Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] Halo 4 was better than Halo 5.

OP Aurik Kal Durin

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. ...
  9. 15
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Halo 4 campaign was better... and the multiplayer was ok... but ODST and Reach had the best warzone and that what they need to bring back. halo 5 warzone is so buggy and the req pack is so frustration. Halo 4 was at least a little more military based than 5. That is there was a military structure and it was more like a military shooter like the first three halos and that's how halo should be. At first I didn't like halo 4 and it grew on me and I thought the same would happen with halo 5 and Its weird I don't 100% hate it. I 95% hate the campaign, the master chief being present in the campaign is its only redeeming quality. Warzone is the only thing that I play and its a halo game so I try and like it hoping that halo 6 gets better. halo 4 does armor better by far. Working hard to get an armor set is actually worth it. In halo 5 its all random and it all sucks. None of the armor is memorable. There is maybe 2 or 3 sets that are actually cool. Most of it is like lets throw a big -Yoink- stripe three different ways and we have three different armors. Next time you play halo 5 I challenge you to look at a Spartan and determine there armor and there helmet. The very first armor I unlocked when I brought the game is the same armor that I am currently using. halo 4 was actually finished when it was released and didn't have nearly as many bugs/ glitches, although maybe my memory is bad and I'm looking back at it through my halo colored glasses, like looking through "rose colored glasses." And I agree with the initial post there were more maps and there was a variety.. it seems like in halo 5 that there are like 3 maps... total... even thought I liked halo 4 way better and halo 5 has sooooo many bad features I still play halo 5 all the time and in fact I'm about to start a warzone match and kill some bullet sponges... even though halo 5 was mostly a flop people still play it because people think halo 6 will be better and because its a halo game.. that word has a magic power..
After a couple of updates H4 was really good. I'm talking about Legendary BR mainly.
halo 3 is better. simples :D
Halo 4 was awesome halo 5 is good too but I played more halo 4

anybody out there need Annual/ Deja Vu achievements I'm online now missing a fourth for the third straight day hit me up on XB1
halo 3 is better. simples :D
I won't argue that, it easily has the best multiplayer in the series... but stay on topic. Between Halo 4 and Halo 5, Halo 4 is the game that has the better all-around experience.
My ratings of halo 4 and 5
Halo 4:9.99/10
Halo 510/10

