Sprint, Slide, and Clamber in Infinite

Games Halo Infinite
1

I am just curious…

I never quite understood why many people are against sprint, slide, and clamber being introduced in Infinite. To an extent I can understand why people may not like these as they allow for easy mobility and can take away from the feel of Halo and Infinite is trying to return to that partially. I believe sprint, slide, and clamber are good additions as they make sense according to story, gameplay, and helping the game grow.

I started in Halo 3 and played lots of Reach as well and lower mobility never bothered me however once sprint, slide, and clamber were added it was amazing. I felt like an actual super soldier.

From a story stand point, I never quite understood why these soldiers who were selected, biologically enhanced, and connected to their suits on the neurological level, couldn’t do something like running. Even soldiers in many armies today can run with vests and guns weighing more than half their own body weight. Granted these suits are made of titanium and must be extremely heavy though since they are connected to their suits, the suit moves with them, causing weight to not be an issue. So these soldiers should be able to move at decently fast speeds, lift themselves up over ledges, and slide along the ground.

From a gameplay stand point I can understand more the reason many may not want sprint as you don’t get the same gun play elements of jumping around trying to trace the other. I believe this still exists though being able to maneuver around the maps is really nice and can be good for newer players as they many not know as many tricks. It also allows for players to be able to really race for objectives unlike the very anti climatic speed walking. Clambering is also a way for the game to look cleaner as instead of spartans hopping onto things awkwardly, you get a nice, clean animation. Sliding I can understand not being needed though it does help moving faster.

I do also feel including these movement swill help new players get used to Halo. I know that Halo has been a series that has more long term fans then newer fans but for this gamete stay afloat. I don’t think anyone wants Halo to fall and the do that is while, yes, keeping the ‘Halo’ feel, there needs to be a sense of familiarity for new players. Adding this sort of stuff will not make Halo feel like a Call of Duty just because it has it. You could then say that Tom Clancy’s: Rainbow Six Siege is just Call of Duty or that Apex Legends is just like Call of Duty just because they share movement ideas. I do believe there is a point that should not be crossed (Like Halo 4 did with loadouts) but something like movement which is a part of many games, won’t make it feel like another game.

I hope that I have stated my point clear and with sufficient evidence however I do want to hear from others instead of Youtubers aimlessly saying they aren’t happy about it. I do want to clarify I do not think Spartan Charge or Ground Pound should return as those break from the feel of Halo and are slightly ‘stretchy’.

Thank you all! I hope to hear some responses to hear the other side.

2

> 2535455258055491;1:
> I never quite understood why many people are against sprint, slide, and clamber being introduced in Infinite. To an extent I can understand why people may not like these as they allow for easy mobility and can take away from the feel of Halo and Infinite is trying to return to that partially. I believe sprint, slide, and clamber are good additions as they make sense according to story, gameplay, and helping the game grow.

I find sprint to be a restriction on what I can do as a player, and I dislike the fact that it separate movement and combat.
Clamber is mostly a “second chance” mechanic where if you miss a jump you get a second chance, to me it doesn’t really bring the game anything new.
Slide just feels redundant, especially how it’s included in Halo 5 from what I remember.

> 2535455258055491;1:
> From a story stand point, I never quite understood why these soldiers who were selected, biologically enhanced, and connected to their suits on the neurological level, couldn’t do something like running. Even soldiers in many armies today can run with vests and guns weighing more than half their own body weight. Granted these suits are made of titanium and must be extremely heavy though since they are connected to their suits, the suit moves with them, causing weight to not be an issue. So these soldiers should be able to move at decently fast speeds, lift themselves up over ledges, and slide along the ground.

You’re not going to find much “lore” stuff regarding movement in the games, because it’s been designed to actually be playable.
If you dig through some of the extended lore you’ll find plenty of examples where Spartans do all kinds of crazy things in terms of mobility and weapon usage, things which would be quite impossible to implement as usable mechanics for players to regurarly use.

