The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
3502

> 2533274825830455;3494:
> > 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.

It would be for people who want the option to not fall down, or if they want to add a very small amount of horizontal distance to their jump. This could come in handy if you jump off a ledge, to another ledge, at an angle. I think the fact that I called it “Clamber”, instead of something else, and that I haven’t included rough, rudimentary diagrams, is throwing you off of what this would actually be like. I need to spend some time thinking about what to draw, and how to draw it.

3503

> 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 ?

I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by accessibility. You’re line of reasoning sounds similar, but if we were to continue to follow it’s premise we would end up with a reduction of movement to the point where the game plays like Super Mario Bros. and all that’s needed is a two button controller. After all two buttons is easier for new players to understand and memorize.

That isn’t what I mean by accessibility though. Accessibility isn’t simplicity by reduction of controls; it’s removing cumbersome mechanics and increasing ease of operation, i.e.: clamber. It’s including widely accepted and understood genre movement mechanics, i.e.: sprint. It’s removing barriers to entry such as cost - which is why F2P games are incredibly popular.

3504

> 2533274808548953;3503:
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by accessibility. You’re line of reasoning sounds similar, but if we were to continue to follow it’s premise we would end up with a reduction of movement to the point where the game plays like Super Mario Bros. and all that’s needed is a two button controller. After all two buttons is easier for new players to understand and memorize.
>
> That isn’t what I mean by accessibility though. Accessibility isn’t simplicity by reduction of controls; it’s removing cumbersome mechanics and increasing ease of operation, i.e.: clamber. It’s including widely accepted and understood genre movement mechanics, i.e.: sprint. It’s removing barriers to entry such as cost - which is why F2P games are incredibly popular.

Here, I quote myself to respond with a part of my post that address the issue. Go to the quote above.

The problem is not the options to play other ways… the problem is the Necessity and impact of playing other ways on the game… such that if you didn’t use the options … you would never end up having the intended experience.

If halo could manage gameplay with two buttons I’d be for it… not to scrap the option to increase the number of buttons you could use… I don’t and didn’t mean that you have to remove the other options. If players want a sprinting animation, good for them, it shouldn’t hurt those who don’t.

Likewise , if people don’t want a sprinting animation… it shouldn’t hurt those who want it.

So here is a suggestion, make the game playable without using sprint … then add sprint as a feature that makes people look like they are running but has little effect on it. If I was to be really real with you now… I’d say the way that works is “sprint” makes your acceleration 10-25% faster … but has the same top speed as base movement … makes people feel like they are moving faster , but ends up not giving a severe advantage or fundamentally changing gameplay… and you don’t have to use it to play the game.

Also I clearly stated the more options in the game the better… and that balancing the options and simplicity was extremely important.

If halo could manage 2 button gameplay I’d be for it as long as you can still access the options of gameplay it provides… and doesn’t break up the fundamentals of the gameplay it defines. What would those buttons do? Action/switch and use/fire? Maybe that could actually work lol… but we still would need the two thumbsticks to navigate.
Halo could actually still work that way… and in fact arguably in a more seamless way becuz… thumbs are always on thumbsticks … pointing fingers are always on trigger… no switching required. BUT… there should be the option… the option to do other things. That could change the pace and add variety, but not give a serious advantage to those who use it.

Two questions implied when playing a first person shooter. How do I move? And how do i shoot.
If those end up being complicated … you don’t have people playing the game.

Which is why halo 5 has a big issue. Thrusting is necessary if you want to participate and not lose like crazy. Sprinting is necessary if you don’t want very very long cumbersome times traversing the map…

I’ll give you this much, people entering playing games kind of assume sprint is there … and kind of assume crouch Is there… and jump… and those aren’t really necessary technically speaking. But they are kind of the expectations. Do any of these break the philosophy I’ve been rambling about? They could… or they could not… depends on how they are implemented. If the game rewards crouching in the fashion that makes people who crouch as apposed to those who don’t win… you have an issue. Imagine if people who crouch simply get smaller hit boxes … everything else remained the same… issue… amiright? Imagine players jumping moved fast enough that made you a difficult target or jumped high enough that made you reach locations other players would otherwise not be able to reach…

or that hat you could sprint and travel the map faster … and out pace those who didn’t to critical locations on the map.

issues… you can resolve. It’s not black and white. And the removal of these features are not going to be received well. So what you do is make the game playable without them… then add them in a way that doesn’t give players a significant advantage yet makes players feel like they have More options and variety to play in game.

Even simple sound effects… animations … and playing around with field of view can be options that really inspire players to use them.

emoting is kind of something’s players expect too in shooter games … so what now… include emotes in halo infinite? Sure why not…
(lowering weapon, and inspecting weapon yes pls … everything else god no lol)
Doesn’t give you an advantage in gameplay… and you don’t have to use it.

Speaking of which… same with aiming down sights. Why not let player say look down the sight… and give 0 advantage to that. It just looks cool. And perhaps psychologically helps .

The options are good. The necessity for those options are … not great.

