Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Feelings on ADS

OP LH Justin

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 12
LH Justin wrote:
LoxtonA01 wrote:
Personally, I like ADS.
But I don't think there's any dominant bias on here. The debate seems to be pretty even on both sides.
I would equate the sales performance to a much broader range of high-quality competition to what Halo 1 through 3 had. Which isn't to say Halo isn't good enough to totally dominate anymore, just that there's more variation to suit more consumers personal likes.
Well, that isn't exactly true. Halo: CE and Halo 2 arguably didn't have any competition because they defined the genre (FPS's and online matchmaking). On the other hand Halo 3 put up with just as much competition as Halo 5 is facing yet remained the top played game on XBL for 3 years. Here is an in-depth video on the subject.
I like it. I also like the current system. I think it combined with the classic art style would be a amazing.
I prefer the classic gameplay, but don't particularly mind Halo 5's. I think they should at least tone the enhanced mobility down.
Tacymist wrote:
I used to be against it but I don't really care if it stays or goes. I can play fine with or without it.
For me it's about the same thing except Halo ADS has a cool animation and has become more of a quality of life thing. Also, it saves my right stick some wear and tear.
That video conveniently ignores market trends. The games that are popular now were out at the time of Halo 3 yes, but they weren't popular then. Halo 3's popularity, and Halo's at large, tapered off 3 years after Halo 3 came out--the same year Modern Warfare 2 was at its prime and shattered entertainment sales records across the board. Then everyone ditched Halo for Call of Duty. The simple fact of the matter is, if people were leaving Halo because of the mechanics, they wouldn't be going to games that have those mechanics. People left Halo because it was no longer the "in" franchise. COD WWII was a straight classic CoD game, but it has some of the worst sales in the franchise, because it was released in an era of battle royale games and hero shooters.

Skill based arena shooters as a whole are no longer popular. This is not unique to Halo, its an industry wide shift away from the kind of genre Halo occupies.

Edit: I just realized this is the same thread I made this point already on several months ago--my mistake, I had simply forgotten.
ROBERTO jh wrote:
LH Justin wrote:
LoxtonA01 wrote:
Personally, I like ADS.
But I don't think there's any dominant bias on here. The debate seems to be pretty even on both sides.
I would equate the sales performance to a much broader range of high-quality competition to what Halo 1 through 3 had. Which isn't to say Halo isn't good enough to totally dominate anymore, just that there's more variation to suit more consumers personal likes.
Well, that isn't exactly true. Halo: CE and Halo 2 arguably didn't have any competition because they defined the genre (FPS's and online matchmaking). On the other hand Halo 3 put up with just as much competition as Halo 5 is facing yet remained the top played game on XBL for 3 years. Here is an in-depth video on the subject.
I like it. I also like the current system. I think it combined with the classic art style would be a amazing.
I prefer the classic gameplay, but don't particularly mind Halo 5's. I think they should at least tone the enhanced mobility down.
Tacymist wrote:
I used to be against it but I don't really care if it stays or goes. I can play fine with or without it.
For me it's about the same thing except Halo ADS has a cool animation and has become more of a quality of life thing. Also, it saves my right stick some wear and tear.
That video conveniently ignores market trends. The games that are popular now were out at the time of Halo 3 yes, but they weren't popular then. Halo 3's popularity, and Halo's at large, tapered off 3 years after Halo 3 came out--the same year Modern Warfare 2 was at its prime and shattered entertainment sales records across the board. Then everyone ditched Halo for Call of Duty. The simple fact of the matter is, if people were leaving Halo because of the mechanics, they wouldn't be going to games that have those mechanics. People left Halo because it was no longer the "in" franchise. COD WWII was a straight classic CoD game, but it has some of the worst sales in the franchise, because it was released in an era of battle royale games and hero shooters.

Skill based arena shooters as a whole are no longer popular. This is not unique to Halo, its an industry wide shift away from the kind of genre Halo occupies.
A whole lotta truth here. There's tons of Quake clones out there, but they're not exactly capturing the hearts and minds of gamers.
ROBERTO jh wrote:
Then everyone ditched Halo for Call of Duty. People left Halo because it was no longer the "in" franchise. COD WWII was a straight classic CoD game, but it has some of the worst sales in the franchise, because it was released in an era of battle royale games and hero shooters.
"Everyone ditched Halo for CoD because it wasn't 'in' anymore" is such a simplification that it's, in all likelihood, wrong. There are two important facts here. First, CoD never took Halo by surprise. CoD 4 was a very capable challenger to Halo 3, and for the time from the release of CoD 4 to the the release of MW2, Halo 3 and CoD 4 (and later WaW) were trading blows, with Halo 3 in fact having less weeks at the top. The second important fact is that Halo didn't tank immediately as CoD took over. By all accounts, Halo Reach didn't perform in its first year any worse than Halo 3. The first time when you could genuinely say that Halo isn't as popular as it used to be is towards the end of 2011.

Halo didn't crash when CoD became popular, it slowly windled away, which actually makes much more sense than crashing, since the idea that people just ditch the old trendy game when a new one comes around is in all likelihood false. many people who owned Halo 3 still played Halo 3 when CoD 4 came around. They still played Halo 3 when MW2 came around, though probably less since the newer game is naturally more exciting. They still bought Halo Reach, and still played it, in likelihood more than MW2 since, again, it was the newer game that they hadn't been playing for the past year. There's no reason to expect that Reach couldn't have held the top spot for a years had CoD not been on a yearly release cycle, but the fact that Black Ops released so shortly after Reach, that the attention of those players split. By that time, what Black Ops of course had was a massive base of players who were in on the CoD bandwagon, but who might have never actually played Halo.

The reason Halo failed to keep up with CoD was not because people left Halo because it wasn't "in" anymore. Rather, it was because at that point Halo didn't manage to attract as many new fans as it used to, and its growth (relative to the growing Xbox userbase) stalled. But you can't actually explain why it started to lose popularity by CoD alone, because that actually happened nearly four years afer CoD became trendy. If people were jumping ship because CoD is trendy and Halo isn't, that would've happened one, two years after CoD became trendy, not over three and a half. We can't make defininite statements about what started to erode the population of Halo, but CoD alone is an unlikely reason.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is, if people were leaving Halo because of the mechanics, they wouldn't be going to games that have those mechanics.
Why not? People not wanting to play Halo with those mechanics doesn't imply that they hate those mechanics in the abstract. It just means they don't like those mechanics being in Halo. I don't like ADS in Halo (or any of the other mechanics inspired by our favorite military shooter), but I still like Battlefield. You know why that is? Because I value Halo for its particular style of gameplay. I like many games with ADS, but I don't want ADS in every game I play. Although I'm only speaking for myself here, it's not unreasonable to assume that other people might feel the same. Generally, people like a game because it offers something particular to them that other games they like don't offer, and sometimes introducing something from another game they like might ruin the experience for them.

