rifle), and change the magnum to how a magnum should act (a last resort fire arm).

The pistol looks like a pistol because of it’s model, and the BR looks like a rifle because of it’s model; it has nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with stats. The idea was that the BR would take place of the magnum because a rifle makes more sense than a pistol, it’s all about vanity. If they wanted the BR to work, they’d move stats to make it happen, just like they did perfectly in Halo 2 and 3. I’m not saying they should make either the magnum or the BR as the primary weapon because it’s all vanity and doesn’t matter, but realistically I would expect that the general consensus is that a rifle should be more powerful than a pistol.

TL;DR There is no argument, you’re just saying you want the pistol because it came first. The BR has worked in 2 and 3 and can work in Infinite because weapon sandboxes aren’t directly copied to other Halo games. All of this pertains to vanity, and obviously people think a rifle should be more powerful than a pistol.

3

Generally speaking I agree with removing at least one of these weapons.

While I believe we can salvage a lot of the sandbox by replacing/reworking weapon, I do think the simplest solution would be to simply remove one of them.
Between the Magnum, BR, DMR, I prefer spawning with a Magnum for a few reasons. Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair, the magnum doesn’t take take up as much space on the screen, and I think the AR/Magnum pairing just works.

If it were up to me I would have players spawn with a utility Magnum ala CE or H5/AR, remove the BR, and alter the DMR so it is a true long range weapon ala SPV3. That being said, I wouldn’t mind spawning with a BR either, but that would mean the Magnum needs a new role(and no it can’t simply be a “backup” weapon).

The worst thing that could happen is a repeat of Halo 5 where their are 5 different precision weapons all tripping over each other within the same niche. I realize everyone has their favorites, but it just isn’t healthy for the sandbox. There are things we get can do to breath some life back into other parts of the sandbox, but we just don’t need a Utility Magnum and a utility BR. Something’s gotta give, whether than means removing certain weapons or redesigning them.

I honestly don’t know how anyone can defend the status quo atm.

P.S. If you don’t want the Magnum to be the utility weapon that’s fine, but the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.” Halo does not have a “secondary” slot, every weapon needs to have a unique niche and be lethal enough to deserve respect from you opponent. There is zero room in the sandbox for a weapon that would be thrown away at the earliest opportunity.

4

> 2533274819446242;3:
> Generally speaking I agree with removing at least one of these weapons.
>
> While I believe we can salvage a lot of the sandbox by replacing/reworking weapon, I do think the simplest solution would be to simply remove one of them.
> Between the Magnum, BR, DMR, I prefer spawning with a Magnum for a few reasons. Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair, the magnum doesn’t take take up as much space on the screen, and I think the AR/Magnum pairing just works.
>
> If it were up to me I would have players spawn with a utility Magnum ala CE or H5/AR, remove the BR, and alter the DMR so it is a true long range weapon ala SPV3. That being said, I wouldn’t mind spawning with a BR either, but that would mean the Magnum needs a new role(and no it can’t simply be a “backup” weapon).
>
> The worst thing that could happen is a repeat of Halo 5 where their are 5 different precision weapons all tripping over each other within the same niche. I realize everyone has their favorites, but it just isn’t healthy for the sandbox. There are things we get can do to breath some life back into other parts of the sandbox, but we just don’t need a Utility Magnum and a utility BR. Something’s gotta give, whether than means removing certain weapons or redesigning them.
>
> I honestly don’t know how anyone can defend the status quo atm.
>
> P.S. If you don’t want the Magnum to be the utility weapon that’s fine, but the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.” Halo does not have a “secondary” slot, every weapon needs to have a unique niche and be lethal enough to deserve respect from you opponent. There is zero room in the sandbox for a weapon that would be thrown away at the earliest opportunity.

I do agree that Halo 5’s sandbox was a mess, but other than that I disagree.

"Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair" - Every weapon is fair if it’s given to every player. You might argue that burst weapons give less escape and maneuvering opportunities for the other player, making it less equal, but in reality it comes down to the pull of a trigger. It might even be argued that the BR should be treated as a single shot for how it handles (technically shoots three shots but so close together it doesn’t matter). A single burst is the same as a single bullet of a single shot weapon, it all comes down to stat adjustments for how quickly you want the utility weapon (there’s the phrase I was looking for in my previous post) to kill an opponent.

"The magnum doesn’t take up as much space on the screen" - Kind of redundant because even if you might dislike the fact that there’s less space with a BR, your opponent has to deal with that too. You just have to learn to use the space you have, and it’s not even like the BR takes up a ridiculous amount of screen space. Also, with FOV sliders possibly on the way, that’s not a real problem.

"I think the AR/Magnum pairing just works" - You’re entitled to your opinion. I really like Halo CE’s pairing and Halo 5’s pairing works well, it’s really just aesthetic opinion. Personally I’d like to see the BR back on top.

"the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm”." - It certainly can be, and has been a la Halo 2 and 3. I’d prefer the magnum return as competent but still a sidearm, like Reach’s magnum.

"Halo does not have a “secondary” slot, every weapon needs to have a unique niche" - If you’re of that opinion, then you agree that removing the magnum entirely is an option on the table. The truth is, every weapon fulfilling a unique niche hasn’t been a quality of the Halo sandbox since Halo CE. But Halo can survive without making sure there’s only one gun per niche (shocking), ever since bestseller Halo 2’s BR and Carbine existing in the same area. Where it gets out of hand is when an entire arsenal of an entirely new and different faction (the Prometheans) add a bunch of guns that all copy existing guns.

TL;DR There is no objective answer, it’s still all about aesthetic.

5

> 2535418979567138;4:
> I do agree that Halo 5’s sandbox was a mess, but other than that I disagree.
>
> “Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair” - Every weapon is fair if it’s given to every player. You might argue that burst weapons give less escape and maneuvering opportunities for the other player, making it less equal, but in reality it comes down to the pull of a trigger. It might even be argued that the BR should be treated as a single shot for how it handles (technically shoots three shots but so close together it doesn’t matter). A single burst is the same as a single bullet of a single shot weapon, it all comes down to stat adjustments for how quickly you want the utility weapon (there’s the phrase I was looking for in my previous post) to kill an opponent.

I don’t think there is a big enough difference between single shot and burst fire to bother me should the BR return as the starting weapon, but the very nature of burst fire weapon means that shot separation is going to be a factor resulting in unearned damage regardless of whether the burst is perfectly accurate like the H2 BR. Its not a huge difference, I never claimed it was, but gun to my head if it were up to me to pick between single-shot and burst fire utility weapon(regardless of what it looks like) then I am going to pick single shot.

> “The magnum doesn’t take up as much space on the screen” - Kind of redundant because even if you might dislike the fact that there’s less space with a BR, your opponent has to deal with that too. You just have to learn to use the space you have, and it’s not even like the BR takes up a ridiculous amount of screen space. Also, with FOV sliders possibly on the way, that’s not a real problem.

Like I said, these are my preference and if I’m going to spend the majority of my playtime looking down the barrel of a particular utility weapon I prefer minimal screen inference regardless of other settings.

