The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
5402

> 2535422763112957;5363:
> > 2533274793250636;5360:
> > i can try…
> > although i liked H4, i myself feel it strays from the OG Halo flair.
> >
> > What i dont like started with Reach.
> > - jet pack
> > hated it. no skill involed, not needed at all, just a gimmick for the kids - thruster pack
> > dont like it, but has some merits for the skill gap - loadouts
> > i liked it alot. but i can see how others dislike it for “unequal” starting weapons. - ordonance drops
> > in general i dont care. but the randomness was what bothered me. to get a rocket launcher by luck is plain stupid. - sprint
> > wasnt too impactful but it speeds up the gameplay whatsoever. and thats a big one for me since Halo always was a bit leisurely. - sounds
> > too much clicks & clacks. took away some of the atmosphere. It was just too much unnecessary noise. - Armor customization
> > although i liked it (could live without it though) it took away the spartan vibe. some did look ugly, some like from another universe. but not the halo universe. - maps
> > that was my biggest one. like most BTB map but hate most of the small ones. This clustered hallway maps were never mine. no room for teamshooting, flanking took too long, less alternative route, no overview, no possible shoot from one end to the other like in many OG maps. - playlists
> > just too many “stupid” ones that thinned out the overall population. - gametypes
> > f.e. one flag/bomb with a) to little time or b) unfair advantages for one side due to non geometric (is this the right word?) maps.Most of these arent bad on itself.
> > But in mass they are distracting and fulfill no purpose.
> > The game does not need them to be good.
> > Thats why im a big supporter of reduce to the max.
> >
> > In design they say:
> > Its not perfect if you cant add anything.
> > Its perfect if you cant cut out anything.
>
> • Jetpack was one of the more skill intensive abilities, way more skill based than active Camo or any and I mean any equipment in Halo 3
> • Thruster pack: saying I don’t like is very vague and hard to rebut since I have no clue why you don’t?
> • Ordnance had some wacky RNG but does that make halo bad?
> • Reach had sprint and no one made a bug fuss so why in halo 4 is it a fuss?
> • The sound one I think we can both see how this is just very very very inconsequential.
> • Maps: What are some maps you feel this is strongest on?
> • Stupid playlist: like what? I thought they were rather fun.
> • If you have to little time it means your team is unable to complete the objective and thus should loose. The word is Asymmetrical maps. What are some examples?
>
> So you like reducing. That is not how games work. The more halos the more features because if it was vice versa we would be playing cyber punk or Halo 3 which is one of the greatest of al time but I am sure 6 Halo 3s will get really boring. I have an architect as I friend I sent that quote to and I found that is only used by minimalist, which is a very niche field. Let’s add so we can see what works and doesn’t and after adding enough we can synthesize this and start taking away

Both H4 and Reach are hot trash.

  • Jetpacks: My main issue with jetpacks are the problems it creates for map design. With that said, can you explain why jetpacks are more skillful than camo?
  • Ordinance/RNG: RNG in arena shooters should be kept to an absolute minimum. Unlike in other game types, such as battle royales, very few instances exist where RNG should be used. Generally speaking, people enjoy games which reward good gameplay and punish bad gameplay. The more RNG is in a game, the less the game does these things.
  • Reach is trash and did indeed mark the beginning of the end for the Halo franchise with the addition of enhanced mobility (and other trash mechanics). Still, at least they weren’t base mechanics like in Halo 4.
  • I can not think of one good Halo 4 map. This is not an exaggeration (same applies with Reach).
5403

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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.

This Thread has gotten a bit messy, could repost your source that CoD took over Halos spot as #1 console shooter due to Halos “outdated movement”?

5404

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> You said I tried to move the goalpost […] 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.

Uh… yes. You claimed that Halo failed when CoD4 released. You were proven wrong. Then, in order to salvage your false claim, you redefined “failure” as “not being played the most online”. (Which in and of itself is already ludicrous because it implies that A) if Halo had even one single player less than CoD it would still be a failure and B) Halo CE was never actually successful in the first place, as it couldn’t be played online.) I then quoted the original statements in order to point out that discrepancy.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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.

