Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

IF INFINATE DONT PLAY 100% LIKE HALO 5 NO BUY.

OP Foxxtrot 64

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
I know this may sound a bit rude, but I'd rather Halo go back to what made it great at the expense of shedding the minority of fans like this who are diehard 343 Halo players. What would be cool is if we could see how many people prefer 343 and Bungie so that it'd be more clear on which side needs to be expended for sure; but unless these forums are just a microcosm of the whole Halo community, I doubt that 343 fans are the majority.

That being said, I guarantee that if you won't play Halo Infinite unless it's exactly like Halo 5, then there's no point in sticking around. There's no reason to give the minority (a singular consumer, though likely others with this mindset) in this situation what they want if there's a vast majority saying they want otherwise.
I know this may sound a bit rude, but I'd rather Halo go back to what made it great at the expense of shedding the minority of fans like this who are diehard 343 Halo players. What would be cool is if we could see how many people prefer 343 and Bungie so that it'd be more clear on which side needs to be expended for sure; but unless these forums are just a microcosm of the whole Halo community, I doubt that 343 fans are the majority.

That being said, I guarantee that if you won't play Halo Infinite unless it's exactly like Halo 5, then there's no point in sticking around. There's no reason to give the minority (a singular consumer, though likely others with this mindset) in this situation what they want if there's a vast majority saying they want otherwise.
I'd make the argument that neither side should be forgotten. But at the same time, trying to make everyone happy can lead to nobody being happy. It's a very slippery slope. I want a mixture of new and old Halo, taking the best of both worlds and mixing them together to see what could happen. Maybe we could remove sprint, while keeping boosts and clamber around to enable some interesting mobility options from the new Halo games while keeping the spirit of the old Halo games there. That could play into a semi-open world design like CE, with high and low places to travel across. Multiple paths to take through a level, meaning there is a sense of replayability to the game. I'd love to see the new and old artstyles mixed together as well, which is what Infinite looks like it will be doing. I really don't like the idea of "my way or the highway" that seems to show up a lot in these arguments. I want to see a balance struck. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but I'm sure it could be done. No matter what happens, if Infinite goes fully old-school, keeps going with the new style, or has a mix of both, I'm still buying it. Because I love Halo, and I want to see this franchise succeed and continue for many more years to come. (That sort of turned into a speech. Sorry about that. I just figured I would put my two cents in to this discussion.)
Wait, so you actually want more of what Halo 5 had to offer?
I hope it has something like warzone.
I know this may sound a bit rude, but I'd rather Halo go back to what made it great at the expense of shedding the minority of fans like this who are diehard 343 Halo players. What would be cool is if we could see how many people prefer 343 and Bungie so that it'd be more clear on which side needs to be expended for sure; but unless these forums are just a microcosm of the whole Halo community, I doubt that 343 fans are the majority.

That being said, I guarantee that if you won't play Halo Infinite unless it's exactly like Halo 5, then there's no point in sticking around. There's no reason to give the minority (a singular consumer, though likely others with this mindset) in this situation what they want if there's a vast majority saying they want otherwise.
343 or bungie fans? I'm pretty sure most on this forum are just Halo fans and frankly don't care which dev makes the game.
You have to consider that these unique game modes were historically not carried over in new games. Look at invasion and dominion: you could say they were the Warzone equivalent in their respective games, yet they were scrapped and changed with something new and different. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I had a ton of fun with these game modes and can't wait to see what's next in Infinite.
I know this may sound a bit rude, but I'd rather Halo go back to what made it great at the expense of shedding the minority of fans like this who are diehard 343 Halo players. What would be cool is if we could see how many people prefer 343 and Bungie so that it'd be more clear on which side needs to be expended for sure; but unless these forums are just a microcosm of the whole Halo community, I doubt that 343 fans are the majority.

That being said, I guarantee that if you won't play Halo Infinite unless it's exactly like Halo 5, then there's no point in sticking around. There's no reason to give the minority (a singular consumer, though likely others with this mindset) in this situation what they want if there's a vast majority saying they want otherwise.
It's not even rude really. No Halo game has ever played exactly like its predecessor. Sure you could argue Halo 2/3 but when it comes down to it, they still played different. For 343 to make a new Halo game (especially with the rumor budget) and have it play exactly like Halo 5 would be 100% a waste of time and money. Why do all that when you could just add story DLC to Halo 5.

