The problem with Halo is that it can only evolve so much before either having to sacrifice the standard gameplay system and risk alienating old fans of the franchise with a new-implemented system, or play it safe while incorporating new elements that hopefully maintain it fresh. Halo 5 case seems to be the later.

That's also what kinda happens when the "trilogy" already hit it's peak. Halo 2 was perfection, minus the cliffhanger ending. Halo 3 was good single-player wise and had a timeless multiplayer. Four entries later (ODST, Reach, H4 and H5), this is bound to happen.

Yeah...I've been saying for a while that I just don't have faith in 343 to maintain the level of quality the Halo series is known for. Which is a real shame since I played the shit out of the rest of the series.

Oh please, Kotaku is a fucking joke anyways.

No, no, no... Halo simply raised the bar in FPS genre. It also inspired other shooters but its not the standard and never has been.

Games like Half LIfe and CoD:MW came, were very different experiences from Halo, but still raised the bar in the genre.

Halo 5 does not feel like a standard FPS at all based on the beta. There isn't anything quite like it on the market. If you don't feel Halo 5 is innovative enough, maybe you've just set unrealistic expectations.

Kotaku is on a roll today, eh?

Well a lot of people like Halo 4, it certainly reviewed well. Multiplayer was great and it certainly raised the bar in story telling.

343 can't please everyone. But I'm glad its in their hands now given how mediocre Destiny was.

The call of dutying of halo is a shame but I guess this is what gamers want

It did review well, but it was missing something that the older Halo games had.

I also don't see Destiny as evidence that Bungie would have done a bad job with another Halo game. They are very different types of games after all, and the issues that Destiny has/had aren't things that would really translate over into a more traditional fps.

Though honestly, I think Halo Reach would have been a good place to leave the series. Halo 4 felt like it spent too much time trying to justify it's existence.

So 1 he didnt play it and 2 he had already seen the femo so of course he would be bored. And its early in the game ao of course its going to be small

I'm not understanding some of the complaints in this thread. A writer SHOULD NOT write about a game when the publisher invites them to a preview unless they get to play the game? What is the point of going to the preview, then? Or is it rather that they should write about the game only if they have favorable impressions?

Anyway, on topic.

"Developer 343 says that Halo 5 is “built from the ground up” with co-op in mind, so much so that the campaign literally cannot be played without a squad at your side."

That's the main thing that bothers me. Worrying about the actions of one combatant AI is enough, but a whole squad? Nhh, I'm not so sure I like the sound of that.

Everything else, though, the fact that he points out they're dealing with early levels means that it's really impossible to judge. Yeah, I've got to say, the early Halo footage I've seen has been far less majestic or impressive than Halo 4 but horses should probably be hugged tightly and restrained from forward movement. Exotic weapons and levels often come later in a game. That's not something I'd be much concerned with yet.