Funkstain wrote:

Fuck I really hope 343 don't mess this up. Am more excited about H4 than ODST and Reach put together, not sure why. Just had so much fun with H3, hasn't been the same since. It's the little things - the BR was more fun that the DMR, the warthog was actually drivable, the maps were so much better.

I'm expecting wall to wall fan service in both the SP and MP. It would be hard fro them to do anything else really. That said I'm still hoping they find room to do some more interesting things.

With the best will in the world after 3/5 games I don't need another retread.

Dan_Dare wrote:

I've said before that it should be made in a shit-kicker of a cqb weapon- Give the BR / DMR as a mid range starter and use the AR as a secondary.  In tight quarters, it should totally rinse the mid range weapons (and yes, kill with less than an entire clip). I want to see it having that killer edge like the needler where it's not a utility weapon but given the right circumstances it kicks ass.  it'd be noob friendly enough and good players could still use grenades and melee to kill faster and better.

Only thing worse than what they've got at the moment is doing the above   For me (as you know oatker) having 2 or 3 utility weapons that are all MUCH better than the other 2 at their intended ranges doesn't work. Amongst other things it means you have to get lucky with the correct utility weapon to stand a chance against a power weapon (so for example the long range utility weapon can't fight rockets and the short range one can't fight sniper). Also, it means you're outmatched in the majority of encounters because your gun is worse than the other 2 weapons at the majority of ranges. What you want is a utility weapon that is functional at all ranges but it's function depends on the ability of the player using the weapon. The limiting factor should always be a player's skill.

I was thinking about framing it in the sandbox closer to a shotgun than a utility weapon, though. As the Needler shows, there's room for weapons with limited windows of use that can be very effective. That's how I'd like it to handle, anyway.

edit - that thing this forum does which takes you to the last post you read is very clever but keeps making me look like a spastic by replying to really old posts as if they were the last one

Dan_Dare wrote:

mk64 wrote:

maybe it would be better if they enabled you to pick up more than two weapons and swap

No

constructive dissection of my good suggestion. Holding more weapons is an answer. Is it that different to multiple nades?

bend over so i can stick my needler where the sun dont shine.

2 weapon is a basic tenet of Halo. More weapons is good, but it aint Halo. Bit like Halo not having sprint, or bloom on weapons, or camo off spawn... wait.

It is in singleplayer. Do we ever really think about it in MP or do we all just auto go for the same weapons everytime?

I love the grenade launcher in Reach. Perfect skill weapon with a great learning curve. I hope they keep it.

to liven it up even more we could go in the COD thread and say it sucks Halo roxx0rz

Dan_Dare wrote:

Limited weapons ftw. Having to weigh up weapon choices and their risk/reward is so much better than carrying anything you want.

Depends on the game tbf. For Halo, you Need the weapon limit. Even with the extra weapon, Timeshift wold have been a hell of a lot better if you could one man army it.

Knight wrote:

I'm generally with Oakter on the weapons. Take bloom off the DMR and pistol and ignore the sniper and Reach's weapons are WAY better than H3. Rockets are much better in Reach, the shotgun is better, the plasma pistol is better, the pistol is way better, there are less weapons that effectively do the same thing as each other, the grenade launcher is genius.

Put the bloom back on the DMR and Pistol, don't ignore the sniper, and you'll have what Reach was actually like. Which surely makes Halo 3's weapon set better. Maybe that's not the weapon set as it is today, but Reach was pretty fucked by the time they changed anything substantial and that was in no small part due to the mistakes they made with the arsenal.

Why are the rockets better in Reach?

Knight wrote:

Re rockets... because they're more powerful, the rockets in H3 had a really small blast radius that meant you often had to use 2 rockets to kill someone when your first rocket really should have dealt with them. They're not vastly superior, don't get me wrong, but I think there's been a marginal improvement. Oh yeah and that double reload glitch (which Bungie inexplicably failed to deal with) from Halo 3 is much less of a problem in Reach. Nothing worse than your rockets failing to reload.

Gotcha. Do the rockets still go madspacker sometimes? Like, if a grenade goes off as one flies past and turns it into a whirlygig? I assume they do, I just don't remember seeing as much crazy shit like that happening in Reach.

I never quite enjoyed MLG as much in Reach as in Halo 3, though that's more my issue than the games. I think it's because I never managed to get to a passable level at Reach, whereas I could usually hold my own in 3 unless we were up against Ogre-types.

Might be able to get some games in tonight, I'll be rusty mind!

also, I have internet. Now taking requests for OP content!