The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
4442

> 2533274902478287;4436:
> I am not fine with saying something isn’t "Halo’ just because you don’t agree with it and because it’s new

I’m not one to use “this is not Halo”, that easily, if I’ve ever used it.
However I understand the sentiment behind it.
Games get their own identity, and you grow accustomed to it. It’s the overall identity, the visual design, the gameplay design, the sound design, and so forth.
They’re all small snippets of a piece making the whole thing come together.
“This is not Halo”, is an extremely crude way of expressing that one feel the new thing, or the new “identity” doesn’t fit Halo.

> 2533274902478287;4436:
> 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.

Bear with me here and consider what I said earlier.
It’s entirely wonderful that you’ve had a blast with every Halo game, it’s your right to think that.
However, look objectively at Halo from i343’s start with a new game, forget what they did with the Reach updates.
For Halo 4 they did a huge load of different visual and gameplay changes.
They doubled down on Reach’s loadout system, causing even more uneven starts, an already controversial topic.
Point rewards through ordnance, and random map ordnance instead of static weapon spawns.
Flinching instead of descoping.
No grenade pickup from dead MP enemies without a perk.
Introducing sprint as a player mechanic.
Grenade indicators to telegraph where danger once was instead of using your own situational awereness.
Gameplay items locked behind a game-time-grind-wall.
Chief armor re-design out of nowhere, which also was for many a step into the “less bulky”, or, “less tanky” direction.
Elite and Grunt re-designs.

There were quite a few design choices here which many, many, felt clashed with their own accustomed to Halo Identity.
I mean, you had never been rewarded with anything other than what the enemy had equipped, and a point, for killing an enemy, now all of a sudden you just scraped together a few assists and suddenly you were awarded with a gift, literally from the sky, of your choice, out of three of course, but still. This wasn’t that it was new to Halo, it was that it went against what many felt Halo multiplayer had been about, equal footing, you get points for what you do, and stuff you need is on the map, pat on the back and out on the yard to play.

So, while there are those who aren’t happy with what i343 does, it’s not that it isn’t Bungie, so much so as it’s what i343 puts on the table and the “identity” impact people feel it has on how they know Halo.

Halo 5 silly skins? That, or “Bro-spartans”, were probably my “Not Halo” moment.

> 2533274902478287;4436:
> 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.

Probably because many of the opponents during that time didn’t stick around this long with Halo, and thus, their arguments have been “weeded” out.
Also, I don’t think it’s really constructive to go around with a “Bungie did all these things wrong”-list whenever you have critisism on something i343 does.

> 2533274902478287;4436:
> Anyways, I’ve had a blast with every Halo game. I understand the arguments against sprint, I think they are overblown.

And that’s you.
I don’t like sprint for numerous reasons, and it reduce my enjoyment of Halo. Everyone with their own.

> 2533274902478287;4436:
> I guess I just don’t understand how people constantly flame others for one simple mechanic.

Fear?
My theory is that as everyone is here for their own reasons, wether they admit it or not, flamers and whatnot are afraid they’ll lose something, either what they have or an opportunity to get what they want.
If you’re a flaming pro-sprinter you may be afraid that anti-sprinters get what they want, and i343 ditch sprint.
Or, a flaming anti-sprinter may be afraid that i343 could consider ditching sprint, but pro-sprinters present, for i343, enough arguments to sway them into keeping sprint.
Anger? Jealousy?
Someone else got something you were denied?
Porbably plenty of reasons.

