Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 292
  4. 293
  5. 294
  6. 295
  7. 296
  8. ...
  9. 311
Naqser wrote:
Scoping is not ADS.
You're showing Scoping, which is the camera feed of the weapon.
In Halo 5 your spartan smacks the gun to their helmet.
In Halo 1-4, the camera's view is projected onto the helmet.
so whats the problem then what people have with the ADS then.
since if i google it i read that the ADS has been in the halo series all since Halo CE on the first Xbox.
that only all guns in halo 5 can do it so what if thats the problem to hate the aim down sight then?
all the classic halo game's have the aim down sight function the only problem is that its limit to rocket launcher,sniper rifle,battle rifle,Spartan laser,Beam Rifle,Fuel Rod Gun,Carbine.
and the only thing there have done in halo 5 is to give it to all the weapons in the game.
Kozren wrote:
Here's a video explaining why sprint is a good thing for combat. https://youtu.be/2mwAwYnfGJI
I'm just a bystander in his conversation, but I just have to point out that Shyway shows more than once that the important part of sprint is the sliding that comes, and that his personal preference to try would be a game without sprint but maintaining thrusters.

I'm not saying he's wrong, just that it's not some rock solid counter because he's pointing at a mechanic that sprint points to.
Jesus -Yoinking!- christ. Games are designed to be FUN. That's it.

Realism or closeness to lore does not inherently make a game more fun or balanced, so please stop using lore to justify your arguments one way or the other, it's absolutely irrelevant.
Kozren wrote:
Here's a video explaining why sprint is a good thing for combat. https://youtu.be/2mwAwYnfGJI
I'm just a bystander in his conversation, but I just have to point out that Shyway shows more than once that the important part of sprint is the sliding that comes, and that his personal preference to try would be a game without sprint but maintaining thrusters.

I'm not saying he's wrong, just that it's not some rock solid counter because he's pointing at a mechanic that sprint points to.
I more did it because it's alot easier to show then explain.
And this is probably the last time I'll post anyway. I was trying to be a bystander too until my first post because I saw some ridiculous claims.
Spikanor wrote:
Naqser wrote:
Scoping is not ADS.
You're showing Scoping, which is the camera feed of the weapon.
In Halo 5 your spartan smacks the gun to their helmet.
In Halo 1-4, the camera's view is projected onto the helmet.
so whats the problem then what people have with the ADS then.
since if i google it i read that the ADS has been in the halo series all since Halo CE on the first Xbox.
that only all guns in halo 5 can do it so what if thats the problem to hate the aim down sight then?
all the classic halo game's have the aim down sight function the only problem is that its limit to rocket launcher,sniper rifle,battle rifle,Spartan laser,Beam Rifle,Fuel Rod Gun,Carbine.
and the only thing there have done in halo 5 is to give it to all the weapons in the game.
The problem most people have with ADS is the animation, the look of it. Take the pistol in Halo 5 for example. You zoom in with it, the animation literally covers up 3/4 of your target!! Like what the hell!!! It's terrible! The BR also covers up your target in 5 when you zoom in. Not as bad as the pistol, but still not great. Now look at the BR in Halo 2/3. When you zoom in you clearly see your WHOLE target! It doesn't have that terrible ADS animation.

The ADS style zooming animation has only been in Halo 5. It was not in previous games.

IMO, just get rid of the animation and make the zoom look more along, not the same! (You could easily update the view and add stuff) as Halo 1-3 style. I absolutely hate the look of ADS in Halo.
The ADS style zooming animation has only been in Halo 5. It was not in previous games
so what for something that small there have add in the halo series a animation is all a big problem for a lot off people that there not wane see it chance?
this is now something i have told on this thread a lot off time's.
if people wane see the same classic way like halo 3 and hate the new things there add in the game all is it small like a animation then whats the point that 343i most develop a new halo game then since all the mechanics in halo 3 most stay for ever notting can be chance since something that small like adding a animation is all wrong for a lot off people that find it not classic.
then what is the point then to develop a new halo game if notting new is welcome in the halo series like a animation is all wrong.
for the campaing there not going to develop only a new game for that since its waste off time more.

