The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
4422

> 2533274865908985;4421:
> I certainly hope they have classic matchmaking modes without sprint, any true fps veteran who’s played an arena shooter knows how fast paced it can be with movement speed alone, sprint is truly not necessary as it is one of the reasons the halo formula has been broken but too be fair to 343i bungie made that mistake first and then 343 understandably ran with it in order to appeal to cod, battlefield, titan fall players etc. I just hope they do it justice and at the very least give us options as it is definitely a big deal that could make or break this game.

True but the issue with trying to appeal to other fan bases is that ultimately those players are always gonna go back home

4423

> 2535407747275549;4422:
> > 2533274865908985;4421:
> > I certainly hope they have classic matchmaking modes without sprint, any true fps veteran who’s played an arena shooter knows how fast paced it can be with movement speed alone, sprint is truly not necessary as it is one of the reasons the halo formula has been broken but too be fair to 343i bungie made that mistake first and then 343 understandably ran with it in order to appeal to cod, battlefield, titan fall players etc. I just hope they do it justice and at the very least give us options as it is definitely a big deal that could make or break this game.
>
> True but the issue with trying to appeal to other fan bases is that ultimately those players are always gonna go back home

Pretty much, like halo 5’s multiplayer is admittedly very solid and polished but it’s just not halo, it feels more like I’m playing an updated version of Crisis spliced with cod advanced warfare :confused:

4424

Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.

4425

> 2533274824002906;4424:
> Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.

They seem to have gotten rid of Thrusters, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, Stabilizers, and Smart Scope (we have classic zoom again).

I’m not a fan of Sprint or Clamber and I’m pretty indifferent to Slide, but what makes a mechanic considered a ”gimmick”? Whether or not you like it?

4426

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> Yes in the thread it was mentioned, by you! lmao you said “Lack of supply != lack of demand”

And how does this imply:
“It was said that if developers just start randomly supplying the market with Arena shooters then they will be met with a serious demand from consumers as if that’s some “law of economics” or something.”
???

That’s some serious leaps in logic there.

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> I wasn’t responding to Ken or anyone else, I was responding to you directly. Basic economics tells us that a lack of supply for something that is WANTED leads to increase demand. Yet companies aren’t doing that.

Correct.
Classic Halo is wanted. Nobody is supplying that. Ergo, the demand increases. To the point that people literally make their own classic Halos.

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> All my friends I talk to say Reach was the last good Halo game. Everyone I know doesn’t site as the reason for Halo’s decline.

Anecdotal evidence.

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> No one on twitter or facebook or anywhere else are hating on Infinte’s reveal due to sprint, clamber, or slide.

Ahem.
(And no, that’s not me.)

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> They are making fun of Infinte’s graphics dude. That shows you what the MAJORITY of gamers care about.

Even if that were true, it would just mean that people are more pissed off at the graphics. It doesn’t mean that they are okay with everything else.

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> It’s a vocal minority of Halo fans that care about sprint.

[Citation needed]

> 2533274845291741;4417:
> I’ve just been trying to explain that Microsoft isn’t going to start supplying risky games to the market with the name Halo on it.

They are doing just that. Classic Halo isn’t risky. “Modern” Halo is. There was no classic Halo that failed, either financially or population-wise. For “modern” Halo, it’s at three out of three.

4427

> 2535440283237581;4425:
> > 2533274824002906;4424:
> > Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.
>
> They seem to have gotten rid of Thrusters, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, Stabilizers, and Smart Scope (we have classic zoom again).
>
> I’m not a fan of Sprint or Clamber and I’m pretty indifferent to Slide, but what makes a mechanic considered a ”gimmick”? Whether or not you like it?

A gimmick is something, that is more a trend and a distraction than anything that adds something valuable to gameplay. Sprint is one of the biggest implemented gimmicks or animations, that do nothing really to add to the gameplay, except breaking the flow and giving you an illusion of traversing faster…

4428

Halo infinite has seemed to land in a happy medium as far as movement mechanics are concerned. The lack of thrusters takes away the constant out that players have from overchallening awkward angles and the grapple hook is added as a sort of item pick up much like jetpack on sanc in reach. The sprint needed to stay to keep that fast paced feel that h5 has and overall enjoyment to watch. H3 has been played and played and frankly is boring to watch after all these years. I am all for where Infinite has landed on movement mechanics. The happy middle ground is what I am seeing.

