Forums / Community / Halo Universe

The DMR was a Mistake

OP Tarandros Vaxal

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle mutually redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions, how it sounds, its animations— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes, let's be honest) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate its user.
You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even any other first-person shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork, given how nondescript and plain it looks. You don't see very much fan-art featuring the DMR, do you? Yet, there's tons featuring the BR— and I seriously doubt that that's just a coincidence.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary. The Needle-Rifle fulfills the same function in gameplay, is infinitely more interesting as a design, and even has its own unique functionality in the form of being fired full-auto— adding a new dimension to its uses and therefore having a higher skill-ceiling.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance— every design-aspect that the two weapons have in common: the BR does better. The BR is certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in-game, anyway— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics, beyond a dressed up game of peekaboo.

The DMR's existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin. Hanging there, like an appendix in Halo's body. Serving no vital purpose, prone-to-rottenness, and perfectly replaceable.
This surprises me, ever since Reach I though the DMR was AWESOME.

I actually dig the new "green" look they gave it to differentiate it from the BR in the later games.

If you think both the BR and DMR are not "skillful", which weapons do you think are?
I've got to disagree

The DMR feels like a scalpel to me - precise and lethal. I love handling it, because every shot needs to be deliberate and to perform well every shot needs to land where you aim it.
Granted, I prefer the BR on 4/5, but I love handing the DMR in Reach. It represents everything I love about halo - deliberate, accurate and skill based.

As well, if you think the BR/DMR arent skill based, you're not good enough. A skilled player can easily win a DMR/BR player against a less skilled player no matter how many shots they have on each other. Hell, I've both won and lose 1v1s where either myself or my opponent are 1 shot, it all depends on how well we can aim and strafe. To say these weapons are no-skill is blatantly wrong.
The DMR filled a role between the BR and the Sniper Rifle quite nicely imo. The BR is a bit more of an all-purpose mid-range weapon, while the Sniper Rifle is a purpose-built long-range weapon. The DMR kinda takes on the role of an all-purpose long-range weapon.
when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics.
This is true of all firearms in video games. If you pit two players of equal health against each other and give them the same weapon, whoever lands a hit first will likely be the winner of that duel. There's no way around that.
Honestly I feel the BR has a lot more problems. The DMR at least has a firmer identity as a marksman rifle. The BR sits in this weird place post Halo 3 where it is an all purpose weapon, but the AR is considered the primary service rifle, and at the same time it is also kind of a marksman weapon, but it still behaves like an all-purpose rifle

If anything I think the AR and BR existing simultaneously is a bigger flaw then the DMR. Bungie wanted the weapons to behave more "realistically" in Halo 2, so the BR replaced the AR in form if not in function, but then they backtracked and reintroduced the AR in Halo 3 without changing how either weapon worked. Now we have the AR, BR, and DMR which just leaves the BR as the awkward middle child.

Either the BR needs to become a proper marksman rifle and replace the DMR entirely or the BR itself should just be removed as I don't see them getting rid of the AR ever again. If it were up to me I would just take the BR's mechanics and throw them onto an AR model and call it a day but that's just me.

The real mistake was that Bungie felt the need to make the weapons more "realistic" in the first place then we wouldn't even have this mess, just let us have our Rifle-like Pistols and SMG-like assault rifles.
It serves its purpose for what its supposed to do; have a longer reach than an assault rifle, but not as much bulk (in real world anyway) as a sniper.
Considering the standard UNSC "sniper rifle" would be considered not just an AMR but an entire anti-tank rifle in our world (Firing WWII era Soviet anti-armor rounds for SOME REASON), I can see it being spectacularly popular with Marine fireteams needing a bit more punch...
0
To know the Lore is to know Halo
"Dont be spoiled, dont start a fight. Always be careful, here at night. Because the Spartans might come, in suits that weigh half a ton. And they'll steal from you all you gots, just like they did from Colonel Watts."
The DMR is pretty dull in terms of it's appearance and the purpose of the firearm, but I don't agree with it taking no skill.