Take the pistol in Halo 5 for example. You zoom in with it, the animation literally covers up 3/4 of your target!! Like what the hell!!! It's terrible! The BR also covers up your target in 5 when you zoom in. Not as bad as the pistol, but still not great. Now look at the BR in Halo 2/3. When you zoom in you clearly see your WHOLE target!
then give feedback that the display on some guns zoom is not fine that its to big and need to become small.
but sadly almost nobody is doing that there only want the Animation remove from the game so then again its something that small what is all not good any more since its not classic.
so in the end any small or big chance in the halo series is all wrong by a lot off people since its not classic same with the grafic looks off the weapons is all wrong since its not classic looking.
I just assumed the animation and reduced FOV / screen space was to balance the extra accuracy and damage you are about to inflict.
Kozren wrote:
An AR has never been able to outshoot precision weapons at mid range. If you experienced that then you just got out skilled massively.
Yes it was, and no, I wasn't outskilled, because I used this strategy myself. There was basically no point in using precision weapons on anything below long to very long ranges because they were torn to shreds by "lol bullet hose".

Kozren wrote:
Alot of your arguments rely on sprinting and shooting. The thing is you can shoot right out of sprint in halo 5 pretty much instantly.
Doesn't matter, you still can't shoot while sprinting, and that was the point.

Kozren wrote:
And if they can run and shoot then why weren't they always running in the past games multiplayers?
They were.

Kozren wrote:
And more options it gives you a ton of options.
Obvious statement is obvious.

Kozren wrote:
It allows for alot of options in halo 5s movement specifically. It makes a ton of jumps possible.
If you refer to sprint, those jumps only exist because that mechanic is in the game. If there were no sprint, those same jumps would have been possible with Max BMS.

Kozren wrote:
Makes slide possible which leads to one of the best movement options in the game, the thrust slide.
Sliding arbitrarily being tied to sprint is not an argument for sprint. You could easily rework the mechanic to be activated differently, through BMS, thrust, etc.

Kozren wrote:
And moving efficiently? LMAO. Saying you can't move efficiently in halo 5 is ridiculous. There are so many options and jumps that you can do.
You misread what I wrote. Yeah, you can move efficiently in the game, but in order to do so the game forces you to forego combat. You can either move efficiently or fight, but the game just will not allow you to do both, for arbitrary reasons.

Kozren wrote:
And finally to your last response, you are throwing stones from a giant glass house. You haven't played 5 in 5 years, and you are trying to criticize its movement.
I haven't played H5G in five years because the gameplay (including movement and gunplay) was garbage, and I'm criticising sprint as a mechanic in general (including Halo 4 and Reach), not in H5G specifically.

Spikanor wrote:
it has notting to do with the game but with the way there are selling it.
since halo 5 was more a digital only game more without a disc and that was the reason why it sells not good since there was a lot off complain about it that there not wane have a digital version but a disc version off it.
So why didn't people buy the disc version instead? Thousands of physical copies of H5G were catching dust on store shelves. Stores were literally giving it away with other purchases to get rid of it. Same thing happened with Fallout 76. Same thing happened with Last of Us 2.

Spikanor wrote:
but you still zoom in with all the UNSC sniper rilfs and Beam Rilf's.
Yes. You zoom. You do not aim down sights.

Spikanor wrote:
the only thing i can agree with you is weapons like the assault rifle that got no scope on it cant use the ADS but if you can add a scope on it like on halo 5 then you also most agree that it most have a working ADS also then.
What?
No, it's the other way around. If the weapon doesn't have a scope, then you aim down sights.

Spikanor wrote:
about the rocket launcher is this one.
Where?
You said the Rocket Launcher had Aim Down Sights. The video shows zoom.

Spikanor wrote:
Celestis wrote:
343 already has changed Bungie's ending of Halo 3 by adding a Covenant fleet that wasn't there before.
sadly you are wrong with that part also.
So I guess this isn't a Covenant fleet in the first level of Halo 4 then?
Please do explain what it is instead?

Spikanor wrote:
on this clip you hear how johnson has make it alive back from halo CE ending.
halo 2 first mission and go to 4:36 there you see that master guns is asking it to johnson it.
Dude, I already know how Johnson escaped the ring. The point is that the Legendary Ending isn't canon, or it was retconned, or however you want to call it.
Even if Halo 4 starting on a Covenant ship did contradict the Halo 3 Legendary Ending (which it doesn't), it would just be a small adjustment to make it work.
Instead they chose to redesign the FUD into something that doesn't make sense.

