Running speed is simply just one thing Narc. I think that reply simply lacks some extended explanation. I've had this exact debate on [url=http://halomonks.net/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=533]another forum[/url]. I'll quote myself on the discussion of game "depth" for better clarity.

Probably the easiest way to explain this is to in fact compare a couple of games. The two most popular games on the 360 at present are COD4 and Halo 3. I'll start with those.

For all it's pluses COD4 has some short falls. However I must tip my hat at the game makers for adding some things that allow the player to have different experiences and play in different styles when they so do choose. Player movement is a big thing. COD4 firstly has a sprint option that allows the player to move much quicker from point to point for short period of time while taking away their ability to fire their weapon. This feature makes the decision to sprint something to think about. It can often leave a player caught out.

Secondly player movement is different depending on what weapon you choose. Something which a lot of class based FPS games do. If you choose a LMG (Light Machine Gun) you move slower then if you are armed with an SMG. The benefits of the LMG are of cousre larger clip size and therefore ability to fire for longer. Deeper impact and damage. These characteristics are different for every class and with the add on Perks mean most of the time no two players are the same on a given battle field. Refining them is one thing but the depth of game play they add in terms of selecting weapons and perks then using them effectively is where the real enjoyment comes.

Bungie had their chance to add various things for game play depth but failed to do so. Even considering a players movement and possible restriction or penalty for grabbing a RL may have added depth to game play. They did give us this with the turrets but it wasn't subtle enough. Bungie did try with equipment to add this but in the end adding these things and more power weapons without any such penalty only added to the problems of Halo2. Weapon whoring, camping and negative game play.

If you have played TF2 you would see that the makers of that game came up with an even more refined method. Each class not only has different weapons but other things that either added or took away from that class. The Heavy Gunner has a huge body and moves slow. But they pack a punch. On the other side of things the Scout is small and quick making him much easier to evade and escape. However he is under armed and a killing machine he is not. As well as these feature the health of all the classes are different. The spy has incredible perks such as disquise and cloak but is easily killed.

So you see because of all this the game can play quite different from session to session if you choose. I fell in love with class based FPS games from the onset and there are many great ones on the 360. BF2:MC is another example and each class really has well highlighted strengths and weeknesses in that game.

This method of game design is much better then the Halo type of game where all players start with the same weapon and ability and the race to the power weapons with no penalty applied. It's important to give a player some hope especially when being outplayed may not be the factor in being spawn raped like can happen in Halo.

As for the definition of "newbie" I stand by my call. After all if you make FPS games for long enough you should have a track record that emerges in terms of game play and combat dynamics. Not one success (Halo 1) that was more luck then anything. After all Bungie themselves have voiced more self critisism about the Halo 1 pistol then any other aspect of the series. A weapon that although flawed can be convincingly argued as being the biggest reason for Halo 1's success. One of the other big reasons was the rule of three. However the initial release of Halo 2 (pre update) only highlights the fact that Bungie strumbled upon this in Halo 1 and then forgot all about it. Needing constant reminders from us the fans and consumers about what works and what doesn't certainly shows this.

The reflection of their products merely highlights what the people at Bungie are good at and what they aren't.

[quote="SYSTEM-J"]

Once again, it's the age old problem. You're taking a mass-market, flagship FPS and demanding one thing from it: competitive multi-player gaming. Then when it fails you start flailing around criticising a major developer who are about a thousand times as competent as the average idiots gathered round a map editor that we call "developers" in this creatively asphyxiated era, a much-needed vent for your impotent frustrations over a game that's the focal point of a passtime that's rapidly deteriotating to the point that, as Hell Spunk very accurately says, you [i]have[/i] to make do with flawed product because the alternative is even worse. [/quote]

That's all fairly accurate System. The Halo series has always been a focal point of my love for gaming. That finished a few short weeks after Halo 3 was released. My expectations have always been too high. I see that now. My love for Halo did much of this.

What I've learned in between Halo 2's release and those few short week after Halo 3's is important. If you asked me to give a 10 year old review of Goldeneye a couple of months ago I would have probably ripped it to shreds. I would have reflected on all the poor level design mixed with weapons such as Proxie mines and such that made it unbalanced and not at all competitive.

Now I wouldn't do such a thing. If COD4 was released 6 months ago I probably would have butchered it for all it's failing as well. How can I be so negative to a game I loved to play like Goldeneye? I guess what Halo 2 taught me was to attack and seek out the negative instead of embracing the positive. My expectation are not simply lowered now but rather changed. A game no longer has to tick all the boxes but more importantly has to tick the "fun" box.

If you have played the campaign of COD4 you would have played through many different types of stages. All of which had great variety and meant the player wasn't playing the same style of game in a different setting. The same can be said for MP aspects and sadly Halo 3 doesn't have this in any way.

[quote="SYSTEM-J"]In other words: games are sh*t, but people keep buying sh*t and developers start making games more in line with the sh*t that people so obligingly pay for. You call them "noobs", when really, Blizzard aside, there's not a developer in the world more crafty at tailoring their products to the modern gaming demographic.[/quote]

I don't think that will happen from now on. HS was right and in Halo 2's reign the competition was fairly average bordering on down right shit. However the market has changed and the pretty gloss of games like Halo 3 will not be enough to gaurantee success in times to come.