Sprint has caused me a lot of moments where I miss out on kills because the guy I’m shooting takes off around a corner, where I can clearly tell on my radar that he has 2-3 teammates nearby.
I think if you stopped sprinting if shot the problem would fix itself. Also, I lmao at anyone suggesting Sprint doesn’t ruin competitive gameplay and then go on to list BF3 and CoD and even Gears as examples.
Gears has a sprint feature. It’s mainly there to help you sprint to cover, as cover is THE core mechanic of that game. It also spawns you with guns that literally kill you in one or two shots- and if you can’t do it you suck at Gears.
Call of Duty has sprint. It also has kill times of less than a second. By the time you realize you’re getting shot you’re already dead, bro.
I don’t play much Battlefield, but doesn’t that game make you stop sprinting if you get shot? Also, it’s a generic military shooter with gigantic maps. It needs sprint to keep up even the slight amounts of fun it can manage to produce.
Battlefront had sprint, but Battlefront isn’t an arena shooter with a heavy emphasis on map and power weapon control.
Unreal tournament also had somewhat of a sprint ability, but come on, only one or two weapons didn’t make your target explode into pieces via some form of insane ordinance. The link gun was probably one of the only ones that didn’t, in fact, and that was more of a support gun.
Halo didn’t originally have sprint, and it is the reason FPS on the console are the way they are today.
Oh, and to counter the “Would you rather it be like CoD and release the same game over and over?” argument, my answer is both yes and no. No, because they can add new things without it alienating the community. Yes, because they don’t release a new Halo every year. It’s been 5 years since Halo 3, and the supposed successor to it was a drastically different game.
Seriously speaking, if they made 10-15 new maps for Halo 3, updated the graphics, gave it a new campaign, and called it Halo 4 I would wet myself.