> 2535473635314008;1:
> Im reading about how “the golden triangle” is non existent now. Melee, nades,shooting, apparently anything that makes these unusable isn’t halo. If you cant shoot melee or throw a nade that’s not halo. This whole argument blows my mind as I have never once been able to shoot while in a grenade or melee animation. The golden triangle Has apparantly been messing with the golden triangle since CE, who knew?
>
> So basically we now not only want sprint removed ( I don’t really care if it was), but we now need any ability removed that makes you unable to shoot, melee or chuck nades? ( this is whacky ). Bubble shields were a naughty no no. Vehicles were a naughty no no. Who knew?
While I strongly disagree with the “golden triangle” approach, I can tell you that you’re missing the point. I can also tell you that the OP of the golden triangle thread was blindly relying on their interpretation of the golden triangle, and making silly arguments as result. Obviously, what Bungie had in mind when they coined the term “golden triangle” wasn’t to be able to do everything at the same time, but that nothing should prevent the use of these abilities for extended periods of time. So, SMG starts in Halo 2 were considered as bad because players would pick the second SMG, and the use of melee and grenades would go down, because there’s no point at which a dual wielding player can use either of these abilities. This is in contrast to, e.g., throwing a grenade, which is only a short animation and therefore doesn’t interfere with the other two abilities in any meaningful way.
The wrong conclusion that vehicles are a no-no with the golden triangle is purely your fault. Vehicular gameplay is completely different from on-foot gameplay, and the principles don’t transfer over. Anything said about the golden triangle is only meant to apply to gameplay on-foot.
This is why I don’t like using the golden triangle to make arguments about game design. Bungie new what they meant with it, but since then the community has taken it, exaggerated its significance, and run it to the ground. It’s blindly given as an argument for something, regardless of whether it actually applies to the situation or not.
> 2535473635314008;1:
> Why do so many want the same game over and over? whats the end game to all these threads chastising anything different in halo from game to game. Where do yu want to see this franchise go? Cause from my perspective many of you just want a playable halo 3 again with some new maps.
>
> Tell me what kind of mechanics different from halo 2 or 3 would be acceptable.
Believe it or not, the people who don’t want sprint in Halo are not a hivemind. They all have their own opinions, which may differ in drastic ways. Some might just want to go back to old Halo, and if they so want to, what’s wrong with that? I don’t personally agree with going back to Halo 3 mechanics because that’s setting the bar too low, but if somebody wants that, then so be it. That’s just their perspective on game design. If they want different gameplay, they go play some other game. There’s nothing inherently bad about wanting a series to maintain roughly the same gameplay from sequel to sequel. It’s a completely valid opinion to have whether you agree with it or not.
That said, not all people who don’t want sprint want Halo 2 or Halo 3. Whenever you say they do, you’re just jumping into conclusions. Now, I can only speak for myself. My opinions don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of others. But suppose that we took Halo CE, increased movement speed, increased movement acceleration, modified all of the weapons to function differently, removed that annoying jump delay, and changed all the minor quirks that give the game its characteristic feel, but never removed or added any mechanics or weapons. Would you still claim this game is just Halo CE? Or, with only addition of one mechanic I could make CE play a lot like Quake. Does that mean Halo CE is just a Quake clone? What if I took Halo 4, and by only modifying some weapon and movement attributes, I could make it resemble CoD a lot more than it it resembled Halo. Does that mean that Halo 4 plays like CoD?
You see, what I’m getting at here is that even without adding or removing any mechanics, you can change gameplay drastically. If you are fixated on the idea that you always need new mechanics to create different gameplay, you’re going to claim that half the suggestions people would give to change Halo are just “making it like Halo 3”. If I got to design a Halo, I would likely barely add new mechanics over CE, but that game would not play like CE.