While on the forums, I see a lot of people saying that if people want a Halo game with classic gameplay there should just be a classic gameplay playlist. I’m here to seriously ask if that is actually the right move for 343. In my opinion I don’t think it is. Let me explain:
Halo 5 is actually trying this right now, by splitting multiplayer into Arena and Warzone. All it has accomplished is splitting Halo 5’s player base into those two respective categories and given the community a bad taste of microtransactions and regressed customization options. This isn’t to say that one shouldn’t be dropped in favor of the other one. While I will always say that the classic gameplay is superior to enhanced mobility I still do enjoy H5’s multiplayer. So my idea is to take the best and least intrusive of H5’s spartan abilities (which in my opinion is the thruster pack), and use it as a spice to augment the classic halo formula. Halo still needs to evolve, and the way to evolve is not shoving a specific demographic of players into a corner of a sandbox while everyone else gets an entire beach.
> 2533274888034788;1:
> While on the forums, I see a lot of people saying that if people want a Halo game with classic gameplay there should just be a classic gameplay playlist. I’m here to seriously ask if that is actually the right move for 343. In my opinion I don’t think it is. Let me explain:
> Halo 5 is actually trying this right now, by splitting multiplayer into Arena and Warzone. All it has accomplished is splitting Halo 5’s player base into those two respective categories and given the community a bad taste of microtransactions and regressed customization options. This isn’t to say that one shouldn’t be dropped in favor of the other one. While I will always say that the classic gameplay is superior to enhanced mobility I still do enjoy H5’s multiplayer. So my idea is to take the best and least intrusive of H5’s spartan abilities (which in my opinion is the thruster pack), and use it as a spice to augment the classic halo formula. Halo still needs to evolve, and the way to evolve is not shoving a specific demographic of players into a corner of a sandbox while everyone else gets an entire beach.
I think that it’s better having people in a dedicated playlist, rather than not having them because they are playing other games…
Halo has a story… some people simply ask to be able to play the game that they loved for 10 years… in a single playlist also, it can be enough.
yes it’s called limit sprint, keep clamber, and remove the rest or replace them with more classic halo like abilities. like replacing thrusters with the halo reach evade ability.
> 2533274889282194;3:
> yes it’s called limit sprint, keep clamber, and remove the rest or replace them with more classic halo like abilities. like replacing thrusters with the halo reach evade ability.
Oh hell yeah. On top of looking awesome, it’d nerf the annoying thrust by making it only work while the player is on the ground. J’approve.
It depends on what you mean exactly by enhanced mobility. A sequel to a game makes progress by building upon the previous game, adding new things that enhance the game at its core. Those who oppose sprint believe that it detracts from Halo’s core experience as it makes you choose between being able to move at top speed and having your weapon ready to fire. In classic Halo, you never lowered your weapon and was always able to move at top speed. While technically slower than sprint, this meant that players did not have to choose between speed and readiness. Additionally, 343 stretches out the maps to compensate for having sprint as an ability, which makes the choice between speed and readiness even more jarring. If you run you could easily get caught off guard and be too late to fight back. But if you don’t then you’re very likely to miss out on grabbing power weapons, which has always been a part of Halo’s core experience. With all this in mind, the conclusion that classic Halo and sprint cannot coexist is a possibility that we cannot ignore (just let me emphasize possibility, not a definite.)
On the other hand, I believe that abilities like clamber do add to the experience. Clamber is essentially an automated form of crouch jumping, to clear jumps that players would normally be unable to clear because they’re only waist or even knee high to the ledge. This automation makes it more accessible to all players, while at the same time not altering how people play the game (unless the maps are designed for it to be used constantly.)
> 2533274978553590;5:
> On the other hand, I believe that abilities like clamber do add to the experience. Clamber is essentially an automated form of crouch jumping, to clear jumps that players would normally be unable to clear because they’re only waist or even knee high to the ledge. This automation makes it more accessible to all players, while at the same time not altering how people play the game (unless the maps are designed for it to be used constantly.)
