The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
5382

> 2533274801176260;5381:
> You do know that H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 (in terms of kill frequency), despite the higher movement speed, right?

very interesting.

some thoughts about that
after watching some of the games i noticed a few things.
(note: i never played H5 and didnt count the situations, so its just my subjective observation.)

  • it seems that the Pistol is less effective at wider distances compared to the br.
    more br duells seems to get a finish. less of the pistols fights. - thruster pack helps to get of situations where you would die in H3. - feels like the nades took a bit more time to explode? could be a factor (also the explosion radius) - no double shot/bxr - some player (like pistola in one vid) are nearly 10 years older than in their prime - are these teams equally skilled as the ones at halos prime mlg time? - tactics could have changed - even if the H5 default speed seems to be slower, the sprint could save you in certain situations - respawn timer and shield recharge (are they identical?) - the custom game settings could differ - less autoaim?what really surprised me was the H3/H5 running comparison
    leads to the question if heretic and truth are really the same size or just looking similar.
    at least the speed in this video looks way faster than i remember (played over 5k games of H3)

edit: one of the comments seems to confirm that
“Truth is much bigger than Heretic, so a game obviously takes longer. No rocket science or anything.”
Probably only a modder with access to hard facts in the code can solve this discussion…

5383

> 2533274889489936;2:
> As in we all have to walk around really slowly and such?

I’d like seperate game modes possibly for running and walking?

5384

> 2533274793250636;5382:
> > 2533274801176260;5381:
> > You do know that H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 (in terms of kill frequency), despite the higher movement speed, right?
>
> very interesting.
>
> some thoughts about that
> after watching some of the games i noticed a few things.
> (note: i never played H5 and didnt count the situations, so its just my subjective observation.)
>
>
> - it seems that the Pistol is less effective at wider distances compared to the br.
> more br duells seems to get a finish. less of the pistols fights. - thruster pack helps to get of situations where you would die in H3. - feels like the nades took a bit more time to explode? could be a factor (also the explosion radius) - no double shot/bxr - some player (like pistola in one vid) are nearly 10 years older than in their prime - are these teams equally skilled as the ones at halos prime mlg time? - tactics could have changed - even if the H5 default speed seems to be slower, the sprint could save you in certain situations - respawn timer (are they identical?) - the custom game settings could differ - less autoaim?what really surprised me was the H3/H5 running comparison
> leads to the question if heretic and truth are really the same size or just looking similar.
> at least the speed in this video looks way faster than i remember (played over 5k games of H3)
>
> edit: one of the comments seems to confirm that
> “Truth is much bigger than Heretic, so a game obviously takes longer. No rocket science or anything.”
> Probably only a modder with access to hard facts in the code can solve this discussion…

It’s a pretty well known fact that Truth is larger than Heretic. I made a handy graphic comparing the Halo 3 and Halo 5 map sizes a while ago. (You don’t need any modding to figure this out.)

That’s kind of the point here: movement speed isn’t the only thing that affects pace of gameplay. Having all the movement abilities doesn’t make Halo 5 faster, because the developers never intended for it to be faster. 343i never intended to mess with Halo’s traditional pace of gameplay, because apparently they thought it was fine, so they designed larger maps to offset the increased movement speed that Spartan Abilities (mainly sprint) give.

The other side of the coin is of course that if you want faster gameplay, you don’t actually need to give players that much more movement speed. You definitely don’t need to give them sprint.

5385

> 2533274801176260;5381:
> That’s kind of the point here: movement speed isn’t the only thing that affects pace of gameplay.

Thats right.
Although were comparing apples to oranges. Different map size, different weapons, different game settings.
But in one game, sprint/running OF COURSE makes the gameplay faster.
Infinite with sprint is obv fast than Infinite without sprint.

And thats the discussion of this thread.
Its self evident, that if you mix everything, the outcome varies depending on all the factors.

5386

> 2533274793250636;5385:
> Although were comparing apples to oranges. Different map size, different weapons, different game settings.

