The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
4882

> 2533274819446242;4881:
> 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.

If someone’s argument is that modern gamers are too used to sprint, Halo 3 isn’t a counterexample, because when Halo 3 released nobody could possibly have been used to sprint. There is also no evidence that player tastes haven’t changed over the years (and it really would need compelling evidence given how much the industry has changed), so you can’t extrapolate the popularity of Halo 3 to today either.

4883

> 2533274825830455;4882:
> > 2533274819446242;4881:
> > 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.
>
> If someone’s argument is that modern gamers are too used to sprint, Halo 3 isn’t a counterexample, because when Halo 3 released nobody could possibly have been used to sprint. There is also no evidence that player tastes haven’t changed over the years (and it really would need compelling evidence given how much the industry has changed), so you can’t extrapolate the popularity of Halo 3 to today either.

How long exactly does it take for an audience to “get used” to sprint? Halo players had ample opportunities to abandon an “outdated” game for a game with sprint in 2 prior to the release of MW2, but Halo 3 still hung in there just fine. And it is not like sprint was a new mechanic in 2007. Something new becoming popular does not mean that something else must become less popular, this isn’t a zero sum game.

Given the way the industry has tried to write off entire genres like survival horror, turn based RPGs, and even the concept of a single player game I am incredibly dubious of claims that “players just don’t like X type of game anymore.” The industry has gotten bigger and trends have come and gone, but I don’t see much evidence that the industry itself has changed in any meaningful capacity at either player or developer end.

Could I say for certain that a classic style Halo game would sell just as well today as it did then? No, but given what we do know we can’t dismiss the possibility that it could find its own place in the "modern industry but the bigger issue is that Halo 3’s success is much more concrete evidence to work from than trying to read the minds of the “modern” gamer.

4884

I think that if you look at the success of games like doom and doom eternal, there is still a great room of potential for classic halo gameplay. If anything, it’ll be refreshing to have this type of gameplay in today’s gaming landscape and I believe 343 will gain so much respect. Halo 2 anniversary was a really fun and refreshing halo game after halo 4, the only reason it wasn’t a bigger success was because it was under the shadow of the mcc and a lack of maps.

4885

> 2533274819446242;4883:
> How long exactly does it take for an audience to “get used” to sprint? Halo players had ample opportunities to abandon an “outdated” game for a game with sprint in 2 prior to the release of MW2, but Halo 3 still hung in there just fine. And it is not like sprint was a new mechanic in 2007. Something new becoming popular does not mean that something else must become less popular, this isn’t a zero sum game.

You’re interepreting my comment wrong. I’m not making a definite statement that gamers are definitely too used to sprint. On the contrary, I’m just making a statement about the uncertainty that exists in our knowledge of the gaming demographic.

Also, pay attention to the language in my post. I never said players (as individuals) “got used to” sprint, because I don’t believe that the changes in invidual preferences are a very significant factor. Generally, if a person liked Halo 3 in 2007, I very much would expect that person to like a similar game in 2020. Or alternatively, if there was a person who transitioned to CoD, they were probably inclined to it.

The largest uncertainty comes from the fact that the set of people who play video games in 2020 is vastly different from the set of people who played video games in 2007. Somebody who was 5 years old when Halo 3 released is now an adult. You have millions of console gamers who grew up in a world where CoD was the most influential FPS, who grew up in a world where all shooters they ever played as young kids had sprint. It’s not that these gamers definitely won’t ever play a game without sprint, but that they are a huge source of uncertainty.

And yes, there are still plenty of older gamers whose childhoods were defined by Halo and pre-CoD gaming industry. But we don’t know how much. We don’t know how much they have time to play. We don’t know how well their interest is sustained. Again, I’m not saying older gamers have moved on, but that they are also a huge source of uncertainty.

My comment is fundamentally about uncertainty: we don’t know enough about how the gaming demographic evolved over the past 13 years to say whether Halo 3 is in any way relevant or not. Maybe it is. Maybe newer gamers really don’t care about sprint. Maybe older gamers are just waiting to relive their childhood. We really don’t know.

4886

> 2533274825044752;4878:
> 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.

No. You don’t. Which is why I pointed out that your “Occam’s Razor” is conveniently selective when it comes to its applications. It only applies when it supports your statement.

According to you it is likely that gamers just tolerate MTX withouth having a preference for it, but it is not likely that they just tolerate sprint, even though your reasoning for one applies exactly the same way to the other: Something, something, ten most popular shooters, something, something, Occam’s Razor.