3505

> 2533274808548953;3503:
> I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by accessibility. You’re line of reasoning sounds similar, but if we were to continue to follow it’s premise we would end up with a reduction of movement to the point where the game plays like Super Mario Bros. and all that’s needed is a two button controller. After all two buttons is easier for new players to understand and memorize.
>
> That isn’t what I mean by accessibility though. Accessibility isn’t simplicity by reduction of controls; it’s removing cumbersome mechanics and increasing ease of operation, i.e.: clamber. It’s including widely accepted and understood genre movement mechanics, i.e.: sprint. It’s removing barriers to entry such as cost - which is why F2P games are incredibly popular.

The relevant factor here is that accessibility doesn’t exist in a vacuum, which is why the argument can be made that reducing the number of movement mechanics makes the game more accessible without having to go to the absurd conclusion that SMB or Pong is the pinnacle of game design. Or alternatively, why you can make your argument about copying game mechanics without having to go to the absurd conclusion that every game should just completely imitate whatever is the most familiar game to the largest number of people at the time.

Accessibility is a nebulous concept to begin with. What is accessible ultimately depends on who your audience is. And by “audience”, I don’t mean the players who you might wish played your game, but the players who actually end up playing your game. This is kind of an important distinction, because hoping to catch Fortnite players with Fortnite mechanics, and actually getting Fortnite players interested in your game are two different things, which is what copy cats often neglect to their own demise.

The routes to accessibility are numerous. Accessibility by familirity isn’t obviously a better direction than accessibility by simplicity. In the end, a complex sandbox with lots of unfamiliar mechanics with a familiar movement mechanic thrown in can be as much or more to take in than a simple sandbox in which that mechanic is absent.

But in the end, accessibility isn’t the sole goal of game design. You can remove all the mechanics you want until you are left with nothing interesting to play, and you will have to concede some degree of complexity to create an interesting game. Likewise, you can have all the contemporary tropes of a genre in your game, but players will not flock to play a game they know nothing about but have somehow already played. You will have to do differentiate your game somehow from the dozen similar games that the player already owns.

If you look at games that have been popular through the ages, you find that they usually strike a balance of familiarity, simplicity, and uniqueness.

3506

> 2533274825830455;3505:
> > 2533274808548953;3503:
> > I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by accessibility. You’re line of reasoning sounds similar, but if we were to continue to follow it’s premise we would end up with a reduction of movement to the point where the game plays like Super Mario Bros. and all that’s needed is a two button controller. After all two buttons is easier for new players to understand and memorize.
> >
> > That isn’t what I mean by accessibility though. Accessibility isn’t simplicity by reduction of controls; it’s removing cumbersome mechanics and increasing ease of operation, i.e.: clamber. It’s including widely accepted and understood genre movement mechanics, i.e.: sprint. It’s removing barriers to entry such as cost - which is why F2P games are incredibly popular.
>
> The relevant factor here is that accessibility doesn’t exist in a vacuum, which is why the argument can be made that reducing the number of movement mechanics makes the game more accessible without having to go to the absurd conclusion that SMB or Pong is the pinnacle of game design. Or alternatively, why you can make your argument about copying game mechanics without having to go to the absurd conclusion that every game should just completely imitate whatever is the most familiar game to the largest number of people at the time.
>
> Accessibility is a nebulous concept to begin with. What is accessible ultimately depends on who your audience is. And by “audience”, I don’t mean the players who you might wish played your game, but the players who actually end up playing your game. This is kind of an important distinction, because hoping to catch Fortnite players with Fortnite mechanics, and actually getting Fortnite players interested in your game are two different things, which is what copy cats often neglect to their own demise.
>
> The routes to accessibility are numerous. Accessibility by familirity isn’t obviously a better direction than accessibility by simplicity. In the end, a complex sandbox with lots of unfamiliar mechanics with a familiar movement mechanic thrown in can be as much or more to take in than a simple sandbox in which that mechanic is absent.
>
> But in the end, accessibility isn’t the sole goal of game design. You can remove all the mechanics you want until you are left with nothing interesting to play, and you will have to concede some degree of complexity to create an interesting game. Likewise, you can have all the contemporary tropes of a genre in your game, but players will not flock to play a game they know nothing about but have somehow already played. You will have to do differentiate your game somehow from the dozen similar games that the player already owns.
>
> If you look at games that have been popular through the ages, you find that they usually strike a balance of familiarity, simplicity, and uniqueness.

Were you an english major Tsassi? I always find your posts so well written. The phrasing is excellent!

3507

> 2783251376877086;3506:
> Were you an english major Tsassi? I always find your posts so well written. The phrasing is excellent!

No, not even native. I’ve learned most of it doing exactly this: trying to explain my views to strangers who have absolutely no reason to care about my opinions. Turns out if you try hard enough long enough, you’ll eventually learn to phrase things in a sensible way. There’s really no better place to practice than online forums because all you have to make an impression are your words. And affirmation from total strangers is what we’re all here for, after all.

3508

This thread is a little played out on what people want, so I figured I’d predict what might happen.

