Skip to main content

Forums / Community / General Discussion

THIS IS HALO (From the Horse's Mouth)

OP XCalamityJamesX

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. ...
  9. 15
S1erra107 wrote:
Um, no, this is Halo
Even a 2 year old could snipe in H3 because everyone moved so slow.
wizecracker117, it is because of comments like these that make me believe you have either never played older Halos or have absolutely no idea and just run around commenting on forums. One of the biggest things I hate about Halo 5 is the sniper and how easy it is to headshot people. The huge hit box coupled with bullet magnetism to compensate for sprint is so annoying. Halo 3 snipers was my first 50 rank and I got that going in solo, so I know how sniper played in Halo 3.

In Halo 5 the snipers game mode is a joke, where the only kills people get are headshots. At first I thought people got better with aiming before I noticed I don't even have to bother to aim exactly on the head to get the headshots. I was laughing out loud at how easy it was no scoping people :D
I agree, you can guess the age of people when they express hate for older Halo games and hate for Legendaries that love older halo games. why? Bungie had most of their fans hooked and most gamers from that era who are still here now knows this op is on point. Unlike this new halo that has a split community of lovers and haters, Bungie made sure all players who were on board were having fun (examples of bungie's passion shown in the video) and those who were not having fun in halo went to "sprint" around in a simple basic COD FPS. folks it is as simple as that, if you claim to be a pioneer gamer of halo, you should express your appreciation for the pioneer developers as well; otherwise you only tried and failed or too young at the time to fully understand the "golden triangle" of halo, or it is all just faking by playing MCC to trick people that you are a pioneer. MCC multiplayer does not represent Old-Bungie's version of Halo so you can't just play MCC and then shout "I'm a legendary" no you have to have been an active player during that time who fully understood the concepts of those older games multiplayer modes.

Sniping in halo 3 did feel more genuine as compared to the generic feel in halo 5. the reason behind this is halo 3 was developed for a more mature audience that understood how to properly use a marksman rifle, halo 5 is dumbed down so that a younger gamer can easily handle a sniper rifle "pew,pew,pew". the developers in the op's video seem to be making halo for a mature audience 17-and up while here i guess halo 5 major age group is ages 10-17 correct me if I'm wrong!?!
And notice how Bungie threw all of that out the window with Reach so do us all a favor and stop.
And 343 made everything even worse? Remember Halo 4? Everybody say "it`s the beta for Halo 5" - now everyone say`n that Halo 5 was just the Beta for Halo 6.

I will buy/pre-order Halo 6 because I ike the series, but I hate what 343 made with that awesome game.
Here's a video of Bungie devs talking about building the multiplayer experience in Halo 3: https://youtu.be/p7eOybnH0uA
Notice how they mention things like "the halo canon" and "the golden 3 things of halo" (5:10) which don't include sprint, armor abilities and all the other shenanigans 343 has been up to.

You want to know what Halo REALLY is and why most veterans think Halo 5 is non-sense, here you go.

New-age fanboys will hate.
Yeah it includes Pick up items which also disrupt gameplay... But hey, let's go with nostalgia and not advance Halo. I would much rather people complain that Halo is the game that is copy and pasted instead of call of duty.

Also, they talk about how dual wielding you can't melee or throw grenades... So... so much for the golden triangle argument. Also the "Golden Triangle" argument was talking about how to use it alongside the AR... Which you still have to do. Throwing a grenade before shooting is still better generally. Or shooting then meleeing. Sprint doesn't detract form the golden triangle while using the AR.
Hey guys. Games change and evolve. FYI.
Halo hasn't evolved, it has dumbed down
I love how people bring up Halo Reach and shove it in your face while screaming "LOOK BUNGIE GONE AND -Yoinked!- UP" and yeah to be honest Reach is more like an early proof of concept for Destiny. But if you look closer you will also see that Reach was the first game that 343i had a hand in creating. Josh Holmes who worked at 343 at the time is cited as executive producer of reach. Maybe not a super important role in the grand scheme of things but it does show that 343 were somehow involved in Reach.
I really had to laugh at the term "new-age fanboys"
Ugh threads like this make the Vets look bad.

If you are going to make a thread like this atleast have a cohesive arguement with reasoning, examples, evidence etc. Putting up a video of the Bungie devs and saying "THIS HALO" is not effective.