> “I think the AR/Magnum pairing just works” - You’re entitled to your opinion. I really like Halo CE’s pairing and Halo 5’s pairing works well, it’s really just aesthetic opinion. Personally I’d like to see the BR back on top.

I never said was anything but.

> “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm”.” - It certainly can be, and has been a la Halo 2 and 3. I’d prefer the magnum return as competent but still a sidearm, like Reach’s magnum.

The Reach Magnum is the BR, but worse. That an is an utter waste of space in the sandbox. When you can only hold two weapons at a time regardless of size or shape, there just isn’t any room for a weapon that is only good as a “last resort” when you could pick from any number of other weapons have more utility.

> “Halo does not have a “secondary” slot, every weapon needs to have a unique niche” - If you’re of that opinion, then you agree that removing the magnum entirely is an option on the table. The truth is, every weapon fulfilling a unique niche hasn’t been a quality of the Halo sandbox since Halo CE. But Halo can survive without making sure there’s only one gun per niche (shocking), ever since bestseller Halo 2’s BR and Carbine existing in the same area. Where it gets out of hand is when an entire arsenal of an entirely new and different faction (the Prometheans) add a bunch of guns that all copy existing guns.
>
> TL;DR There is no objective answer, it’s still all about aesthetic.

You realize there are other options besides, “Make the Pistol useless” and “Make the Pistol the Utility weapon” right? The point I was making isn’t that the BR itself is inherently bad, only that I don’t want to see a repeat situation of having a utility Magnum and Utility BR, because it inevitably leads to balance problems and is boring weapon design to boot.

You are right that having a unique niche for each weapon hasn’t been a thing since CE and that’s a bad thing. We don’t have to settle for lazy cookie-cutter sandbox design just because we have enjoyed past games in spite of their issues.

We can create a robust sandbox filled with unique weapons with minimal cuts provided we re-jigger certain less interesting parts of the sandbox to bring out their potential. There are plenty of good candidates to fill the sandbox from various parts of Halo’s past. I also know 343 has the potential to create unique weapons and mechanics because of the req weapons, they just need to apply those types of the designs to the core sandbox rather than hiding them behind easter eggs and lootboxes.

Again, if you prefer the BR to be the starting weapon that’s totally fine, I don’t really care what we start with as long as the rest of the sandbox each finds a unique niche. I only get my hackles up when we start talking about making parts of the sandbox useless(re: Last resort magnum) or end up filling the game redundant clones. Both those things were bad in Halo 2 and are bad now.

6

Removing it i think would be outrageous. The BR is unique no other gun is like this other than its range. But just because it doesn’t have a cousin on the other factions doesn’t mean it should be taken out. Where was the Covenant’s sniper in Reach? (I think that would be the focus rifle but that was a laser with range)

So first of all you are right about how great the BR is and that’s WHY WE SHOULD KEEP IT. I’ve never heard of taking out something that’s really good in the game to improve it. Look I highly doubt that 343i is going to take it out. Especially because Infinite is starting to look like its classic self. You see many people are going to want this gun back. You are one of few (i think) that want this gun gone for these reasons. Yes its a good gun, a great gun but just keep what improves the game.

7

> 2533274819446242;5:
> > 2535418979567138;4:
> > I do agree that Halo 5’s sandbox was a mess, but other than that I disagree.
> >
> > “Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair” - Every weapon is fair if it’s given to every player. You might argue that burst weapons give less escape and maneuvering opportunities for the other player, making it less equal, but in reality it comes down to the pull of a trigger. It might even be argued that the BR should be treated as a single shot for how it handles (technically shoots three shots but so close together it doesn’t matter). A single burst is the same as a single bullet of a single shot weapon, it all comes down to stat adjustments for how quickly you want the utility weapon (there’s the phrase I was looking for in my previous post) to kill an opponent.
>
> I don’t think there is a big enough difference between single shot and burst fire to bother me should the BR return as the starting weapon, but the very nature of burst fire weapon means that shot separation is going to be a factor resulting in unearned damage regardless of whether the burst is perfectly accurate like the H2 BR. Its not a huge difference, I never claimed it was, but gun to my head if it were up to me to pick between single-shot and burst fire utility weapon(regardless of what it looks like) then I am going to pick single shot.

Unearned damage is false if the burst is perfectly accurate, but if a single shot makes you feel better that’s fine.

> Like I said, these are my preference and if I’m going to spend the majority of my playtime looking down the barrel of a particular utility weapon I prefer minimal screen inference regardless of other settings.

Also fine. Wasn’t able to tell if you were approaching that personally or competitively (that since magnum offers more screen space it would be better for player vs player engagement reasons, which is patently false for reasons stated in my previous post).

> I never said was anything but.

I am aware.

> The Reach Magnum is the BR, but worse. That an is an utter waste of space in the sandbox. When you can only hold two weapons at a time regardless of size or shape, there just isn’t any room for a weapon that is only good as a “last resort” when you could pick from any number of other weapons have more utility.

The reason I said a Reach magnum return would be good is because it’s pretty much the only option I can think of that isn’t last resort or utility. It’s pretty good, but really it’s all about the situation you put it in. For example, it’s good in infection modes where you don’t want the player to just one shot infected players in the head (kind of still can, but there’s a larger margin for error than the DMR has). But if it did return it’d have to have more of an advantage in something to be more useful (whether that’s close engagement or something otherwise).

> You realize there are other options besides, “Make the Pistol useless” and “Make the Pistol the Utility weapon” right?

Yes, which is why I’ve said that it can be made for different niches, put in different situations to provide it as a pseudo-utility, or like I said the option to entirely remove it is on the table.

> I only get my hackles up when we start talking about making parts of the sandbox useless(re: Last resort magnum) or end up filling the game redundant clones. Both those things were bad in Halo 2 and are bad now.

Actually, last resort magnum is not useless if you put it in a situation where it can work well. And I have said that completely removing the magnum is an option. The Halo 2 point was that despite there being sandbox issues, Halo 2 still sold really well. I meant that if Infinite’s sandbox is not as tight as CE’s then it won’t doom it, but it should definitely avoid Halo 5’s sandbox. (And to be honest it was partially directed at 343 because I’d be fine at this point if they have lessons learned from Halo 5 even if they don’t create CE levels of niche fulfillment)

The reason I responded to your post is because you presented certain opinions as though they were fact (“Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair”, because you say so) when they were really opinion. Additionally, you stated that you cannot have the magnum return as a “last resort” or “sidearm” (even though realistically that’s what it would be) without clarifying what would happen if you did do that, because obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose via development software. My guess is that you meant you can’t or else you’d be making an unbalanced sandbox, which is false because it would work as a campaign or situational weapon. But with the second post it seems you’re clarifying that it was opinion, which is fine.

8

> 2535418979567138;7:
> Unearned damage is false if the burst is perfectly accurate, but if a single shot makes you feel better that’s fine.

You can’t hand wave away bullet separation short of making the burst fire entirely superficial in which case its a single shot weapon. Swiping the burst to give you 3 chances to clean up a headshot which which inevitably leads to more lucky unearned kills. You can have a perfectly fine compeitive game with a burst fire weapon as the utility, but the issue never really goes away.

