Azaxx

Guys keep it civil here. To the OP, generally if you play a few games of Halo 3, Recon will unlock. It doesn't have to be necessarily 3, can be one or many games. But the average has tended to be a few games. People who have played for months after it was announced of the locking still didn't get it, they were unlucky. While others didn't even play a game and got it, so it's not entirely correct that everyone gets it automatically, nor that you need to play a set amount of games for it.

Offtopic, locked.

Lockout, Zanzibar, Ascension and Coagulation have been confirmed. Sanctuary is one I'm really wanting back, that was a beautiful map to look at.

Arbiters HUD will be like how it was, in the games. Guardians we know nothing about though. I'd prefer the Hornet personally, best small aircraft for Multiplayer. No, I want Hayabusa unlocked how it was in Halo 3, by getting all the skulls. Raider I don't care for, looks like crap. Nope, because that's making a significant change to the games, Halo CE:A and Halo 2:A are remakes, and H3/4 are only been up'd to 1080p/60fps, they're not getting game changing additions. That's what will happen, because it's the same game essentially.

Humanity and the Forerunners were never close allies, they barely communicated with each other, just tolerated their existences. Humanity had no time to have a nice little chat, so they purged Forerunner infected worlds to quickly eliminate any threat of the flood. And naturally, if you were under attack by a powerful empire you would defend yourselves at all costs, and that's what the Forerunners did, hence the huge Forerunner/Humanity War. A thing to remember is that the humans were colonising the planets right after destroying them, which was about 50 defenseless Forerunner colonies. The Forerunners and Humans were already rivals due to the Mantle-of-Responsibility, also Humanity had expanded their empire at a rate not seen in the galaxy before, it was threatening to completely overwhelm the Forerunner Empire, and then the destruction of Forerunner worlds was the last straw which sparked the war. Only a handful of Promethean Warrior Servants were transcended into Promethean Knights, it was a vast majority of devolved humans who were changed for the will of the Ur-Didact. The Ur-Didact saw no use of humanity and used them for his purposes. It's a bit harsh on the Librarian, you try to make a perfect plan that is to work in over 100'000 years time that works flawlessly. No one else would've even attempted to imagine such a plan, yet she attempted it, and did pretty damn well. The Flood that were in research stations were there, to be researched on. They were left over from the Forerunner/Flood war since all life in the galaxy was annihilated. The Ur-Didact had a strong hatred for humanity which was justified. Humanity destroyed everything he held dear (clearly except for the Librarian), they were trying to overtake the Mantle-of-Responsibility from the Forerunners, which the Forerunners believed was their birthright. So in his mind, everything he was doing was justified against Humanity, they were a threat to the Mantle and had to be removed, which is why he destroyed them. I will agree with the Elites, however, I will say that Bungie also screwed them up in Halo Reach. They were perfect in the trilogy games, but were mucked up right after with Wars then Reach. 343i just didn't fix it. I personally had no problems with understanding a thing about Halo 4's campaign, I found it very easy to comprehend without researching on the Terminals and the new Forerunner books that came out. Although, I did research before the game came out, so that could've aided my understanding, I dunno. Which part of what the Librarian was talking about confused you? I could answer that. Cortana is a Smart AI, hence she has human emotions. She's not the only AI to get attached to people/creatures either, AI before her have done so too. I will say that her death was silly, although making sense, was just stupid. I never saw her as a comic relief character either, I saw her as the second main character for the series, one with development and a personality, unlike the Chief until Halo 4 (excluding the books). Her death was meant to mean something, and drive Chief down into depression because he lost the only friend he had. He was very alone, and lost everything over his years growing as a Spartan, clearly this would impact him.