I'm sure at its core it will still feel and play like Halo.
I mean you are definitely entitled to that opinion. My personal opinion is that I don't mind how it plays. If it plays like classic Halo great! If it plays like new Halo great as well! Either way I will buy this game, but I would recommend playing it before you consider never touching it. You never know, you might like it even more than Halo 5. And this is coming from a person who loves Halo 5's gameplay mechanics and multiplayer.
ronnie42 wrote:
There truly are many ways to change Warzone so it wouldn't be dependant on reqs, given if they want to keep the gametype in the game at all. So in other words, your suggestions seem to be a viable option in my mind.

As for bots in the matches, it has been something under discussion on some topics, it's not necessarily the best one but still an option.
The bots cant fully replace human players but even as a temporary supplement, would they be worth the work required? For example, possibly needing a varying effectiveness level, which would include accuracy & reaction time for example, depending on the skill level of the players on board for balancing reasons, next would be that what is the primary objective for the AI? Would it pursue objectives relentlessly, would it seek the company of human players, defend a point or what exactly?
And as to afkers, not much bots would do with them, if there is a player present then bot shouldn't spawn.
And even if the idle timer would be decreased that can be easily passed by just taping the controller & report system more than likely would be abused. There is no easy solutions for those problems hence why they are years old problems.
But that is it's own discussion entirely.
Depends on how their programmed. If it's it's like Unreal Tournaments bots that might work but if there like Left 4 Dead bots then they might not be useful.
In a way temporary bots might be useful due to helping to avoid games not feeling too unbalanced. Of course bots couldn't just completely replace them, which is why I was thinking it might be best to keep them as temporary that only spawn if either requested by player in-game or to stop games being one sided in-game. Anyway as for AI I'd have to research this further since at the moment don't know enough about AI programming to make them useful and not too OP.

As for afk players that's never an easy to counter since players will always try to find a way around that.
If all you're looking for is "100% exactly Halo 5," why would you buy any other game ever? You would just stay on Halo 5, the only game that is 100% Halo 5.

Even by virtue of one mechanic changing or other maps involved or one game mode missing or included, that's no Halo 5.
I know this may sound a bit rude, but I'd rather Halo go back to what made it great at the expense of shedding the minority of fans like this who are diehard 343 Halo players. What would be cool is if we could see how many people prefer 343 and Bungie so that it'd be more clear on which side needs to be expended for sure; but unless these forums are just a microcosm of the whole Halo community, I doubt that 343 fans are the majority.

That being said, I guarantee that if you won't play Halo Infinite unless it's exactly like Halo 5, then there's no point in sticking around. There's no reason to give the minority (a singular consumer, though likely others with this mindset) in this situation what they want if there's a vast majority saying they want otherwise.
343 or bungie fans? I'm pretty sure most on this forum are just Halo fans and frankly don't care which dev makes the game.
I'd have to agree with this, Halo is Halo, I don't mind how makes the code for it, as long as they do a good job, and from the snippets I have seen from Infinite so far, I must say, I am very excited to see what 343i can put on the table for us
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
There truly are many ways to change Warzone so it wouldn't be dependant on reqs, given if they want to keep the gametype in the game at all. So in other words, your suggestions seem to be a viable option in my mind.

As for bots in the matches, it has been something under discussion on some topics, it's not necessarily the best one but still an option.
The bots cant fully replace human players but even as a temporary supplement, would they be worth the work required? For example, possibly needing a varying effectiveness level, which would include accuracy & reaction time for example, depending on the skill level of the players on board for balancing reasons, next would be that what is the primary objective for the AI? Would it pursue objectives relentlessly, would it seek the company of human players, defend a point or what exactly?
And as to afkers, not much bots would do with them, if there is a player present then bot shouldn't spawn.
And even if the idle timer would be decreased that can be easily passed by just taping the controller & report system more than likely would be abused. There is no easy solutions for those problems hence why they are years old problems.
But that is it's own discussion entirely.
Depends on how their programmed. If it's it's like Unreal Tournaments bots that might work but if there like Left 4 Dead bots then they might not be useful.
In a way temporary bots might be useful due to helping to avoid games not feeling too unbalanced. Of course bots couldn't just completely replace them, which is why I was thinking it might be best to keep them as temporary that only spawn if either requested by player in-game or to stop games being one sided in-game. Anyway as for AI I'd have to research this further since at the moment don't know enough about AI programming to make them useful and not too OP.