Yes, they are super soldiers, and it sure makes sense that they can run, as they do infact do in the older games.
However, it can be argued from a lore standpoint that these super soldiers should be able to atleast move at their top most speed, and at the same time be able to fully utilise their weaponry. Think of the suit as a stabiliser for the weapons they use.

> 2535455258055491;1:
> From a gameplay stand point I can understand more the reason many may not want sprint as you don’t get the same gun play elements of jumping around trying to trace the other. I believe this still exists though being able to maneuver around the maps is really nice and can be good for newer players as they many not know as many tricks. It also allows for players to be able to really race for objectives unlike the very anti climatic speed walking. Clambering is also a way for the game to look cleaner as instead of spartans hopping onto things awkwardly, you get a nice, clean animation. Sliding I can understand not being needed though it does help moving faster.

If the game can’t properly convey routes or mechanics, then that’s on the game.
Now if small tricks are involved, it should be up to the player to figure them out, either through observation, or through experimentation.
As far as “anti climactic speed walking”, that’s purely animation and FoV. Increase any MCC Halo’s FoV and suddenly you feel a lot speedier, weapon bobbing, screen shake and FoV are incredibly useful for thay purpose.

> 2535455258055491;1:
> I do also feel including these movement swill help new players get used to Halo. I know that Halo has been a series that has more long term fans then newer fans but for this gamete stay afloat. I don’t think anyone wants Halo to fall and the do that is while, yes, keeping the ‘Halo’ feel, there needs to be a sense of familiarity for new players. Adding this sort of stuff will not make Halo feel like a Call of Duty just because it has it. You could then say that Tom Clancy’s: Rainbow Six Siege is just Call of Duty or that Apex Legends is just like Call of Duty just because they share movement ideas. I do believe there is a point that should not be crossed (Like Halo 4 did with loadouts) but something like movement which is a part of many games, won’t make it feel like another game.

Adding Movement mechanics can however change the gameplay a lot.

Either way, there’s one important thing here to consider.
You can’t change the game, and not change the game at the same time.
If the idea with new mechanics is to attract other players, it runs the risk of changing the gameplay too much.
And if you change the game to attract a different audience, you risk alienating your original audience.

Why would I want players who only got interested in Halo because it suddenly started sharing some common ground mechanics with games I’m not interested in, and not because they got interested in Halo?
Only feel like they’re interested in the new stuff then, eather than the whole package.

And that’s possibly a short summary of the big Advanced Movement thread which is active.

3

Alright so I don’t know 100% how to quote so I’ll do my best.

I do think your points are valid and they are well made.

I do want to clarify with “And if you change the game to attract a different audience, you risk alienating your original audience.” I don’t mean that a total change in audience is what needs to happen, just adding to the original.

I understand the point that spartans do some insane things and there is a line that needs to be drawn from the books and the games. I do think however that simpler movements like sprint and clamber aren’t crossing it.

I also agree with slide being a little redundant though it does help give the game more vertical engagements along with horizontal engagement.

“Why would I want players who only got interested in Halo because it suddenly started sharing some common ground mechanics with games I’m not interested in” this is a fair point however it’s rather not them finding interest in them but rather them being willing to play the game long term. Halo has many unique elements to it such as it’s factions, it’s futuristic style, it’s customization. I know I do not speak for everyone but I do believe many people discovered Halo through either their friends showing them or their parent(s). For this trend to keep on the game needs to “move with the times”. Things need to evolve to their environment and Halo is just trying to survive. The original audience will only be around for so long as this is a game that is 20 years old, more than enough for a teenager then to be an adult now. I want this game to live on and the best way is to keep on roping new audiences. This shouldn’t mean it changes entirely but the game does need to evolve.

I don’t want to be dismantling your rebuttal as it is very valid as this is a subjective matter and it is well constructed. I just believe a little bit of change wouldn’t hurt and can help the game grow with today’s current market. They can’t only go for the older audience as that audience is only shrinking.

4

I do think a cool thing they can do are permanent playlists that limit movements like “Classic Arena” and “Updated Arena” or “Old-school” and “New-school”.

