> 2533274863556723;3481:
> Sprint needs to stay, ground pound and charge should be changed.
No it doesn’t. Increase the base movement speed and it’s fine. Mythic Arena in halo 5 was great.
Well, I see the same old tired arguments being made to keep Halo in the past. I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum. Halo was my first FPS. But now having spent hundreds of hours on other games, I have concluded that Halo is without a doubt DATED. IT plays like a 15 year old game. People are disillusion to think that the dated gameplay from Halo 3 will make for successful game. To appease those players, 343 should add one or two gametypes with the old game mechanics and see how popular it is. They can always add more gametypes if it becomes overwhelmingly the preferred gametype. As of now though, I have lost all faith that 343 can deliver a good game that has mass appeal.
Side note: DICE has figured out the hard way with BFV that mainly appealing to the hardcore crowd is not going to make a game successful.
The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> Well, I see the same old tired arguments being made to keep Halo in the past. I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum. Halo was my first FPS. But now having spent hundreds of hours on other games, I have concluded that Halo is without a doubt DATED. IT plays like a 15 year old game. People are disillusion to think that the dated gameplay from Halo 3 will make for successful game. To appease those players, 343 should add one or two gametypes with the old game mechanics and see how popular it is. They can always add more gametypes if it becomes overwhelmingly the preferred gametype. As of now though, I have lost all faith that 343 can deliver a good game that has mass appeal.
>
> Side note: DICE has figured out the hard way with BFV that mainly appealing to the hardcore crowd is not going to make a game successful.
I think your statements hold some truth. But I seriously doubt the implications. To make something successful I seriously wholeheartedly believe you hold true to the past, as well as moving forward. As you probably can tell… not changing may kill off half the fanbase, and changing in certain ways will kill off the other half. Maybe the change will get new players… and new players are neccesary… right? But what if you can do both? right?
The people who have been posting here have put out there reasons why they want certain mechanics in the game with alot of detail. Traversing the map, pacing, and gameplay options, control schemes… etc.
Nobody seems to like long traverse times… and everyone seems to want more options… and nobody likes complicated controls… and everyone wants to feel like they are supersoldiers. So… there are ways to appeal to all those without conflict or contradiction.
Funny thou, that if you want to appeal to an even newer audience how about just scraping sprint and thrusters and instead give spartans flight with jetpacks that make them fly around… very new gameplay… and im sure alot of new people will like it, fast paced… quick traversing the map… oh and while we are at it add teleporter equipment… amiright? . But it wont be catering to fans who are already onboard… which is why it will fail as a “halo”.
You make it seem that we have to leave the old behind… I seriously disagree. I think we can move forward while bringing the old along. There will be changes, but it will remain faithful to the old. It is a lesson in life everyone should keep with them if they want to succeed in any avenue in life. Another wisdom: avoid the extremes, the best path is the middle path.
Games these days are all about more fast pace. While I agree that the slower classic movement MADE Halo, I think 343 knows they have to adapt if they want to attract the casuals AKA cash $.
I am all for fast pace, it took awhile to warm up to but it still is great. I just hope they increase the number of players to at least 32.
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum.
Thanks. I hope they completely disregard you. Does that sound reasonable or am I being a bit of a jerk?
> 2533274893364107;3486:
> Games these days are all about more fast pace. While I agree that the slower classic movement MADE Halo, I think 343 knows they have to adapt if they want to attract the casuals AKA cash $.
> I am all for fast pace, it took awhile to warm up to but it still is great. I just hope they increase the number of players to at least 32.
But classic movement isn’t the same as slow movement. Slow isn’t the point of classic movement, and it isn’t what people who want classic movement are asking for. (In general, I mean. I’m sure there are some people who just want slower movement.) Many advocates of classic movement are okay with fast, and like fast as much as anyone else. And you can have fast classic movement—as has been suggested many times—just by having a higher base movement speed.
Speed is entirely irrelevant for whether or not the movement is classic. The main defining feature of classic movement is the ability to use your weapons at any moment, regardless of your speed, or whether you’re jumping onto a platform. It is about the simplicity of movement mechanics, and minimizing the time spent in animations that pull you out of combat. If none of that appeals to you, that’s fine, but I just want you to have the right idea about classic movement because it’s not about the speed.