> Also fine. Wasn’t able to tell if you were approaching that personally or competitively (that since magnum offers more screen space it would be better for player vs player engagement reasons, which is patently false for reasons stated in my previous post).

I’m generally not a fan of viewmodels needlessly blocking the players view(see also: smart scope) and the Magnum is always going to take up less space than a rifle, but again we are talking margins here.

> The reason I said a Reach magnum return would be good is because it’s pretty much the only option I can think of that isn’t last resort or utility. It’s pretty good, but really it’s all about the situation you put it in. For example, it’s good in infection modes where you don’t want the player to just one shot infected players in the head (kind of still can, but there’s a larger margin for error than the DMR has). But if it did return it’d have to have more of an advantage in something to be more useful (whether that’s close engagement or something otherwise).

I would rather have H2/H3 Magnums than Reach Magnum. They were unbalanced, not redundant. A potent close range headshot weapon is something that we haven’t yet seen fully realized(though the gunfighter was a good attempt). You trade versatility for close range potency. The Reach Magnum as it stand is just another versatile headshot weapon, whereas the DMR, NR were just better versions of the same concept outside of very narrow cicumstances.

> Yes, which is why I’ve said that it can be made for different niches, put in different situations to provide it as a pseudo-utility, or like I said the option to entirely remove it is on the table.

Removing the human sidearm(in the narrative sense), leaves a much bigger hole in the sandbox than it does to remove the BR while the AR DMR still exist, but again I don’t mind having the BR provided the Magnum doesn’t become a throwaway. The BR could also just as easily replace the DMR as a dedicated long range weapon rather than be. There are lots of options on the table, it really just depends on what utility weapon we choose and build the sandbox out from there.

> Actually, last resort magnum is not useless if you put it in a situation where it can work well. And I have said that completely removing the magnum is an option. The Halo 2 point was that despite there being sandbox issues, Halo 2 still sold really well. I meant that if Infinite’s sandbox is not as tight as CE’s then it won’t doom it, but it should definitely avoid Halo 5’s sandbox. (And to be honest it was partially directed at 343 because I’d be fine at this point if they have lessons learned from Halo 5 even if they don’t create CE levels of niche fulfillment)

A last resort, by its nature its only useful when you exclude all other options, Halo is a game of choice where you can pick up other weapons on the fly. No one would ever choose to have a “last resort” when they can choose to have literally anything else. Even if you spawn with it, there aren’t any interesting choices being made, its “oh, I found literally anything else tosses Magnum.”

Halo 2 succeeding in spite of itself isn’t something to aspire to. If we are going to be that flippant about our standards than we could just as easily remove the BR because “well other games have succeeded without it.” Halo 2 is a fun game, Halo 2 could have been better. Infinite should aspire to be better than Halo 2 and 5. Having two redundant weapons in H2(among other things) is just as bad as having 5 redundant weapons in weapons in H5.

> The reason I responded to your post is because you presented certain opinions as though they were fact (“Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair”, because you say so) when they were really opinion. Additionally, you stated that you cannot have the magnum return as a “last resort” or “sidearm” (even though realistically that’s what it would be) without clarifying what would happen if you did do that, because obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose via development software. My guess is that you meant you can’t or else you’d be making an unbalanced sandbox, which is false because it would work as a campaign or situational weapon. But with the second post it seems you’re clarifying that it was opinion, which is fine.

The first one is, but I digress, that really isn’t the point. I said “I prefer” which tends to imply that it was my opinion.

That aside, I don’t know what point you are trying to make by pointing out “obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose.” I don’t want to to have a lazy shallow sandbox and a weapon that is only good as a “last resort” isn’t balanced when you have a freedom to select two weapons regardless of size or choice. “Sidearms” or “Last Resort” weapons make sense when you have a dedicated slot that doesn’t force you to compromise yourself to use it. “Sidearms” make no sense in Halo. The game will be worse than it otherwise could have been, should 343 make deliberately design the Magnum(or any weapon) like a “last resort.”

9

im thinking from a lore standpoint now… and id think if any weapon would go its actually the assualt rifle…
It seems to be a ridiculous weapon for its role. Very inacurate at far range… absolutely dominated at close range by smg… and smg’s are easier and lighter to carry around. You dont need the extreme rate of fire if you are trying to land your shots on a target… and from what i can tell, weaponry is moving in the direction of extreme percision rather than fast fire rate and fire spread. Unless the assualt rifle was intended to damage light vehicles… which probably could be its new niche…

When speaking about the battle rifle , i think what comes to mind is the dmr and battle rifle fill approximately the same role… the pistol … although functioning similar to the battle rifle role wise, can easily be tweaked to be its own unique niche.

So BR vs DMR? idk … i want to say br… that would make the sandbox more varied imo (as opposed to dmr) because we already have the sniper rifle filling the role of long range single fire encounters.

10

> 2533274819446242;8:
> > 2535418979567138;7:
> > Unearned damage is false if the burst is perfectly accurate, but if a single shot makes you feel better that’s fine.
>
> You can’t hand wave away bullet separation short of making the burst fire entirely superficial in which case its a single shot weapon. Swiping the burst to give you 3 chances to clean up a headshot which which inevitably leads to more lucky unearned kills. You can have a perfectly fine compeitive game with a burst fire weapon as the utility, but the issue never really goes away.

In my previous post I mentioned that a single burst is essentially the same thing as a Halo CE pistol shot but divided into 3 (I assume) bullets shot in practically such a rapid succession that it could be practically considered a single shot. You wouldn’t be luckily swiping a headshot because you’re just shooting a segmented single shot (in theory, but if in implementation it’s different whether in Halo 2 or 3 that’s the problem of that game’s “utility weapon” stats being too high and not necessarily a problem of having a burst-fire weapon).

> Removing the human sidearm(in the narrative sense), leaves a much bigger hole in the sandbox than it does to remove the BR while the AR DMR still exist, but again I don’t mind having the BR provided the Magnum doesn’t become a throwaway. The BR could also just as easily replace the DMR as a dedicated long range weapon rather than be. There are lots of options on the table, it really just depends on what utility weapon we choose and build the sandbox out from there.

Not necessarily, because removing a human sidearm would be removing an aesthetic of a weapon and not a niche, or according to you when you say ““Sidearms” make no sense in Halo.”. Yes, the whole point of what I was saying is that you cannot remove the sidearm but it should instead be explored as a campaign weapon or fill a variety of other niches. Also, your first sentence explains exactly why some people don’t like the DMR in Halo Reach, so BR should replace that since they fulfill the same role (DMR is not a dedicated long range weapon).

> A last resort, by its nature its only useful when you exclude all other options, Halo is a game of choice where you can pick up other weapons on the fly. No one would ever choose to have a “last resort” when they can choose to have literally anything else. Even if you spawn with it, there aren’t any interesting choices being made, its “oh, I found literally anything else tosses Magnum.”