…to which there isn’t a shred of evidence, as Halo’s decline started years after these games rose in popularity and there hasn’t been a classic Halo released in over a decade.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 2533274801176260;5399:
> > Significant drops in online player population,
>
> Call of Duty

Has nothing to do with Halo’s decline, which occured years after CoD rose in popularity, and the playerbases have little to no overlap in a Venn diagram, as was already proven multiple times.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 2533274801176260;5399:
> > reduced sales,
>
> Halo was old news and never shook off the feeling that it was just slower than Call of Duty

Fair enough. Although that just proves that advanced movement doesn’t fix the issue.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> Because you were the one to childishly say that my criteria for failing, which was falling from being the most popular, was nonsense

I actually haven’t said it was nonsense before this post, I just said it wasn’t what the original argument was about, since you moved the goalpost.
However, it is. See above.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> and then go to redefine failure to your own argument

No, I didn’t redefine anything, I went back to what the original argument was actually about, before you… well, you know how this sentence ends.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> that best suits your opinion on which games you liked the most.

Oh this, should be great.
Pray tell, which Halo games do I like the most?
Apparently it’s easy to identify from my posts.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> Honestly, you’re not even trying to make sense anymore. […] What am I supposed to do with that?

I said: Yes to the first part of the sentence. (Or are you arguing by some other standard) No to the second. (that nobody else has argued over?)
You are the only one not addressing this “standard” as you call it.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 97% of the most played weekly stats say I’m correct.

No, it doesn’t.
First, Call of Duty being popular months later is not the same thing as “once CoD4 released”.
Second, 26 out of 52 weeks in 2008 is not 97%.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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.

A) You are once again using your misguided retroactive redefinition of “failure” that would allow you to save face. I am not. I am using the one from the original argument.
B) Two months later is still not “once CoD4 released”.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> No, you haven’t. The only thing you’ve managed to do is claim victory over a technicality that ignored the actual argument.

Yes. That’s literally the point. You are ignoring the original argument by trying to hide in technicalities about your redefinitions of the words “success” and “failure”.
Also, it seems now you have also started to redefine how time works.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> You thump your chest some more because you’re holding on to the most asinine of parameters then claim victory.

So player numbers, sales, etc. are asinine parameters, but being on the Top Spot of the Xbox Live charts isn’t?
The more you know…

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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?

No, because I never said Halo was more popular. In fact, I literally started my second post with the statement “Nobody is denying that CoD had more players than Halo from 2008 onwards.”

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> You’re just projecting. My statement had always been that COD has been more popular than Halo since COD4.

Except that wasn’t what the original argument was about.
Regardless, this statement is still completely irrelevant to the discussion, as this is not about CoD’s popularity, it’s about Halo’s.
If CoD didn’t exist, we’d still have the exact same discussion once Halo lost 80% of its playerbase.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 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.

…wat?
So CoD’s success has nothing to do with Halo’s decline… even though it led to Halo’s decline?
To quote yourself: “Honestly, you’re not even trying to make sense anymore. What am I supposed to do with that?”

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> Because you don’t know what contradictory means. The term you’re looking for is exception, not contradiction.

It takes only one counterexample to disprove a universal statement.
The fact that one exception exists, makes it contradictory.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> By claiming I made a contradictory statement, you’re absolutely making that argument.

No, I’m not. I’m analyzing your claims and noticed they contradict each other. I never said “Halo would be successful with slow movement” or “Halo would be successful if it were Siege”… or any argument at all.

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> because Halo isn’t like R6 Siege.

Obvious fact is obvious.
That still has nothing to do with your contradiction.
If “gamers as a whole have moved beyond [slow movement]”, then I suppose Siege exists outside of the gaming community or something?

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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.

It could, but I don’t.
To both things, that is.
I do want Halo to have faster movement speed and I do care what it does to the popularity of the game.

5405

> 2533274793006817;5401:
> 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.

I haven’t followed the debate you two have been having, because frankly I just don’t care about the premise (whether Halo should be fast and slow). However, this sounds odd to me given that CoD isn’t known for having a fast movement speed. It is a modern military shooter with fast kill times portraying regular humans, so I’d be surprised if the sprint speed was significantly faster than classic Halo movement speed (I could buy it being marginally faster), and the base movement speed is certainly slower than that of classic Halo.

In fact, I struggle to think successful modern shooters that definitely have faster movement speed than classic Halo. Doom is the only one that comes to mind. If you have any concrete data about the movement speed in popular shooters, that’d be great. If not, talking about “proof” seems a bit premature. I’d almost argue the opposite: arena shooters died off in mid 2000’s. CoD took over and was the antithesis of that with its sprint-stop-shoot gameplay, and most shooters today base their movement loop around CoD’s and not that of arena shooters. Until you see games with Quake-like movement starting to dominate, I’m not inclined to believe that gamers actually prefer faster movement speed.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a million ways in which games like CoD might feel more frantic than Halo, and be preferred by players because of that. (Though with the success of Fortnite I’m not sure how far that’s going to last either.) It’s just that movement speed really doesn’t seem to be one of them.