After thinking about it, I find it most likely that we see a Reach-like implementation of armor abilities/movement. The reason I say that is because it’s probably the most palatable gameplay style for many and Bungie’s most recent/“modern” implementation. I wouldn’t be surprised necessarily if sprint returned as a base mechanic (4/5), but I would be really surprised if certain armor abilities like armor lock did. I’d be even more surprised if they decide to continue the advanced mobility of 5, save for perhaps thrust.

This is my list, from most likely to least, for what I think Infinite’s gameplay style will build off of:

  • Reach style with sprint as base mechanic (so like 4 with Reach-esque abilities) - Reach with no sprint - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (maybe just sprint and thrust, at maximum clamber) - Halo 3 styleThese are still options but I think it’s virtually impossible 343 would implement either of them:

  • Halo 1/2 style - Halo 5 styleWhen I say “style” I don’t mean a direct rip but building off of. Also, dual-wielding is a 50/50 in my book, I could see it returning just as easily as not returning.

3509

> 2535418979567138;3508:
> This thread is a little played out on what people want, so I figured I’d predict what might happen.
>
> After thinking about it, I find it most likely that we see a Reach-like implementation of armor abilities/movement. The reason I say that is because it’s probably the most palatable gameplay style for many and Bungie’s most recent/“modern” implementation. I wouldn’t be surprised necessarily if sprint returned as a base mechanic (4/5), but I would be really surprised if certain armor abilities like armor lock did. I’d be even more surprised if they decide to continue the advanced mobility of 5, save for perhaps thrust.
>
> This is my list, from most likely to least, for what I think Infinite’s gameplay style will build off of:
> - Reach style with sprint as base mechanic (so like 4 with Reach-esque abilities) - Reach with no sprint - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (maybe just sprint and thrust, at maximum clamber) - Halo 3 styleThese are still options but I think it’s virtually impossible 343 would implement either of them:
> - Halo 1/2 style - Halo 5 styleWhen I say “style” I don’t mean a direct rip but building off of. Also, dual-wielding is a 50/50 in my book, I could see it returning just as easily as not returning.

I’ll have to disagree with this assessment, because 343i has zero incentive to go back to loadouts and armor abilities. They learned the hard way with Halo 4 that loadouts don’t attract players, and that was back when loadouts were in vogue.

Predicting 343i is extremely difficult because we have seen that they can change tracks in a dime. Furthermore, we only have two games to look at, which is hardly anything to draw conclusions from regarding their approach to sequels. The only thing that has been consistent between Halo 4 and 5 is their adherence to trends of the day. Which is the other reason I don’t believe we’ll ever be seeing loadouts again.

Individual mechanics like sprint are a complete wild card. We already know sprint for Halo 5 was a controversial decision at 343i (source). From the transition to Halo 5 we also know 343i has no issues abandoning mechanics if they don’t have a place in the next game. Therefore I’d say any individual mechanic from Halo 5 has a chance of not being around in Halo Infinite. I’d actually give Clamber, followed by Thruster Pack, the highest probability of sticking around. And I don’t mean the exact same mechanic, but the functional principle. I would also say we will almost certainly not see Spartan Charge return based on how universally disliked it seems to be.

Shifting attention to trends, thanks to battle royale games, gamers are more comfortable than they have been in years with the scavenging weapons and items off the map style of gameplay of Halo. If 343i catches on that, we might see more of a focus on that a renewed attention on non-weapon map pick-ups.

It seems like since advanced movement died off, games have returned to simpler mechanics. Therefore movement wise we might see a simplification of the sandbox from Halo 5. I’d be surprised if advanced movement completely vanished, but we could see a significant reduction in its complexity.

Finally, the game will probably have a new gimmick that makes it distinct from every past Halo, the exact nature of which is impossible to predict beforehand.

3510

> 2533274825830455;3509:
> > 2535418979567138;3508:
> > This thread is a little played out on what people want, so I figured I’d predict what might happen.
> >
> > After thinking about it, I find it most likely that we see a Reach-like implementation of armor abilities/movement. The reason I say that is because it’s probably the most palatable gameplay style for many and Bungie’s most recent/“modern” implementation. I wouldn’t be surprised necessarily if sprint returned as a base mechanic (4/5), but I would be really surprised if certain armor abilities like armor lock did. I’d be even more surprised if they decide to continue the advanced mobility of 5, save for perhaps thrust.
> >
> > This is my list, from most likely to least, for what I think Infinite’s gameplay style will build off of:
> > - Reach style with sprint as base mechanic (so like 4 with Reach-esque abilities) - Reach with no sprint - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (maybe just sprint and thrust, at maximum clamber) - Halo 3 styleThese are still options but I think it’s virtually impossible 343 would implement either of them:
> > - Halo 1/2 style - Halo 5 styleWhen I say “style” I don’t mean a direct rip but building off of. Also, dual-wielding is a 50/50 in my book, I could see it returning just as easily as not returning.
>
> I’ll have to disagree with this assessment, because 343i has zero incentive to go back to loadouts and armor abilities. They learned the hard way with Halo 4 that loadouts don’t attract players, and that was back when loadouts were in vogue.
>
> Predicting 343i is extremely difficult because we have seen that they can change tracks in a dime. Furthermore, we only have two games to look at, which is hardly anything to draw conclusions from regarding their approach to sequels. The only thing that has been consistent between Halo 4 and 5 is their adherence to trends of the day. Which is the other reason I don’t believe we’ll ever be seeing loadouts again.
>
> Individual mechanics like sprint are a complete wild card. We already know sprint for Halo 5 was a controversial decision at 343i (source). From the transition to Halo 5 we also know 343i has no issues abandoning mechanics if they don’t have a place in the next game. Therefore I’d say any individual mechanic from Halo 5 has a chance of not being around in Halo Infinite. I’d actually give Clamber, followed by Thruster Pack, the highest probability of sticking around. And I don’t mean the exact same mechanic, but the functional principle. I would also say we will almost certainly not see Spartan Charge return based on how universally disliked it seems to be.
>
> Shifting attention to trends, thanks to battle royale games, gamers are more comfortable than they have been in years with the scavenging weapons and items off the map style of gameplay of Halo. If 343i catches on that, we might see more of a focus on that a renewed attention on non-weapon map pick-ups.
>
> It seems like since advanced movement died off, games have returned to simpler mechanics. Therefore movement wise we might see a simplification of the sandbox from Halo 5. I’d be surprised if advanced movement completely vanished, but we could see a significant reduction in its complexity.
>
> Finally, the game will probably have a new gimmick that makes it distinct from every past Halo, the exact nature of which is impossible to predict beforehand.

