Most of the AI in H5 Warzone aren't bullet sponges... the bosses definitely are, however. From a skill standpoint, it's mostly knowing when to dodge, reload, and boost... which doesn't sound very impressive but Halo's trademark combat model still allows for satisfying headshots, melee kills, and the occasional outrageous grenade kill. I also like the additional ground slam and shoulder charge actions. Easy to use, but difficult to make them really effective. Idk, I think there is still some skill required in order to play the game well.
I tried to get into Gears 4 Horde mode, but it was slow getting into each match and the clunkiness of the control scheme was more cumbersome than anything. There were also players that were worse, and some that were far better than I. H5 was more leveled in that respect, but I still felt like I had some really good rounds, both PvP & PvE.
I wouldn't say those are...good counterpoints. The enemies that aren't bullet sponges are generally ones you can put down really quickly with a couple of headshots. Hunters, in the campaign, are a fun encounter with strategy. In Warzone, they're bullet sponges of the highest order. When they're surrounded, the AI just flails badly and dies quickly. Knights are a similar story--the fun and strategy die when they're surrounded and pelted grenades from all sides. The satisfaction of melee kills is also a new thing, IMO. It used to be mashing 'B' and trying to win that brawl in the older games, not exactly exciting. Assassinations have made melee more entertaining and satisfying, especially when paired with camo. The slam and charge, I find them awful. A traditional melee can be countered and made into a fun duel. The charge rips the shield and has a pretty strong knockback. So, in a lot of those terribly condensed maps (Tyrant, Truth, Regret) or anything with a lot of corner (basically every other map), you can go into a dead sprint at most any time, hit the melee, and win with a headshot. That's the definition of the crappy "twitch shooter" people have complained about
CoD being for a long time. The slam has more risk in it, since it leaves you open, and I can say it's definitely less commonly used. I still don't care for its presence, though. If it weren't such a strong AoE, and the maps weren't so full of walls (meaning your teammates could help out on those enemies effectively), it would go over better. Torque (and its original variant whose name I forget) is a good example of decent map design that allows that mix of use and countering, I think. It's not a super-tight map, so you can spread out and have sight lines for distanced combat and assisting in those scenarios.
As for matchmaking quality, I found it to be totally awful. The idea of building a ranking solely on winning is terrible. Not replacing quitters in that scenario makes it even worse (looking at you,
Rocket League match I just played 2v3 before coming here). On top of it, then putting a temp ban and doubly harsh negative ranking on you if you don't take that ranked walloping down 1-2 players, makes it one of the worst ranking systems I can recall. I've played some balanced games, sure. I've also played a LOT with results +15 for either side. Then again, so much of that can be pinned on terrible map design (once you control power weapons and the upper corner in Pegasus, the fight gets very one-sided, for example).
Facebook
Twitter