As for afk players that's never an easy to counter since players will always try to find a way around that.
Balance for bots effectiveness could possibly be achieved but it's pretty much the easiest of the points to remake in reality but what I see as the real problems are the priorities for the bots which is usually simply to kill players on opposing team but that hardly works well on objective based modes. Other thing is that if there are many so called "advanced movement mechanics", as in extra animations, then would the bots be able to utilize themwell enough given mostly AI in past games has used something like jumppacks, jetpacs & such but if the gameplay is more crysis type then would it make the AI "derp" more commonly?

Surely a temporary bots could be good enough solution for some gamemodes even though it's not the perfect solution, it could occasionally be better than none. Where bots could be more of a problem could be modes that have some type of shared resources/rewards that could cause the bots to become easy farming option causing even more accelerated loss for the disadvantaged players.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
There truly are many ways to change Warzone so it wouldn't be dependant on reqs, given if they want to keep the gametype in the game at all. So in other words, your suggestions seem to be a viable option in my mind.

As for bots in the matches, it has been something under discussion on some topics, it's not necessarily the best one but still an option.
The bots cant fully replace human players but even as a temporary supplement, would they be worth the work required? For example, possibly needing a varying effectiveness level, which would include accuracy & reaction time for example, depending on the skill level of the players on board for balancing reasons, next would be that what is the primary objective for the AI? Would it pursue objectives relentlessly, would it seek the company of human players, defend a point or what exactly?
And as to afkers, not much bots would do with them, if there is a player present then bot shouldn't spawn.
And even if the idle timer would be decreased that can be easily passed by just taping the controller & report system more than likely would be abused. There is no easy solutions for those problems hence why they are years old problems.
But that is it's own discussion entirely.
Depends on how their programmed. If it's it's like Unreal Tournaments bots that might work but if there like Left 4 Dead bots then they might not be useful.
In a way temporary bots might be useful due to helping to avoid games not feeling too unbalanced. Of course bots couldn't just completely replace them, which is why I was thinking it might be best to keep them as temporary that only spawn if either requested by player in-game or to stop games being one sided in-game. Anyway as for AI I'd have to research this further since at the moment don't know enough about AI programming to make them useful and not too OP.

As for afk players that's never an easy to counter since players will always try to find a way around that.
Balance for bots effectiveness could possibly be achieved but it's pretty much the easiest of the points to remake in reality but what I see as the real problems are the priorities for the bots which is usually simply to kill players on opposing team but that hardly works well on objective based modes. Other thing is that if there are many so called "advanced movement mechanics", as in extra animations, then would the bots be able to utilize themwell enough given mostly AI in past games has used something like jumppacks, jetpacs & such but if the gameplay is more crysis type then would it make the AI "derp" more commonly?

Surely a temporary bots could be good enough solution for some gamemodes even though it's not the perfect solution, it could occasionally be better than none. Where bots could be more of a problem could be modes that have some type of shared resources/rewards that could cause the bots to become easy farming option causing even more accelerated loss for the disadvantaged players.
I don't think bots would be the best but I guess it's more of an excuse to have some form of defence. Though I think it be more interesting if they add other defences instead like how Dominion in Halo 4 allowed us to put turrets down. The movement system might get too complicated but really depends on how the system is setup but too early to say. I found the problems with Halo 5 AI was that I would wipe out a base, then suddenly an enemy AI would spawn behind me, making it difficult to predict the AI spawns while I would have preferred if they only spawned via transport instead of teleporting so I think they would need to be careful about they handle the spawn system too.
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
Fair enough. The reason I think it will be back is because:
1. It's a good mode for going beyond the 8v8 BTB cap, let's them explore larger player lobbies.
2. It's pretty hard to find games in a lot of modes for a while now on H5 but WZ has been one that you can consistently find games pretty quick even 3.5 years later, even more impressive is it requires the biggest player count so I'd say it's probably H5's most successful addition to Halo.
3. It's pretty unique and really adds something to Halo, not just another mode. You've got PvPvE mixed with base capturing and core destruction. I couldn't see them putting so much work into it just to scrap it completely for the next game, I think it's gonna be one of those staple modes that are in every Halo from now on.
1: bigger lobbies does not mean better games. It required more resources which could be spent elsewhere. See how BTB wasn't present at H5 launch, and how the BTB Maps now are Forge ones.