EDIT: Just make it clear, I am not saying that “modern gamers are just tolerating sprint”. (Although I am certain there are people like this, just how many is unknown.) But I am saying that your reasoning is wrong.

4887

> 2533274825830455;4885:
> > 2533274819446242;4883:
> > How long exactly does it take for an audience to “get used” to sprint? Halo players had ample opportunities to abandon an “outdated” game for a game with sprint in 2 prior to the release of MW2, but Halo 3 still hung in there just fine. And it is not like sprint was a new mechanic in 2007. Something new becoming popular does not mean that something else must become less popular, this isn’t a zero sum game.
>
> You’re interepreting my comment wrong. I’m not making a definite statement that gamers are definitely too used to sprint. On the contrary, I’m just making a statement about the uncertainty that exists in our knowledge of the gaming demographic.
>
> Also, pay attention to the language in my post. I never said players (as individuals) “got used to” sprint, because I don’t believe that the changes in invidual preferences are a very significant factor. Generally, if a person liked Halo 3 in 2007, I very much would expect that person to like a similar game in 2020. Or alternatively, if there was a person who transitioned to CoD, they were probably inclined to it.
>
> The largest uncertainty comes from the fact that the set of people who play video games in 2020 is vastly different from the set of people who played video games in 2007. Somebody who was 5 years old when Halo 3 released is now an adult. You have millions of console gamers who grew up in a world where CoD was the most influential FPS, who grew up in a world where all shooters they ever played as young kids had sprint. It’s not that these gamers definitely won’t ever play a game without sprint, but that they are a huge source of uncertainty.
>
> And yes, there are still plenty of older gamers whose childhoods were defined by Halo and pre-CoD gaming industry. But we don’t know how much. We don’t know how much they have time to play. We don’t know how well their interest is sustained. Again, I’m not saying older gamers have moved on, but that they are also a huge source of uncertainty.
>
> My comment is fundamentally about uncertainty: we don’t know enough about how the gaming demographic evolved over the past 13 years to say whether Halo 3 is in any way relevant or not. Maybe it is. Maybe newer gamers really don’t care about sprint. Maybe older gamers are just waiting to relive their childhood. We really don’t know.

My post you quoted originally was about evidence, I never claimed it was incontrovertible proof and I acknowledged uncertainty in both posts. Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.

The only way we are going to ever be “certain” whether a new classic Halo game can succeed in modern times is to actually release a new classic halo game at least on par with Halo 3 in terms of quality and content. Yet I’m constantly told that would be too “risky” and the evidence I am given in return is “well look at all the popular games that have sprint, pay no mind to the obvious exceptions or the fact that players enjoying games with sprint is not evidence that they can’t enjoy games without it” The fact that the developers have stopped making classic Halo games is also used as “evidence” that the playerbase doesn’t want a classic Halo game despite well documented issues with the industry trying to sweep its own success stories under the rug in order to justify chasing the current trends they think will earn them as much if not more money than the actual trendsetters which is rarely ever the case.

The bottom line is that Halo 3 is a much more solid data point with relevant historical context from which we can start a discussion on the possible success of classic Halo game than trying to divine the tastes of a “modern” audience who has never actually been given the option of a new classic Halo game for 10 years.