Halo 5 in my opinion is 0.01 points better than Halo 4
Definitely have to agree with the OP on a lot of his points here. I for one really enjoyed H4 a lot back in the day, even though it had a -Yoink- ton of issues and took Halo MP to a lot of places it shouldn't have. But despite those issues it was still a lot of fun. MP, while definitely casual as hell, had a lot of good playlists and game modes. Customs and forge, while not quite as good as Reach, were still pretty god damn awesome. And the story was -Yoinking!- amazing, if not for a few issues like over dependence on outside knowledge I would definitely put at the #2 spot just below H2, but as is I put it tied at #3 with ODST (H3 obviously beening #2). In the end, H4 was a very solid first effort on 343's part and people gave it more -Yoink- than it deserved. In a lot of ways, I think the blind hate H4 got is why H5 ended up the way it is, especially in terms of story being dumbed down. To be fair, 343 were also complete idiots when it came to interpreting our criticisms, like instead of making Halo 5 story more self-contained, which was the number 1 complaint H4's plot got, they made it EVEN MORE reliant on outside lore and instead hired a middleschool level writer to pen the main game to make it "more accessible." But the one thing that is completely on 343's head is the pathetic lack of content and polish this game had at launch. It was just -Yoinking!- embrassing how little effort they put into filling out this game to justify a $60 price tag, which in my opinion it didn't even come close to and still hasn't. However, I do think that the base H5 gameplay is better than 4's, just needs a few tweaks. Is it the type of gameplay I was hoping for? Not really. I was hoping that they would design the gameplay to more closely mirror the abilities of the spartan's in the lore, but I realize that would be difficult to properly pull off to say the least. And one area that was a clear improvement in H5 was Forge (which has never been better), but they still managed to -Yoink- that up by not including it at launch, which was just another slap in the face to fans.
Definitely have to agree with the OP on a lot of his points here. I for one really enjoyed H4 a lot back in the day, even though it had a -Yoink- ton of issues and took Halo MP to a lot of places it shouldn't have. But despite those issues it was still a lot of fun. MP, while definitely casual as hell, had a lot of good playlists and game modes. Customs and forge, while not quite as good as Reach, were still pretty god damn awesome. And the story was -Yoinking!- amazing, if not for a few issues like over dependence on outside knowledge I would definitely put at the #2 spot just below H2, but as is I put it tied at #3 with ODST (H3 obviously beening #2). In the end, H4 was a very solid first effort on 343's part and people gave it more -Yoink- than it deserved. In a lot of ways, I think the blind hate H4 got is why H5 ended up the way it is, especially in terms of story being dumbed down. To be fair, 343 were also complete idiots when it came to interpreting our criticisms, like instead of making Halo 5 story more self-contained, which was the number 1 complaint H4's plot got, they made it EVEN MORE reliant on outside lore and instead hired a middleschool level writer to pen the main game to make it "more accessible." But the one thing that is completely on 343's head is the pathetic lack of content and polish this game had at launch. It was just -Yoinking!- embrassing how little effort they put into filling out this game to justify a $60 price tag, which in my opinion it didn't even come close to and still hasn't. However, I do think that the base H5 gameplay is better than 4's, just needs a few tweaks. Is it the type of gameplay I was hoping for? Not really. I was hoping that they would design the gameplay to more closely mirror the abilities of the spartan's in the lore, but I realize that would be difficult to properly pull off to say the least. And one area that was a clear improvement in H5 was Forge (which has never been better), but they still managed to -Yoink- that up by not including it at launch, which was just another slap in the face to fans.
Don't forget that Forge and even Custom Games are not playable offline in Halo 5. Also, no splitscreen. Splitscreen is not a huge deal for me personally, but I understand why so many people are upset that it's gone.
JohannDB wrote:
My ratings of halo 4 and 5
Halo 4:9.99/10
Halo 510/10

Halo 5 in my opinion is 0.01 points better than Halo 4
Are you kidding me? Halo 5 was like a 6/10 at most at launch, and that's being generous. After updates, I'd still only give it like a 7 tops, and that only because of how good Forge is. At least Halo 4 was like a solid 7.5 at launch, 8.5ish after updates.
Definitely have to agree with the OP on a lot of his points here. I for one really enjoyed H4 a lot back in the day, even though it had a -Yoink- ton of issues and took Halo MP to a lot of places it shouldn't have. But despite those issues it was still a lot of fun. MP, while definitely casual as hell, had a lot of good playlists and game modes. Customs and forge, while not quite as good as Reach, were still pretty god damn awesome. And the story was -Yoinking!- amazing, if not for a few issues like over dependence on outside knowledge I would definitely put at the #2 spot just below H2, but as is I put it tied at #3 with ODST (H3 obviously beening #2). In the end, H4 was a very solid first effort on 343's part and people gave it more -Yoink- than it deserved. In a lot of ways, I think the blind hate H4 got is why H5 ended up the way it is, especially in terms of story being dumbed down. To be fair, 343 were also complete idiots when it came to interpreting our criticisms, like instead of making Halo 5 story more self-contained, which was the number 1 complaint H4's plot got, they made it EVEN MORE reliant on outside lore and instead hired a middleschool level writer to pen the main game to make it "more accessible." But the one thing that is completely on 343's head is the pathetic lack of content and polish this game had at launch. It was just -Yoinking!- embrassing how little effort they put into filling out this game to justify a $60 price tag, which in my opinion it didn't even come close to and still hasn't. However, I do think that the base H5 gameplay is better than 4's, just needs a few tweaks. Is it the type of gameplay I was hoping for? Not really. I was hoping that they would design the gameplay to more closely mirror the abilities of the spartan's in the lore, but I realize that would be difficult to properly pull off to say the least. And one area that was a clear improvement in H5 was Forge (which has never been better), but they still managed to -Yoink- that up by not including it at launch, which was just another slap in the face to fans.
Don't forget that Forge and even Custom Games are not playable offline in Halo 5. Also, no splitscreen. Splitscreen is not a huge deal for me personally, but I understand why so many people are upset that it's gone.
Yeah, forgot about that. I also didn't really care much and back in the day I thought that people were being a little irrational losing their -Yoink- over it, but that was under the assumption the rest of the game was actually going to be good, which it most certainly wasn't. So now it's just another insult from 343.
From campaign story to gameplay, Halo 4 was awful. Spartan Ops (I only played the first season), was broken and easy. Multiplayer was the worst I have seen in a AAA game. Halo 5 has a worse story and I prefer original firefight to both spartan ops and warzone firefight, but multiplayer in Halo 5 is a lot better. Neither game feels like Halo to me, but Halo 5 is a good non-Halo feeling game where Halo 4 is objectively a bad game.
So if someone who joined Halo late is reading this I am sure to trigger them. From campaign story to gameplay, Halo 4 was awful. Halo 4's campaign was not believable or consistent with the Halo lore prior to Microsoft taking over the series. Spartan Ops (I only played the first season), was repetitive and easy. Not to mention how easy it was to exploit AI in Halo 4 and the game was chock full of bugs. Multiplayer in Halo 4 was the worst I have seen in a AAA game. One of my friends jokingly called it the worst call of duty ever made and I agree because I prefer every Halo and Call of Duty to Halo 4. Halo 5 has a worse story and I prefer original firefight to both spartan ops and warzone firefight, but multiplayer in Halo 5 is a lot better. Neither game feels like Halo to me, but Halo 5 is a good non-Halo feeling game where Halo 4 is objectively a bad game. Halo 4 and Destiny flopping was just an absolute disaster for me as a Bungie-Halo fan. I get Halo 4 follows the new books better than Halo 5, but most of the newer Halo books don't appeal to me because they don't have the same feeling as the earlier books/games. 343 can do what they want with story because everyone deserves creative freedom. I don't care about story so much as gameplay, and Halo 4 gameplay was Reach on steroids. Reach being the start of the end for the Halo franchise. Now Reach had the gametypes, decent maps (although not nearly enough and forge maps became a crutch), and it had good campaign level design and presentation. It did not have a good story. ODST was similar to Reach and far better in a much shorter package.