No, we’re not “comparing apples to oranges”. We’re comparing a very specific quantity in two games that are part of the same genre, and part of the same series, and we’re doing the comparison the the same game mode. The question “which one has faster pace” is not only completely meaningful and well-defined, but is also of practical interest to a player. The precise technical reason why one game has the pace it has is not, because players don’t judge games for technical reasons, they judge games on feel.

Games are made of multiple parts that interact with each other to form the whole. That’s the exact reason we have concepts like “pace” that capture the combined effect of those parts, and can be compared between two different games. Isolating a single part and looking at it in a vacuum is really not how you want to think about games.

> 2533274793250636;5385:
> Infinite with sprint is obv fast than Infinite without sprint.
>
> And thats the discussion of this thread.

That may be the discussion you want to have, but it’s not the discussion of this thread.

But since we’re on that subject: no Halo Infinite with sprint isn’t obviously faster than Halo Infinite without sprint, because it also depends on the base movement speed. And if next you want to say “yes, but if the base movement speed is the same”, no. That’s literally a useless thought exercise, because we can always just raise the base movement speed if need be. There is no point whatsoever in imposing such an imaginary restriction.

5387

> 2533274793250636;5385:
> But in one game, sprint/running OF COURSE makes the gameplay faster.
> Infinite with sprint is obv fast than Infinite without sprint.

But is Infinite with sprint as fast as Infinite with +10% movement speed (hypothetical)?

Or to use an example we do have numbers for, which is faster, Halo 5 with normal base movement speed but sprint, or Halo 5 with +20% base movement speed, but no sprint? Because now the players are on the same map, moving the same speed - the only differene is the availability of actions one can take while they’re moving.

5388

> 2535407747275549;5379:
> Halo was on one console cod wasn’t so don’t use such awful logic and halo stayed relatively just as popular as cod up until halo 4 came out. Cod didn’t kill halo it never had a chance simply because these two games were very different halo hurt itself. Btw sprint had absolutely nothing to do with cal of duty’s success.

COD was more popular on 360 alone than Halo. There is no awful logic. There is no need for a red herring about other platforms. This argument is solely about Xbox and the statement is based on COD being more popular on Xbox than Halo.

> 2533274801176260;5381:
> You do know that H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 (in terms of kill frequency), despite the higher movement speed, right?.

This “slower” nonsense is irrelevant here. We’re talking about about movement speed. You’ve got 90000 different variables between Halo 5 and Halo 3 that affect the frequency of kills. IDGAF about frequency of kills in this conversation because this is not about frequency of kills. This is about player movement speed. Which btw, your evidence has Halo 3 player speed bumped up.

> 2533274801176260;5381:
> > 2533274793006817;5377:
> > That point being the release of Call of Duty 4 which was the point the COD franchise ate its lunch and Halo never recovered.
>
> Uuuuuh… no.
> The point was the release of Reach, when Bungie decided to try and beat CoD at its own game (and failed, just like 343 later would). I have already shown you that Halo 3 did extremely well against CoD4 and its next two successors, as the playerbases are mostly disjunct.

Yeah, I already explained in detail why COD had more players than Halo. COD had more titles that when you take the playerbases and combine them against all the Halo titles and combine them, COD won easily. I already proved that in 2008 COD4 was proven the most popular game on Xbox Live for over the majority of weeks and the only reason Halo 3 was the most played game that year was the release of World at War. Is World at War a Call of Duty game or not? Is COD4 a Call of Duty game or not? Why are you denying this? We’re not talking about one single game. We are talking about franchise versus franchise. The only thing that stopped COD4 from being the most played was more Call of Duty. And Call of Duty is Call of Duty, which was played more in total on Xbox Live than Halo in total.

5389

> 2533274833081329;5387:
> But is Infinite with sprint as fast as Infinite with +10% movement speed (hypothetical)?

The game comes with its moving speed as it is.
And the sprint is on top. When you activate it, your are faster.