5

I maybe would think a slower movement speed when sprinting, to be able to use weapons.
but in the lore, they would be able to do things not possible in gameplay, so sprint is the only other thing.
clambering should be able to fire weapons, but with a slower speed to fire back instead of being completely defenseless
slide was kinda useless imo the only thing it did was look cool.

6

I am generally in favor of including all three of these movement features from H5: Sprint, Clamber, Slide. All of them core movement mechanics to modern shooters. Clamber is the one that yoinks with the classic gameplay most but I really don’t know if the days of crouch jumping around should return in 2021. That being said groundpound from H5 should die.

Thrust would interesting to keep around as an armor ability. A slight change I would make is including the ability to thrust directly down as opposed to only on the horizontal plane, in essence being able to additionally use Thrust to ‘double-jump’.

7

> 2535455258055491;4:
> I do think a cool thing they can do are permanent playlists that limit movements like “Classic Arena” and “Updated Arena” or “Old-school” and “New-school”.

I thought about an option in settings to turn off advanced movement and give yourself the classic movement instead.

8

> 2535455258055491;3:
> Alright so I don’t know 100% how to quote so I’ll do my best.

You press Quote on the post you want to address.
Then in the text window’s upper righr corner is a [ / ] looking button. Clicking that changes the text editor into code form. That’s an entirely different topic, and if you want help with that, PM me.

> 2535455258055491;3:
> I do want to clarify with “And if you change the game to attract a different audience, you risk alienating your original audience.” I don’t mean that a total change in audience is what needs to happen, just adding to the original.

Of course not, but as I said, it’s a risk.

> 2535455258055491;3:
> I understand the point that spartans do some insane things and there is a line that needs to be drawn from the books and the games. I do think however that simpler movements like sprint and clamber aren’t crossing it.

Understandable.
Consider this though.
Is it “super soldier in battlesuit” to put the weapon down and run as fast as possible in one single direction, then slow down to shoot?
Or, alternatively.
Is it “super soldier in battlesuit” to run as fast as possible in all directions, and use their weapons with pinpoint accuracy at all times?

> 2535455258055491;3:
> “Why would I want players who only got interested in Halo because it suddenly started sharing some common ground mechanics with games I’m not interested in” this is a fair point however it’s rather not them finding interest in them but rather them being willing to play the game long term. Halo has many unique elements to it such as it’s factions, it’s futuristic style, it’s customization. I know I do not speak for everyone but I do believe many people discovered Halo through either their friends showing them or their parent(s). For this trend to keep on the game needs to “move with the times”. Things need to evolve to their environment and Halo is just trying to survive. The original audience will only be around for so long as this is a game that is 20 years old, more than enough for a teenager then to be an adult now. I want this game to live on and the best way is to keep on roping new audiences. This shouldn’t mean it changes entirely but the game does need to evolve.

But isn’t that the same thing?
If the mechanics allow them to play and stay with the game, isn’t that the same thing as them not being interested because it doesn’t share some common mechanics.
I understand this standpoint, I really do, I just do not think it’s a thoroughly thought out one, and it’s only amplified by game developers not being willing to take risks.
Some games find success, and then a lot of games start copying them because the publishers or developers feel it’s safe ground to tread, othets have found success, so we’ll likely do too.
Many however forget that we’ve got plenty of genres and a lot of gamers jump between them on a frequent basis, getting used to different games with different mechanics is not difficult.

Moving with the times is another concept which I understand the idea behind, but I can’t really grasp it as something which has much to stand on.
There are some games which are extremely old, yet still do perfectly fine., Like Counter Strike, DotA and LoL. Minecraft is a game which is nearing being 10 years old since official release. These games are roping in new players on a daily basis. Heck, I’ve worked with, and played CSGO, with people who weren’t even born when I first tried CS out back in the Half Life days, and it was they who provided me with means to play CSGO with them.
Then we have plenty of “contemporary” game examples over the years which have succumbed, like the many WoW, Halo or CoD clones.
A good game is good, regardless of what age it’s released in.