Almost certainly, if you ask people who dislike ADS on this forum, they will admit that they like some other game which has ADS. People's feelings towards game mechanics are highly context dependent. Just because I'm fine with dice rolls in Mario Party, doesn't mean I would be fine with them in, say, CS.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
Skill based arena shooters as a whole are no longer popular. This is not unique to Halo, its an industry wide shift away from the kind of genre Halo occupies.
But why is that? Is it because people these days or inherently allergic to symmetric spawns, and map pick-ups, and movement based combat, or could it be because there is no franchise around doing that kind of gameplay sufficiently well? Once military and hero shooters pass their prime, what next? Will those genres be hopelessly dead, too? Do genres have an expiration date?
tsassi wrote:
ROBERTO jh wrote:
Then everyone ditched Halo for Call of Duty. People left Halo because it was no longer the "in" franchise. COD WWII was a straight classic CoD game, but it has some of the worst sales in the franchise, because it was released in an era of battle royale games and hero shooters.
"Everyone ditched Halo for CoD because it wasn't 'in' anymore" is such a simplification that it's, in all likelihood, wrong. There are two important facts here. First, CoD never took Halo by surprise. CoD 4 was a very capable challenger to Halo 3, and for the time from the release of CoD 4 to the the release of MW2, Halo 3 and CoD 4 (and later WaW) were trading blows, with Halo 3 in fact having less weeks at the top. The second important fact is that Halo didn't tank immediately as CoD took over. By all accounts, Halo Reach didn't perform in its first year any worse than Halo 3. The first time when you could genuinely say that Halo isn't as popular as it used to be is towards the end of 2011.

Halo didn't crash when CoD became popular, it slowly windled away, which actually makes much more sense than crashing, since the idea that people just ditch the old trendy game when a new one comes around is in all likelihood false. many people who owned Halo 3 still played Halo 3 when CoD 4 came around. They still played Halo 3 when MW2 came around, though probably less since the newer game is naturally more exciting. They still bought Halo Reach, and still played it, in likelihood more than MW2 since, again, it was the newer game that they hadn't been playing for the past year. There's no reason to expect that Reach couldn't have held the top spot for a years had CoD not been on a yearly release cycle, but the fact that Black Ops released so shortly after Reach, that the attention of those players split. By that time, what Black Ops of course had was a massive base of players who were in on the CoD bandwagon, but who might have never actually played Halo.

The reason Halo failed to keep up with CoD was not because people left Halo because it wasn't "in" anymore. Rather, it was because at that point Halo didn't manage to attract as many new fans as it used to, and its growth (relative to the growing Xbox userbase) stalled. But you can't actually explain why it started to lose popularity by CoD alone, because that actually happened nearly four years afer CoD became trendy. If people were jumping ship because CoD is trendy and Halo isn't, that would've happened one, two years after CoD became trendy, not over three and a half. We can't make defininite statements about what started to erode the population of Halo, but CoD alone is an unlikely reason.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is, if people were leaving Halo because of the mechanics, they wouldn't be going to games that have those mechanics.
Why not? People not wanting to play Halo with those mechanics doesn't imply that they hate those mechanics in the abstract. It just means they don't like those mechanics being in Halo. I don't like ADS in Halo (or any of the other mechanics inspired by our favorite military shooter), but I still like Battlefield. You know why that is? Because I value Halo for its particular style of gameplay. I like many games with ADS, but I don't want ADS in every game I play. Although I'm only speaking for myself here, it's not unreasonable to assume that other people might feel the same. Generally, people like a game because it offers something particular to them that other games they like don't offer, and sometimes introducing something from another game they like might ruin the experience for them.

Almost certainly, if you ask people who dislike ADS on this forum, they will admit that they like some other game which has ADS. People's feelings towards game mechanics are highly context dependent. Just because I'm fine with dice rolls in Mario Party, doesn't mean I would be fine with them in, say, CS.
ROBERTO jh wrote:
Skill based arena shooters as a whole are no longer popular. This is not unique to Halo, its an industry wide shift away from the kind of genre Halo occupies.
But why is that? Is it because people these days or inherently allergic to symmetric spawns, and map pick-ups, and movement based combat, or could it be because there is no franchise around doing that kind of gameplay sufficiently well? Once military and hero shooters pass their prime, what next? Will those genres be hopelessly dead, too? Do genres have an expiration date?
Great post tsassi but the part in bold to me is BANG ON!! People should read that part a few times I think until they get that into there head.

Myself personally, I'm not big on the look or ADS style zooming in general (anyone here shocked to here that??? 😅) but I definitely do like some games with it in and it doesn't bother me really. In Halo it bothers me...a lot!!

To ROBERTO jh point, I do agree that some people left Halo because it wasn't the "it" thing anymore. There are a certain percentage of people that like to play, have, wear etc whatever is big or "in" at the time...but to say that is why Halo started to become unpopular to me silly and I would definitely disagree. Halo started to become "unpopular" during Reach. There's more than one factor, we all know this. Just going by my group of friends some reasons I heard were,

  • Reach didn't feature the Chief, so they didn't care.
  • No ranking system aka no reason to play for competitive people and no I don't mean people who are MLG/HCS players. I mean people that just like to play ranked.
  • Bloom (yes I had friends not play it just because of that)
  • Loadouts
  • Unlimited (in a way) AA's usage
I'd say that is what I heard the most. I didn't have one friend (the ones who bothered to play it obviously) complain about the look of Reach graphically, the armor customization, the music or the story.

Not to get to off topic here, but again there's lots of reasons why Halo started to lose popularity during Reaches time but to me it just can't be a coincidence that when Halo started to decline, it was the same time that Halo got away from how it was played for many years before. Just as when Halo really got away from that style (Halo 4) Halo REALLY went downhill....but when Halo 5 brought some things back from previous Halo games (equal starts, no loadouts, ranking system, etc) those things were received well and I would say the game as a whole was received better than Halo 4. Though I'd say most still feel Halo 5 is a long ways from what Halo used to be, but it was a step in the right direction in some areas at least.