My point was not what i would wish for Infinite. Thats already decided by 343.
All my points where directed to the "H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 " argument of the previous post.
Which are two different games with two different map sizes and so on. Has little to nothing to do with Infinite.

5390

> 2533274825830455;5386:
> > 2533274793250636;5385:
> > Although were comparing apples to oranges. Different map size, different weapons, different game settings.
>
> No, we’re not “comparing apples to oranges”. We’re comparing a very specific quantity in two games that are part of the same genre, and part of the same series, and we’re doing the comparison the the same game mode.

I listed 11 possible differences (dunno if they all apply).
Plus the different map size. That is the definition of apples and oranges.
These are in detail 2 completely different games. Thats why they feel different. I think we can at least agree on this?

So its not “very specific”.
Its the opposite. Its highly hypothetical.

> 2533274825830455;5386:
> The precise technical reason why one game has the pace it has is not, because players don’t judge games for technical reasons, they judge games on feel.

Thats why i used "it feels and “it seems” a few times.
The whole point of me was that H3 feels slower when instead its proven that its not. (based on the movement speed)

> 2533274825830455;5386:
> Games are made of multiple parts that interact with each other to form the whole. Isolating a single part and looking at it in a vacuum is really not how you want to think about games.

Where did i isolate a single part? I did the opposite.
I wrote 11! other parts to illustrate how they can result in H5 games last longer, even if many feel its faster than H3.

To put this to an end, i dont want to fight over opinions, but it really seems you didnt understand to what my post was directed.
Peace

5391

> 2533274793250636;5382:
> > 2533274801176260;5381:
> > You do know that H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 (in terms of kill frequency), despite the higher movement speed, right?
>
> very interesting.
>
> some thoughts about that
> after watching some of the games i noticed a few things.
> (note: i never played H5 and didnt count the situations, so its just my subjective observation.)
>
>
> - it seems that the Pistol is less effective at wider distances compared to the br.
> more br duells seems to get a finish. less of the pistols fights. - thruster pack helps to get of situations where you would die in H3. - feels like the nades took a bit more time to explode? could be a factor (also the explosion radius) - no double shot/bxr - some player (like pistola in one vid) are nearly 10 years older than in their prime - are these teams equally skilled as the ones at halos prime mlg time? - tactics could have changed - even if the H5 default speed seems to be slower, the sprint could save you in certain situations - respawn timer and shield recharge (are they identical?) - the custom game settings could differ - less autoaim?what really surprised me was the H3/H5 running comparison
> leads to the question if heretic and truth are really the same size or just looking similar.
> at least the speed in this video looks way faster than i remember (played over 5k games of H3)
>
> edit: one of the comments seems to confirm that
> “Truth is much bigger than Heretic, so a game obviously takes longer. No rocket science or anything.”
> Probably only a modder with access to hard facts in the code can solve this discussion…

  • The pistol isn’t a primary weapon in H2 and 3, so of course the BR is used in place of it - You mean a get out of jail free card? - Grenades in H5 have significantly increased damage and splash compared to H3, part of balancing when players can move faster - Those glitches only occurred in H2C and made the game better - That doesn’t effect average kill frequency - same as 5 - same as 5 - another get out of jail free card… - This isn’t as impactful as weapon TTK, of which H5’s is very close between all weapons - Doesn’t apply to standard MM - Autoaim doesn’t impact Kill Frequency, plus H5’s is much heavier compared to H3 to compensate increased movement speed
5392

> 2533274793006817;5388:
> This “slower” nonsense is irrelevant here. We’re talking about about movement speed. You’ve got 90000 different variables between Halo 5 and Halo 3 that affect the frequency of kills. IDGAF about frequency of kills in this conversation because this is not about frequency of kills. This is about player movement speed.

Well, then how do you define the pace of a game if not by the interactions between players? You said that reducing BMS to Halo 3 levels would make the game “slower”, yet I’ve shown that you can have a slower game even with a higher movement speed. But if this is not what you’re referring to, what other metric do you propose?

> 2533274793006817;5388:
> Which btw, your evidence has Halo 3 player speed bumped up.