Spikanor wrote:
so whats the problem then what people have with the ADS then.
since if i google it i read that the ADS has been in the halo series all since Halo CE on the first Xbox.
No, it hasn't.
H5G is the first game to have ADS. Previous games had zoom. That is not the same.

Spikanor wrote:
that only all guns in halo 5 can do it so what if thats the problem to hate the aim down sight then?
Are you talking gameplay or lore?
In terms of gameplay, it gives spread buffs during ADS, which makes weapons too strong when ADSing or too weak when not.
The animation takes too long and you see it over and over again because Halo has descope. It also directly covers the thing you're shooting at, so you actually see less of what you're trying to hit than without zooming in.
In terms of lore, I have already explained to you that it makes no sense in the Halo universe, because the weapons have built-in cameras that can calculate where the bullets will land. ADSing would actually be less accurate than using Smart-Link.

Spikanor wrote:
all the classic halo game's have the aim down sight function the only problem is that its limit to rocket launcher,sniper rifle,battle rifle,Spartan laser,Beam Rifle,Fuel Rod Gun,Carbine.
No they don't. They have zoom. Not a single one has ADS.

Spikanor wrote:
and the only thing there have done in halo 5 is to give it to all the weapons in the game.
...and change the spread of the weapons, and add a slow--Yoink- animation, and shove a huge ugly weapon sights into the players' faces, etc.
Spikanor wrote:
then what is the point then to develop a new halo game if notting new is welcome in the halo series like a animation is all wrong.
for the campaing there not going to develop only a new game for that since its waste off time more.
New guns, new vehicles, new missions, new maps, new story, etc... you can do all that without changing the gameplay.
And yes, you can even change the gameplay without mutating it beyond the point of recognisability.
I could just as well ask: What's the point of calling the games "Halo" if you change everything that defined Halo? Just make a new game instead, call it "Space Rangers in Space" or something.

Spikanor wrote:
then give feedback that the display on some guns zoom is not fine that its to big and need to become small.
but sadly almost nobody is doing that there only want the Animation remove from the game so then again its something that small what is all not good any more since its not classic.
Telling them to remove ADS because of one thing or another is still feedback.
Why would I tell them to make ADS less bad when we can just replace it with something better?
Jesus -Yoinking!- christ. Games are designed to be FUN. That's it.

Realism or closeness to lore does not inherently make a game more fun or balanced, so please stop using lore to justify your arguments one way or the other, it's absolutely irrelevant.
People talk about realism and lore accuracy to make their arguments seem more objective. Same reason why people want to believe their preference has a greater skill gap. Sure, it's irrelevant to you if it's not something you care about. Doesn't change the fact that other people do care. Nothing inherently makes a game more fun, because "fun" is a completely subjective experience.

If we're just allowed the discuss which concrete actions of mechanics we perceive as fun without the context of why we perceive those as fun, there isn't much to discuss.
I was playing Halo 5 Big Team Battle the other day and was shocked at how big the Forge mapmakers had made Valhalla. It never really occurred to me just how much sprint affects map size until I saw that. The H5 remake of Midship isn't too obnoxious, in my opinion, but those BTB remakes of old maps are really an entirely different beast.
Kozren wrote:
You can easily chase someone down who's sprinting while dealing damage. Damage impairs a players movement making them slower. If you get an open shot you can easily and quickly kill them.
Is that so? I was under the assumption that sprinting disabled all combat capabilities of all players when they used it.
Kozren wrote:
And making jumps possible is not talking about designed purposeful jumps. Those can obviously be designed differently. I'm speaking about things like the, the jump from p1 to top mid on truth. The ability to thrust slide jump to pipes from plaza on plaza. Etc.
Would you scratch that under "unforseen effects of the physics engine coupled with the mechanics"?
Because I have a hard time believing the map designers intended for those specific jumps, at which point they're hovering dangerously close to the "super jump" territory of Halo 2. Something I already did touch upon.
Unless of course they did indeed intend for those jump, but then it's back to designed that way.

Kozren wrote:
Idk how to respond to slide, I mean, I guess, but you cut out what I said with it which was the thrust slide. And what that helps and allows. Sliding makes no real sense when it is used at the speed you are always going. Because sliding is using the movement you build up on sprint.
Because I'm talking about sprint.
I'm fine with thrusters.
And thrust slides would most likely work the same, if not even better if slides were omnidirectional, the same way thrusters are, as long as the only pre-requisite for sliding was that you'd move top speed, in a sprintless game. The movement is still there, sprint isn't special in that regard.

