sindronian

Well, should have put this in general discussion.

You're going to have to buy it on the 360 Halo 5 will definitely also be exclusive with the release of the new console. I think people should quit this thought about Halo being on the PC.

What I'm trying to say is that if Halo isn't in the title it wouldn't sell NEARLY as well because a lot of people who buy Halo wouldn't be on forums or youtube and they would have no idea there is a halo "type" game and they would have to come across it by chance. Halo is what sells it. Imo they can't really call it halo if chief isn't in it. Reach shouldn't have been called Halo but it was so they could actually sell it.

I bought it a while ago. Searched a little more and found it the song is "Haven." It's really good.

you don't think it's a little silly for a spartan not to be able to detect grenades efficiently? It's a feature that makes sense. It doesn't make sense in CoD but it makes sense in Halo.

It wouldn't sell is what we mean.

Since when are ODSTs so important? I would say no Master Chief/Covenant = No Halo. If it was Master Chief/Forerunners it would be too different of a game.

Grenades are just as powerful as other halos but the radius is absolutely tiny. Even if you have a grenade indicator it is possible to take no damage, which is silly. I agree maps aren't special. Solace seems to be one they nailed. Ragnarok of course is great. I haven't got to play some very much though. Maps like abandon and adrift aren't that special. They all work though. I don't mind the maps and forge variants WON'T be better. Too many forge world maps in multiplayer is partially what wrecked Reach. No variety all forge world crap. I don't want integration of community maps into multiplayer. Halo 3 didn't need it and it was more successful. Kill times are faster than ever but good. Mid-range is definitely too fast. Assault rifle at CLOSE range melts people but at mid range it performs how we all wanted it to, well. Shield recharge is way too slow. Too few gametypes at launch imo and why would they make oddball a playlist few people liked it.

what is the music used I really want it...

You must have some sort of source. Where or who did you hear it from?

My response to that is too bad if your team sucks play with your friends and communicate lol.

I understand, I just don't think the above quote is a big deal. Just my opinion. I think the other cons of having friendly fire turned on are more of an issue because it can cause grief for the player himself. Sure with friendly fire off you lose some tactical sense but I think it's worth it because your team-mates can't mess up your game. Except for in the odd case like Echo said where some guy would use his own time for some reason to take the objective (bomb maybe) and sit there. I disagree it would happen more with friendly fire off (mostly because of experiences in CoD) but I already argued about all that....so yeah. I disagree lol. As far as a solution goes...I don't think there needs to be one. I don't think it's a problem contrary to belief. I don't think people complain about friendly fire off in CoD. Maybe some but not as frequently as Halo players. CoD has some nice solutions, like dmg that backfires if you shoot your Ally. That makes a lot more sense to me. Another solution could be just to kick anyone on their first betrayal in the game, but this would either result in something good, people being really careful, or something really bad, people getting frustrated and quiting. By the way please understand I'm mentioning CoD for a good purpose here. Not to flame.

Lol that's what I thought. I think it's people's tendency to answer questions which have already been answered. I see it all the time.

And that would have convinced me and ended the thread IF it was the only type of situation. I already mentioned the other ones so....I know what you mean though.

Your solution is stupid and thoughtless I've heard it many times before. Just because I don't like betrayals doesn't mean I'm going to quit the game. It bothers me yes, obviously I will still play multiplayer. Just trying to make a point.

Nope, actually I apologized. I think your comment sucked and I don't think you should have expected me to realise it was a joke. No, not trying to insult you.

That's helpful.

Hey, you really can't listen eh? I told you the argument is over. I stopped reading about 1/3 way through sorry if you took all that time. Cya, I don't care. I disagree. don't you get it? Give some room for other people's opinions. You're trying to fight me, trying to win or lose, I'm trying to get people to understand something. I don't have to argue with you if I don't want to. No, this is not because I fear I am losing the argument.

