Fair enough. Personally, I'm pretty easy going about this sort of thing; rare is the sole feature that can make or break a game. But that's clearly not everybody, and you're right: if you want to be heard, that's the way to do it.
Halo is something of an exception for me, it is a rare franchise i care for (the Elder Scrolls is just about the only other existing franchise i care for, everything else is dead at the moment, more or less). I've been a fan for over a decade, and lack of ADS and Sprint in Halo were real great things after COD4 introduced them and every fucking game copied them. I loved COD4 but i hate that everything copies it instead of trying their own thing, including with basic game mechanics.
Halo is unique, i think. I cannot recall a single game that actually felt like Halo, but i can think of shooters that feel like COD or some other shooters (like Planetside 2 feeling a bit like BF3, partially because vehicle physics...).
Now they want to add them to a series that has been without them for almost a decade, one feature yet again, despite the reception of it. I figure i gotta make a stand because i love the series. If i hated the series, why would i bother? I wouldn't care, wouldn't get it, wouldn't play it in the first place.
I do not oppose change in Halo, i just oppose features i feel are copied from others for mass appeal, not because they're made for Halo.
(Interestingly, where i blame COD for introducing features everyone copies to the point of over-saturation and ruin, a friend of mine blames Halo for introducing health regen and two weapon-limit and them being copied too much. He is a PC player, so i see his point especially about the latter, Halo's features existed due to console control limitations, limitations that do not exist PC and thus shouldn't matter there. He did like Halo though, just like i do like COD4 (or liked, i don't think i could stand it anymore).)
