It would definitely be a modular one, the campaign will have its control scheme. As for multiplayer I think there should be one governed by the game type that is being played instead of a universal one size fits all. Back to the Reach/H4 for a metaphorical comparison in H4 you had players chose their loadouts, and of course the player is going to chose the one that gives them the most advantage. In reach there were loadouts but it was set by the gametype, if there was a specific loadout you don't think belong in the multiplayer environment, you can edit that loadout away from the game. Also if there was something you didn't like (ie the motion tracker) you could have it disabled just like a SWAT game. I am for options, but I want it to be a community choice, not studio, and not each player. There has to be some delegation of options, but I still want that option to be available, rather than outright removed. You can ban it from the tournament scenes (i don't see many scorpions in MLG), but let it go into the game as something that can be experimented with.
You and your lame game design concept. This is why I don't like the meta arguments, you guys have no concept of exploration. I know Halo is a FPS therefore there should only be one type of game play killing. But you know what, in the game that is to be the Halo to end all halos, I'd say bring everything back, re-adjust them to fit in the game but bring it back. But that would be too much for you to comprehend!So, No explanation on that software limitation which was asked about earlier.
As for the "Halo to end all Halos", what exactly would would the controll scheme look like?
So, No software limitation explanation?
Campaign would have its own? What features would it use? Spartan Abilities? Armor Abilities? Equipment? Dual Wielding? Would we be restricted to these old ones only and get nothing new? If not, what would that be and you'd smack that on top of an already crowded controller?
Then, each time you'd jump between single player and multiplayer you'd have to get used to a different scheme, not to talk about the supposed different schemes between game modes themselves. Even the options menu would be a forest of sub-menus and what not to accommodate all that.
But wait, there's more.
That'd be quite the definition of incoherent gameplay.
Jumping from mode to mode, having to re-adjust to a new scheme each time.
Let's also not forget the massive amounts of different combinations of enabled features they'd need to account for.
inb4: "custom game options".
Has there been a Halo game where base gameplay assets and asset specific animations have been regulated to being an option only, and not used as the default mode of game play?
CTF, assault and so forth does not count as base gameplay, as they are game type specific. I'm talking AAs, Dual Wielding and so forth.
If I recall correctly, i343 stated a long time ago, that Sprint is present in all of Halo 5's default gameplay, because they want the experience to be consistent.
As grand as your ideas are, they aren't feasible.
The most likely outcome you'll get is a convoluted game, with poor execution in all types of features it tries to juggle with all the different combinations, and an off-putting sensation jumping between modes.
And before you go on a "lame game design" parade again:
1: You don't know what I do for a living or my hobbies.
2: Have you read any of my suggestioner over the years?
3: Consider what your own career and hobbies are, then think about your wishes in this thread realistically.