True, but still 10% lower than H5G’s BMS, let alone its sprint speed.

> 2533274793006817;5388:
> Yeah, I already explained in detail why COD had more players than Halo. […]

You’re moving the goalpost here.
Nobody is denying that CoD had more players than Halo from 2008 onwards.
The original statement, however, was that you claimed Halo started failing because of (or at least at the same time as) CoD4:

> 2533274793006817;5377:
> > 2533274828579555;5348:
> > It’s an entirely separate game that has succeeded in the past up until a point
>
> That point being the release of Call of Duty 4 which was the point the COD franchise ate its lunch and Halo never recovered.

This is blatantly false, there was no long-term drop in player numbers correlated with CoD4’s or WaW’s release in Halo 3’s first two years (and only a slight drop at the time of MW2 during its third year). Overall CoD’s and Halo’s audiences are mostly separate, CoD gaining players had no significant effect on Halo losing players. It was Reach’s launch that took over Halo 3’s population (and even reclaimed the ones lost at MW2’s release, pun intended), and managed to keep it for at roughly a year (despite Black Ops), then dropping. The data for the last few months prior to Halo 4’s release is missing due to Bungie’s departure from the franchise. However, Halo 4 started off with the same population Halo 3 did, which then dissolved exponentially within mere weeks.
So no, CoD4 did not have any effect on Halo’s decline in success.

5393

I personally find the old Halo 1 & 2 with their floaty moon jumps and base movement speed are what I enjoy. Whenever I DO play Halo nowadays, it’s only MCC, and it’s only normally Halo 1, 2, and 2A. The population of Halo 3 and Reach are so oversaturated with sweaty tryhards, I find the games not enjoyable. Halo 4, personally, I was never a fan, and I have never played Halo 5 nor will I . The inclusion of sprint simply for the sake of “modernizing a game” is a HORRIBLE model to go by. As a game company you should strive to innovate and go beyond what “everyone else is doing” . Just because most games nowadays includes sprint does not mean Halo immediately should have adapted it as well just to “chase trends”. Then Halo 5 went and brought some booster thing AND you can CoD “clambering” everything. All while STILL having sprint AND an armor ability. Oh and “loadouts” are embarrassing, 343 literally just tried to clone CoD and killed the entire Halo franchise. From one of the top shooters ever, to barely spoken about with less then 1k viewers on twitch. ( go check out CoD numbers, it’s a facepalm for 343. ) Yes, I am an old boomer and want my old Halo’s back.

5394

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> > 2533274793006817;5388:
> > Yeah, I already explained in detail why COD had more players than Halo. […]
>
> You’re moving the goalpost here.
> Nobody is denying that CoD had more players than Halo from 2008 onwards.
> The original statement, however, was that you claimed Halo started failing because of (or at least at the same time as) CoD4:

That’s not moving the goalpost. I said COD4 ate it’s lunch because it did. Halo was dethroned and has never recovered. If you want to argue on a technicality Halo has always made a profit so it never technically has failed ever, but that’s not the argument here. That’s such a trivial argument and you know very well that’s not the argument being made. The argument has been about Halo being surpassed and it has.

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> > 2533274793006817;5377:
> > That point being the release of Call of Duty 4 which was the point the COD franchise ate its lunch and Halo never recovered.
>
> This is blatantly false, there was no long-term drop in player numbers correlated with CoD4’s or WaW’s release in Halo 3’s first two years (and only a slight drop at the time of MW2 during its third year). Overall CoD’s and Halo’s audiences are mostly separate, CoD gaining players had no significant effect on Halo losing players…

Once COD4 was released Halo was no longer the franchise of console multiplayer. The most popular franchise on Xbox Live was COD, true or false?
I’m not going to bother arguing arguments I didn’t make. The argument has always been around the popularity of the franchises and from COD4 on, Halo has been clearly surpassed. This is not up for debate. I am not interested in hearing excuses.