I know this isn't just a ADS issue here so I'll make it brief as again I don't want to get off topic, but it just seems too coincidental that when Halo changed a lot of things that were fundamental and how it played and felt, it started to lose a lot of popularity. There has to be something to that I'm sorry.
tsassi wrote:
ROBERTO jh wrote:
This was the intent of my statement overall, and I did not mean to imply that people jumped en masse all at once. But they did go somewhere, over time. Halo wasn't just not attracting new players. It was losing the ones it already had, to the likes of CoD, and then Battlefield once that became mainstream on the consoles, and so on. I remember the population tracker for Halo 3 used to show hundreds of thousands of unique players, but those numbers dwindled. Halo as a franchise had become less popular and less capable of holding the attention of the general public. And the general public of gamers not only shifted its attention, it expanded dramatically because of Call of Duty. People who had not played games before played Call of Duty, and their friends played it because they played it and so on. In my personal experience, video gaming became "cool" with the launch and popularity of MW2. I even started playing CoD because of MW2, and I hated CoD before then, preferring to stick to Halo. But my friends had stopped playing Halo 3 and jumped on the CoD train because that's what their friends were playing. Anecdotal, I know, but a microchosm of how word of mouth shifts the market's attention at large.

My point here is that, while Call of Duty had been steadily creeping up behind Halo, it had not caught up with it until 2009. CoD4 released on 3 consoles but Halo 3 was still the best selling video games in the united states during 2007 despite being released on the 360 alone. By January 3rd, it had sold 8.1 million copies.

https://variety.com/2007/digital/news/videogame-sequels-hit-geek-peak-1117976843/

https://web.archive.org/web/20120515214254/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ms-177-million-360s-sold-6184291

CoD 4 meanwhile, despite being released on 3 platforms, sold only 7million by January

https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-details/call-dutyr-4-modern-warfaretm-ranks-1-title-units-worldwide?ReleaseID=289631

WaW, on the 360, at 7.50 million has to this day not outsold the units Halo 3 had achieved 3 months after its release

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/23992/call-of-duty-world-at-war/?region=All

So while yes Call of Duty was competing with Halo, it was not a threat to it by any stretch of the word. Not until 2009. MW2 blitzed past Halo and Halo hasn't caught up since, with MW2 Xbox 360 sales being a million higher than Halo 3 despite being two years younger and being multiplatform.

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/28848/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/?region=All

I'm largely in agreement, that Halo stopped attracting new players whereas CoD was more successful. Reach was released to sales figures that were technically a record for the franchise, but were not the exponential growth experienced by CoD, taking in 200million on the first day (30million up from Halo 3). By September the following year, Reach had sold 4.7million copies, being beaten by Call of Duty and Madden that year.

https://www.webcitation.org/63f9G0V0m?url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/38447/Black_Ops_Leads_20102011_US_Sales_With_15M_Units.php

By comparison, Halo 3 had sold twice that amount by the January of its release--so the claim that Reach did not do any worse than Halo 3 in its first year is just plain false. In fact, I have a very vivid memory of the player tracker from the first few months after Reach came out, and remember being surprised that it read there were ~40,000 unique players whereas Halo 3 used to get 300,000+. That's my own recollection so take of it what you will, but Reach was not anywhere close to Halo 3, at any point in its life time. Per sales, it simply couldn't have been. And it might not have even beaten MW2's player activity because MW2 sold 4.2million Xbox 360 copies in its first month compared to the year it took Reach to sell 4.7 million. By June of 2010, total MW2 sales were said to have surpassed 20million.

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/november-2009-npd/

https://www.mcvuk.com/business/e3-2010-mw2-sells-20-million-copies

From this we can gather two things. That 1) Halo had not brought in any new players whereas CoD had 2) it had lost players between Halo 3 and Reach. The largest contributing factor for this is necessarily Halo's largest competition, CoD. Halo 3 had not changed between 2007 and 2010, but CoD had. It was seeing yearly releases that kept the franchise in the public consciousness, whereas Halo 3 had to rely on paid map packs (the cost of which would cause aneurysms these days) that didn't add anything truly new to the game. Halo 3 was always Halo 3, and it would always be there for people to come back too, but at some point, people stopped coming back too it. CoD then exploded with the single largest entertainment launch in history up to that point with MW2, bringing an entirely new generation of gamers and kicking off a new gaming trend that would see increased sales in other military shooters, the largest one being Battlefield.

Now, I'm not about to start defending Halo Reach. As a multiplayer shooter, I think Reach is my least favorite in the franchise. Reticle bloom in particular was a terrible idea, and abilities like armor lock would throw a wrench into the flow of the game that made it just unappealing to play at times. But statistically, Halo was in decline before Reach, because Reach was--relative to Halo 3 and MW2 at least--dead on arrival. It literally did not sell enough copies to dethrone MW2 at any point for any length of time, even at launch.

That is what a market shift looks like. Articles began appearing discussing this trend--I recall one awhile back talking about how players want RPG mechanics like rewards systems in their games, but they don't want the actual RPGs. That was something CoD had that Halo doesn't: a reward system, a skinner box to keep players hooked. Reach had the credits, which were used to unlock armor, but that was paltry to CoD. MW2 had unlocks that affected gameplay, with countless attachments and perks for those unlocks, and you could even unlock power ups mid-game with killstreaks. MW2 was a skinner box disguised as a game, with every facet of the game tailoring your play with the feeling of being rewarded.

Halo does not do that, and philosophically, can not do that--no one is defending Halo 4 either. in Halo, if you get dunked on, you get dunked on, and you feel bad about yourself. Why would the average gamer play a hardcore arena shooter when they can play a casual twitch shooter that showers you in virtual goodies? Which leads into my next point, that the arena shooter genre, if not dead, is on life support.