Which, I just remembered, is why dual-wielding is central to the magnum. You can very easily close-range remove someone’s shield with a plasma rifle/SMG and headshot them. I also mentioned already that removing it is entirely on the table. Twice.

> Halo 2 succeeding in spite of itself isn’t something to aspire to. If we are going to be that flippant about our standards than we could just as easily remove the BR because “well other games have succeeded without it.” Halo 2 is a fun game, Halo 2 could have been better. Infinite should aspire to be better than Halo 2 and 5. Having two redundant weapons in H2(among other things) is just as bad as having 5 redundant weapons in weapons in H5.

Have I said it should aspire to be Halo 2? Have I been flippant? Like I said already, I mentioned that it can succeed in despite of sandbox failures like Halo 2 if such failures do occur. This was in reference to the fact that you stated that “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.””, without clarifying why you can’t. I suppose you meant otherwise you would have sandbox failures, but the Halo 2 bestselling point was a counter because Halo 2 still sold well despite failures. Not something to aspire to, but definitely not game-ending. And before you say you didn’t say that, re-clarify what you meant by saying that you literally can’t have the magnum be a last resort or sidearm, because all consequences aside, you literally can (and still sell, hence the Halo 2 bestselling point, even if it’s not ideal).

> The first one is, but I digress, that really isn’t the point. I said “I prefer” which tends to imply that it was my opinion.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion. And you did not denote that you preferred that option. “Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair” is the beginning of the sentence in question, which tends to imply you were objectively stating that, with no reference to subjectivity.

> That aside, I don’t know what point you are trying to make by pointing out “obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose.” I don’t want to to have a lazy shallow sandbox and a weapon that is only good as a “last resort” isn’t balanced when you have a freedom to select two weapons regardless of size or choice. “Sidearms” or “Last Resort” weapons make sense when you have a dedicated slot that doesn’t force you to compromise yourself to use it. “Sidearms” make no sense in Halo. The game will be worse than it otherwise could have been, should 343 make deliberately design the Magnum(or any weapon) like a “last resort.”

The “obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose” was a direct counter to you saying that “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.”” objectively without clarification of what the consequences of doing so would be. It’s not ideal that they implement whatever they want, but they can without consequence of the game selling bad (hence the Halo 2 point).

Additionally, going on perhaps the third time, the magnum can be removed by your philosophy, meaning that your entire argument is non-existent. Even more additional to that is that the ““Sidearms” make no sense in Halo” is in direct contradiction with your earlier statement that “Removing the human sidearm(in the narrative sense), leaves a much bigger hole in the sandbox”, because campaign weapons exist for a narrative reason even though they are viewed as redundant.

Also, a redundant weapon does not ruin the sandbox. If it’s a throwaway, then throw it away. This does nothing to harm the combat cycle. If the weapon you have doesn’t do the job, find one that will. It’s not like there’s just heaps of worthless weapons in matchmaking and you have to look really hard to find a sniper or shotgun.

11

> 2535418979567138;10:
> snipped for space

As long as the burst is 3 separate projectiles, some degree of separation is always going to be an issue especially when factoring in player movement and distance regardless of whether the burst is perfectly accurate when standing still. 3 chances to land damage per trigger pull is greater than 1(imagine that) and when you add in instant kill headshots, you have a weapon that is inherently more forgiving than an otherwise similar single shot weapon. Its not enough to ruin the game of course, but again if it were up to me when choosing the utility weapon that that is the focal point of the entire Halo experience, I would choose the one with the higher skill gap however marginal.

> Not necessarily, because removing a human sidearm would be removing an aesthetic of a weapon and not a niche, or according to you when you say ““Sidearms” make no sense in Halo.”. Yes, the whole point of what I was saying is that you cannot remove the sidearm but it should instead be explored as a campaign weapon or fill a variety of other niches. Also, your first sentence explains exactly why some people don’t like the DMR in Halo Reach, so BR should replace that since they fulfill the same role (DMR is not a dedicated long range weapon).

Yes, that was the point. There are both narrative and gameplay concerns to consider. As much as I dislike say the Carbine for being a redundant Covenant BR(in terms of gameplay), I wouldn’t want to just remove the broad archtype of “Covenant ranged weapon” when I could redesign or replace it with something better and it would feel off if we suddenly returned to the more limited CE Covenant sandbox. As far as the Magnum and BR are concerned, the loss of a narrative “sidearm” is a lot more noticeable than it would be to lose the BR as we still have the “service rifle”(AR) and “Marksman Rifle”(DMR).

> Which, I just remembered, is why dual-wielding is central to the magnum. You can very easily close-range remove someone’s shield with a plasma rifle/SMG and headshot them. I also mentioned already that removing it is entirely on the table. Twice.

Removing the Magnum is a much less realistic option, which is why I ignored it. Requiring a second weapon for the Magnum to be useful is also bad, while I don’t think dual wielding is completely unworkable, each weapon needs to be viable on its own merits.

> Have I said it should aspire to be Halo 2? Have I been flippant? Like I said already, I mentioned that it can succeed in despite of sandbox failures like Halo 2 if such failures do occur. This was in reference to the fact that you stated that “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.””, without clarifying why you can’t. I suppose you meant otherwise you would have sandbox failures, but the Halo 2 bestselling point was a counter because Halo 2 still sold well despite failures. Not something to aspire to, but definitely not game-ending. And before you say you didn’t say that, re-clarify what you meant by saying that you literally can’t have the magnum be a last resort or sidearm, because all consequences aside, you literally can (and still sell, hence the Halo 2 bestselling point, even if it’s not ideal).

Halo 2’s success in spite of its issues is irrelevant. I want Infinite to be the best game it can be. I don’t care if it could succeed without sandbox changes. That isn’t a “counterpoint” the flaws in a game still exist regardless of success.
Me: “I think doing X thing would be bad for the game”
You: “But what if the game can be successful in spite of X thing?”
Me: “Then X thing would still be bad.”

A particular design choice can still be bad even if that particular choice didn’t ruin the entire game. I could have just as easily said “Halo Infinite can’t have armor lock”, because it would be blatantly obvious I don’t enjoy that aspect even though as evidenced by Reach you literally can include it in a financially successful Halo game. Its called pattern recognition. I don’t want to see “last resort” weapons in a new Halo game because I have literally experienced it before and don’t like it.

> That is not a fact, that is an opinion. And you did not denote that you preferred that option. “Single shot weapons are more consistent and fair” is the beginning of the sentence in question, which tends to imply you were objectively stating that, with no reference to subjectivity.

How silly of me for thinking 1 chance to land a headshot is less than 3.

> The “obviously 343 can implement whatever they choose” was a direct counter to you saying that “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.”” objectively without clarification of what the consequences of doing so would be. It’s not ideal that they implement whatever they want, but they can without consequence of the game selling bad (hence the Halo 2 point).

That isn’t a point. 343 could also choose to literally fill the game with nothing but reskins, I would think its obvious that I don’t have singular control of 343’s actions. You can delete a block from the jenga tower without the whole thing falling over, but I’d rather have the whole set. My point is that I want to hold Halo devs to a higher standard. I have seen both Halo devs make mistakes(IMO in case it wasn’t obvious) that I hope they don’t repeat. Asking for change before certain decisions are set in stone are kind of the whole point.

