I kind of had to keep my composure after reading this and did not reply to it yesterday. Its a new day, so hopefully I can put into words on why I feel that this assumption is, for the lack of a better word, terrible.
For me personally, Halos multiplayer is based around a couple of key principles. Those are: equal starts, static weapon/item placements (with respawn timers), grenades and complementary map design. Equal start means that every player starts with the same weapon and same grenades. The benefit of this is that no one player is overpowered or given a leg up. Static weapon spawns is for a power weapon (such as sniper, rocket launcher and so on) placements around a map, those respawn after a certain amount of time after the one lying around is picked up. Grenades are kind of the randomizer, you use them to get out of though spots. All those elements are layers of the game and create depth. With equal starts people are more invested in getting the weapons placed around the map, because they want to keep the other team from getting them. It also indirectly promotes map movement (Who is getting the sniper? We will go get the rocket launcher.) and team play (Player x has the rocket launcher, he is camping in the x room!). Often those elements influence the map design, because you have to take into account every possible scenario.
With Halo 4s multiplayer much of those ideals are gone and replaced with a whole new set of principles. There is a loadout system which lets you customize which weapon you spawn with, not only that but you can chose which type of grenades you want and get extra help with the perk system. While playing the game you can earn ordnance drops in which you can call in certain weapons or items. Does that not sound like another popular game? Well, yeah. Chief argument for it is that it puts more power in the hand of the player. All good and all, with good intentions, but that breaks all balance because you have about a thousand possible variations. The clean, everybody is equal approach is much more inviting and practical. The ordnance system is kind of a replacement for static weapons spawn, the problem with it is it removes the element of urgency you had with it no more effort to keep control of a certain part of a map or even outright confrontation trying to manically to pick up the power weapon first (and doing It again 3 to 4 times during one match). The worst effect these new principles have had on are the maps, they are now backdrops instead of being crucial to the game because well nothing promotes them to be explored or taken advantage of. You might have noticed a pattern there, nothing about this new philosophy is build around longevity its built to make a good first impression and it really does, the shooting is great and feels overall well built. In this day of age, that is all that is needed for games, because people move on from game to game faster these days. I feel like that is a wrong way to approach a game, you should always strive to keep players engaged and coming back.
There has always been a certain learning curve to Halo and that can be intimidating for some people. There are multiple ways to combat this issue though; Halo 3 introduced social playlist where the player gets time to play with a lower pool of players just to get a feel for the game. This is an ideal way, because more experienced players are not handicapped. Halo 4s approach to this problem is by making the whole game accessible from the start, but never really removes those training wheels. It would have been interesting if they started out Cod lite and gradually when the player ranks up the more intricate Halo elements are introduced. Again, another aspect that kind of highlights the short- term thinking instead of the long-term vision. There are so many interesting thing in the Halo design DNA that should be used, but are not even taken advantage of or just completely abandoned for no reason. Now look at some popular e-sports games, like Starcraft, League of Legends and Street Fighter, what do they all have in common? They respect their hardcore DNA and people flock over to play those games. Its not just about respecting its core fundamentals, it also expects players to play it for a long time. You see this in for example adding ranking, spectator mode and such. Those games give a great, maybe a little intimidating, first impression but also, to hammer this point again, also are built to keep players engaged and entertained. Pro-gamers or regulars wanted this is not something that is selfish, they want the game to succeed and get a huge and diverse population for the right reasons because in the end it benefits all parties. More options? More diversity? Why would anybody want to say no to that.