4429

> 2533274847926251;4427:
> > 2535440283237581;4425:
> > > 2533274824002906;4424:
> > > Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.
> >
> > They seem to have gotten rid of Thrusters, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, Stabilizers, and Smart Scope (we have classic zoom again).
> >
> > I’m not a fan of Sprint or Clamber and I’m pretty indifferent to Slide, but what makes a mechanic considered a ”gimmick”? Whether or not you like it?
>
> A gimmick is something, that is more a trend and a distraction than anything that adds something valuable to gameplay. Sprint is one of the biggest implemented gimmicks or animations, that do nothing really to add to the gameplay, except breaking the flow and giving you an illusion of traversing faster…

I agree with your definition, but “valuable to gameplay” is so vague and subjective a phrase I feel anyone could call just about anything other than the barebones mechanics (being able to move & aim, having health points, having ways to reduce health points, and dying when your health points reach zero) a gimmick. Is reloading a “trend or distraction”? Regenerating shields/health? Vehicles/vehicle boarding? Assassinations and armor permutations?

On the other hand, people who prefer being able to sprint could argue that it “adds value” to the gameplay. They can argue that gives them a way to get into the action faster than they could without it, but without making everyone that fast all the time. They can argue that having the tactical choice between faster forward movement without weapon usage or slower omni-directional movement with weapon usage “adds value”. What could you say to that?

4430

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> > 2533274845291741;4417:
> > lack of demand because no companies are supplying? But here you are saying demand is increasing with a lack of supply. Oh boy…
> >
> > Yes in the thread it was mentioned, by you! lmao you said “Lack of supply != lack of demand”
>
> And how does this imply:
> “It was said that if developers just start randomly supplying the market with Arena shooters then they will be met with a serious demand from consumers as if that’s some “law of economics” or something.”
> ???
>
> That’s some serious leaps in logic there.

No it is not a leap in logic and its blowing my mind that you are this stubborn. You said lack of supply equals lack of demand, so you are implying that if there is a new supply then it will automatically met with a demand but that’s not how anything works. The funny thing is you’re literally admitting there is a lack of demand, and then trying to convince me there is huge demand all at the same time…

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> Correct.
> Classic Halo is wanted. Nobody is supplying that. Ergo, the demand increases. To the point that people literally make their own classic Halos…

But I thought there was a lack of demand because no companies are supplying? But here you are saying demand is increasing with a lack of supply. Oh boy…

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> Anecdotal evidence.

True, but perception is reality. All my friends and many I interact with on the internet say Reach was their last halo game leaving them with fond memories. I work at a hotel and was talking to two security guards around my age. We were talking about Halo because of the campaign reveal and they both started going on and on about how much they missed Forgeworld, all the easter eggs in the campaign, Invasion, the maps, and just Reach in general. I know its not scientific, but its what I hear and read all the damn time. The Halo community went crazy with excitement when 343 announced Reach was coming to MCC. That’s all the evidence anyone needs to determine if Halo Reach is loved by the Halo community.

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> Ahem.
> (And no, that’s not me.)

Your “Ahem” doesn’t impress me. I bet I can find even more than just one person who hates sprint and was upset to see it in the demo. When I said “no one is complaining” I meant its much much less of a topic than the graphics, and… “Craig”.

I Actually scrolled down quite a bit on that twitter post and read many of the comments. Seemed like on that particular comment thread it was roughly 50/50 between the sprint supporters and the sprint haters. Worth noting I suppose.

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> Even if that were true, it would just mean that people are more pissed off at the graphics. It doesn’t mean that they are okay with everything else.

It IS true unless you’ve been living under a rock. Type Halo Infinite into google, the first thing you’ll see is Halo Infinite Graphics. Its a big topic of conversation right now you could say. And that’s a fair point, people can definitely be pissed about both things and maybe the graphics are just -Yoink!- them off more.

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> > 2533274845291741;4417:
> > It’s a vocal minority of Halo fans that care about sprint.
>
> [Citation needed]

Its been stated time and time again that everyone on Waypoint (or anywhere else where passionate halo fans gather to discuss the game) do not represent the majority of gamers that have enjoyed the Halo in the past or still do. 343 devs like snickerdoodle have stated that polls in the forums aren’t even used much and they have better internal polls to determine fan feedback from a wider and broader pool. And clearly what ever they are learning internally is pushing them to keep sprint and advanced mobility for a 3rd time in row (4th including Reach).