Kozren wrote:
But to the last, the games are alot faster paced. Most of the time. For example of someone throws a nade in front of a doorway then walks behind the wall you can't do much in halo 3. In halo 5 you have the option to pust past and get the kill instead of waiting.
Here's a video explaining why sprint is a good thing for combat. https://youtu.be/2mwAwYnfGJI
Yet, linked to data suggest Halo 5 is slower paced than Halo 3.

You took that scenario right out of the video, didn't you?
Unfortunately, he didn't manage to portray that single scenario consistently over the three different games.
In Halo 3, his "buddy" tossed the grenade quickly after the engagement, doing it as he's walking behind the wall, priming it with the first bounce.
In Halo: Reach and 5, the grenade isn't seen until after Shyway's rounding the corner, the timing is way off compared to the Halo 3 situation. Yes, it'd be difficult to do, but get the positioning, timing, priming and angles right, Shyway would not have sprinted over that grenade in either Reach or Guardians.
He's never sprinting over a grenade which has been primed as it has been in Halo 3.
In Reach, he shouldn't really know there's a grenade coming as he meets it mid air when he gets out the door, it should be a primed grenade at the door by the time he sprints if those two situations would be comparable.
In Guardians, it's the same thing, the opponent goes out of line of sights, he opts to chase, and he meets the grenade which doesn't even seem to hit the door at all, it even seems to explode as he's just exiting the door, but not where he was at that point. Which isn't the same situation as in the Halo 3 scenario where the grenade is infront of him, primed and ready to go off.
I'm fairly certain, that had he gotten scenarios close to identical in each game, the grenade would've exploded at his feet had he chased in both Reach and Guardians.
Not only that but Sprint doesn't actually offer those scenarios anything which an increased BMS couldn't.
Sprint is necessary for Slide in Guardians, that's the only thing it enables there, so it's not for combat, it's an enabler for a few combat tricks, an enabler easily replaced.
So, again, increase the BMS and have slide tied to that instead, and you could play the same scenario quite close to identically, without having to push a button in order to have to push another to slide. That's something which has been mentioned, I think even at the time of the Halo 5 beta, that's not something Shyway, to my knowledge, has considered.
Celestis wrote:
The animation takes too long and you see it over and over again because Halo has descope. It also directly covers the thing you're shooting at, so you actually see less of what you're trying to hit than without zooming in.
you know that the scope you show in the screenshot from halo 5 weapon is a Recon sight scope so its basic normal that it most look that way when you aim it that it most look that.
if you use the basic DMR scope or battle rilfe scope then its something else then a recon sight scope.
this is how a looks like in halo 5 DMR with its basic scope onif you play a lot off other shooter game's then you will understand how each type scope is working and how it looks like.
the basic scope from a DMR or Battle Rilfe is showing on the screen shot link i have added.
the new scope you can add on the DMR and Battle Rilfe is a Recon Sight scope that always looks like that on your screen shot.
so if you hate that scope then not use that weapon.
if you wane use a basic scope for you DMR or Battle Rilfe then do that.
and what you also understand when you play a lot off shooter game's that each scope has its diffrend.
the Recon sight scope is good for short and mid range.
will the basic DMR and Battle rilfe scope is good for long range and not good for short and mid range.

Celestis wrote:
New guns, new vehicles, new missions, new maps, new story, etc... you can do all that without changing the gameplay.
And yes, you can even change the gameplay without mutating it beyond the point of recognisability.
new vehicles you are joking right.
since i remember good in halo 4 that there was a big hate against the mantis vehicle since it was something new a people hate it.
for new maps there not have to make a new game since there for you have a DLC system to add new maps in the game that has been compleet all.
so far its only for the new story and new missions
and for new guns is something where there is also hate for since some people not wane see new guns and only wane see the classic guns and not wane see something new.