Great analysis. I think Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, and Hover will leave, as for the new gimmick and referencing your logic that players are now accustomed to picking up non weapon items maybe we’ll see a return of equipment. Just wondering how can that work with button mapping.

Just for the record, I have played Halo since almost 20 years now, even before XBox Live when we used a computer program to play CE online, lag was horrible most of the time but it did the trick. I have liked the different add-ons on the mechanics, even Halo 4 I enjoyed playing. The one I enjoyed the least was Reach cause how much jet-pack would dominate so I ended up liking it a lot more when changes were made to make it less so.
As for H5, I like it quite much, best MP in quite a while, it was balanced, fast, fun, and competitive, felt like the true evolution of Halo. Spartan Charge did make me mad sometimes, but I could cope with it and I think it will be better if it’s gone. Ground Pound never was an issue but really few people used it, still it added new forms of casual fun like that tower game mode where everyone was ground pounding.

I’d rather have something new, in the end the game can go back to old mechanics in custom playlists so people who want that can have it. We can have both things and in the end no matter which you prefer, all players (including the ones who don’t read or participate in this forum which are the vast majority) will have the last word and the winning gameplay mechanics will be the ones with more traffic, simple as that.

3511

> 2533274825830455;3509:
> > 2535418979567138;3508:
> > This thread is a little played out on what people want, so I figured I’d predict what might happen.
> >
> > After thinking about it, I find it most likely that we see a Reach-like implementation of armor abilities/movement. The reason I say that is because it’s probably the most palatable gameplay style for many and Bungie’s most recent/“modern” implementation. I wouldn’t be surprised necessarily if sprint returned as a base mechanic (4/5), but I would be really surprised if certain armor abilities like armor lock did. I’d be even more surprised if they decide to continue the advanced mobility of 5, save for perhaps thrust.
> >
> > This is my list, from most likely to least, for what I think Infinite’s gameplay style will build off of:
> > - Reach style with sprint as base mechanic (so like 4 with Reach-esque abilities) - Reach with no sprint - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (maybe just sprint and thrust, at maximum clamber) - Halo 3 styleThese are still options but I think it’s virtually impossible 343 would implement either of them:
> > - Halo 1/2 style - Halo 5 styleWhen I say “style” I don’t mean a direct rip but building off of. Also, dual-wielding is a 50/50 in my book, I could see it returning just as easily as not returning.
>
> I’ll have to disagree with this assessment, because 343i has zero incentive to go back to loadouts and armor abilities. They learned the hard way with Halo 4 that loadouts don’t attract players, and that was back when loadouts were in vogue.
>
> Predicting 343i is extremely difficult because we have seen that they can change tracks in a dime. Furthermore, we only have two games to look at, which is hardly anything to draw conclusions from regarding their approach to sequels. The only thing that has been consistent between Halo 4 and 5 is their adherence to trends of the day. Which is the other reason I don’t believe we’ll ever be seeing loadouts again.
>
> Individual mechanics like sprint are a complete wild card. We already know sprint for Halo 5 was a controversial decision at 343i (source). From the transition to Halo 5 we also know 343i has no issues abandoning mechanics if they don’t have a place in the next game. Therefore I’d say any individual mechanic from Halo 5 has a chance of not being around in Halo Infinite. I’d actually give Clamber, followed by Thruster Pack, the highest probability of sticking around. And I don’t mean the exact same mechanic, but the functional principle. I would also say we will almost certainly not see Spartan Charge return based on how universally disliked it seems to be.
>
> Shifting attention to trends, thanks to battle royale games, gamers are more comfortable than they have been in years with the scavenging weapons and items off the map style of gameplay of Halo. If 343i catches on that, we might see more of a focus on that a renewed attention on non-weapon map pick-ups.
>
> It seems like since advanced movement died off, games have returned to simpler mechanics. Therefore movement wise we might see a simplification of the sandbox from Halo 5. I’d be surprised if advanced movement completely vanished, but we could see a significant reduction in its complexity.
>
> Finally, the game will probably have a new gimmick that makes it distinct from every past Halo, the exact nature of which is impossible to predict beforehand.