> 2533274801176260;4426:
> > 2533274845291741;4417:
> > I’ve just been trying to explain that Microsoft isn’t going to start supplying risky games to the market with the name Halo on it.
>
> They are doing just that. Classic Halo isn’t risky. “Modern” Halo is. There was no classic Halo that failed, either financially or population-wise. For “modern” Halo, it’s at three out of three…

You’re right, which is why I have said multiple times maybe if they do listen to you and everyone else who think sprint is a bigger problem then they might have success. I have said multiple times I like both play styles and will be happy with either or. Maybe you’re right and Infinite will fail due to advanced mobility, but let me ask you this question:
If Infinite doesn’t fail, then does it mean they did advanced mobility correct? That people like it? You say the last 3 Halo games failed due to sprint, its the whole premise of your argument. If Infinite is successful then you might have to admit to yourself that there was a lot more going on in the last 3 games (4 and 5 specifically) that led to the decline in sales and population.

At the end of the day, this debate was started because of your strange sense of economics and changing how supply and demand works back and forth when ever its more convenient for your current argument. You said there’s a lack of demand because no companies are supplying? But then you say demand is increasing with a lack of supply. It’s extremely illogical which surprises me because you’re clearly very smart and you’re very good at citing sources and finding data to support your claims and I respect that, even if you came off as a bit smug towards me. (“ahem”)

4431

> 2535440283237581;4429:
> > 2533274847926251;4427:
> > > 2535440283237581;4425:
> > > > 2533274824002906;4424:
> > > > Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.
> > >
> > > They seem to have gotten rid of Thrusters, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, Stabilizers, and Smart Scope (we have classic zoom again).
> > >
> > > I’m not a fan of Sprint or Clamber and I’m pretty indifferent to Slide, but what makes a mechanic considered a ”gimmick”? Whether or not you like it?
> >
> > A gimmick is something, that is more a trend and a distraction than anything that adds something valuable to gameplay. Sprint is one of the biggest implemented gimmicks or animations, that do nothing really to add to the gameplay, except breaking the flow and giving you an illusion of traversing faster…
>
> I agree with your definition, but “valuable to gameplay” is so vague and subjective a phrase I feel anyone could call just about anything other than the barebones mechanics (being able to move & aim, having health points, having ways to reduce health points, and dying when your health points reach zero) a gimmick. Is reloading a “trend or distraction”? Regenerating shields/health? Vehicles/vehicle boarding? Assassinations and armor permutations?
>
> On the other hand, people who prefer being able to sprint could argue that it “adds value” to the gameplay. They can argue that gives them a way to get into the action faster than they could without it, but without making everyone that fast all the time. They can argue that having the tactical choice between faster forward movement without weapon usage or slower omni-directional movement with weapon usage “adds value”. What could you say to that?

Well, I agree with you, but in the end - what is defined as a gimmick, is in itself very subjective. Is the toy in your Happy meal a gimmick? I would say yes - a child would probably disagree with me. Atleast to me, Reloading forces people to think how they use their guns - you could argue, you need to think how you use sprint, but the problem is that conservative use of sprint drags down gameplay (as maps are stretched out because of sprint), then you get bored or frustrated and use sprint and might be punished for it right after. With reloading it’s either you die because you didn’t reload, or you die because you did reload - it doesn’t slow down gameplay for being careful, you are simply being punished if you don’t use it at the right time. Sprint functions only like an obstacle : You make base movement BORING, so the player is pretty much forced to use sprint and then might run into scenarios where he gets punished for it. It’s just silly and adds nothing to the gameplay loop for me.

4432

Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach. For some reason, I don’t see alot of the following being thrown around:

Dual Wielding is not Halo. THERES NOT EVEN AN AR IN THIS GAME THIS IS NOT HALO THIS IS TRASH

Equipment is not Halo. HALO 3 IS TRAHs

The magnum being weak is not Halo!!

Automatically regenerating health is not Halo. Ruins MULTIPLATYER!!!##31

I could go on and on…

4433

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?

Thread for you to look through.

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach. For some reason, I don’t see alot of the following being thrown around:

No, there were plenty of things that people were against in each and every Halo.

