Hi, my name is Ben, I'm a hardcore Halo/Bungie fan, and I'm glad that Halo: Reach is Bungie's last Halo game.

   Do I think that Bungie is a bad developer, or that their ruining the Halo franchise? Of course not, I've absolutely loved every single Bungie developed Halo game so far.

   Do I think that another developer could make a better Halo game than Bungie? Not really, Bungie created the Halo universe and they know it better than anyone else.

   Then why am I glad that Halo: Reach is Bungie's last Halo game? It's simple, the fans are holding them back.

   My son and I have been playing the Halo: Reach beta every single day since it went live on the 3rd. My inital impression the first time I played it? I hated it. Now this is coming from someone who has read every single Halo novel, participated in every single Bungie community event since Halo: Combat Evolved came out, bought more swag from Bungie.net than you can shake a stick at, read every single Bungie Weekly Update, and has been a member of Bungie.net since the beginning. I am extremely excited about the single player campaign for Halo: Reach, but so far I am not that impressed by the multiplayer.

My problems with the Halo: Reach beta go farther than just the weapons, gametypes, maps, or gameplay. My problem is that Halo's fanbase has Bungie on such a short leash that they are unable to bring Halo's multiplayer into the modern age. Now I know that this is "just a beta" and that "things could change", but I particpated in the Halo 3 beta and while some things did change, overall it was the same game from the beta.

In the years since Halo cemented first person shooters as a dominant genre on consoles, Halo's multiplayer hasn't changed that much, while companies like Infinity Ward have really raised the bar in terms of character progression, rewards, and features. While armor abilities feel like Bungie's way of acknowledging these advances in modern first person shooters, they don't go far enough. At this point the ability to "run" should be a standard feature in all first person shooters, kind of like the ability to "jump". Especially when you factor in the fact that in Halo your playing as genetically enhanced supersoldiers wearing highly advanced armor that further enhances their abilities.

And why even bother with loadouts if you can't customize them? That's what makes loadouts awesome in Modern Warfare, that ability to customize them to your own personal play style. And why take out the Battle Rifle? Why can't the DMR and the Battle Rifle coexist? You know what they say about someone who tries to make everyone happy? They end up making nobody happy.

I feel like, and of course I may be completely off here, Bungie probably would be willing to take more of the features that the Call of Duty and Modern Warfare games have brought to the table and incorporate them into Halo were it not for the inevitable public outcry from the Halo community. In recent years, the Call of Duty and Modern Warfare games have become so popular that many have begun taking sides: either your a Halo player or a Call of Duty/Modern Warfare player. I am both and that is why I would like to see a merger of the two. As soon as Bungie announced that Halo: Reach would have "loadouts", fans immediately began to cry foul.

I just hope that whoever develops the next non-Bungie Halo game doesn't let the fans scare them into just rehashing what has already been done. Don't be scared to take the franchise, and more specifically the multiplayer, in new and fresh directions. Bring Halo's muliplayer into the modern age. Give us a game where the ability to "run" is as normal as the ability to "jump", or where 60fps is the norm. Don't treat Halo like it exists in a vacuum, look at what has become standard in other modern first person shooters and see where it can be improved upon.

In closing let me just say that if you need proof that fans can ruin a franchise you need look no further than Socom. Socom: Confrontation for the PS3 is a prime example where trying to please the hardcore fans ruined the game. Socom 3 was easily the best Socom game (and if you don't agree with this then you are part of the problem), not only did it finally feature Navy Seals that could swim(gasp!), it featured double the player count of Socom 2, awesome vehicles, wepons and attachments, and ginormous maps. But Slant Six let the hardcore fans bully them into making a game that was a step backward from Socom 3, and then those same fans still bitched because it wasn't made by Zipper and it was just more of the same.

So my advice to developers: Don't be afraid to break the mold.

You're not asking them to break the mold, you're asking them to use someone else's mold.  COD and Halo are two completely different franchises, and if Reach turned into COD i would be extremely disappointed.  I'm already a little on edge about armor abilities, but fortunately I can just go play slayer pro to solve that mostly, and they make sense for invasion, so that's ok. 
 
The new weapons are awesome, the DMR is much more skill based than the BR, and I don't see why you have an issue with it. 
 
