I don't know if this makes much sense. Bungie has been taking Halo further and further away from what it was, and 343 made 4, not Bungie. You can thank 343 for bringing back the core gameplay, which Bungle didnt have the sense to do. At a minimum we can thank 343 for not going full on Reach.
You're referring to Reach, which was by all accounts a side project Bungie were obligated to do as part of their separation, a project they used to experiment with fresh ideas because of the game's disconnection to the mainline series. It by no means should be used to represent what Bungie would've done had they not split from Microsoft, and had made Halo 4.
Bungie's design traditions were things like the Battle Rifle (and DMR), like the core movement speed, jump hight, and general weapon balance we see today. I enjoy Halo 4 because it allows me all those things that Bungie produced and crafted for the first three Halos, not because of the new experience, ordnance, or loadout customisation systems. I don't enjoy Halo's sudden lack of base parity, I don't like the new trend away from map control, or the lack of respawns.
Breaking down Halo 4 from a purely design perspective, it's the mechanics and systems Bungie introduced, restored following Reach, admittedly, that bring about enjoyment, not any of the 'new' features 343 have introduced.
That sounds really harsh, and I'd rather be waxing lyrical about 343's design prowess, but I simply cannot. We had the discussion pre-launch about whether anyone could suggest one single design addition that was both original, and progressive for Halo's core feel. We didn't get any suggestions then, and after nearly a week of playing I don't expect any now, which isn't to say people aren't having fun with the game.