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Dual Wielding is not Halo. THERES NOT EVEN AN AR IN THIS GAME THIS IS NOT HALO THIS IS TRASH

Pretty certain people were against it back then, and there was most likely dissapointment in Halo 2 not having an AR.
However, as you can read in the newer threads regarding a re-implementation of Dual Wielding, it’s not about “not being Halo”, but more about the impact the mechanic has on such things as balance and the weapon sandbox.

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Equipment is not Halo. HALO 3 IS TRAHs

Quite certain this was echoed before Halo 3 was released.

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> The magnum being weak is not Halo!!

Pretty sure that was also something during the Halo 2 days

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Automatically regenerating health is not Halo. Ruins MULTIPLATYER!!!##31

Halo CE kind of introduced regenerating health, only in shield form.
Also kind of sure that was also present during the Halo 2 days.

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> I could go on and on…

You’ve presented quite a lot of old stuff that was prelevent during Bungie’s era, and fringe cases.

It’s about what kind of impact new features and mechanics have on the gameplay, rather than there being changes at all.

4434

> 2533274847926251;4431:
> > 2535440283237581;4429:
> > > 2533274847926251;4427:
> > > > 2535440283237581;4425:
> > > > > 2533274824002906;4424:
> > > > > Looks like they kept the highly disliked and controversial gimmicks and added a new one lol. They never learn.
> > > >
> > > > They seem to have gotten rid of Thrusters, Spartan Charge, Ground Pound, Stabilizers, and Smart Scope (we have classic zoom again).
> > > >
> > > > I’m not a fan of Sprint or Clamber and I’m pretty indifferent to Slide, but what makes a mechanic considered a ”gimmick”? Whether or not you like it?
> > >
> > > A gimmick is something, that is more a trend and a distraction than anything that adds something valuable to gameplay. Sprint is one of the biggest implemented gimmicks or animations, that do nothing really to add to the gameplay, except breaking the flow and giving you an illusion of traversing faster…
> >
> > I agree with your definition, but “valuable to gameplay” is so vague and subjective a phrase I feel anyone could call just about anything other than the barebones mechanics (being able to move & aim, having health points, having ways to reduce health points, and dying when your health points reach zero) a gimmick. Is reloading a “trend or distraction”? Regenerating shields/health? Vehicles/vehicle boarding? Assassinations and armor permutations?
> >
> > On the other hand, people who prefer being able to sprint could argue that it “adds value” to the gameplay. They can argue that gives them a way to get into the action faster than they could without it, but without making everyone that fast all the time. They can argue that having the tactical choice between faster forward movement without weapon usage or slower omni-directional movement with weapon usage “adds value”. What could you say to that?
>
> Well, I agree with you, but in the end - what is defined as a gimmick, is in itself very subjective. Is the toy in your Happy meal a gimmick? I would say yes - a child would probably disagree with me. Atleast to me, Reloading forces people to think how they use their guns - you could argue, you need to think how you use sprint, but the problem is that conservative use of sprint drags down gameplay (as maps are stretched out because of sprint), then you get bored or frustrated and use sprint and might be punished for it right after. With reloading it’s either you die because you didn’t reload, or you die because you did reload - it doesn’t slow down gameplay for being careful, you are simply being punished if you don’t use it at the right time. Sprint functions only like an obstacle : You make base movement BORING, so the player is pretty much forced to use sprint and then might run into scenarios where he gets punished for it. It’s just silly and adds nothing to the gameplay loop for me.

My point was that what is and isn’t a gimmick is subjective.

We can explore how mechanics affect the experience of the game ‘til the cows come home, but whether or not those effects are positive/detrimental is in the eye of the beholder. We can reach a general consensus on mechanics but any outlier who, for example, says reloading “is silly and adds nothing to the gameplay loop” for them still has a valid opinion and preference.

So what’s the point of labeling something a gimmick if it just means it doesn’t appeal to you? It just sounded dismissive, which doesn’t help in discussion.

4435

(double post)

4436

> 2533274795123910;4433:
> > 2533274902478287;4432:
> >

I understand that it is about what kind of impact, I was being somewhat facetious that I don’t get it. Arguments that point out mechanics that lead to, what some perceive as, bad balance of the game overall I am fine with.I am not fine with saying something isn’t "Halo’ just because you don’t agree with it and because it’s new. My point was that there have always been divisive innovations/changes in gameplay throughout the series.