Overall, they're doing exactly what I want from the last Halo game.  They're improving on their formula to make it as close to perfect as they can get, they're adding on a crap load of new features/weapons/gametypes etc, and they're making a damn great looking game. 
 
Personally I'm more excited for Reach than any other game at the moment. 
 
To sum up, keep cod out a ma haloz.  There's enough cod in this world as it is.

I'm not sure COD is definitely the way to go, but I agree with the sentiment that the fans are holding it back. Essentially this is more of the same Halo, not necessarily a bad thing, but nothing really revolutionary has changed. They are taking steps to make it more like Halo 1 and even though Halo 1 had excellent multiplayer at the the time, it's style is pretty dated now.
 
Don't get me wrong, I too am excited for Reach's single player, and the multiplayer grew on me, but I feel like there is so much that Bungie could do, to make this a truly break out last game for the Halo Franchise.

I'm a massive fan of Halo; I've read all the novels, played all the games and know far more about the fiction than any man should and there are some great people out there in the Halo fanbase, especially on the Halo fan sites but unfortunately the ones who garner the most attention within the Halo community seem to be the worst kinds of people (perhaps because these people can't keep their mouths shut). When most people think of problem Halo fans they think of children screaming expletives into a headset and while those kinds of kids do exist in rather large numbers in just my first few days on the Bungie forums I discovered what could possibly be a much worse group of people. Sadly a sizable chunk of the Halo fanbase is filled with egotistical elitists constantly complaining about the game they play so much and yet at the same time never quitting it, despite often complaining it is one of the worst games ever made. For these people Bungie can do nothing right and they will endlessly rant on about why Bungie should change the game to suit their specific views and opinions. Even now there are people dictating massive changes to Bungie on the Reach feedback forums and presumably think Bungie are going to create their dream game.  
 
With the beta in full effect and Bungie eager to absorb as much feedback as possible at this time they've got a very tough task filtering out the average whiners from those who may provide genuinely useful information about the beta, however I doubt that these fans are the cause of the overall direction Bungie are taking with the final Halo game. Martin O'Donnell stated that this is "the definitive Halo from the people who made Halo", they do seem to want to take one last crack at the traditional formula to perfect everything they can instead of trying to revolutionise Halo. I can understand why people would like to see a completely different Halo game but I believe that while you can blame a game for doing something badly you cannot blame it for what it is not trying to do. This may be the end of the line for a bold, risky Halo from Bungie but I'm sure if Bungie have something new to bring to the table that's what we'll be seeing in their new IP. To be honest even if Microsoft did allow a different company to develop a new experimental Halo game post-Reach I still doubt it would be as good as anything Bungie could have made.

" They are taking steps to make it more like Halo 1 and even though Halo 1 had excellent multiplayer at the the time, it's style is pretty dated now."

" @Slax said:

" They are taking steps to make it more like Halo 1 and even though Halo 1 had excellent multiplayer at the the time, it's style is pretty dated now."

I've never understood this argument. How exactly is the Halo formula dated? What revolutionary new gameplay innovation has there been within the FPS genre since 2001, that Bungie is stupid for neglecting? On the multiplayer side of things, I can't think of a single example (that would fit within the Halo formula).  To the OP: Well-written blog. I disagree with most of it, though.   My main question is: how does adding progressive weapon unlocks and user-determined custom loadouts improve the Halo formula? Neither of them fit within the design of the game, which has always been about placing players on an even-footing and then allowing the best to rise to the top through skill and smarts. Adopting the Modern Warfare model would mean throwing out the careful balance that Bungie has tried to cultivate. "

Martin O'Donnell stated that this is "the definitive Halo from the people who made Halo", 

"

 Well written blog, i agree on most points.
 

@crunchUK said:

" As fossil said, what the hell does unlocks do other than cheapen the game and simply make it less exciting and fun? Reviews don't factor in the long term playability, but halo has it. It's the game you can always rely on to enjoy, hundreds and hundreds of hours of playtime in. I have a good feeling about Reach as well, not so much invasion, but if they can get the shit together it too. "

COD in Halo is the one thing I never want to see, I am very glad that they didn't take anything from COD. The one thing with Reach is that they seem to doing their own thing while listening to the fans, listening to the podcasts this is the impression I get, if they did listen to their vocal fans the BR would still be in Reach. 