4443

> 2533274795123910;4442:
> > 2533274902478287;4436:
> > I am not fine with saying something isn’t "Halo’ just because you don’t agree with it and because it’s new
>
> I’m not one to use “this is not Halo”, that easily, if I’ve ever used it.
> However I understand the sentiment behind it.
> Games get their own identity, and you grow accustomed to it. It’s the overall identity, the visual design, the gameplay design, the sound design, and so forth.
> They’re all small snippets of a piece making the whole thing come together.
> “This is not Halo”, is an extremely crude way of expressing that one feel the new thing, or the new “identity” doesn’t fit Halo.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274902478287;4436:
> > 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.
>
> Bear with me here and consider what I said earlier.
> It’s entirely wonderful that you’ve had a blast with every Halo game, it’s your right to think that.
> However, look objectively at Halo from i343’s start with a new game, forget what they did with the Reach updates.
> For Halo 4 they did a huge load of different visual and gameplay changes.
> They doubled down on Reach’s loadout system, causing even more uneven starts, an already controversial topic.
> Point rewards through ordnance, and random map ordnance instead of static weapon spawns.
> Flinching instead of descoping.
> No grenade pickup from dead MP enemies without a perk.
> Introducing sprint as a player mechanic.
> Grenade indicators to telegraph where danger once was instead of using your own situational awereness.
> Gameplay items locked behind a game-time-grind-wall.
> Chief armor re-design out of nowhere, which also was for many a step into the “less bulky”, or, “less tanky” direction

I agree Halo 4 deviated way too far. Again, I still enjoyed it, but its objective that it wasn’t meant to be competitive/balanced.

I think you hit on something too – alot of the hate for 343i stems back to 4, at least subconsciously. Since that launch, I think they have taken alot of steps to creating balanced gameplay. The H5 magnum I think should be hailed as one of the greatest gun designs (relative to sandbox) in all of Halo. Equal starts. Map pickups.

And now they’ve removed ADS, spartan charge. Not confirmed but likely anything thruster related.

So I think we should also give them credit to when they have listened.

For everyone who wants sprint removed – do you straight up want only classic movement mechanics, or are there things like (say thruster minus all the other -Yoink- with it) you would want to see or be ok with?

4444

> 2533274902478287;4443:
> > 2533274795123910;4442:
> > > 2533274902478287;4436:
> > > […]
> >
> > […]
>
> […]
> For everyone who wants sprint removed – do you straight up want only classic movement mechanics, or are there things like (say thruster minus all the other -Yoink- with it) you would want to see or be ok with?

I straight up want only classic movement mechanics. There are some “modern” movement mechanics aside from sprint that I could tolerate, but certainly don’t want. However, I cannot tolerate sprint in Halo. I’ve said many times over the years that I will never again buy a Halo game that’s built around sprint. I’ve been burned too many times on that. Sprint is where I draw the line with my continued support of the franchise.

4445

> 2533274902478287;4443:
> For everyone who wants sprint removed – do you straight up want only classic movement mechanics, or are there things like (say thruster minus all the other -Yoink- with it) you would want to see or be ok with?

I’d want Reach’s Armor Abilities to come back, mainly. The grappling hook/Equipment system is a big plus, however it doesn’t go far enough. If we were to have classic movement and advanced movement in the same title, Armor Abilities are the way to go. Design maps around classic Halo movement, then add whatever movement abilities complement the map. Appease both sides while allowing Custom Games to flourish through modularity. Halo’s strength is in its sandbox, and anything that compromises that sandbox (such as Halo 4 and 5’s enhanced movement) hurts the game. Halo 2 Dual-Wielding and Vehicle Hijacking, Halo 3 Equipment, Halo: Reach Loadouts and Armor Abilities, Halo 4 Ordanance and Seat Swapping, and Halo 5’s multi-functional Abilities should have been how Infinite played. Regardless of how anyone views those individual pieces, they as a whole bring a lot to the table for possible game modes and campaign set pieces. Even customizing your loadouts during the in-game, pre-match screen can bring a lot for gameplay possibilities.

Tl;DR: Infinite is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t go far enough to appeal to classic, current, and potential fans.

4446

It’s not about what we personally like, it’s all about capturing and refining what’s good for Halo gameplay. For example: I like Clamber, and how it lets you extend your vertical jump height, but I’m able to admit it disrupts Halo gunplay by forcing you to put your weapon down while using it. The solution? A double jump mechanic, offered in the form of equipment.

