As much as i like Halo 4 i feel like some decisions ruin what was fun about the previous games with regard to multiplayer. Ordinance drops and loadouts succeed at making the game more fast paced and dynamic but they also rob the game of strategic elements from halos past. In past games, teams gained the upper hand in multiplayer by means of map control. Controlling sections of the map ensured your team had ample access to vehicles, weapons, and powerups that allowed you to achieve a win over the other team.

With the randomness of the on map ordinance drops, it's nearly guaranteed that there is no point to hanging out where the sniper rifle was to begin with because it will likely not be there the next time one spawns. This would not be bad if not for the fact that some weapons need to be evenly distributed in reachable locations so that when a team that's losing has their back to the wall, they can depend on that weapon to appear there and break the siege if they can time it right.

Two things that have always been about about halo multiplayer has always been you, the player, starting with a serviceable weapon and then had to pickup a better weapon from locations on the map and running up on somebody and bashing them in the face at close range. Loadouts break these 2 things. Going back to the concept of map control, I no longer have to run for a more central spot on the map to pick up a long range rifle because now i can start with it at any time. While some will applaud this, they're missing the point. This change makes close range weapons like the AR as well as our beloved melee bashes to the face a thing of the past. You're sure to be gunned down like so many grunts we've collectively shot in the face before you even get within spitting distance of your target.

It's not that i think Halo 4 is bad, it's just that i feel like their attempts to make it more competitive with other popular shooters like Call of Duty have cheapened the things that made the franchise fun to start with. Some of the things that made halo fun are missing here. I want to be able to do crazy things like rushing people who are camped out in areas of the map or be able see someone heading for an area of the map and have a hint at what they're headed for over there.

In my opinion, the game lacks consistency, at least in its current state, and i know 343 will listen to what the community wants from them (link to thread below). I just hope that we, the community, will be good about voicing the things we loved about the franchise. So this is my plea to my fellow Bombers to not accept what was in the box as the definitive Halo 4 multiplayer experience. Make your voice heard in the thread below and help shape the game we all love to play.

https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst137400_TELL-343---Halo-4-Playlist-Preferences.aspx

I disagree about the ordnance drops - I'd say that 'map control' is code for 'I have played this game more and therefore have memorized everything rather than actually being better'. However, you make a really good point about loadouts that I hadn't considered. You almost never see close range weapons come out.

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

@Veektarius said:

I disagree about the ordnance drops - I'd say that 'map control' is code for 'I have played this game more and therefore have memorized everything rather than actually being better'. However, you make a really good point about loadouts that I hadn't considered. You almost never see close range weapons come out.

Knowing what to do makes you better though. What else would "better" imply in a tactical game?

@Vinny_Says said:

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

This.

And you really miss AR/beatdown gameplay?

Halo 4's mp feels fresh and fun to me.

@Vinny_Says said:

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

I think that's done already.

If you're not going to bring anything new to the table, at least stay with the stuff that people like about the franchise.

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Veektarius said:

I disagree about the ordnance drops - I'd say that 'map control' is code for 'I have played this game more and therefore have memorized everything rather than actually being better'. However, you make a really good point about loadouts that I hadn't considered. You almost never see close range weapons come out.

Knowing what to do makes you better though. What else would "better" imply in a tactical game?

There are all kinds of tactics you can use in a game that has no 'hidden' drops to reward obsessive players. See Battlefield, the most tactical mainstream FPS out there. If the weapon drops were marked on the map as resource points that need to be defended, I would see it differently.

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Veektarius said:

I disagree about the ordnance drops - I'd say that 'map control' is code for 'I have played this game more and therefore have memorized everything rather than actually being better'. However, you make a really good point about loadouts that I hadn't considered. You almost never see close range weapons come out.

Knowing what to do makes you better though. What else would "better" imply in a tactical game?

There are all kinds of tactics you can use in a game that has no 'hidden' drops to reward obsessive players. See Battlefield, the most tactical mainstream FPS out there. If the weapon drops were marked on the map as resource points that need to be defended, I would see it differently.

Not quite the point I was trying to make. You said ""map control" is code for "I have played this game more and therefore have memorized everything rather than actually being better"" which implies that memorizing how to control the map is not the same thing as getting better. How is memorizing how to control the map not getting better?

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

@A_Talking_Donkey: Well, naturally, if you know secrets about the game, you're going to do better playing it. But this is without possessing any acquired skill or natural talent that should give you an advantage, such as muscle memory, tactical thinking, etc. A lot of people were brought up on shooters that utilize fixed drop points for weapons, I realize. But it wasn't until shooters began to move away from that and focus on less arcane mechanics that provided fewer "I win" buttons to experienced players that I started to like them. And having finally played Halo multiplayer with the advantage of some of the sniper rifles, rockets, and what have you that I always ignored before now that they're no longer hidden, these things are definitely "I win" buttons.

