A lot of the arguments here seem to stem from your misuse of the word 'beta', but I see what you're trying to say. However, this still wouldn't make much sense. Yeah, Reach seemed a bit rushed in some very can't-quite-pin-it-down ways, but the theory that the whole game was some sort of test for a 'newer' Halo seems a bit . . . unrealistic.
No. Your aesthetic spartan in the main menus which is always holding a DMR i thought it would be cool change weapon spartan is holding only during menus, never in game. But i just wanted point out I saw potential then was disappointed on that potential which negatively effected my view on the game till I realized its a good game regardless of my expectations of what it could of been. Which I thought might be same reason some people thought Reach was a "beta".
So you're saying that you think bloom was the specific decision made for Reach, and then the single shot nature of the DMR was decided upon subsequently (in progression of logic terms, if not strict chronological terms) to allow for it to work properly? I don't personally see the logic there, as I don't think that a single shot weapon is a necessity for bloom (read: the AR), you could just have a burst fire BR where the spread on each burst got worse with a faster RoF. To my mind, either the DMR was designed as single shot primarily, and then bloom was introduced as a specific effort to balance that (or rather to address precision weapons as a whole, ie. Pistol and NR too), or they were two ideas that were developed in tandem and brought together in the aims of balance. Either way, I don't see any reason to deny that the single shot nature of the DMR was a specific design choice, not a subsequent decision slaved to another mechanic which made it necessary.
No, it is valid, as each developer works in different ways and has different methods of doing things. Why would one developer make a beta for another completely different company? You really don't seem to know much do you? Why spend over 2 years making a beta for a game that then uses very little of that game's content? Time is money in the gaming industry and it's a very tight market out there. You don't spend ages making a beta for a game and then go and change the game mechanics in such a drastic way. A beta version of the game is created very far through the production process and the final game is fairly similar to the beta. The beta is usually used as a final draft before the main game. Just like writing a book, you set out what you want to do, you make a first draft (alpha stage), you make the required changes depending on what works and what doesn't, creating a final draft (beta) and then you do one final sweep through the game and get rid of any last little bits that need a minor tweak or adjustment. As soon as that's done the game goes onto Gold Master stage and becomes essentially the final version of the game. The major differences between the core mechanics and gameplay in Reach and H4 prove without a doubt that Reach was not a beta for H4. People on Facebook couldn't give a **** about what people think. Facebook is a social networking site, not a discussion forum dedicated to the game in question. You'd get a much better response on a forum than you would on Facebook. I'd suggest that a Mod locks this thread as it really isn't a very valid concept and you're just spewing crap. I think most others would agree with me here.
It was the last Halo game bungie was making how in the world would it be a beta for anything? Your argument makes no sense, no offense. The game is not "bland", and it seems like a bungie game. If anything, you could say firefight in ODST was a beta so firefight could be ready for reach. Reach is the final piece of halo to come out of Bungie. They put a lot into it. This. the thread is a waste space, even though it exists in digital form. You need to read up on how making a game works before you create theories like this that could only make sense in your imagination. LOCK, por favor
It's a seriously sad day when the community themselves are asking to have the basic freedom to discuss taken away in favour of over zealous moderation. Personally, I don't want an atmosphere where discussions of theory and ideas have to justify themselves in logical terms, to convince the moderators of their own logic, just to avoid being locked. The thread is doing no harm, it's an idea, and one which you guys clearly don't agree with, tbh neither do I in many ways, but just move on. Lock-happy attitudes the moment you think an idea doesn't justify itself? Disappointed, if anything the community have a vested interest in fighting against this kind of mentality from mods, not encouraging it.
@ Sky: There are plenty of threads visible from the front page, and the thread starter only replied once to each response; it's not like he/she's trying to keep the thread around any longer than normal. If no one else wants to respond, it will be buried naturally (I'll PM my next post to Pegasi if I have one, because our conversation is off-topic, now that this thread is targeted). You decided that you wanted to reply earlier; what if someone else suggested this before you posted? In the post before my last I mentioned how it wouldn't be intuitive to change the BR in such a drastic way while keeping the rest the same, when they can easily make another modification and introduce a new gun (and then create the idea that Reach is innovative enough to buy), but in order to accept this and the other reasoning in my second post (though it is speculation) as opposed to thinking that the single shot feature came first, I suppose that you would have to think of the implementation of bloom as much more game-changing than the single shot feature, because the greater change would not be made to allow a smaller change. To counter a bloomed BR I pointed out that there was a bloomless single shot pistol in H3. If the BR had bloom, it would have to be after the third shot of each burst so that the 3rd shot isn't always inaccurate at long ranges, and they couldn't have had a 5-burst BR without increasing the kill time past the 5 shot DMR. One fewer instance (trigger pull) of bloom means a greater chance that one can spam and be accurate, especially because the reticle does not reach full bloom on the first or second shot of spamming. With 3 shots in such a short space, it would be much harder for players to tell exactly how accurate they are when not fully pacing- it would seem as though they were always hitting their target (because one out of the three bullets would be likely to light the target up), and this would not reinforce the learning of pacing. I think we both know that making the main precision weapon automatic like the AR wasn't an option, so a bloomed BR vs. DMR remains the most relevant- I meant to say that single-shot was necessary for a bloomed precision weapon. I have a hard time believing that they would expect everyone to think of the removal of burst fire to create a better-scope pistol without bloom was an improvement, even though I don't mind single shot weapons and hate bloom. You didn't respond to this from my last post, so I'll reiterate it, although this may have just reached an impasse: do you think that bloom was the most intuitive way to balance a precision weapon, when no precision weapon had it before, considering the effects that it would have, effects which a lower max ROF/damage per bullet wouldn't have? I know that neither of us can be sure unless we know of an account from someone who made those decisions, but I think that there is logic that goes into this guess as well.
It makes me wonder if Bungie ever even tested Armor Lock in competitive matches. Ever played a Team Slayer match with the whole other team using Armor Lock? It's GAME-BREAKING.