Pro-Sprint arguments are always about the desire to move faster. But the addition of Sprint means you have to put your weapon down, to move faster. Playable spaces then become larger, to keep the overall pacing of combat similar to what Halo is known for. This means that maps will feel larger and more open, and you will feel slower when you are in combat. The solution? Tell 343 they need to increase base movement speed, change playable spaces to be a bit smaller, increase the FOV, and offer plenty of chances for the player to have a vehicle on larger maps.

Sprint isn’t needed to make the pacing of the game feel better. Better game design can solve all of the problems anyone has with the things that make Halo unique. But remember: it is possible for Halo to become so fast, it loses its ability to appeal to new players and veterans, and to lose its identity. And if that still isn’t good enough for you, then you just don’t like what Halo is at its core, as a video game.

Saying one game should have a mechanic, just because another game has that mechanic, is not a valid argument. Every game would play nearly identically if that was the case, which defeats the purpose of playing more than one game. Video games are mainly about gameplay. This is why Nintendo games all play differently, and why people like them so much.

Realism is also not a valid argument when a game is not trying to be a simulator. Halo is not trying to simulate real life.

Nerfing Sprint to the point it’s mostly an animation, is pointless pandering to people who would inevitably complain about the game being too slow on release day. Sprint being mostly an animation, will only pander to people who expect it to be in, but won’t play the game any significant amount of time. If Sprint in Infinite really isn’t much faster than not Sprinting, then Sprint should be removed, and base movement speed should be increased to whatever speed Sprint is. Unless Sprint is an OPTIONAL upgrade, which I doubt.

4447

> 2533274902478287;4443:
> For everyone who wants sprint removed – do you straight up want only classic movement mechanics, or are there things like (say thruster minus all the other -Yoink- with it) you would want to see or be ok with?

I’ve always said that when we all agree that any individual advanced movement mechanic is dispensable, we can start discussing how classic gameplay can be extended in a way that retains its core values. There are mechanics I think could be more viable extensions to classic gameplay. While I don’t think the Thruster Pack as it is implemented in Halo 5 is the best mechanic, I believe the general idea of a boost mechanic is workable. Likewise, I think some sort of wall jump could be an interesting experiment.

I criticize Halo 5 for an unfocused shotgun approach of trying out too many unrelated mechanics with too little thought given both to the value and purpose of each individual mechanic, as well as to how they relate to each other, and how they mesh with classic Halo gameplay. I think an approach of taking the classic formula, and then introducing at most two functional modifications to it that are properly fleshed out and motivated would have been a more sensible evolution path.

4448

Looks like Quinn Delhoyo is still Sandbox Director. As long as he’s in that role, Sprint is here to stay. If there’s one thing that I’m confident on it’s that.

Instead, the weapons will feel great at launch, someone will complain that an AR user beat them vs BR in CQC once, and then every gun except BR or insert fav precision will be nerfed to hell. But sprint will stay.

This is exactly what happened in H4 and H5.

4449

> 2811398874529013;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.

True. But in the case of those specific things – them changing it the next game does not necessarily mean they agree it was ‘broken’, or that they agreed with the sentiment it ‘didn’t feel halo’. It could – or it could be that they succumbed to that very vocal pressure. What people don’t seem to want to admit here is that it really is a philosophical and design choice discussion – it’s not as simple as who’s right or wrong. Again, I understand the arguments against sprint. They are very compelling. They are technical arguments designed to support a specific philosophy of gameplay. Insofar that those arguments are based on technical data, they are true (i.e., comparing traversal speeds for Midship vs Truth). But at the end of the day, it’s not objective that removing sprint makes a better game or better combat.

So Quinn and others at 343i just don’t philosophically agree with this part of the community. It’s not that they haven’t heard or addressed (indirectly) feedback, they are set on their philosophy. They may change their minds if they have quantifiable data that says more people will play their game if it doesn’t have sprint.