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: Well, naturally, if you know secrets about the game, you're going to do better playing it. But this is without possessing any acquired skill or natural talent that should give you an advantage, such as muscle memory, tactical thinking, etc. A lot of people were brought up on shooters that utilize fixed drop points for weapons, I realize. But it wasn't until shooters began to move away from that and focus on less arcane mechanics that provided fewer "I win" buttons to experienced players that I started to like them. And having finally played Halo multiplayer with the advantage of some of the sniper rifles, rockets, and what have you that I always ignored before now that they're no longer hidden, these things are definitely "I win" buttons.

How is acquisition of knowledge pertaining to game data and utilizing it to your advantage not the definition of skill? Rote memory is just as much of a skill as mechanical input. You're essentially saying "Yeah, sure it makes you a better player, but I don't like games that utilize feature-x so I don't count it as real skill." and then defining "real skill" as something arbitrary that pertains to the types of games you like. Halo 4 is not more or less skill or tactical based than previous titles, it just has a different flow. Controlling choke points is a skill, controlling weapon spawns is a skill, keeping your enemy away from weapons requires utilizing information better than your opponents and is thus a skill and tactical. I'm sorry you don't appreciate a certain style of game, but that doesn't make that game require less skill to play. The "I win buttons" are always in play for everyone to use so it isn't like they make the game unfair in any way. I would agree that if some people had "I win buttons" and some couldn't ever acquire "I win buttons" then the game would be unfair, and honestly load outs are closer to "I win" buttons since they can result in games that are asymmetric from the get go.

The on-map ordinance is random? I'm not sure it is. Every big team Ragnarok match starts with snipers in the bases and railguns set on the left and right hand sides of the maps. I can't say for the other maps, really, but it sure seems like things have a certain order about them. Nothing seems totally up to an invisible RNG.

As for the loadouts--I'm stunned more people are straight-up leapfrogging the fact that Reach did more or less the same thing, except they removed player agency from the whole situation. DMRs were standard spawn weapons in a bunch of playlists.

People talk serious game about "map control" in Halo. It's a buzzword I'm seeing more and more with folks trying desperately to manifest a criticism against Halo 4. In my experience, map control is not even the ultimate Halo-ism. The paramount experience I associate with Halo is having a powerful semi-auto weapon, fighting someone with the same (or a similar) weapon, and wiggling back and forth in this sort of Rifle Dance until someone drops. And then it's on to the next victim. In Combat Evolved, this was performed with the Pistol. Starting with 2 and bleeding into 3, it was performed with the Battle Rifle. In Reach, the DMR and Needle Rifle became the bread and butter. In 4, it's like a Greatest Hits collection of all the weapons we've come to know and love. And the Rifle Dance itself hasn't changed. There's no more or less skill necessary to succeed in said manner of confrontation than there ever has been. Loadouts, as much as people try to belabor their unnecessary gravity, don't affect this equation, apart from allowing you to, with greater immediacy, take part in the Rifle Dance.

Also, the Assault Rifle is incredibly viable. It is factually bogus to claim the weapon has no use, especially relative to the utility of Assault Rifles in past Halo games.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

I, for one, love all the changes. My favorite one is to not automatically zoom out of your scope when someone shoots you!  
 
And the little icons that show up on your HUD about where the weapons spawn are a godsend! 

It's tough to satisfy everyone. Hell, counter strike fans bicker over which patch is better than the other.

My friends and I have a history with the halo franchise, and we are generally unhappy with a lot of the changes in halo 4. I didnt' even buy the game after realizing it wasnt for me anymore. And that's okay.

Conversely some people, like Jeff on this site, wish they had made even more drastic changes to the core halo gameplay. So like I said, its tough

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: Well, naturally, if you know secrets about the game, you're going to do better playing it. But this is without possessing any acquired skill or natural talent that should give you an advantage, such as muscle memory, tactical thinking, etc. A lot of people were brought up on shooters that utilize fixed drop points for weapons, I realize. But it wasn't until shooters began to move away from that and focus on less arcane mechanics that provided fewer "I win" buttons to experienced players that I started to like them. And having finally played Halo multiplayer with the advantage of some of the sniper rifles, rockets, and what have you that I always ignored before now that they're no longer hidden, these things are definitely "I win" buttons.

How is acquisition of knowledge pertaining to game data and utilizing it to your advantage not the definition of skill? Rote memory is just as much of a skill as mechanical input. You're essentially saying "Yeah, sure it makes you a better player, but I don't like games that utilize feature-x so I don't count it as real skill." and then defining "real skill" as something arbitrary that pertains to the types of games you like. Halo 4 is not more or less skill or tactical based than previous titles, it just has a different flow. Controlling choke points is a skill, controlling weapon spawns is a skill, keeping your enemy away from weapons requires utilizing information better than your opponents and is thus a skill and tactical. I'm sorry you don't appreciate a certain style of game, but that doesn't make that game require less skill to play. The "I win buttons" are always in play for everyone to use so it isn't like they make the game unfair in any way. I would agree that if some people had "I win buttons" and some couldn't ever acquire "I win buttons" then the game would be unfair, and honestly load outs are closer to "I win" buttons since they can result in games that are asymmetric from the get go.