I have read essays about Halo 4's plot ruining Halo and had youtube and forum discussions with myself and others exchanging replies several paragraphs long. Honestly if you google a lot of the early fan reviews of the game they are almost all negative in regards to everything. Halo 5 was a lot less negative. A lot of true Halo fans are no longer part of the Halo discussion at all which is why Halo 4 and Reach have been painted in a more positive light than they used to be.The consensus from every longtime Halo player I know is that Halo 4 killed Halo, and that includes its campaign. I am 25 years old, and I just find a lot of Halo 4 and 5 cringey. Cortana as a love interest and turning chief into a completely different personality and forcing it on the player just did not work for me. They needed a new character to tell that story and maybe it would feel less forced.

Halo 4 and Halo 5 fail because they are very similar in their failures. Halo 5 just has a better designed multiplayer. Since Multiplayer is a huge part of Halo, it's safe to say Halo 5 is the better game.

You do not compare one failure to another to improve it. That is the most worrying thing with this sort of shift to defending Halo 4. You admit you hate it, so let it die. This is like picking the lesser of two evils when in a creative project your only limit in direction is based on your budget.
That's right. I said it.

How could I possibly think something like that, you ask?

First let me say that I hated Halo 4. I played it for about a year before I realized that I wasn't having fun anymore, and went back to Halo: Reach. But Halo 5: Guardians has given me a new appreciation for it.

I've been playing Halo 5 on and off since it was launched. I played 8,954 games in Halo 3's multiplayer. 6,751 games across the board in Halo: Reach. Despite it's problems, I still played 2,375 games in Halo 4. In Halo 5: Guardians, I've only be able to stomach 355 games since launch. Now let me tell why I quit Halo 5: Guardians 2,000 games earlier than Halo 4:

1. Excellent Campaign
I think it goes without saying that Halo 4 had a much better Campaign than Halo 5: Guardians. The story is among the best I've seen in a Halo game... and unlike Halo 5, the game was centered around Master Chief, a character we know and love, not around a bunch of random characters pulled from the novels.