4450

> 2533274902478287;4448:
> Looks like Quinn Delhoyo is still Sandbox Director. As long as he’s in that role, Sprint is here to stay. If there’s one thing that I’m confident on it’s that.

I don’t think it’s one person who dictates any creative decision. If you look at the structure of the team, there are a number of lead designers of different specializations, and you can’t have, say, the campaign design fundamentally disagreeing with the sandbox design. Beyond that, you have a team of people under every specialization, and despite the director having significant control, having it be a completely one-way street would probably be destructive to the project. If there was significant doubt over the inclusion of any one mechanic in the design department, it would probably be left out unless a satisfactory solution was found.

4451

> 2533274825830455;4450:
> > 2533274902478287;4448:
> > Looks like Quinn Delhoyo is still Sandbox Director. As long as he’s in that role, Sprint is here to stay. If there’s one thing that I’m confident on it’s that.
>
> I don’t think it’s one person who dictates any creative decision. If you look at the structure of the team, there are a number of lead designers of different specializations, and you can’t have, say, the campaign design fundamentally disagreeing with the sandbox design. Beyond that, you have a team of people under every specialization, and despite the director having significant control, having it be a completely one-way street would probably be destructive to the project. If there was significant doubt over the inclusion of any one mechanic in the design department, it would probably be left out unless a satisfactory solution was found.

Agreed. But my perception is based on the streams – every-time we wanna talk about weapons, mechanics, etc, they bring in Quinn, and (although I don’t have a specific clip), he’s never seemed very receptive to feedback, and always seems very confident his way is the right way (even if like the Pro Team gives him snide comments about stuff). This is just my perception of Quinn - I am not saying anything factual, and I haven’t watched a recent video or stream. But, my perception from the Halo 4 sandbox revamp videos, Halo 5 sandbox videos, is he kinda blew off the anti-sprinters tbh.

And given he’s been in the role for 3 games now (didn’t they bring him in to ‘fix’ Halo 4, or was he there from the beginning?), I would say he has alot of influence in the org on such a base movement mechanic decision. And the people who he chooses for his team are likely to be people he jives with, who have similar design philosophies [citation needed].

You are absolutely right that there are alot of inputs, alot of discussions, different team members involved. I just think he’s likely a very loud voice behind the scenes, with the official title to back up any ‘soft power’ influence. Maybe I’m completely wrong. But I suspect others have similar thoughts. (And remember, let’s keep them respectful. I’m not trying to personally attack him.) Edit; Either way, my follow up post clarifies that it comes down to studio decision makers having a different philosophy than these vocal members of the community.

4452

> 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?

Not at all. Basically the ask is to remove all mobility from the base multi-player at launch and start fresh. We can consider them one at a time. All changes from Reach through 5 have been suspect.

4453

> 2533274822068856;4446:
> It’s not about what we personally like, it’s all about capturing and refining what’s good for Halo gameplay. For example: I like Clamber, and how it lets you extend your vertical jump height, but I’m able to admit it disrupts Halo gunplay by forcing you to put your weapon down while using it. The solution? A double jump mechanic, offered in the form of equipment.
>
> Pro-Sprint arguments are always about the desire to move faster. But the addition of Sprint means you have to put your weapon down, to move faster. Playable spaces then become larger, to keep the overall pacing of combat similar to what Halo is known for. This means that maps will feel larger and more open, and you will feel slower when you are in combat. The solution? Tell 343 they need to increase base movement speed, change playable spaces to be a bit smaller, increase the FOV, and offer plenty of chances for the player to have a vehicle on larger maps.
>
> Sprint isn’t needed to make the pacing of the game feel better. Better game design can solve all of the problems anyone has with the things that make Halo unique. But remember: it is possible for Halo to become so fast, it loses its ability to appeal to new players and veterans, and to lose its identity. And if that still isn’t good enough for you, then you just don’t like what Halo is at its core, as a video game.
>
> Saying one game should have a mechanic, just because another game has that mechanic, is not a valid argument. Every game would play nearly identically if that was the case, which defeats the purpose of playing more than one game. Video games are mainly about gameplay. This is why Nintendo games all play differently, and why people like them so much.
>
> Realism is also not a valid argument when a game is not trying to be a simulator. Halo is not trying to simulate real life.
>
> Nerfing Sprint to the point it’s mostly an animation, is pointless pandering to people who would inevitably complain about the game being too slow on release day. Sprint being mostly an animation, will only pander to people who expect it to be in, but won’t play the game any significant amount of time. If Sprint in Infinite really isn’t much faster than not Sprinting, then Sprint should be removed, and base movement speed should be increased to whatever speed Sprint is. Unless Sprint is an OPTIONAL upgrade, which I doubt.