5406

> 2535449076192416;5355:
> > 2535458188883243;5354:
> > > 2535422763112957;5352:
> > > > 2535458188883243;5351:
> > > > > 2533274825726490;5350:
> > > > > > 2533274918448131;5343:
> > > > > > > 2533274916208325;5326:
> > > > > > > I hope its like Halo 4 controls but very well refined
> > > > > >
> > > > > > halo 4 was an absolute major downstep for the franchise.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least bullets registered and aiming wasn’t different every game. Ordinance, descope and classes. But maps, gameplay, shot was all pretty good.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong, not good at all.
> > >
> > > But why was it bad. Please converse in an intelligent manner
> >
> > It’s already known why H4 is hot garbage, no need to retread ground already run over a thousand times.
>
> I think, if only for conversational etiquette, it would be wise to retread those grounds, or at least show him where to find a good explanation.
>
> I agree Halos 4 and 5 weren’t the best, but it’s getting a bit bothersome watching you shout about how terrible everything is without any productive reasoning as to why. Not everyone is as educated in these matters as you, so please remember that the next time you consider replying to someone.

Hold up. What does this guy have on his Halo resume that I don’t? I’m in the top 1 percentile of these games. I actually understand top comletitive play. So when I say hey halo 5 was a step back from 4 there are reasons important to me as a player why.

5407

> 2533274825830455;5405:
> > 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 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.
>
> I haven’t followed the debate you two have been having, because frankly I just don’t care about the premise (whether Halo should be fast and slow). However, this sounds odd to me given that CoD isn’t known for having a fast movement speed. It is a modern military shooter with fast kill times portraying regular humans, so I’d be surprised if the sprint speed was significantly faster than classic Halo movement speed (I could buy it being marginally faster), and the base movement speed is certainly slower than that of classic Halo.
>
> In fact, I struggle to think successful modern shooters that definitely have faster movement speed than classic Halo. Doom is the only one that comes to mind. If you have any concrete data about the movement speed in popular shooters, that’d be great. If not, talking about “proof” seems a bit premature. I’d almost argue the opposite: arena shooters died off in mid 2000’s. CoD took over and was the antithesis of that with its sprint-stop-shoot gameplay, and most shooters today base their movement loop around CoD’s and not that of arena shooters. Until you see games with Quake-like movement starting to dominate, I’m not inclined to believe that gamers actually prefer faster movement speed.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, there are a million ways in which games like CoD might feel more frantic than Halo, and be preferred by players because of that. (Though with the success of Fortnite I’m not sure how far that’s going to last either.) It’s just that movement speed really doesn’t seem to be one of them.

You could say however Halo hasn’t had a high population consistant since the removal of quicker movement speed. With the transition to Reach Halo lost what made it’s identity. The reason why 4 flopped so hard was because it literally had no rankig system gimmick chased again aka ordinance and things so far away from the Halo franchise when black ops 2 dropped anyone who wasn’t competing in H4 easily switched to the one of the best cods launched with ranked. H4s population tanked unlike Reach and H5 while a more competitive game until they broke aim suffered the samr fate. Gimmick chasing zero identity. And the 5000 on at one time vs 100k of Reach and 300k of h3 after a year plus should be a reminder of where we are. Slower sprint will make it much easier to build competitive maps because of scale. Increased accel or movement speed really only affects strafe on the micro level, remember we arent moving crazy fast just
.25-.5 faster. Halo 5 had such a hard time with flow on maps because of sprint. FTP is going to helo but if you don’t think there was a reason people played classic Halo 300k vs 5k should be a big eye opener. As much as I love being a boomer gone zoomer in H5 clasic movement speed will help bring back Halos identity.

5408

> 2533274793250636;5356:
> You need to have some skill to judge the impact of certain perks/weapons/balance.
> If someone is just too bad, dying all day and therefore has no fun, its easy to blame it on the starting weapon, ordonance drops or something else.
> Doesnt make the game bad.

I was a 2.0 player and still disagree. Randomness makes the game bad. You shiuldn’t need a crutch to win in arena Halo. Lowered skill gap all day I want to play halo not Uno.