Since the OP wasn't specifically clear on the question, I'm going to put in assumptions for the sake of my answer. Assumption 1: Masterchief has his Smart AI Cortana in his suit. Assumption 2: Noble 6 does NOT have any member of the Noble Team with him, because he is a lone wolf soldier. Assumption 3: Both combatants have full access to the UNSC/ONI handheld arsenal. Assumption 4: This battle is on the planet Reach since both combatants have history on this planet. Assumption 5: No combatant can call upon anyone else for assistance for the duration of the fight. Assumption 6: This battle occurs at the time of the Fall of Reach, so using their skill sets at this specific time period. Now that I've cleared that up, it's easy to say that Noble 6 would be Chief. Chief has luck, and that's why Cortana chose him, but he's not an omnipotent being that is saved at a 100% success rate. Noble 6 is described as "Hyper Lethal Vector" for a reason, he is able to take down any sort of foe even if the odds are against him, and that's completely alone. Masterchief on the other hand has had to rely on teams, he wasn't special when training, he wasn't the best at any specific quality of a Spartan. He wasn't the best at sniping, hand to hand combat, vehicular combat, nothing. He was only good because he was lucky and had a good team around him. Noble 6 relied purely on himself, he had no backup, he was alone in everything he did up until his superiors transferred him into Noble Team. Sure Masterchief is a LOT stronger, faster, agile than Noble 6. This would normally put all the money onto him, but Noble 6 is an extremely intelligent Spartan, Chief relies on others to work with and solve a problem, which 6 creates solutions out of nothing. Tactically Noble 6 is far superior to Masterchief, which is why he will be able to exploit all of 'Chiefs weaknesses without 'Chief being able to use his superior augmentations against Noble 6. Another thing to take into account is that Chief would be completely swept off the floor if Cortana wasn't with him, he isn't great at thinking without Cortana, she makes his decisions for him most of the time. Noble 6 is also familiar with prototypes of weapons, which Chief hasn't even heard of before, so he already has a clear advantage when it comes to the arsenal over Chief. That is why Noble 6 would beat Masterchief 117.

The current active mods who vote for MoM's have been themselves MoM with the exception of Drizzy_Dan and Mayh3m but whome which were both staff for extremely long periods of time, and one being a legendary member. To say that you get around the forum better than staff and mods is pretty unfair, we all get around the same, literally what difference is there? The most active members of the site are all moderators, shouldn't that enough be something to say? If the most active members are moderators, shouldn't we have the best eye to see which members have stood out amongst the pack? Staff like Art/Communications/etc do not choose MoM's, this is a moderator only decision, and it's been a moderator only decision ever since the first choosing, which resulted in yourself being the first ever Member of the Month. To just change it for "MoM, should be by the people for the people" is unreasonable. Are we moderators not people? Talking to members over the years, including MoM's, shows that they would more likely vote for their friends if given the opportunity to vote for MoM. Moderators don't on the other hand, we have to limit friendships for everything we do, that being moderating or choosing MoM's. That in short is why Moderators will be sticking to the decisions of those who throw out names for MoM's and finally decide on who will be crowned pink, and if anyone doesn't like those points above, Twam also has said he wants only moderators to pick.

If you count having a decent K/D as a motive, then that'd be the only one. But in most games I don't care about that, only really for Halo. Other games I just do things by myself, so nothing is there to motivate me in the slightest. The main preference for me is not playing with others that I know of, can't put it into words on how much I don't like it. Always play games by myself for a reason, because I find it more fun.

Field Marshall. Haven't played the game in ages though, easily could've been Forerunner by now.

no

Halo 5 Guardians was massively leaked online, so if you were so desperate to spoil it for yourself, you can read up on the story for the campaign and other features with multiplayer/etc. The officially released stuff for H5:G is that it will be out in Fall 2015, it'll be a darker game for the Halo series and that it'll have a beta at the end of this year which focuses on an Arena type multiplayer.

Halo 3 because it's my favourite Halo game I've played, although I didn't play it as much as Reach, I have a lot better memories of Halo 3. Like winning my first Lone Wolves game on Narrows, or going on long kill streaks in Avalanche, or even getting Steppin' Razor achievement on The Pit. Those memories would compel me to play Halo 3 over the other titles mainly That being said, I didn't play much of Halo 2 multiplayer, so I'm very interested to see how I'd play out in that multiplayer system, since I played only a dozen games online or something. Halo CE I would be playing purely for nostalgia, but I have it on the computer so I can play it there anytime, and Halo 4 I'd only pick if the map Exile comes up.

343i has now confirmed that everyone will be starting fresh, nothing is carried over from the previous games.