4888

> 2533274819446242;4887:
> > 2533274825830455;4885:
> > > 2533274819446242;4883:
> > > How long exactly does it take for an audience to “get used” to sprint? Halo players had ample opportunities to abandon an “outdated” game for a game with sprint in 2 prior to the release of MW2, but Halo 3 still hung in there just fine. And it is not like sprint was a new mechanic in 2007. Something new becoming popular does not mean that something else must become less popular, this isn’t a zero sum game.
> >
> > You’re interepreting my comment wrong. I’m not making a definite statement that gamers are definitely too used to sprint. On the contrary, I’m just making a statement about the uncertainty that exists in our knowledge of the gaming demographic.
> >
> > Also, pay attention to the language in my post. I never said players (as individuals) “got used to” sprint, because I don’t believe that the changes in invidual preferences are a very significant factor. Generally, if a person liked Halo 3 in 2007, I very much would expect that person to like a similar game in 2020. Or alternatively, if there was a person who transitioned to CoD, they were probably inclined to it.
> >
> > The largest uncertainty comes from the fact that the set of people who play video games in 2020 is vastly different from the set of people who played video games in 2007. Somebody who was 5 years old when Halo 3 released is now an adult. You have millions of console gamers who grew up in a world where CoD was the most influential FPS, who grew up in a world where all shooters they ever played as young kids had sprint. It’s not that these gamers definitely won’t ever play a game without sprint, but that they are a huge source of uncertainty.
> >
> > And yes, there are still plenty of older gamers whose childhoods were defined by Halo and pre-CoD gaming industry. But we don’t know how much. We don’t know how much they have time to play. We don’t know how well their interest is sustained. Again, I’m not saying older gamers have moved on, but that they are also a huge source of uncertainty.
> >
> > My comment is fundamentally about uncertainty: we don’t know enough about how the gaming demographic evolved over the past 13 years to say whether Halo 3 is in any way relevant or not. Maybe it is. Maybe newer gamers really don’t care about sprint. Maybe older gamers are just waiting to relive their childhood. We really don’t know.
>
> My post you quoted originally was about evidence, I never claimed it was incontrovertible proof and I acknowledged uncertainty in both posts. Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.
>
> The only way we are going to ever be “certain” whether a new classic Halo game can succeed in modern times is to actually release a new classic halo game at least on par with Halo 3 in terms of quality and content. Yet I’m constantly told that would be too “risky” and the evidence I am given in return is “well look at all the popular games that have sprint, pay no mind to the obvious exceptions or the fact that players enjoying games with sprint is not evidence that they can’t enjoy games without it” The fact that the developers have stopped making classic Halo games is also used as “evidence” that the playerbase doesn’t want a classic Halo game despite well documented issues with the industry trying to sweep its own success stories under the rug in order to justify chasing the current trends they think will earn them as much if not more money than the actual trendsetters which is rarely ever the case.
>
> The bottom line is that Halo 3 is a much more solid data point with relevant historical context from which we can start a discussion on the possible success of classic Halo game than trying to divine the tastes of a “modern” audience who has never actually been given the option of a new classic Halo game for 10 years.

True, I believe a new No-sprint Halo title would establish a healthy foundation for the Halo community to grow. As time grows, we could easily see Halo 3 surpassed.

4889

> 2533274819446242;4887:
> My post you quoted originally was about evidence, I never claimed it was incontrovertible proof and I acknowledged uncertainty in both posts. Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.

I was just pointing out why that’s very easy to dismiss for someone so inclined.

> 2533274819446242;4887:
> The only way we are going to ever be “certain” whether a new classic Halo game can succeed in modern times is to actually release a new classic halo game at least on par with Halo 3 in terms of quality and content. Yet I’m constantly told that would be too “risky” and the evidence I am given in return is “well look at all the popular games that have sprint, pay no mind to the obvious exceptions or the fact that players enjoying games with sprint is not evidence that they can’t enjoy games without it” The fact that the developers have stopped making classic Halo games is also used as “evidence” that the playerbase doesn’t want a classic Halo game despite well documented issues with the industry trying to sweep its own success stories under the rug in order to justify chasing the current trends they think will earn them as much if not more money than the actual trendsetters which is rarely ever the case.

You only get so far by blaming people for making silly arguments. At some point you need to stop worrying about what you can’t do and focus on what you can. We suck at communication. We’re not being very persuasive. Maybe we should try to find a way to talk about things that people are willing to listen.

4890

> 2533274825830455;4889:
> > 2533274819446242;4887:
> > My post you quoted originally was about evidence, I never claimed it was incontrovertible proof and I acknowledged uncertainty in both posts. Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.
>
> I was just pointing out why that’s very easy to dismiss for someone so inclined.

If that the facts surrounding Halo 3’s success is “easy to dismiss for someone so inclined” they never cared about evidence in the first place. If we can “easily” dismiss Halo 3 sales and population next to a “modern game” then any argument re: how “necessary” sprint is in the modern gaming landscape or how “risky” it would be to release a new classic Halo game can and should be dismissed out of hand as the actual evidence for those positions is less than nothing by comparison.

