> 2533274801176260;4852:
> > 2533274825044752;4851:
> > All these people biased against sprint keep making this issue way more complicated than it needs to be. The cream rises to the top. Today’s gamers prefer sprint.
>
> [Citation Needed]
Neither you nor I can site evidence for or against the claim that gamers these days prefer sprint in shooters. But you can’t say that gamers in general DON’T prefer sprint in shooters unless you completely ignore Occam’s Razor. But, that’s your call.
> 2533274825044752;4861:
> As I said earlier, correlation=/=causation, but saying “You can’t prove gamers prefer sprint” while positing the ten most popular shooters having sprint is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating sprint. Bro, come on.
It’s always the same issue. People read what they want to read, and not actually what’s written. First, I said “if you only have, say, ten really popular shooters, and most shooters have sprint anyway, then them all having sprint could be entirely coincidental”. I didn’t say it is coincidental, just that given what we know about the percentage of shooters that have sprint, there is a significant probability that the ten most popular shooters would have sprint even if there was no correlation between sprint and popularity. It is a hypothetical statement about probability, not a claim about reality.
Secondly, I said that most popular shooters having sprint “isn’t evidence that gamers prefer sprint, but that they at least tolerate sprint”. The statement “they at least tolerate sprint” is not equivalent to “they just tolerate sprint”. It is equivalent to “they are not repulsed by sprint”. This statement doesn’t exclude everybody being madly in love with sprint. It just states that most people probably don’t dislike the mechanic.
> Devs/pubs most of the time will base their decisions on what moves units. The consensus seems to be sprint in shooters is generally preferred over no sprint.
The belief of any triple-A publisher is that what moves units is whatever is topping the charts at the moment. That’s why you don’t really see new innovative hits coming from big established triple-A studios. That’s also why most triple-A games are generic waste of hard drive space that you don’t hear much about after they release. Turns out that when you do what everybody else is already doing, most of the time you’re not going to come up with anything popular.
But that’s all kind of besides the point, because I’ve already said sprint probably doesn’t make or break a game. It probably doesn’t move units, but it probably doesn’t hinder that either.
> People that are really against sprint in Halo twist themselves into knots trying to prove that sprint is bad for Halo and demand factual, peer-reviewed, and scientifically published evidence from anyone who disagrees.
I can’t speak of others, but my beliefs about sprint being “bad” or “good” for Halo are different from my beliefs regarding the impact of sprint on the popularity of Halo. “Bad” and “good” are subjective. I don’t personally regard popularity as the arbiter of whether a thing is good or bad for a game, because for me what matters the most personally is how much I enjoy the game. I’m definitely going to explain how sprint impacts the gameplay of Halo, and why I don’t like that, but I’m not going to try to prove something subjective.
Neither am I trying to prove that sprint negatively impacts Halo’s popularity, because I don’t even believe that, because I don’t know. I don’t believe anybody knows, and I don’t believe there is strong evidence one way or the other.
However, if somebody comes and makes a factual claim, of course I’m going ask for compelling evidence. Because, you know, that’s how we learn and create new knowledge. If I claim something without evidence, I expect to get called out for it. If I do get called out for it, I go and try to get evidence. If I don’t get that, I’m going to have to adjust my beliefs. If you’re not interested in any of that, and don’t want your beliefs to be challenged, then why are you making claims?
> 2533274825830455;4863:
> If you’re not interested in any of that, and don’t want your beliefs to be challenged, then why are you making claims?
Not making claims, as I’ve said over and over, no one has any facts here. I’ve just been talking about what likely motivates dev decisions to have sprint in this game and why Halo would probably be better off keeping sprint.
Funny thing, this “Occam’s Razor”.
Can be used for all sorts of cases without the need to actually provide evidence.
> 2533274825044752;4862:
> Neither you nor I can site evidence for or against the claim that gamers these days prefer sprint in shooters. But you can’t say that gamers in general DON’T prefer sprint in shooters unless you completely ignore Occam’s Razor. But, that’s your call.
All Halo games with sprint failed in regards to population, sales or both.
Neither you nor I can [cite] evidence for or against the claim that [sprint is the culprit]. But you can’t say that [the players] in general DON’T prefer sprint [gone from Halo] unless you completely ignore Occam’s Razor. But, that’s your call.