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> Well, I see the same old tired arguments being made to keep Halo in the past.
I mean you enable their frustrations when your immediate assumption is that they want to keep it in the past instead of the individual changes, and refer to them as tired when nothing hasn’t changed yet. Sorry people can’t be expected to just quiet down their opinions because you don’t like it?
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> To appease those players, 343 should add one or two gametypes with the old game mechanics and see how popular it is. They can always add more gametypes if it becomes overwhelmingly the preferred gametype.
I find it funny how a select group of players are expected to be okay with being treated like second-class citizens since Reach. “Oh just give them a scrap of what they maybe want to stop the complaining!”
And even if that does turn out to be popular, don’t change the game, we already did that we can’t do it again, just keep adding more and more “old gametypes” until they’re satisfied. You know despite the fact the game itself may not be built that way, or the maps, or the weapons, or anything else.
I don’t remember seeing any “test gametypes” to try out the new stuff and see reaction to it.
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> Side note: DICE has figured out the hard way with BFV that mainly appealing to the hardcore crowd is not going to make a game successful.
Pretty sure BFV had a lot more issues than just “appealing to the hardcore crowd” - whatever that means.
> 2533274825830455;3487:
> > 2533274825101441;3483:
> > I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum.
>
> Thanks. I hope they completely disregard you. Does that sound reasonable or am I being a bit of a jerk?
>
>
> > 2533274893364107;3486:
> > Games these days are all about more fast pace. While I agree that the slower classic movement MADE Halo, I think 343 knows they have to adapt if they want to attract the casuals AKA cash $.
> > I am all for fast pace, it took awhile to warm up to but it still is great. I just hope they increase the number of players to at least 32.
>
> But classic movement isn’t the same as slow movement. Slow isn’t the point of classic movement, and it isn’t what people who want classic movement are asking for. (In general, I mean. I’m sure there are some people who just want slower movement.) Many advocates of classic movement are okay with fast, and like fast as much as anyone else. And you can have fast classic movement—as has been suggested many times—just by having a higher base movement speed.
>
> Speed is entirely irrelevant for whether or not the movement is classic. The main defining feature of classic movement is the ability to use your weapons at any moment, regardless of your speed, or whether you’re jumping onto a platform. It is about the simplicity of movement mechanics, and minimizing the time spent in animations that pull you out of combat. If none of that appeals to you, that’s fine, but I just want you to have the right idea about classic movement because it’s not about the speed.
Ah yes, those are true points. In that sense, I do hope classic movement is back since I think that would be a good balance and is “true” Halo from back in the day and mostly why I would play it nonstop.
I don’t think it’s just abilities. It’s the physics as a whole. Halo 4 and 5 sort of made everything feel a it more ‘real.’ Metal things don’t bounce, they just break, bodies don’t flop, they just fall, and I think that also takes away a lot of the sort of fun wildness of Halo. Halo never tried to be COMPLETELY real. There was always a bit of cartoonishness about it that made it fun. I would love to see us go back to that, preferably for me without sprint and armor abilities, but even if those HAD to stay, I would hope for the old physics back. But my vote would still be for classic mechanics. I can sprint in literally every other shooter out there now, I don’t need Halo to feel the same. I miss old Halo vibes.
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> Well, I see the same old tired arguments being made to keep Halo in the past. I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum. Halo was my first FPS. But now having spent hundreds of hours on other games, I have concluded that Halo is without a doubt DATED. IT plays like a 15 year old game. People are disillusion to think that the dated gameplay from Halo 3 will make for successful game. To appease those players, 343 should add one or two gametypes with the old game mechanics and see how popular it is. They can always add more gametypes if it becomes overwhelmingly the preferred gametype. As of now though, I have lost all faith that 343 can deliver a good game that has mass appeal.
>
> Side note: DICE has figured out the hard way with BFV that mainly appealing to the hardcore crowd is not going to make a game successful.