I have to disagree. Clamber fundamentally alters the gameplay because it protects the player from failure in all but the longest of jumps. With less risk of failure, moving in a way that would’ve required great precision in the past is practically effortless. Movement becomes shallower. The increased jump distance offered by Clamber means that gaps not meant to be jumpable, or gaps meant to be difficult, need to be larger, which puts restrictions on how compact maps can be designed while still restricting player movement.
Clamber is nothing but a crutch to make jumping easier. Now, if someone doesn’t dislikes the notion of movement skill and sees difficult jumps as frustrating obstacles and not challenges to be overcome, then sure, one can say Clamber adds to their experience. But there are also players who cherish that aspect of Halo’s movement, who see movement as a fundamentally important part of gameplay, and Clamber takes a lot away from their experience.
> 2533274978553590;5:
> It depends on what you mean exactly by enhanced mobility. A sequel to a game makes progress by building upon the previous game, adding new things that enhance the game at its core. Those who oppose sprint believe that it detracts from Halo’s core experience as it makes you choose between being able to move at top speed and having your weapon ready to fire. In classic Halo, you never lowered your weapon and was always able to move at top speed. While technically slower than sprint, this meant that players did not have to choose between speed and readiness. Additionally, 343 stretches out the maps to compensate for having sprint as an ability, which makes the choice between speed and readiness even more jarring. If you run you could easily get caught off guard and be too late to fight back. But if you don’t then you’re very likely to miss out on grabbing power weapons, which has always been a part of Halo’s core experience. With all this in mind, the conclusion that classic Halo and sprint cannot coexist is a possibility that we cannot ignore (just let me emphasize possibility, not a definite.)
>
> On the other hand, I believe that abilities like clamber do add to the experience. Clamber is essentially an automated form of crouch jumping, to clear jumps that players would normally be unable to clear because they’re only waist or even knee high to the ledge. This automation makes it more accessible to all players, while at the same time not altering how people play the game (unless the maps are designed for it to be used constantly.)
I’ll second this sentiment. I personally find it frustrating when people think the rest of us should have to play the game how they like to. Not everyone likes missing a jump just because they hit a button a few microseconds too soon.
They remind me of someone I met at college who said that he believed a dog’s life wasn’t worth living if it didn’t live outside and occasionally bite people when irritated or playing. Apparently some people like their dogs half-wild, but they don’t speak for everyone. Similarly, not everyone wants every aspect of a game to be brutally punishing. It very much irritates me when someone asserts that games should be designed their way, insinuating that the way the rest of us enjoy the games is wrong.
> 2533274883501878;7:
> I’ll second this sentiment. I personally find it frustrating when people think the rest of us should have to play the game how they like to. Not everyone likes missing a jump just because they hit a button a few microseconds too soon.
>
> They remind me of someone I met at college who said that he believed a dog’s life wasn’t worth living if it didn’t live outside and occasionally bite people when irritated or playing. Apparently some people like their dogs half-wild, but they don’t speak for everyone. Similarly, not everyone wants every aspect of a game to be brutally punishing. It very much irritates me when someone asserts that games should be designed their way, insinuating that the way the rest of us enjoy the games is wrong.
But you do realize that this goes both ways, right? By describing how you would want the game to work, you’re implicitly asserting how the game should work for everybody else. We’re all playing the same game, and we all want the game to be designed our way. Being irritated by that while having an opinion on how the game should be designed is hypocritical.
> 2533274883501878;7:
> > 2533274978553590;5:
> > -
>
> I’ll second this sentiment. I personally find it frustrating when people think the rest of us should have to play the game how they like to. Not everyone likes missing a jump just because they hit a button a few microseconds too soon.
>
> They remind me of someone I met at college who said that he believed a dog’s life wasn’t worth living if it didn’t live outside and occasionally bite people when irritated or playing. Apparently some people like their dogs half-wild, but they don’t speak for everyone. Similarly, not everyone wants every aspect of a game to be brutally punishing. It very much irritates me when someone asserts that games should be designed their way, insinuating that the way the rest of us enjoy the games is wrong.