> 2535455258055491;3:
> I don’t want to be dismantling your rebuttal as it is very valid as this is a subjective matter and it is well constructed. I just believe a little bit of change wouldn’t hurt and can help the game grow with today’s current market. They can’t only go for the older audience as that audience is only shrinking.

No of course not, but as it stands now, Halo 4 tried to attract the CoD audience, Halo 5 went a little broader and went for Advanced Movement toned down.
I have no idea what Infinite is going for.

It’s not change which is bad, it is in which direction it takes the gameplay.
Attract new fans with a good game.
Don’t attract new players gameplay mechanics.

> 2535455258055491;4:
> I do think a cool thing they can do are permanent playlists that limit movements like “Classic Arena” and “Updated Arena” or “Old-school” and “New-school”.

Unfortunately this isn’t a feasible approach to the problem.
There’s map scaling, weapon balances, playlist support and game coherency involved. Most of these are watered down versions of the “full game”, it’s not just multiplayer, you’ve got singleplayer as well to consider.

Last but not least, I think Halo should take a different approach to movement and which mechanics to introduce. Having Infinite, but watered down playlists, wouldn’t achieve the “new” feel for me.

9

I agree with Naqser to a point. I think they need to take out sprint and just up movement speed and strafe. take out slide as well but keep clamber because why not. its still difficult to make those high jumps have you seen the pros they have to sprint slide jump hover crouch then clamber to make some jumps n im like holy sheet. either way take out sprint and slide up movement speed strafe and jump height keep clamber make the BR feel better again make the worthog feel better again and let us kill some fools. No matter what happens I am going to wreck some Halo Infinite this fall

10

Unless the core gameplay and the map has been completely changed since last gameplay clip was shown advanced movement is definitely in Halo Infinite. Sprint and clamber are known to be in Infinite, thrusters are an unknown at this point, however there is the grapple shot which by the gameplay it is shown in can go far beyond what thrusters can do for movement in most situations and is much faster.

Also there is an massive thread already basically discussing this topic and it has been going for years.

Me personally I would rather see some advanced movement as it gives players more control over how they can move around the map without the need for using grenades, or rockets, or any other explosion they can cause as a way to take shortcuts or access parts of the map that cannot be accessible by normal means.

11

Sliding shouldn’t be controversial because it doesn’t significantly change gameplay. The exception would be if the player could slide long distances or change direction mid-action. HI doesn’t allow for either of those so sliding is just a smooth transition between running and squatting. This eliminates the awkward movement of coming to a complete stop and crouching while at a full forward run.

Clamber exists because “missing a jump” is a defect of old tech. A player shouldn’t be denied the ability to reach a higher platform because their ankles hit the edge. This shouldn’t be the place where skill is determined in a fire fight because the old system is kinda just a gamble.

Sprint is a more game impacting mechanic. Although I prefer sprint as a visual and strategic aspect, I understand those who don’t want it and why. This has been discussed to death on the forums and I don’t believe either is objectively better. Looks like the majority of players prefer sprint but those who don’t are more passionate bc there aren’t many similar experiences in modern shooters.

12

I am not a halo purist at all. I like advance movement. Spartan charge and ground pound can go though.

13

> 2533274930888284;11:
> Clamber exists because “missing a jump” is a defect of old tech.

In what way “defect of old tech”?
I myself can only interpret this in a way where the technology at “that time” wasn’t, in some way, able to make a clamber mechanic.
Be that the programming language or the hardware.

Thing is though, the first 3D game I came across with clamber was the original Tomb Raider, which was released in 1996, and I had thought that for quite some time.
Something else struck me, what about the original Prince of Persia, sure it’s a 2D platform sidescroller, but, that too contain a clambering mechanic.

> 2533274930888284;11:
> A player shouldn’t be denied the ability to reach a higher platform because their ankles hit the edge.