If Halo wants to gain popularity it needs to not feel like you’re in quicksand like the old games because gamers as a whole have moved beyond that, unless you want to turn Halo into a R6:Siege clone.

5395

> 2533274793250636;5390:
> I listed 11 possible differences (dunno if they all apply).
> Plus the different map size. That is the definition of apples and oranges.
> These are in detail 2 completely different games. Thats why they feel different. I think we can at least agree on this?

The “apples and oranges” idiom is misleading in this scenario. You’re falling into this trap of thinking that just because two things are not the same they somehow can’t or shouldn’t be compared. However, you can compare many quite different things. You just have to be mindful of what inferences can be made from that comparison. As it is, I’m not even making any inferences, just corroborating the fact that the average kill rate in a match of Halo 5 isn’t higher than in a match of MLG Halo 3, i.e., that Halo 3 can have a faster pace of gameplay than Halo 5.

I’m not inclined to agree with your loaded language. I could agree that Halo 3 and Halo 5 have some differences, but also share a great deal of similarities. But what I really don’t understand is what you seek with agreement. I know I’m just trying to bring attention to a simple fact: that Halo doesn’t need sprint to have a fast pace. Halo 3 and Halo 5 not being identical isn’t really relevant for my goals. In fact, okay, let’s just go completely absurd and pretend that Halo 3 and 5 are like night and day, like Mario and Sonic, like CoD and… um… Halo. So what?

I feel like you’re trying to minimize and ignore the comparison between Halo 3 and 5 by using phrasing like “apples and oranges”, because it’s inconvenient. I can’t think of other reason why someone would choose such dismissive phrasing.

> 2533274793250636;5390:
> So its not “very specific”.
> Its the opposite. Its highly hypothetical.

Average time between kills is a very specific quantity. You can easily go and measure it for any game. I don’t understand what you mean.

> 2533274793250636;5390:
> Where did i isolate a single part? I did the opposite.
> I wrote 11! other parts to illustrate how they can result in H5 games last longer, even if many feel its faster than H3.

But you seemed to imply that those eleven points somehow made Halo 3 and Halo 5 not comparable; your apples and oranges, remember? I got the impression that you thought we should only compare paces of games if there is only one variable that is different.

5396

> 2533274793006817;5394:
> The argument has been about Halo being surpassed and it has.

No, it wasn’t. The original argument was about that Halo succeeded until it changed its gameplay, and that point came several years after CoD4’s release. You retroactively try to change the topic of discussion to salvage a statement proven false.

> 2533274793006817;5394:
> Once COD4 was released Halo was no longer the franchise of console multiplayer. The most popular franchise on Xbox Live was COD, true or false?

False. Halo 3 was still the most popular Xbox multiplayer for several months after CoD4’s release and was still able to surpass it on a number of occasions during 2008.

> 2533274793006817;5394:
> I’m not going to bother arguing arguments I didn’t make.

I don’t expect you to. I do expect you to argue the ones you did make.

> 2533274793006817;5394:
> The argument has always been around the popularity of the franchises and from COD4 on, Halo has been clearly surpassed. This is not up for debate. I am not interested in hearing excuses.

It hasn’t, and nobody is debating it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. When analyzing the popularity of Halo’s gameplay, the metric to look at is Halo’s population, not the population of a different franchise with a completely disjunct playerbase.

> 2533274793006817;5394:
> If Halo wants to gain popularity it needs to not feel like you’re in quicksand like the old games because gamers as a whole have moved beyond that, unless you want to turn Halo into a R6:Siege clone.

I don’t, actually, but I find it funny that you literally disproved your own claim within the same sentence, by admitting that it is possible for games to be successful with low movement speed.

5397

> 2533274801176260;5381:
> > 2533274793006817;5376:
> > OK but at the expense of movement in general. I would argue since you’ve slowed movement to Halo 3 speeds you would make the game so slow compared to the skill today that it’s a sweaty campfest in a game that already only has radar when you move.
>
> You do know that H5G is actually slower than Halo 3 (in terms of kill frequency), despite the higher movement speed, right?