(had to split this into two posts; forgive the double post)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9lE1CIGqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrmkur2gUfA&t=383s
The Quake community is in a bit of a bind right now. These two videos talk about why that is, but they are certainly not the only two. A common belief in the community is this paradox that “no one is playing, because no one is playing”. That no one new can get into Quake because everyone that tries gets steamrolled, and no one wants to invest the time to git gud. The first video talks about how people get bored with Quake because "there's no progress" and the second talks about how, in the age of the "friendly shooter", Quake is a bit out of its time. This pattern is a problem across the entire genre of arena shooter. Lawbreakers failed spectacularly despite getting positive reviews by both fans and critics, and being directed by Cliffy B--that game literally died because no one played it, and it can no longer be purchased off steam. Famed FPS streamer Jackfrags used Lawbreakers as a springboard to discuss how the arena shooter seems to be dead, despite being a huge fan of the genre himself. Unreal Tournament, a reboot of the Unreal franchise developed on the Unreal 4 engine by Epic, has been put on ice indefinitely since June 2017, because the studio has shifted focus on to Fortnite Battle Royale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtrUOzBqdNo&t=105s
https://www.epicgames.com/unrealtournament/forums/unreal-tournament-discussion/ut-game-general-discussion/401869-unreal-tournament-abandonware-with-all-the-earnings-from-fortnite-you-would-think/page3
Technically speaking, Halo 5 is, right now, the most popular and most played Arena shooter in the market (beating the MCC by several positions on Xbox Live Activity), and it is not for a lack of presence. Arena shooters exist, good ones too. People just aren’t playing them, and so inevitably they die from a lack of support.
People aren’t “allergic” to this style of game. They just aren’t interested in it any more. That’s how market trends work. It’s why people are playing Fortnite, Destiny 2, Warframe, Black Ops IV, and so on, so forth, when games like that barely existed back in Quake’s day. Halo, like all arena shooters, is too hard for too many people when they have more popular and more accessible games that offer more rewards more regularly. I would never in a million years advocate for Halo to become a game like CoD (lord knows they’ve tried). But my point has always been that chalking Halo’s fall from the top spot down to its mechanics--under the implication that going classic would somehow solve Halo’s popularity issues--is a fallacy. It misunderstands the market, how its been shaped the past decade. When we say Halo has never faced any competition before, this is what we mean; that Halo has never faced a competitive market that favors a genre it simply can not be. An argument can certainly be had about the games’ mechanics for their own sake, but the answer to that argument won’t bring new players into the fold.
As an aside, I realized only after I made that other comment that I had already replied to this thread before, with much of the evidence I have posted here. So, apologies for that, but I do feel this post has more meat too it anyway, and is probably bettered structured.
ROBERTO jh wrote:
In my personal experience, video gaming became "cool" with the launch and popularity of MW2. I even started playing CoD because of MW2, and I hated CoD before then, preferring to stick to Halo. But my friends had stopped playing Halo 3 and jumped on the CoD train because that's what their friends were playing. Anecdotal, I know, but a microchosm of how word of mouth shifts the market's attention at large.
I wouldn't put it that video games became "cool" with MW2, because that implies they were uncool before, which isn't really the case. It did what some game does every now and then: it made video games cooler, increasing their reach and status further. But the implication that video games were uncool before MW2 I think gives it too much credit.

When it comes to anecdotes, the thing is, everyone has them. My friends started playing CoD, too, but they didn't just drop Halo. We still played Reach quite a lot together, even though I wasn't a fan of the mechanics. I was the Halo guy in my friends group. I got them into Halo, the one who always knew what was up and spent time on the forums. And with my terrible experience of Halo 4, which I barely played, the group's interest dwindled with mine. I could probably have gotten my friends to buy Xbox Ones, but with Halo in the state that it was, I could not recommend that. With Halo Infinite coming to PC, since all of them are on PC nowadays, whether they'll end up buying it probably largely depends on what I tell them.

So, you can see how from my anecdotal point of view, it's not just that people can lose interest in the game because of the mechanics. It's that one person, who really doesn't like the mechanics, can influence many others who are perhaps less decided. But since this is completely anecdotal, it's of course entirely possible that I'm literally the only person in the world who this has happened to, but the exact same applies to your anecdote.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
My point here is that, while Call of Duty had been steadily creeping up behind Halo, it had not caught up with it until 2009. CoD4 released on 3 consoles but Halo 3 was still the best selling video games in the united states during 2007 despite being released on the 360 alone. By January 3rd, it had sold 8.1 million copies.

https://variety.com/2007/digital/news/videogame-sequels-hit-geek-peak-1117976843/

https://web.archive.org/web/20120515214254/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ms-177-million-360s-sold-6184291

CoD 4 meanwhile, despite being released on 3 platforms, sold only 7million by January

https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-details/call-dutyr-4-modern-warfaretm-ranks-1-title-units-worldwide?ReleaseID=289631
Sales only tell part of the story. Despite perhaps lagging behind in sales, CoD 4 had more weekly unique users playing the game than Halo 3 through most of 2008. This population split with WaW, which traded blows with Halo 3 throughout 2009. I've gathered all the relevant data from the Xbox Live activity charts here. It's reasonable to say that from November 2007 to November 2008, CoD was about as popular as Halo in terms of players actively playing the game. From November 2008 to November 2009, CoD 4 and WaW combined probably well surpassed Halo 3 in unique users (except at the launch of ODST), but because the population was split between two games, Halo 3 spent more time overall as the most played single game on XBL.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
By September the following year, Reach had sold 4.7million copies, being beaten by Call of Duty and Madden that year.

https://www.webcitation.org/63f9G0V0m?url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/38447/Black_Ops_Leads_20102011_US_Sales_With_15M_Units.php

By comparison, Halo 3 had sold twice that amount by the January of its release--so the claim that Reach did not do any worse than Halo 3 in its first year is just plain false.
Again, I'm not using sales as the metric for success, but the number of active users playing the game. And here the fact is that 24 hour unique user counts of Reach were on par with those of Halo 3 for the first year, as seen here. Halo might have lost much of its transient sales, but its playerbase remained as strong.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
In fact, I have a very vivid memory of the player tracker from the first few months after Reach came out, and remember being surprised that it read there were ~40,000 unique players whereas Halo 3 used to get 300,000+. That's my own recollection so take of it what you will, but Reach was not anywhere close to Halo 3, at any point in its life time.
This is, in all likelihood, an inaccurate memory. There are only a handful of days when Halo 3 provably topped 300,000 concurrent players, and there are quite a lot of times when the concurrent population went under 40,000. For example, October 17th, 2007, 10:29 GMT: 32,896 players online. November 15th, 2007, 13:50 GMT: 20,033 players online. For most of 2008, the concurrent population of Halo 3 fluctuated between 20,000 and 200,000 with peaks around midnight GMT, and troughs around midday GMT. For Reach we have no record of concurrent player counts, but the cumulative 24 hour counts shown above show that every day during its first year, roughly as many people logged on to play Reach daily as had logged on to play Halo 3 during its first year.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
2) it had lost players between Halo 3 and Reach.
As explained above, I still disagree with this. Lost sales do not equate to lost active players. If you want to reconcile the lost sales with with the similar populations of the two games, the reasonable explanation is that between Halo 3 and Reach, Halo lost sales from the transient players: the players who buy the game but, for one reason or another, never get in enough playtime to contribute meaningfully to the active player base. How important we regard these transient players is of course a matter of taste. From my point of view as a gamer and not a shareholder of a game publisher, the size of the player base is a more important metric than the sales generated.
ROBERTO jh wrote:
People aren’t “allergic” to this style of game. They just aren’t interested in it any more. That’s how market trends work. It’s why people are playing Fortnite, Destiny 2, Warframe, Black Ops IV, and so on, so forth, when games like that barely existed back in Quake’s day. Halo, like all arena shooters, is too hard for too many people when they have more popular and more accessible games that offer more rewards more regularly.
This argument would work if we also didn't happen to be in the golden age of esports. CS:GO, LoL, DotA, Overwatch. All these really hardcore competitive games are really popular right now. If all people really wanted was easy success, these games would not be as successful as they are. From my point of view anyway, some of these games are actually way harder for a new player to pick up than Halo was. A friend tried to get me into LoL, but I couldn't because I was completely overwhelmed by all the different heroes, their ideal playstyles, and their special attacks. With Halo, all I need to do is get acquinted with the controls. I don't need to worry about whether I picked the wrong character. There are a few weapons, and not a million different characters with different strengths and weaknesses and attacks. Halo is nearly as pick-up and play as can be. Sure, it's hard to get good at Halo, but so it is in these others hugely popular games that draw in millions of people daily.