Everyone has their own opinions on what Halo should be. While we all pretty much want the same thing at the core, there are small differences that create disparity in the community. After all, we’ve had at least 7 different forms of Halo multiplayer. People are going to assert what they want in Halo because we’re all passionate about it. Having someone disagree with you isn’t exactly a pleasant thing, but as long as they’re using reasoning and logic, as opposed to mindless flaming, then it’s all good.
We should all be working to find common ground, so that the next Halo can satisfy as many people as possible. But we should remember that completely satisfying everyone just isn’t possible.
The whole ‘Classic gameplay’ revolves around not having the abilities.
Basically, it cannot be white while also being black.
> 2533274883501878;7:
> Not everyone likes missing a jump just because they hit a button a few microseconds too soon.
That’s the point of a game. If you mess up, you get punished for it and have to try it again. Not everyone wants their hand held for them when they play modern games. For your other point, it goes both ways.
OP, I do think they can coexist if done properly.
The problem with your proposal is that what seems harmless to you (thruster) is somebody else’s sprint. Are you not just trading one “evil” for another? Even if it’s one you don’t personally find too objectionable, I can guarantee you that there are others, probably many, who do. I would be one of them.
> 2533274825830455;8:
> > 2533274883501878;7:
> >
>
> But you do realize that this goes both ways, right? By describing how you would want the game to work, you’re implicitly asserting how the game should work for everybody else. We’re all playing the same game, and we all want the game to be designed our way. Being irritated by that while having an opinion on how the game should be designed is hypocritical.
No, I’m asserting that the game should be designed to work the best for the largest number of people. This is not contradictory to any other position I’ve taken, and is not hypocrisy. An aggressive minority position does not carry the same weight as a rational majority. Think about it, if 343 could get more people playing Halo by making it your way, they would, but they didn’t.
> 2533274978553590;9:
> > 2533274883501878;7:
> > > 2533274978553590;5:
> > > -
>
> Everyone has their own opinions on what Halo should be. While we all pretty much want the same thing at the core, there are small differences that create disparity in the community. After all, we’ve had at least 7 different forms of Halo multiplayer. People are going to assert what they want in Halo because we’re all passionate about it. Having someone disagree with you isn’t exactly a pleasant thing, but as long as they’re using reasoning and logic, as opposed to mindless flaming, then it’s all good.
>
> We should all be working to find common ground, so that the next Halo can satisfy as many people as possible. But we should remember that completely satisfying everyone just isn’t possible.
Well said. However much of the dissent is related to a faction that likes to give toothless ultimatums to 343, demanding that the next Halo be made to their specifications. There isn’t really common ground between that position and common sense.
Why can’t we just have two separate playlists for each style of gameplay, have 343 make maps that work for enhanced mobility but also work for classic movement by blocking off pathways and shrinking the map via seamless forge pieces?
> 2533274974284436;14:
> Why can’t we just have two separate playlists for each style of gameplay, have 343 make maps that work for enhanced mobility but also work for classic movement by blocking off pathways and shrinking the map via seamless forge pieces?
Is there a reason preventing people from using Forge to create the map types you want?
> 2533274883501878;13:
> No, I’m asserting that the game should be designed to work the best for the largest number of people. This is not contradictory to any other position I’ve taken, and is not hypocrisy. An aggressive minority position does not carry the same weight as a rational majority. Think about it, if 343 could get more people playing Halo by making it your way, they would, but they didn’t.
No, you’re not. Like many of the people you so despise, you’re hiding your selfish desires behind the pretense of altruism. You don’t actually know what works best for the majority, just like none of those people who claim Halo’s popularity would be restored if it went back to classic gameplay. It’s easier to hold a position if you pretend it’s backed by the majority. Of course, you’re right, it’s not just hypocrisy, it’s also slightly arrogant.