Being able to hit all shots in the head with the DMR against a player in combat is pretty hard as it is, especially without a fully-automatic weapon (if you're not shooting at the head with the DMR in Halo, you're doing something wrong... that goes for everyone lol). The argument you presented about who shot first could be applied to any precision-based or even any weapon in the game. If two players were 10 meters away and their aim isn't crap, whoever shot first with any weapon would get the kill. That goes for rockets, assault rifles, DMR, snipers, shotguns, ect.

The trick is that you need to find cover or use the environment to avoid damage. If the person shot you first and you think you're not gonna get 'em, run for cover so you don't die, then set up a counter-attack while they pursue you, that way it won't always be about who shot first.

( might be a bit biased towards the DMR since I play SWAT a lot, but my most favorite weapon according to Halo is the Assault Rifle :P )
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate. You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even anything other shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance. Certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in any regard— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics.

In any regard: its existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin.
well said
i feel the battle rifle is a better middle ground between the sniper and assault rifle personally, the br can perform both of their roles albeit less effectively but best somewhere in the middle, while the dmr is just an over glorified lite sniper rifle that can absolutely wreck any vehicle made out of paper with little ease
don't even get me started on how awkward the dmr is in close quarters with the mix of single-fire and bloom lol

Thermock wrote:
Being able to hit all shots in the head with the DMR against a player in combat is pretty hard as it is, especially without a fully-automatic weapon (if you're not shooting at the head with the DMR in Halo, you're doing something wrong... that goes for everyone lol).
the thing is it's silly to try land all shots on the head, typically what's best is landing body shots where you're most likely to hit and then land the final shot at the head ;p body and head shots do the same amount of damage as long as shields are up, so it makes the most sense, you can try to land all headshots if you're feeling confident but if your confidence doesn't match your skill and you miss a shot you'll lose a scuffle because of overconfidence
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate. You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even anything other shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance. Certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in any regard— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics.

In any regard: its existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin.
I have to disagree, in real life we have Battle Rifles and Designated Marksmen Rifles. I always thought the DMR should be a power weapon. 3 Shots and you're dead. Similar to the Light Rifle. Except 2 shots wipe out your shield and 1 shot anywhere and you're dead, just to give it a little more difference than the BR and make one step below a sniper. However, I once read that the BR was supposed to Supercede the DMR. But that was years ago. The only issue I have with the DMR is that in Reach it stops close range fights, all fights are at Mid to Long Range but that's a whole different story.
I don’t have anything truly outstanding to add, but I have got my 2 cents on this.

The DMR’s acronym stands for Designated Marksman Rifle, specifically to be used at medium to long range. It adds a new learning curve to the game as before there was just the AR for CQC if you didn’t have an SMG and the BR for any other range if you couldn’t manage to get your hands on the SR. The DMR gives a nice in between so you don’t need a Sniper anymore to engage at range, albeit the Sniper is more effective but has less shots as a trade-off. I am disappointed that the BR didn’t appear in Reach alongside the DMR but I imagine there is some canonical reason why it didn’t, as well as the fact that Bungie wanted to try something new.
I don’t have anything truly outstanding to add, but I have got my 2 cents on this.

The DMR’s acronym stands for Designated Marksman Rifle, specifically to be used at medium to long range. It adds a new learning curve to the game as before there was just the AR for CQC if you didn’t have an SMG and the BR for any other range if you couldn’t manage to get your hands on the SR. The DMR gives a nice in between so you don’t need a Sniper anymore to engage at range, albeit the Sniper is more effective but has less shots as a trade-off. I am disappointed that the BR didn’t appear in Reach alongside the DMR but I imagine there is some canonical reason why it didn’t, as well as the fact that Bungie wanted to try something new.
Bungie's contentions with canon have never been very reliable. I doubt that any canonical reason for it would make sense. They thought that they had to give an excuse for the Skirmishers not being in future games, but didn't care to explain why we never saw any Engineers before ODST? Meh.
I'm not against its inclusion BUT, concerning gameplay, I think that ever since its inclusion it has pretty much dominated the sandbox. In Reach, the only thing that even came close to contesting it was arguably the Needle Rifle but the DMR was still the clear choice for most people. In 4 there was a much larger selection of precision weaponry to contest it but in those days I still pretty clearly felt the DMR was the overall best choice and it could be used at any range, had a higher fire-rate than before, and was the easiest precision weapon out of the bunch to use! Though the Magnum is quite dominant in Halo 5 as of now, I still believe the DMR could contest it if you were to have both available at all times on all maps, despite the nerfs to the DMR.