I think one of the primary reasons why Halo 5 is perceived to be faster paced than OG Halo games is down to cognitive burden… Simply put a player in Halo 5 will typically perform more actions per second to traverse an environment than they would in an equivalent environment in OG Halo. Juggling running, sprinting, jumping, clambering, sliding, thrusting, charging, stabilizing, ground pounding… not only that but your enemies have the same abilities to take into consideration. It’s a lot to think about. The thing is a player can only think about so much, particularly at the rapid speeds of an fps game. It makes sense Halo 5 would be slower in terms of combat. I would imagine if Halo 5 played at the same combat frequency of say Halo 3 it would feel overwhelming. Too many mechanics to think about, too fast. Pacing is a balancing act, and it is directly effected by the complexity of the game.

OG Halo’s movement in terms of base mechanics was much simpler, but there was I think a greater emphasis on sandbox and environment elements to diversify movement options, such as mancannons, teleporters, mongooses, conveyor belts etc. In Halo 5 you can get anywhere fast, in OG there was more of an emphasis on picking your route and traversal method to overcome a perceived lack of mobility.

Sprint may make a Spartan physically faster but it does not necessarily make a games pacing faster.

To me though, the main debate of Sprint is not, Is it fast? but whether or not it is good to have 2 movement speeds? Is it good to have combat speeds that are slower than the speed you can traverse a map? That’s the question.

5398

> 2533274801176260;5396:
> > 2533274793006817;5394:
> > The argument has been about Halo being surpassed and it has.
>
> No, it wasn’t.

OK, let me be more specific; failed to be the industry leading, most popular game Xbox Live online multiplayer shooter. Once COD came out, it was over for Halo. Once Christmas '07 hit, Halo as a franchise failed to be the console genre leader. So no; you’re wrong. This has been my argument since the beginning.

> 2533274801176260;5396:
> The argument was about when Halo failed, and that point came several years after CoD4’s release.

Again, even by changing my argument, your argument still holds no weight as every Halo game has been profitable. How can you argue that they failed?

> 2533274801176260;5396:
> You retroactively try to change the topic of discussion to salvage a statement proven false.

Or are you arguing by some other standard that nobody else has argued over? Hint: Yes. Otherwise now you’re just changing your argument.

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> False. Halo 3 was still the most popular Xbox multiplayer for several months after CoD4’s release and was still able to surpass it on a number of occasions during 2008.

Yeah, it’s not instantaneous, dude. Get real. Look at your own bar graph; it’s two months from launch to Christmas and then take over. Only two months! It took two months. You’re picking nits.

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> I don’t expect you to. I do expect you to argue the ones you did make.

Then maybe you ought to grill me on my argument rather than your arbitrary and completely subjective interpretation of failure that isn’t reflective of the franchise’s objective top status like my argument nor the objective success of the franchise where the game has maintained profitability.

Face it, you are blowing a gasket over hearing the word fail over your favorite game because you have convinced yourself that your own subjective and arbitrary, personal line for what “failure” means in regards to Halo rather than listen to the argument that was actually made.

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> The argument has always been around the popularity of the franchises and from COD4 on, Halo has been clearly surpassed. This is not up for debate. I am not interested in hearing excuses.

Nobody is debating it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. Absolutely not because my discussion has always been exactly that. You’re making an excuse. You don’t get to change my argument. Your narrow-scoped metrics mean nothing to this argument.

If this had always been the argument, which it hasn’t because I’m not going to bother with such a dumb argument that ignores 95% of the influence and focuses on the inane 5%, but if that was the argument as you have suddenly claimed it to be, then why did you sit there and argue about Call of Duty this entire time if you’re now pretending it’s irrelevant to the argument?

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> > If Halo wants to gain popularity it needs to not feel like you’re in quicksand like the old games because gamers as a whole have moved beyond that, unless you want to turn Halo into a R6:Siege clone.
>
> I don’t, actually, but I find it funny that you literally disproved your own claim within the same sentence, by admitting that it is possible for games to be successful with low movement speed.