I complained about having a Halo 2 remake, if that's the only thing they were remaking. So if a Halo 2:A was made and that's it, I would've been very disappointed in 343i.

Please don't revive old threads such as this.

The point of the Masterchief collection is for people to experience the joy that they had when first playing the Masterchief games. By unlocking everything at the start, it allows for people to have a much more experimental and fun experience rather than only some people bothering to unlock everything. The skulls are one of those, and they will have achievements for missions without/with skulls loaded, for example, if a true mythic achievement was available, then all gold skulls and blind will be on, not bandana because it's not part of the original SLASO. Another point to think about it, is that it didn't really do anything regarding Halo CE:A, no one cared that some people had the preorder skull Grunt Funeral, because you didn't have to use it. Same with Bandada or others, because it'll show up in the service record I'm assuming to which skulls you used. So again, it doesn't matter if preorder skulls exist or not. It's just for fun.

Choo choo

Valhalla and The Pit remakes were kept as proper remakes, they're the same size. So they're perfect examples or how Sprint impacts the game in a good way, because the lack of size adjustments prove that sprint allows people to get to places faster than in previous game maps. I have no recollection of 343i ever saying that the maps are bigger to suit sprint, ever. Map remakes come first, because again, they're the prime examples of how gameplay works over different titles. Being the same size and roughly the same in geological structuring, gameplay is properly tested under controlled environments, rather than an average. The fact that Bungie intended to add it in, is not meant to counter many arguments. It's simply to state that in their mind, it was going to be a core feature, and if they could've added it in at Halo CE, it very well would've been a core feature that people would complain if it were taken away. Straw-man argument? It's called an exaggeration, and you're being too literal on words. No, I'm positive right now that I'm not confusing anything up. Guns being taken out of Halo would completely ruin the lore, the key branding of what Halo is; a shooter, and practically everything else about it. The inclusion of sprint doesn't do that, what it does is create another element to the game which people have to adjust to/with. Invincibility perk was in Halo 3, you could use it as an equipment. Also was in Halo 2, but only for Tarturus in the final boss battle. So I don't even need to make much of a statement on that point.

Yes I'm comparing specific maps, because they're remakes. It would be completely illogical to not compare Valhalla and Ragnarok, since the latter is the remake of the Halo 3 map. Same applies with The Pit and its remake, the name slips my mind though. When talking about an average, that always comes second to map remake stats compare to the original. Always. Actually it shows that Sprint was a fundamental feature they couldn't add in for their own reasons, when adding it to Reach it was a fundamental feature of the loadout system. And then carrying on to Halo 4's overall system. You can't expect Halo, or any game for that matter to be exactly the same with mechanics for each successive title. If that were the case, pretty much every series would've died off. Even games like Call of Duty, Mario Kart or even Fable change their mechanics to the modern era, because the gaming industry demands it. If it were kept the same for all these years, Halo would've died, even if it is Microsoft's seller. The average map size from Halo 4 and the other titles hasn't exactly changed much. You have small maps; Haven, Skyline, Monolith. Medium maps; Vertigo, Landfall, Settler. Then you have large maps; Ragnarok, Exile, Daybreak. These maps aren't that much different to some maps of previous titles; Small; Midship, Snowbound, Wizard. Medium; The Pit, Highgrounds, Ascension. And Large; Bloodgulch, Sandtrap, Boneyard. Comparing these maps, which were at random shows that there isn't a big difference at all like you claimed with map size. Sprint therefore doesn't have a null affect regarding map size, instead it has the effect that it was intended to do which is to speed things up. For smaller maps where strafing actually matters, you can still do that, even with sprint available. Just because you have it in your arsenal, doesn't mean you have to use it. Many playstyles avoid using sprint infact, though I don't personally use them. Strafing is really a factor that doesn't get affected by the inclusion of sprint. Regarding the ranged encounters, sprinting allows players to get closer a lot quicker than previous Halo titles allowed, or getting away quicker depending on the situation. Say you have a shotgun and assault rifle, and someone was picking you off with a Carbine. The logical thing in the past games was to lob a grenade and run, because you wouldn't win that fight. Now with sprint you actually have a chance, lob the grenade, run in and hope that you judge the timing of the shotgun firing to kill the opponent.