> > 2533274819446242;4887:
> > The only way we are going to ever be “certain” whether a new classic Halo game can succeed in modern times is to actually release a new classic halo game at least on par with Halo 3 in terms of quality and content. Yet I’m constantly told that would be too “risky” and the evidence I am given in return is “well look at all the popular games that have sprint, pay no mind to the obvious exceptions or the fact that players enjoying games with sprint is not evidence that they can’t enjoy games without it” The fact that the developers have stopped making classic Halo games is also used as “evidence” that the playerbase doesn’t want a classic Halo game despite well documented issues with the industry trying to sweep its own success stories under the rug in order to justify chasing the current trends they think will earn them as much if not more money than the actual trendsetters which is rarely ever the case.
>
> You only get so far by blaming people for making silly arguments. At some point you need to stop worrying about what you can’t do and focus on what you can. We suck at communication. We’re not being very persuasive. Maybe we should try to find a way to talk about things that people are willing to listen.

If someone asks for evidence and then dismisses concrete evidence out of hand we are never going to reach those particular people because they were never arguing in good faith in the first place.

The bad faith gaslighting that goes on here and elsewhere needs to be highlighted for what it is. It won’t matter how good our communication skills are if certain folks are not even going to entertain relevant supporting evidence they claim to want regardless of how minor they may believe it to be. Entertaining all claims equally regardless of whether or not they are “silly”(that’s putting it lightly) doesn’t actually foster healthy debate or discussion.

The only evidence that they seem to be willing to accept is the success of a new classic Halo title, but we can’t actually do that because its “too risky”. I ask why its “too risky?” and they point to the number of poplar games with sprint. Then I point out the obvious exceptions I get "well that’s only a handful out of so many other games. So I ask why Halo can’t be another exception? which they go on to tell me some variation on “its outdated.” So I then I point out Halo 3’s success alongside the poster child of contemporary shooters, but that evidence is apparently too old. So then the obvious solution to me must be to make a new AAA classic Halo title, but sorry too risky and around and around we go.

This argument fundamentally hasn’t changed since it was first trotted out 8 years ago(at a minimum). I’m not going to pretend I’m perfect, I certainly have plenty of room to improve my ability to persuade folks, but in this particular instance I don’t think I’m the issue. People actually have to be willing to listen in the first place and not just stick their fingers in their ears when they hear something they don’t like.

4891

> 2533274819446242;4890:
> If that the facts surrounding Halo 3’s success is “easy to dismiss for someone so inclined” they never cared about evidence in the first place.

No, it was very easy for me to dismiss, and I’d gladly believe in the prospect of a popular classic Halo game. It’s just not very good evidence.

> 2533274819446242;4890:
> If we can “easily” dismiss Halo 3 sales and population next to a “modern game” then any argument re: how “necessary” sprint is in the modern gaming landscape or how “risky” it would be to release a new classic Halo game can and should be dismissed out of hand as the actual evidence for those positions is less than nothing by comparison.

The evidence is about as poor. The only real difference is that “classic Halo is risky” is a stronger claim, and therefore requires stronger evidence. Basically, the simple no-evidence-needed argument for classic Halo is that classic Halo is not off the table because nothing is.

> 2533274819446242;4887:
> If someone asks for evidence and then dismisses concrete evidence out of hand we are never going to reach those particular people because they were never arguing in good faith in the first place.
>
> The bad faith gaslighting that goes on here and elsewhere needs to be highlighted for what it is. It won’t matter how good our communication skills are if certain folks are not even going to entertain relevant supporting evidence they claim to want regardless of how minor they may believe it to be. Entertaining all claims equally regardless of whether or not they are “silly”(that’s putting it lightly) doesn’t actually foster healthy debate or discussion.
>
> The only evidence that they seem to be willing to accept is the success of a new classic Halo title, but we can’t actually do that because its “too risky”. I ask why its “too risky?” and they point to the number of poplar games with sprint. Then I point out the obvious exceptions I get "well that’s only a handful out of so many other games. So I ask why Halo can’t be another exception? which they go on to tell me some variation on “its outdated.” So I then I point out Halo 3’s success alongside the poster child of contemporary shooters, but that evidence is apparently too old. So then the obvious solution to me must be to make a new AAA classic Halo title, but sorry too risky and around and around we go.
>
> This argument fundamentally hasn’t changed since it was first trotted out 8 years ago(at a minimum). I’m not going to pretend I’m perfect, I certainly have plenty of room to improve my ability to persuade folks, but in this particular instance I don’t think I’m the issue. People actually have to be willing to listen in the first place and not just stick their fingers in their ears when they hear something they don’t like.