2. Spartan Ops > Warzone Firefight
For the record, Spartan Ops could never possibly top Firefight as it was in Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach. But it was better than Warzone Firefight. At least in Spartan Ops I have the option of playing single-player and selecting the difficulty level; also, no bullet-sponge bosses to worry about. Sure, it can be long-winded and repetitive... but so was the Campaign in Halo: Combat Evolved. Also, if I choose to play on Legendary, I don't get punished every time I die with a 30-second respawn penalty.

3. Multiplayer is decent.
Okay, I'll admit; Ordnance drops and loadouts suck, and the networking is crap. But the core gameplay is better than Halo 5: Guardians. No getting Spartan Charged in the back over and over again. With the Motion Tracker set 25 meters, I can see where all my enemies are and even their elevation, so I have that element of strategy in the game that I don't have in Arena. There's a wider selection of gametypes than Halo 5, and no pay-to-win gametypes like Warzone. I don't give a -Yoink- that there's no ranking system; back in the Halo 3 days, Social was more fun than Ranked anyway. So I'll take a Halo game that's All-Social over a game that's All-Ranked any day of the week.

4. Armor is unlocked through progression + better armor customization.
In Halo 4, when you grind hard to finish a commendation, it's worth it in the end because you know exactly what you're reward is going to be... and you choose which items you want to grind for, and which ones you don't care about. But Halo 5's armory is filled with reskinned weapons and ugly new armor sets that many of us will never use, and if you want some of the better armor sets in the game- like Mark IV/GEN1, Helljumper, Centurion, whatever- you have to grind through about 250+ armors and armor skins in the game before you get it... whereas in Halo 4, unlocking armor is as simple as pick a target, and take it out. Also, you can actually customize the armor you unlock in Halo 4.

5. Better multiplayer maps.
Say what you will about Halo 4's multiplayer, the map design was actually pretty good in this game. Maps like Haven, Solace, Adrift, Longbow, and Exile were all pretty solid, and the DLC maps- namely those in the Majestic and Castle map packs- were excellent. Halo 5's maps, including those in the base game and the free DLC ones are meh by comparison. The fact that they are built around frustrating gameplay doesn't help.

* * *

That's all I have to say. I stuck with Halo 4 for much longer before I realized I had more fun in Halo: Reach... but 343i went and dropped the ball again with Halo 5: Guardians, and now I find myself in that same spot again, thinking that maybe Halo 4 wasn't so bad in light of what we have now.

On a side note, Halo: Reach is actually my favorite Halo game for the best all-around Halo experience, but I consider Halo 3 to have the best multiplayer.
Took the words wight out of my mouth
JohannDB wrote:
My ratings of halo 4 and 5
Halo 4:9.99/10
Halo 510/10

Halo 5 in my opinion is 0.01 points better than Halo 4
Are you kidding me? Halo 5 was like a 6/10 at most at launch, and that's being generous. After updates, I'd still only give it like a 7 tops, and that only because of how good Forge is. At least Halo 4 was like a solid 7.5 at launch, 8.5ish after updates.
Yeah, my Halo chart goes more like this:

Halo: Combat Evolved - 10/10
Halo 3/Halo 3: ODST - 10/10
Halo: Reach 9/10
Halo 2 - 9/10
Halo 4 - 5/10
Halo 5 - 1/10

My scores take all updates and DLC into account. Halo 5's updates have done little too improve the game, and the fact that most of them simply introduce features that should've been in the game at launch weighs heavily against it. Not to mention that after all those updates, there are still game-breaking bugs and balance issues that need to be addressed- many of which have been in the game since launch- and lot of game modes and classic armor types are still missing as well.
JohannDB wrote:
My ratings of halo 4 and 5
Halo 4:9.99/10
Halo 510/10

Halo 5 in my opinion is 0.01 points better than Halo 4
Are you kidding me? Halo 5 was like a 6/10 at most at launch, and that's being generous. After updates, I'd still only give it like a 7 tops, and that only because of how good Forge is. At least Halo 4 was like a solid 7.5 at launch, 8.5ish after updates.
Yeah, my Halo chart goes more like this:

Halo: Combat Evolved - 10/10
Halo 3/Halo 3: ODST - 10/10
Halo: Reach 9/10
Halo 2 - 9/10
Halo 4 - 5/10
Halo 5 - 1/10