First of all I don't care how long you've been here and how the hell am I supposed to realise if you're joking or not? People say stuff like that all the time and they mean it. Anyone who uses the title of another FPS on a halo forum without good reason pisses me off but I only react to it occasionally. I just see a lot less of that stupid stuff here so I was surprised to see a comment like that. You're right it's not funny at all I'm glad you are aware most aren't. There is always that guy who is the first to mention "that other FPS" in a thread that simply doesn't need "that other FPS." You just happened to be that guy this time I suppose. I do apologize for acting as if you did mean it though. I could just said: "I hope you're joking." I'm saying Reach's booting system is unpredictable. Halo 3's is. 3rd boot and you are out (at least how I remember). In reach sometimes I would get booted on my first betrayal sometimes I wouldn't. However there were a hell of a lot of times where I couldn't boot some ignorant guy who splattered me with his wraith or ghost at the beginning of the game which happens frequently. ​I betray them back because sometimes I can't tolerate it especially getting splattered. Think whatever you wish of it. I never said I was totally against team killing. In fact I mentioned sometimes I repeatedly team kill people in griffball if they piss me off enough. I would rather not have it in the game. My betrayals are always accidental or revengeful I maybe did it on purpose a few times back in the halo 3 days but I was a big dumbass back then in early highschool. I look down on my self for it. Some people say it's innocent fun but getting hit by some guy in a ghost on my team for some reason makes me pretty-mad-bro. Well I perfectly understand your points I just don't think they are significant because these are things that "could happen if there was no friendly fire." I'm talking about the crap that happens with friendly fire NOW. I attempted give you a response to your reply but you seemed to miss a lot of what I was trying to say and repeated back to me what you said before. In other words this argument really isn't going anywhere. So instead of saying the same stupid stuff over for 3 pages until I'm quoting over the character limit I'm going to disagree with you because I don't think you're listening. I wouldn't expect you to it's the internet. You really missed the bad luck Brian thing all I'm freaking saying is that you could be in the middle of a multi-kill and a team-mates grenade could end it or something. So you start saying "Well good sir I do believe he would simply kill steal instead it is much more civilize...." What the hell are you talking about? People don't contemplate all the possible ways to end your multi-kills. I am just saying friendly fire screws them up. For me, more than I would like. I was mostly trying to address the argument of people saying it's more realistic. It is definitely not, that is not an opinion. Anyway thanks for your input I guess. You can't compare the ratios of betrayals and objective/weapon abuse where one side of the ratio has friendly fire and one doesn't btw that doesn't make any sense. If there's no friendly fire betrayals wouldn't happen obv. I've already said more than once I agree that's stupid I just think it is MORE stupid to get killed by your allies on purpose.

Well sure but how many people are going to do this? Not many. Maybe some youtube partners. So it's realistic to kill your team-mates repeatedly for stupid reasons? I can argue the exact same thing bro. Interesting. So it isn't game breaking for someone on your team to snipe your flag carrier 3 times, and then have his friend splatter the flag carrier 3 times, and then....yeah. Lol, so what is your solution to a guy who sits there with the bomb or doesn't get out of a vehicle? Kill him right ? I'm starting to see why you like friendly fire. Stuff like this almost never happens, some segregated youtube groups do this for views and lols. This kind of stuff has happened to me very few times. The ratio to the events you're talking about an the events I'm talking about is under 1. I already told you AND Not to mention this thing, happens more than it needs to. Maybe in halo 3 you can actually know when you can boot a player. Otherwise you'll probably get booted just for thinking about booting him in Reach.

Lol, sure it's humorous when it happens to that guy but when it happens to you...sometimes I'm pissed and I have to hit him back. It's like these Reach trolls know that I will get kicked and not them. Dammit.

Want to know what's even more funny? The boot system is total junk and boots you whenever it feels like it and I hate it. Atleast in Halo 3 you knew when you were going to get booted. Some team-mate runs me over with the ghost at the beginning of a game, no boot option. I decide to pay him back or accidentally kill him in combat, I get booted. I hate it so much.

You disgust me shouldn't you be on the waypoint forums? I hope you're joking.

I like the DMR but I despise bloom so probably BR or carbine.

Why does Halo need friendly fire in order to be Halo? People argue that friendly fire as a feature in Halo is a good thing because it encourages people to be careful, tactical and skilful which allows for a little more realism which brings us closer to a war-like feeling. I would argue this: In real life, people who fight are trained vigerously. If one of them mowed down a few of their squad members and started complaining about how his squad mates ran in front of his bullets or didn't get out of the way when he threw a grenade to his officer things wouldn't go too well for that guy. Or maybe if he said: "Sir, Jay and Wilson had our sniper rifles for two missions now. I was just a little frustrated, don't worry, they'll respawn." Obviously that is not real and in 99.9-bar of all cases (which is mathematically equivalent to 100 but whatever [lol University]) it would never happen. So when I'm getting team-killed by some 11 year old who has his hands full with trying to kill me and getting his dad to bring him that freaking chocolate milk I really do not view friendly fire as something that adds realism. Most people don't give a crap about team-killing and don't act as if we've had points (sometimes) where we haven't either. Sometimes I'm annoyed playing Halo and some guy in griffball will betray me and I will just spawn kill him until the game is over or until he quits. Which brings me to another point. No one learns from betraying people. If anyone on this forum betrays anybody do they try and be more careful next time? Maybe that game. After that though they will throw grenades exactly the same etc. Play styles don't change in Halo. Halo players already aren't that careful. They throw grenades where they see action. Don't act like you don't do it sometimes. If you saw an 3 enemies with low shields smacking around one of your allies would you throw a grenade for the triple knowing you wouldn't get a betrayal for it (but it actually is)? You probably would. This isn't a bad thing, it's a video game. I don't expect people to play like highly trained soldiers (you can't anyway given control restrictions). There is a solution though. A solution that can help us avoid dumb decisions, no friendly fire. IF ONLY the real world had this. So please (willy wonka meme), tell me why we need team-killing in Halo and how it adds ANYTHING