2: not really impressive. It's the mode which the REQ system revolve around, and gives out the most XP and REQ points.

3: Well, in terms of programming, everything got scrapped as they made a new engine. I also imagine they'd recreate a lot of assets, even though they technically wouldn't really have to. So, there's not much for or against its return to actually go on.
Naqser wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
Fair enough. The reason I think it will be back is because:
1. It's a good mode for going beyond the 8v8 BTB cap, let's them explore larger player lobbies.
2. It's pretty hard to find games in a lot of modes for a while now on H5 but WZ has been one that you can consistently find games pretty quick even 3.5 years later, even more impressive is it requires the biggest player count so I'd say it's probably H5's most successful addition to Halo.
3. It's pretty unique and really adds something to Halo, not just another mode. You've got PvPvE mixed with base capturing and core destruction. I couldn't see them putting so much work into it just to scrap it completely for the next game, I think it's gonna be one of those staple modes that are in every Halo from now on.
1: bigger lobbies does not mean better games. It required more resources which could be spent elsewhere. See how BTB wasn't present at H5 launch, and how the BTB Maps now are Forge ones.

2: not really impressive. It's the mode which the REQ system revolve around, and gives out the most XP and REQ points.

3: Well, in terms of programming, everything got scrapped as they made a new engine. I also imagine they'd recreate a lot of assets, even though they technically wouldn't really have to. So, there's not much for or against its return to actually go on.
1. True but nothing wrong with trying. WZ succeeded in making a larger mode for Halo in my opinion.

2. What I was saying is impressive is the fact that to this day it's populated while being the most demanding playlist in terms of lobby size, many other playlists have trouble with population with just 4v4/8v8.

3. True but I'm sure there's still a lot that went into planning the ins and outs of the mode besides the actual coding part of it.
Your post is hard to follow, but I agree that Infinite should have some sort of BTB. I would disagree however if you are saying that we still need sprint, ground pound, spartan charge, etc.
Naqser wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
Fair enough. The reason I think it will be back is because:
1. It's a good mode for going beyond the 8v8 BTB cap, let's them explore larger player lobbies.
2. It's pretty hard to find games in a lot of modes for a while now on H5 but WZ has been one that you can consistently find games pretty quick even 3.5 years later, even more impressive is it requires the biggest player count so I'd say it's probably H5's most successful addition to Halo.
3. It's pretty unique and really adds something to Halo, not just another mode. You've got PvPvE mixed with base capturing and core destruction. I couldn't see them putting so much work into it just to scrap it completely for the next game, I think it's gonna be one of those staple modes that are in every Halo from now on.
1: bigger lobbies does not mean better games. It required more resources which could be spent elsewhere. See how BTB wasn't present at H5 launch, and how the BTB Maps now are Forge ones.

2: not really impressive. It's the mode which the REQ system revolve around, and gives out the most XP and REQ points.

3: Well, in terms of programming, everything got scrapped as they made a new engine. I also imagine they'd recreate a lot of assets, even though they technically wouldn't really have to. So, there's not much for or against its return to actually go on.
1. True but nothing wrong with trying. WZ succeeded in making a larger mode for Halo in my opinion.

2. What I was saying is impressive is the fact that to this day it's populated while being the most demanding playlist in terms of lobby size, many other playlists have trouble with population with just 4v4/8v8.