> Additionally, going on perhaps the third time, the magnum can be removed by your philosophy, meaning that your entire argument is non-existent. Even more additional to that is that the ““Sidearms” make no sense in Halo” is in direct contradiction with your earlier statement that “Removing the human sidearm(in the narrative sense), leaves a much bigger hole in the sandbox”, because campaign weapons exist for a narrative reason even though they are viewed as redundant.

We could remove the Magnum, but as I pointed out that is less realistic for narrative than removing the BR(or DMR for that matter). Since you seem to be confused there is a world of difference between a “sidearm” in a narrative sense and a “sidearm” in gameplay terms. In the Halo universe, the idea of sidearms is tied into the narrative, but in Halo, the video game, “sidearms” don’t mesh well with gameplay since you can easily carry two “primary” weapons without penalty. In a game where you have to pick and choose between numerous other weapons(unlike say, DOOM), there is no scenario where a player would choose to pick up an objectively inferior weapon.

> Also, a redundant weapon does not ruin the sandbox. If it’s a throwaway, then throw it away. This does nothing to harm the combat cycle. If the weapon you have doesn’t do the job, find one that will. It’s not like there’s just heaps of worthless weapons in matchmaking and you have to look really hard to find a sniper or shotgun.

A throwaway requires dev time and resources to build, implement, and balance, its a waste of everyone’s time to include when there are better options.

12

> 2533274819446242;11:
> > 2535418979567138;10:
> > snipped for space
>
> As long as the burst is 3 separate projectiles, some degree of separation is always going to be an issue especially when factoring in player movement and distance regardless of whether the burst is perfectly accurate when standing still. 3 chances to land damage per trigger pull is greater than 1(imagine that) and when you add in instant kill headshots, you have a weapon that is inherently more forgiving than an otherwise similar single shot weapon. Its not enough to ruin the game of course, but again if it were up to me when choosing the utility weapon that that is the focal point of the entire Halo experience, I would choose the one with the higher skill gap however marginal.

As previously stated, for possibly the third or fourth time, the burst of the BR is so fast that it can be essentially considered a 1 shot weapon. If you watch this video Halo 2's Biggest Myth - Is The Battle Rifle Really A Hitscan Weapon? - YouTube at about 5 min in, the velocity of the projectile will be slowed and you can see that it’s practically one projectile. As you are describing it, yes, that would be unfair, but that is not the case, as with the BR it’s practically not even a burst weapon. But what I realized through searching is that in this video Halo - The New BR - YouTube you can see that the BR spread is significantly reduced from a previous version of Halo 2, meaning that perhaps we were thinking of two entirely different implementations of the weapon so I guess the entire thing was a misconception.

> Yes, that was the point. There are both narrative and gameplay concerns to consider. As much as I dislike say the Carbine for being a redundant Covenant BR(in terms of gameplay), I wouldn’t want to just remove the broad archtype of “Covenant ranged weapon” when I could redesign or replace it with something better and it would feel off if we suddenly returned to the more limited CE Covenant sandbox. As far as the Magnum and BR are concerned, the loss of a narrative “sidearm” is a lot more noticeable than it would be to lose the BR as we still have the “service rifle”(AR) and “Marksman Rifle”(DMR).

Agreed but I think a lot of people would favor the BR compared to the DMR (including me).

> Removing the Magnum is a much less realistic option, which is why I ignored it. Requiring a second weapon for the Magnum to be useful is also bad, while I don’t think dual wielding is completely unworkable, each weapon needs to be viable on its own merits.

But such is not the case ever since dual wielding was added, and I think it’d be impossible to return to a CE style sandbox and have dual-wielding.

> Halo 2’s success in spite of its issues is irrelevant. I want Infinite to be the best game it can be. I don’t care if it could succeed without sandbox changes. That isn’t a “counterpoint” the flaws in a game still exist regardless of success.
> Me: “I think doing X thing would be bad for the game”
> You: “But what if the game can be successful in spite of X thing?”
> Me: "Then X thing would still be bad."A particular design choice can still be bad even if that particular choice didn’t ruin the entire game. I could have just as easily said “Halo Infinite can’t have armor lock”, because it would be blatantly obvious I don’t enjoy that aspect even though as evidenced by Reach you literally can include it in a financially successful Halo game. Its called pattern recognition. I don’t want to see “last resort” weapons in a new Halo game because I have literally experienced it before and don’t like it.

I wasn’t claiming that having flaws while still succeeding would retroactively erase or cover such flaws, but was addressing where you said that you couldn’t have the magnum as a last resort or sidearm without clarifying what you think the consequence of doing so would be. You said “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.”” without saying or consequence X would occur. So I jumped to the ultimate defense which is that it would not doom the game in any case.

> That isn’t a point. 343 could also choose to literally fill the game with nothing but reskins, I would think its obvious that I don’t have singular control of 343’s actions. You can delete a block from the jenga tower without the whole thing falling over, but I’d rather have the whole set. My point is that I want to hold Halo devs to a higher standard. I have seen both Halo devs make mistakes(IMO in case it wasn’t obvious) that I hope they don’t repeat. Asking for change before certain decisions are set in stone are kind of the whole point.

That was stated as an objective. Learn where to type that it was your preferrence or opinion (and obviously that use was incorrect). In certain cases you don’t have to state it because it’s general consensus or generally accepted, but in other cases and topics where objectivity is being discussed and where things are proven or disproven you can’t type things resembling objective statements and mean them as subjective. That’s miscommunication, and that miscommunication is what started this entire conversation because otherwise I would’ve been fine with your opinion. It was when you presented it as fact is when it became grounds for debate (because this is a forum and that’s what happens).

Also that wasn’t even asking for change, and yes my comment is a point because you were stating something as objective, attempting to dictate what the devs do. It’s become apparent that that was subjective, but the problem on this forum is that people are constantly trying to tell 343 exactly what to do, demanding it their way, not even requesting it. And they’ve been called out the same way, for the most part.

> We could remove the Magnum, but as I pointed out that is less realistic for narrative than removing the BR(or DMR for that matter). Since you seem to be confused there is a world of difference between a “sidearm” in a narrative sense and a “sidearm” in gameplay terms. In the Halo universe, the idea of sidearms is tied into the narrative, but in Halo, the video game, “sidearms” don’t mesh well with gameplay since you can easily carry two “primary” weapons without penalty. In a game where you have to pick and choose between numerous other weapons(unlike say, DOOM), there is no scenario where a player would choose to pick up an objectively inferior weapon.

I’m not confused about the difference between an aesthetic (is the correct term) sidearm and a gameplay sidearm, which I’ve made clear by stating that there are a variety of directions to take it in. I don’t think the narrative would suffer if the magnum was gone (it’s been through a variety of implementations that the magnum can be anything or nothing in Infinite). I’ve also said that they could use the magnum in campaign only or situationally.

It’s just as realistic that the BR would replace the DMR, and in fact doubly realistic that the rifle would be more powerful than the pistol.