In terms of aesthetic, yeah the Reach version was very bland and not even remotely futuristic looking. The other games didn't do much if anything to help rectify this but I thought the H4 look was going in the right direction. That said, not every weapon needs to look 'futuristic' as not even the SMG looks remotely so.

I like having an extensive sandbox so I personally wouldn't want to remove the weapon. However, I would probably heavily nerf it in certain aspects. Perhaps give it bloom like it had in Reach, have very slight to no magnetism in all aspects, and if nothing else worked then probably a slight damage nerf or at least noticeable damage fall-off at sniper like distances. Light Rifle might have to be tweaked too just so it doesn't completely overshadow the DMR.

I've noticed the DMR is kinda a polarizing weapon. Most people are in the camps of liking or disliking the weapon to generally high degrees. I'll admit, I'm definitely not a fan of the weapon but there are several who have it as their most favorite weapon and I'd prefer them to still be able to have access to it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to use it.
Hamel wrote:
I've got to disagree

The DMR feels like a scalpel to me - precise and lethal. I love handling it, because every shot needs to be deliberate and to perform well every shot needs to land where you aim it.
Granted, I prefer the BR on 4/5, but I love handing the DMR in Reach. It represents everything I love about halo - deliberate, accurate and skill based.

As well, if you think the BR/DMR arent skill based, you're not good enough. A skilled player can easily win a DMR/BR player against a less skilled player no matter how many shots they have on each other. Hell, I've both won and lose 1v1s where either myself or my opponent are 1 shot, it all depends on how well we can aim and strafe. To say these weapons are no-skill is blatantly wrong.
I second exactly this.

I love the way the DMR handled in Reach, but tend to use BR in 4/5 because it felt a little too floaty to me. I think the visual design has been perfectly acceptable for the Halo universe. I mean, before 343's trilogy, Halo has always sported a strange low-tech sci-fi look, not dissimilar to the Alien franchise.

I like the BR, DMR, Needle Rifle and LightRifle. I like the chunky feeling of the DMR, as the baby brother of the Sniper Rifle, and the lighter-feeling burst-fire of the BR. The visuals, weight and handling of the four weapons feels different and I appreciate that. I honestly want them all to be perfectly balanced against each other as medium-to-long-range weapons. Or otherwise rebalance a couple of them, like the BR into more of a pure medium-range category that could occupy the role of stepping stone from AR to DMR.

It's good to give players the option to choose which they prefer. I like these sort of mildly different choices between weapons of the same utilization categories as opposed the vast array of indistinguishable H5 REQ options.
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle mutually redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions, how it sounds, its animations— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes, let's be honest) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate its user.
You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even any other first-person shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork, given how nondescript and plain it looks. You don't see very much fan-art featuring the DMR, do you? Yet, there's tons featuring the BR— and I seriously doubt that that's just a coincidence.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary. The Needle-Rifle fulfills the same function in gameplay, is infinitely more interesting as a design, and even has its own unique functionality in the form of being fired full-auto— adding a new dimension to its uses and therefore having a higher skill-ceiling.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance— every design-aspect that the two weapons have in common: the BR does better. The BR is certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in-game, anyway— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics, beyond a dressed up game of peekaboo.

The DMR's existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin. Hanging there, like an appendix in Halo's body. Serving no vital purpose, prone-to-rottenness, and perfectly replaceable.
Note to you OP. You actually sound unskilled with how you understand the weapons and basis of skill.
Syxnrgy wrote:
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle mutually redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions, how it sounds, its animations— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes, let's be honest) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate its user.
You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even any other first-person shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork, given how nondescript and plain it looks. You don't see very much fan-art featuring the DMR, do you? Yet, there's tons featuring the BR— and I seriously doubt that that's just a coincidence.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary. The Needle-Rifle fulfills the same function in gameplay, is infinitely more interesting as a design, and even has its own unique functionality in the form of being fired full-auto— adding a new dimension to its uses and therefore having a higher skill-ceiling.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance— every design-aspect that the two weapons have in common: the BR does better. The BR is certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in-game, anyway— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics, beyond a dressed up game of peekaboo.

