I thought that might come across as confusing. Both Halo 4 and 5 moved closer to the CoD formula. 4 with loadouts and killstreaks. 5 to me has more of the CoD as it plays much more like a run and gun shooter to me. 

Well I play CoD since mw2 not because I like it but because almost everyone I know plays it and when I played halo 4 it was a huge disappointment. I'm glad they took away the streaks from halo 4 and added things like the kill animations and the zooms for the gun because it might not be really halo like but it makes the game fell more modern so I can accept that. I will even go as far and say the multiplayer is better than 3 and 4 and 1. Halo 2s multiplayer is really something amazing.

I played halo reach a few days ago and 60fps is a bigger than i thought because going back to reach is really hard. 

Well i can see why you wouldnt liek the game ebcause of the single player. For me its alright, but have you played the multiplayer?

When you buy the game it comes with a little cards and paper that explains things like blue team.

Well the advertising is that in the Halo universe there trying to make cheif a bad man by trying to portay him as a rebel. 

Halo 2 is my favorite of the series. It was what got me into Halo in the first place (buddy of mine was the only one who had an Xbox during Halo 2 release).

Sales wise Halo 5 underperformed when compared to previous installments, but I really enjoyed the game and the multiplayer is still awesome.

All that write up, yet there isn't a single ''bad'' or even less than stellar Halo game...

The hate for Halo 5 is welcome though as the pure unnecessary hate for Halo 4 has dies down. I never understood people who pick apart Halo 4. It was fantastic, and sold really well.

Most of the disappointment is geared towards Halo 5, and that is solely the fault of the people who criticized Halo 4. Load outs are gone. 5v5 slayer is gone. No more ordinance drops. I personally find it hard to get into with Warzone the only notable thing about Halo 5.

I hope Halo 6 follows Halo 1 - 4 rather than 5.

Single only games that focus more on cinematics than fast gameplay are better at 30fps because it gives them a better movie feeling. But games that rely mostly on precision and fast reactions are better at 60fps. Driving games that require precision are better at 60fps while those that are more arcade it doesn't matter as precision isn't what is most important in those kind of games. The same applies to fps. Not all games are suited for 60fps though.

I rank Halo 5 multiplayer up there with Halo 2 and 3. It's so damn addicting! As far as story, it's probably one of the weakest, but still fun to play.

To the OP; I don't agree with you, I have come to enjoy Halo more and more since CE and all main titles after. Did Microsoft and Bungie see potential in Halo after CE? Ofcourse! But going by Fall of Reach, there was already plans on expanding the universe.
Though I have to admit that there has been a little too much Halo in the later years (making it seem more like a cash grab), but in the same way that there's too much Star Wars, it has a universe that dedicated people want to explore. I don't think it's bad.
And you think that the "downfall" started with Halo 2? Halo 3 was the peak even though my personal favorites are between Reach, ODST and 5. 3 had Legendary gameplay that none other in the series could master in the same way. But it is just an opinion :P

To people talking Halo 5;
I believe Halo has had its ups and downs in releases of all its titles. 5 was great to me, the sense of scale was amazing, running down a Guardian, climbing a crumbling space elevator, actually riding the space elevator, Exhuberant Witness in general, I for one loved the small tidbits of interacting with other characters (even though it could've been done better and shouldn't have been counted into mission count), multiplayer/forge are superb, other weapons/vehicle variants in campaign, Buck, Blue Team, taking down the Kraken (could have been better though).

It had problems though: Locke wasn't really interesting (though he was basically what Chief was in CE, just a dude in his armor, doing his job), campaign was short, only 3 missions with Blue Team (granted, they were the longest missions), cutscenes ending too early, ending was a huge dick-punch of a cliffhanger, REQ system, while I do like it, I would've wanted more armour pieces that you had to earn in order to unlock (like the Helioskrill, Nightfall and Mark VI scarred), no infection, no oddball, no elites in multiplayer, misleading marketing (douchebags).

Overall, I love Halo 5: Guardians. But still, it's not better than 3, Reach or 2.

Maybe therein lies my issues with 60FPS, as in general I prefer single player games.

Wow, I came here expecting this go be about Halo 5 sales, not how the best Halo game "ruined" the series. And the only complaints are about the campaign? Brutes ruined Halo, really?

Halo has a great story but let's be honest, multiplayer is its bread and butter and the reason for its popularity. And Halo 2 has the best multiplayer of all. The best maps, good balance, introduced new weapons and has the best BR in the series. And it didn't have any fucking bubble shields or shield regenerators, if anything ruined the series it was those.

Single player game doesn't matter. If I'm firing a gun. That means reaction time and precision. I want the higher FPS.