Why do some Halo fans think that sprint is bad. To make Halo stay relevant, it needs to have sprint. In warzone, covering long distances you need sprint. I bet you people will complain about not having sprint in warzone. So why do you think Halo does not need sprint.
For me it has to do more with the animation time when leaving sprint. Not the fact that there is a sprint. That’s my only issue with it, I do like how it won’t charge shields though.
OG “fans” don’t like any change to their halos.
Don’t start this again… It’s finally been quiet for a while.
> 2533274809541057;4:
> Don’t start this again… It’s finally been quiet for a while.
anyway I like sprint so… Yeah. Don’t really want to argue or debate lol.
> 2533274809541057;4:
> Don’t start this again… It’s finally been quiet for a while.
It never ended…
OP I agree with you and think sprint is a good thing.
Sprint’s a welcome addition. Especially since it’s been balanced with the no shield recharge while sprinting.
There are many reasons why it doesn’t work and it hinders the game play more than it helps it, but there are hundreds of videos on the topic and there’s no need to get into it.
If sprint was removed in Halo 6. No one would buy. Games now in days have sprint. Why? Cause it makes sense!
It makes people feel faster I guess, especially since we don’t have FoV sliders on console.
Here it is again topic of day one h5 ( augmented super soldiers in powered battle suits in space running… Whaaaat how primitive .) Sprint if you want don’t Sprint if you want.
Base movement will increase if sprint is disabled. I love Spartan Abilities than sprint.
> 2535439645019041;1:
> So why do you think Halo does not need sprint.
Let me ask you this: What value does sprint add to any situation? How does it make the situation interesting? What sort of meaningful decisions come out of sprint? The purpose of sprint, other than immersion and market accessibility, is applying movement at a risk to a player (where things like man cannons are the same philosophy applied to a map). However it does a pretty poor job of this. In other games, the repercussions for sprint stupidly are near guaranteed death. In Halo, you might be down a shot in a game that’s all about having time to shift the balance if you get shot first. There’s no meaningful decision there because the outcome of sprinting isn’t really that bad, especially in comparison to games where the mechanic works.
Furthermore, sprint restricts your ability to move properly to a linear momentum, non-combat mechanic. We’re splitting the players ability to move and the players ability to shoot into two different things, and in the process taking away a lot of the depth from Halo’s movement system. We’re restricting the players available options to two different scenarios rather than giving the player more options. And the worst part is that sprint itself really doesn’t add anything to the movement. You’re just moving faster forwards, you can’t do anything with sprint that you couldn’t do without it (on a well designed map). Now let’s take thruster for example, it opens up entirely new movement routes by allowing the player to redirect their velocity midair. It can’t be used while shooting (which I consider a flaw) but the time spent in the animation is significantly shorter than sprint and not nearly as detrimental. It gives the player options without restricting anything else, these options also adding to the available “movement at a risk” albeit not necessarily applied to the player.
Going back to movement at a risk, it’s not a new concept in Halo. Before we didn’t need specific mechanics for it, there were techniques available to the player that simply couldn’t be performed in other games that allowed the player to generate their own risk based movement. One particularly strong example is explosives jumping (with grenades, rockets, concussion rifle, fusion coil, brute shot etc.). It cut the players health in exchange for added mobility, and on top of that, it could be used in combat should the player deem it necessary. This added depth to the aforementioned items (by giving them an alternate use) and allowed for some interesting or dynamic options for the player. That is good design.
I suppose I should probably establish what I consider “depth” to be. Depth is the amount of available options (or “meaningful decisions”) available to the player. It is not the same thing as complexity. Complexity is the number of decisions a player could potentially make (or variables a player must consider, or steps to complete an action), but not all of these decisions are meaningful. In some cases, such as Sprint or Clamber, they’re necessary actions. You’re forced to use them simply to remain competitively viable, and it’s less about the decision and more about completing an action because you have to. Ideally, one strives for the greatest amount of depth with the least amount of complexity.
For example, having a tank game where you have to use motion controls to control every single dial and operate the tank like one would actually have to operate a tank in real life is complex, but it has very little depth. Most of the actions don’t really add anything to the game, and the motion needed to pull them off is frustrating. By comparison a game with a more fluid tank firing system (eg, pull RT to fire tank) isn’t very realistic or complex, but with the player not having to focus on turning a hand dial precisely 23º, it let’s them focus more on the game and lets the developers add more content elsewhere.
That isn’t to say complexity can’t be deep, because one could exaggerate a powerful item’s complexity in order to make the player consider using it more deeply than they otherwise may. Hence, creating a meaningful decision. But you also have to consider just how much the player is going to use this item, and if it’s the standard item in the game (or in Halo’s case, movement, one of the most fundamental aspects of the game) then making it overly complex only makes it frustrating. Like the aforementioned tank example.
