> 2533274795123910;2970:
> Having given this some thought and reflection, I asked myself, did you actually offer a compromise, or did you just point at a spot and suggest the others go play there instead?
A compromise was suggested, Naqser. Rather than saying “well just stick with playing Halo 3”, offering a split playlist for matchmaking and options to turn off sprint et al in campaign - with maps made to accommodate both movement options - would suffice. Then everyone gets to play just how they want to. But it seems the Anti-Sprint camp isn’t content unless it’s gone entirely. It’s like a vegan demanding that no one eat meat because they don’t.
> The “anti-side” have for instance advocated increased BMS, larger FoV, motion blur and more violent bobbing at high speeds to give a similar feeling to that of sprinting.
And this was discussed months ago. It’s not about having a higher BMS (which Halo 5 actually does), or “feeling like you’re going faster”. Having the max BMS be the middle ground (fast, but not fastest) with a circumstantial “extra push” with the click of a button gives a more dynamic range of control over how the player moves, specifically adjusting pressure on the analog stick to move slowly or at max BMS. Upping that maximum to compensate or “simulate” Sprint makes that level of control all the more difficult. And while this is rarely used in Matchmaking, it is common in the Campaign; which would be affected if Sprint is removed entirely, as the Anti crowd seem so hellbent on. You accuse me of not understanding your side of the argument, but has this been taken into consideration in the past 149 pages? Or was there an aire of “it’s good enough, just deal with it”, like I met when discussing it with you a year ago?
> Sure, I’m selfish, but I’m not the person who has yet to elaborate on why I should give up on my own preferences for people I don’t know who weren’t interested in what I like from the start.
> Are you prepared to give in/up on mechanics and features to your liking so that others who aren’t of the same opinion as you potentially may like what you now like less, more?
> Quite easy to call “selfish” but I get an entirely different feeling when all I’ve gotten is “As long as I get what I want, you can get a small piece where you can do what you want”.
It’s made all the easier, Naqser, when it’s flat out said “I have no intention of compromise”. I mean, that’s as selfish as it gets. Having a list of things that the Pro-Sprint side suggested is all well and fine, but how is that received on your end? Is it considered, or is it met with the same “no intention of compromise”? I believe I’ve stated before that yes, I wouldn’t miss things like Spartan Charge and Slam. In fact, I’d almost be glad to see the former go. Sprint being reduced to a 10 second interval (for example)? Sure. But that’s only as good in so far as your side is willing to make allowance for limitations - assuming, of course, that this discussion is doing anything aside from two sides of the fanbase bickering at one another.
Neither was my more recent suggestion a “small piece”, if your going to reference it at least do so properly. I was quite clearly discussing an equal split playlist, akin to the split between Social and Ranked playlists.
> As far as “industry standard” goes, please do define what that means.
As stated up above, Sprint has become a commonplace movement mechanic in First Person Shooter games, just as dual analog control became an absolute irrevocable standard in 2001. Redacting one of my previous and recent comments, I’m looking through my games and coming up with only 3 FPS game out of 26 that do not have sprint as a mechanic (DOOM, Mirror’s Edge, and Mirror’s Edge Catalyst). And that’s not counting the 3rd Person RPG games that have it, either. For a game to not include Sprint in the modern era of video games - especially FPS games - is practically odd, niche, or “retro”. It is not a smart move going forward.
> Then again, I have a feeling that there’ll be a lot of caveats that invalidate titles brought to your attention.
You’d be wrong, but thanks for assuming about me so blatantly.
> I’m glad I can be your bad guy to look down on and use as a benchmark of “badness”, and to openly talk about in that manner.
Don’t flatter yourself, Naqser. You’re not my “big bad guy”, I was simply responding to an accusation. However if your camp can be so brashly selfish as to flat-out say “no compromise”, then why should I even bother to do the same? You’ve no ground to try and shame me for being equally selfish in wanting Sprint to remain as it should.