Loadouts as they appeared in Reach were not nearly as divisive as Halo 4’s loadouts. They learned with Halo 4 that a full-scale loadout system with weapons included is not an option, but a Reach implementation where the only thing you’re picking is your armor ability is still a fair option. (I should clarify that by “4 with Reach-esque abilities”, I meant 4 in the way that it had sprint as a base mechanic, and not 4 as in you can start with a loadout of your choice, so that was a miscommunication; loadouts as they were in 4 will 100% not return).

I know sprint is a controversial addition but it’s the one 343 would most likely justify in keeping. I’m aware of it’s wildcard nature which is why in my original list I included both right next to each other. I consider things like thrust to be less controversial than spartan charge for example, which is why I considered Halo 5 with decreased advanced movement an option.

While it’s true that advanced movement isn’t really a thing anymore, it doesn’t mean 343 will loosen it’s grasp on the whole of it. They’ve been criticized for following trends while also being criticized for the advanced movement system they implemented from following said trends; it’s really how they take the criticism directed towards Halo 5 that depends on whether they plan on salvaging the advanced movement system or doing away with it altogether. The way I believe they’ll handle the criticism is the basis for my list.

And yeah, there are mechanics that are entirely unpredictable, hence the term I used in the list, “style”. The list is of options I think will be closest to Infinite’s gameplay, but there’s obviously no way to measure 100% what I think Infinite’s gameplay will be.

I should probably explain my reasoning for the predictions then (should’ve done this in the first post to explain my personal assessment of what might happen):

  • Reach style with sprint as a base mechanic (Loadouts only pertain to armor abilities, it’s the most modern while being least divisive, and a bit of a compromise, something 343 might value) - Reach style with no sprint (Same as first, depends on how 343 feels about player reactions to sprint) - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (less likely than above, but 343 might try to salvage advanced movement) - Halo 3 style (less likely than above because it might be regarded by 343 as “dated” in comparison, but more likely than below) - Halo 5 style (very unlikely, it would be bold of them to continue building on this after heavy criticism) - Halo 1/2 style (least likely, I doubt they would ever do this, they probably regard it as too old, and 3 is a more modern version of this to build off of)It’s really just my personal assessment, I’m not saying any of this is 100%. This isn’t the list of what I want either. I’m just listing all the ways 343 could’ve taken criticism from 4/5 and directed it in a certain way. And a lot of us want classic movement (per the title) but I honestly don’t think 343 100% believes it would work, and I think at minimum we’ll see sprint return in some capacity. Just because I want a system built off of Halo 3 doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, and it doesn’t mean I’m going to put it at the top of my predictions list. And just because certain styles are more effective/efficient to work with in sandboxes doesn’t mean it’s what we’ll be getting (see Halos 4/5).

This is my subjective predictions list.

3512

> 2535418979567138;3511:
> Loadouts as they appeared in Reach were not nearly as divisive as Halo 4’s loadouts. They learned with Halo 4 that a full-scale loadout system with weapons included is not an option, but a Reach implementation where the only thing you’re picking is your armor ability is still a fair option.

That’s not how I remember it. Having been present through the whole debate over loadouts, I don’t recall any major shift in attitudes when Halo 4 released. The anti-loadout movement was always driven by the classic fans who wanted equal starts, and that was always the focus of discussion: equal starts. I have no memory of anyone ever saying anything to the effect of “I don’t like weapon loadouts, but armor abilities are actually fine”, which doesn’t mean nobody ever said it, but that can’t have been a very popular sentiment. And I mean, no loadouts, period, is exactly what 343i learned from Halo 4. Halo 5 is the epitome of equal starts, and 343i themselves were eager to point this out for the marketing of Halo 5. I mean, just listen to the original Spartan Abilities trailer. You have two people in a row basically saying “Everyone has them. Okay! Equal footing. Everyone has them. Are we being clear enough about everyone having them?” That makes their lesson from Halo 4 pretty clear: people want equal starts.

> 2535418979567138;3511:
> It’s really just my personal assessment, I’m not saying any of this is 100%. This isn’t the list of what I want either. I’m just listing all the ways 343 could’ve taken criticism from 4/5 and directed it in a certain way.

I know. I was just engaging in a discussion and explaining why I disagree with your personal assessment, and then giving my personal assessment. I just happen to find return to loadouts incredibly improbable. If we’re comparing classic vs. Reach-esque gameplay, at least for classic gameplay there is a clear audience. Make a thread asking for classic gameplay and you will get lots of controversy between two opposing groups (e.g., this thread). Make a thread asking for loadouts and you will get a pretty unambiguous “No”. 343i probably won’t make a game that they’ve been trying to run away from for years. But they certainly won’t make a game that practically nobody wants.