Celestis wrote:
I could just as well ask: What's the point of calling the games "Halo" if you change everything that defined Halo? Just make a new game instead, call it "Space Rangers in Space" or something.
that is something you not have to ask me since i not know what the reason is.
if you wane know the answer then you need to ask it to 343i or microsoft since there maybe know the answer you wane know.
since i not have the answer about it since i not know it.
for me its still Halo and notting else.
Spikanor wrote:
new vehicles you are joking right.
since i remember good in halo 4 that there was a big hate against the mantis vehicle since it was something new a people hate it.
for new maps there not have to make a new game since there for you have a DLC system to add new maps in the game that has been compleet all.
so far its only for the new story and new missions
and for new guns is something where there is also hate for since some people not wane see new guns and only wane see the classic guns and not wane see something new.
Are you seriously saying people hate new vehicles because the Mantis out of all vehicles was poorly recieved.
I don't recall the Falcon in Halo: Reach getting any hate, or the Revenant for that matter.
Or, how about the Wasp in Guardians, or the Phaeton.

So, perhaps it's not new vehicles overall which is the problem, but what kind of vehicle is implemented.

Spikanor wrote:
that is something you not have to ask me since i not know what the reason is.
if you wane know the answer then you need to ask it to 343i or microsoft since there maybe know the answer you wane know.
since i not have the answer about it since i not know it.
for me its still Halo and notting else.
He's asking you, because you're asking "then what is the point then to develop a new halo game if notting new is welcome in the halo series".
It's yours to answer.
Spikanor wrote:
you know that the scope you show in the screenshot from halo 5 weapon is a Recon sight scope so its basic normal that it most look that way when you aim it that it most look that.
What?

Spikanor wrote:
if you play a lot off other shooter game's then you will understand how each type scope is working and how it looks like.
I don't care about other shooters. I care about Halo.

Spikanor wrote:
so if you hate that scope then not use that weapon.
"Don't like it, don't use it" fallacy.

Spikanor wrote:
if you wane use a basic scope for you DMR or Battle Rilfe then do that.
How?

Spikanor wrote:
new vehicles you are joking right.
since i remember good in halo 4 that there was a big hate against the mantis vehicle since it was something new a people hate it.
One of 343's new vehicles being -Yoink- doesn't mean that players don't like new vehicles.

Spikanor wrote:
for new maps there not have to make a new game since there for you have a DLC system to add new maps in the game that has been compleet all.
Don't tell me, tell 343. It's their decision how many new maps the games get.

Spikanor wrote:
so far its only for the new story and new missions
Even if you disregard everything else, that alone would be reason enough for a sequel.

Spikanor wrote:
and for new guns is something where there is also hate for since some people not wane see new guns and only wane see the classic guns and not wane see something new.
Same thing with the vehicles: Don't make the new guns bad, then people will like them.

Spikanor wrote:
that is something you not have to ask me since i not know what the reason is.
Then stop saying that Halo needs to change their mechanics when you have no reason why the games couldn't be released under a new name.
Celestis wrote:
I don't care about other shooters. I care about Halo.
so then thats maybe the problem more.
since people that play a lot off the same game Genre like: First-person shooter are learning a lot about things like type scope's and how there are working and what there effect are.
since a battle rilfe or DMR basic scope is X2 like you see on your own screenshot: https://abload.de/img/shit_11qup5.pngbut you see on the same screenshot but then from halo 5 is the Recon sight scope and thats X1 and its only working good for small and mid range.
for long range is the recon sight scope the worst and hard like you see on your own screenshot.
that are things you need to learn and since you not care about any other shooter game and only care about halo is it hard to understand and to learn it.
and learing new things is good.
for somebody that has play a lot off shooter game's is it super easy to know what for type scope he needs on what for map since there knows what for type scope is the best on a mid range map or small map and large map.
and for somebody that plays almost no other shooter game's is it hard to learn and to know what for scope is the best on what for map type.
so there need to study more about the type scope's and where there are good for on there best.

Celestis wrote:
How?
use the classic scope for your DMR and Battle Rilfe if you not like the other scope's then use the classic basic scope's its easy to pick in halo 5.
and yes there have added both off then in halo 5 to be use by players that not like the other scope's.
and if you not have play halo 5 since its not classic for you then thats maybe the problem since all the players that play and have play halo 5 know it all since the release that there is also a classic scope option to use.

Celestis wrote:
Don't tell me, tell 343. It's their decision how many new maps the games get.
i not have to tell 343 about it since there know it all and doing it.
that there are no dlc's more coming to halo 4 and halo 5 has maybe something to do with developing a new halo game and wane focus there on more then on older halo titels to keep then up do date.