5409

> 2533274825830455;5405:
> However, this sounds odd to me given that CoD isn’t known for having a fast movement speed. It is a modern military shooter with fast kill times portraying regular humans, so I’d be surprised if the sprint speed was significantly faster than classic Halo movement speed (I could buy it being marginally faster), and the base movement speed is certainly slower than that of classic Halo.

Depends on which sprint you’re talking about.
After looking it up online I found that 100% BMS in Modern Warfare is 5m/s (which gets reduced depending on the gun you’re holding). Regular sprint speed is 6.5m/s (+30%) while tactical sprint reaches 7.5m/s (+50%). Not sure about other titles in the franchise.
Battlefield 4, btw, has a BMS of 4m/s and a sprint speed is 6.5m/s, as taken from the game files.
Compare that to Halo which had a BMS of 7m/s in the original trilogy.
I also found this infographic, which compares movement speeds across several franchises. Although it should be noted that they got Halo’s speed slightly wrong, so something similar could be expected from the other values.

5410

> 2535444514063000;5402:
> > 2535422763112957;5363:
> > > 2533274793250636;5360:
> > > i can try…
> > > although i liked H4, i myself feel it strays from the OG Halo flair.
> > >
> > > What i dont like started with Reach.
> > > - jet pack
> > > hated it. no skill involed, not needed at all, just a gimmick for the kids - thruster pack
> > > dont like it, but has some merits for the skill gap - loadouts
> > > i liked it alot. but i can see how others dislike it for “unequal” starting weapons. - ordonance drops
> > > in general i dont care. but the randomness was what bothered me. to get a rocket launcher by luck is plain stupid. - sprint
> > > wasnt too impactful but it speeds up the gameplay whatsoever. and thats a big one for me since Halo always was a bit leisurely. - sounds
> > > too much clicks & clacks. took away some of the atmosphere. It was just too much unnecessary noise. - Armor customization
> > > although i liked it (could live without it though) it took away the spartan vibe. some did look ugly, some like from another universe. but not the halo universe. - maps
> > > that was my biggest one. like most BTB map but hate most of the small ones. This clustered hallway maps were never mine. no room for teamshooting, flanking took too long, less alternative route, no overview, no possible shoot from one end to the other like in many OG maps. - playlists
> > > just too many “stupid” ones that thinned out the overall population. - gametypes
> > > f.e. one flag/bomb with a) to little time or b) unfair advantages for one side due to non geometric (is this the right word?) maps.Most of these arent bad on itself.
> > > But in mass they are distracting and fulfill no purpose.
> > > The game does not need them to be good.
> > > Thats why im a big supporter of reduce to the max.
> > >
> > > In design they say:
> > > Its not perfect if you cant add anything.
> > > Its perfect if you cant cut out anything.
> >
> > • Jetpack was one of the more skill intensive abilities, way more skill based than active Camo or any and I mean any equipment in Halo 3
> > • Thruster pack: saying I don’t like is very vague and hard to rebut since I have no clue why you don’t?
> > • Ordnance had some wacky RNG but does that make halo bad?
> > • Reach had sprint and no one made a bug fuss so why in halo 4 is it a fuss?
> > • The sound one I think we can both see how this is just very very very inconsequential.
> > • Maps: What are some maps you feel this is strongest on?
> > • Stupid playlist: like what? I thought they were rather fun.
> > • If you have to little time it means your team is unable to complete the objective and thus should loose. The word is Asymmetrical maps. What are some examples?
> >
> > So you like reducing. That is not how games work. The more halos the more features because if it was vice versa we would be playing cyber punk or Halo 3 which is one of the greatest of al time but I am sure 6 Halo 3s will get really boring. I have an architect as I friend I sent that quote to and I found that is only used by minimalist, which is a very niche field. Let’s add so we can see what works and doesn’t and after adding enough we can synthesize this and start taking away
>
> Both H4 and Reach are hot trash.
>
> - Jetpacks: My main issue with jetpacks are the problems it creates for map design. With that said, can you explain why jetpacks are more skillful than camo?
> - Ordinance/RNG: RNG in arena shooters should be kept to an absolute minimum. Unlike in other game types, such as battle royales, very few instances exist where RNG should be used. Generally speaking, people enjoy games which reward good gameplay and punish bad gameplay. The more RNG is in a game, the less the game does these things.
> - Reach is trash and did indeed mark the beginning of the end for the Halo franchise with the addition of enhanced mobility (and other trash mechanics). Still, at least they weren’t base mechanics like in Halo 4.
> - I can not think of one good Halo 4 map. This is not an exaggeration (same applies with Reach).