I don't consider it a skill because it isn't a challenge to watch a bunch of youtube videos that show you where drops are. You can call memorization a skill, but it isn't, at that level (and by that level, I mean remembering 4 or 5 things, and not say, 20). And I began this whole thing by saying I agreed with the OP regarding loadouts, so that's beside the point.

the MP feels smoother and better overall.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@OldManLight

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

I didn't mean you specifically. But if you search the Halo 4 forums, it's become sea of negativity and mostly about all the same stuff. It's becoming extremely annoying seeing every big release get shit on constantly as soon as they come out. Oh yeah and starting ordnance is not random. Perfect example is Ragnarok.

Are you new to video game forums? I don't mean to ask that in a rude or condescending way, I'm just wondering what you expected.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@OldManLight

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

I didn't mean you specifically. But if you search the Halo 4 forums, it's become sea of negativity and mostly about all the same stuff. It's becoming extremely annoying seeing every big release get shit on constantly as soon as they come out. Oh yeah and starting ordnance is not random. Perfect example is Ragnarok.

Are you new to video game forums? I don't mean to ask that in a rude or condescending way, I'm just wondering what you expected.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@YOU_DIED

@MariachiMacabre said:

@OldManLight

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

I didn't mean you specifically. But if you search the Halo 4 forums, it's become sea of negativity and mostly about all the same stuff. It's becoming extremely annoying seeing every big release get shit on constantly as soon as they come out. Oh yeah and starting ordnance is not random. Perfect example is Ragnarok.

Are you new to video game forums? I don't mean to ask that in a rude or condescending way, I'm just wondering what you expected.

That's no excuse. People bitch when it's not different and then bitch when they change it "too much".

You can't just say 'people' like it's one person that you can accuse of hypocrisy. Millions of people buy, play, and have opinions on games.

More importantly, regarding too much or too little change in a new entry to an established franchise: there is no catch-all answer to this because it depends on how much experience you have with the series as well as the nature of the game in question. I think you can retain the ideas behind a game which made it great in the first place and still change things up. It's only when you start changing those core ideas into something else that people start wondering what the fuck you are doing with their beloved series. I think this is why you'll hear some people say 'if this game had a different name the reaction to it would be better'.

The mp is fine. In fact it's better then fine it's awesome. I understand some people not being big fans of the changes but this is a new game with new ideas and for me it feels fresh and plays better then previous games while still playing like Halo. I'm not trying to sound like a dick but if you prefer those games you can still play them.

Halo 4's multiplayer at its core is really tight, it just needs a few tweaks. Instant re spawn needs to be toned down, Ordinance needs to be more predictable in terms of what you are getting weapon wise, and weapon spawns on the map should be a little more prominent to promote map control.

The core shooting, movement, and weapon balance are all really solid in this game, it also has some really good maps. Halo 4 is really fun unless you are getting rushed by shitty players in mass that are sprinting to you after their instant re spawn every time you kill them, I really hate losing to shit, sloppy players that rush in packs non stop.

I think they hit a happy medium with not changing too much and changing enough to keep the game fresh, and if you don't like the changes then why don't you play the old games? I'm sure there are still people playing Halo 3 or Reach (which by the way also had load-outs (non-customizable granted, but you could still spawn with most of the basic weapons like you can in Halo 4)).

They could use a few tweaks to the multiplayer, but overall it is pretty damn good. If you don't like it, then don't play it. And I suspect the multiplayer will change even more in Halo 5 (and 6).

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: Well, naturally, if you know secrets about the game, you're going to do better playing it. But this is without possessing any acquired skill or natural talent that should give you an advantage, such as muscle memory, tactical thinking, etc. A lot of people were brought up on shooters that utilize fixed drop points for weapons, I realize. But it wasn't until shooters began to move away from that and focus on less arcane mechanics that provided fewer "I win" buttons to experienced players that I started to like them. And having finally played Halo multiplayer with the advantage of some of the sniper rifles, rockets, and what have you that I always ignored before now that they're no longer hidden, these things are definitely "I win" buttons.