> A throwaway requires dev time and resources to build, implement, and balance, its a waste of everyone’s time to include when there are better options.

Hence the variety of paths offered that the magnum can take.

I’m not too interested in continuing this because it began on a misconception and it’s basically entirely based on opinion. It seems that we’re both on track with agreeing save for the minor difference that one likes BR and the other likes magnum. Some of what you’re saying I pretty much already said and agree with.

13

In my opinion I prefer the playlist with Assault Rifle and magnum because is the classic mode, the Battle rifle is a varian implement on Halo 2 but I don’t like it soo much

14

> 2535418979567138;12:
> As previously stated, for possibly the third or fourth time, the burst of the BR is so fast that it can be essentially considered a 1 shot weapon. If you watch this video Halo 2's Biggest Myth - Is The Battle Rifle Really A Hitscan Weapon? - YouTube at about 5 min in, the velocity of the projectile will be slowed and you can see that it’s practically one projectile. As you are describing it, yes, that would be unfair, but that is not the case, as with the BR it’s practically not even a burst weapon. But what I realized through searching is that in this video Halo - The New BR - YouTube you can see that the BR spread is significantly reduced from a previous version of Halo 2, meaning that perhaps we were thinking of two entirely different implementations of the weapon so I guess the entire thing was a misconception.

It literally isn’t because it is possible to interrupt the burst with a melee attack. The visual effect attached to the burst is misleading, it is just often hard to tell because the Halo 2 projectile is so much faster than its Halo 3 counterpart where burst separation is even more obvious. Naturally 343 could easily make the BR’s burst 100% visual, but at that point I don’t know why they would even bother. Yay for consistency I guess then.

> Agreed but I think a lot of people would favor the BR compared to the DMR (including me).

I also think that the BR is more popular, everyone has their favorites, but I’m sure there are many weapons that didn’t make the cut that others miss dearly. Since it is impractical to ask for every weapon in the series to return for infinite some tough choices need to be made. For the record, I think it is incredibly unlikely that the BR gets removed regardless of whether it would be good for the sandbox.

> But such is not the case ever since dual wielding was added, and I think it’d be impossible to return to a CE style sandbox and have dual-wielding.

While I don’t think its impossible to give dual wielding some depth, it is tricky enough that I am perfectly happy to have a diverse single wield sandbox. At most I’d be curious to play around with mod tools when H2/H2A/H3 come out on PC.

> I wasn’t claiming that having flaws while still succeeding would retroactively erase or cover such flaws, but was addressing where you said that you couldn’t have the magnum as a last resort or sidearm without clarifying what you think the consequence of doing so would be. You said “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.”” without saying or consequence X would occur. So I jumped to the ultimate defense which is that it would not doom the game in any case.

There is no such thing as “objectively” good game design, as a result it should be staggeringly obvious this was my personal opinion. Your “defense” is nonsense unless you actually think I didn’t know that some Halo games had “last resort” style magnums that had gone out to be financial successes. I wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise, the same with my armor lock example.

> That was stated as an objective. Learn where to type that it was your preferrence or opinion (and obviously that use was incorrect). In certain cases you don’t have to state it because it’s general consensus or generally accepted, but in other cases and topics where objectivity is being discussed and where things are proven or disproven you can’t type things resembling objective statements and mean them as subjective. That’s miscommunication, and that miscommunication is what started this entire conversation because otherwise I would’ve been fine with your opinion. It was when you presented it as fact is when it became grounds for debate (because this is a forum and that’s what happens).

As I stated above I shouldn’t need to. I’m speaking about an inherently subjective topic. If you spent less time nit-picking my word choice we could actually get somewhere.

> Also that wasn’t even asking for change, and yes my comment is a point because you were stating something as objective, attempting to dictate what the devs do. It’s become apparent that that was subjective, but the problem on this forum is that people are constantly trying to tell 343 exactly what to do, demanding it their way, not even requesting it. And they’ve been called out the same way, for the most part.

So your upset because I’m not giving 343 their due deference? This isn’t a direct letter to 343, there is almost zero chance this particular thread is going to be read by anyone at 343 let alone anyone in a position to listen or do anything about it. If it makes you feel better I’m a bit less curt when responding to official surveys and the like, nor would I be a sputtering rage monster should I get the chance to meet any of them in person. That being said I’m not going to stop making my preferences known and I’m not really going to spend much time policing my word choice and tone in such an informal environment like this forum.

> I’m not confused about the difference between an aesthetic (is the correct term) sidearm and a gameplay sidearm, which I’ve made clear by stating that there are a variety of directions to take it in. I don’t think the narrative would suffer if the magnum was gone (it’s been through a variety of implementations that the magnum can be anything or nothing in Infinite). I’ve also said that they could use the magnum in campaign only or situationally.
>
> It’s just as realistic that the BR would replace the DMR, and in fact doubly realistic that the rifle would be more powerful than the pistol.

Maybe not the Magnum specifically, but it would strike me as odd if the UNSC suddenly lost all their handguns, especially when compared to losing one rifle who’s role has become more unclear as time goes on but I digress. The gameplay and design of Halo’s weapons has never matched up with reality or even its own lore. It falls apart under the slightest scrutiny which is why I generally ignore it save for the broadest of strokes when it comes to gameplay(see also: my earlier Carbine example)

Also balance still matters in campaign as does dev time and resources. Every time someone suggests we add in a useless variant of a particular weapon I’m going to ask why we can’t just give it a useful role instead since its going to take up the dev’s time and resources anyway.

> Hence the variety of paths offered that the magnum can take.
>
> I’m not too interested in continuing this because it began on a misconception and it’s basically entirely based on opinion. It seems that we’re both on track with agreeing save for the minor difference that one likes BR and the other likes magnum. Some of what you’re saying I pretty much already said and agree with.

The only misconception is your own. If you weren’t bogging down the conversation with pedantic nonsense we could have been having a more substantive discussion on game design. Exploring various opinions regarding Halo is one of the reasons I come here but you seem more interested in critiquing my word choice than the substance of my opinion.

15

> 2533274819446242;14:
> > I wasn’t claiming that having flaws while still succeeding would retroactively erase or cover such flaws, but was addressing where you said that you couldn’t have the magnum as a last resort or sidearm without clarifying what you think the consequence of doing so would be. You said “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm.”” without saying or consequence X would occur. So I jumped to the ultimate defense which is that it would not doom the game in any case.
>
> There is no such thing as “objectively” good game design, as a result it should be staggeringly obvious this was my personal opinion. Your “defense” is nonsense unless you actually think I didn’t know that some Halo games had “last resort” style magnums that had gone out to be financial successes. I wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise, the same with my armor lock example.

You’d think that’d be the case, but it doesn’t take a genius to literally look anywhere on this forum to see people arguing in favor of “objectively good game design”. You’re wrong because you did not clarify that via words, and your “defense” for this is nonsense because it requires me reading your mind instead of reading trends of the type of topics that occur on this forum very often and instead of reading the words you wrote. That’s rather delusional of you.