  • With Camo you can run around invisible smacking one in the back but with jetpack you have to use it strategically in burst to move in combat (not out of it)
  • But does ordnance the thing that ruins Halo 4?
  • This point has nothing to do with the one I make
  • I asked for an example from the original poster so when you give me a incoherent answer that waste both your time and mine
  • If you are going to reply to me answer all my points please and do not pick and choose which comes you want to fight, it only makes your argument look very weak
5411

> 2533274801176260;5409:
> > 2533274825830455;5405:
> > However, this sounds odd to me given that CoD isn’t known for having a fast movement speed. It is a modern military shooter with fast kill times portraying regular humans, so I’d be surprised if the sprint speed was significantly faster than classic Halo movement speed (I could buy it being marginally faster), and the base movement speed is certainly slower than that of classic Halo.
>
> Depends on which sprint you’re talking about.
> After looking it up online I found that 100% BMS in Modern Warfare is 5m/s (which gets reduced depending on the gun you’re holding). Regular sprint speed is 6.5m/s (+30%) while tactical sprint reaches 7.5m/s (+50%). Not sure about other titles in the franchise.
> Battlefield 4, btw, has a BMS of 4m/s and a sprint speed is 6.5m/s, as taken from the game files.
> Compare that to Halo which had a BMS of 7m/s in the original trilogy.
> I also found this infographic, which compares movement speeds across several franchises. Although it should be noted that they got Halo’s speed slightly wrong, so something similar could be expected from the other values.

Cool. That’s exactly what I was looking for but my quick googling gave nothing useful. That’s about what I expected: sprinting in CoD (tactical or not) is in the ball park of classic Halo BMS.

They did not get the speed in the infographic wrong. They’re using the conversion 2.25 WU/s = 22.5 feet/s = 6.86 m/s (not 6.85, but you get my point). Basically 1 world unit is 10 feet, it’s eerily precise. I’d say too exact to be a coincidence. I’m pretty sure it was intentional to ease the job of making correctly proportioned models. In fact, in Halo 5 Forge 343i made this official: a 256’ by 256’ block is exactly 25.6 by 25.6 world units.

5412

> 2535422763112957;5410:
> - If you are going to reply to me answer all my points please and do not pick and choose which comes you want to fight, it only makes your argument look very weak

There’s no requirement anywhere to adress every single point another person provide.

A poster may simply not have any opinion on specific points you’ve provided, not have enough knowledge, or perhaps agree with it but feel it not necessary to point that out.
So it is simply ok not to poke at every single one of your points, especially when they aren’t related to each other, such as, jetpack and reqs.

Or do we have to arbitrarily require you to answer every single user who quoted you in a chronological order? And then if you don’t, just assume that you just pick out the easy stuff to answer, and call your arguments weak?

5413

> 2533274793006817;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.

No it wasn’t halo 3 had 2.3 million players for like 3 years including the year that cod 4 released in and besides why are we talking about cod to begin with ???

5414

> 2535407747275549;5413:
> No it wasn’t halo 3 had 2.3 million players for like 3 years including the year that cod 4 released in and besides why are we talking about cod to begin with ???

  • 2.3 million players by what metric? The highest number of unique users within 24 hours in Halo 3 on record is about 1.65 million right after release of ODST. The typical number of unique users in 24 hours was around 800,000 in the 2008–2009 period. In 2010 it was around 600,000. See this graph. - CoD was overall more popular than Halo since the start of 2008. During most weeks in 2008 CoD 4 had more weekly unique users than Halo 3 had. After WaW released, it split the total CoD population, and Halo spent the majority of weeks as the most played game on XBL. However, it’s highly likely given the success of CoD 4 in the previous year that the combined population of CoD 4 and WaW was higher than that of Halo 3 individually. After the release of MW2, Halo was never again the most played game on XBL. The relevant data is here.Halo 3 was exceptionally popular, and did extremely well given how popular CoD was. But I don’t think we benefit from pretending that Halo 3 was completely unbeatable. CoD being more popular doesn’t make Halo 3 a failure.
5415

> 2533274801176260;5404:
> > 2533274793006817;5401:
> > You said I tried to move the goalpost […] 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.
>
> Uh… yes. You claimed that Halo failed when CoD4 released. You were proven wrong.

This is flat out wrong. Either you genuinely misunderstood my argument or you’re intentionally misportraying my argument. It hasn’t changed at all: Halo has failed to be the console industry leader since the release of COD4. That’s always been the argument. It never changed.