That’s not a very useful attitude. Realistically, 99% of the people who pass by this thread are never interested in a serious discussion. But when your default belief is that everybody’s in bad faith, and that everybody’s trying to gaslight you, that’s all you’re going to see.

4892

Just remove sprint and make melee always lunge. How des that sound

4893

> 2533274825830455;4889:
> > 2533274819446242;4887:
> > My post you quoted originally was about evidence, I never claimed it was incontrovertible proof and I acknowledged uncertainty in both posts. Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.
>
> I was just pointing out why that’s very easy to dismiss for someone so inclined.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274819446242;4887:
> > The only way we are going to ever be “certain” whether a new classic Halo game can succeed in modern times is to actually release a new classic halo game at least on par with Halo 3 in terms of quality and content. Yet I’m constantly told that would be too “risky” and the evidence I am given in return is “well look at all the popular games that have sprint, pay no mind to the obvious exceptions or the fact that players enjoying games with sprint is not evidence that they can’t enjoy games without it” The fact that the developers have stopped making classic Halo games is also used as “evidence” that the playerbase doesn’t want a classic Halo game despite well documented issues with the industry trying to sweep its own success stories under the rug in order to justify chasing the current trends they think will earn them as much if not more money than the actual trendsetters which is rarely ever the case.
>
> You only get so far by blaming people for making silly arguments. At some point you need to stop worrying about what you can’t do and focus on what you can. We suck at communication. We’re not being very persuasive. Maybe we should try to find a way to talk about things that people are willing to listen.

Bold - Unfortunately, I think the only answer to this is move on from the Halo series :pensive: well more less.

I am more and more convinced that 343I/MS don’t really care about “classic” Halo fans or have any interest in trying something “gutsy” aka a Halo game without the sprint animation. They are content to just have an average game sales and popularity wise. As long as it’s making money and has a return, I don’t think they care. I’m not trying to be insulting to 343I or anything but everything they have done is pretty “by the book” and “playing safe” when it comes to there Halo games and Halo Infinite doesn’t look any different. It’s just put in or incorporate whatever is big at the time and that’s it.

I think we can make awesome arguments as to why Halo should be like x or have y or play like z and so forth and even get some things changed ( Like how we complained about Halo 4 not having the red x when you died, Not having loadouts, having even starts and so on…) But overall, they are going to do what they want to do because their “market research” tells them so…yet anytime they talk about market research they’ve never really give any proof where they get this market research and who the heck they’re asking!!! :thinking: Personally, I think their market research for most of their stuff is absolutely flawed and a complete joke!!! Case in point, firefight. People have been begging and asking for them to have a new firefight since Halo 4. So what did they do in 5, completely ignore that and not even have it… Yet they put all this time and effort into their new Warzone playlist (which again plays nothing like Halo… So they’re pretty much ignoring a good chunk of their community in how it plays trying to appeal to the casual fan and people that like other games…) One of the first questions they get from fans at E3 and keep in mind they JUST revealed this new awesome mode in their new Halo game was “does this mean firefight is going to be in???” It wasn’t even about Warzone!! LoL If that right there doesn’t tell you that firefight wanted then I don’t know what does!! Yet, it wasn’t in Halo 5…until ultimately it was out in because of the outcry they decide “oh, maybe we should have it in…we listen to the fans” yeah sure you do, If you did you would have had a greater focus on that from the get-go… And the same thing was done with BTB too.

Where was there so called market research there?!?!?! I’m sorry, but 343I/MS don’t understand what the majority of fans want at all. Anyone who’s been around Halo from a long time can tell you what has worked what hasn’t, what people are on the fence about and so forth. Yet, 343I don’t seem to know this somehow Or they do and they just completely choose to ignore it.

A other case in point, thrusters. The majority of old AND new fans have no problem with thrusters, yet in Infinite they remove them… (At least as a default ability) They add in ADS style zooming animation to weapons and yet, No one really ever asked for that at all. This kind of stuff makes zero sense to me!

I know I kind of got off topic a bit here but my point is, I don’t think it matters what we do, how much we say something, how much evidence we provide and so on, Halo isn’t going to really change until it’s not really making money and as much as I hate saying this, it gets new leadership who is also allowed to do what they want with it. It’s just not. Even if the current leadership is allowed to do what they want with it they clearly don’t understand their community that well I’m sorry to say… I could give countless other examples of this as well. They just “play it safe” like I said.