The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.

Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.

That being said: after reading through the forums , some seem to gravitate toward a knee jerk reaction to talking everything out without consideration of the implications. For those that want a classic halo, I feel that it is already here for you to play in the Mcc. Really 343 would do well to add new expansions to mp in the mcc. It seems to be exactly they want. I don’t get why associating a new game ,with all the abilities in 5 and beyond, with some sort of defeat. The game you want exists. If it needs some polish, ask for it

That being said: could 5’s additions such as sprint be better? absolutely, and that is what sequels give us the opportunity to do. Don’t like sorint; replace it instead of removing it. Spartan charge not feeling fair ?( I honestly don’t get this complaint, it is a high risk, low reward maneuver). There is an entire ocean of retweeting and reworks that could be made before being so drastic as to strip away everything and anything.

Edited: for grammar.

4454

> 2533274870849236;4453:
> > 2533274822068856;4446:
> > It’s not about what we personally like, it’s all about capturing and refining what’s good for Halo gameplay. For example: I like Clamber, and how it lets you extend your vertical jump height, but I’m able to admit it disrupts Halo gunplay by forcing you to put your weapon down while using it. The solution? A double jump mechanic, offered in the form of equipment.
> >
> > Pro-Sprint arguments are always about the desire to move faster. But the addition of Sprint means you have to put your weapon down, to move faster. Playable spaces then become larger, to keep the overall pacing of combat similar to what Halo is known for. This means that maps will feel larger and more open, and you will feel slower when you are in combat. The solution? Tell 343 they need to increase base movement speed, change playable spaces to be a bit smaller, increase the FOV, and offer plenty of chances for the player to have a vehicle on larger maps.
> >
> > Sprint isn’t needed to make the pacing of the game feel better. Better game design can solve all of the problems anyone has with the things that make Halo unique. But remember: it is possible for Halo to become so fast, it loses its ability to appeal to new players and veterans, and to lose its identity. And if that still isn’t good enough for you, then you just don’t like what Halo is at its core, as a video game.
> >
> > Saying one game should have a mechanic, just because another game has that mechanic, is not a valid argument. Every game would play nearly identically if that was the case, which defeats the purpose of playing more than one game. Video games are mainly about gameplay. This is why Nintendo games all play differently, and why people like them so much.
> >
> > Realism is also not a valid argument when a game is not trying to be a simulator. Halo is not trying to simulate real life.
> >
> > Nerfing Sprint to the point it’s mostly an animation, is pointless pandering to people who would inevitably complain about the game being too slow on release day. Sprint being mostly an animation, will only pander to people who expect it to be in, but won’t play the game any significant amount of time. If Sprint in Infinite really isn’t much faster than not Sprinting, then Sprint should be removed, and base movement speed should be increased to whatever speed Sprint is. Unless Sprint is an OPTIONAL upgrade, which I doubt.
>
> The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
> For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
> Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.
>
> Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.
>
> That being said: after reading through the forums , some seem to gravitate toward a knee jerk reaction to talking everything out with consideration of the implications. For those that want a classic halo, I feel that it is already here for you to play in the Mcc. Really 343 would do well to add new expansions to mp in the mcc. It seems to be exactly they want. I don’t get why associating a new game ,with all the abilities in 5 and beyond, with some sort of defeat. The game you want exists. If it needs some polish, ask for it
>
> That being said: could 5’s additions such as sprint be better? absolutely, and that is what sequels give us the opportunity to do. Don’t like sorint; replace it instead of removing it. Spartan charge not feeling fair ?( I honestly don’t get this complaint, it is a high risk, low reward maneuver). There is an entire ocean of retweeting and reworks that could be made before being so drastic as to strip away everything and anything.