Celestis wrote:
Same thing with the vehicles: Don't make the new guns bad, then people will like them.
i have no problem with the new guns i like a lot off then.
most off then are also my favoriete to use in the halo 4 and halo 5.

Celestis wrote:
Then stop saying that Halo needs to change their mechanics when you have no reason why the games couldn't be released under a new name.
lucky for me that is not decision we have to make since thats something microsoft most do if there wane release it under a new name or not.
if there make the decision that there wane name it still halo then is it there decision if you like it or not its still there call to make what for name there wane give it.

Naqser wrote:
how about the Wasp in Guardians, or the Phaeton.
both the wasp and pheaton can only be use in Warzone in halo 5 not in matchmaking.
if it was aveble in matchmaking then you get maybe a diffrend story and see the hate about it.

Naqser wrote:
or the Revenant for that matter.
for the revenant i cant remember if there are any matchmaking maps that got it to be use in matchmaking match's.

Naqser wrote:
He's asking you, because you're asking "then what is the point then to develop a new halo game if notting new is welcome in the halo series".
It's yours to answer.
then my answer is easy.
for me its more a halo game.
all is it with a lot off new stuff and mechanics in the game its still stay for me a halo game so long its core is the campaign story line.
and if somebody else not see it as a halo game but something else then its there choice to make it if there wane call it still halo or not.
Spikanor wrote:
this is how a looks like in halo 5 DMR with its basic scope on
That is Halo 4.

Also, I do not see why you all are arguing about ADS/Scoping. That is not the topic and it seemed pretty clear from the gameplay reveal that Infinite is going back to the classic style of scoping where only a select few weapons do it and there is no ADS animation.
tsassi wrote:
Jesus -Yoinking!- christ. Games are designed to be FUN. That's it.

Realism or closeness to lore does not inherently make a game more fun or balanced, so please stop using lore to justify your arguments one way or the other, it's absolutely irrelevant.
Nothing inherently makes a game more fun, because "fun" is a completely subjective experience.
Yes, I agree. My point is that it often appears that people simply assume realism and immersion equates to fun, and have that as some underlying justification for whatever point they're trying to make.

For example, whenever I see a pro-enhanced mobility argument, I quite often see statements along the line of "he can do it in the books", "he's a supersoldier", etc., yet I seldom see discussed the ways in which enhanced mobility changes the actual experience of players in the game, and how those changes impact the enjoyability of the game.
tsassi wrote:
Jesus -Yoinking!- christ. Games are designed to be FUN. That's it.

Realism or closeness to lore does not inherently make a game more fun or balanced, so please stop using lore to justify your arguments one way or the other, it's absolutely irrelevant.
Nothing inherently makes a game more fun, because "fun" is a completely subjective experience.
Yes, I agree. My point is that it often appears that people simply assume realism and immersion equates to fun, and have that as some underlying justification for whatever point they're trying to make.

For example, whenever I see a pro-enhanced mobility argument, I quite often see statements along the line of "he can do it in the books", "he's a supersoldier", etc., yet I seldom see discussed the ways in which enhanced mobility changes the actual experience of players in the game, and how those changes impact the enjoyability of the game.
Is your issue not with what people say, but how they say it? If somebody came in and explained that performing all these animations help them feel more connected with the game world because it matches their idea of a Spartan's movement better, and that makes the game more enjoyable for them, would you be fine with that? I'm not changing the content of what's being said here, just making it less declarative, and more about personal experience.

But at the same time, it's really not fair to say that supporters of enhanced movement aren't allowed to use their preferences as some underlying justification, because the opponents do it all the time. Like, everybody says that their preferred gameplay is faster, assuming speed equates to fun.

If where you're coming from is that people should be more open about the subjectivity of their preferences, and more understanding of those of others, I don't disagree with that. I just don't think it's fair to frame it as solely a problem of advanced movement fans. I also don't think "stop using lore to justify your arguments" and "it's absolutely irrelevant" are good ways of communicating that.
Spikanor wrote:
both the wasp and pheaton can only be use in Warzone in halo 5 not in matchmaking.
if it was aveble in matchmaking then you get maybe a diffrend story and see the hate about it.
As if the modes they're available in is of any importance to the overall reception of a new vehicle.

I'm also fairly certain I've encountered Phaetons in BTB at some point.