Now to finish this off, I totally understand the appeal of sprint. There’s psychological benefit, there’s merit to its use in larger maps or campaign, there’s immersion benefit. If the end goal (as 343i stated) is replicating the “Spartan Experience”, then I’m not going to criticize it. However, from a purely gameplay oriented perspective, I’d argue that it’s not only pointless in Halo, but detrimental to the game.
> 2533274871590643;2:
> I do like how it won’t charge shields though.
And this is why I LOVE using the upgraded thrusters ability! Recharging shields when running for cover is awesome!
> 2533274908238201;13:
> > 2535439645019041;1:
> > So why do you think Halo does not need sprint.
>
>
> Let me ask you this: What value does sprint add to any situation? How does it make the situation interesting? What sort of meaningful decisions come out of sprint? The purpose of sprint, other than immersion and market accessibility, is applying movement at a risk to a player (where things like man cannons are the same philosophy applied to a map). However it does a pretty poor job of this. In other games, the repercussions for sprint stupidly are near guaranteed death. In Halo, you might be down a shot in a game that’s all about having time to shift the balance if you get shot first. There’s no meaningful decision there because the outcome of sprinting isn’t really that bad, especially in comparison to games where the mechanic works.
>
> Furthermore, sprint restricts your ability to move properly to a linear momentum, non-combat mechanic. We’re splitting the players ability to move and the players ability to shoot into two different things, and in the process taking away a lot of the depth from Halo’s movement system. We’re restricting the players available options to two different scenarios rather than giving the player more options. And the worst part is that sprint itself really doesn’t add anything to the movement. You’re just moving faster forwards, you can’t do anything with sprint that you couldn’t do without it (on a well designed map). Now let’s take thruster for example, it opens up entirely new movement routes by allowing the player to redirect their velocity midair. It can’t be used while shooting (which I consider a flaw) but the time spent in the animation is significantly shorter than sprint and not nearly as detrimental. It gives the player options without restricting anything else, these options also adding to the available “movement at a risk” albeit not necessarily applied to the player.
>
> Going back to movement at a risk, it’s not a new concept in Halo. Before we didn’t need specific mechanics for it, there were techniques available to the player that simply couldn’t be performed in other games that allowed the player to generate their own risk based movement. One particularly strong example is explosives jumping (with grenades, rockets, concussion rifle, fusion coil, brute shot etc.). It cut the players health in exchange for added mobility, and on top of that, it could be used in combat should the player deem it necessary. This added depth to the aforementioned items (by giving them an alternate use) and allowed for some interesting or dynamic options for the player. That is good design.
>
> I suppose I should probably establish what I consider “depth” to be. Depth is the amount of available options (or “meaningful decisions”) available to the player. It is not the same thing as complexity. Complexity is the number of decisions a player could potentially make (or variables a player must consider, or steps to complete an action), but not all of these decisions are meaningful. In some cases, such as Sprint or Clamber, they’re necessary actions. You’re forced to use them simply to remain competitively viable, and it’s less about the decision and more about completing an action because you have to. Ideally, one strives for the greatest amount of depth with the least amount of complexity.
>
> For example, having a tank game where you have to use motion controls to control every single dial and operate the tank like one would actually have to operate a tank in real life is complex, but it has very little depth. Most of the actions don’t really add anything to the game, and the motion needed to pull them off is frustrating. By comparison a game with a more fluid tank firing system (eg, pull RT to fire tank) isn’t very realistic or complex, but with the player not having to focus on turning a hand dial precisely 23º, it let’s them focus more on the game and lets the developers add more content elsewhere.
>
> That isn’t to say complexity can’t be deep, because one could exaggerate a powerful item’s complexity in order to make the player consider using it more deeply than they otherwise may. Hence, creating a meaningful decision. But you also have to consider just how much the player is going to use this item, and if it’s the standard item in the game (or in Halo’s case, movement, one of the most fundamental aspects of the game) then making it overly complex only makes it frustrating. Like the aforementioned tank example.
>
> Now to finish this off, I totally understand the appeal of sprint. There’s psychological benefit, there’s merit to its use in larger maps or campaign, there’s immersion benefit. If the end goal (as 343i stated) is replicating the “Spartan Experience”, then I’m not going to criticize it. However, from a purely gameplay oriented perspective, I’d argue that it’s not only pointless in Halo, but detrimental to the game.