Very sad to see you here :frowning:
You have other games don’t you?
Can’t we just have halo be halo with no sprint?
Please.

4455

> 2533274870849236;4453:
> > 2533274822068856;4446:
> >
>
> The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
> For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
> Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.
>
> Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.
> […]

Ground pound is just annoying. I’m not even going to try to give a technical argument why it belongs or doesn’t. I’m transparent. I don’t like it, so I’m glad it’s gone.

You are incorrect about spartan charge though. It is definitely more powerful than standard melee. It kills much earlier, and the trade off is not great enough imo.

4456

> 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.

Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?

4457

> 2535441318347302;4456:
> > 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.
>
> Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.
>
> The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.
>
> In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?

You can explain all this and sprint crows still try and argue in favor of sprint it’s a lost cause when you think about it their in denial

4458

> 2535441318347302;4454:
> > 2533274870849236;4453:
> > > 2533274822068856;4446:
> > > It’s not about what we personally like, it’s all about capturing and refining what’s good for Halo gameplay. For example: I like Clamber, and how it lets you extend your vertical jump height, but I’m able to admit it disrupts Halo gunplay by forcing you to put your weapon down while using it. The solution? A double jump mechanic, offered in the form of equipment.
> > >
> > > Pro-Sprint arguments are always about the desire to move faster. But the addition of Sprint means you have to put your weapon down, to move faster. Playable spaces then become larger, to keep the overall pacing of combat similar to what Halo is known for. This means that maps will feel larger and more open, and you will feel slower when you are in combat. The solution? Tell 343 they need to increase base movement speed, change playable spaces to be a bit smaller, increase the FOV, and offer plenty of chances for the player to have a vehicle on larger maps.
> > >
> > > Sprint isn’t needed to make the pacing of the game feel better. Better game design can solve all of the problems anyone has with the things that make Halo unique. But remember: it is possible for Halo to become so fast, it loses its ability to appeal to new players and veterans, and to lose its identity. And if that still isn’t good enough for you, then you just don’t like what Halo is at its core, as a video game.
> > >
> > > Saying one game should have a mechanic, just because another game has that mechanic, is not a valid argument. Every game would play nearly identically if that was the case, which defeats the purpose of playing more than one game. Video games are mainly about gameplay. This is why Nintendo games all play differently, and why people like them so much.
> > >
> > > Realism is also not a valid argument when a game is not trying to be a simulator. Halo is not trying to simulate real life.
> > >
> > > Nerfing Sprint to the point it’s mostly an animation, is pointless pandering to people who would inevitably complain about the game being too slow on release day. Sprint being mostly an animation, will only pander to people who expect it to be in, but won’t play the game any significant amount of time. If Sprint in Infinite really isn’t much faster than not Sprinting, then Sprint should be removed, and base movement speed should be increased to whatever speed Sprint is. Unless Sprint is an OPTIONAL upgrade, which I doubt.
> >
> > The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
> > For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
> > Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.
> >
> > Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.
> >
> > That being said: after reading through the forums , some seem to gravitate toward a knee jerk reaction to talking everything out with consideration of the implications. For those that want a classic halo, I feel that it is already here for you to play in the Mcc. Really 343 would do well to add new expansions to mp in the mcc. It seems to be exactly they want. I don’t get why associating a new game ,with all the abilities in 5 and beyond, with some sort of defeat. The game you want exists. If it needs some polish, ask for it
> >
> > That being said: could 5’s additions such as sprint be better? absolutely, and that is what sequels give us the opportunity to do. Don’t like sorint; replace it instead of removing it. Spartan charge not feeling fair ?( I honestly don’t get this complaint, it is a high risk, low reward maneuver). There is an entire ocean of retweeting and reworks that could be made before being so drastic as to strip away everything and anything.
>
> Very sad to see you here :frowning:
> You have other games don’t you?
> Can’t we just have halo be halo with no sprint?
> Please.