However, that being said, there have been many clear, concise and well explained and backed up threads like this (without "hate" and such), but in most cases from what I've seen-those who are supporting things like sprint often make remarks of "a wall of text, I'm not reading that" or use an ad hominem attack, ignoring the points made and turn it into an "us vs them" debate rather than focus on the points. And vice versa. It works both ways guys.
SQU1FFY v2 wrote:
I love how people bring up Halo Reach and shove it in your face while screaming "LOOK BUNGIE GONE AND -Yoinked!- UP" and yeah to be honest Reach is more like an early proof of concept for Destiny. But if you look closer you will also see that Reach was the first game that 343i had a hand in creating. Josh Holmes who worked at 343 at the time is cited as executive producer of reach. Maybe not a super important role in the grand scheme of things but it does show that 343 were somehow involved in Reach.
Actually, the whole reach messed up arguement is so flawed in my eyes, All you had to do was disable armour abilities and it was basically the same as classic halo, aside from bloom and the new weapons of course, but it's far closer to the original formula than halo 5 is. Halo reaches maps were very good. And before anyone says it, no, they were not ripped from the campaign, they were made for multiplayer (proof is one of them is an ivory tower remake, and that map was in the campaign, I also believe they said this in a 'Vidoc'). Further, in Halo 5, if you turned off sprint and all the other new things, you still won't have it classic, because the maps are stretched out to accomodate for us always having the option to sprint.

In short,in Reach was still possible to play it classic or close to it (again with exception of weapons and such) because teleporters, man cannons etc compensated for the players who didn't use sprint. But in halo 5, since we all have sprint, no more teleporters, man cannons, and now stretched out maps, making it very hard to recreate of get close to classic halo without delicately forging a map to fit.

An extra point- Without sprint, teleporters were the way to have "fast map movement" that all the pro sprint players talk about. It also brings an element of map control (watching the enemy and teleporter nodes was often key to victory). No, I don't "hate" sprint, I'm only explaining its impact as a comparison between reach and Halo 5, as I see that many are overexagerrating in regards to the changes bungie did with reach. And finally, it shipped complete, and kept me occupied for close to two years. I enjoyed it more than halo 3 in some ways, purely because of things like invasion, custom firefight, challenges, and the unlock system/customization, as well as the events and playlists (unique ones, such as 5v5, for 'clans', and the crazy action sack variants). Would it have been better without armour abilities? No, as I saw it add variety to things like invasion and custom modes, as well as social gametypes and playlists. In 4v4 (arena) Yes, no armour abilities would have been far better. And this is coming from a Vet who is more a "purist" or whatever the running name is these days. I believe the solution after reach would have been to simply keep armour abilities as they were, but only for social playlists. Reduce the speed the sprint ability gave, and have competitive playlist only have things like clamber and the Halo 5 iteration of the thruster pack. Obviously, armour lock and evade, and obviously the reach thruster pack are exceptions, as those were not exactly good and the thruster in H5 is better implemented.

So therefore, we would have the drop shield, sprint, Jet pack, and maybe some of the new abilities developed in Halo 4, for custom games/social, and to an extent the campaign. As with reach, armour abilities made traversing and getting out of the map quite fun. Then in competitive/arena style modes, we have a buffed base speed as MLG matches did with H3, without armour abilities. That should make everyone happy yes?
Only if games could stay as they were in the 90's and early 00's. That was the golden age of gaming... Never Forget.
Here's a video of Bungie devs talking about building the multiplayer experience in Halo 3: https://youtu.be/p7eOybnH0uA
Notice how they mention things like "the halo canon" and "the golden 3 things of halo" (5:10) which don't include sprint, armor abilities and all the other shenanigans 343 has been up to.

You want to know what Halo REALLY is and why most veterans think Halo 5 is non-sense, here you go.

New-age fanboys will hate.
I'm always astounded by Halo 5 haters... who have Achilles.

Doesn't make sense, IMO.
We're not saying that we hate Halo 5 necessarily. We are saying that the original Halos were WAY better. Halo has been on a steep decline sense that game mechanics were changed.
Hey guys. Games change and evolve. FYI.
Halo hasn't evolved, it has dumbed down
Yes I'd have to agree. The point of evolution is to adapt to the environment to survive better, and yet Halos numbers are dwindling by release, which indicates it is certainly not evolving, as it's hardly surviving months after launch (my matchmaking times are absurd for example).

