: Or because of it. Gameplay is a series of interactions of parts. Focusing on
: making things interesting and unique in and of themselves often has
: extremely "meh" results in action. Which is a big part of why
: I've never been bothered by games keeping core mechanics very streamlined
: and simple. It's a phenomenal way of keeping gameplay smooth, and in my
: experience complexity of the underlying mechanics isn't proportional to
: complexity of gameplay for the player, so I'd argue you're not in much
: danger there.

Have you ever watched this:

While I hadn't watched this video before I penned my Halo 4 review, I came to similar conclusions. I wrote that:

sometimes greater flexibility isn’t necessarily a good thing. It’s much easier for Player Preferred Patterns to emerge. For example, the only handgun anybody uses in small maps is the Boltshot since it outclasses the other two as a killing tool, the most commonly used rifle is the DMR since it’s the most accurate and reliable rifle (seriously, go see how many deaths you have from the BR, Carbine, or Light Rifle in comparison), and in Big Team expect most players to have a loadout with a plasma pistol and plasma grenades in it so they can wreck vehicles.

To use a Halo-related example of why sometimes limited options is a good thing, look no further to the two-weapon limit, which Halo popularized. Before Halo, most popular shooters allowed you to carry any and all weapons in a “magic backpack,” so you always had whatever tool you needed for any situation at any time. However, Halo’s two-gun limit forced you to make tough tactical decisions on the fly (“Do I go pistol and rockets, or shotgun and sniper, or maybe something else? These weapons might be fine now, but will the one I didn’t pick up come in handy later?”). I always liked this about Halo, and it shows that, sometimes, restricting the player’s options instead of giving them access to the optimum solution to any problem at all times is a good thing as it forces them to think and strategize instead of becoming complacent and falling back on routine formulas constantly. As the old saying goes, sometimes less is more.

So, Halo 4's custom loadout system may be more complex than Reach-style fixed loadouts (which were in turn more complex than Halo 1-3, which didn't even have loadouts and everybody always started with identical gear), it did not offer more depth. We have a system that gives rise to "first-order optimal strategies." Despite all the various potential combinations, we see very little variety in the kinds of loadouts people use. I'd rather see loadouts go away and Halo return to the classic Golden Tripod, but I doubt that will happen due to the mentality that perceives going back to basics as "taking a step backwards." But you know what? Sometimes, to move forward, you have to take a few steps back because you've hit a dead end. It's like dual wielding. It added unnecessary complexity but did not increase the depth of gameplay. It was a dead-end design, and the series is much better without it.