Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: If This Game Is Geared Even MORE Toward Casual Players How Will You...
  • Subject: If This Game Is Geared Even MORE Toward Casual Players How Will You...
Subject: If This Game Is Geared Even MORE Toward Casual Players How Will You...

Posted by: MachinimistLuke2
Posted by: jfarag95

Dumb post is dumb, on the Periodic Table of Elements, There is one capital letter, and one lowercase. (Br)


Nobody cares what you're saying, and now you're just finding an excuse to post.

*Request For Thread Closure*

hes the op he can post whenever he wants

dont close this thread its a very important topic

  • 10.20.2009 3:48 PM PDT

AV=http://avatar.coolclip.ru/albums/Avatars/Avatars%2090x90/A vatars_90x90_022.gif
BG=http://avatar.coolclip.ru/albums/Avatars/Avatars%2090x90/A vatars_90x90_022.gif

I agree with you, and want this Halo game to be more hardcore friendly.

  • 10.20.2009 3:48 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member
  • gamertag: goobot
  • user homepage:

what is this halo you speak of?

wow how about campaign does nobody even care about that?

  • 10.20.2009 3:49 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Legendary Member

Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgen
If by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.

Posted by: WaveL3ngth
Why does almost everyone say competitive gamers are MLG wannabes but who wouldn't want to travel around the country playing Halo for money and fun. I certainly would. Plus just cause you like competitive gaming dosent make you a wannabe
Define comtetitive? Basically any game can become a comtetitive game.

Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I dont know why everyone dosent want this game to take skill. You people will have this game release date probably so you should be good. I personally want the game to at least be like Halo 2 and have
The game takes skill as it is. What defines skills is the ability someone has to beat someone else when both players have the same tools/weapons at their disposal. Skill could come naturally just as it can be learned.

Posted by: WaveL3ngth
The same BR, Its really not overpowered and people need a good starting weapon. Bungie lowered it down enough for you with having to lead your shots and a bullet spread. I think they should have never brought back the AR imo
Not really overpowered? It beats all other weapons exept for power weapons. As for leading shots... not really and the spread is minimal IMO. The spread in the H3 Beta was higher and people cried about it because they couldn't use the weapon effectively.


  • 10.20.2009 3:49 PM PDT

DO THE IMPOSSIBLE.

I just remembered something important for this thread.
And this thread is not important.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

  • 10.20.2009 3:50 PM PDT

Posted by: MachinimistLuke2
I just remembered something important for this thread.
And this thread is not important.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
I'm feeling kind of hungry.

You know why? I don't see this being a troll thread, just a bunch of inconsiderate, idiotic comments. Incase you're wondering, I do not have a regular Troll diet.

  • 10.20.2009 3:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I think Bungie thinks that making dumbed down weapons and functionality means for happier gameplay at lower levels. I disagree. I think that happiness comes from a ranking system that works fairly and matches people up appropriately, preventing second accounters and derankers.

That being said, a wide range of skill involved in using weapons is actually beneficial to that sorting process. The more you can distinguish yourself with skill, the easier the sorting system will have in guaranteeing a good match up. It also means that the top players are happy, but so are the bottom players. The sucky players can use ARs and take 10shots with their BRs while the top players use the weapons more effectively.

People think that skill and fun for lower players are mutually exclusive - diametrically opposed. It's not that way at all. It's just that people have chosen the BR either as the bane of their existence, or their god, when it is neither. Skill is not encompassed in one weapon, but rather in an ethos. People need to figure out what that is rather than fight over stupid weapons.

  • 10.20.2009 3:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Inb4Lock
Posted by: MachinimistLuke2
I just remembered something important for this thread.
And this thread is not important.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
I'm feeling kind of hungry.

You know why? I don't see this being a troll thread, just a bunch of inconsiderate, idiotic comments. Incase you're wondering, I do not have a regular Troll diet.


Exactly. How is this a troll thread?

I'm asking for a competitive game, back to the days of halo CE, where fun and competetivity were both present. Instead of just "fun".

  • 10.20.2009 3:56 PM PDT

I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill

[Edited on 10.20.2009 4:06 PM PDT]

  • 10.20.2009 4:03 PM PDT

Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


I do like the Maulers though. They help when someones camping in Sword room on the pit, and aren't too overpowered alone.

