RedStarRocket91

That's a really good find!

It just shows how diverse the community is!

In the second cutscene, the Zealot in question is actually using the energy blade used for assassinations, not an actual Energy Sword, just to clarify. The Gravity Hammer is also found in Powerhouse, if I'm not mistaken.

And nothing of value was lost. Anyway, on topic. I don't know why Reach is so quiet compared to previous games, even on talkative player preferences. Maybe it's just a general thing, I've noticed a big decrease in the last year or so in the amount of players who use mics even on other games.

No problem - I hope you enjoy Halo Wars, it's the only one of the games that I haven't actually played!

I'd like the huge, open campaign levels of Halo: CE combined with the atmosphere and attention to detail of ODST. I want the melee power of Halo 2 combined with the weapon balance and variety of Halo 3. And Halo 3 grenades, too. Please don't let them bring back Reach grenades. I'll actually cry. I want player movement to feel most similar to Halo 3, although retaining the fall damage of Reach. I'd like to see the graphics of CE:A combined with the physics engine of Halo 3. Reach's collisions felt too random and unforgiving - although admittedly it worked well in Forge. Lastly, I'd like the variety of maps from Halo 2 with the balance and flow of those in Halo 3. I think that mostly covers it!

How much money it makes on release doesn't necessarily correspond to its actual quality. As a Call of Duty game and the follow up to Modern Warfare 2, it was always going to make a fortune on release. Besides, if you look at player reviews, it's actually been quite badly received compared to previous games.

Will do - am I mistaken in thinking that's the one were they introduce the Mark VII Mjolnir Armor?

That's a very good point, actually - I hadn't thought about that before, although it does tie in with the apparent generalised nerfing of Covenant weaponry.

My best wishes to both you and your father.

InsaneBear, can you do everyone a favour and just shut up? We're trying to have a proper discussion here. Competitive gameplay is not the be all and end all of Halo. I don't care how much of a 'pro' someone is, they were new to the game once and they got better by practising and because they enjoyed it enough to practice. Promoting a system on the grounds that in enables 'good' players to actively harass players who aren't so good is not only a pathetic argument, it's also poor sportsmanship. I don't care what an amazing player you are, if you want to go around hurling abuse at someone because they're not very good then I have no respect for you whatsoever. I think we might just have to agree to disagree here. I suppose something like this might come in more useful if everyone has a microphone, but with the way most players fail to communicate, I can't really see it having that much use.

I think it's been mentioned that they're trying harder to match players who have DLC together in other playlists - not sure how accurate that is, though.

I've played the map, so the video's kind of irrelevant. Anyway, it's not zero gravity in that just low gravity, which is what I was suggesting before. So if that's the system, yes, I think it could be fun!

You're right, it'll probably be the developers. You already know if you're having a good game or not; you already know if you're getting killed too much; you already know if your team isn't going for the objective enough. You know who has the bomb or the flag from your HUD and what the score is from the scoreboard. I accept that things happen outside someone's sphere of influence: but that's the point. If you can't affect it, why worry about it. It doesn't matter who's capturing flags or carrying the bomb as long as somebody is, and you already know if that's the case. I'm against adding a big elaborate scoreboard during the game because it doesn't add anything to the game and potentially leads to less competent players getting abuse from people who take the game too seriously.

No, it isn't 'helpful so you can change the way you're playing'. There's a scoreboard in the bottom right corner that tells you which team is winning, there's an objective marker that lets you know where the objectives are and what's happening with them in your HUD, and if you're incapable of working out what the enemy team is doing on the evidence of what's happening to you and around you, then throwing up a big chart in the middle of battle isn't going to be of use either.

I quite like Sprint. To get around the problem of players using it to escape death, just set it so it can't be used while shields are down. Suddenly it's mobility-only again.

I'm not sure about zero gravity - how would you control getting down? - but reduced gravity maps would be great. Something like Zealot or Anchor 9's space zones. There are so many great possibilities to be had - imagine, Infection in space!

Why do you need to see assists/deaths in game? Seriously, why? What's the point? All it does is distract you from the actual game. The after-action report appears afterwards to give you something to do while you're waiting for the next match. That's all it's for. Having a big detailed thing in-game would only distract players or just not get used. It doesn't add a single thing to gameplay.

Ah, right. I haven't read Primordium - thank you for the information!

They do the same job and they're from the same faction. There's no point them both being in.

The awkward moment where you drive your Warthog off a cliff so that the guy hijacking it can't use it. With your flag carrier sitting in the passenger seat.

One of the big changes the Title Update made was removing the power to 'Sword Block', i.e. the ability to survive being hit with the Energy Sword by timing a standard melee to strike the Energy Sword user at the same moment the sword attack strikes them, although still taking heavy damage. Those who liked it often suggested that having no chance to survive an attack was unfair, and that since timing a melee correctly required skill it was a fair addition to a player's starting abilities. Those who disliked it complained that since an Energy Sword can only be used at point-blank range, leaving a player completely vulnerable while they got into attack distance, it is unfair that they then have to worry that their attack might not even kill their opponent, even though they had worked hard to get the weapon and then risked a close-up attack. So, in a nutshell, do you believe that the ability to block an Energy Sword's attack with nothing but a standard melee is fair? Please give valid reasons for your opinion: 'because it sucks' or 'because it's great' are themselves opinions, not reasons.

The DMR is a better weapon. It's more efficient in the way it uses ammunition, it's balanced to be more powerful against other general-purpose weapons, and it's effective at longer ranges than the Battle Rifle.

Just as an update, we're now three weeks in an the community generally seems to prefer the idea of pre-built maps at the expense of Forge sandboxes, with 20 votes to 14.

It certainly looked a lot more planet-sized in the ending cutscene for Halo 3. Also, I think they're actually saying if there is a second Ark, that it's just bigger than a Halo, so it could be bigger or smaller than the first one. That said, 343 Guilty Spark talked about the Ark, not an Ark, so it's unlikely that there's more than one. I'll be interested to see where this goes, though. Good spot!