This moves the whole mechanic into the territory of, map traversal skill. Knowing how to move across a map, and doing it successfully.
So, I guess we could boil it down to three separate sets.
-Map knowledge
-Map movement
-Combat movement

Map knowledge being you know the map, layouts, routes, points of interest and so forth.
Map movement is using the mechanics to navigate around the map, jumps, crouches, nooks to stand on etc.
Combat movement is then the kind of movement you use while in combat to come out on top, strafing, bunny hopping, crouching tiger and whatever other tricks there may be.

In this case, Clamber would largely fall into the Map movement part.
And herein lies my question, do you not think that mechanically moving across the map successfully is an important skill?
Halo does have a history of some popular maps with map hazards being a part of it, or where messing up the movement can set you back. Maps where your skill in combat isn’t everything the game tests you on. In a sense, that when you’re not fighting, you’re being tested on the map itself.

> 2533274930888284;11:
> This shouldn’t be the place where skill is determined in a fire fight because the old system is kinda just a gamble.

But it’s not a gamble, there’s no actual randomness involved. The outcome will always be the same in every single situation with the exact same starting point.
Either way, why shouldn’t anyone’s skill in Halo be determined by how well you’re able to utilise the movement mechanics present in the game to traverse the map, both in and out of firefights?

Personally, disregarding my love for vehicular combat, and thus opting out the larger maps for now, I like the smaller maps with map hazards and delays the most.
For instance, Lockout, specific routes to follow, slightly messing up in certain ways, like forgetting a hole in the floor leading to the lower part of the map, would deter your map control, or, risky movement could even lead to you falling to your death. Then we have Prisoner, a multilevel map where mismanaging your movement meant a fall down to even the lowest level, and you’d have to start over.
Looking at Truth, felt more like the Octagon map, not because of the movement mechanics allowing you to traverse it in any way you wanted, but because it was designed so that you practically could move from anywhere, to anywhere on it. A small mistep there didn’t lead to any larger consequences.

And while we’re on consequences, failing.
If you have a system in place which almost guarantee player success, there’s little room for making memorable and interesting consequences, or even varied ones.
Missing a simple jump, in a game with clamber, pretty much always end in the same way, you clamber back up, short time delay, but you’re ok.
Take the same thing in a game without jump, and the map designer could have a plethora of different options available based on the jump’s location on the map and difficulty of the jump itself. In order to mess up with clamber, you need to mess up big time if the jump is doable without clamber.
It could be a dire, leading to death, or you could be down on the bottom floor and have to start over. It could be minor, and you’d be back up to get another try in no time, here the map designer dictate the severity of missing a jump. While sure, the same apply to a game with clamber, the instances where that’ll happen will actually be very small, and to me, it doesn’t sound very motivating to design a bunch of maps with passive jump hazards having different outcomes if a player fails a clamberless jump, then fail to clamber, as those chances will be slim.

14

Sprint slide clamber grapple hook are all ok in or out .
The success or failure of infinite won’t be decided by inclusion or exclusion these mechanics alone .

15

Any new level of movement is welcome. Games have been evolving over the years and Halo is growing with us all.

I, for one, am happy this is being included.