Either way, please do explain how acceptance of new vehicles varies between BTB where these kinds of vehicles are prominent in the Arena section, and Warzone.

Spikanor wrote:
for the revenant i cant remember if there are any matchmaking maps that got it to be use in matchmaking match's.
Oh you know, it was available in atleast a few BTB maps during Reach's lifespan that I recall.
Remembering Coagulation the strongest.

And how about the Falcon?
You used one single vehicle as the basis of "new vehicles only get hate", but it's excuses about availabilty in game modes for two, it's lack of memory for one, and a complete ignorance of the last one.

How about looking back even further?
Wraith got introduced in Halo 2 for the players. That has stayed since then.
Halo 3 had the Mongoose which has stayed as well.
Then for things which did not to my knowledge recieve much backlash was the Halo 2 Covenant Warthog thingy.
Halo 3 had the Hornet, Chopper and Prowler.

Spikanor wrote:
then my answer is easy.
for me its more a halo game.
all is it with a lot off new stuff and mechanics in the game its still stay for me a halo game so long its core is the campaign story line.
and if somebody else not see it as a halo game but something else then its there choice to make it if there wane call it still halo or not.
You do realise you basically just said the it's a Halo game if everything changed about it, as long as the main point about the game is the campaign story line, it'd be a "Halo" game. Even if it changed into a racing game where conflicts are settled with a good old car race, and no shooting.

And then all of a sudden you boil it down to how its percieved. Yet, you can't fathom things being disliked, and group entire asset sets together when one or two obecjts in that asset set being disliked, as "evidense" that all new things are disliked among classic fans.

Feels like this has been repeated way too many times:
Change isn't bad. Specific items/features can be bad.
Spikanor wrote:
so then thats maybe the problem more.
You are correct, that is the problem. People play too many other shooters and want Halo to become like them instead of Halo being Halo.
I don't give two -Yoink- what scopes or movement mechanics CoD, BF, PUBG, Fortnite or any other game use.
I care about what Halo does and how it affects Halo.

Spikanor wrote:
for somebody that has play a lot off shooter game's is it super easy to know what for type scope he needs on what for map since there knows what for type scope is the best on a mid range map or small map and large map.
and for somebody that plays almost no other shooter game's is it hard to learn and to know what for scope is the best on what for map type.
so there need to study more about the type scope's and where there are good for on there best.
I never said I don't play other shooters. I already know what these scopes are and what they do. That still has nothing to do with ADS in Halo.

Spikanor wrote:
use the classic scope for your DMR and Battle Rilfe if you not like the other scope's then use the classic basic scope's its easy to pick in halo 5.
Again: How?
How do I disable ADS in H5G? Please tell me, I would love to know.

Spikanor wrote:
and if you not have play halo 5 since its not classic for you then thats maybe the problem since all the players that play and have play halo 5 know it all since the release that there is also a classic scope option to use.
I know that classic scopes exist in Warzone on specific weapons. That wasn't the question. The question was how to replace ADS in H5G in general, including campaign, arena, etc.
Where is the menu setting that lets you choose "Zoom: Classic / ADS"?

Spikanor wrote:
Celestis wrote:
Then stop saying that Halo needs to change their mechanics when you have no reason why the games couldn't be released under a new name.
lucky for me that is not decision we have to make since thats something microsoft most do if there wane release it under a new name or not.
if there make the decision that there wane name it still halo then is it there decision if you like it or not its still there call to make what for name there wane give it.
Except you seem pissed every time somebody says that Halo doesn't need the new mechanics. "What's the point in releasing a new game then?", yada, yada, yada.
Yet you have absolutely no reason why these mechanics need to exist in Halo yourself. All your answers are: "It's 343's decision."
Well, duh, that's why people are telling 343 that they don't like this stuff, so that they change their minds.

Spikanor wrote:
Naqser wrote:
He's asking you, because you're asking "then what is the point then to develop a new halo game if notting new is welcome in the halo series".
It's yours to answer.
then my answer is easy.
for me its more a halo game.
all is it with a lot off new stuff and mechanics in the game its still stay for me a halo game so long its core is the campaign story line.
And if sprint and ADS and all the other mechanics were removed, would it still be a Halo game to you?
If no, why not?
If yes, why are you kicking and screaming against the removal of these mechanics?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 292
  4. 293
  5. 294
  6. 295
  7. 296
  8. ...
  9. 311