Eight years ago, although I never believed the argument myself, I would've had nothing to say against the claim that people don't want challenging games. However, nowadays, these games, any single one of which probably has more players than Destiny 2, Warframe, and Black Ops 4 combined, prove that claim completely wrong. People are not afraid of challenging games.

ROBERTO jh wrote:
But my point has always been that chalking Halo’s fall from the top spot down to its mechanics--under the implication that going classic would somehow solve Halo’s popularity issues--is a fallacy. It misunderstands the market, how its been shaped the past decade.
I agree that attributing Halo's fall from the top completely to changes in gameplay is misguided. However, claiming that there's no chance the mechanics played a significant part in Halo becoming as unpopular as it did is equally misguided. I don't doubt that, no matter what Halo had done, CoD would have still taken over. However, I do believe it to be entirely plausible that had Halo not succumbed to the trends, it might have not tanked as hard as it did. It perhaps wouldn't have grown from Halo 3, but it might have not made the population of Halo to actively diminish, or at the very least not diminish as fast as it did.

It's not something I absolutely believe in, because there's little evidence in favor of it, but it's completely plausible that Halo's fall was accelereated by the decisions made by Bungie and 343i. Certainly, there's no evidence against it. Sales, population numbers, they all only tell what happened. They don't tell why it happened.
I dont mind ADS as long as you're not forced to go ADS. Halo should be played just as the earlier titles.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 4, Titanfall, and Titanfall 2 are all shooters with ADS I like. However, that does not mean I like the mechanic itself in any context as it isn't how I aim that makes me enjoy those games.
I get both sides a lot better know, but my question to the anti-ads and anti sprinters is this: what would you do differently from 343 without traveling backwards 10+ years in terms of tech and visual effects?
I... don't understand the question frankly. 🙃

What would we have done during H4's development in graphical terms? Or is it more about the gameplay changes introduced in H5? Or both about the next installment: How we want Hi to work in terms of zooming, advanced movement and graphical effects? In any case Tsassi is right, it's a loaded question to say the least! XD
Yeah I phrased it badly. What I meant was this: What should 343 do in infinite besides releasing Halo 3 again? Because I didn't just mean how it visually looks, but that's a part of fps today, is what it looks like at first glance, and halo 3 looks too boring to be released in 2018.
I get both sides a lot better know, but my question to the anti-ads and anti sprinters is this: what would you do differently from 343 without traveling backwards 10+ years in terms of tech and visual effects?
I... don't understand the question frankly. 🙃

What would we have done during H4's development in graphical terms? Or is it more about the gameplay changes introduced in H5? Or both about the next installment: How we want Hi to work in terms of zooming, advanced movement and graphical effects? In any case Tsassi is right, it's a loaded question to say the least! XD
Yeah I phrased it badly. What I meant was this: What should 343 do in infinite besides releasing Halo 3 again? Because I didn't just mean how it visually looks, but that's a part of fps today, is what it looks like at first glance, and halo 3 looks too boring to be released in 2018.
It looks too boring? Because there isn't lens flare every five seconds and millions of dust particles exploding in your face?

Anyway, this is my Halo: Infinite (some of this has been confirmed while others I simply want.)

. Rich story
. Open-world singleplayer with rewarding exploration
. Ancient Forerunner relics to discover and learn about
. Varied alien wildlife which interact with one another (I.E. Half-Life)
. Stronger attempt at developing the Prometheans
. Stronger emphasis on The Master Chief
. Soundtrack inspired by original trilogy
. Fast-paced gameplay (I.E. Halo 2)
. Arena-style multiplayer
. Multiplayer caters to casual and competitive play under a single gameplay formula (I.E. original trilogy)
. Even starts
. Split-screen (coop and multiplayer)
. Halo: Reach-like armor customization
. Halo 3 armor unlock system
. Playable Elites
. Halo 5: Guardians-like Forge
. Content browser
. Rich with content at launch
. Works at launch
I get both sides a lot better know, but my question to the anti-ads and anti sprinters is this: what would you do differently from 343 without traveling backwards 10+ years in terms of tech and visual effects?
I... don't understand the question frankly. 🙃

What would we have done during H4's development in graphical terms? Or is it more about the gameplay changes introduced in H5? Or both about the next installment: How we want Hi to work in terms of zooming, advanced movement and graphical effects? In any case Tsassi is right, it's a loaded question to say the least! XD
Yeah I phrased it badly. What I meant was this: What should 343 do in infinite besides releasing Halo 3 again? Because I didn't just mean how it visually looks, but that's a part of fps today, is what it looks like at first glance, and halo 3 looks too boring to be released in 2018.
It looks too boring? Because there isn't lens flare every five seconds and millions of dust particles exploding in your face?

Anyway, this is my Halo: Infinite (some of this has been confirmed while others I simply want.)