I’ll bet that if people have not played the original 3 they wouldn’t see the illusion that sprint actually is… The best way to describe this for those missing this experience is to explain “time to engagement”. When you spawn after a death in halo 3 on guardian how long until you are engaging the next enemy? Vs for example in halo 5, elongated maps provide essentially the same TTE while sprinting to the next engagement. Thoughts?
> 2533274908238201;13:
> > 2535439645019041;1:
> > So why do you think Halo does not need sprint.
>
>
> Let me ask you this: What value does sprint add to any situation? How does it make the situation interesting? What sort of meaningful decisions come out of sprint? The purpose of sprint, other than immersion and market accessibility, is applying movement at a risk to a player (where things like man cannons are the same philosophy applied to a map). However it does a pretty poor job of this. In other games, the repercussions for sprint stupidly are near guaranteed death. In Halo, you might be down a shot in a game that’s all about having time to shift the balance if you get shot first. There’s no meaningful decision there because the outcome of sprinting isn’t really that bad, especially in comparison to games where the mechanic works.
>
> Furthermore, sprint restricts your ability to move properly to a linear momentum, non-combat mechanic. We’re splitting the players ability to move and the players ability to shoot into two different things, and in the process taking away a lot of the depth from Halo’s movement system. We’re restricting the players available options to two different scenarios rather than giving the player more options. And the worst part is that sprint itself really doesn’t add anything to the movement. You’re just moving faster forwards, you can’t do anything with sprint that you couldn’t do without it (on a well designed map). Now let’s take thruster for example, it opens up entirely new movement routes by allowing the player to redirect their velocity midair. It can’t be used while shooting (which I consider a flaw) but the time spent in the animation is significantly shorter than sprint and not nearly as detrimental. It gives the player options without restricting anything else, these options also adding to the available “movement at a risk” albeit not necessarily applied to the player.
>
> Going back to movement at a risk, it’s not a new concept in Halo. Before we didn’t need specific mechanics for it, there were techniques available to the player that simply couldn’t be performed in other games that allowed the player to generate their own risk based movement. One particularly strong example is explosives jumping (with grenades, rockets, concussion rifle, fusion coil, brute shot etc.). It cut the players health in exchange for added mobility, and on top of that, it could be used in combat should the player deem it necessary. This added depth to the aforementioned items (by giving them an alternate use) and allowed for some interesting or dynamic options for the player. That is good design.
>
> I suppose I should probably establish what I consider “depth” to be. Depth is the amount of available options (or “meaningful decisions”) available to the player. It is not the same thing as complexity. Complexity is the number of decisions a player could potentially make (or variables a player must consider, or steps to complete an action), but not all of these decisions are meaningful. In some cases, such as Sprint or Clamber, they’re necessary actions. You’re forced to use them simply to remain competitively viable, and it’s less about the decision and more about completing an action because you have to. Ideally, one strives for the greatest amount of depth with the least amount of complexity.
>
> For example, having a tank game where you have to use motion controls to control every single dial and operate the tank like one would actually have to operate a tank in real life is complex, but it has very little depth. Most of the actions don’t really add anything to the game, and the motion needed to pull them off is frustrating. By comparison a game with a more fluid tank firing system (eg, pull RT to fire tank) isn’t very realistic or complex, but with the player not having to focus on turning a hand dial precisely 23º, it let’s them focus more on the game and lets the developers add more content elsewhere.
>
> That isn’t to say complexity can’t be deep, because one could exaggerate a powerful item’s complexity in order to make the player consider using it more deeply than they otherwise may. Hence, creating a meaningful decision. But you also have to consider just how much the player is going to use this item, and if it’s the standard item in the game (or in Halo’s case, movement, one of the most fundamental aspects of the game) then making it overly complex only makes it frustrating. Like the aforementioned tank example.
>
> Now to finish this off, I totally understand the appeal of sprint. There’s psychological benefit, there’s merit to its use in larger maps or campaign, there’s immersion benefit. If the end goal (as 343i stated) is replicating the “Spartan Experience”, then I’m not going to criticize it. However, from a purely gameplay oriented perspective, I’d argue that it’s not only pointless in Halo, but detrimental to the game.
Very well said.
Sprint needed to happen.
> 2533274898552873;8:
> There are many reasons why it doesn’t work and it hinders the game play more than it helps it, but there are hundreds of videos on the topic and there’s no need to get into it.
Doesnt mean they are right though 
I like sprint. 
People who are against innovation and still stick to their Halo CE-3 will never get over it.
> 2533274971171822;19:
> I like sprint.
> People who are against innovation and still stick to their Halo CE-3 will never get over it.
It’s not really “innovation” when it’s just copy/pasting a mechanic from every other game.