The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
5422

> 2533274825830455;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.

As long as no one is trying to claim they have the same speed relative to the player’s movement that’s fine.

5423

> 2533274795123910;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?

The argument is poor if one can only answer a 3rd of my points. If you agree tell me so I doesn’t look like you have no good reply to my points.

5424

> 2533274793006817;5415:
> > 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 COD was so popular, managing to knock off Halo from the most popular, and Halo never caught back up with it’s outdated movement.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.

So no, you do not have any evidence that Halo has lost it’s spot due to it’s movement?
After all, CoD has brought much more to the table:

  • exposure on all 3 systems (and before you go on telling me about how you only accounted for XBL, please keep in mind that you social peers have some sort of influence over you… CoD has the advantage simply because everyone has the opportunity to be part of the discussion no matter if you were running a PC/PS or 360) - Gameplay that not only allows new and casual players to achieve small victories extremely fast due to how easy it is to get at least 1 o 2 kills every game whilst giving even semi good players the feeling of power due to the kill streak system - semi realistic settingIf you really want to draw conclusions based on correlation try this:
    Halo 3 (with it’s classic movement) keept it’s playerbase and a top 3 spot on XBL until Reach came along.
    Reach, H4 and 5 (with their pseudo modern movement) did not do so well…
    So while CoD (and now stuff like Fortnite) did take over Halos spot as #1 console shooter by offering a different style of game then Halo and getting more new players invested in their game, Halo tried to follow that trend but did not succeed.
5425

I’ve been roughly following but i’ll throw my hat into the ring.

  1. Kill time is more important than move speed with how speed is perceived. CoD could remove sprint and it would still be a twitch shooter in a way Halo could never be.

  2. The ‘downfall’ of Halos popularity is an odd topic that no-one can seem to place. Being top 2 or top 3 most played at any point isn’t a downfall. Reach had some fundamental flaws, but it was only once the changeover happened and CE anniversary released that players knew there was no more content coming. Take a look at pop numbers of reach 2011 vs 2012 for a good picture. Reach would of been fine if it had maps, a good ranked and removal of bloom then retooling of the DMR (less zoom). AAs were controversial but was 1 issue. H4 sought to resolve issues made in reach, or at least that is what it seemed with the marketing, only to be diverted further away from the desired outcome.

  3. In terms of perceived speed i would argue fortnite, siege, csgo, valorant, rogue company, CoD warzone, apex legends and most shooters on the market are slower games than classic Halo in terms of the average pace across 1 game. If Halo is outdated due to lack of modern movement mechanics then why do most of the popular games now not have many of them? Or that Halo tanked when it went that direction. Halo 4 had less competition than Reach, it was mostly just Black Ops 2 and Minecraft, it still never really landed in top 5 that often (outside top 10 commonly), unlike Reach which was nearly always top 5 until H4.

  4. No matter who it is no-one can seem to guess what the anti-sprint crowd want. It isn’t about slow movement it’s about 1 movement speed. To be able to turn and move in any direction with the same speed and shoot at any time. The 1 quality completely changes what the game feels like. You could have quick jump speed, crouch speed, strafe acceleration, cracked movespeed quake style, high fov and while it might be overkill and not the ideal result, it would be a closer bullseye to the desired outcome than the path chosen. Many / most don’t want a Halo 3, or even a lack of movement options, but a uniform single movespeed. I’m a big advocate of jetpack and evade pick-ups from Reach, it’s about spawn traits mostly, and that sprint is a boring traversal mechanic when it isn’t a spawn trait.

Until someone can look at point 4 and not brush it off or call it a lie is the moment i know the discussion is in good faith.

5426

It seems to me the only metric you need to determine what players prefer is to measure player count of MCC vs Guardians, in which MCC’s popularity dwarfs that of Guardians.

5427

> 2670661386182421;5426:
> It seems to me the only metric you need to determine what players prefer is to measure player count of MCC vs Guardians, in which MCC’s popularity dwarfs that of Guardians.

I’ve always thought that this would be an important metric to 343.