Heck, they don’t even release new information here first (And it’s usually last…) at there "official Halo web page!!! I hear more about what’s coming to Halo from every other sources out there before here. How hard would it be to release new information when they have it across multiple things at the same time, honestly!! To me, this sort of thing starts with the top, It’s a leadership thing… And when was the last time you saw 343 members actually respond to people on here and engage in conversation in some of these topics? :thinking: It’s extremely rare and that’s the kind of thing needs to change as well.

I don’t know… I will admit, I am frustrated with a lot of things Halo has done over the years as I’m sure many other people are as well. I’ve been a fan since CE and I’ve literally seen all the ups and downs and been part of the community the entire time, yet I feel a huge part of there community is pretty much completely ignored time in time again… It’s hard as it is for me to say, It might be time for people like me to put my time and energy into another game series where the developers actually listen to their community… all there community.

I’ll always be a Halo fan, and will check out whatever new game that comes out, but that might be where it ends now… until something changes.

(Also, this isn’t directed at you tsassi at all, just kind of talking you know lol :slightly_smiling_face:)

4894

> 2533274815533909;4893:
> I am more and more convinced that 343I/MS don’t really care about “classic” Halo fans or have any interest in trying something “gutsy” aka a Halo game without the sprint animation. They are content to just have an average game sales and popularity wise. As long as it’s making money and has a return, I don’t think they care. I’m not trying to be insulting to 343I or anything but everything they have done is pretty “by the book” and “playing safe” when it comes to there Halo games and Halo Infinite doesn’t look any different. It’s just put in or incorporate whatever is big at the time and that’s it.

The funny thing is I kinda half-disagree with this part, they do make huge gutsy jumps, just in the wrong areas.

Halo 4 had Spartan Ops which was widely considered to be the successor/replacement to Firefight, but the whole seasons with story elements with gameplay and all that was way bigger than they anticipated and you got basically the Campaign but way more boring and all everyone wanted was Firefight but more stuff.

MCC in itself is a monumental project. Don’t need to go in detail of its history.

With Halo 5, they were so sure that their hip new playlists were going to be more successful than anything else before it that they spent the majority of their development time towards Warzone & WZA and Breakout. Everything was gambled on the former - it had all the microtransactions so it had to be appealing to look good to Microsoft, BTB didn’t have enough attention so it became community ran, every update that came out that people wanted for Arena (example, Grifball) had to be put into a Warzone update because under any circumstances, you cannot forget about Warzone, the game’s long-term success depends on it. When they finally get around to Firefight, it’s Warzone Firefight with all the bells and transactions that come with it. You can’t just play Firefight on your own, you can’t even just play Warzone on your own except through a Custom Games glitch.

(IIRC Breakout was Josh Holmes’ personal baby and the next competitive showing, so that wasn’t going to be dropped until their backs were really against the wall.)

And then Warzone ended up a middling gametype anyway, at least around the time Menke did those playlist rankings. Warzone Assault was pretty much bottom tier to the point where it became monthly. All BTB had to do was get a Super Fiesta variant and it became the most popular gametype for months at a time, and transcended being a rotational playlist.

They made this huge gamble all for the sake of player retention, but it turns out the best player retention was to just take the old stuff and give it a shot of new stuff and make it actually fun.

4895

After seeing the demo i think you should just walk slowly so the grass in front of you don’t pop up all the time😂

4896

> 2533274825830455;4891:
> > 2533274819446242;4890:
> > If that the facts surrounding Halo 3’s success is “easy to dismiss for someone so inclined” they never cared about evidence in the first place.
>
> No, it was very easy for me to dismiss, and I’d gladly believe in the prospect of a popular classic Halo game. It’s just not very good evidence.

Again, I never said it was a smoking gun, but it someone wants evidence, then sales and population data in a relevant historical context is a good a place as any to start. What is the statute of limitations on a data point like franchise record sales and population where they can “easily” be dismissed wholesale? If we get to ignore one of the few solid data points we actually do have access to what on Earth are we actually supposed discuss in a supposed “evidence” based discussion?

A piece of evidence does not need to predict the future with certainty to be worth discussing.

> > 2533274819446242;4890:
> > If we can “easily” dismiss Halo 3 sales and population next to a “modern game” then any argument re: how “necessary” sprint is in the modern gaming landscape or how “risky” it would be to release a new classic Halo game can and should be dismissed out of hand as the actual evidence for those positions is less than nothing by comparison.
>
> The evidence is about as poor. The only real difference is that “classic Halo is risky” is a stronger claim, and therefore requires stronger evidence. Basically, the simple no-evidence-needed argument for classic Halo is that classic Halo is not off the table because nothing is.