This is gonna be the second time I post this. CS:GO is a “dated” game (2012) and has that “dated” gameplay and as of 5:56PMET CS:GO is the top ranked game on Steam with 841,941 current players and a max of 1,110,015. To sit there and say that people like me or everyone else advocating for classic gameplay are delusional when theirs literal proof in the pudding that people enjoy that style of gameplay is beyond ridiculous. Heck even Valorant is the top Twitch viewed game and its a basic movement game like CSGO with Overwatch type of abilities. People are sick and tired of the Titanfall trend of gameplay, thats why games aren’t going for it anymore.
I would also like to point out the failure of BFV was because they didn’t appeal to the hardcore crowd and refused to listen to their fans.
> 2533274825830455;3479:
> > 2533274822068856;3476:
> > > 2533274825830455;3473:
> > > > 2533274822068856;3471:
> > > > My thoughts are all about a longer animation
> > >
> > > a mechanic that smoothly transfers the player on top of the ledge provided they are sufficient distance away from it
> >
> > This is basically what I’m saying. But it would also include a way to slightly penalize players for messing up a jump. This could help people make a jump they would otherwise miss, while still punishing them (Just like how falling down to a lower level puts you at a disadvantage for missing a jump.) by exposing them for a small period of time. Because map design wouldn’t have to change to accommodate this mechanic, it could easily be removed for different gametypes or playlists.
> >
> > In reality, I believe this would make map traversal more consistent, because it would be faster to save a jump with this mechanic, instead of falling down and having to go a long way around to get back up. But it would still put you at a disadvantage as far as active combat is concerned (Exactly like falling down.)
>
> But why do you want to penalize players so much? The players who like Clamber just want to get up ledges. They’re not asking to be penalized. At the same time, you’re trying to lure players who don’t like the Clamber animation into a compromise… by having a longer animation. Who are you making this mechanic for? You’re getting swept away with the idea of punishing players without really having thought about the intended audience of the mechanic, the purpose of the mechanic, or the principles of the surrounding game. You’re not making some abstract platonic ideal of a game here. The game should also be fun to play.
Don’t get me wrong, I prefer classic gameply overall. But I get the feeling that out of all the new movement options, the Clamber concept could actually work in the older games after a little reworking. I came up with this idea at random, and wondered what other people would think of it.
Anyway… The penalization aspect would be there to keep people from totally relying on the ability, so they wouldn’t get sloppy. It’s a way to reward precision. If you make a jump, you get to keep shooting all the way through the process. If you don’t quite make the jump, you still get to the other side of the gap, but you need to regain your footing in order to shoot again. Sometimes it would be better to not press the button to activate this ability, and fall to a lower level. You wouldn’t be forced to use this ability if you miss a jump. I feel this would offer more choice to the player, without messing with map design.
> 2533274822068856;3492:
> > 2533274825830455;3479:
> > > 2533274822068856;3476:
> > > > 2533274825830455;3473:
> > > > > 2533274822068856;3471:
> > > > > My thoughts are all about a longer animation
> > > >
> > > > a mechanic that smoothly transfers the player on top of the ledge provided they are sufficient distance away from it
> > >
> > > This is basically what I’m saying. But it would also include a way to slightly penalize players for messing up a jump. This could help people make a jump they would otherwise miss, while still punishing them (Just like how falling down to a lower level puts you at a disadvantage for missing a jump.) by exposing them for a small period of time. Because map design wouldn’t have to change to accommodate this mechanic, it could easily be removed for different gametypes or playlists.
> > >
> > > In reality, I believe this would make map traversal more consistent, because it would be faster to save a jump with this mechanic, instead of falling down and having to go a long way around to get back up. But it would still put you at a disadvantage as far as active combat is concerned (Exactly like falling down.)
> >
> > But why do you want to penalize players so much? The players who like Clamber just want to get up ledges. They’re not asking to be penalized. At the same time, you’re trying to lure players who don’t like the Clamber animation into a compromise… by having a longer animation. Who are you making this mechanic for? You’re getting swept away with the idea of punishing players without really having thought about the intended audience of the mechanic, the purpose of the mechanic, or the principles of the surrounding game. You’re not making some abstract platonic ideal of a game here. The game should also be fun to play.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I prefer classic gameply overall. But I get the feeling that out of all the new movement options, the Clamber concept could actually work in the older games after a little reworking. I came up with this idea at random, and wondered what other people would think of it.