Martin O'Donnell stated that this is "the definitive Halo from the people who made Halo", 

"

It's Marty not Martin. "

Wow, thanks for all the really awesome, well written comments, I really thought I was gonna get ripped to pieces for this one, lol.  
@jinxman:@Slax:@Gamer_152:@Fosssil:@Agent47CSim2:@crunchUK:@Rowr:@ShaneDev:@FixerofDeath:
I don't want Bungie to just rip anyone off, I just want them to recognize the advances made in FPS's since Halo came out. Halo's been around for close to a decade and still clings to older gameplay styles. I remember when things like the ability to "jump", or "reload animations", or "look up and down" were not standard features. Almost all modern FPS's feature the ability to "run", or "aim down sights", or "customize weapon loadouts" as standard gameplay features. There was a time when the idea of any FPS being bigger than Halo was just crazy talk, and then Modern Warfare came along and all of the sudden Halo was the #2 FPS franchise in terms of sales. If Halo is to reclaim it's throne at the top it needs to be willing to keep up with the times. And I really like the DMR, but I'm also a fan of "burst fire" weapons, so I don't think there's anyone reason why we can't have more than one kind of the same style of weapon, something else that's become pretty standard.
    I'm not saying Halo's gameplay is bad, just dated. I love playing Halo multiplayer, even the Halo: Reach beta has me really liking it now. I just can't seem to quit feeling like it could be so much more had they fully embraced modern FPS features. By having things like "loadouts" , "crosshair bloom", and "armor unlocks", it feels like Bungie is just half assing it. I agree that Halo has a dynamic to it that makes games memorable in a way that other games have yet to figure out, but man, if you could mix that special "Halo dynamic" with things like a meaningful progression system, or other modern features, no other game could compete.

It seems like you want them to make Call of Duty: Alien Invasion and Space Marine Apocalypse Edition. 
The reasons why you hate it is the exact reason why I like it- they're not d-riding MW2's success to the bank. They're making their own game. They're not creating a horribly unbalanced but somehow popular multiplayer by letting players who play longer get the best weapons. If you want that, play CoD/BC2/any shooter. Sprint also is not something that should be standard; it's not the way Halo works. 
 
Before you say "But that means the fanbase is holding Halo back", it's not. It's called "Halo is keeping its identity and doing new stuff while making Halo still feel like Halo".

"  Well written blog, i agree on most points.
 

@crunchUK said:

" As fossil said, what the hell does unlocks do other than cheapen the game and simply make it less exciting and fun? Reviews don't factor in the long term playability, but halo has it. It's the game you can always rely on to enjoy, hundreds and hundreds of hours of playtime in. I have a good feeling about Reach as well, not so much invasion, but if they can get the shit together it too. "

O bullshit. Sure modern warfare went a little overboard with it, but it adds a depth and replayability. By comparison Halo is showing its age in the genre, theres just not enough there to keep it interesting for more than 20 hours or so. Especially when you consider that people have put hundreds of hours into halo 2 and 3 already.   Of course this question of lack of depth is something pc gamers have seen in halo since inception. It's just now caught up on console with modern warfare and battlefield. I gotta say i'm a little dissapointed after some time with the beta, i was expecting alot more out of reach. "

" @Rowr: The fact that people have invested hundreds of hours into Halo 2 and 3 without a bunch of extraneous rewards to encourage them to play more is a testament to the depth and variety offered by Halo. Would people be as invested in the latest CoD games (CoD4, WaW, and MW2) without the progression system? Would the core gameplay of Modern Warfare 2 be dynamic enough to keep players coming back without gimmicks and artificial rewards? I'm guessing not. Personally, I've found it easy to walk away from MW2, despite the weapon unlocks, because the core game is so fundamentally unbalanced and the skill gap is so small. "

The problem with people today is they think "super successful game" = "new standard for all games of that genre". If we followed that path, all FPS games would essentially be MW2 reskins.

" The problem with people today is they think "super successful game" = "new standard for all games of that genre". If we followed that path, all FPS games would essentially be MW2 reskins. "