“Nothing is off the table,” yes that is exactly the point. Certain folks act like certain things are off the table and there is some evidence to suggest that is not the case. Again, does it mean that a new classic Halo is guaranteed to be just as successful, no, but that is not the issue here.

> > 2533274819446242;4887:
> > If someone asks for evidence and then dismisses concrete evidence out of hand we are never going to reach those particular people because they were never arguing in good faith in the first place.
> > The bad faith gaslighting that goes on here and elsewhere needs to be highlighted for what it is. It won’t matter how good our communication skills are if certain folks are not even going to entertain relevant supporting evidence they claim to want regardless of how minor they may believe it to be. Entertaining all claims equally regardless of whether or not they are “silly”(that’s putting it lightly) doesn’t actually foster healthy debate or discussion.
> > The only evidence that they seem to be willing to accept is the success of a new classic Halo title, but we can’t actually do that because its “too risky”. I ask why its “too risky?” and they point to the number of poplar games with sprint. Then I point out the obvious exceptions I get "well that’s only a handful out of so many other games. So I ask why Halo can’t be another exception? which they go on to tell me some variation on “its outdated.” So I then I point out Halo 3’s success alongside the poster child of contemporary shooters, but that evidence is apparently too old. So then the obvious solution to me must be to make a new AAA classic Halo title, but sorry too risky and around and around we go.
> > This argument fundamentally hasn’t changed since it was first trotted out 8 years ago(at a minimum). I’m not going to pretend I’m perfect, I certainly have plenty of room to improve my ability to persuade folks, but in this particular instance I don’t think I’m the issue. People actually have to be willing to listen in the first place and not just stick their fingers in their ears when they hear something they don’t like.
>
> That’s not a very useful attitude. Realistically, 99% of the people who pass by this thread are never interested in a serious discussion. But when your default belief is that everybody’s in bad faith, and that everybody’s trying to gaslight you, that’s all you’re going to see.

That is in fact not my default belief(really?), my issue is with specific behaviors such as trying to tell us to deny both the objective reality of Halo 3’s commercial success and our own lived experiences playing and enjoying classic Halo and telling us that “well actually you didn’t really enjoy Halo that much there just wasn’t any ‘competition’” or some other garbage to that effect.

Personally I don’t expect a “serious” discussion to any meaningful degree, not even to the degree that anyone could expect a “serious” discussion on a gaming forum. I just don’t care to entertain bad faith or otherwise just ignorant behavior cosplaying as a discussion.

4897

I think there should be a playlist where there’s no sprint, clamber, and sliding for Halo purists.
I honestly don’t mind advanced movements. There should also be an option to change the speed of slide, clamber, and sprint or to disable them completely.

4898

> 2535455915201084;4897:
> I think there should be a playlist where there’s no sprint, clamber, and sliding for Halo purists.
> I honestly don’t mind advanced movements. There should also be an option to change the speed of slide, clamber, and sprint or to disable them completely.

Read point 2 of the OP.

4899

> 2535455915201084;4897:
> I think there should be a playlist where there’s no sprint, clamber, and sliding for Halo purists.
> I honestly don’t mind advanced movements. There should also be an option to change the speed of slide, clamber, and sprint or to disable them completely.

and split the game in half so that nobody is fully satisfied? 343 is already on rocky terms just making one style of game, I’m not sure splitting their dev team for a game section like this is good. And no, you can’t just disable all the mobility mechanics as maps and weapons need to be changed to fit the slower combat, as well as grenade behaviors and countless other mechanics.

4900

> 2533274819446242;4896:
> What is the statute of limitations on a data point like franchise record sales and population where they can “easily” be dismissed wholesale?

There is no “statute of limitations” obviously. It’s not a binary thing. It’s just that a single data point becomes less and less useful as you try to extrapolate from it further and further into the future. This is just a general thing about data in any kind of system where the time evolution of the data isn’t known beforehand. You can go look at stock market data 13 years ago and observe that it’s a very poor predictor of stock market data today. You can look at what web pages were popular in 2007 and observe the same thing.