. Rich story
. Open-world singleplayer with rewarding exploration
. Ancient Forerunner relics to discover and learn about
. Varied alien wildlife which interact with one another (I.E. Half-Life)
. Stronger attempt at developing the Prometheans
. Stronger emphasis on The Master Chief
. Soundtrack inspired by original trilogy
. Fast-paced gameplay (I.E. Halo 2)
. Arena-style multiplayer
. Multiplayer caters to casual and competitive play under a single gameplay formula (I.E. original trilogy)
. Even starts
. Split-screen (coop and multiplayer)
. Halo: Reach-like armor customization
. Halo 3 armor unlock system
. Playable Elites
. Halo 5: Guardians-like Forge
. Content browser
. Rich with content at launch
. Works at launch
Oh, and I'm not sure how, but I want Breakout to be worked in.
Yeah I phrased it badly. What I meant was this: What should 343 do in infinite besides releasing Halo 3 again? Because I didn't just mean how it visually looks, but that's a part of fps today, is what it looks like at first glance, and halo 3 looks too boring to be released in 2018.
I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you mean: Are you talking about the gameplay as a whole or about the zoom mechanic specifically? Because replacing ADS with a zoom design more thematically appropriate for the year 2558 does in no way suddenly turn the game into Halo 3 all over again.
I also vehemently disagree that ADS is "a part of FPS today" (if that is what you meant)... Overwatch released to tremendous critical acclaim and financial success and doesn't have ADS. Neither did Doom or Battlefront (as far as I remember). It's a stylistic choice how weapons should aim, and not having ADS doesn't make a game look like it's from 2007.
As for "too boring", in my own opinion, ADS already looked boring in 2011. There's just not much visually interesting you can do with shoving huge bulky weapon models into a player's face. The textures are always going to look muddy or blurry and since most shooters have a contemporary setting, all the weapons have similar scopes and are colored in a shade of gray so there's not much variation in the first place.
Never thought I'd say that, but in that regard, H5G already has one of the most stylistically appealing variants of ADS, given the alien weapons and holograms. Too bad that it doesn't mesh well with gameplay and probably is the one franchise that should never had the mechanic to begin with.
I get both sides a lot better know, but my question to the anti-ads and anti sprinters is this: what would you do differently from 343 without traveling backwards 10+ years in terms of tech and visual effects?
I... don't understand the question frankly. 🙃

What would we have done during H4's development in graphical terms? Or is it more about the gameplay changes introduced in H5? Or both about the next installment: How we want Hi to work in terms of zooming, advanced movement and graphical effects? In any case Tsassi is right, it's a loaded question to say the least! XD
Yeah I phrased it badly. What I meant was this: What should 343 do in infinite besides releasing Halo 3 again? Because I didn't just mean how it visually looks, but that's a part of fps today, is what it looks like at first glance, and halo 3 looks too boring to be released in 2018.
In other words, how should Halo Infinite be if it had classic gameplay once more? ... Still freaking loaded buddy! 😂

Anyway... For sure NOBODY want a more of the same even if it comes out with the original base movement mechanic. A H2/3 clone how many would put it won't cut it. Point is classic gameplay fans are not asking for that in any way. Neither do I consider games without sprint to be boring. That is a personal assumption and in my case the opposite is true for instance. For me AMM games like Titanfall, CoD or H5 are the really boring titles. Too much focus on running instead of battling imho, which make those game way more repetitive as well.

That said, back to Hi! Personally I would love to see a bigger emphasis on modular gameplay, player choice and "epicness" in the story telling.

The golden triangle is the foundation Halo is build upon. While on foot this rule shouldn't be broken. To gain a sense of speed in the game even without sprint just use H5's BMS, enlarge fov to 90-100°, add on screen effects when running in the same direction for a while _(which you can deactivate if you so wish)_ and make weapon models smaller on screen while showing more of the players arms. I'm also not against new graphical on screen addition like ADS as long as it is just that, a graphical alteration without buffs of any kind. Don't like the scope in your face? Deactivate smart scope in the option menu!

As for new additions to the sandbox I always wanted to see a bigger interaction with the environment. That could mean destructible map components, earth morphology changing with explosions, plasma being able to set inflammable material under fire, destroying weapons and bodies on the ground etc... But also more AI interaction. I want be able to point at a Marine and tell him to equip something or set his -Yoink- into a vehicle! Not to mention that Halo is at its best when we fight multiple factions at once, something I really missed in Reach. So why not having fauna as a gameplay element?

Talking about enemy AI, I really hope Hi will be a lot better in this regard. Complex AI routines means more possibilities and gameplay variation. H4 especially was a tremendous disappointment in this regard.

Huge worlds filled with secrets and able to tell you part of the story without screaming it into your face would be nice too. Let us have multiple objectives at the same time with real time effects on the map and sandbox based on how and in which order the player chooses to resolve them.

Even AAs could have a comeback, but as pick ups. Maybe infinite use in SP and limited with longer cool downs in MP? Loadouts in that case would be back too, but only for Invasion and Forge modes.

Another nice change for multiplayer would be the option to play as every race in a sort of Firefight or GoW3 like beast mode.

Forge with AI is on the wish list of many players as well. In addition I hope to see a proper map editor with geo-modifiers and changeable stats for those AIs as well as weapon balancing and prop destruction rates. Maybe let us even have animation paths to have proper doors, elevators and mobile map elements!

And I could go on with examples. There is plenty you can do to "evolve" our beloved franchise (aka not just releasing H3 again) without devastating the BMS or what made Halo distinguishable to the competition. ☺
I honestly really like the way it's implemented in H5, you don't need it when you are moving quickly (and it can be a hinderance if you are trying to shoot on the run) but if you are going for a long stationary shot its helpful to get a little more zoomed in
I have played Halo since CE. I know what the zooming looks like in every halo game.
Doesn't seem like it.
Halo 1 zoom
Halo 2 classic zoom
Halo 2 Anniversary zoom
Halo 3 zoom
Halo 4's zoom (BR)
Halo 4's zoom (DMR)
Halo 5 zoom (BR)
Halo 5 ADS style zooming makes it way harder to see YOUR target on most weapons
But..It doesn't. In fact on most weapons the zoom mechanic in Halo 5 allows you to see MORE of your enemy/surrounding area. Especially on things like the DMR, Covenant Carbine, and BR.

The dumb holographic projection of my gun covers up almost 3/4 of the target im trying to shoot. I don't see how this is even debatable. Just go look at it them.
Yet..It also doesn't do this. You're the one debating it, I'm saying it obviously isn't along with providing real time screenshots as to how it isn't. You of yet to provide any proof supporting your own judgements.
tsassi wrote:
Not in any of these would an enemy player go unseen. Even the darker areas are very clearly visible. All of these pictures support exactly what I was saying. Have you considered you might have bad display settings? I noticed a difference in how dark the dark areas appear when putting the images on my other screen.
Brightness levels are fine. All those screenshots were also taken on Halo MCC at it's default brightness in 1080p 60fps btw. Halo 5 is the only one where the brightness levels are slightly darker then normal due to my TV's own brightness levels. I took a second look at the screenshots after increasing my TV's brightness above it's normal levels, and my opinion on how the zoom mechanic looks in each game hasn't really changed.