How is acquisition of knowledge pertaining to game data and utilizing it to your advantage not the definition of skill? Rote memory is just as much of a skill as mechanical input. You're essentially saying "Yeah, sure it makes you a better player, but I don't like games that utilize feature-x so I don't count it as real skill." and then defining "real skill" as something arbitrary that pertains to the types of games you like. Halo 4 is not more or less skill or tactical based than previous titles, it just has a different flow. Controlling choke points is a skill, controlling weapon spawns is a skill, keeping your enemy away from weapons requires utilizing information better than your opponents and is thus a skill and tactical. I'm sorry you don't appreciate a certain style of game, but that doesn't make that game require less skill to play. The "I win buttons" are always in play for everyone to use so it isn't like they make the game unfair in any way. I would agree that if some people had "I win buttons" and some couldn't ever acquire "I win buttons" then the game would be unfair, and honestly load outs are closer to "I win" buttons since they can result in games that are asymmetric from the get go.

I don't consider it a skill because it isn't a challenge to watch a bunch of youtube videos that show you where drops are. You can call memorization a skill, but it isn't, at that level (and by that level, I mean remembering 4 or 5 things, and not say, 20). And I began this whole thing by saying I agreed with the OP regarding loadouts, so that's beside the point.

@ajamafalous: I thought about it, and I think you're right. I tend to quit playing MP in first person shooters as soon as the maps start to feel familiar. So I guess I don't like them.

@Village_Guy said:

I think they hit a happy medium with not changing too much and changing enough to keep the game fresh, and if you don't like the changes then why don't you play the old games? I'm sure there are still people playing Halo 3 or Reach (which by the way also had load-outs (non-customizable granted, but you could still spawn with most of the basic weapons like you can in Halo 4)).

They could use a few tweaks to the multiplayer, but overall it is pretty damn good. If you don't like it, then don't play it. And I suspect the multiplayer will change even more in Halo 5 (and 6).

Concerning Reach's loadouts, they generally presented you with 5 different armor abilities coupled with the same gun; as in, you couldn't choose different weapons to spawn with in most cases. Pretty significant difference from Halo 4.

@MariachiMacabre said:

That's no excuse. People bitch when it's not different and then bitch when they change it "too much".

Right, and this case they made fundamental changes to a beloved series with a pretty dedicated fanbase, so naturally there will be some push-back. It's not like people are being disingenuous about their dislike of certain aspects of Halo 4.

@HistoryInRust said:

As for the loadouts--I'm stunned more people are straight-up leapfrogging the fact that Reach did more or less the same thing, except they removed player agency from the whole situation. DMRs were standard spawn weapons in a bunch of playlists.

People talk serious game about "map control" in Halo. It's a buzzword I'm seeing more and more with folks trying desperately to manifest a criticism against Halo 4. In my experience, map control is not even the ultimate Halo-ism. The paramount experience I associate with Halo is having a powerful semi-auto weapon, fighting someone with the same (or a similar) weapon, and wiggling back and forth in this sort of Rifle Dance until someone drops. And then it's on to the next victim. In Combat Evolved, this was performed with the Pistol. Starting with 2 and bleeding into 3, it was performed with the Battle Rifle. In Reach, the DMR and Needle Rifle became the bread and butter. In 4, it's like a Greatest Hits collection of all the weapons we've come to know and love. And the Rifle Dance itself hasn't changed. There's no more or less skill necessary to succeed in said manner of confrontation than there ever has been. Loadouts, as much as people try to belabor their unnecessary gravity, don't affect this equation, apart from allowing you to, with greater immediacy, take part in the Rifle Dance.

Like I mentioned above, Halo 4 handles the load outs differently than Reach.

Map control is not a buzzword, it is pretty much the core philosophy of the Halo multiplayer experience until 4. Every action that is taken during a competitive Halo (1, 2, 3, Reach) match is meant to gain control of either a more advantageous position or a better weapon in order to increase the odds of scoring a point.

@ajamafalous said:

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@Veektarius said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: Well, naturally, if you know secrets about the game, you're going to do better playing it. But this is without possessing any acquired skill or natural talent that should give you an advantage, such as muscle memory, tactical thinking, etc. A lot of people were brought up on shooters that utilize fixed drop points for weapons, I realize. But it wasn't until shooters began to move away from that and focus on less arcane mechanics that provided fewer "I win" buttons to experienced players that I started to like them. And having finally played Halo multiplayer with the advantage of some of the sniper rifles, rockets, and what have you that I always ignored before now that they're no longer hidden, these things are definitely "I win" buttons.

How is acquisition of knowledge pertaining to game data and utilizing it to your advantage not the definition of skill? Rote memory is just as much of a skill as mechanical input. You're essentially saying "Yeah, sure it makes you a better player, but I don't like games that utilize feature-x so I don't count it as real skill." and then defining "real skill" as something arbitrary that pertains to the types of games you like. Halo 4 is not more or less skill or tactical based than previous titles, it just has a different flow. Controlling choke points is a skill, controlling weapon spawns is a skill, keeping your enemy away from weapons requires utilizing information better than your opponents and is thus a skill and tactical. I'm sorry you don't appreciate a certain style of game, but that doesn't make that game require less skill to play. The "I win buttons" are always in play for everyone to use so it isn't like they make the game unfair in any way. I would agree that if some people had "I win buttons" and some couldn't ever acquire "I win buttons" then the game would be unfair, and honestly load outs are closer to "I win" buttons since they can result in games that are asymmetric from the get go.

