Play the old MP's. It's still an arene mp, but actually with sprint, boost etc. there has changed a lot in terms of gameplay and playing style.
It's still Halo MP. But in the end that's what people want.

84 is a really good meta-score, but I do understand that some people expected more from a Halo game. It would be akin to a 3d Mario(or mainline Zelda game) getting mid-80s, or Uncharted getting mid-80s. First party exclusives tend to be held to a higher expectation for some odd reason whereas no one really batted an eye when Black Ops 3 got an 81.

Maybe it's not the actual score it got but the ratings we got used to over the years that to often where to high while more and more reviewers now review somewhat harder and some tend to give low scores for more or less dumb reasons.
Reviewers being more critical isn't a bad thing, it was a bad thing though that games got really high scores far to often.

I got the game as a 9.5/10. Best mp in the series. The single player lets down mainly due to crap characters but it's still solid, and btw anyone claiming the game sp is the shortest in the series obviously hasn't played it. It's clearly longer than 3 and 4.

Mmmmm, well that's ur opinion that the mp isn't that good but don't state that as a fact please. The vast majority would disagree with u on that one. It's right up there with halo 2 and clearly better than halo 4's lackluster mp.

"Mmmmm, well that's ur opinion that the mp isn't that good but don't state that as a fact please. The vast majority would disagree with u on that one. It's right up there with halo 2 and clearly better than halo 4's lackluster mp."

Ironic given you just stated "anyone claiming the game sp is the shortest in the series obviously hasn't played it. It's clearly longer than 3 and 4." as a fact when the majority would disagree with you:

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=19267 Halo 5 - 7 hours

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=4265 Halo 4 - 8 hours

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=4263 Halo 3 - 9 hours

Unless you have some better source of information I don' see how you're doing anything different than what you accuse Ethomaz of.  

I was just going by my playtime of 11 hours. But I explore a bit. And sorry but that is flat wrong about halo 3 and 4. They are both shorter than that. I've beaten both 4 times. And neither would take me that long on legendary while exploring. They are 6 hour games on heroic.

To you, the only even close to objective metric we have is an average of a number of people's completion times and they say different. 

To me and my other 4 hardcore halo friends, but whatever maybe I am wrong. It is a much bigger campaign tho, I mean size wise. 

People who expect new games In a series to match its predecessors scores are going to be disappointed. Reviewer are much harsher then they used to be and especially so on sequels. Just look at the scores of other new sequels.
Batman AK. Mid 80's even tho it's no worse than Arkham city.
Fallout 4 mid 80's. Black ops 3 has an 81 I believe even tho the consensus(I haven't played it yet) is that it's the best one in years. Look at the witcher 3, it's got a similar score to witcher 2 even tho it's vastly better. Dragon age won game of the year last year even tho it had what a 90. And the same goes for 5. The consensus seams to be that it's better than halo 4(87) and reach(91).
For new games and especially sequels the following is true in my OPPINION.
80 is the new 84-87
85 is the new 89-92
90 is the new 94-97
95 is the new 98+