“That point being the release of Call of Duty 4 which was the point the COD franchise ate its lunch and Halo never recovered.” At which point QtoCool, who also clearly understood we were talking about the most popular online console shooters, responded that CoD4 was on multiple consoles, to which I replied:
“COD was more popular on 360 alone than Halo?” It has clearly been established this point since the beginning was always about the most popular console shooter online. That was always the argument being made. Those are literally the first two posts on this issue that compare CoD and Halo in popularity. Even if you misunderstood the first post, there is no excuse for you lying about the second. That is as clear cut as it gets. How more clear does it get what my point was about than “COD was more popular on 360 alone than Halo?” There is no room for your intentionally fraudulent conjecture over what I said.

Since CoD4 was released the Call of Duty franchise has been the most popular console shooter franchise over Halo. You can claim the first 8 weeks after CoD4’s launch negates the following 13+ years since then all you want. The statement still stands.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> > 2533274793006817;5401:
> > Halo was old news and never shook off the feeling that it was just slower than Call of Duty
>
> Fair enough. Although that just proves that advanced movement doesn’t fix the issue.

Sprint is not advanced movement. Halo 5 has advanced movement. CoD4 does not. It has sprint.

> 2533274801176260;5399:
> > 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 97% of the most played weekly stats say I’m correct.
>
> No, it doesn’t.
> First, Call of Duty being popular months later is not the same thing as “once CoD4 released”.
> Second, 26 out of 52 weeks in 2008 is not 97%.

You’re intentionally being obtuse. 13+ years, 97% of which CoD has bested Halo in terms of popularity (which admittedly is an approximation over 13 years, not a verified number). Enough of your Strawmen arguments. You have lied about what I’ve said repeatedly and I’m not going to bother with you and I’m not going to let you suck me into some other lie about what I said.

Also, CoD definitively, irrefutably bested Halo 32 verified weeks in 2008. You couldn’t even count the number of weeks CoD beat Halo right. CoD4 was most popular for 26 weeks, World at War for 1 week. CoD4 at #2 bested Halo 3 at #3 for 5 additional weeks. And based on the graph CoD likely won an additional 4 weeks.

I’m done playing your games which means you’re done. Please leave me alone. Do not reply, you’ll be screaming into the void.

> 2533274825830455;5411:
> Cool. That’s exactly what I was looking for but my quick googling gave nothing useful. That’s about what I expected: sprinting in CoD (tactical or not) is in the ball park of classic Halo BMS.

Except your character is bigger. You’re proportionately 16% bigger meaning your effective movement speed is about 14% slower. To make this more clear cut, let’s make the divide wider to make the point more clear: a mouse has a max speed that’s a third of a human’s, but are mice typically portrayed or thought of as fast or slow? Why? Because they are harder to catch and target.

> 2533274801973487;5403:
> > 2533274793006817;5401:
> > 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.
>
> This Thread has gotten a bit messy, could repost your source that CoD took over Halos spot as #1 console shooter due to Halos “outdated movement”?

Sure. Sales and Xbox live weekly most played. Celestis has posted the link a few times. After Christmas of 07, CoD4 had the majority of weeks in 07 at the top and then World at War split the CoD4 base but added even more players, and then did the same in 09, which is when MW2 came out, and then after that CoD would have several of the most played titles meanwhile Halo would only have a singular title as the most popular near the top.

5416

> 2533274825830455;5411:
> They did not get the speed in the infographic wrong. They’re using the conversion 2.25 WU/s = 22.5 feet/s = 6.86 m/s (not 6.85, but you get my point). Basically 1 world unit is 10 feet, it’s eerily precise. I’d say too exact to be a coincidence. I’m pretty sure it was intentional to ease the job of making correctly proportioned models. In fact, in Halo 5 Forge 343i made this official: a 256’ by 256’ block is exactly 25.6 by 25.6 world units.

Is that confirmed by the developers (either ones) to translate into tenths of feet? Because to my knowledge, Bungie used the metric system (as evidenced by the units of the Nav Points in campaign) and set Chief’s movement speed to exactly Seven.
It also agrees more with my speed measurements, which consistently yield 7m/s on a sub-percent-level, across all three games.
Although I always did wonder why that would translate to such odd world unit lengths.

EDIT: The Infographic also mentions that the speed value is based on the assumption that Chief is 2.13m high, when Halopedia actually lists him at 2.18m including Mjolnir (although it doesn’t mention which Mjolnir). However, when you multiply their estimated 6.85m/s with the 102.35% height discrepancy you arrive at 7.01m/s.