I don't consider it a skill because it isn't a challenge to watch a bunch of youtube videos that show you where drops are. You can call memorization a skill, but it isn't, at that level (and by that level, I mean remembering 4 or 5 things, and not say, 20). And I began this whole thing by saying I agreed with the OP regarding loadouts, so that's beside the point.

You could not be fronting a dumber argument. Map memorization is a core fucking concept in any competitive shooter ever. It doesn't take 'watching youtube videos' to memorize weapon spawns; it takes playing the map 3-5 fucking times. I literally refuse to believe you feel the way you're portraying and are at the same time a fan of first person shooters.

Map control is more than map memorization though. That's just 1 aspect of it, you have to also consider your opponent's strategy in real time and adjust to that. In a team game you also have to adjust to your team mates' adjustments. To say that it isn't a skill to reasonably predict what your opponents' are going to do at all times and how they'll react to your reactions is pretty absurd, and that's what map control is at its core. Sure it takes memorization of the map, but it also takes understanding of every possible play at every possible instant and realizing what your opponent is going to do and then adjusting accordingly. A fine example of this is

@big_jon said:

Halo 4's multiplayer at its core is really tight, it just needs a few tweaks. Instant re spawn needs to be toned down, Ordinance needs to be more predictable in terms of what you are getting weapon wise, and weapon spawns on the map should be a little more prominent to promote map control.

The core shooting, movement, and weapon balance are all really solid in this game, it also has some really good maps. Halo 4 is really fun unless you are getting rushed by shitty players in mass that are sprinting to you after their instant re spawn every time you kill them, I really hate losing to shit, sloppy players that rush in packs non stop.

this guy who claims the players who beat him in competition are "shitty" despite adjusting better than he did. They knew he wasn't going to handle being rushed well, so they rushed him. If it works its a good play.

I'm not saying big_jon is bad or a worse player in general than those people who rushed him. I'm just saying in that particular moment in time they had better control and a working strategy, and ultimately they won for it. Games are more than mechanical input.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@OldManLight

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Vinny_Says

why not just stick to playing Reach and Halo 3 and not once again turn an awesome new game into those old games that already exist?

Also stop making like, 15 threads all complaining about every major release, all of which seem to say the same things.

not concerned with turning halo 4 into halo reach or halo 3, i am concerned with keeping what was fun and great about those other games of the same series alive in its newest iteration. Also i'm not sure i've created 15 threads on GB in the past year let alone for "every major release". I've just played a bunch of halo 4 and now feel i've spent enough time with it to render criticisms as a fan.

I didn't mean you specifically. But if you search the Halo 4 forums, it's become sea of negativity and mostly about all the same stuff. It's becoming extremely annoying seeing every big release get shit on constantly as soon as they come out. Oh yeah and starting ordnance is not random. Perfect example is Ragnarok.

I do notice that initially and sometimes throughout the match, items spawn where they did originally like on Ragnarok as you stated but i've had instances on Complex, for example where the sniper spawn literally moved forward 100m toward the center of the map on the low side after it respawned. Not to mention Haven where aside from the grenade spawns, the game randomly drops scattershots, railguns, needlers, and shotguns all over the map. This is Infinity slayer i'm referring to BTW. Maybe it's other people's ordinance drops that are cluttering up my screen and confusing me but i never see the scatttershot in the same place twice in the same game on this map.

To counter the argument of people saying learning the maps doesn't make you better at the game, map knowledge only improves your situational awareness and helps your to make smarter decisions while you're playing. This is something you will see more prevalent in players who have committed to learning map layouts, weapon spawns, respawn times for the weapons, and at the most extreme levels, even learning all the spawn points. Simply knowing that stuff doesn't automatically make you a better player any more than knowing where stuff is in a car makes you a better driver. But, it sure does make you a better contender to become a better player.

@A_Talking_Donkey: Your whole theory falls appart when you realize that you are talking about an entire team of crappy players who are sprinting to you every time you kill them to get you before your shields are back up. That has literally nothing to do with map control, it has to do with a flawed system with in the game, and often a bad team combined with that is the end. You really can't claim that these people are using some sort of strategic genius when they are literally sweeping the map in one giant group chasing down individual players over and over. The issue is that with instant respawning there is no penalty to sloppy playing. I would also like to piont out that I literally just played one of these kinds of games on Haven and thought I did the best in the entire game, going 22kills and 10 deaths we still lost by two kills, and I was extremely frustrated to have lost to an entire team of low skilled players, again.