They have the population numbers across the games. They know who is playing what. And they would have detailed break down of the population; age, location, time playing, potential for growth, and likelihood to splurge on transactions.

5428

> 2533274801973487;5424:
> - exposure on all 3 systems (and before you go on telling me about how you only accounted for XBL, please keep in mind that you social peers have some sort of influence over you… CoD has the advantage simply because everyone has the opportunity to be part of the discussion no matter if you were running a PC/PS or 360)

You just negated your own argument by putting in that excuse. “You social peers” has zero validity to the argument. The popularity on Xbox Live would have propeeled popularity onto other systems, not the other way around. XBL market dominance in online gaming at that point means PS3 and PC numbers would have been boosted by XBL if anything, not the other way around as you claim.

> 2533274801973487;5424:
> Halo 3 (with it’s classic movement) keept it’s playerbase and a top 3 spot on XBL until Reach came along.

Halo never managed to grow an audience once CoD 4 was released due to its slow movement. Reach couldn’t replicate it, hence its failure, and Halo 4 for all its attempts was simply surpassed in all other areas by Black Ops 2. Halo 5 was just a poor mans Advanced Warfare. By the time (2012) Halo was in the same ballpark as Call of Duty in one aspect, it was eclipsed in every other aspect.

Making the game feel slow like Halo 3 is not going to bring it back to Halo 3’s glory days, much less the actual market dominance of Halo 2 glory days. That was 13 years ago since Halo was the industry leader. That population of players are gone. Tons of them moved on to games that evolved past September 2007, quit gaming in general, and tons have literally died in that time span. If your only goal is to usurp TMCC’s current population and an indeterminate chunk of H5’s population and not reach anybody else, slow plodding gameplay is an excellent strategy.

5429

> 2533274793006817;5428:
> and tons have literally died in that time span.

:smiley:

5430

> 2533274793006817;5428:
> Halo never managed to grow an audience once CoD 4 was released due to its slow movement.

I’m still confused why you are holding onto this claim given that

  • it was shown that CoD does not have faster movement speed than Halo, - the evidence from other popular games (e.g. games listed by TheCelticDragon in this comment) suggests that slow movement games are quite popular, - games with actually fast movement (e.g., Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes) have been unpopular since mid 2000’s and have never caught on on consoles.Let me be clear: “Halo never managed to grow an audience once CoD 4 was released” is completely true. What comes after it is just plainly false.
5431

> 2533274825830455;5430:
> > 2533274793006817;5428:
> > Halo never managed to grow an audience once CoD 4 was released due to its slow movement.
>
> I’m still confused why you are holding onto this claim given that
> - it was shown that CoD does not have faster movement speed than Halo, - the evidence from other popular games (e.g. games listed by TheCelticDragon in this comment) suggests that slow movement games are quite popular, - games with actually fast movement (e.g., Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes) have been unpopular since mid 2000’s and have never caught on on consoles.Let me be clear: “Halo never managed to grow an audience once CoD 4 was released” is completely true. What comes after it is just plainly false.

No, it was proven if those numbers are true. If you’re the size of Godzilla and you move the speed of a person, and everyone else is the size of Godzilla that is relatively very slow movement. You’re the size of a city block but it takes you a minute to move a city block you would be moving slowly relative to your size, yes or no? Despite moving at technically the same speed as a human, you are moving slowly because someone that size should be moving faster relative to their size. If you’re the size of an ant, and the opponent is the size of an ant and you move at human speed, you are moving at a much faster relative pace. Despite the fact that both are technically moving at the same speed, the movement as Godzilla would be relatively slower than as the size of an ant, correct?
Now, you you say it’s easier to hit a target moving the same speed as a human if it were Godzilla or a human? How much faster would Godzilla have to move to make it the same relative difficulty as targeting a human. Much faster right? Wow. Amazing.

OK, so Halo 3 is 7 foot tall Spartans. The characters in Call of Duty are 6 feet tall. Spartans are 16% taller, so to maintain the same relative speed as Call of Duty, they would need to move faster. They feel slower because they are slower, relative to their game and size.