My scores take all updates and DLC into account. Halo 5's updates have done little too improve the game, and the fact that most of them simply introduce features that should've been in the game at launch weighs heavily against it. Not to mention that after all those updates, there are still game-breaking bugs and balance issues that need to be addressed- many of which have been in the game since launch- and lot of game modes and classic armor types are still missing as well.
That's actually a very fair point that the updates should count against Halo 5. The whole "free dlc" plan is actually one of my biggest gripes with the game because it just showcases 343 laziness and arrogance. But when I said 7/10 I mean from an objective assessment of the amount and quality of content. If I were to rate my satisfaction with said content then I would say 6 at launch and now around a 2 because of how much 343's stupidity and refusal to make the easiest and most simple remedies to glaring issues in an sort of timely matter has pissed me off to no end that I will never buy a product from them again until they have thoroughly proven that they have earned my money and time.
Anyway, for the other game I usually ranked them by category, ie best gameplay = H3. And I also have different lists for my objective assessment of each game and how much I actually enjoyed each game. My objective list usually goes like this (I sometimes reassess)
1. Halo 3 + ODST (cuz ODST is honestly just H3 dlc)
2. Halo Reach
3. Halo 2
4. Halo 4
5. Halo CE
6. Halo 5
I sometimes swap H2 and Reach and Halo CE and 4 around, but H3 and H5 are firmly planted in their places. Depends on what aspects of the games I currently value the most haha.
EDIT: Just to clarify the swapping, I mean that H2 and Reach will swap back and forth between #2 and #3 and H4 and CE with swap back and forth between #4 and #5.
My personal ratings of the Halo franchise. I started with Halo 2 when I got my original xbox in 2006. I did not play Halo 1 till after buying Halo 2, but I did own it on the original xbox, played very little Halo 1 multiplayer. ODST has been the last time I felt the game was art and not milking. Halo 4 was the last time I was hyped for a Halo game.

During lifecycle:
Halo 1 - 9.5/10
Halo 2 - 9.610
Halo 3 - 9.7/10
Halo Wars - 6/10
Halo 3 ODST - 9.4/10
Halo Reach - 3/10
Halo 4 - 0/10
Halo 5 - 3/10 - 7/10

Adjusted to today:
Halo 1 - 10/10
Halo 2 - 9.9/10
Halo 3 - 9.8/10
Halo Wars - 7/10
Halo 3 ODST - 8.5/10
Halo Reach - 7.5/10
Halo 4 - 0/10
Halo 5 - 4/10
KCD0DGER wrote:
KCD0DGER wrote:
KCD0DGER wrote:
KCD0DGER wrote:
KCD0DGER wrote:
I just can't agree. Like at all.

Halo 4's story wasn't even that good. People speak so often of nuance, but dammit all I see is poor characterization across the board and a story made by a studio that didn't know what "Halo" was supposed to be all about.

And don't even get me started on Spartan Ops. It's the worst story for Halo in a game to date. Yes, even above Halo 5's.
I disagree on that. Halo 4 had really solid characterization, with Chief finally getting fleshed out, and Cortana having a (well done) mental breakdown. Laskey is seen as a good man who trusts the Chief to do the right thing, and the Didact... is better than the Warden and on par with Truth.(He is really fleshed out in the books, but I guess that could be considered to be needed in the game, even if the terminals show before he went mad).
No character comes close to the emotional and beautiful, deeply personal story we got with the most well known character, though.
Chips Dubbo was an emotional time bomb.
Lasky was okay, but The Didact was not even on part with Truth. His entire story really did just boil down to, "God I really hate Humans."

But uh, we gonna ignore the entire character that was Captain Del-Rio? Are we really? Is it that we want to forget? Because he was awful and written as a throwaway character (So why even have him? For unnecessary drama?) And not to be a smartass, but must I even bring up Palmer? That mess of a character?

How about Fireteam "Majestic"? A bunch of stereotypical military types that don't actually reflect military personnel at all?

