> 2533274793006817;5431:
> 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.
Forgive me but I have not taken the time to read the entire debate on this subject but I would like to chime in. It is interesting that you talk about relative perspective when talking about the perceived speed of a game. And I think you are right in that the size of your player character does negate some of the relevancy of a direct movement speed comparison between games. But then I would say what happens when you throw FOV (Field of View) into this equation. It also shifts your relative perspective of speed. I would say FOV really messes with this line of argument. I think a lot of the reason why Halo 3 in particular was perceived as a slow paced game was down to this reason, Halo 3 having the narrowest default FOV of any Halo game that I am aware. In fact now that FOV sliders has been added to MCC PC it has really illustrated how much it effects how fast a game feels. But there is more than that what effects the perception of game speed, the relative size of the map that the game is played on relative to the size of the player, the size of the gaps between cover, the layout of the map ( like whether it overlaps vertically or is just flat) etc. Even things like aim assist and projectile speeds can effect it. I think the more you delve in, the less the actual foot speed of the player effects the games pace. After all in the extreme you could have a space combat strategy game, where dog fights take place at relativistic speeds ( like maybe 0.5 the speed of light). But it could still be a slow paced strategic game, since the combat arenas might be several light minutes across.
So the question is how do you define a games pacing? Is it average actions per minute? The frequency of combat? How fast you can shoot another player to death? How fast the game makes you feel? Or how consistently you feel engaged when playing? I think a lot of people have a lot of different ways to define it, then talk about it as if it’s all the same thing.
I think one of the main appeals of Sprint is that it allows you to run into the action faster. But Ironically as evidenced by some prior posts it often takes longer to get into the action within games with Sprint than ones without. Be it down to map size or whatever. This suggests it isn’t the speed of getting into fights that’s appealing but something else. I think the simple reason is a good number of people find it more engaging to Sprint somewhere than to just run there at one speed with no tradeoffs. Be it because of the sense of agency, the emersion, the risk versus reward of deciding whether to sprint, the resource management of not running out of sprint when it is needed… there are reasons it’s a popular mechanic in many games. But is it good for Halo?