Forums / Community / Poll Discussions

Warzone or firefight in Halo infinite

OP Mr man 306 n6

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Firefight, hands down! Reach and ODST did it best for years.

Warzone had potential but the fatal problem: Microtransactions...
Quote:
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Your temptation and willingness is a personal issue and as long as it does not directly affect your ability to play the game, it is not a problem. Microtransactions are what often fund events, post launch support, and future games not just in Halo but many other titles, obviously outside of the revenue from the games themselves.
If you’re tempted to purchase anything in-game with real money, that is 100% your fault.
Why not all 3

Plus Spartan ops
Spartan Ops were underrated. I’d love to see a story driven cinematic Warzone Firefight.
It would be cool if Infinite had a new gamemode that could be a combination of Warzone and Invasion from Reach. Enormous PVP battles with a shifting map and objectives with friendly and enemy AI helping or fighting you. Kinda like what Act Man came up with.
Firefight, hands down! Reach and ODST did it best for years.

Warzone had potential but the fatal problem: Microtransactions...
Quote:
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Your temptation and willingness is a personal issue and as long as it does not directly affect your ability to play the game, it is not a problem. Microtransactions are what often fund events, post launch support, and future games not just in Halo but many other titles, obviously outside of the revenue from the games themselves.
If you’re tempted to purchase anything in-game with real money, that is 100% your fault.
True. If you decide to buy DLC like an expansion pass or Toy-To-Life additional things like Amiibo's, it IS your choice, but even then they don't go away completely after one use that forces you to buy them again at the very least, you can STILL redownload and use them. Imagine if Zelda Breath of the Wild's Expansion pass just went away completely after you wanted to restart the game from the start and you had to buy and download the expansion pass again? I would be ticked off to sue Nintendo for that!

But even then, the way micro-transactions are used these days sometimes are STILL trademark controversy/backlash triggers of video games when some people suffer peer pressure more than others (especially younger players). The problem is made worse when some companies use microtransactions as the ONLY way to proceed and succeed. LootBoxes are the iconic cheap-shots out their right now, just ask EA about how they love "surprise mechanics" or better yet; research Star Wars Battlefront 2's LootBox controversy and how it triggered congressional outrage in Europe (which also got the attention of US senators). But I've also heard that Activision was granted a patent that would ultimately encourage micro-transactions via use of young gamer inferiority complexes, basically a special system that if someone has spent their money, they will always have the advantage in multiplayer unless the others who refuse to payout will be provoked to file bankruptcy for a special in-game trinket to win, which is barbarically despicable and savage.
Quote:
"In a just world; DLC, micro-transactions, and other extra perks would be seen just that, bonus perks, not essentials that make you feel like you can't have fun without them." ~ Joshua Burner - The Fiery Joker / joshscorcher (Top Ten Activision Fails)
Micro-transactions work best when they are just simply bonus perks that are indefinite mainly in single-player games like Zelda among others, while multiplayer can use it simply as a one-time-only fixed/desired cosmetic unlocks like armor from Halo. The point; Micro-transactions should never have to be reused on the same exact thing multiple times on the same game/product (such as Gold REQ packs for example of you only wanted a specific armor unlock, but keep getting a bunch of stuff you didn't want most of the time). Video games should NEVER submit to the ill ways of gambling...

My opinion...
Firefight, hands down! Reach and ODST did it best for years.

Warzone had potential but the fatal problem: Microtransactions...
Quote:
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Your temptation and willingness is a personal issue and as long as it does not directly affect your ability to play the game, it is not a problem. Microtransactions are what often fund events, post launch support, and future games not just in Halo but many other titles, obviously outside of the revenue from the games themselves.
If you’re tempted to purchase anything in-game with real money, that is 100% your fault.
True. If you decide to buy DLC like an expansion pass or Toy-To-Life additional things like Amiibo's, it IS your choice, but even then they don't go away completely after one use that forces you to buy them again at the very least, you can STILL redownload and use them. Imagine if Zelda Breath of the Wild's Expansion pass just went away completely after you wanted to restart the game from the start and you had to buy and download the expansion pass again? I would be ticked off to sue Nintendo for that!

But even then, the way micro-transactions are used these days sometimes are STILL trademark controversy/backlash triggers of video games when some people suffer peer pressure more than others (especially younger players). The problem is made worse when some companies use microtransactions as the ONLY way to proceed and succeed. LootBoxes are the iconic cheap-shots out their right now, just ask EA about how they love "surprise mechanics" or better yet; research Star Wars Battlefront 2's LootBox controversy and how it triggered congressional outrage in Europe (which also got the attention of US senators). But I've also heard that Activision was granted a patent that would ultimately encourage micro-transactions via use of young gamer inferiority complexes, basically a special system that if someone has spent their money, they will always have the advantage in multiplayer unless the others who refuse to payout will be provoked to file bankruptcy for a special in-game trinket to win, which is barbarically despicable and savage.
Quote:
"In a just world; DLC, micro-transactions, and other extra perks would be seen just that, bonus perks, not essentials that make you feel like you can't have fun without them." ~ Joshua Burner - The Fiery Joker / joshscorcher (Top Ten Activision Fails)
Micro-transactions work best when they are just simply bonus perks that are indefinite mainly in single-player games like Zelda among others, while multiplayer can use it simply as a one-time-only fixed/desired cosmetic unlocks like armor from Halo. The point; Micro-transactions should never have to be reused on the same exact thing multiple times on the same game/product (such as Gold REQ packs for example of you only wanted a specific armor unlock, but keep getting a bunch of stuff you didn't want most of the time). Video games should NEVER submit to the ill ways of gambling...