This was typed on my phone, so don't go pointing out all the errors.

Just my two cents. I've always hated the map control aspect of halo multiplayer and I am glad it's gone.

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: Your whole theory falls appart when you realize that you are talking about an entire team of crappy players who are sprinting to you every time you kill them to get you before your shields are back up. That has literally nothing to do with map control, it has to do with a flawed system with in the game, and often a bad team combined with that is the end. You really can't claim that these people are using some sort of strategic genius when they are literally sweeping the map in one giant group chasing down individual players over and over. The issue is that with instant respawning there is no penalty to sloppy playing. I would also like to piont out that I literally just played one of these kinds of games on Haven and thought I did the best in the entire game, going 22kills and 10 deaths we still lost by two kills, and I was extremely frustrated to have lost to an entire team of low skilled players, again.

This was typed on my phone, so don't go pointing out all the errors.

I don't think that makes my argument fall apart though it does tell me we're making different assumptions from the get go. My argument wasn't and never has been that map control is the only important aspect of Halo, just that in Halos past it was pretty important to multiplayer. However, the fact that they can run back to you before you recover your shields is in part because your team wasn't controlling those parts of the map. I can also claim that them bull rushing as a team is strategic, maybe not strategic genius, but it is a strategy and it did work so it was apparently better than the strategy your team was using. You performing the best as a player is an achievement I guess, but your team as a whole was not the best team. A basketball team with Yao Ming and a bunch of fresh out of high school midgets is unlikely to be the best in the NBA for similar reasons.

On to the game specifically, what you may see as a flaw is not the game's fault but rather the fault of your perceptions and expectations. A game has no care about its own rules (if that makes sense), they just are. When you play a game you agreed to play that game by those rules. The best strategy is by definition the one that results in the best outcome (on the immediate scale) or the one with the highest likelihood to achieve victory (on the broader scale), in that game where your team lost the other team had a better strategy within the perimeters of the game. The may have been mechanically sloppy, but they made the correct choices to achieve victory, your team did not. As far as Halo 4's ability to compute they were the better team. When you say "low skill" you mean "plays in a cheesy way" but if being cheesy leads to a victory than its by all measures playing well.

I like most of it but the infinite power weapons is kinda fucked up.

@A_Talking_Donkey: When I say low skill I mean players that I individually slaughter with better aim, more well placed grenades, and better positioning and so on. I am speaking of players who are generally not capable of killing me in a one on one scenario with out me having no shields, or just ambushing me while I am trying to fight off their other team mates. If you are of the belief that anything goes as long as the game allows it that's fine, but that does not make it good design or balanced experience I was killed by a player last night in a 1 on 1 BR vs DMR fight I got four shots on him when he got 5 on me, after dieing then spamming the X button I was able to rush him and kill him with a single head shot from my BR because his shields had literally not had time to even partially recharge. That is not good game design as it rewards sloppy players with low consequence to their actions.

I have already stated that Halo 4 is very good at its core it just needs some tweaks with future balance updates, people with arguments like you are not helping in the long run because you are not being conducive to a balanced and fun game, you are saying live with the flaws inside what could be a really solid core shooter, because clearly if they launched on the disk they are not flaws. Just because a game launches a certain way does not mean it is balanced, and that every one should just "adapt" to all of the changes made. Battlefield 3 launched as a mess, Halo Reach too, these games were later updated because the developers saw the flaws within their game's systems and tried to correct upon them for a better more balanced experience in the long run.

But as I said before, I like Halo 4 a lot, I just think it needs some small tweaks in the future to help make it even better. I am actually amazed that given the number of changes made to Halo 4's multiplayer from the classic Halo formula that it works as well as it does in this game.

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey:

The issue is that with instant respawning there is no penalty to sloppy playing.

Wouldn't the penalty to sloppy playing be death?

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: I was killed by a player last night, after spamming the X button I was able to rush him and kill him with a single head shot from my BR because his shields had literally no had time to recharge. That is not good game design.

Yeah, still waiting for the day some really smart developer creates the ideal respawn system for a competitive FPS.

@cmblasko: It would be ideal if it was not instant.

And if you are able to run back and kill the dude who just killed you with out them having time to breath then you are not really getting penalized for that death. The spawn system is great aside from how quickly you can come back.

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: When I say low skill I mean players that I individually slaughter with better aim, more well placed grenades, and better positioning and so on. I am speaking of players who are generally not capable of killing me in a one on one scenario with out me having no shields, or just ambushing me while I am trying to fight off their other team mates. If you are of the belief that anything goes as long as the game allows it that's fine, but that does not make it good design or balanced experience I was killed by a player last night in a 1 on 1 BR vs DMR fight I got four shots on him when he got 5 on me, after dieing then spamming the X button I was able to rush him and kill him with a single head shot from my BR because his shields had literally not had time to even partially recharge. That is not good game design as it rewards sloppy players with low consequence to their actions.