16

> 2533274795123910;13:
> > 2533274930888284;11:
> > Clamber exists because “missing a jump” is a defect of old tech.
>
> In what way “defect of old tech”?
> I myself can only interpret this in a way where the technology at “that time” wasn’t, in some way, able to make a clamber mechanic.
> Be that the programming language or the hardware.
>
> Thing is though, the first 3D game I came across with clamber was the original Tomb Raider, which was released in 1996, and I had thought that for quite some time.
> Something else struck me, what about the original Prince of Persia, sure it’s a 2D platform sidescroller, but, that too contain a clambering mechanic.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274930888284;11:
> > A player shouldn’t be denied the ability to reach a higher platform because their ankles hit the edge.
>
> This moves the whole mechanic into the territory of, map traversal skill. Knowing how to move across a map, and doing it successfully.
> So, I guess we could boil it down to three separate sets.
> -Map knowledge
> -Map movement
> -Combat movement
>
> Map knowledge being you know the map, layouts, routes, points of interest and so forth.
> Map movement is using the mechanics to navigate around the map, jumps, crouches, nooks to stand on etc.
> Combat movement is then the kind of movement you use while in combat to come out on top, strafing, bunny hopping, crouching tiger and whatever other tricks there may be.
>
> In this case, Clamber would largely fall into the Map movement part.
> And herein lies my question, do you not think that mechanically moving across the map successfully is an important skill?
> Halo does have a history of some popular maps with map hazards being a part of it, or where messing up the movement can set you back. Maps where your skill in combat isn’t everything the game tests you on. In a sense, that when you’re not fighting, you’re being tested on the map itself.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274930888284;11:
> > This shouldn’t be the place where skill is determined in a fire fight because the old system is kinda just a gamble.
>
> But it’s not a gamble, there’s no actual randomness involved. The outcome will always be the same in every single situation with the exact same starting point.
> Either way, why shouldn’t anyone’s skill in Halo be determined by how well you’re able to utilise the movement mechanics present in the game to traverse the map, both in and out of firefights?
>
> Personally, disregarding my love for vehicular combat, and thus opting out the larger maps for now, I like the smaller maps with map hazards and delays the most.
> For instance, Lockout, specific routes to follow, slightly messing up in certain ways, like forgetting a hole in the floor leading to the lower part of the map, would deter your map control, or, risky movement could even lead to you falling to your death. Then we have Prisoner, a multilevel map where mismanaging your movement meant a fall down to even the lowest level, and you’d have to start over.
> Looking at Truth, felt more like the Octagon map, not because of the movement mechanics allowing you to traverse it in any way you wanted, but because it was designed so that you practically could move from anywhere, to anywhere on it. A small mistep there didn’t lead to any larger consequences.
>
> And while we’re on consequences, failing.
> If you have a system in place which almost guarantee player success, there’s little room for making memorable and interesting consequences, or even varied ones.
> Missing a simple jump, in a game with clamber, pretty much always end in the same way, you clamber back up, short time delay, but you’re ok.
> Take the same thing in a game without jump, and the map designer could have a plethora of different options available based on the jump’s location on the map and difficulty of the jump itself. In order to mess up with clamber, you need to mess up big time if the jump is doable without clamber.
> It could be a dire, leading to death, or you could be down on the bottom floor and have to start over. It could be minor, and you’d be back up to get another try in no time, here the map designer dictate the severity of missing a jump. While sure, the same apply to a game with clamber, the instances where that’ll happen will actually be very small, and to me, it doesn’t sound very motivating to design a bunch of maps with passive jump hazards having different outcomes if a player fails a clamberless jump, then fail to clamber, as those chances will be slim.

I frankly disagree with the hate on not just clamber, sprint, and slide, but also boost, spartan charge and hover. I feel that these mechanics really add the skill curve of halo. While though it may be different from normal, I think halo would get boring if nothing is added. Allow my to explain.

I feel that the older halos having less mechanics make the game easier to learn. Everything seems pretty straight forward. you shoot other Spartans, and you can use simple fundamental tricks to give an advantage such as jumping and strafing. Most of everything else falls into improving aim. But if you get really into the games, you can learn odd tricks like the energy sword flying trick and reload cancels.

In retrospect, halo 5 has several odd abilities that take getting used to. like how it is hard to use the booster packs while shooting without hurting your accuracy, but if you do it correctly, you can escape a few enemy bullets. Also like remembering to spartan charge into people when you turn a corner and suddenly see a guy. if your reactions are good, you can get the hit first and deal serious damage, making reactions more important. movement enhancements like thrusting and sprinting make the game fast pace, making aim harder and more plays possible. Ground pound being a high risk reward as if you miss, you loose advantage but you can drain shields and even instakill. Aiming making longer shots possible, meaning more difficult long range engagements. and even the hover ability making more play possibilities in the air and lowering predictability when a spartan jumps.