5417

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> Except your character is bigger. You’re proportionately 16% bigger meaning your effective movement speed is about 14% slower.

Chief is roughly 17.2% bigger than the character Alex from Modern Warfare (which I’ll be taking in lieu of a general character model height in the game’s multiplayer).
Meaning that for both games to have the same relative speed, Halo would have to also be 17.2% faster.
In reality though, Halo CE’s movement speed is 40% higher than MW’s BMS, 7.7% higher than its sprint speed and 6.7% lower than the tactical sprint.
Whether you count Halo as having faster or lower movement than CoD thus depends on which speed you’re comparing to.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> At which point QtoCool, who also clearly understood we were talking about the most popular online console shooters,

So what? QtoCool wasn’t the one you were replying to initially. Recon Avenger was. So you move the goalpost, somebody else joins you in changing the topic and that supposedly proves that the initial topic was something else entirely?

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> It has clearly been established this point since the beginning was always about the most popular console shooter online. That was always the argument being made.

No it wasn’t. Recon Avenger’s initial statement was: “It’s an entirely separate game that has succeeded in the past up until a point where the gameplay had a fundamental change.”
Halo changed its gameplay during the Reach/4 era, which was years after CoD’s rise in success. Therefore, it’s blatantly obvious that “most played game” is not the metric being discussed in terms of “success”.
You either deliberately chose not to address the argument being made (“Strawman”) or you did actually misunderstand it and then failed to own up to you mistake and pretend the discussion was different from the get-go (“Moving the goalpost”).
So which is it? You’re wrong either way, so decide how you want to be wrong.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> How more clear does it get what my point was about than “COD was more popular on 360 alone than Halo?” There is no room for your intentionally fraudulent conjecture over what I said.

There is no fradulent conjecture. I know what you said. The point is that it had nothing to do with the original argument being made.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> Sprint is not advanced movement. Halo 5 has advanced movement. CoD4 does not. It has sprint.

Sprint is advanced movement. Look through the hundreds of pages in this thread (and its brother in the H5G forum), sprint has always been discussed as part of AMM.
Or is this another case of you redefining words at your leisure so your argument doesn’t suck?

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> You’re intentionally being obtuse. 13+ years, 97% of which CoD has bested Halo in terms of popularity

The years past 2010 (i.e. Reach’s release) do not factor into this issue, because you claimed that Halo lost its popularity before it changed its gameplay.
And it’s still not 97%, even if you add in 2009 and 2010 into the statistic. At best its 2/3rds.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> You have lied about what I’ve said repeatedly

I am literally quoting your statements that I refer to. If you want to convict me of lying, you have to do better than an empty accusation.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> Also, CoD definitively, irrefutably bested Halo 32 verified weeks in 2008. You couldn’t even count the number of weeks CoD beat Halo right.

I didn’t count the numbers where CoD had a higher placement than Halo, I counted the number where CoD was “the most popular franchise on Xbox Live”, which was what you actually claimed. Because if it isn’t in the Top 1 spot, then it failed, according to your logic.

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> I’m done playing your games which means you’re done. Do not reply, you’ll be screaming into the void.

Good. That means I no longer have to correct your faulty statements.

5418

> 2533274825830455;5414:
> After the release of MW2, Halo was never again the most played game on XBL. The relevant data is here.

Just a small correction: There are two points past MW2 where Halo regained its pole position, on the releases of Reach and Halo 4, respectively.

5419

> > 2533274793006817;5415:
> > At which point QtoCool, who also clearly understood we were talking about the most popular online console shooters,
>
> So what?

That’s the best argument made so far. :wink:

I made my argument regardless of what someone else said. My argument has never changed no matter who I replied to originally. ‘Halo has failed to be the most popular console shooter since CoD4,’ was the sentiment made and always has been. CoD has been the most popular online multiplayer console shooter over this time period to now. Crying over 8 weeks isn’t going to change that.

> > 13+ years, 97% of which CoD has bested Halo in terms of popularity
>
> "And it’s still not 97%, even if you add in 2009 and 2010 into the statistic. At best its 2/3rds.

Thinking we live in a world where 2008, 2009, and 2010 lasted for 13+ years actually explains a lot about this argument.

> 2535407747275549;5413:
> No it wasn’t halo 3 had 2.3 million players for like 3 years including the year that cod 4 released in and besides why are we talking about cod to begin with ???