3513

> 2533274825830455;3512:
> > 2535418979567138;3511:
> > Loadouts as they appeared in Reach were not nearly as divisive as Halo 4’s loadouts. They learned with Halo 4 that a full-scale loadout system with weapons included is not an option, but a Reach implementation where the only thing you’re picking is your armor ability is still a fair option.
>
> That’s not how I remember it. Having been present through the whole debate over loadouts, I don’t recall any major shift in attitudes when Halo 4 released. The anti-loadout movement was always driven by the classic fans who wanted equal starts, and that was always the focus of discussion: equal starts. I have no memory of anyone ever saying anything to the effect of “I don’t like weapon loadouts, but armor abilities are actually fine”, which doesn’t mean nobody ever said it, but that can’t have been a very popular sentiment. And I mean, no loadouts, period, is exactly what 343i learned from Halo 4. Halo 5 is the epitome of equal starts, and 343i themselves were eager to point this out for the marketing of Halo 5. I mean, just listen to the original Spartan Abilities trailer. You have two people in a row basically saying “Everyone has them. Okay! Equal footing. Everyone has them. Are we being clear enough about everyone having them?” That makes their lesson from Halo 4 pretty clear: people want equal starts.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535418979567138;3511:
> > It’s really just my personal assessment, I’m not saying any of this is 100%. This isn’t the list of what I want either. I’m just listing all the ways 343 could’ve taken criticism from 4/5 and directed it in a certain way.
>
> I know. I was just engaging in a discussion and explaining why I disagree with your personal assessment, and then giving my personal assessment. I just happen to find return to loadouts incredibly improbable. If we’re comparing classic vs. Reach-esque gameplay, at least for classic gameplay there is a clear audience. Make a thread asking for classic gameplay and you will get lots of controversy between two opposing groups (e.g., this thread). Make a thread asking for loadouts and you will get a pretty unambiguous “No”. 343i probably won’t make a game that they’ve been trying to run away from for years. But they certainly won’t make a game that practically nobody wants.

I’m half and half on it. I understand their sentiment with Halo 5 was more equal starts but at the same time I really can’t see them taking out sprint and other armor abilities. Perhaps they’ll pursue Reach armor abilities as map pick-ups? Of course the Reach loadouts were controversial, but I think that overtime people got less angry about it; especially after the Halo 4 debacle. So perhaps it would be regarded as a compromise of sorts?

But yeah, I think I was wrong and that the lesson learned from 4 was no loadouts at all.

The more I talk about this the more apparent it is that 343 really has to go all one way or all the other, and if studio changes/art style changes/listening to community feedback is anything to go off of, I think now that 343 really will go more classic versus 4, 5, or even Reach. Just the other day I noticed on a zoomed picture of the Infinite box art that the Forerunner structures are really classic, even compared to 2018’s trailer. Of course that doesn’t reflect directly on gameplay, and I could be totally wrong, but it follows the trend of rising classic sentiment from 343.

So I’ve changed my mind now, I think you’re right and that they might finally be bringing classic gameplay back.

3514

I think Halo Infinite should have a return of everything Spartan and Armor Abilities. Equal starts and Reach / Halo 4 style Custom Loadouts for Custom Games so players have a choice of a game session they want to set up. But Equal Starts only for Matchmaking.

3515

Considering Infinite is going to be a spiritual reboot, it’s somewhat evidenced that the true identity wasn’t in halo 4 or 5 though they were fun innovative takes. With that being said I do believe we are going to get classic mechanics and I am in favor of such.
I’d like to go back to rewarding the accuracy of leading shots at distance and when opponents are strafing.

3516

> 2533274825830455;3509:
> > 2535418979567138;3508:
> > This thread is a little played out on what people want, so I figured I’d predict what might happen.
> >
> > After thinking about it, I find it most likely that we see a Reach-like implementation of armor abilities/movement. The reason I say that is because it’s probably the most palatable gameplay style for many and Bungie’s most recent/“modern” implementation. I wouldn’t be surprised necessarily if sprint returned as a base mechanic (4/5), but I would be really surprised if certain armor abilities like armor lock did. I’d be even more surprised if they decide to continue the advanced mobility of 5, save for perhaps thrust.
> >
> > This is my list, from most likely to least, for what I think Infinite’s gameplay style will build off of:
> > - Reach style with sprint as base mechanic (so like 4 with Reach-esque abilities) - Reach with no sprint - Halo 5 style with less aggressive advanced movement (maybe just sprint and thrust, at maximum clamber) - Halo 3 styleThese are still options but I think it’s virtually impossible 343 would implement either of them:
> > - Halo 1/2 style - Halo 5 styleWhen I say “style” I don’t mean a direct rip but building off of. Also, dual-wielding is a 50/50 in my book, I could see it returning just as easily as not returning.
>
> I’ll have to disagree with this assessment, because 343i has zero incentive to go back to loadouts and armor abilities. They learned the hard way with Halo 4 that loadouts don’t attract players, and that was back when loadouts were in vogue.
>
> Predicting 343i is extremely difficult because we have seen that they can change tracks in a dime. Furthermore, we only have two games to look at, which is hardly anything to draw conclusions from regarding their approach to sequels. The only thing that has been consistent between Halo 4 and 5 is their adherence to trends of the day. Which is the other reason I don’t believe we’ll ever be seeing loadouts again.
>
> Individual mechanics like sprint are a complete wild card. We already know sprint for Halo 5 was a controversial decision at 343i (source). From the transition to Halo 5 we also know 343i has no issues abandoning mechanics if they don’t have a place in the next game. Therefore I’d say any individual mechanic from Halo 5 has a chance of not being around in Halo Infinite. I’d actually give Clamber, followed by Thruster Pack, the highest probability of sticking around. And I don’t mean the exact same mechanic, but the functional principle. I would also say we will almost certainly not see Spartan Charge return based on how universally disliked it seems to be.
>
> Shifting attention to trends, thanks to battle royale games, gamers are more comfortable than they have been in years with the scavenging weapons and items off the map style of gameplay of Halo. If 343i catches on that, we might see more of a focus on that a renewed attention on non-weapon map pick-ups.
>
> It seems like since advanced movement died off, games have returned to simpler mechanics. Therefore movement wise we might see a simplification of the sandbox from Halo 5. I’d be surprised if advanced movement completely vanished, but we could see a significant reduction in its complexity.
>
> Finally, the game will probably have a new gimmick that makes it distinct from every past Halo, the exact nature of which is impossible to predict beforehand.