I think 343i gets much more flak than Bungie did simply because they are not the OG creators, so anything they do people don’t like is NOT HALO.And, I wasn’t active on the forums back then (started playing with H3) so I didn’t see those arguments in the Bungie days. But, based on the some of the posts around here, you would think Bungie never did wrong with the OG trilogy.

Anyways, I’ve had a blast with every Halo game. I understand the arguments against sprint, I think they are overblown. I liked thruster pack and ADS. I really liked the Halo 5 Beta and Breakout. It was fresh and it felt good. It was certainly different. But I am not mad at all those things are being removed. I guess I just don’t understand how people constantly flame others for one simple mechanic.

4437

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?
>
> This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach. For some reason, I don’t see alot of the following being thrown around:
>
> Dual Wielding is not Halo. THERES NOT EVEN AN AR IN THIS GAME THIS IS NOT HALO THIS IS TRASH
>
> Equipment is not Halo. HALO 3 IS TRAHs
>
> The magnum being weak is not Halo!!
>
> Automatically regenerating health is not Halo. Ruins MULTIPLATYER!!!##31
>
> I could go on and on…

In all but one of those examples, the developers listened to the feedback and made corrections for future games. Dual wielding is gone now. Equipment was taken out after that one game that featured it. The magnum was boosted up after that one game where it was weakened. Regenerating health is the only thing that has really stuck around, aside from when it took a break in Halo Reach(personally, I think health packs are better for multiplayer. But, I see why regenerating health was introduced for single player).

However, we keep having the same discussions about how much sprint harms the sandbox game after game after game. And now, here we are a decade later, and it still hasn’t gotten through 343’s thick collective skull that sprinting is bad for Halo.

4438

> 2811398874529013;4437:
> > 2533274902478287;4432:
> > Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?
> >
> > This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach. For some reason, I don’t see alot of the following being thrown around:
> >
> > Dual Wielding is not Halo. THERES NOT EVEN AN AR IN THIS GAME THIS IS NOT HALO THIS IS TRASH
> >
> > Equipment is not Halo. HALO 3 IS TRAHs
> >
> > The magnum being weak is not Halo!!
> >
> > Automatically regenerating health is not Halo. Ruins MULTIPLATYER!!!##31
> >
> > I could go on and on…
>
> In all but one of those examples, the developers listened to the feedback and made corrections for future games. Dual wielding is gone now. Equipment was taken out after that one game that featured it. The magnum was boosted up after that one game where it was weakened. Regenerating health is the only thing that has really stuck around, aside from when it took a break in Halo Reach(personally, I think health packs are better for multiplayer. But, I see why regenerating health was introduced for single player).
>
> However, we keep having the same discussions about how much sprint harms the sandbox game after game after game. And now, here we are a decade later, and it still hasn’t gotten through 343’s thick collective skull that sprinting is bad for Halo.

The problem with this though is that there is no proof that the anti-sprinters are in the majority. As we see on Twitter with far-left or far-right activists, the loudest people in online communities tend to be in the minority, a very passionate subset of folks. I have specific examples but I am afraid that would be against forum rules. But if you think political arguments on Twitter are indicative of disagreements among common folk IRL, I’m not sure what country you live in, but it’s definitely not the U.S.

It’s the same idea with online reviews. Unless people are incentivized (submit proof of a review and get a free drink!), most people are more motivated to write a review when they are unsatisfied vs satisfied.

Has 343i done any market research? Done any community research? I mean formal social science research that’s quantifiable. Maybe they should create a pop-up survey in MCC and Halo 5 – ‘Should sprint be in Infinite?’. Accounts that have been active for 3+months can participate, up to once (to prevent smurfs from inflating the results either way).

Anyways, what I am trying to say is, even if the anti-sprinters are ‘right’, if they are in the minority, how much impact would you expect them to have?