  • 10.20.2009 4:08 PM PDT

I have 2 options Fight and win.... or fight and die

Its a halo game. not a everybody love me because i make you feel awesome because at least you tried. it should be a more difficult and gritty game. and if your gonna -BLAM- about it then instead of complaining about how its to hard. practice DIP -BLAM-

  • 10.20.2009 4:08 PM PDT

What are you worried about? Seriously? Don't like the default settings? Halo has always been customizable, I'm certain that people who don't like the default gametypes and maps can use the tools they are given to create something more enjoyable. They did it in Halo 3, why not in Reach?

So don't complain.

  • 10.20.2009 4:10 PM PDT

"Dear Humanity; we regret being alien bastards. We regret coming to Earth. And we most definitely regret that the Corps just blew up our raggedy-ass fleet!"
—Avery J. Johnson
click it you know you want to

Posted by: The 5th Horsemen
Its a halo game. not a everybody love me because i make you feel awesome because at least you tried. it should be a more difficult and gritty game. and if your gonna -BLAM- about it then instead of complaining about how its to hard. practice DIP -BLAM-

You proposing an..................ah, Call Of Halo and Gears of Halo.

  • 10.20.2009 4:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BTE
Define comtetitive? Basically any game can become a comtetitive game.
Oh semantics. I think you know what is meant. Of course everything can be competetive, but we're talking about a level of competetiveness. How competetive can you really get in Candyland or whatever it's called? Is luck really considered something that contributes to good competition? So let me lay it out for you -

Competition is that which allows for more skill. Many argue that the current Halo is relatively luck based, as the bullet spreads are random, among a plethora of other things. So it may take skill, but the skill gap is not that high, which is inarguable. Just look at the amount of 40s and above you have in H3 and compare to H2. That was competetive. There is not much of a skill gap in H3 because the weapons and gameplay and ranking system don't allow for skill to really shine through.

Posted by: BTE
The game takes skill as it is. What defines skills is the ability someone has to beat someone else when both players have the same tools/weapons at their disposal. Skill could come naturally just as it can be learned.
But you're missing a huge part of it. You assume that the weapons are equal. Hear me out. Yes, you both may have the same BR, but that doesn't mean the spread will be the same for you. You go to 4 shot each other and he makes it, you miss, because his bullet randomly hit correctly and yours didn't. Yes, both BRs have the same randomness built into it, but because they are inconsistent weapons, all things being equal, a lesser skilled aiming player can end up beating a more skilled aiming player player. Aim is a part of skill, and when you diminish its importance, you take away from the overall skill.

Nobody would argue that there's no skill in H3, just that Bungie has created weapons and a game that don't allow it to shine through and distinguish itself like it should.

Posted by: BTE
Not really overpowered? It beats all other weapons exept for power weapons. As for leading shots... not really and the spread is minimal IMO. The spread in the H3 Beta was higher and people cried about it because they couldn't use the weapon effectively.
The only reason it's overpowered is because it's been dumbed down. With a burst weapon that's headshot capable, it takes no skill to get a headshot whatsoever. Aim at their chest, their head, or their toe and you'll get a headshot against an undhielded person. Maybe swipe the reticule in the general direction of the opponent's head as you fire, but you're guaranteed a HS.

Then we move out to distances and the BR is guaranteed to hit a player and ping them out of scope. You don't even need the reticule on the opponent, because of the burst, if you're near the opponent you'll probably land 1/3 bullets. But at any range at all, this random spread - while making it easy to hit a target with at least 1 bullet from a burst, actually makes 4shotting and consistency nearly impossible. So he who wins becomes he who gets the best spread on the BR, not he who is the most skillful.

The one thing I do agree with is the leading aspect. Play on Standoff and shoot 3/4 across the map and you have to lead a reticule ahead to hit anything. That's the one thing that is good about it.

Anyway, you do need skill as is in H3, but it is not very distinguishable. Bringing in more skill in the aiming category would allow for one other component of skill to be consistent and telling in the game. As it stands, tactics, teamwork, map control, and weapon control are important, but you do all of that via the weapons you have. When these weapons are lacking in skill or are randomized (at least in terms of the most used weapon or the tactical controlling ones), it takes away skill from a large part of the game.

  • 10.20.2009 4:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
What are you worried about? Seriously? Don't like the default settings? Halo has always been customizable, I'm certain that people who don't like the default gametypes and maps can use the tools they are given to create something more enjoyable. They did it in Halo 3, why not in Reach?

So don't complain.

It's hard with broad damages with weapons.

If I wanted to make the Pistol 3-shot, it would most likely be 1-hit beatdown. I might not want that though.