Honestly… Not really. Clamber has only ever been “needed” as a by-product of map design. If you were supposed to make a jump in Halo 3 or Halo 2, your jump height was sufficient to clear it, or you could use the map to make the jump (think Guardian’s tower, with the Covenant Fusion Coils and Carbine spawn).
Clamber is wholly unnecessary for Halo.
> 2533274822068856;3492:
> Anyway… The penalization aspect would be there to keep people from totally relying on the ability, so they wouldn’t get sloppy. It’s a way to reward precision.
But it’s not a pleasant way. I mean, not having Clamber to start with is a way to reward precision, but the only reason we’re here talking about it is because some people find the experience of falling unpleasant. If this wasn’t a concern, we wouldn’t be, because Clamber wouldn’t exist. But the goal of the movement mechanics is ultimately to be fun and empowering to use. That’s what people often miss doing armchair game design.
This is why I asked who are you making this mechanic for? The main audience of Clamber is players who like to be sloppy with their jumps. They don’t care about precision, but at some point they will start complaining if you make Clamber not fun to use. The audience that likes to be precise and wants to be good at jumping doesn’t need Clamber in the game, because they know how to jump and rarely fail important jumps. If they do, they know it was their own fault. A subset of them actively hates Clamber, and wants to get rid of it. But what’s universal about all these players is that eventually, if you make Clamber too slow, all of them will dislike it.
The other reality you’re not taking into consideration is that some jumps will always require Clamber. If it is in the game, map designers will use it, and they will make jumps that are necessary and require Clamber. Even in a fantasy world where they didn’t, such jumps would naturally arise. And in that case, you are punishing everyone, regardless of their skill and precision.
Some people seem to think without sprint the game will feel slow paced, there’s more than enough evidence that demonstrates that gameplay is more dynamic when your gun is always up.
And for those looking at it at face value, eg. The process of moving in a straight line from point A to point B, just upping the base movement speed will do that. It is entirely possible for this game to not feel ‘outdated’ with the absence of sprint as a core mechanic (many have explained how and even referred to actual FPS games that are both recent and still relevant without it) . Quite a few logical fallicies here…
You’re entitled to your opinion, but wouldn’t you prefer an informed opinion before closing your mind off to the alternative?
> 2533274808548953;3484:
> The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
>
> Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
>
> Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
Good Post and you make a lot of sense (unfortunate as I’m keen on removal of sprint).
With regards to accessibility though my understanding is games do well, have mass appeal etc, when they’re easy to pick up and play difficult to master. In my opinion H4 and h5 didn’t meet this criteria as well as earlier entries, I feel with h5 esp game was sweaty as hell, due to there being so many moves you had to account for even, more randomness/variables. Basically h5 had high skill ceiling and higher barriers of entry. H1 to 3 were incredibly accessible due to the simplicity. I think as long the game feels ‘modern’ and fast paced that’s the main thing.
Also arguably (not claiming this is Gospel) but in a market saturated with FPS games that all feel similar, maybe standing out (with a low risk free to play model for those wanting to test the waters) isn’t too farfetched of a proposition? Esp considering the marketing for this is going to be something fierce man!! What do you think?
> 2533274808548953;3484:
> The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
>
> Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
>
> Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
That “argument” has one major flaw: 343 applied the same mindset (“people expect sprint in a modern game”) already, we even have a dev on record admitting that this was a prime reason for including sprint despite the backlash Bungie/343 is getting since Reach. Yet, H5 did not take eventhough it had sprint…I’d even say that it’s inclusion drove the community further apart adding up on the games other problems, hurting Halo more than it brought in new players.
What people don’t understand is that following the mainstream will never make you the leader. You’re even giving the perfect example: Fortnite.