> 2533274825044752;4861:
> As I said earlier, correlation=/=causation, but saying “You can’t prove gamers prefer sprint” while positing the ten most popular shooters having sprint is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating sprint. Bro, come on.
By that logic, positing the ten most popular shooters having [Microtransactions] is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating [MTX]. Bro, come on.
> 2533274825044752;4861:
> > 2533274825830455;4858:
> > > 2533274825782531;4853:
> > > > 2533274801176260;4852:
> > > > > 2533274825044752;4851:
> > > > > All these people biased against sprint keep making this issue way more complicated than it needs to be. The cream rises to the top. Today’s gamers prefer sprint.
> > > >
> > > > [Citation Needed]
> > >
> > > every shooter in the top 50 xbox live games except overwatch
> >
> > If I grab the topmost nuts from a peanut jar, and find that they are all peanuts, my conclusion isn’t that peanuts naturally rise to the top among all nuts, but that peanuts are extremely common in a peanut jar.
> >
> > Almost all popular shooters have sprint, because almost all shooters have sprint. This isn’t evidence that gamers prefer sprint, but that they at least tolerate sprint. If you wanted to test preference, you would have to show at the very least that sprint is more common in popular shooters than it is in shooters in general. But even there you run into a sampling issue, because if you only have, say, ten really popular shooters, and most shooters have sprint anyway, then them all having sprint could be entirely coincidental.
> >
> > The reality is that preferences like these are really hard to get information on, which is why any claim about the popularity of sprint one way or the other is usually meaningless. The reality is probably that individual mechanics almost never make or break games. It’s something neither sprint fans nor its opponents want to hear, but sprint alone is probably almost entirely inconsequential to the success of Halo.
>
> Don’t know how much of this was directed at my comments, but I’ve never claimed there’s statistical data that settles the debate one way or the other. Not even sure there needs to be. Devs/pubs most of the time will base their decisions on what moves units. The consensus seems to be sprint in shooters is generally preferred over no sprint. People that are really against sprint in Halo twist themselves into knots trying to prove that sprint is bad for Halo and demand factual, peer-reviewed, and scientifically published evidence from anyone who disagrees.
> As I said earlier, correlation=/=causation, but saying “You can’t prove gamers prefer sprint” while positing the ten most popular shooters having sprint is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating sprint. Bro, come on.
> I do agree sprint alone isn’t going to make or break Halo. I, too, was arguing against that point earlier, so I definitely agree with you there.
This consensus isn’t based on preference, but on popularity of existing franchises. The top fps games that include sprint already had sprint since their inception. It is no indicator of the sprint mechanic being justified in Halo, which had sprint added halfway trough the franchise. Halo was created as an Arena shooter first and foremost. Sprint was kept out purposefully to ensure proper pacing. It was later added to try to appeal to a wider audience, and ironically, became less popular ever since.
> 2533274801176260;4865:
> Funny thing, this “Occam’s Razor”.
> Can be used for all sorts of cases without the need to actually provide evidence.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274825044752;4862:
> > Neither you nor I can site evidence for or against the claim that gamers these days prefer sprint in shooters. But you can’t say that gamers in general DON’T prefer sprint in shooters unless you completely ignore Occam’s Razor. But, that’s your call.
>
> All Halo games with sprint failed in regards to population, sales or both.
> Neither you nor I can [cite] evidence for or against the claim that [sprint is the culprit]. But you can’t say that [the players] in general DON’T prefer sprint [gone from Halo] unless you completely ignore Occam’s Razor. But, that’s your call.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274825044752;4861:
> > As I said earlier, correlation=/=causation, but saying “You can’t prove gamers prefer sprint” while positing the ten most popular shooters having sprint is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating sprint. Bro, come on.
>
> By that logic, positing the ten most popular shooters having [Microtransactions] is coincidental, or gamers are just tolerating [MTX]. Bro, come on.
I mean, if you have a simpler explanation for sprint being in pretty much all the popular shooters other than it being more popular than no sprint, let me hear it. I never claimed to be the most imaginative guy, there very well could be a different reason that makes more sense.