The DMR's existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin. Hanging there, like an appendix in Halo's body. Serving no vital purpose, prone-to-rottenness, and perfectly replaceable.
Note to you OP. You actually sound unskilled with how you understand the weapons and basis of skill.
Irrelevant. Blatant Ad Hominem. Contribute to the topic, please.
I never really liked the BR tbh. I'm not a fan of burst fire weapons in general cause I stink at staying in the proper range. (I either wanna get in close and unload with an AR or sit back and potshot with the DMR.)
That said, the BR is clearly better at shorter ranges than the DMR, while having longer effective range than the AR.

The DMR is meant to be a mid-long range sharpshooting weapon and making headshots.
The BR is meant to be a mid-short range weapon. It has better non-headshot damage output than the DMR.
People just use the DMR in multiplayer to spam shots at close range trying to get a headshot.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with its appearance. It's just not very impressive or visually striking.
Here is how I would try balancing the DMR in relation to the rest of the precision weapons;

DMR:
As the weapon currently stands, it is just too easy to use for how much range it can cover and damage it does. Basically, the goal is to make it feel like your using a sniper rifle but with the lower power of a standard precision weapon. Ideally, I'd make changes to it so it is at a very clear disadvantage against any weapon at close range, in the form of difficulty landing shots, just like snipers in the same range with unskilled hands, except now you'd have to worry about more than 1-2 shots. At mid range it would start becoming more usable but would be in a sort of grey area as a lot of other weapons could still function within this range as well, making the DMR very difficult to be successful with in this range but totally workable in skilled hands. Perhaps this could be because of a mixture of a very long range scope and now noticeable recoil when zoomed? Long range is where this weapon would truly find success, as no other weapon would have the combined range, quickness, and accuracy that it has there.

LR:
This one was tough as its nearly in direct competition with the DMR but the idea is while it maybe slightly more versatile, its more subtle weaknesses are that its reticles are less pinpoint than the DMR, zoomed fire-rate is the slowest of all precision weapons, and its shots are very apparent in revealing your firing position. Which all means a clever reactive opponent will be able to get out of the way more easily and immediately know at least your general location. The reason the weapon has more versatility is most likely because its unzoomed reticle is much more forgiving than that of the DMR. However, being a precision weapon, this still makes its close range not that strong and the weapon would sorely be lacking in mid-range whereas the DMR would do slightly better in that field. If needed, perhaps it should have no hitscan.
BR:
Your good Ol' mid-range jack-of-all-trades, master of none precision weapon. Usable in close, comfortable in mid, and still functional but increasingly unreliable in long. Those who enjoy the convenience of precision weapons in past Halo games will probably most enjoy this rifle. This might make the BR end up being one of the most used weapons but I think thats okay so long as its not the best of its class in any regard. Just means if you could only use one weapon in your loadout then the BR would likely be your best bet, which is certainly a strength in of itself.
Carbine:
The most potent mid-range precision weapon with the lowest kill-time compared to all the others because of the high amount of skill needed to pull it off successfully. Has a comparatively high accuracy spread compared to the others when unzoomed and higher spread than the BR per-shot when zoomed.
Magnum:
Changed to be used as a close range precision weapon. Would still have a similar lethality to H5 in the intended range but most likely couldn't be zoomed in with and would be a lot less accurate when used at mid-long range.
NR:
If the Needle Rifle were to come back it'd be the weakest of the precision weapons, with the longest time to kill, but also the most noob friendly with its auto-fire from simply holding down the trigger and the supercombine after landing multiple shots to the body. Would be most used in mid range as its damage is too low in close and at long range the accuracy is comparatively lacking to the other precision rifles. Campaign-wise, the supercombine would give it extra utility over the others.
Honestly, it fills a gap when you can’t get your hands on a sniper rifle. It serves a purpose and I like it for that reason.
Syxnrgy wrote:
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle mutually redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions, how it sounds, its animations— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes, let's be honest) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate its user.
You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even any other first-person shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork, given how nondescript and plain it looks. You don't see very much fan-art featuring the DMR, do you? Yet, there's tons featuring the BR— and I seriously doubt that that's just a coincidence.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary. The Needle-Rifle fulfills the same function in gameplay, is infinitely more interesting as a design, and even has its own unique functionality in the form of being fired full-auto— adding a new dimension to its uses and therefore having a higher skill-ceiling.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance— every design-aspect that the two weapons have in common: the BR does better. The BR is certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in-game, anyway— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics, beyond a dressed up game of peekaboo.