By increasing the brightness by quite a bit on my TV, I am able to see a tiny bit more detail in each of the Halo games, but this is also above what the "average user" would do. This effect also seems to agree with my opinion more so with Halo 5 having the most clear, and see-able zoom mechanic out of all of them to date, because it increases the "see-able area's" even more so then what it already was at.

Are they clearly visible? To my eyes after increasing the brightness above the normal TV's brightness, not really. They aren't clearly visible until you start taking closer looks at everything else, which once again, the average user isn't going to do. Not to mention it also increases the effect of Halo 5's see-able area's by a ton.
tsassi wrote:
That's roughly a ninth of the total screen area obstructed completely. Of course it's not going to be the entire screen, but it's still going to be a blind spot, and it's still more obstructive than classic zoom where 100% of the screen is clearly visible (again, ignoring Halo 4).
If what your saying is 1/9th of the screen, I guess that could make sense. Much like how it's about 2/10th's of the screen being covered, or around that (10 being the entire screen, 1 being a really small section of it like the shields+radar+visor+ammo/gun counter).

Is it really that big of a blind spot? Again, not really. Users aren't going to be paying attention to the ground when zooming in onto there targets. Is it more obstructive? To me, it's not any more obstructive then the dark shade that happens on all the classic zoom levels of the past Halo games.
tsassi wrote:
However, there's good reason to dislike the Halo 5 zoom, because as we've seen, it offers inferior visibility compared to the classic zoom.
Yet it doesn't, and that's what I've been trying to tell you so far along with supporting screenshots.

It adds absolutely nothing to the game and - if anything - makes long-range combat less effective due to generally not magnifying the screen as far and sticking pieces of metal and other crap in your face. The only reason why ADS exists in Halo 5: Guardians is because much more popular shooters do it out of expectation.
Actually the zoom levels in Halo 5 seem to zoom more so onto the enemy then it ever did in past Halo games. Metal crap? Besides the BR with it's default scope, and some-what the covenant carbine, the rest of the weapons aren't affected by any "metal crap" appearing in your face at all if that's what you want to call it.
Anyways, the BR isn't even meant for long range engagements, that's the DMR's default scope, which is the closest example to the "classic scope" we have in H5 besides the real classic scopes in Halo 5.
If you chose any other ability then you couldn't use it while in Halo 4 and Halo 5: Guardians running away is always an option.
Sprint doesn't allow you to run away anymore then simply walking normally did in past Halo games. You people say "the maps are bigger to accommodate sprint" which is true. This also balances out the whole "running away aspect" which is impossible to do, because the enemy player attacking you, if he has the appropriate map knowledge, can easily counter any sort of "running away" you might do.
In Halo 5, you can't even run while being shot at, and when you do get shot at while sprinting, you run much slower.

I know you can, but I dont want the left trigger to be an option at all. The aiming mechanic should stay true to previous Halo titles not become corrupted by modern trends.
I guess you never heard of the Green Thumb control scheme in Halo. It's the most similar to Halo 5's default controls actually (green thumb also exist in Halo 5). It's been with Halo since Halo 3, and has gone through pretty big changes in each Halo game so far.
Nighterlev wrote:
I have played Halo since CE. I know what the zooming looks like in every halo game.
Doesn't seem like it.
Halo 1 zoomHalo 2 classic zoomHalo 2 Anniversary zoomHalo 3 zoomHalo 4's zoom (BR)
Halo 4's zoom (DMR)Halo 5 zoom (BR)
You keep posting these like they help your case. I don't have the best natural eyesight, nor do I play on particularly bright settings and I have zero issues seeing through those grayed sections in CE, H2, H2A, or H3. I can see through them on my monitor, I can see through them on my phone, I can see through them on my TV, and clearly others like Tsassi and Dead End can see though them as well. So either your brightness settings are fundamentally messed up on your viewing devices or your own eyesight is at fault.

There would at least be some merit to your argument if Bungie era Halo games had deliberately obscured edges like Halo 4 does, but they very clearly don't have that same issue(and Halo 4 is a whole separate can of worms unto itself.) A slight graying of edges is always going to give you better visibility that opaque bits of rifle in your face.
Nighterlev wrote:
Halo 5 ADS style zooming makes it way harder to see YOUR target on most weapons
But..It doesn't. In fact on most weapons the zoom mechanic in Halo 5 allows you to see MORE of your enemy/surrounding area. Especially on things like the DMR, Covenant Carbine, and BR.
The dumb holographic projection of my gun covers up almost 3/4 of the target im trying to shoot. I don't see how this is even debatable. Just go look at it them.
Yet..It also doesn't do this. You're the one debating it, I'm saying it obviously isn't along with providing real time screenshots as to how it isn't. You of yet to provide any proof supporting your own judgements.
tsassi wrote:
However, there's good reason to dislike the Halo 5 zoom, because as we've seen, it offers inferior visibility compared to the classic zoom.
Yet it doesn't, and that's what I've been trying to tell you so far along with supporting screenshots.
Bull.
This screenshot explains it best. The red line separates what is visible from what is not visible while scoping. In classic zoom, this line is equal to the TV screen borders. In H5G this line traces the weapon outline.
Like tsassi an Dead End already said... this isn't debatable. You're not arguing an opinion here, you're claming something not to be the case that literally everybody with even one functioning eye can see for themselves. The screenshots you're providing only contradict your own point.
Like, I genuinely do not understand how you can keep continuing repeating this. Do you honestly believe what you're saying? Because at this point it just seems as if you're trolling for -Yoink- and giggles.

Nighterlev wrote:
Metal crap? Besides the BR with it's default scope, and some-what the covenant carbine, the rest of the weapons aren't affected by any "metal crap" appearing in your face at all if that's what you want to call it.
The pistol is literally covering half of the enemy you're shooting at. Obviously this depends on the distance to your target but even at long ranges this still holds true. And basically every UNSC weapon has exactly the same problem. The only exceptions are some of the alien weapons (e.g. promethean rifles) and the snipers (see below).