My opinion...
I agree whole-heartedly.
Firefight, hands down! Reach and ODST did it best for years.

Warzone had potential but the fatal problem: Microtransactions...
Quote:
"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Your temptation and willingness is a personal issue and as long as it does not directly affect your ability to play the game, it is not a problem. Microtransactions are what often fund events, post launch support, and future games not just in Halo but many other titles, obviously outside of the revenue from the games themselves.
If you’re tempted to purchase anything in-game with real money, that is 100% your fault.
True. If you decide to buy DLC like an expansion pass or Toy-To-Life additional things like Amiibo's, it IS your choice, but even then they don't go away completely after one use that forces you to buy them again at the very least, you can STILL redownload and use them. Imagine if Zelda Breath of the Wild's Expansion pass just went away completely after you wanted to restart the game from the start and you had to buy and download the expansion pass again? I would be ticked off to sue Nintendo for that!

But even then, the way micro-transactions are used these days sometimes are STILL trademark controversy/backlash triggers of video games when some people suffer peer pressure more than others (especially younger players). The problem is made worse when some companies use microtransactions as the ONLY way to proceed and succeed. LootBoxes are the iconic cheap-shots out their right now, just ask EA about how they love "surprise mechanics" or better yet; research Star Wars Battlefront 2's LootBox controversy and how it triggered congressional outrage in Europe (which also got the attention of US senators). But I've also heard that Activision was granted a patent that would ultimately encourage micro-transactions via use of young gamer inferiority complexes, basically a special system that if someone has spent their money, they will always have the advantage in multiplayer unless the others who refuse to payout will be provoked to file bankruptcy for a special in-game trinket to win, which is barbarically despicable and savage.
Quote:
"In a just world; DLC, micro-transactions, and other extra perks would be seen just that, bonus perks, not essentials that make you feel like you can't have fun without them." ~ Joshua Burner - The Fiery Joker / joshscorcher (Top Ten Activision Fails)
Micro-transactions work best when they are just simply bonus perks that are indefinite mainly in single-player games like Zelda among others, while multiplayer can use it simply as a one-time-only fixed/desired cosmetic unlocks like armor from Halo. The point; Micro-transactions should never have to be reused on the same exact thing multiple times on the same game/product (such as Gold REQ packs for example of you only wanted a specific armor unlock, but keep getting a bunch of stuff you didn't want most of the time). Video games should NEVER submit to the ill ways of gambling...

My opinion...
I also agree totally. Although if 343 decided to make req packs were you have to pay for them instead of earning them I would consider it a key part of the game locked behind a paywall. Also destiny 2 does it in a good way but letting you earn currency to get most cosmetics for free, and also allows you to get loot boxes for free as well, them there is a few items that are pay to get only and then the items you can earn the currency for you can buy if you want.
I’d like to see the master chief as a firefight boss
Also whilst on the topic Locke as well
Reach had the best firefight in my opinion.
what about a good Spartan ops, like so we can find out some new info and still have firefight, what you think?
Kazhuira wrote:
what about a good Spartan ops, like so we can find out some new info and still have firefight, what you think?
While I did like spartan ops, I do prefer firefight, I used to play it all the time before I had gold, and Its still my favorite mode to this day.
Firefight
I'd go with Warzone, there's more to do in it.
Why not both? Many of us want fire fight in every game moving forward and warzone was popular enough to bring back.

For fire fight I would want two modes, one like halo 5, and a survival one like odst.
Regice554 wrote:
Why not both? Many of us want fire fight in every game moving forward and warzone was popular enough to bring back.

For fire fight I would want two modes, one like halo 5, and a survival one like odst.
While that would be very cool, fore mat Least I played warzone because Halo 5 didn't have firefight.
This is hard because I have had way more fun with warzone than firefight... but if halo infinite doesn’t do micro transactions (which if they do I will have no faith left in 343) I don’t know how they would pull it off.
I'd prefer to see Warzone with some major changes.

For example, make five armories/garages/temples available rather than three. That would provide extra options for the losing team to capture bases and gain the upper hand. Of course, this would require larger maps and larger teams as well, but as it is right now, the first team to capture two bases usually wins.

Also, they should do away with the REQ system. Set the loadout weapons to unlock at different time increments for everybody in the game (e.g. AR/Magnum at 0:00, BR at 5:00, DMR at 10:00). Then, set up power weapons and vehicles as rewards for taking down bosses or holding a base for a certain amount of time.

They don't need to be these changes specifically, but Warzone needs a lot of work to be better than Firefight, and I think 343 can do it.
I genuinely think Warzone is the better mode in terms of potential. In their current states, ODST Firefight is more fun than anything that has followed (Reach Firefight, Halo 4 Spartan Ops and Halo 5 Warzone), but by all means, Warzone should be the better mode. The only adjustments I'd make to Warzone would be to remove the copy-and-paste elements of its maps and strip away the micro-transactions. Instead of having players unlock vehicles and weapons, they should all be unlocked from the start, but players and their teams still need to earn the ability to use them within each match. Honestly, Warzone would be an absolute blast and many times more fun than Firefight if done right. Maybe it won't return in Infinite, but I hope 343i one day come back to Warzone and turn it into the mode it deserves to be! The changes that need to be made are only minor adjustments, but they would make all the difference in the world!
Firefight
I love firefight in Reach. Arcade firefight in particular, I prefer the game type with standard loadouts but with infinite ammo. Cloak and sniper is my go to.
Warzone firefight in 5 is fun but only jumped in once, seems more chaotic.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3