That video still makes me upset. They KNEW continuing down the advanced movement route was going to be controversial, and they STILL did it! They knew it would cause problems. They didn’t do it because its addition would be good for Halo, but because “that’s what the modern gamer expects.” It’s like when Halo 4’s post-mortem came out and it was revealed 343i initially made a classic Halo that was FUN TO PLAY, but Microsoft suits made them change it because it was “too much like Halo” (paraphrased). Of course, it backfired.

I find it funny that the thing that I feel has been hurting Halo this past decade (chasing trends) could potentially be our salvation, lol! The Age of Advanced Movement has come to an end. It was a fad, and it’s gone now. The new trend lately has been a “return to form” with DOOM and CoD. And of course, the staying power of games like CS:GO. For once, this is a trend I want 343i to follow. Doesn’t mean they can’t innovate, but I want Halo back.

3517

> 2535418581509384;3514:
> I think Halo Infinite should have a return of everything Spartan and Armor Abilities. Equal starts and Reach / Halo 4 style Custom Loadouts for Custom Games so players have a choice of a game session they want to set up. But Equal Starts only for Matchmaking.

the one abilities to remove is spartan charge and the game is 100% ready

3518

> 2533274819984192;3516:
> That video still makes me upset. They KNEW continuing down the advanced movement route was going to be controversial, and they STILL did it! They knew it would cause problems. They didn’t do it because its addition would be good for Halo, but because “that’s what the modern gamer expects.”

Well, “good for Halo”, what does that even mean? It’s such a vague, subjective thing to say. They made a decision they believed to be necessary for keeping Halo relevant. Whether it is is debatable, but they made a decision they thought would be “good for Halo”, to use your phrasing, which is as much as anyone can do.

The reality is that anything done to Halo at this point is controversial. Making a fully classic Halo, if that’s what you prefer, would have been controversial. Removing sprint would’ve been controversial. In an alternate universe, there could be some sprint fan in your place complaining “They didn’t do it because its removal would be good for Halo, but because ‘that’s what traditional Halo fans expect.’” And I would be telling them the exact same thing. You’re taking issue with the decision not because it was controversial, but because you landed on the wrong side of the controversy.

I don’t agree with the decision. I think it was short-sighted and harmful to the identity and legacy of Halo, which is all that will be left of it in the long run. I don’t like the justification because reasoning along those lines is what makes triple-A games so dull and monotonous. But I won’t blame them for doing something what they knew to be controversial, because that’s their job.

> 2533274819984192;3516:
> It’s like when Halo 4’s post-mortem came out and it was revealed 343i initially made a classic Halo that was FUN TO PLAY, but Microsoft suits made them change it because it was “too much like Halo” (paraphrased). Of course, it backfired.

That’s not how it went. Here is the quotation:

> For Halo 4, [Josh Holmes] says there were a few epiphany moments that helped boost the morale of the team. One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a “very traditional” Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.
>
> 343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional.

> 2533274819984192;3516:
> I find it funny that the thing that I feel has been hurting Halo this past decade (chasing trends) could potentially be our salvation, lol! The Age of Advanced Movement has come to an end. It was a fad, and it’s gone now. The new trend lately has been a “return to form” with DOOM and CoD. And of course, the staying power of games like CS:GO. For once, this is a trend I want 343i to follow. Doesn’t mean they can’t innovate, but I want Halo back.

I disagree. If 343i does it because it’s the latest trend, it’s no better than chasing any other trend. Chasing trends is just making caricatures. It just produces shells with all the appearances but none of the soul because it’s not the result of passion and belief in the end product, but just a pursuit of what might sell. If we ended up getting a classic Halo that way, I would have no more faith in it than I have in Halo 5.