CoD did not become a what it is today by doing what Halo did because “people expect a shooter to play like that”. And Fortnite did become successful by following the “standards” CoD set. And just like sprint, super short TTKs, Loadouts and kill streaks did not hurt CoD despite not being what Halo did. Battle Royal with no respawns and no Loadouts did not hurt Fortnite despite not being what CoD did. And sped up yet classic gameplay will not hurt Halo.
What could hut Halo, is if the community (and big youtubers!) display discontent with what they might see in the gameplay reveal. However, with the content drought we’re in, most people will probably get hyped as -Yoink- no matter what is shown and it will probably take weeks before most people take a deeper look at what we’re getting…
> 2533274801176657;3496:
> > 2533274808548953;3484:
> > The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
> >
> > Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
> >
> > Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
>
> Good Post and you make a lot of sense (unfortunate as I’m keen on removal of sprint).
>
> With regards to accessibility though my understanding is games do well, have mass appeal etc, when they’re easy to pick up and play difficult to master. In my opinion H4 and h5 didn’t meet this criteria as well as earlier entries, I feel with h5 esp game was sweaty as hell, due to there being so many moves you had to account for even, more randomness/variables. Basically h5 had high skill ceiling and higher barriers of entry. H1 to 3 were incredibly accessible due to the simplicity. I think as long the game feels ‘modern’ and fast paced that’s the main thing.
>
> Also arguably (not claiming this is Gospel) but in a market saturated with FPS games that all feel similar, maybe standing out (with a low risk free to play model for those wanting to test the waters) isn’t too farfetched of a proposition? Esp considering the marketing for this is going to be something fierce man!! What do you think?
Actually the argument can be made that without sprint and thruster pack the game would be more accessible… because less buttons to worry about , lower bar of entry.
I remember the the first time I picked up a controller to play a fps… I had a hard time coordinating movement and looking around alone… but thankfully I only had to worry about 6 more buttons ( a, x , b, y, left trigger and right trigger) instead of now…,. The added right bumper and left bumper and the d pad … oh and also thumbsticks press…
If its simple and intuitive the easier it is to get into it. The more things you can do in it, the more attractive it seems… so you end up needing to balance those two and make them work out. Thank god charging a plasma pistol and just firing it normally are the same button.
I will always argue for simpler controls and being able to be playable and fun with the least number of buttons. From what I can tell moving , looking , shooting , action , throwing and melee are the really important things you need to do in a halo game. It should be possible to play the game and have fun and feel like you have a chance without exploring the other options… like crouch , or switching weapons, or aiming… or thrusting and sprint
anything added on to that to layer the game probably can Be included but they shouldn’t give you a severe advantage in gameplay, or they shouldn’t severely disadvantage those who don’t use them.
If we map Thebes buttons ourselves , the idea is to put the important actions on the most accessible of buttons. A, b, x, y… right trigger and left trigger. If you were to give these actions what would you give them? And would you include sprint ?
> 2533274825101441;3483:
> Well, I see the same old tired arguments being made to keep Halo in the past. I truly hope 343 completely disregards this forum. Halo was my first FPS. But now having spent hundreds of hours on other games, I have concluded that Halo is without a doubt DATED. IT plays like a 15 year old game. People are disillusion to think that the dated gameplay from Halo 3 will make for successful game. To appease those players, 343 should add one or two gametypes with the old game mechanics and see how popular it is. They can always add more gametypes if it becomes overwhelmingly the preferred gametype. As of now though, I have lost all faith that 343 can deliver a good game that has mass appeal.
>
> Side note: DICE has figured out the hard way with BFV that mainly appealing to the hardcore crowd is not going to make a game successful.
To add on to what another poster said, Overwatch came out around the same time as Halo 5 without sprint as a base mechanic and is a lot more relevant than Halo 5. For Heavens sake, Overwatch is at #14 and Halo 5 is at #36!
> 2533274801176657;3496:
> > 2533274808548953;3484:
> > The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
> >
> > Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
> >
> > Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
>
> Good Post and you make a lot of sense (unfortunate as I’m keen on removal of sprint).