The DMR's existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin. Hanging there, like an appendix in Halo's body. Serving no vital purpose, prone-to-rottenness, and perfectly replaceable.
Note to you OP. You actually sound unskilled with how you understand the weapons and basis of skill.
Irrelevant. Blatant Ad Hominem. Contribute to the topic, please.
Using latin doesnt annul that fact.

OP TL;DR "Saying a weapon is bad because they cant use it, or describes why they cant use it which falls down to them not being able to aim or fundamentally control the outcome... this is a lack of base level of skils... the other stuff is just cheap aesthetic or canon "reasoning" which has no fallible identity in a gameplay sense."

You want to understand... how about this practice, gain experience and understand the niche the weapon falls in. Understand how it fundamentally operates (or the intentions) inside the game engine. The DMR is actually a light-weight Sniper Rifle... the Battle Rifle is an all purpose utility weapon.
Syxnrgy wrote:
Syxnrgy wrote:
The DMR is the least interesting, most unappealing weapon in the human arsenal. Its presence in the games renders it and the Battle Rifle mutually redundant, and virtually everything about it is painfully boring and dull. How it looks, how it fires, how it functions, how it sounds, its animations— it's all utterly bland. Even compared to the rest of humanity's weapons (which aren't exactly a sight for sore eyes, let's be honest) the DMR struggles to inspire or captivate its user.
You could put it in literally any other Sci-Fi universe — Hell, probably even any other first-person shooter — and it would fit right in. Probably also fade into the woodwork, given how nondescript and plain it looks. You don't see very much fan-art featuring the DMR, do you? Yet, there's tons featuring the BR— and I seriously doubt that that's just a coincidence.
Everything about the DMR is sleep-inducingly boring and unnecessary. The Needle-Rifle fulfills the same function in gameplay, is infinitely more interesting as a design, and even has its own unique functionality in the form of being fired full-auto— adding a new dimension to its uses and therefore having a higher skill-ceiling.

The Battle Rifle at least had its three-round-burst going for it, and was an iconic weapon by way of having an interesting appearance— every design-aspect that the two weapons have in common: the BR does better. The BR is certainly a better sounding weapon, in any regard. Both weapons are boring to use and cheap to deal with, in-game, anyway— when it comes to either one, the result of a firefight between two players is usually determined by "who shot first" and "who saw the other player first". Not exactly encouraging skillful tactics, beyond a dressed up game of peekaboo.

The DMR's existence somewhat cheapens the battle rifle's in terms of canon. The BR was said to be an extremely popular weapon in infantry and in the army— it even had the quote: "when you go into battle, you take your battle-rifle". The DMR is basically just the BR's less charismatic, marginally more effective, incestuous cousin. Hanging there, like an appendix in Halo's body. Serving no vital purpose, prone-to-rottenness, and perfectly replaceable.
Note to you OP. You actually sound unskilled with how you understand the weapons and basis of skill.
Irrelevant. Blatant Ad Hominem. Contribute to the topic, please.
Using latin doesnt annul that fact.

OP TL;DR "Saying a weapon is bad because they cant use it, or describes why they cant use it which falls down to them not being able to aim or fundamentally control the outcome... this is a lack of base level of skils... the other stuff is just cheap aesthetic or canon "reasoning" which has no fallible identity in a gameplay sense."

You want to understand... how about this practice, gain experience and understand the niche the weapon falls in. Understand how it fundamentally operates (or the intentions) inside the game engine. The DMR is actually a light-weight Sniper Rifle... the Battle Rifle is an all purpose utility weapon.
Literally nothing about my original post had anything to do with my experience using the weapon. You are making baseless assumptions.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2