I have already stated that Halo 4 is very good at its core it just needs some tweaks with future balance updates, people with arguments like you are not helping in the long run because you are not being conducive to a balanced and fun game, you are saying live with the flaws inside what could be a really solid core shooter, because clearly if they launched on the disk they are not flaws. Just because a game launches a certain way does not mean it is balanced, and that every one should just "adapt" to all of the changes made. Battlefield 3 launched as a mess, Halo Reach too, these games were later updated because the developers saw the flaws within their game's systems and tried to correct upon them for a better more balanced experience in the long run.

But as I said before, I like Halo 4 a lot, I just think it needs some small tweaks in the future to help make it even better. I am actually amazed that given the number of changes made to Halo 4's multiplayer from the classic Halo formula that it works as well as it does in this game.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. As long as the game allows it and it leads to more wins it is playing better. I didn't say if I thought it was good, fun, or balanced (though I will get to balance in this post), just that as it stands that is the way the game plays and if you fail to adapt to the game that is you failing as a player, not the game failing as a game. Losing is never the game's fault (outside of randomly generated events) since a game is nothing more than the rules which a player plays by, (and in the case of video games) the surroundings the player is in and the inputs required to affect the game state. Someone choosing to shoot another player before their shield recharges is not a decision the game made, it's a decision that works within the game's rules. There is nothing unfair about it since it is an option given to all players.

On balance, I'm of the opinion that a game can never be "imbalanced" per se. A game always has a balance, and if the balance is lopsided than odds are it was intended to be so it isn't actually a flaw. However, your complaint isn't even about asymmetrical balance (like one player getting more health based on what team he's on or something) but rather you're saying a mechanic that applies to all players is imbalanced. How can that even be? How can something everyone can do equally create an advantage for a player that he shouldn't have had to begin with? Can it be called an advantage when you have the same mechanic going for you too? I don't really want to go into if instant respawn is fun or poor game design since those are both immeasurable and entirely opinion based. You'd know if you like the design more than I'd know if you liked it so I have to give you those. I'm just saying that a thing you have equal access to can't really imbalance the game.

@A_Talking_Donkey: You must not be into competitive shooters.....

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: You must not be into competitive shooters.....

So how does a mechanic that all players can use give one player an advantage over others that they shouldn't have?

I just wish they didn't put Ragnarok in. i still haven't played all the big team slayer maps because too many DICKS keep picking the fucking map that already got played to death in halo 3, again and again and again.

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: You must not be into competitive shooters.....

So how does a mechanic that all players can use give one player an advantage over others that they shouldn't have?

Because the player who gets the first kill is at a disadvantage directly after, I mean really your point is pretty stupid... You are looking at the game like some sort of chart, If you actually think it is balanced because everyone can do it then you are not really understanding the entire concept of balance... Halo has always rewarded level headed, and reserved game play. Instant re spawn does not. I should be able to have some time to to regroup after killing an opponent, get my shield back, reload, as they should after killing me. If you seriously don't understand that then you really have no idea what competitive Halo is... You speak of map control, how do you attain proper map control when they player you are killing are back the second after you kill them?

It almost sounds like you have not even played the game in fact, because I have not heard you make a specific point to reflect that.

That is like saying one kit in Battlefield is over powered to all hell, but it is balanced because everyone can chose it, if you think that way then you are clearly a casual player...

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey said:

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: You must not be into competitive shooters.....

So how does a mechanic that all players can use give one player an advantage over others that they shouldn't have?

Because the player who gets the first kill is at a disadvantage directly after, I mean really your point is pretty stupid... You are looking at the game like some sort of chart, If you actually think it is balanced because everyone can do it then you are not really understanding the entire concept of balance... Halo has always rewarded level headed, and reserved game play. Instant re spawn does not. I should be able to have some time to to regroup after killing an opponent, get my shield back, reload, as they should after killing me. If you seriously don't understand that then you really have no idea what competitive Halo is... You speak of map control, how do you attain proper map control when they player you are killing are back the second after you kill them?

It almost sounds like you have not even played the game in fact, because I have not heard you make a specific point to reflect that.

That is like saying one kit in Battlefield is over powered to all hell, but it is balanced because everyone can chose it, if you think that way then you are clearly a casual player...

The "disadvantage" isn't even really a big deal. The score goes from 1-0 to 1-1? Is it an advantage in basketball (I hate referencing basketball twice in the same debate) when the other team gets the ball directly after the other scores? Should it be a jumpball after every point?

Is it balanced that everyone can do something? Yes, that is by definition what balance is.