I have explained several times my comments on the commercial success aspect and will not explain them anymore. If you want to know why I mentioned the commercial success aspect, refer to previous comments. There seems to be a disconnect between what I’m typing and what you’re “reading”.

> As I stated above I shouldn’t need to. I’m speaking about an inherently subjective topic. If you spent less time nit-picking my word choice we could actually get somewhere.

As just said, the inherent subjective nature of topics is regularly ignored on this forum and has become somewhat of the norm, hence the correct English being used when displaying an opinion. “Nit-picking my word choice”. You literally lied about what I was responding to, said you did say you preferred it when you actually spoke it as a fact. The entire basis of this was that you used incorrect English and now you’re saying it’s subjective (despite not owning that it was miscommunication on your part), which it is, and from this point there is nowhere to go because it’s entirely subjective.

> So your upset because I’m not giving 343 their due deference? This isn’t a direct letter to 343, there is almost zero chance this particular thread is going to be read by anyone at 343 let alone anyone in a position to listen or do anything about it. If it makes you feel better I’m a bit less curt when responding to official surveys and the like, nor would I be a sputtering rage monster should I get the chance to meet any of them in person. That being said I’m not going to stop making my preferences known and I’m not really going to spend much time policing my word choice and tone in such an informal environment like this forum.

Yeah it doesn’t take a big brain to know that when communicating via speaking, writing, or communication at all, it’s generally regarded as a good choice to use proper English to effectively communicate a point. I already gave you a chance to pass saying it was miscommunication but instead you opt to blame me for not reading your mind. I don’t care whether or not you make your hot takes known, but either a) present it as opinion so that it cannot be debated because there’s nothing to debate, or b) take the chance given to admit that this entire debate is worthless and based on misconception.

> The only misconception is your own. If you weren’t bogging down the conversation with pedantic nonsense we could have been having a more substantive discussion on game design. Exploring various opinions regarding Halo is one of the reasons I come here but you seem more interested in critiquing my word choice than the substance of my opinion.

We were debating game design. This began because per the rules of the English language you presented your points in your original post as objective, therefore making them grounds for debate. Yes, game design is inherently objective, but very obviously this is generally ignored on this forum and often on online forums as a whole. Therefore, I took a stab at responding to your points that were undoubtedly conveyed as objective, to which you started revealing it was subjective but also simultaneously lying and saying you had always presented it as subjective. Fine, I gave you a pass, and was backing down realizing this was a misunderstanding because you meant to display it objectively, and even expressed interest in leaving the topic admitting it was a misconception due to the inaccurate text in your original post. That would’ve been it, except for that you instead try to pass fault to the reader (which is more nonsensical then anything I’ve ever done in this conversation) for not reading your mind. You then try to play the victim card even though I wasn’t pursuing and let you pass, and try to accuse me of policing your word choice.

Not trying to offend but if you seriously can’t recognize what is going on here there is a serious lack of comprehension. I was saying in my previous post that it’s all good now and you can’t even understand that.

16

> 2535418979567138;4:
> “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm”.” - It certainly can be, and has been a la Halo 2 and 3. I’d prefer the magnum return as competent but still a sidearm, like Reach’s magnum.

Given Reach’s AR–Magnum starts, the Magnum was the best weapon you spawned with. It was the weapon a competent player would use more often. From a usefulness standpoint, it was the primary weapon.

Halo 3 is the perfect example of what happens if you make a Magnum that is not more useful in almost scenario than the AR. That weapon is completely useless. If you didn’t manage to grab the BR, you could say good bye to ranged combat. The Halo 3 Magnum had no purpose in the sandbox because it was more or less as effective as the AR.

By choosing the Reach Magnum as your preferred variant, you’re kind of proving WerepyreND’s point. The Magnum wasn’t the best precision weapon in the sandbox; you’d still drop it for a DMR or a Needle Rifle. But it also wasn’t a secondary weapon, because it was more useful than the AR it came with.

17

> 2533274825830455;16:
> > 2535418979567138;4:
> > “the Magnum can’t just be a “last resort” or a “sidearm”.” - It certainly can be, and has been a la Halo 2 and 3. I’d prefer the magnum return as competent but still a sidearm, like Reach’s magnum.
>
> Given Reach’s AR–Magnum starts, the Magnum was the best weapon you spawned with. It was the weapon a competent player would use more often. From a usefulness standpoint, it was the primary weapon.
>
> Halo 3 is the perfect example of what happens if you make a Magnum that is not more useful in almost scenario than the AR. That weapon is completely useless. If you didn’t manage to grab the BR, you could say good bye to ranged combat. The Halo 3 Magnum had no purpose in the sandbox because it was more or less as effective as the AR.
>
> By choosing the Reach Magnum as your preferred variant, you’re kind of proving WerepyreND’s point. The Magnum wasn’t the best precision weapon in the sandbox; you’d still drop it for a DMR or a Needle Rifle. But it also wasn’t a secondary weapon, because it was more useful than the AR it came with.

Yes, the Reach magnum wasn’t the best precision weapon, but I said (at some point way up there) that it would be good for a situational use (e.g. certain game modes) and be used for campaign purposes. Reach’s AR-Magnum starts meant that the game was pushing you towards closer combat (it did so even more heavily before the bloom reduction) and encouraged certain types of combat, which is what I believe weapons that could be viewed as pointless could be used for; directing types of gameplay. I don’t believe that weapons considered worthless or weapons made more campaign oriented (which I believe Reach’s magnum was) devalue a weapon sandbox, as they incentivize different styles of gameplay if used correctly. It’s all about the ways the weapons are used.

For clarification, my comment on how it absolutely can be included per Halo 2 and 3 was a slightly sarcastic literal reading of WerepyreND saying that you can’t have the magnum as a sidearm or last resort, and doesn’t reflect my opinion on whether or not it should’ve been included in 2 and 3 as it was.

18

> 2535418979567138;15:
> You’d think that’d be the case, but it doesn’t take a genius to literally look anywhere on this forum to see people arguing in favor of “objectively good game design”. You’re wrong because you did not clarify that via words, and your “defense” for this is nonsense because it requires me reading your mind instead of reading trends of the type of topics that occur on this forum very often and instead of reading the words you wrote. That’s rather delusional of you.

If you have a problem with the way certain forum members talk about “objective” game design then why don’t you bother them about instead of venting your frustrations on me. If I wanted someone’s opinion on my English it wouldn’t come from waypoint.

> I have explained several times my comments on the commercial success aspect and will not explain them anymore. If you want to know why I mentioned the commercial success aspect, refer to previous comments. There seems to be a disconnect between what I’m typing and what you’re “reading”.
>
> As just said, the inherent subjective nature of topics is regularly ignored on this forum and has become somewhat of the norm, hence the correct English being used when displaying an opinion. “Nit-picking my word choice”. You literally lied about what I was responding to, said you did say you preferred it when you actually spoke it as a fact. The entire basis of this was that you used incorrect English and now you’re saying it’s subjective (despite not owning that it was miscommunication on your part), which it is, and from this point there is nowhere to go because it’s entirely subjective.