The CoD franchise had more players over those years than the Halo franchise. CoD4 was definitively the top of the active played for 26 of those weeks in 2008. It was also definitively played more than Halo 3 on 5 additional weeks. World at War was verifiably the most played game for 1 week. On top of this, based on the graph, it is likely CoD4 was the most popular title for an additional 4 weeks. The number of weeks during 2008 that CoD was likely ahead of Halo is 36 weeks. World at War managing to be the 6th most popular online title for the entirety of 2008 despite being out for only 7 weeks means that while Halo 3 alone might have the most popular title, franchise vs franchise CoD bested Halo. It won more weeks head to head and had more games on or near the top spot and lost popularity only due to another CoD being released, which again managed to be the 6th most popular for the entire year in just a 1/7 of the year. In 2009, CoD had the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most popular online games and split times at the top with Halo 3 as well as one another. The numbers can only point to CoD being more popular on the whole than Halo at that point even though Halo 3 was the most popular single title.

Anyways, this is brought up because of sprint. Call of Duty has it therefore it’s bad, or so some here would have you believe. Personally if they didn’t bring back sprint they would have to ratchet up the base player speed significantly. Without doing either the game’s playerbase will be limited to indeterminate portions of those still playing TMCC and those still playing H5.

5420

Oh, so what was that about “I’m done playing your games which means you’re done. Do not reply, you’ll be screaming into the void.”?
It seems to me you do want to reply, but remove all references to whom you’re replying, probably in part so I don’t get that little notification and you can spout nonsense unchecked.
Not on my watch.

> 2533274793006817;5419:
> > 2533274801176260;5417:
> > So what?
>
> That’s the best argument made so far. :wink:

What else am I supposed to say when you bring up somebody else replying to you after changing the topic as alleged proof of you not changing the topic?

> 2533274793006817;5419:
> I made my argument regardless of what someone else said.

That was pretty obvious from your second post. You directly quoted somebody, ignored their argument, changed the topic and then claimed the discussion was about something else from the start and act pissed when you get called out on it.

> 2533274793006817;5419:
> Thinking we live in a world where 2008, 2009, and 2010 lasted for 13+ years actually explains a lot about this argument.

Thinking we live in a world where 2011 to 2020 are before “a point where the gameplay had a fundamental change” actually explains a lot about this argument.
But as we have already established, time seems to move differently in your reality anyways, as for you two months equals instantaneously and somebody posting after you is the same as before you.

5421

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> Except your character is bigger. You’re proportionately 16% bigger meaning your effective movement speed is about 14% slower. To make this more clear cut, let’s make the divide wider to make the point more clear: a mouse has a max speed that’s a third of a human’s, but are mice typically portrayed or thought of as fast or slow? Why? Because they are harder to catch and target.

It’s of course always possible to move the goal posts and contrive some arbitrary standards. But I’m not interested in going there at the moment. The comment of yours I quoted was specifically about “movement speed”. Speed is understood commonly as units of distance per time. Since it is now established that the absolute sprint speed in CoD is in the same ball park as the absolute base movement in classic Halo, my work for the moment is done.

> 2533274801176260;5416:
> Is that confirmed by the developers (either ones) to translate into tenths of feet? Because to my knowledge, Bungie used the metric system (as evidenced by the units of the Nav Points in campaign) and set Chief’s movement speed to exactly Seven.
> It also agrees more with my speed measurements, which consistently yield 7m/s on a sub-percent-level, across all three games.
> Although I always did wonder why that would translate to such odd world unit lengths.

To be clear, to my knowledge, Bungie has never addressed the rationale of their engine’s unit system. Given the magnitude of the coincidence, I just see it see it as overwhelmingly probable that this is how the conversion came about.

Thanks for mentioning the checkpoints and the metric system though. This made me think of the sniper scope and the distance it shows says about the units. So I set up two Xboxes in system link, went to Sandbox in Halo 3, and put my two players exactly 50 units apart (at least to the precision with which the coordinates are shown) at positions (-3.200,-33.999) and (-3.200,16.001), and the sniper scope showed 152.63. Now, if the 1:10 conversion was true, this would be 152.4. This extra 23 centimeters might be difference in vertical positions because the ground on Sandbox is kinda bumpy, though I doubt it because at a distance this long it shouldn’t make that much of a difference. My guess is that it is because the sniper rifle scope doesn’t measure the distance between the players, but the distance between the sniper rifle and the player. Anyway, this demonstrates that in Halo 3 the 1:10 conversion is good at least to within one part in 600.