You already have 3 and they have an ongoing multiplayer population. Unless you want to be specific as to what a clone of the first 3 will do ( if you have ideas about what to put it, I’dlive to hear it), you are essentially arguing that any enjoyment of another halo title with such feature is detrimental to your own enjoyment. Unless I am missing something; is it that you are worried that the current mcc population will evaporate? I am honestly asking and not being facetious.

4459

> 2533274902478287;4455:
> > 2533274870849236;4453:
> > > 2533274822068856;4446:
> > >
> >
> > The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
> > For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
> > Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.
> >
> > Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.
> > […]
>
> Ground pound is just annoying. I’m not even going to try to give a technical argument why it belongs or doesn’t. I’m transparent. I don’t like it, so I’m glad it’s gone.
>
> You are incorrect about spartan charge though. It is definitely more powerful than standard melee. It kills much earlier, and the trade off is not great enough imo.

I am not wrong about spartan charge. You can throw in 5 right now and try it out yourself. Myself and others have tested it. It does the exact same damage as a regular melee attack. Just like a melee attack, if their shield is low enough or attacked from behind; it’s a one hit kill (just like melee). Sorry, but it’s just the facts don’t take my word for it; try it.

Groundpound is hardly ever used in a match; you’d be hard pressed to find it being used consecutively with success.

4460

> 2533274870849236;4459:
> > 2533274902478287;4455:
> > > 2533274870849236;4453:
> > > > 2533274822068856;4446:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing. If two Spartans ran from point a to point b with some obstacles, it would only be a matter of who moves their control stick first. Same could be said about sprint but imagine chasing someone instead of racing. There needs to be an element of escape.
> > > For this reason, I also believe removing thrusters is a mistake.
> > > Most of the suggestions about removing thruster abilities such as spartan charge is based on very poor memory. spartan charge does the exact same damage as any melee attack. ( I would have shared a video demonstrating this if allowed, but I am sure there are several others out there).There are starting weapons that I would argue cause more of a “imbalance”.
> > >
> > > Ground pound barley, if ever, scores 2 kills in a match. Evade barley moves you but is just enough to avoid a one shot. Neither is over powered. Though with groundpound I would make it a pick up and buff the radius of effect significantly.
> > > […]
> >
> > Ground pound is just annoying. I’m not even going to try to give a technical argument why it belongs or doesn’t. I’m transparent. I don’t like it, so I’m glad it’s gone.
> >
> > You are incorrect about spartan charge though. It is definitely more powerful than standard melee. It kills much earlier, and the trade off is not great enough imo.
>
> I am not wrong about spartan charge. You can throw in 5 right now and try it out yourself. Myself and others have tested it. It does the exact same damage as a regular melee attack. Just like a melee attack, if their shield is low enough or attacked from behind; it’s a one hit kill (just like melee). Sorry, but it’s just the facts don’t take my word for it; try it.
>
> Groundpound is hardly ever used in a match; you’d be hard pressed to find it being used consecutively with success.

I stopped playing a little bit after the last weapon re-tune. Perhaps Spartan Charge was nerfed? Base game it was more powerful. https://halo.fandom.com/wiki/Spartan_AbilitiesI’ll trust a community edited wiki page than your word, as well as the fact that I’ve played Halo 5 much more. Again, perhaps the latest patch changed things. Show some documentation.

Your comment on ground pound pretty much is an argument supporting it’s removal as well.

4461

> 2535441318347302;4456:
> > 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.
>
> Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.
>
> The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.
>
> In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?

What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the ‘I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay’ argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it’s certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.