Chief never needed fleshing out. If you want to bring up the books as to what makes The Didact any good, then let's bring up the book as to what makes chief a fully realized character- and Cortana too! And here's the funny part. Cortana already went through rampancy in Halo 3. She survived it, she had tons of interaction with Forerunner stuff and Gravemind himself wriggled his weird little flood tentacles through her mind. She went through so many astounding circumstances and setpieces that she herself was fundamentally altered. It had been well over seven years since her activation by the time of Halo 4, and the timeframe was about right for Halo 3.

Here, ask yourself this. Remove Halo 3 from the series and put Halo 4 there instead. It's like Halo 4 wants to forget a good amount of what happened in Halo 3 actually happened. Sure, those of us who read the books know all about the Storm Covenant and why it exists, but the average gamer has absolutely no clue why the covenant is still around in 4

4 is just a huge mess. I could go on for hours and hours and hours, as to why Halo 5 is more respectful to the lore as a whole than Halo 4 was, even though Halo 5 is still awful in that regard. But I'd rather play Halo 5's dull campaign and poorly characterized protagnonists and antagonists thirty times than do halo 4's ever again. I got my Helioskrill. That was me signing out of Halo 4, for good, for the foreseeable... I dunno, eternity.
[ANGRY RANTING]
Good god they weren't kidding, Halo 4 fans really are vehement.
Vehement, but mostly just super pissed off.
See that's the thing- this is why the new cadre of fans that defend the awful mess that is Halo 4 is so hard to talk to. Ya tell em their game sucks, and they go full on pitbull at you for one thing you said. Just targeting that rather than the incredibly -Yoink- design choices Halo 4 pulled.

Lemme tell ya a thing.

343i has no god damn clue what they're doing with Halo's story anymore. I didn't buy an Xbox One and Halo 5 for the story. It is the first Halo game I truly bought for the Multiplayer and Forge. And y'know what? I've gotten my money's worth, it's a great game in a lot of ways and crappy in a lot of other ways, but I still have fun with it. Since I can't care about the story as deeply as I used to, given how Halo 4 MAULED IT beyond repair, or damned close- I'm really just here for the gameplay until they actually learn how to write a damn story, because Halo 4 exists in its own little bubble outside of the established Halo canon for ten years prior, where nothing lines up with the previous installments in terms of art design, character design and writing, and so on.

It's the most Generic Halo ever produced. Even Halo 5 has more Halo personality. In what world do we live in where Grunts have zero humor and Elites blunder about like brutes? Halo 4's world, which Microsoft saw as such a huge friggin loss that they basically had to retcon Halo 4 out of existence. A decision I fully support, because Halo 4 was -Yoink-.

It was THE game that made me just... Give up. Sell all my stuff. Give it to friends who still cared. I put so much faith into 343i to deliver, and they failed on absolutely EVERY account.

Halo 4 was never meant to happen. Its soundtrack is awful, its art design is awful, its characters are awful, its level design is awful, its multiplayer is awful, its forge is awful, Halo 4 is just God Awful.

Hope that one didn't trigger ya so much as the last one. Believe you me, I know my Halo lore about as well as you do, but that's minus everything past Halo 4, Spartan Ops, 5 and Glasslands, because all four of those sucked. At least some parts of Halo 5 made me feel like I was playing a Halo game. Feel like, not necessarily am but it's a far cry more enjoyable than Halo 4, to me.So chill.
Ok. we have different opinions, and that's fine. You seem to hate everything about Halo 4, but ya know that's fine. As much as Halo 5 dissapointed me, I still know that there are still good parts(the soundtrack, the humor, Sanghelios), its not all bad.
I still enjoyed H4, and you telling me about how "God awful" everything is about it is not gonna change my mind anymore than me telling you what I don't like about Halo 5.
I hope one day you can find something good from Halo 4, and hopefully the next game is something we can both enjoy.
P.s, does that whole "new cadre of fans" extend to me, someone who started with Halo 2?
I started with Halo 2, so it isn't OG-fans-only. I'm definitively not OG. Just really close behind.

The best part about Halo 4 was the marketing campaign and Forward Unto Dawn. Misallocated budget/resources if you ask me. I suppose on the whole the story of Halo 4 isn't the worst but there's so much that just...

Augh.

There's just so much wrong.
Ok. Your opinion.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. ...
  9. 15