But if you really want to go there, the popularity of Halo is currently at an all time low. There were more people playing it when it was my way. You’re not in the best of positions to argue that your way is at all successful in attracting players. What evidence do you have that your particular opinion has the blessing of the majority?
I think that there should be a real classic playlist. Even if it splits the playerbase in matches for option would be good to have.
And warzone is a different story for its a bit different than multiplayer. Its like a somekind of mix with firefight/spartan ops/multiplayer with a horrible RNG system that makes it possible to pay to win by buying more chances to get more higher level gear. It could have its own playerbase but multiplayer is still big enough to get its own matches so i dont see the problem as long as there is enough players for matches.
> 2533274825830455;16:
> > 2533274883501878;13:
> > No, I’m asserting that the game should be designed to work the best for the largest number of people. This is not contradictory to any other position I’ve taken, and is not hypocrisy. An aggressive minority position does not carry the same weight as a rational majority. Think about it, if 343 could get more people playing Halo by making it your way, they would, but they didn’t.
>
> No, you’re not. Like many of the people you so despise, you’re hiding your selfish desires behind the pretense of altruism. You don’t actually know what works best for the majority, just like none of those people who claim Halo’s popularity would be restored if it went back to classic gameplay. It’s easier to hold a position if you pretend it’s backed by the majority. Of course, you’re right, it’s not just hypocrisy, it’s also slightly arrogant.
>
> But if you really want to go there, the popularity of Halo is currently at an all time low. There were more people playing it when it was my way. You’re not in the best of positions to argue that your way is at all successful in attracting players. What evidence do you have that your particular opinion has the blessing of the majority?
I find your constant need to bring everyone down off-putting. There is nothing constructive about finding people who are enjoying the present Halo games, or hopeful for future ones and taking a verbally attacking that positivity. You and those like you are a significant factor in why Halo’s fan base is dwindling. I’m not getting sucked into another session of you flaunting your elitism and carefully worded insults.
Both can exist if done properly. Halo has yet to do it properly and it’s obnoxious seeing them trying to force it again game after game. By the time they do make it work, there’s no one there to play it due to past frustrations.
id dump sprint, up the BMS, then dump clambor and stick to the original jump heights, then I’d toss thrusters and up the movement acceleration for strafing.
I dint see sprint or clambor as additions for an “enhanced” mobility setup, they’re more the opposite to me and unfortunately it’s fooled various people.
> 2533274890014309;17:
> I think that there should be a real classic playlist. Even if it splits the playerbase in matches for option would be good to have.
>
> And warzone is a different story for its a bit different than multiplayer. Its like a somekind of mix with firefight/spartan ops/multiplayer with a horrible RNG system that makes it possible to pay to win by buying more chances to get more higher level gear. It could have its own playerbase but multiplayer is still big enough to get its own matches so i dont see the problem as long as there is enough players for matches.
I don’t think a classic play list would be good enough, it’s only one fraction out of the game. You could then cram every game mode into one playlist but then you’re forcing people to play various game modes they don’t like. Furthermore a classic playlist won’t be “perfect” since the mode still uses the original games weapon designs and such. The current weapons have more magnetism to them to compensate for sprint, dump sprint and use the BMS without upping the speed and you end up with a halo 3 throwback playlist where perfections are so easy it isn’t funny.
lets then say 343 were to design a game where it’s 50/50 for both sides, the argument then is both take away from each other and you’re not getting the full experience. It’s why I think 343 needs to stop trying to compromise between both and simply pick who they want as their audience cause you’re just ticking both sides off rather than one and honestly I won’t play the game where they’re going to drag me on.
> 2533274883501878;15:
> > 2533274974284436;14:
> > Why can’t we just have two separate playlists for each style of gameplay, have 343 make maps that work for enhanced mobility but also work for classic movement by blocking off pathways and shrinking the map via seamless forge pieces?
>
> Is there a reason preventing people from using Forge to create the map types you want?
Nothing at all, it just seems that developer made maps feel more “special” to lots of people, and if we’re talking equal treatment to both styles of gameplay then this is the simplest way.