What past Halo games rewarded doesn't matter, this isn't those games. You're making an argument for sameness across all games. Homogenization is not necessarily for better (and not necessarily for worse). Look at Halo 4 for what Halo 4 is, not for what Halo 2 was. Map control might not be too important to this game, but that doesn't make it imbalanced. Everything you've complained about in Halo 4 is perfectly balance since both sides has access to them. It may make the game faster paced and cheesier than other Halo games but that's fine. Balance does not care what other Halo games had, balance is about equality of access. Halo 3 giving you time to recharge has nothing to do with if Halo 4 is balanced or not, it just means it isn't like Halo 3 in that regard.

"Competitive Halo" is nothing more than a mind set. Competitive is not a game design, it's how you approach it. Two people willing to compete at a thing is competitive. You can have competitive foot measuring contests if you really wanted to.

I don't really feel like discussing the merits of what is "better" for Halo since I don't care about personal preference and your tastes doesn't change what balance means.

@big_jon said:

@A_Talking_Donkey: When I say low skill I mean players that I individually slaughter with better aim, more well placed grenades, and better positioning and so on. I am speaking of players who are generally not capable of killing me in a one on one scenario with out me having no shields, or just ambushing me while I am trying to fight off their other team mates. If you are of the belief that anything goes as long as the game allows it that's fine, but that does not make it good design or balanced experience I was killed by a player last night in a 1 on 1 BR vs DMR fight I got four shots on him when he got 5 on me, after dieing then spamming the X button I was able to rush him and kill him with a single head shot from my BR because his shields had literally not had time to even partially recharge. That is not good game design as it rewards sloppy players with low consequence to their actions.

I have already stated that Halo 4 is very good at its core it just needs some tweaks with future balance updates, people with arguments like you are not helping in the long run because you are not being conducive to a balanced and fun game, you are saying live with the flaws inside what could be a really solid core shooter, because clearly if they launched on the disk they are not flaws. Just because a game launches a certain way does not mean it is balanced, and that every one should just "adapt" to all of the changes made. Battlefield 3 launched as a mess, Halo Reach too, these games were later updated because the developers saw the flaws within their game's systems and tried to correct upon them for a better more balanced experience in the long run.

But as I said before, I like Halo 4 a lot, I just think it needs some small tweaks in the future to help make it even better. I am actually amazed that given the number of changes made to Halo 4's multiplayer from the classic Halo formula that it works as well as it does in this game.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. As long as the game allows it and it leads to more wins it is playing better. I didn't say if I thought it was good, fun, or balanced (though I will get to balance in this post), just that as it stands that is the way the game plays and if you fail to adapt to the game that is you failing as a player, not the game failing as a game. Losing is never the game's fault (outside of randomly generated events) since a game is nothing more than the rules which a player plays by, (and in the case of video games) the surroundings the player is in and the inputs required to affect the game state. Someone choosing to shoot another player before their shield recharges is not a decision the game made, it's a decision that works within the game's rules. There is nothing unfair about it since it is an option given to all players.

On balance, I'm of the opinion that a game can never be "imbalanced" per se. A game always has a balance, and if the balance is lopsided than odds are it was intended to be so it isn't actually a flaw. However, your complaint isn't even about asymmetrical balance (like one player getting more health based on what team he's on or something) but rather you're saying a mechanic that applies to all players is imbalanced. How can that even be? How can something everyone can do equally create an advantage for a player that he shouldn't have had to begin with? Can it be called an advantage when you have the same mechanic going for you too? I don't really want to go into if instant respawn is fun or poor game design since those are both immeasurable and entirely opinion based. You'd know if you like the design more than I'd know if you liked it so I have to give you those. I'm just saying that a thing you have equal access to can't really imbalance the game.

I like the fact that you can start with a serviceable weapon.....I always hated having to hunt down weapons in order to stand a chance against better opponents, and I didn't play enough to get to know the maps well enough.

I do not understand these complaints. The drops even the playing field. Map control is still essential, because maps still have areas where you don't want to be stuck in.I remember in Halo 3 when a team gained map control, and the other team had no chance. Now, there is a chance. Grabbing better weapons does not make a team better. Also, map control is still possible. Holding down the ordinance drop locations, even with the drops containing random weapons, still puts the other team at a disadvantage. Now, to get a fighting chance, they have to out-shoot you to earn an ordinance drop to hope to stay in the game.

Every Halo game has started players off with a good, long distance weapon. In Halo CE it was the pistol. In Halo 2, it was the BR. In Halo 3, it was the BR again. In Halo Reach it was the DMR. Now, In Halo 4 you choose between the DMR, the BR, or an Assault Rifle. What is the problem?

Sure, in past Halo games you started with an AR or SMG, but no one liked that and never voted for those gametypes. All the loadouts do is give you choice.

Keep in mind that all of this is coming from someone who was very worried about a lot of these changes when the game was nearing release. Also keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a big fan of Halo. It's still Halo, yo.