Still don’t believe me? OK, go play Counterstrike 1.6 on a stock map then go play on a levelord map. In a levelord-inspired map where your character is the size of a mouse. Now, on a stock map you move however many mph as a full sized person. On a levelord-inspired map where you the size of a mouse, your moon unit to real life measurements say you’re moving at a fraction of the prior speed as you do on a base map. How can that be when they feel the exact same? Because you are moving at the same speed relative to your size.

This isn’t some “changing the goalpost” or “cop out” or other claim to make an excuse to ignore the argument; this is the entire point about arguing about player movement speed. Why would anybody even ever bring up speed ever if it wasn’t talking about how fast you move in the game? You character moves slower in Halo 3 than CoD4 regardless of what arbitrary moon units to real world theoretically says. Your character is bigger and moves the same real world speed, therefore the player moves slower in game, which is why when people compare the two games they say CoD4 is more run and gun and Halo is more methodical. Everybody in human history who has compared the two is not wrong, they just inherently understand the argument is about moving in game, not about a moon unit to real world translation devoid of context.

5432

> 2533274793006817;5431:
>

I’m just going to start by saying: I understand what you are trying to say. I understood the first time. The reason I’ve been neglecting it is that you’re setting your definition of “speed” in a way that’s convenient for you, and cherry picking the data so that you end up to the conclusion you want. More concretely:

  • In your argument about size, you choose the height of the character as your reference scale speeds are compared to. You try to justify it with analogies between sizes differing by orders of magnitude, when in the situation at hand the difference between character heights is ~16%. In terms of a game, it’s not clear why the character’s height should be a relevant length scale. There is also the question why is difficulty of hitting a target the relevant factor in the first place? After all, this is also influenced by things like the weapons the player has access to as well as aim assist in console shooters. Is harder to hit targets something gamers want?. - The only speed in COD you are considering is the sprint speed. The base movement speed in classic Halo is 37% higher than in CoD. The speed when aiming down sights is even slower, which is the speed players have to move at every time they want to shoot accurately. In Halo, when players are shooting at each other, they run much faster than in the same situation in CoD, relative to player height or not.We’re talking about a game with marginally smaller characters than in Halo, marginally faster maximum speed, and significantly lower base speed. That gives rise to ambiguity that makes it easy to arbitrarily call it faster or slower than Halo, depending on what suits one’s goals. This means that CoD is not an example of gamers preferring faster movement, because CoD’s movement is not unambiguously faster than that of Halo.

This brings me to the point 3 in my previous post, which is that there are games that are unambiguously faster than Halo, and almost all those games are unambiguously unpopular. This fact makes the idea that gamers want games with faster movement very hard to believe.

> 2533274793006817;5431:
> which is why when people compare the two games they say CoD4 is more run and gun and Halo is more methodical.

This comparison seems to have to do more with the way players perceive engagements than the speed they move at. Classic Halo is often described as more run and gun than Halo 5, despite the latter having unambiguously faster movement.

5433

> 2533274793006817;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.

Halo 3 was the overall most played game for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 so no Halo was eating it’s own lunch while also taking a little bit of CODs’.

5434

> 2535422763112957;5423:
> The argument is poor if one can only answer a 3rd of my points. If you agree tell me so I doesn’t look like you have no good reply to my points.

Sure, the entirety of a post and its argument is poor if the poster omits to answer one or two points of yours, in a series of different points which are not related to each other, no matter how well and thought out the answering post was.

Nobody is forced to answer all things addressed if they don’t feel what’s been talked about does not contribute to the dicsussion, neither does that drag their argument down because it’s more important what they say, than what they leave out. And that is of no relevance if those points left out are not in any way related to what was actually written down.

Here’s the thing though, considering what has been written, you’re keen on dedicating part of your post on what wasn’t written, and use that as a basis for taking down arguments, in a discussion where things left out, are not related to things adressed. Jetpack arguments are no less valid or poor if a sound point is left out. Ordnance points are not worth less if map details are not discussed.