I didn’t disprove my own claim, I only proved the only way for such a game to be successful. How does completely changing a slow moving Halo into something completely different from Halo prove that a slow moving Halo would be as popular as the other game that’s completely different? Explain how totally transforming something into something else is proof the thing would be successful without transforming. That’s the argument you just made, so explain it.

5399

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> This has been my argument since the beginning.

Yours maybe, but not the original one you replied to. Hence why I said you try to move the goalpost.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Again, even by changing my argument, your argument still holds no weight as every Halo game has been profitable. How can you argue that they failed?

Significant drops in online player population, reduced sales, practical nonexistent streaming viewership, etc.
Besides, why is this even called into question now? You yourself argued that they failed. Or are you retracting that statement as well?

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Or are you arguing by some other standard that nobody else has argued over? Hint: Yes.

Yes to the first part of the sentence, no to the second. You are not addressing the original argument, but that makes you the only one.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Yeah, it’s not instantaneous, dude. Get real. Look at your own bar graph; it’s two months from launch to Christmas and then take over. Only two months! It took two months. You’re picking nits.

False statement is still false.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Then maybe you ought to grill me on my argument

I did. You claimed the franchise failed when CoD4 released. I proved it didn’t. Then you started pretending the discussion is about something else entirely.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Face it, you are blowing a gasket over hearing the word fail over your favorite game because you have convinced yourself that your own subjective and arbitrary, personal line for what “failure” means in regards to Halo rather than listen to the argument that was actually made.

No, I am just correcting false statements. As soon as you stop making them I will stop doing so.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> Absolutely not because my discussion has always been exactly that.

Again, because you moved the goalpost…

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> then why did you sit there and argue about Call of Duty this entire time if you’re now pretending it’s irrelevant to the argument?

Because you made a false claim about CoD4 and Halo that I am correcting. However, CoD’s success has nothing to do with Halo’s decline, as the former’s success started long before Halo lost sales or population or viewership or anything.

> 2533274793006817;5398:
> I didn’t disprove my own claim

“If Halo wants to gain popularity it needs to [XYZ] because gamers as a whole have moved beyond that”
“Unless…”
Sounds pretty contradictory to me.

> 2533274801176260;5392:
> Explain how totally transforming something into something else is proof the thing would be successful without transforming. That’s the argument you just made, so explain it.

I made no such argument. In fact, I didn’t even make any argument at all. You claimed Halo needs to have faster speed to be successful in todays market. Then you give an example of a successful game with low movement speed, thus completely negating your initial point.

5400

ooooh boy, things are getting intense here…

while I’m here I might as well add, I really like how they implemented sprint in H4, with it being limited and all. I hope that’s infinities case too.

5401

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Yours maybe, but not the original one you replied to. Hence why I said you try to move the goalpost.

You said I tried to move the goalpost because you lied about what I said or unintentionally misunderstood what I said and then tried to cover it up. The argument is that slow Halo is not going to by some miracle bring people back. I provided the fact that COD and so on has proven that faster movement speed is preferred among console gamers, not the movement of old Halo. You said that wasn’t true. It is. Then you said I moved the goalposts. To provide evidence of your argument that my statement has changed, you had to go back to the part before the goalposts were even aligned lol.

If you want to argue about gameplay I will once again rightfully pointed out that the gameplay isn’t popular compared to more modern games. I don’t know how many people you think are willing to play a relatively barebones game like Halo that are that slow in movement, but it’s basically not gonna happen. Halo will never reach the peak it once did by rehashing it’s old self with a not even that new because of Xbox One cross-gen coat of paint.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Significant drops in online player population,

Call of Duty

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> reduced sales,

Halo was old news and never shook off the feeling that it was just slower than Call of Duty

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> practical nonexistent streaming viewership, etc.

There hasn’t even been a new game since 2015 and it was dog crap wth do you expect?

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Besides, why is this even called into question now? You yourself argued that they failed. Or are you retracting that statement as well?