Now, I'll try to give an example to best illustrate this. Let's say that...Fps games are say, a species in some environment. We will say halo was close if not at the top of the food chain in the Halo 3 and start of Reach days (after reach is when it started to dwindle, not as dramatically as now though). It was able to out compete it's species. However, the other species developed new traits (in the fps genre, this would be sprint, ADS, perks, etc). So those games got on top for a while, 2010 or so, until around the end of 2015. (Modern warfare, battlefield etc). The halo species then went down on this food chain. So instead of developing new traits like the other species did, it tried to imitate them (Halo 4, and to a LEESER extent Halo 5-no I'm not saying they are copying cod, I'm saying they aren't making any new fps ideas, or refreshing ina unique way). Obviously, this does not work out, as those species already were perfectly adapted (I.e found a perfect audience and fanbase, that fanbase won't switch due to shared "traits") . And now, the Arena type "species" (Doom, Overwatch) are making a comeback on our imaginary food chain (look at Overwatch on PC, record numbers). These species innovated (neither of them have sprint btw, and are still very fast paced). Halo insisted on changing in a way that wasn't successful, instead of innovating what they had ( Overwatch borrows heavily from team fortress 2, which was big in the halo 3 days, still sort of is). Now we see the CoD style species (sprint, ads, jet packs wall running etc etc the mainstream) losing out, and the Arena style species coming back on top (COD is losing a lot of fans).

Therefore, you can see that the main factor of evolution is the environment. In this example, the environment (audience) is bored of the same type/design of fps games (many fps games are similar to cod) Overwatch and doom are completely new to this generation of gamers who didn't play arena style games. I.e probably started fps gaming/multiplayer with Modern warfare 1/2, those were likely their first experience with games or online gaming. Even players from my generation who really only started online multiplayer with cod, so it's not an age thing, more of what the audience started with. And now, the audience as a whole is bored with this kind of fps. So now they flock to Overwatch and doom-to a lesser extent, and soon Batllefield 1, which is, surprise surprise, going back to its roots. That's 3 games, going back to the classic formula of fps or formula unique to the franchise (battlefield to the classic battlefield style, from what I've seen, and Overwatch inspired by TF2). So why can't halo go back? Why can't we have teleporters in arena again? Why do we need sprint? If you like it just for the animation, then simply have sprint increase movement by only a small amount, which prevents it's negative effects (say base speed is 100%, then sprint adds 5%?)-to prevent stretched maps, prevent easy escape, no more slow base speed (this is why people crouch strafe as base speed is too slow to have normal strafing be effect, plus the aim assist and magnetism of course). There are many alternatives and improvements to be made. Think of innovation and refreshing what worked rather than changing and diluting it to something else.

If the example made no sense, just say so, I tried to give a proper evolutionary type example, as it seems people think evolution is simply change, it is not. Unnecessary change is not evolution.
Halo was better when it was Bungie. But we all are getting used to it.
And notice how Bungie threw all of that out the window with Reach so do us all a favor and stop.
And I thank them for that because Halo Reach is one of my favorite story/gameplay game. Trading sprint for jet pack or invis really made you think.
nekrulz wrote:
I really had to laugh at the term "new-age fanboys"
Same... Hey OP... Can you classify your vision of "New Age Fanboys"... I really want to laugh even more and disagree with you more...
Magnyss wrote:
slvr cobra wrote:
slvr cobra wrote:
Aaand Reach received much less positive feedback than Halo 3.
Never said liking Halo 5 is impossible for veterans. I've been onboard since CE and yes I've even played it on PC. Still I think Halo 5 is a decent game for what it's trying to be.

I just don't see it as a true Halo game and if you don't understand that then yeah you're probably new around here.
Considering Bungie considered Reach to be a "true Halo game"...
It was more of a Halo game than 5, that's for damn sure. I love how all anybody does to counteract his argument is talk -Yoink- about Reach.

Without giving any examples to boot.
I also talked about Dual Wielding in Halo 2 & 3, because that worked so well.

If you need examples for Reach, Sprint, Jetpack, Armor Lock, DMR Bloom
Sprint was pretty much a non-element in Reach. It's not unlimited like the other games and in AA-based modes you had to give something else up to use it.

JP and AL were disabled in pro modes. They did still suck in regular matchmaking but I think their usefulness in Customs and Campaign/Firefight justify their existence.