3519

Just as long as Halo Reach’s spartan ability for sprinting isn’t present it’ll be great to have the old way of traversing firefights XD

3520

> 2533274819984192;3516:
> I find it funny that the thing that I feel has been hurting Halo this past decade (chasing trends) could potentially be our salvation, lol! The Age of Advanced Movement has come to an end. It was a fad, and it’s gone now. The new trend lately has been a “return to form” with DOOM and CoD. And of course, the staying power of games like CS:GO. For once, this is a trend I want 343i to follow. Doesn’t mean they can’t innovate, but I want Halo back.

Well now, we’ve come full circle haven’t we? We’ve been complaining about chasing trends but when it suits us we’re on board?

> 2533274825830455;3518:
> I disagree. If 343i does it because it’s the latest trend, it’s no better than chasing any other trend. Chasing trends is just making caricatures. It just produces shells with all the appearances but none of the soul because it’s not the result of passion and belief in the end product, but just a pursuit of what might sell. If we ended up getting a classic Halo that way, I would have no more faith in it than I have in Halo 5.

^This is what I fear most about Infinite, that their shift is only surface level. That they didn’t really learn their lessons but are just shifting to chase trends (MC’s new armor looks cool, and sure, that Infinite trailer really captures the beauty Halo 3’s OST, but it’s not like nostalgia sells or anything…). Not understanding exactly what you’re doing from experience doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to fail, but it means you’re more susceptible to it.

3521

> 2533274825830455;3518:
> > 2533274819984192;3516:
> > That video still makes me upset. They KNEW continuing down the advanced movement route was going to be controversial, and they STILL did it! They knew it would cause problems. They didn’t do it because its addition would be good for Halo, but because “that’s what the modern gamer expects.”
>
> Well, “good for Halo”, what does that even mean? It’s such a vague, subjective thing to say. They made a decision they believed to be necessary for keeping Halo relevant. Whether it is is debatable, but they made a decision they thought would be “good for Halo”, to use your phrasing, which is as much as anyone can do.
>
> The reality is that anything done to Halo at this point is controversial. Making a fully classic Halo, if that’s what you prefer, would have been controversial. Removing sprint would’ve been controversial. In an alternate universe, there could be some sprint fan in your place complaining “They didn’t do it because its removal would be good for Halo, but because ‘that’s what traditional Halo fans expect.’” And I would be telling them the exact same thing. You’re taking issue with the decision not because it was controversial, but because you landed on the wrong side of the controversy.
>
> I don’t agree with the decision. I think it was short-sighted and harmful to the identity and legacy of Halo, which is all that will be left of it in the long run. I don’t like the justification because reasoning along those lines is what makes triple-A games so dull and monotonous. But I won’t blame them for doing something what they knew to be controversial, because that’s their job.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274819984192;3516:
> > It’s like when Halo 4’s post-mortem came out and it was revealed 343i initially made a classic Halo that was FUN TO PLAY, but Microsoft suits made them change it because it was “too much like Halo” (paraphrased). Of course, it backfired.
>
> That’s not how it went. Here is the quotation:
>
>
> > For Halo 4, [Josh Holmes] says there were a few epiphany moments that helped boost the morale of the team. One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a “very traditional” Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.
> >
> > 343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional.
>
>
>
> > 2533274819984192;3516:
> > I find it funny that the thing that I feel has been hurting Halo this past decade (chasing trends) could potentially be our salvation, lol! The Age of Advanced Movement has come to an end. It was a fad, and it’s gone now. The new trend lately has been a “return to form” with DOOM and CoD. And of course, the staying power of games like CS:GO. For once, this is a trend I want 343i to follow. Doesn’t mean they can’t innovate, but I want Halo back.
>
> I disagree. If 343i does it because it’s the latest trend, it’s no better than chasing any other trend. Chasing trends is just making caricatures. It just produces shells with all the appearances but none of the soul because it’s not the result of passion and belief in the end product, but just a pursuit of what might sell. If we ended up getting a classic Halo that way, I would have no more faith in it than I have in Halo 5.

To me, “good for Halo” is sticking to your core gameplay that WORKS and people still like. You don’t throw out everything that still works to chase a trend! The quote you cited is even MORE damning on 343i’s part! It’s one thing to completely change your core formula when presented with evidence that players/fans want a complete change, and the old stuff isn’t doing it anymore. Instead, their user research was positive! Their stab at traditional Halo was “a lot of fun.” This shows that 343i knew how to make a proper Halo, knew that people still found it fun, and STILL tossed it aside because “gotta chase CoD/Titanfall/whatever.”

Maybe “controversial” is not the right word to use. They changed it knowing the traditional gameplay was still liked and still “fun.” That’s a bad move. For almost a decade we’ve listened to people saying how “traditional Halo was so last year, no-one finds it fun anymore.” I knew it was a lie, but even 343i knew that was a lie! It’s… baffling!

As for chasing trends, I have little faith that 343i will learn from its mistakes. They didn’t with sprint in Halo 5 and the advanced mobility BS, they didn’t with releasing half-baked games (Halo 5 and MCC on PC - no Forge or Theater on launch!). All 343i has shown me for the past decade is that they chase trends. If that’s what it takes to get back to classic Halo, then so be it. That’s what 343i does. They never had faith in Halo’s core, so why have faith in them?