Nighterlev wrote:
Anyways, the BR isn't even meant for long range engagements
Halopedia seems to disagree there:
Quote:
The MA5C Assault rifle, which was described as most suited for short to medium range, as opposed to the Battle Rifle's mid to long, has a maximum effective range of 300 meters and the Covenant Carbine, which is similar in use with the Battle Rifle, but has a maximum range of 600 meters. It is stated that the Battle rifle could reach up to 900 meters with deadly accuracy

[...].
.Accuracy: High
Range: Medium to Long (950 meters)
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/BR55_Heavy_Barrel_Service_Rifle
Nighterlev wrote:
that's the DMR's default scope, which is the closest example to the "classic scope" we have in H5 besides the real classic scopes in Halo 5.
I'd argue that the closest examples from H5G that resemble classic scopes are the snipers, specifically the Beam Rifle and the Binary Rifle, because they're the only ones that leave the same amount of peripheral vision as before. A similar case can maybe made for the light rifle. Even the SRS-99 doesn't do that anymore. But the DMR is most definitely not among those
Nighterlev wrote:
I have played Halo since CE. I know what the zooming looks like in every halo game.
Doesn't seem like it.
Halo 1 zoomHalo 2 classic zoomHalo 2 Anniversary zoomHalo 3 zoomHalo 4's zoom (BR)
Halo 4's zoom (DMR)Halo 5 zoom (BR)
Halo 5 ADS style zooming makes it way harder to see YOUR target on most weapons
But..It doesn't. In fact on most weapons the zoom mechanic in Halo 5 allows you to see MORE of your enemy/surrounding area. Especially on things like the DMR, Covenant Carbine, and BR.

The dumb holographic projection of my gun covers up almost 3/4 of the target im trying to shoot. I don't see how this is even debatable. Just go look at it them.
Yet..It also doesn't do this. You're the one debating it, I'm saying it obviously isn't along with providing real time screenshots as to how it isn't. You of yet to provide any proof supporting your own judgements.
tsassi wrote:
Not in any of these would an enemy player go unseen. Even the darker areas are very clearly visible. All of these pictures support exactly what I was saying. Have you considered you might have bad display settings? I noticed a difference in how dark the dark areas appear when putting the images on my other screen.
Brightness levels are fine. All those screenshots were also taken on Halo MCC at it's default brightness in 1080p 60fps btw. Halo 5 is the only one where the brightness levels are slightly darker then normal due to my TV's own brightness levels. I took a second look at the screenshots after increasing my TV's brightness above it's normal levels, and my opinion on how the zoom mechanic looks in each game hasn't really changed.

By increasing the brightness by quite a bit on my TV, I am able to see a tiny bit more detail in each of the Halo games, but this is also above what the "average user" would do. This effect also seems to agree with my opinion more so with Halo 5 having the most clear, and see-able zoom mechanic out of all of them to date, because it increases the "see-able area's" even more so then what it already was at.

Are they clearly visible? To my eyes after increasing the brightness above the normal TV's brightness, not really. They aren't clearly visible until you start taking closer looks at everything else, which once again, the average user isn't going to do. Not to mention it also increases the effect of Halo 5's see-able area's by a ton.
tsassi wrote:
That's roughly a ninth of the total screen area obstructed completely. Of course it's not going to be the entire screen, but it's still going to be a blind spot, and it's still more obstructive than classic zoom where 100% of the screen is clearly visible (again, ignoring Halo 4).
If what your saying is 1/9th of the screen, I guess that could make sense. Much like how it's about 2/10th's of the screen being covered, or around that (10 being the entire screen, 1 being a really small section of it like the shields+radar+visor+ammo/gun counter).

Is it really that big of a blind spot? Again, not really. Users aren't going to be paying attention to the ground when zooming in onto there targets. Is it more obstructive? To me, it's not any more obstructive then the dark shade that happens on all the classic zoom levels of the past Halo games.
tsassi wrote:
However, there's good reason to dislike the Halo 5 zoom, because as we've seen, it offers inferior visibility compared to the classic zoom.
Yet it doesn't, and that's what I've been trying to tell you so far along with supporting screenshots.

It adds absolutely nothing to the game and - if anything - makes long-range combat less effective due to generally not magnifying the screen as far and sticking pieces of metal and other crap in your face. The only reason why ADS exists in Halo 5: Guardians is because much more popular shooters do it out of expectation.
Actually the zoom levels in Halo 5 seem to zoom more so onto the enemy then it ever did in past Halo games. Metal crap? Besides the BR with it's default scope, and some-what the covenant carbine, the rest of the weapons aren't affected by any "metal crap" appearing in your face at all if that's what you want to call it.
Anyways, the BR isn't even meant for long range engagements, that's the DMR's default scope, which is the closest example to the "classic scope" we have in H5 besides the real classic scopes in Halo 5.
If you chose any other ability then you couldn't use it while in Halo 4 and Halo 5: Guardians running away is always an option.
Sprint doesn't allow you to run away anymore then simply walking normally did in past Halo games. You people say "the maps are bigger to accommodate sprint" which is true. This also balances out the whole "running away aspect" which is impossible to do, because the enemy player attacking you, if he has the appropriate map knowledge, can easily counter any sort of "running away" you might do.
In Halo 5, you can't even run while being shot at, and when you do get shot at while sprinting, you run much slower.

I know you can, but I dont want the left trigger to be an option at all. The aiming mechanic should stay true to previous Halo titles not become corrupted by modern trends.
I guess you never heard of the Green Thumb control scheme in Halo. It's the most similar to Halo 5's default controls actually (green thumb also exist in Halo 5). It's been with Halo since Halo 3, and has gone through pretty big changes in each Halo game so far.
Maybe that's how you see it, but unless I can see a side-by-side comparison it definitely doesn't seem to zoom in further now. Almost every weapon in the game also brings the weapon closer to your face as opposed to just magnifying the screen and darkening the edges. You may pretend otherwise, but ADS does not improve long-range combat at all. And, yes, the BR has always been a medium-to-long-range rifle so even at medium distances ADS doesn't do it any favors.

Anyone who plays Halo 4 or Halo 5: Guardians will tell you how easy it is to run away. These new Halo maps are almost nothing but flat fields and narrow hallways, but the fact of the matter is that if their option is to either lower their weapon to chase after an opponent or focus on those trying to shoot them then what's their true option?

I don't at all remember the inability to sprint when being shot at so I can't comment on it. I don't own an Xbox One to test it at this time, but the only punishment for sprint I noticed while playing the game was health not recharging (something that doesn't do a whole lot as your options are either run or stand still and die.)
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 12