Because you were the one to childishly say that my criteria for failing, which was falling from being the most popular, was nonsense and then go to redefine failure to your own argument which isn’t grounded in anything other than arbitrary interpretation of criteria that best suits your opinion on which games you liked the most.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> > 2533274793006817;5398:
> > Or are you arguing by some other standard that nobody else has argued over? Hint: Yes.
>
> Yes to the first part of the sentence, no to the second.You are not addressing the original argument, but that makes you the only one.

Honestly, you’re not even trying to make sense anymore.

  • Me 1/2: “Are you arguing by some other standard that nobody else has argued over?” - You: “Yes” - Me 2/2: “Yes.” - You: *“No to the second.”*What am I supposed to do with that?

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> False statement is still false.

97% of the most played weekly stats say I’m correct.
So cling to your 3% because 97% of the most played weekly stats say you’re wrong.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> You claimed the franchise failed when CoD4 released. I proved it didn’t.

You proved it did fail because Christmas happened and from then on it had failed to hold control of the top spot within 2 months of release. The only way Halo stays the most popular was if Christmas was cancelled. It didn’t so COD4 shortly after took the top spot and Halo as a franchise never reclaimed the top spot beyond minor blips here and there. As a franchise it was less popular from then on out.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> No, I am just correcting false statements.

No, you haven’t. The only thing you’ve managed to do is claim victory over a technicality that ignored the actual argument. If COD4 won the top weekly played spot you would say yeah but it didn’t the first day and then again claim I was wrong. If it had been the most popular for that day you would argue the first hour. If it had been the most popular for that hour you would argue the first minute. You thump your chest some more because you’re holding on to the most asinine of parameters then claim victory. It took COD4 all of two measly months to undue the entirety of Halo’s stranglehold at the top of the most played charts, and you take that as proof Halo was more popular. Are you really gonna be that childish?

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Again, because you moved the goalpost…

You’re just projecting. My statement had always been that COD has been more popular than Halo since COD4. That hasn’t changed. That’s what I originally said and that’s what I’m still saying now. Hasn’t changed.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Because you made a false claim about CoD4 and Halo that I am correcting.

Nope and nope. I said since COD4, COD has been more popular than Halo. The charts sales and every single metric back that up. You haven’t corrected anything. You’re entire argument has been, “Well technically the first eight weeks it wasn’t more popular so you’re wrong!!!” That’s asinine behavior and childish.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> However, CoD’s success has nothing to do with Halo’s decline

Never said it did. Quite the opposite. COD’s success led to Halo’s decline. COD was so popular, managing to knock off Halo from the most popular, and Halo never caught back up with it’s outdated movement. If not for COD4, Halo might still be the most popular, but it’s not because COD4 did change expectations in gaming dramatically and COD has been the most popular console shooter franchise since COD4.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Sounds pretty contradictory to me.

Because you don’t know what contradictory means. The term you’re looking for is exception, not contradiction.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> I made no such argument. In fact, I didn’t make an argument at all. You claimed Halo needs to have faster speed to be successful in todays market. Then you give an example of a successful game with low movement speed, thus completely negating your initial point.

By claiming I made a contradictory statement, you’re absolutely making that argument. It’s either that or you’re arguing those two completely different games are the same, so which is it? You’re wrong either way, so decide how you want to be wrong, because Halo isn’t like R6 Siege. Halo is a very basic arcade shooter. The only thing those two games have in common is slow player speed. Every single other successful arcade shooter has noticeably faster player movement speed. So which is it? Is Halo just like the complexity of R6 Siege or is it very basic? Because if it’s very basic, it’s not the same and if it’s not the same, it isn’t going to find that success being that slow of a shooter. So which is it?

You know, this entire argument could end if you just admit you want Halo to have slow movement speed like the old games and you don’t care what it does to the popularity of the game. Because if you’re being honest, that’s really what this comes down to. You’re not making decisions to bring new players in or to keep players engaged. You’re making arguments about what you want to see and don’t care about the expectations of the gaming populace.