4439

> 2533274902478287;4438:
> > 2811398874529013;4437:
> > > 2533274902478287;4432:
> > > […]
> >
> > In all but one of those examples, the developers listened to the feedback and made corrections for future games. Dual wielding is gone now. Equipment was taken out after that one game that featured it. The magnum was boosted up after that one game where it was weakened. Regenerating health is the only thing that has really stuck around, aside from when it took a break in Halo Reach(personally, I think health packs are better for multiplayer. But, I see why regenerating health was introduced for single player).
> >
> > However, we keep having the same discussions about how much sprint harms the sandbox game after game after game. And now, here we are a decade later, and it still hasn’t gotten through 343’s thick collective skull that sprinting is bad for Halo.
>
> The problem with this though is that there is no proof that the anti-sprinters are in the majority. As we see on Twitter with far-left or far-right activists, the loudest people tend to be in the minority. I have specific examples but I am afraid that would be against forum rules. But if you think political arguments on Twitter are indicative of disagreements among common folk IRL, I’m not sure what country you live in, but it’s definitely not the U.S.
>
> It’s the same idea with online reviews. Unless people are incentivized (submit proof of a review and get a free drink!), most people are more motivated to write a review when they are unsatisfied vs satisfied.
>
> Has 343i done any market research? Done any community research? I mean formal social science research that’s quantifiable. Maybe they should create a pop-up survey in MCC and Halo 5 – ‘Should sprint be in Infinite?’. Accounts that have been active for 3+months can participate, up to once (to prevent smurfs from inflating the results either way).
>
> Anyways, what I am trying to say is, even if the anti-sprinters are ‘right’, if they are in the minority, how much impact would you expect them to have?

Was the anti-dual wielding crowd in the majority or minority? Was the anti-equipment crowd in the majority or minority? Was the anti-weak magnum crowd in the majority or minority? Was the anti-health pack crowd in the majority or minority?

Does any of that matter? If a crowd can convey how harmful something is to the game, it shouldn’t matter if they make up the majority or the minority. If the game can benefit from a change being made, it shouldn’t matter if that change was suggested by more than half of the players, fewer than half, or even just one person.

4440

> 2533274902478287;4432:
> Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered ‘NOT HALO’?
>
> This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach. For some reason, I don’t see alot of the following being thrown around:
>
> Dual Wielding is not Halo. THERES NOT EVEN AN AR IN THIS GAME THIS IS NOT HALO THIS IS TRASH
>
> Equipment is not Halo. HALO 3 IS TRAHs
>
> The magnum being weak is not Halo!!
>
> Automatically regenerating health is not Halo. Ruins MULTIPLATYER!!!##31
>
> I could go on and on…

I agree with your sentiment. It would be unhealthy to have a game where no new features ever get added. But Bonnie Ross said it well, they took a look at the features over the years of Halo games, that were essential to the Halo experience.

Halo 2 and Halo 3 have a vibrant competitive legacy, despite having dual weilding, which were never adopted by those communities. As others have said, it is about how the game mechanic affected the overall sandbox. Dual weilding was able to be effectively removed with the competitive settings choices.

Sprint is a big one, especially if it’s built in to the game and not removable. Reach tried to go down the middle by making it a pickup item. You could sprint, but you could also turn it off and not have sprint. So that’s why I really hope that sprint is optional for Halo Infinite. Sprint is not what helped to define Halo during its strongest years.

4441

> 2726956381514567;4440:
> > 2533274902478287;4432:
> > […]
>
> I agree with your sentiment. It would be unhealthy to have a game where no new features ever get added. But Bonnie Ross said it well, they took a look at the features over the years of Halo games, that were essential to the Halo experience.
>
> Halo 2 and Halo 3 have a vibrant competitive legacy, despite having dual weilding, which were never adopted by those communities. As others have said, it is about how the game mechanic affected the overall sandbox. Dual weilding was able to be effectively removed with the competitive settings choices.
>
> Sprint is a big one, especially if it’s built in to the game and not removable. Reach tried to go down the middle by making it a pickup item. You could sprint, but you could also turn it off and not have sprint. So that’s why I really hope that sprint is optional for Halo Infinite. Sprint is not what helped to define Halo during its strongest years.

Even if sprint can be disabled for a custom gametype, the negative effects of sprint will still be felt.

When sprint is included in a game, many areas of the game have to be balanced around it. As we’ve seen in Halo, aim assist has been increased in the games that feature sprint to help players hit sprinting enemies. Maps have been stretched out to give players room to sprint. weapon ranges have been increased in the Halo games that feature sprint to compensate for players being further away on average. So, even if you are in a gametype with sprint disabled(or even just not currently sprinting in a gametype that does have it), on a custom map that is scaled back to normal for no sprint, you are still subjected to the increased aim assist and increased weapon range that comes with having the game built around sprint.