What you’re essentially trying to do is take the popularity numbers of Halo 3 (and possibly Halo CE and 2), try to fit some family of curves on them, and argue that the curves that bend upwards or stay constant after Halo 3 are somehow more likely than ones that bend downwards.But that kind of assumption without justification is very easy to dismiss, because it’s just an assumption.

In order to use the Halo 3 data as evidence, you’re implicitly proposing a model of how the popularity of classic Halo evolves over time. But because you’re not putting any evidence forward to support that model (because you probably didn’t even know you need/have a model), we can dismiss the model out of hand. And because we can dismiss the model, we can dismiss the data.

> 2533274819446242;4896:
> If we get to ignore one of the few solid data points we actually do have access to what on Earth are we actually supposed discuss in a supposed “evidence” based discussion?

As I said before (more or less): the strongest evidence for classic Halo is that there is no evidence against it. There is no reason to expect classic Halo would perform substantially better than modern Halo, but there is also no reason to expect it to perform worse.

An evidence based discussion doesn’t have to be about confirming a claim. Sometimes all you can do is observe that the evidence doesn’t contradict the claim.

> 2533274819446242;4890:
> That is in fact not my default belief(really?), my issue is with specific behaviors such as trying to tell us to deny both the objective reality of Halo 3’s commercial success and our own lived experiences playing and enjoying classic Halo and telling us that “well actually you didn’t really enjoy Halo that much there just wasn’t any ‘competition’” or some other garbage to that effect.
>
> Personally I don’t expect a “serious” discussion to any meaningful degree, not even to the degree that anyone could expect a “serious” discussion on a gaming forum. I just don’t care to entertain bad faith or otherwise just ignorant behavior cosplaying as a discussion.

I don’t know. When somebody says “Halo needs sprint because all games have it” or “Halo 3 didn’t have competition”, do you assume they’re saying it in bad faith? Because that’s kind of what I got out of your post. Like, I see people being ignorant or unable to entertain ideas that conflict with their beliefs and agendas. But that’s just part of being a human. It’s usually not malice.

I don’t know what your idea of “serious” is, but I’ve had plenty of discussions here I’d describe as “serious”. And when I reflect back on my past discussions, the thing that always comes up is “yeah, I should’ve been more empathetic”. Even if the other person was being a jerk, I don’t gain anything from just blaming them on everything and moving on, because that’s not actionable insight.

4901

> 2533274825830455;4900:
> It’s just that a single data point becomes less and less useful as you try to extrapolate from it further and further into the future. This is just a general thing about data in any kind of system where the time evolution of the data isn’t known beforehand. You can go look at stock market data 13 years ago and observe that it’s a very poor predictor of stock market data today. You can look at what web pages were popular in 2007 and observe the same thing.
>
> What you’re essentially trying to do is take the popularity numbers of Halo 3 (and possibly Halo CE and 2), try to fit some family of curves on them, and argue that the curves that bend upwards or stay constant after Halo 3 are somehow more likely than ones that bend downwards.But that kind of assumption without justification is very easy to dismiss, because it’s just an assumption.
>
> In order to use the Halo 3 data as evidence, you’re implicitly proposing a model of how the popularity of classic Halo evolves over time. But because you’re not putting any evidence forward to support that model (because you probably didn’t even know you need/have a model), we can dismiss the model out of hand. And because we can dismiss the model, we can dismiss the data.

I have a feeling you are somewhat misunderstanding what WerepyreND is trying to conveigh.

Your counterargument solely focuses on the fact that it’s not possible to extrapolate onto todays success from a 13-year-old data point, which - at least as far as I see it - was something he never said. The closest that comes to this was the sentence: “Uncertainty isn’t the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn’t count as evidence that “modern” gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for “modern” shooters.”

The problem WerepyreND has is that Halo 3 is outright ignored in discussions because of its age, despite having relevancy within the appropriate historical context. Judging something in a relative context and dismissing it entirely are two completely different things.

I must also say, you have a very weird stance on evidence in general. A piece of evidence does not have to prove or disprove something on its own in order to be valid, that’s not how arguments work. You slowly add multiple pieces of evidence that complement one another to build a case. The combined sum of all evicence is then used as proof for a claim. Halo 3 doesn’t need to project any curves into the future, it just needs to relate to another statement used in the argument that furthers the discussion. Preemptively killing even a single piece of evidence (if it isn’t wrong in the first place) breaks this chain and prevents lines of thought from taking shape that do have merit once they are finished.