Exactly how did you expect me to react regarding the commercial success “point?”
EDIT: Oh so that was sarcasm now. I guess mind reading’s back on the menu. Remember folks, we area all about “Proper English” here at waypoint, but sarcasm tags for text is too much to ask. /s

> Yeah it doesn’t take a big brain to know that when communicating via speaking, writing, or communication at all, it’s generally regarded as a good choice to use proper English to effectively communicate a point. I already gave you a chance to pass saying it was miscommunication but instead you opt to blame me for not reading your mind. I don’t care whether or not you make your hot takes known, but either a) present it as opinion so that it cannot be debated because there’s nothing to debate, or b) take the chance given to admit that this entire debate is worthless and based on misconception.

The only one who considers this aspect of the discussion a “debate” is you. At this point I’m more curious as to why you care so much about “proper English” in a video game forum rather than the substantive discussion of game design.

> We were debating game design. This began because per the rules of the English language you presented your points in your original post as objective, therefore making them grounds for debate. Yes, game design is inherently objective, but very obviously this is generally ignored on this forum and often on online forums as a whole. Therefore, I took a stab at responding to your points that were undoubtedly conveyed as objective, to which you started revealing it was subjective but also simultaneously lying and saying you had always presented it as subjective. Fine, I gave you a pass, and was backing down realizing this was a misunderstanding because you meant to display it objectively, and even expressed interest in leaving the topic admitting it was a misconception due to the inaccurate text in your original post. That would’ve been it, except for that you instead try to pass fault to the reader (which is more nonsensical then anything I’ve ever done in this conversation) for not reading your mind. You then try to play the victim card even though I wasn’t pursuing and let you pass, and try to accuse me of policing your word choice.
>
> Not trying to offend but if you seriously can’t recognize what is going on here there is a serious lack of comprehension. I was saying in my previous post that it’s all good now and you can’t even understand that.

And now we’ve completely stopped talking about game design, joy. This didn’t have to begin at all, once I made it clear to you that I was not talking about "objective game design"TM, like the other posters you have an issue with it should have been easy to drop the issue. Now apparently I’m a liar for clarifying my stance that I was never intending to talk about “objective game design.” For someone saying they can’t read my mind you sure thought you knew what kind of person I was based of a single post.

Your assumption was mistaken and instead of moving on you keep whining about how a phrased my post long after you know that wasn’t my intent. I literally didn’t think think my post phrasing would be an issue compared to the discussion on game mechanics, because low and behold this is a casual video game forum not an English class. I still don’t feel inclined to preface all my statements regarding game design with some variation on “IMO” because in my experience it hasn’t been an issue, because its waypoint and Halo forums at large.

19

Basically, what I’m getting from this is the following:
Oh no, the Battle Rifle is such a monster! It forced the poor Magnum, a majestic small-arm, to bow under it’s glory and opportunity. Oh the poor Magnum couldn’t recover within that reign, how could it ever return to the spotlight, the throne above the mountains? How will it stand tall to the tyrant known as the Battle Rifle?
It’s almost an impossible task, seeing how the Battle Rifle now has the DMR to help it in their reign of terror, as they seemingly overpower all other weapons. But then, as all seemed lost for the scarred sidearm… a ray of hope, as all weapons found themselves under new… administration. This new king, this new oh glorious savior, turned to the poor Magnum and offered his hand and it’s blessing. In turn, the Magnum set it’s foot down and showed the monster that is the Battle Rifle it’s place, reduced to mediocrity as the Magnum became the dominant loadout weapon in the battlefields known as Halo 5. A true monster, as it was back in the first battlefields known as Halo CE. It’s glory finally retaken. Now with the Battle Rifle reduced to a shadow of itself, it should be banished (ha) from service, from fighting alongside it’s brothers in the new battlefield, soon to be named “Halo Infinite”.

And yes, I tried writing as dramatic as possible. You can say that I mocked you, OP, for the way you wrote your original comment, but I’m not attacking you (Even then, I went overboard here). It’s not inherently bad to write in a dramatic fashion (actually, I think you’d do great at writing a book), but it made your comment longer than it needed and was filled with redundancy that, honestly, made this look more satiric rather than one discussing an actual issue. Enjoyable, but harder to take seriously. I apologize in advance for my rudeness, and with that out of the way…

You’re really just saying that because the Magnum was such a dominant weapon in CE that it was unfair for the Battle Rifle to just take the spotlight as it did. But the fact is that it wasn’t the Battle Rifle’s fault. It was Dual-Wielding. Dual-Wielding had to weaken the weapons so they’re not reliable when single and overpowered when used with another weapon. If the Magnum was as reliable as it was in CE, it wouldn’t be overpowered, it’d be straight BROKEN. What the Battle Rifle replaced was the Assault Rifle that, by the word of Bungie devs, was to “Give an opportunity for the Battle Rifle to shine.” Just that. That argument was thrown out for Halo 3 and nothing changed. The Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle now co-exist, but the Battle Rifle is chosen over because of it’s range and headhost capability. (Un)Reliable, accurate and, overall, better than the Assault Rifle in nearly every way.

As for your argument of multiple weapons fulfilling the same purpose, it’s necessary for a credible Universe. The UNSC, the Covenant and the Forerunners are a military force of different species. They need weapons to fulfil a purpose for their own. The UNSC has the Battle Rifle, the Covenant has the Carbine and the Forerunners have the Light Rifle. Same purpose, just different in usage, because, again, they NEED them. You can’t just give a UNSC weapon to a Promethean Soldier to preserve the sandbox without breaking immersion or credibility. This lack of those tools is a reason why the Prometheans are frown upon in Halo 5. They HAVE to resort to other species’ equipment because they don’t have their own to fulfil their intent. Remember the hijacked Warthog or Mantis in Warzone and how ridiculous it is? It’s because they don’t have their own vehicle to fulfil the role they intend to.

Now, at this point, the Battle Rifle and the Magnum are both in the game. At least since 2018. To remove one of them is out of the question. What they can do is tune them. The Magnum should be treated more as a back-up weapon, a RELIABLE back-up weapon and the Battle Rifle as a general use, effective especially at mid-range, as it should.
Sorry for long post.

20

That was a fun read, OP. I initially looked at how much there was to read and was going to skip it but I said eh -Yoink- it and read it anyway, glad I did.

I definitely see where you’re coming from but ultimately I disagree. I don’t think there’s any harm with having several weapons occupying the same role. I actually really enjoy it with the variation in the factions. I think it’d be more boring if we only had one weapon per role and it also wouldn’t make sense lore wise. I think most of them are different enough that people will have their likes and dislikes like the minute differences between the BR, Carbine, and Light Rifle for example. In my opinion the BR was almost perfect at the launch of H5, just barely crossing the “too good” line, I think it needed a small nerf but instead they just made it useless lol You had the magnum as a starting weapon that wasn’t useless like most other Halo games and then you could go pick up a BR that was better but the difference was small enough that you could still win with the magnum, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I hope Infinite keeps the magnum as the starting weapon and also has a BR that isn’t useless unlike the current H5 version.