So, am I to understand that with the tactic you’re using, you’re deliberately not posting much on posts directed at you, as you feel you can dismiss things because not all content is accounted for? It’s not worth expending energy answering properly if the entirety of your post is addressed? See, I get the feeling that’s the case.

What happens then with entirely skipped posts? What’s the reason there?

5435

> 2533274825830455;5432:
> I’m just going to start by saying: I understand what you are trying to say. I understood the first time. The reason I’ve been neglecting it is that you’re setting your definition of “speed” in a way that’s convenient for you,

Convenient for me because IT’S THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT MATTERS: IN GAME. I don’t give a rat’s about theoretical speed or lore speed or anything other than in game. Why would I, or anyone ftm, waste time arguing about anything else applicable speed?

> 2533274825830455;5432:
> You try to justify it with analogies between sizes differing by orders of magnitude, when in the situation at hand the difference between character heights is ~16%.

Because when I didn’t you completely ignored it.

> 2533274825830455;5432:
> - The only speed in COD you are considering is the sprint speed.

Uh, probably has to do with the fact if people are moving from spot to spot, they’re sprinting.

> 2533275010844883;5433:
> Halo 3 was the overall most played game for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 so no Halo was eating it’s own lunch while also taking a little bit of CODs’.

I’m not going to get back into this. CoD was played more than Halo in 2008. The only thing that stopped CoD4 from being the most played was World at War, a CoD game. 32 verified weeks CoD ahead vs 11 for Halo. Likely 37 vs 14.

5436

> 2533274795123910;5434:
> > 2535422763112957;5423:
> > The argument is poor if one can only answer a 3rd of my points. If you agree tell me so I doesn’t look like you have no good reply to my points.
>
> Sure, the entirety of a post and its argument is poor if the poster omits to answer one or two points of yours, in a series of different points which are not related to each other, no matter how well and thought out the answering post was.
>
> Nobody is forced to answer all things addressed if they don’t feel what’s been talked about does not contribute to the dicsussion, neither does that drag their argument down because it’s more important what they say, than what they leave out. And that is of no relevance if those points left out are not in any way related to what was actually written down.
>
> Here’s the thing though, considering what has been written, you’re keen on dedicating part of your post on what wasn’t written, and use that as a basis for taking down arguments, in a discussion where things left out, are not related to things adressed. Jetpack arguments are no less valid or poor if a sound point is left out. Ordnance points are not worth less if map details are not discussed.
>
> So, am I to understand that with the tactic you’re using, you’re deliberately not posting much on posts directed at you, as you feel you can dismiss things because not all content is accounted for? It’s not worth expending energy answering properly if the entirety of your post is addressed? See, I get the feeling that’s the case.
>
> What happens then with entirely skipped posts? What’s the reason there?

well ordered Arguments are measured by number of points conceded or lost. No one is being to forced to do anything but if you are going to reply please put in a little more effort and answer (or at least try to) all my points. It is frustrating for me as I am getting dragged down this rabbit hole by people only answering my request that they organize and complete their argument. I never in anyway said an incomplete argument should be dismissed but it appears less strong and like one has been beat and would not like to admit it.

5437

> 2533274793006817;5435:
> Convenient for me because IT’S THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT MATTERS: IN GAME. I don’t give a rat’s about theoretical speed or lore speed or anything other than in game. Why would I, or anyone ftm, waste time arguing about anything else?

There is no “theoretical speed” or “lore speed” here. There is just the actual speed of characters in the game world. Choosing to compare that to the character’s height is an arbitrary decision that has limited relevance for gameplay.

> 2533274793006817;5435:
> > 2533274825830455;5432:
> > You try to justify it with analogies between sizes differing by orders of magnitude, when in the situation at hand the difference between character heights is ~16%.
>
> Because when I didn’t you completely ignored it.

Let’s set the record straight: you also used the analogy when I ignored it. I just ignored it because I don’t think it it’s the big bombshell you think it is.

> 2533274793006817;5435:
> > 2533274825830455;5432:
> > The only speed in COD you are considering is the sprint speed.
>
> Uh, probably has to do with the fact if people are moving from spot to spot, they’re sprinting.