I suppose what I’m saying is that these mechanics do make the game more competitive and dynamic which is why I loved halo 5. but it does make it harder on new players since it takes more time to learn these mechanics. You can’t just randomly sit down for the first time and do decent in halo 5 usually, but in simple halo reach and halo 3 you can, which is why I think a lot more people love those games.
You don’t need to get really good to enjoy those games, but you still can improve a lot. I still love h5 the most tho as it has the highest skill curve and skill cap which I value in games a lot as without a high skill cap, games get boring quicker, evident with the poor reviews to games like Valorant when compared to cs:go.

17

I was thinking only with multiplayer in mind. For campaign, having elements of a platformer game is fine. Obstacle courses in forge would also be more challenging. Clamber in arena allows more map traversal without having people float around on jetpacks. By old tech, I just meant that first person shooters were very simple and not life-like. They have sense progressed to feel smoother, more realistic, and offer better and more consistent player control. With the new HI campaign map having a lot of vertical play space, clamber is all the more useful.

My main focus is always multiplayer. Limiting the player and map design by removing clamber would be needless. It would hinder the flow of high intensity arena gameplay.

18

Please the already established thread cause this topic has being beaten to death already. Old halo ever coming back well there alway the master chief collection.

19

Clamber doesn’t bother me.

Sliding is a bit stupid I’d prefer it isn’t there.

Sprinting is detrimental to Halo. I don’t feel like a super soldier awkwardly swinging my weapon around panting like crazy. It doesn’t make any sense in terms of gameplay or even lore really as the enhancements of Spartans would allow and encourage them to keep their weapons drawn in combat instead of constantly lowering it like a regular person who lacks their abilities. It also negatively impacts map design. Increasing base movement speed is the way to go. People who say sprint evolves Halo are actually saying “Spartans being more like an average human being and constantly lowering their weapon and having impaired map design/flow evolves Halo.” - and that’s very wrong.

I just read that someone has said missing a jump is a ‘defect of old tech’ and now I’m upset and don’t want clamber either lol. Missing a jump means you should miss. 343i’s movement abilities provide too many options. Maybe we should all have aimbots because having to aim is probably a ‘defect of old tech’.

P.S. It’s a firm NO to Spartan Charge and the rest of that. At absolute most I could tolerate Spartan Charge and Ground Pound as equipment.

20

> 2533274795123910;8:
> > 2535455258055491;3:
> > -snip-
>
>
>
> > 2535455258055491;4:
> > I do think a cool thing they can do are permanent playlists that limit movements like “Classic Arena” and “Updated Arena” or “Old-school” and “New-school”.
>
> Unfortunately this isn’t a feasible approach to the problem.
> There’s map scaling, weapon balances, playlist support and game coherency involved. Most of these are watered down versions of the “full game”, it’s not just multiplayer, you’ve got singleplayer as well to consider.
>
> Last but not least, I think Halo should take a different approach to movement and which mechanics to introduce. Having Infinite, but watered down playlists, wouldn’t achieve the “new” feel for me.

Yes. I’m sick of people just saying “make a classic playlist!” because it can’t just work like that. Movement mechanics play a key role in how weapons are tuned. Anyone ever played the Halo 3 Classic gamemode in Halo 5? It doesn’t play like Halo 3 at all because of the weapon sandbox being tuned for advanced mobility. I’m not sure splitting the entire multiplayer into two different gameplay styles is a good route either.

Truth be told, this game is going to be weird. It’s a live service Halo game. It could mean a lot. There’s a potential that eventually a classic sandbox is created at some point in the game’s lifetime. That’s super weird, and there’s a nonzero chance of it happening. It’s all in the air at this point, 343 knows what going to happen, and we just have to wait. I hope we see some multiplayer gameplay soon, I want to know why we haven’t seen anything regarding multiplayer and why 343 just keeps talking about the campaign. I understand, I love campaign( at least, ones with good gameplay lol), it’s very exciting, but the majority of the time many Halo players spend playing Halo is in multiplayer. I hope we see some soon