As for microtransactions, they’re there because they’ll make the pubs more money whether gamers approve of them or not. Occam’s Razor tells me that microtransactions are profitable regardless of their popularity.
So, if they think putting sprint in their game will make it more popular and sell more units, then that’s what they’ll do.
If they think microtransaction will make them more money despite players not liking microtransactions, then that’s what they’ll do.
I’m surprised anyone would argue this. Corporations are not your buddy.
> 2533274825044752;4867:
> I mean, if you have a simpler explanation for sprint being in pretty much all the popular shooters other than it being more popular than no sprint, let me hear it. I never claimed to be the most imaginative guy, there very well could be a different reason that makes more sense.
Because this industry is more mimicy than innovative.
The Battle Royal genre has its origin in an Arma mod if I’m not totally mistaken. LoL and DotA, well MOBAs, originate from a user custom map from Starcraft 1. CS was initially a Mod for Half Life.
Halo CE popularised regenerating health. What happened to that? Considering the bulk of popular Battle Royals from my understanding feature static health. Or Custom Loadouts? Those were in pretty much all games, suddenly we’re back to scavenging for resources on the ground? Did “we” suddenly collectively decide that wasn’t good anymore?
How did an extremely simple mechanical game like Among Us sky rocket the way it did in popularity despite lacking all but the most basic stuff?
How did Doom 2016 and Eternal do as good as they did despite lacking things like Sprint and even Reloading.
Was it R6 Siege which didn’t feature jumping? How is it as popular as it is now without that basic mechanic? Gears even.
CS remain extremely popular despite a lack of sprint, and having survived the regenerating health period.
Overwatch did well, and that doesn’t have general sprint.
Game developers today look at what others are doing, then mimic it, with some changes and alterations of their own. New ideas rarely come from the AAA industry.
Sprint is one of the things that started seeing more wide spread used with the rise of CoD, and so did a lot of other things CoD did. Just like there were plenty of games trying to be Halo back in the day.
Ps: Bucket list mechanics doesn’t really work for AAA developers.
Halo wasn’t “dethroned” by a Halo clone.
WoW has yet to be put down, and look how many WoW clone corpses it has left in its wake.
CoD has littered the game industry with CoD clone corpses.
How many Mobas haven’t there been?
How many Battle Royal games have seen release?
A game is popular based on the sum of its mechanics, not popular based on the individual mechanics themselves.
> 2533274825044752;4867:
> So, if they think putting sprint in their game will make it more popular and sell more units, then that’s what they’ll do.
And “thinking / believing” something, isn’t the same as that actually being true.
> 2533274825044752;4867:
> I mean, if you have a simpler explanation for sprint being in pretty much all the popular shooters other than it being more popular than no sprint, let me hear it. I never claimed to be the most imaginative guy, there very well could be a different reason that makes more sense.
Call of Duty had sprint, it was popular, and this industry is built on imitation of what’s popular. Players are used to it now, and there is no real incentive for anyone to try anything different. The trend is safe; deveating from it is risky.
We don’t need to make arbitrary assumptions about player preference. We can just make very general statements about how a risk averse industry operates.
> 2533274825044752;4867:
> As for microtransactions, they’re there because they’ll make the pubs more money whether gamers approve of them or not. Occam’s Razor tells me that microtransactions are profitable regardless of their popularity.
In other words, your Occam’s Razor changes it’s implications based on convenience. If it supports your argument, then good ol’ Occam points towards X being favored. If it doesn’t, then suddenly there’s a different explanation.
Gotta love it when folks try and use the number of popular games with sprint as evidence that sprint is necessary in order to be successful while handwaving away the obvious exceptions.
What they are actually doing is admitting that it doesn’t matter how ubiquitous any given mechanic is, good games can find success without going down an arbitrary checklist of “expected” mechanics.
Yet, for some reason Halo can’t possibly be an exception. Almost every time I’ve tried to probe deeper into the reasoning as to why Halo can’t be the exception it turns into some weird gaslighting nonsense about how “well actually people only played classic Halo because there wasn’t any “competition””, or that “yeah the newer games haven’t done as well as Halo 3, but actually a classic “Halo 4” would have done even worse” which is convenient seeing as we don’t have access to that particular timeline.