  • 10.20.2009 4:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: jfarag95
If Halo: Reach is geared even more towards casual players than Halo 3, how are you going to feel about it?

I personally am going to be VERY unhappy. I am tired of all the threads and things complaining about how the BR is overpowered. If they don't have a weapon with a scope, that kills in less that 4 shots, with more than 4 shots in the clip, I'm going to freak.

If they don't have a way of running the flag, I'm going to freak.

If they have 10 too many rapid fire weapons, I'm going to freak.

How will you feel if this game is geared toward "Weekend Warriors" or people who play once a month?


I just hope they put in as much time as it takes to make the game work well online. I don't care if it doesn't come out until 2012.

  • 10.20.2009 4:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I'll like it.

  • 10.20.2009 4:12 PM PDT

Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


Lol. Halo 2 was when all the stupid weapons were added. There is no point to have a Beam Rifle and Sniper Rifle. Everyone will just use the Sniper because it has more ammo.

Halo 2 was when they made the Plasma Rifle an SMG for shields, and the SMG replaced the perfectly good Assault rifle, but was even more useless because it had a horrible range. Also, the Spiker is just a replacement for the Brute Plasma Rifle. You know? That superfluous version of the Plasma Rifle Bungie made because they couldn't think up anything original for the Brutes. So they just sped up the rate of fire, and turned it red.

Halo 2 did not take skill. Leading your bullets takes skill. Swiping a battle rifle by the head for a kill like in Halo 2 does not take skill. Halo 2 was rushed. It was not balanced, and it was the start of these stupid weapon knock offs.

  • 10.20.2009 4:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


Lol. Halo 2 was when all the stupid weapons were added. There is no point to have a Beam Rifle and Sniper Rifle. Everyone will just use the Sniper because it has more ammo.

Halo 2 was when they made the Plasma Rifle an SMG for shields, and the SMG replaced the perfectly good Assault rifle, but was even more useless because it had a horrible range. Also, the Spiker is just a replacement for the Brute Plasma Rifle. You know? That superfluous version of the Plasma Rifle Bungie made because they couldn't think up anything original for the Brutes. So they just sped up the rate of fire, and turned it red.

Halo 2 did not take skill. Leading your bullets takes skill. Swiping a battle rifle by the head for a kill like in Halo 2 does not take skill. Halo 2 was rushed. It was not balanced, and it was the start of these stupid weapon knock offs.


It doesn't matter what kinds of weapons they put in the game as long as they realize that there needs to be some type of "equalizer" weapon that rewards aiming skill. I really don't understand why spawn camping and power weapon timing are rewarded more than aiming skill and controller handling.

Sometimes the Halo 3 BR can be a complete joke online. I hope the weapons in Reach are more lethal and reward individual skill over a players ability to build a big friends list.

  • 10.20.2009 4:32 PM PDT

Posted by: AlcoholicGrade4
Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


Lol. Halo 2 was when all the stupid weapons were added. There is no point to have a Beam Rifle and Sniper Rifle. Everyone will just use the Sniper because it has more ammo.

Halo 2 was when they made the Plasma Rifle an SMG for shields, and the SMG replaced the perfectly good Assault rifle, but was even more useless because it had a horrible range. Also, the Spiker is just a replacement for the Brute Plasma Rifle. You know? That superfluous version of the Plasma Rifle Bungie made because they couldn't think up anything original for the Brutes. So they just sped up the rate of fire, and turned it red.

Halo 2 did not take skill. Leading your bullets takes skill. Swiping a battle rifle by the head for a kill like in Halo 2 does not take skill. Halo 2 was rushed. It was not balanced, and it was the start of these stupid weapon knock offs.


It doesn't matter what kinds of weapons they put in the game as long as they realize that there needs to be some type of "equalizer" weapon that rewards aiming skill. I really don't understand why spawn camping and power weapon timing are rewarded more than aiming skill and controller handling.

Sometimes the Halo 3 BR can be a complete joke online. I hope the weapons in Reach are more lethal and reward individual skill over a players ability to build a big friends list.


You do know you can use a sniper if you don't find the BR sniper enough for your tastes.

  • 10.20.2009 4:34 PM PDT

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: AlcoholicGrade4
Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


Lol. Halo 2 was when all the stupid weapons were added. There is no point to have a Beam Rifle and Sniper Rifle. Everyone will just use the Sniper because it has more ammo.