Bloom I'll admit was too strong, but ultimately necessary to keep precision weapons from being overpowered.
What exactly is/was DMR Bloom? No idea...
Spartan III's have the incredible ability of making bullets exit their DMR/Magnum at various, nonsensical angles.
Hey guys. Games change and evolve. FYI.
Halo hasn't evolved, it has dumbed down
No it has evolved. You may not like the evolution, but you can't deny it has evolved.
SQU1FFY v2 wrote:
I love how people bring up Halo Reach and shove it in your face while screaming "LOOK BUNGIE GONE AND -Yoinked!- UP" and yeah to be honest Reach is more like an early proof of concept for Destiny. But if you look closer you will also see that Reach was the first game that 343i had a hand in creating. Josh Holmes who worked at 343 at the time is cited as executive producer of reach. Maybe not a super important role in the grand scheme of things but it does show that 343 were somehow involved in Reach.
Did you look at Zr0's comment and just said what he said, or did you always think that? I'm just curious because besides Zr0, 2 others have said the same thing, but there's no proof. One person who later worked at 343 shouldn't be responsible for Reach. It was Bungie who should take full responsibility.
Here's a video of Bungie devs talking about building the multiplayer experience in Halo 3: https://youtu.be/p7eOybnH0uA
Notice how they mention things like "the halo canon" and "the golden 3 things of halo" (5:10) which don't include sprint, armor abilities and all the other shenanigans 343 has been up to.

You want to know what Halo REALLY is and why most veterans think Halo 5 is non-sense, here you go.

New-age fanboys will hate.
Agreed with but still you're not addressing Warzone scale maps etc. plus Halo Reach had the best infection, which included the ability sprint and infasprint for alpha infected
Justima wrote:
Quote:
No, I don't think the golden triangle is a good argument, and I'm saying that as a classic fan. There's been so many exceptions to the golden triangle in the original games alone, and as a description itself it's very open-ended and vague, it could fit several games that clearly aren't Halo. "Guns, grenades, melee." Give CSGO a melee button and suddenly it's Halo right? Melee was entirely situational in Halo Ce as well, definitely not some major part of the game.
If the golden triangle is broken, Halo is broken.
So halo was broken in halo 2, 3, reach, 4, and 5? Wow, halo really needs to fix itself. There have been 5 broken halo games, and only 2 regular ones. Man halo's in bad shape /s.
do you know how to properly use the golden triangle?
Um, yes, but I'm not really sure what you mean by that.
it was not broken in halo 2 and 3 imo. your thoughts?
Dual wielding. 'Nuff said.
Dual Wielding did not break the Golden Triangle, but it caused the problem that players used less melee and grenade due to its weapon drop when done these. Bungie acknowledged the problem and tuned down the usage of Duel Wielding by making your spawn primary weapon to Assault and Battle Rifle in Halo 3.
Dual wielding did not let you throw grenades or melee without dropping your second gun. So, that really did break the triangle. They made it less common, but it still existed, which means the triangle was still broken.
dual wielding was an alternative, what broke the triangle was something much more valuable in halo.
Are you saying I haven't figured it out yet? My only 2 thoughts are vehicles and equipment that broke the triangle in halo 2/3.
Quote:
No, I don't think the golden triangle is a good argument, and I'm saying that as a classic fan. There's been so many exceptions to the golden triangle in the original games alone, and as a description itself it's very open-ended and vague, it could fit several games that clearly aren't Halo. "Guns, grenades, melee." Give CSGO a melee button and suddenly it's Halo right? Melee was entirely situational in Halo Ce as well, definitely not some major part of the game.
If the golden triangle is broken, Halo is broken.
So halo was broken in halo 2, 3, reach, 4, and 5? Wow, halo really needs to fix itself. There have been 5 broken halo games, and only 2 regular ones. Man halo's in bad shape /s.
do you know how to properly use the golden triangle?
Um, yes, but I'm not really sure what you mean by that.
it was not broken in halo 2 and 3 imo. your thoughts?
Dual wielding. 'Nuff said.
That is exactly why early halo games are favored so much, because maybe 343 thinks dual wielding is all it is too. The golden triangle is much more than just dual wielding.
It the golden triangle is broken by dual wielding. You can't throw a grenade or melee while dual wielding, so it breaks the triangle.

Just to let everyone know, I'm going to bed, so don't wait up for a reply.
there is more secrets to the sacred golden triangle but i guess we can discuss later
Wait, Triangle? Secrets?
Spoiler:
Show
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. ...
  9. 15