>
> With regards to accessibility though my understanding is games do well, have mass appeal etc, when they’re easy to pick up and play difficult to master. In my opinion H4 and h5 didn’t meet this criteria as well as earlier entries, I feel with h5 esp game was sweaty as hell, due to there being so many moves you had to account for even, more randomness/variables. Basically h5 had high skill ceiling and higher barriers of entry. H1 to 3 were incredibly accessible due to the simplicity. I think as long the game feels ‘modern’ and fast paced that’s the main thing.
>
> Also arguably (not claiming this is Gospel) but in a market saturated with FPS games that all feel similar, maybe standing out (with a low risk free to play model for those wanting to test the waters) isn’t too farfetched of a proposition? Esp considering the marketing for this is going to be something fierce man!! What do you think?
I think you’re on the right track. Halo 5 is the most complex game to master which is why they’ll likely dial back the movement control as to not overwhelm people. I honestly think Infinite will see the foundational gameplay of Halo 1-3 along with genre standards such as sprint and accessibility mechanics such as clamber.
> 2533274814945686;3498:
> > 2533274801176657;3496:
> > > 2533274808548953;3484:
> > > The fact is 343 has already made their decision about movement, specifically whether or not to include sprint. Considering all of the resources (time & money) spent on the development of Halo Infinite, we can make a prediction based on accessibility and regardless of all other gameplay arguments:
> > >
> > > Microsoft absolutely needs Infinite to be the killer app of the upcoming Xbox and to have mass broad appeal on a Fortnite-like level. So with that, we have to consider the larger gaming public’s expectations for a FPS in 2020 and understand that Microsoft cannot afford Infinite to be a niche game. From that line of reasoning we have to conclude that sprint will be included in Infinite.
> > >
> > > Additionally the same argument of accessibility could be applied to actions such as clamber, and also why I predict a significant portion of the game will be free-to-play.
> >
> > Good Post and you make a lot of sense (unfortunate as I’m keen on removal of sprint).
> >
> > With regards to accessibility though my understanding is games do well, have mass appeal etc, when they’re easy to pick up and play difficult to master. In my opinion H4 and h5 didn’t meet this criteria as well as earlier entries, I feel with h5 esp game was sweaty as hell, due to there being so many moves you had to account for even, more randomness/variables. Basically h5 had high skill ceiling and higher barriers of entry. H1 to 3 were incredibly accessible due to the simplicity. I think as long the game feels ‘modern’ and fast paced that’s the main thing.
> >
> > Also arguably (not claiming this is Gospel) but in a market saturated with FPS games that all feel similar, maybe standing out (with a low risk free to play model for those wanting to test the waters) isn’t too farfetched of a proposition? Esp considering the marketing for this is going to be something fierce man!! What do you think?
>
> Actually the argument can be made that without sprint and thruster pack the game would be more accessible… because less buttons to worry about , lower bar of entry.
>
> I remember the the first time I picked up a controller to play a fps… I had a hard time coordinating movement and looking around alone… but thankfully I only had to worry about 6 more buttons ( a, x , b, y, left trigger and right trigger) instead of now…,. The added right bumper and left bumper and the d pad … oh and also thumbsticks press…
>
> If its simple and intuitive the easier it is to get into it. The more things you can do in it, the more attractive it seems… so you end up needing to balance those two and make them work out. Thank god charging a plasma pistol and just firing it normally are the same button.
>
> I will always argue for simpler controls and being able to be playable and fun with the least number of buttons. From what I can tell moving , looking , shooting , action , throwing and melee are the really important things you need to do in a halo game. It should be possible to play the game and have fun and feel like you have a chance without exploring the other options… like crouch , or switching weapons, or aiming… or thrusting and sprint
>
> anything added on to that to layer the game probably can Be included but they shouldn’t give you a severe advantage in gameplay, or they shouldn’t severely disadvantage those who don’t use them.
>
> If we map Thebes buttons ourselves , the idea is to put the important actions on the most accessible of buttons. A, b, x, y… right trigger and left trigger. If you were to give these actions what would you give them? And would you include sprint ?
Yeah that’s what I’m saying. That the lack of sprint, thruster, etc… Will in reality make the game more accessible and more easily adopt the ‘simple to play, difficult to master’ ideology that makes good games, great!
Also the less random variables will aid the competitive scene too.