Which unfortunately is not the core gameplay loop of CoD.

See, this is the problem when we give up the commonly agreed upon definition of “speed”: it all becomes very arbitrary how we evaluate speed. From my point of view, despite CoD having a slightly faster maximum movement speed, classic Halo is overall faster in terms of movement, because players don’t have to (almost) stop to shoot, or do anything but run forward for that matter. I would personally never characterize the run-stop-shoot loop of CoD as “fast movement”.

Given that games with actually fast movement are generally very unpopular, your argument that gamers desire fast movement fails to convince. You could convince me that gamers desire the run-stop-shoot style of movement that many popular games offer, which you may view as you wish, but which I would characterize as anything but “fast”.

5438

> 2535422763112957;5436:
> well ordered Arguments are measured by number of points conceded or lost.

If that was true, arguments would be more about having a quantitative majority of points and in that way tire the opposition out, rather than having quality points.

> 2535422763112957;5436:
> No one is being to forced to do anything but if you are going to reply please put in a little more effort and answer (or at least try to) all my points.

People are putting in as much effort as they deem fit to.

> 2535422763112957;5436:
> It is frustrating for me as I am getting dragged down this rabbit hole by people only answering my request that they organize and complete their argument.

What?

> 2535422763112957;5436:
> I never in anyway said an incomplete argument should be dismissed but it appears less strong and like one has been beat and would not like to admit it.

You do realise that when you lean back on that with every post, in combination with the very little you actually answer with for each post, you do come off as being dismissive of posts when they don’t meet your own criteria?
Feeling a lot like you don’t put in the effort you’d like to see from others, because they’re not doing what you’d like them to.

So, what does it look like when entire posts are skipped then?

5439

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> 2533274825830455;5437:
> > 2533274793006817;5435:
> > Convenient for me because IT’S THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT MATTERS: IN GAME. I don’t give a rat’s about theoretical speed or lore speed or anything other than in game. Why would I, or anyone ftm, waste time arguing about anything else?
>
> There is no “theoretical speed” or “lore speed” here. There is just the actual speed of characters in the game world. Choosing to compare that to the character’s height is an arbitrary decision that has limited relevance for gameplay.

IT’S THE GAMEPLAY. You’re a troll.
mOnItOr or not, you’re antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. Gameplay is what matters the speed of the character in game. Your character’s size influences speed because the speed is relative. Period.

5440

> 2533274795123910;5438:
> > 2535422763112957;5436:
> > well ordered Arguments are measured by number of points conceded or lost.
>
> If that was true, arguments would be more about having a quantitative majority of points and in that way tire the opposition out, rather than having quality points.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535422763112957;5436:
> > No one is being to forced to do anything but if you are going to reply please put in a little more effort and answer (or at least try to) all my points.
>
> People are putting in as much effort as they deem fit to.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535422763112957;5436:
> > It is frustrating for me as I am getting dragged down this rabbit hole by people only answering my request that they organize and complete their argument.
>
> What?
>
>
>
>
> > 2535422763112957;5436:
> > I never in anyway said an incomplete argument should be dismissed but it appears less strong and like one has been beat and would not like to admit it.
>
> You do realise that when you lean back on that with every post, in combination with the very little you actually answer with for each post, you do come off as being dismissive of posts when they don’t meet your own criteria?
> Feeling a lot like you don’t put in the effort you’d like to see from others, because they’re not doing what you’d like them to.
>
> So, what does it look like when entire posts are skipped then?

  1. No since this is on a format where we are writing we have time to answer these points so pease do.
  2. well then these people don’t seem to care all that much about any of this at all.
  3. Please tell me where I ever said a post should be dismissed on account of its being incomplete. I answer with usually a larger amount of content than I am given per point. I spend about 10 minutes on a single post if it actually is an argument. these are well established criteria of formal arguments and debates I am talking about here not some weird rules I pulled out of a hat. This final sentence confuses me. I don’t rlly understand how one skips a post so if could elaborate on that it would be helpful
5441

Lol @ thinking CoD has fast movement. Your frame of reference must be extremely narrow to come to that conclusion.