Modern doom games completely destroy this argument for sprint.
Lol, I think you all are very sensitive about whether or not sprint belongs in Halo.
I’m saying, that I am of the opinion that 343 puts sprint in the game because they think it’ll help their game appeal to a broader audience (not sure why that’s such a controversial thing to say), not whether or not Halo is better with sprint.
Emotions run pretty high ITT.
> 2533274801176260;4870:
> > 2533274825044752;4867:
> > As for microtransactions, they’re there because they’ll make the pubs more money whether gamers approve of them or not. Occam’s Razor tells me that microtransactions are profitable regardless of their popularity.
>
> In other words, your Occam’s Razor changes it’s implications based on convenience. If it supports your argument, then good ol’ Occam points towards X being favored. If it doesn’t, then suddenly there’s a different explanation.
Um, no, Occam’s Razor doesn’t have to have the same solution for sprint as it does for microtransactions. Why would it?
> 2535407747275549;4872:
> Modern doom games completely destroy this argument for sprint.
If sprint didn’t come back to Halo I’d be cool with that, obviously, but if Halo Infinite just had a super high base-speed like doom I wouldn’t play it. I’ve personally never been a fan of that super frenetic UT style MP. I also don’t think it goes well with Halo’s long TTK, but ymmv.
> 2533274825044752;4874:
> > 2533274801176260;4870:
> > > 2533274825044752;4867:
> > > As for microtransactions, they’re there because they’ll make the pubs more money whether gamers approve of them or not. Occam’s Razor tells me that microtransactions are profitable regardless of their popularity.
> >
> > In other words, your Occam’s Razor changes it’s implications based on convenience. If it supports your argument, then good ol’ Occam points towards X being favored. If it doesn’t, then suddenly there’s a different explanation.
>
> Um, no, Occam’s Razor doesn’t have to have the same solution for sprint as it does for microtransactions. Why would it?
Because your statement was “X is in the 10 most popular shooters, ergo Occam’s Razor points towards players liking X”.
That same argument can be made about MTX just as well as sprint.
> 2533274825044752;4875:
> I’ve personally never been a fan of that super frenetic UT style MP. I also don’t think it goes well with Halo’s long TTK, but ymmv.
I actually agree that a too high BMS doesn’t work well with Halo’s gameplay, in particularly the long TTK. Or at least, I probably wouldn’t like it.
That being said, I’d be willing to give it a try at least once. However, I won’t be touching Infinite or any other future “Halo” that features sprint.
For all the people that doubt there exist players for whom sprint is a make-it-or-break-it mechanic: I am one of them.
I already have been burned twice. (I’m not counting H5G because I didn’t pay a dime for it and already expected it to be as bad as it turned out.) Not gonna repeat that mistake.
> 2533274825044752;4873:
> I’m saying, that I am of the opinion that 343 puts sprint in the game because they think it’ll help their game appeal to a broader audience (not sure why that’s such a controversial thing to say), not whether or not Halo is better with sprint.
And no one’s disputing that. 343i has been pretty clear about their reasons. See for example:
What people are disputing is whether that assessment is relevant. Yes, most people probably expect that a modern FPS has sprint. That is, “expect” as in “believe it is likely”. But it’s disputable whether most people desire sprint, let alone whether they’d be scared away by its exclusion.
The idea that sprint helps a game appeal to a broader audience is controversial because there is plenty of precedent of games that have abandoned “staple” design conventions and enjoyed broad acceptance. Heck, there are a number of shooters that do not have sprint, that have much larger audiences than Halo 5 ever had. There is just no evidence that including sprint in a game gives it broader appeal. On the other hand, we know with certainty that an FPS without sprint can be more popular than Halo 5 currently is.
Claims without evidence are bound to be controversial. That’s just how it is.
> 2533274801176260;4876:
> > 2533274825044752;4874:
> > > 2533274801176260;4870:
> > > > 2533274825044752;4867:
> > > > As for microtransactions, they’re there because they’ll make the pubs more money whether gamers approve of them or not. Occam’s Razor tells me that microtransactions are profitable regardless of their popularity.
