> > If the goal is simply to move quickly, moving slower is “beneath” moving faster. Besides, having one BMS that is “faster-than-classic” would fulfill the wish to move faster without being restricted to forward movement and maintaining full use of the “golden triangle”. Why isn’t that a better alternative/compromise?
>
> I appreciate where you’re coming from during the first part of this but your suggested alternative of completely removing sprint to revert Halo backwards is still worse than a compromise on this issue.
Why? I’ve repeatedly asked you why a higher BMS is not satisfactory to you, but you’ve avoided answering the question at every turn.
> Furthermore “Golden triangle “ is just a term- to that end I could equally argue that the “advanced movement system,” is better; just by the sheer naming convention. IMO there’s nothing truly golden about taking away the option to sprint.
What? The “golden triangle” I referred to is guns, grenades, and melee. I don’t know what you’re even trying to say here except maybe “My preferred movement style is better than yours because it has a cooler-sounding name”?
> > A game’s genre is defined by its mechanics, so I’d say that most people do think a lot about them when looking for games. People determine whether or not they think a game will be fun by looking at what they can do/how they can do things in said game.
>
> I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I truly do not believe your argument that “‘most people,” would be heavily influenced by the deeper intricacies of complex game mechanics.
I never implied that the average gamer would base his/her decision to purchase a game based on “deeper intricacies” of mechanics. It seems like your building strawmen of my points and refuting those.
> I believe that a very small portion of the more elite and competitive gaming community represents this portion of players and among them most of them already have developed their “favorite,” franchises and are therefore less likely to step out of their preferred comfort zone for gameplay mechanics.
For whatever it’s worth, your assumption is wrong when it comes to me. Most of the games that I play happen to have ADS and Sprint (Titanfall 2 and R6: Siege for instance). Halo’s different, though. You’ve argued about the gaming community’s expectations in this thread, right? Well, when I buy a Halo game I expect it to play like a Halo game.
> And please stop it with the dramatic comparisons to sprint. Sprint is just one thing, so it’s not fair to stretch this argument into oblique and dramatic comparisons as an attempt to argue against it.
You’re the one who said that “completely removing sprint to revert Halo backwards is still worse than a compromise” on the issue of enhanced mobility. What did I say that was comparably “dramatic” to that? For someone who says “Sprint is just one thing”, it seems like there’s a double-standard in play.
> Fair, “immersion,” can be accomplished in a variety of ways. But like I said before, you’re being really dramatic by trying to insinuate that a desire for certain immersive qualities somehow is indicative that pro sprinters would want everything to be based on immersion. Deep down I think you even know this is untrue and even unfair, but it’s just the best option for you to argue back with.
I asked you what you enjoyed about CE-3. I was searching for a better understanding of what you do want/value from a Halo experience. Rather than answer, you act like I said “You only want realism? Play something else!”. I didn’t mention backflips or anything of the sort.
I’m sensing some projection here, too.
> > It’s been over a decade since there was a full Halo game without Sprint, yet wanting a “classic” Halo next is selfish?
>
> You’re twisting my words into something else and you know it. I was (and still fervently am) suggesting that your unwillingness to find a compromise the issue is an inherently selfish way to enter any debate. It would be different if there weren’t multiple compromises available in lieu of your “all or nothing,” argument.
How did I twist your words?
I’ve given reasons as to why I don’t support the kind of compromise that you’re advocating. You haven’t done the same for mine, only asserted that its worse.
> The split compromise idea doesn’t sound as terribly expensive, unreasonable, or time consuming as you make it appear. Perhaps deep down you’re afraid that when push comes to shove, many more players would prefer playlists with sprint if presented with the choice (and this would potentially even influence 343i to keep sprint in Halo even longer)? Or perhaps you just don’t care about the demographic that enjoys Halo with sprint and consider their desire for this gameplay mechanic as something unworthy against your own preference?
That’s easy for you to say when you have no idea of what it entails. Also, definitely sensing the projection here.
> There’s zero evidence to support that a compromise would split up the population.
Basic math. The more playlists there are, the more the population is divided. The “split compromise” would require more playlists. I mean honestly, the “split” is in the name.
> Subjective but pretty similar to what I suggested… And to be honest my points about who will be satisfied about the sprint decision in Halo Infinite were indeed debatable… Either way I think you’ve fully doubled back on your previous post with respect to your “nobody wins,” claim regarding the eventual decision for sprint in Halo Infinite. My overarching point here was that some players inherently have to “win,” when the movement mechanics are inevitably announced.
No, I more or less mirrored your suggestion to illustrate how your approach was biased in favor of your preferences. Also, my earlier comment didn’t say that “everyone loses”. I said:
> Acknowledging that a call for compromise is in good spirit, it still stands that there will be someone getting the short end of the stick even if it’s both crowds.