Halo 2 was when they made the Plasma Rifle an SMG for shields, and the SMG replaced the perfectly good Assault rifle, but was even more useless because it had a horrible range. Also, the Spiker is just a replacement for the Brute Plasma Rifle. You know? That superfluous version of the Plasma Rifle Bungie made because they couldn't think up anything original for the Brutes. So they just sped up the rate of fire, and turned it red.

Halo 2 did not take skill. Leading your bullets takes skill. Swiping a battle rifle by the head for a kill like in Halo 2 does not take skill. Halo 2 was rushed. It was not balanced, and it was the start of these stupid weapon knock offs.


It doesn't matter what kinds of weapons they put in the game as long as they realize that there needs to be some type of "equalizer" weapon that rewards aiming skill. I really don't understand why spawn camping and power weapon timing are rewarded more than aiming skill and controller handling.

Sometimes the Halo 3 BR can be a complete joke online. I hope the weapons in Reach are more lethal and reward individual skill over a players ability to build a big friends list.


You do know you can use a sniper if you don't find the BR sniper enough for your tastes.


I want the M6D, it was pretty much the best weapon. If you didn't care about aim, but speed, you could hold down the trigger, while if you wanted aim, you had to press it. It made everything better. There is a big difference between a BR and Sniper Rifle.

  • 10.20.2009 4:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: AlcoholicGrade4
Posted by: disgruntledfan2
Posted by: WaveL3ngth
I respect your opinions but let me fix what I said on #2 I want it to take more skill like Halo 2 did. I think H2 was very well balanced out because it didnt have so many different weapons that do the same thing to overpower

EDIT: I think more skill equals more fun a my friends who are casual gamers agree that multiplayer was more fun in H:CE and got worse each game because bungie kept making it to take less skill


Lol. Halo 2 was when all the stupid weapons were added. There is no point to have a Beam Rifle and Sniper Rifle. Everyone will just use the Sniper because it has more ammo.

Halo 2 was when they made the Plasma Rifle an SMG for shields, and the SMG replaced the perfectly good Assault rifle, but was even more useless because it had a horrible range. Also, the Spiker is just a replacement for the Brute Plasma Rifle. You know? That superfluous version of the Plasma Rifle Bungie made because they couldn't think up anything original for the Brutes. So they just sped up the rate of fire, and turned it red.

Halo 2 did not take skill. Leading your bullets takes skill. Swiping a battle rifle by the head for a kill like in Halo 2 does not take skill. Halo 2 was rushed. It was not balanced, and it was the start of these stupid weapon knock offs.


It doesn't matter what kinds of weapons they put in the game as long as they realize that there needs to be some type of "equalizer" weapon that rewards aiming skill. I really don't understand why spawn camping and power weapon timing are rewarded more than aiming skill and controller handling.

Sometimes the Halo 3 BR can be a complete joke online. I hope the weapons in Reach are more lethal and reward individual skill over a players ability to build a big friends list.


You do know you can use a sniper if you don't find the BR sniper enough for your tastes.


Have you ever played Team Snipers online for more than 30 minutes? If you ever want to see just how bad this game is at registering shots try playing Snipers for a while. Its not that the BR isnt "sniper" enough its the fact that there is no reason why it should take 7 trigger pulls of anything to kill someone in a video game. By the time you get to that 7th trigger pull and you are about to put that 21st bullet into someone for the kill it can get very annoying when someone walks by and shoots the guy that you had been killing for the last 10 seconds and gets the credit for it.

  • 10.20.2009 4:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I also forgot to mention the fact that the ranking system makes it very evident just how little "skill" is required to be "good" at Halo 3. I don't even think Bungie tries to pretend like the ranking system makes sense anymore.

  • 10.20.2009 4:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: disgruntledfan2
You do know you can use a sniper if you don't find the BR sniper enough for your tastes.


Don't get me wrong, we're all biased, but your colors really show through here. You made a very intelligent post about the stupidity of H2 weapons (which I agree with), but then bring in your bias here. I used to be just like you, hating the idea of consistency, as the H2 BR blinded me. Yes, the H2 BR was way too easy to use, but that was largely because of magnetism and autoaim in H2. The burst also blows, which I hated both in H2 and H3, as it makes HS too easy.

That being said, if autoaim were reduced even more and if the reticule were a bit smaller, you'd have a weapon that would take skill to use. The current BR is the opposite of the H2 BR, and IMO, the opposite of a sniper. It is very inaccurate at range, there is little consistency, etc. Shooting a BR at anything farther than a relatively close mid range is like trying to 16 shot with an AR at a farther close range situation. The BR in H3 is a glorified AR and has been extremely dumbed down, which actually reduces fair matches as well as skill.