3. True but I'm sure there's still a lot that went into planning the ins and outs of the mode besides the actual coding part of it.
1: Well, yes and no.
While there's nothing wrong with trying, there are still the hypothetical negatives to consider, and ponder wether or not it's worth the risk. Cost of development is only one part of the equation regarding a larger lobby. There's been other threads covering that subject though.
As far as a larger mode?
I think it fell kind of short on the NPC side of things, and it was really only in Assault where you felt that the extra 8 players really mattered. Seeing as in normal Warzone, if it's a more even match, the team is more spread out and the encounters do not really play out any differently than other modes with lesser players.

2: Yes and no, yet again.
Sure, it's not "easy" to get together 24 players, however, as I mentioned, it's the game mode which has the highest pay-out of what you grind for in Halo 5's multiplayer. Also consider that the more players there are, the lesser impact an individual player will have on the outcome of the match, and thus the skill criteria can be more relaxed and take in a wider range of differently skilled players, meaning a larger pool of players to choose from for matches. 4v4 would certainly gain a higher population if they made that XP and REQ reward be more than what Warzone matches pay out.

3: Of course, but that goes for any concept, they could have had in the making, and with most things on square one, there's a higher chance one of those concepts get tested, or that they feel it isn't worth it and focus on what we now call the "Arena" side of things.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but it did feel like inconsistent gameplay jumping between Arena and Warzone.
Naqser wrote:
Naqser wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
Fair enough. The reason I think it will be back is because:
1. It's a good mode for going beyond the 8v8 BTB cap, let's them explore larger player lobbies.
2. It's pretty hard to find games in a lot of modes for a while now on H5 but WZ has been one that you can consistently find games pretty quick even 3.5 years later, even more impressive is it requires the biggest player count so I'd say it's probably H5's most successful addition to Halo.
3. It's pretty unique and really adds something to Halo, not just another mode. You've got PvPvE mixed with base capturing and core destruction. I couldn't see them putting so much work into it just to scrap it completely for the next game, I think it's gonna be one of those staple modes that are in every Halo from now on.
1: bigger lobbies does not mean better games. It required more resources which could be spent elsewhere. See how BTB wasn't present at H5 launch, and how the BTB Maps now are Forge ones.

2: not really impressive. It's the mode which the REQ system revolve around, and gives out the most XP and REQ points.

3: Well, in terms of programming, everything got scrapped as they made a new engine. I also imagine they'd recreate a lot of assets, even though they technically wouldn't really have to. So, there's not much for or against its return to actually go on.
1. True but nothing wrong with trying. WZ succeeded in making a larger mode for Halo in my opinion.

2. What I was saying is impressive is the fact that to this day it's populated while being the most demanding playlist in terms of lobby size, many other playlists have trouble with population with just 4v4/8v8.

3. True but I'm sure there's still a lot that went into planning the ins and outs of the mode besides the actual coding part of it.
1: Well, yes and no.
While there's nothing wrong with trying, there are still the hypothetical negatives to consider, and ponder wether or not it's worth the risk. Cost of development is only one part of the equation regarding a larger lobby. There's been other threads covering that subject though.
As far as a larger mode?
I think it fell kind of short on the NPC side of things, and it was really only in Assault where you felt that the extra 8 players really mattered. Seeing as in normal Warzone, if it's a more even match, the team is more spread out and the encounters do not really play out any differently than other modes with lesser players.

2: Yes and no, yet again.
Sure, it's not "easy" to get together 24 players, however, as I mentioned, it's the game mode which has the highest pay-out of what you grind for in Halo 5's multiplayer. Also consider that the more players there are, the lesser impact an individual player will have on the outcome of the match, and thus the skill criteria can be more relaxed and take in a wider range of differently skilled players, meaning a larger pool of players to choose from for matches. 4v4 would certainly gain a higher population if they made that XP and REQ reward be more than what Warzone matches pay out.

3: Of course, but that goes for any concept, they could have had in the making, and with most things on square one, there's a higher chance one of those concepts get tested, or that they feel it isn't worth it and focus on what we now call the "Arena" side of things.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but it did feel like inconsistent gameplay jumping between Arena and Warzone.
Bold - Your definitely not the only one. I've heard many people say something similar. A friend of mine says "Warzone doesn't even feel like Halo to me. It isn't terrible, but it's not Halo. It just feels all over the place" .....and that's coming from a guy who is a very casual player (he might be level 80)

Myself, I have similar thoughts as him. I too definitely feel that going from Warzone to Arena feels very inconsistent.