> > >
> > > In other words, your Occam’s Razor changes it’s implications based on convenience. If it supports your argument, then good ol’ Occam points towards X being favored. If it doesn’t, then suddenly there’s a different explanation.
> >
> > Um, no, Occam’s Razor doesn’t have to have the same solution for sprint as it does for microtransactions. Why would it?
>
> Because your statement was “X is in the 10 most popular shooters, ergo Occam’s Razor points towards players liking X”.
> That same argument can be made about MTX just as well as sprint.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274825044752;4875:
> >
I mean, you could make the argument that sprint and microtransactions are in the game for the same reason, but you don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t.
> 2533274825830455;4877:
> > 2533274825044752;4873:
> > I’m saying, that I am of the opinion that 343 puts sprint in the game because they think it’ll help their game appeal to a broader audience (not sure why that’s such a controversial thing to say), not whether or not Halo is better with sprint.
>
> And no one’s disputing that. 343i has been pretty clear about their reasons. See for example:
>
>
> > But in 2015, sprint is a staple for the modern FPS gamer. Leaving it out of Halo 5 would’ve been ignoring a huge portion of the gaming demographic’s expectations, so the call was made to include it.
>
> What people are disputing is whether that assessment is relevant. Yes, most people probably expect that a modern FPS has sprint. That is, “expect” as in “believe it is likely”. But it’s disputable whether most people desire sprint, let alone whether they’d be scared away by its exclusion.
>
> The idea that sprint helps a game appeal to a broader audience is controversial because there is plenty of precedent of games that have abandoned “staple” design conventions and enjoyed broad acceptance. Heck, there are a number of shooters that do not have sprint, that have much larger audiences than Halo 5 ever had. There is just no evidence that including sprint in a game gives it broader appeal. On the other hand, we know with certainty that an FPS without sprint can be more popular than Halo 5 currently is.
>
> Claims without evidence are bound to be controversial. That’s just how it is.
So where is your evidence? I never asked you for evidence because, as I’ve been saying from the beginning, none of us have evidence. We’re all just speculating. My personal explanation for this is 343i looks around and sees all these popular games with sprint and says “hey, we should do that, and maybe more people would buy our game.” That is all I’m saying and it’s got people triggered. I’ve listened to all your claims that aren’t backed by evidence, but I’ve never challenged them, instead, I’ve had to defend my own this whole time.
I don’t require you to prove why sprint is in H:I, I already know you can’t, just like I can’t. I never could. I’ve said this over and over. We’re speaking on general opinions. I never thought that such an innocuous statement would completely threaten some precious echo chamber to this degree. I will leave you guys alone, enjoy.
> 2533274825044752;4879:
> So where is your evidence?
Evidence for what? I try very hard not to make any claims that are unsupported. That’s not to say I cite everything I say. A lot things I assume to be “common knowledge”, and can elaborate on if necessary.
So, if there’s some specific thing I’ve said you’d like me to address, do tell.
> 2533274825044752;4879:
> I’ve listened to all your claims that aren’t backed by evidence, but I’ve never challenged them,
Please do. I’m not here to preach. I genuinely want to have a discussion leads to everyone having a better grasp of the situation. I can’t if nobody tells when I say something dubious.
> 2533274825044752;4879:
> I’ve been away from waypoint for quite a while. I remember back in the day people used to talk about how toxic the community is–and at the time I thought they were over-reacting. But holy smokes, things have changed.
I’m sorry you feel that way. If I have contributed to that feeling, I have probably communicated poorly, because I have no ill will towards you. I just disagree with you.
But, this thread isn’t all Waypoint has to offer, and it’s definitely not representative of the forum. We have less controversial threads if you don’t want to get into a debate. Maybe you find those more conducive to fun.
I don’t know what other evidence we are supposed to produce that a Halo game without sprint can appeal to a wider audience when we already have Halo 3 staring us in the face.
The best selling Halo game with the largest overall population apparently doesn’t count despite standing shoulder to shoulder with one of if not the trendsetting game of that generation in CoD4. The only difference is that that particular style of CoD kept being made for another 6 years while Halo “evolved” into something that “today’s gamers” are apparently supposed to enjoy yet Halo’s popularity has only waned over time.