Please read my previous two posts for reference to this so I don't have to repeat myself on how this ruins gameplay.

[Edited on 10.20.2009 4:53 PM PDT]

  • 10.20.2009 4:49 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Legendary Member

Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgen
If by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
Oh semantics. I think you know what is meant. Of course everything can be competetive, but we're talking about a level of competetiveness. How competetive can you really get in Candyland or whatever it's called? Is luck really considered something that contributes to good competition? So let me lay it out for you -

Competition is that which allows for more skill. Many argue that the current Halo is relatively luck based, as the bullet spreads are random, among a plethora of other things. So it may take skill, but the skill gap is not that high, which is inarguable. Just look at the amount of 40s and above you have in H3 and compare to H2. That was competetive. There is not much of a skill gap in H3 because the weapons and gameplay and ranking system don't allow for skill to really shine through.

But you're missing a huge part of it. You assume that the weapons are equal. Hear me out. Yes, you both may have the same BR, but that doesn't mean the spread will be the same for you. You go to 4 shot each other and he makes it, you miss, because his bullet randomly hit correctly and yours didn't. Yes, both BRs have the same randomness built into it, but because they are inconsistent weapons, all things being equal, a lesser skilled aiming player can end up beating a more skilled aiming player player. Aim is a part of skill, and when you diminish its importance, you take away from the overall skill.

Nobody would argue that there's no skill in H3, just that Bungie has created weapons and a game that don't allow it to shine through and distinguish itself like it should.

The only reason it's overpowered is because it's been dumbed down. With a burst weapon that's headshot capable, it takes no skill to get a headshot whatsoever. Aim at their chest, their head, or their toe and you'll get a headshot against an undhielded person. Maybe swipe the reticule in the general direction of the opponent's head as you fire, but you're guaranteed a HS.

Then we move out to distances and the BR is guaranteed to hit a player and ping them out of scope. You don't even need the reticule on the opponent, because of the burst, if you're near the opponent you'll probably land 1/3 bullets. But at any range at all, this random spread - while making it easy to hit a target with at least 1 bullet from a burst, actually makes 4shotting and consistency nearly impossible. So he who wins becomes he who gets the best spread on the BR, not he who is the most skillful.

Anyway, you do need skill as is in H3, but it is not very distinguishable. Bringing in more skill in the aiming category would allow for one other component of skill to be consistent and telling in the game. As it stands, tactics, teamwork, map control, and weapon control are important, but you do all of that via the weapons you have. When these weapons are lacking in skill or are randomized (at least in terms of the most used weapon or the tactical controlling ones), it takes away skill from a large part of the game.

Great post.

Personally the main problem I ever faced on Halo 2 is that once I got to 30, it was nearly impossible (alone, maybe with a group things were different) to level up past that due to the great number of modders and standbyers. The highest level I got was 34 and I lost it quickly thanks to what I mentioned above, i managed to get my level back to 32 and just quit the game. My best friend had the same problem with the game. You could argue that Halo 3 has a flawed ranking system when compared to Halo 2 but when you think about it, I think Bungie noticed that getting to level 50 on Halo 2 was nearly impossible so they made it easier to get a higher level on Halo 3.

As for how competitive a game is, and how much does luck play a part on an encounter, I used to play WoW and on that game luck was more of a factor than it is in Halo 3. But even if you managed to get really lucky, that all wouldn't matter in the long run because skill would triumph over luck (im talking about same classes, same equipment and everything). In Halo, another thing (which you did not mention, was the fact that in 2, there was a horrible auto aim and bullet magnetism. Doesn't that add up to how inconsistent the game itself was? There seems to be some kind of auto aim in Halo 3 but is much lower than on Halo 2.

You also comment on the BR, its spread and how luck came into play. Since this is another BR thread lets talk about the weapon. I agree that the weapon could be considered inconsistent, but aren't automatic and burst weapons like that? Also, why is it that they don't use the Carbine then? The Carbine's overall design (as a weapon) is a lot better than the BR and it is much more consistent. You miss your shot, and you are screwed. You don't get 2 other bullets to make up for your bad aiming. Very similar to the old Halo:CE pistol. Wouldn't you agree with me then that its bogus for them to keep the BR as it is when they already have a weapon that is superior to it (as far as gameplay mechanics go)? Same goes for these MLG kids that say: "the BR is more competitive".

  • 10.20.2009 4:51 PM PDT