I also agree with tsassi that with the way Halo was received as a whole, there is no guarantee of anything coming back that Halo 5 introduced especially warzone. They could easily make BTB more players if they wanted or have a new mode That was more along the lines of BTB but just even more players. Who knows... I do think there will be some form of micro transactions though, to me that is almost certainly a gimme. Something similar to a Reach/Overwatch style system I think.
Naqser wrote:
Naqser wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
Fair enough. The reason I think it will be back is because:
1. It's a good mode for going beyond the 8v8 BTB cap, let's them explore larger player lobbies.
2. It's pretty hard to find games in a lot of modes for a while now on H5 but WZ has been one that you can consistently find games pretty quick even 3.5 years later, even more impressive is it requires the biggest player count so I'd say it's probably H5's most successful addition to Halo.
3. It's pretty unique and really adds something to Halo, not just another mode. You've got PvPvE mixed with base capturing and core destruction. I couldn't see them putting so much work into it just to scrap it completely for the next game, I think it's gonna be one of those staple modes that are in every Halo from now on.
1: bigger lobbies does not mean better games. It required more resources which could be spent elsewhere. See how BTB wasn't present at H5 launch, and how the BTB Maps now are Forge ones.

2: not really impressive. It's the mode which the REQ system revolve around, and gives out the most XP and REQ points.

3: Well, in terms of programming, everything got scrapped as they made a new engine. I also imagine they'd recreate a lot of assets, even though they technically wouldn't really have to. So, there's not much for or against its return to actually go on.
1. True but nothing wrong with trying. WZ succeeded in making a larger mode for Halo in my opinion.

2. What I was saying is impressive is the fact that to this day it's populated while being the most demanding playlist in terms of lobby size, many other playlists have trouble with population with just 4v4/8v8.

3. True but I'm sure there's still a lot that went into planning the ins and outs of the mode besides the actual coding part of it.
1: Well, yes and no.
While there's nothing wrong with trying, there are still the hypothetical negatives to consider, and ponder wether or not it's worth the risk. Cost of development is only one part of the equation regarding a larger lobby. There's been other threads covering that subject though.
As far as a larger mode?
I think it fell kind of short on the NPC side of things, and it was really only in Assault where you felt that the extra 8 players really mattered. Seeing as in normal Warzone, if it's a more even match, the team is more spread out and the encounters do not really play out any differently than other modes with lesser players.

2: Yes and no, yet again.
Sure, it's not "easy" to get together 24 players, however, as I mentioned, it's the game mode which has the highest pay-out of what you grind for in Halo 5's multiplayer. Also consider that the more players there are, the lesser impact an individual player will have on the outcome of the match, and thus the skill criteria can be more relaxed and take in a wider range of differently skilled players, meaning a larger pool of players to choose from for matches. 4v4 would certainly gain a higher population if they made that XP and REQ reward be more than what Warzone matches pay out.

3: Of course, but that goes for any concept, they could have had in the making, and with most things on square one, there's a higher chance one of those concepts get tested, or that they feel it isn't worth it and focus on what we now call the "Arena" side of things.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but it did feel like inconsistent gameplay jumping between Arena and Warzone.
1. Definitely risky but that's just how the industry works. I had a lot of fun with it so I'd love for them to take more risks.

2. That's a good point. I'd really like to see if pop would be evened out if they balance rewards better, would be nice.
tsassi wrote:
I'm sure WZ will be back. It's a great mode that just needs a req system revamp. As far as gameplay I don't think it'll be 100% H5. Probably a mix of classic and H5
With the lukewarm reception Halo 5 got, I wouldn't be sure that anything introduced in Halo 5 will be back. Especially with the REQ system being unpopular, and Warzone being built around selling REQ packs, the future of Warzone seems uncertain. If the mode was popular, they may salvage the general idea, but if it wasn't sufficiently popular, knowing 343i I could definitely see them completely scrapping it.
You say lukewarm as if no one enjoyed what Halo 5 brought to the table.

Halo Infinite will have Warzone. I don't doubt it.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3