> READ THE STUFF OUTSIDE THE QUOTE FIRST. I MESSED UP THE QUOTES AGAIN…
What is that supposed to mean?
> Not really. Striving for gameplay that has a similar flow and feel to whatever just released means that that game’s style still has room for improvement, whatever that may be.
Any idea can be improved, the whole debate on classic vs new Halo arose because the game didn’t follow a similar feel or flow. I don’t see what you’re trying to get at here.
> Even so, the designers purposefully designed the game to be that way. You can’t change that. Like you’re saying, the only thing you can do is criticize the in-game mechanics with what the developers have said they want out of the game.
I mean yea, same things applies to anything and everything that you don’t have a first-hand involvement in. That’s the point of a forum, to discuss, criticize, put forward and debate. A voice can be heard if there is a consensus, most of the changes applied to H4, MCC and the right stick problems in 5 were a response by 343 to fan complaints and criticisms. I’m making a case and spending effort so that the next game doesn’t get made with those intentions, in the same way I and many others argued against what was in 4 or others argue for games they dislike in other game series, they don’t like X for Y reason, i’m simply asking those that want A to give their reasoning as to why. I feel those wishing for a return to classic mechanics have given ample reasoning in relation to how it affects gameplay, i feel a misunderstanding at this point is in a lack of trying to understand, not the reasoning provided.
> Of course it isn’t vague, but when a debate starts, everyone is constantly thinking for themselves and their position, and not really clarifying what exactly they are talking about.
I’m stating if you read posts by the select people who have multiple anti-sprint replies in this thread you could come to a pretty clear conclusion as to what we’re talking about. Most of the discussion is anchored around sprint and clamber, i have read the thoughts and positions of people for sprint and i don’t see the same level of clarification of how it brings a positive contribution to gameplay. 343 Aimed to bring customizable loadouts, personal ordnance and global ordnance to Halo 4. Preference aside how do these additions affect the gameplay, are they a good inclusion? is the question. I think how they affect the gameplay is an objective reality and are they worth including is reliant on what you want out of the game, all players who are clearly anti-sprint state it creates evasive, stop / start, cat and mouse gameplay unlike any other halo game and that sprint and extensions of sprint are not worth having in future titles.
> This isn’t important, but that’s basically what I suggested to “evolve” Halo, whatever that means, while bridging both pro and anti-sprint together. AAs as top-tier map pickups instead of spawns.
The competitive community already did this though, we had jetpack and evade as pick-ups in reach after fighting for 15 months to get the option to choose no bloom, no armour abilities. In 4 until we could get rid of personal ordnance there was settings to choose from jetpack, hardlight shield and hologram. The fundamental issue i see is the anti side is not willing to budge on 1 BMS and would prefer a less is more approach, the pro side seems to want the antithesis of that.You and evilkeny mean well and can argue a point clearly, if what you suggested was a reality it would tick my box definitely, the argument arises when people who are staunchly for sprint and either AAs or spartan abilities off-spawn argue against the idea of 1 BMS and less off spawn. That is the main dichotomy with the fandom.
> I never intended for the post to be a start to another debate
I don’t think it’s about starting a debate as having the mentality and reasoning understood. Balanced force and RaginPagan make many claims about what sprint does without really giving clear idea on what the mechanic does to the game or the rationale for its inclusions or why the anti-sprint proposal wouldn’t solve any qualms they were having.I have read all posts and i am still unclear what they want out of the game or what advanced movement brings to the experience.
they say they don’t want slow -> raise BMS
they say it needs to be modern -> why are the most popular games 5-10 years old with few changes, what is modern with a mechanic older than halo
they say the old formula is boring -> likewise i find the new stuff boring since it’s so needlessly complex and evasive, what element is boring? it’s vague
they say they like a temporary speed boost -> why not put a speed gate or platform on map or a thruster / evade pickup?
1 BMS and less off spawn doesn’t have such easy alternatives.
> It would create Arena Shooter gameplay by default, which is what Halo is, but not the original trilogy’s gameplay specifically unless you further define other aspects of gameplay as well, which you have done earlier in the reply. Doom and Quake fit that questionable definition, but they wouldn’t classify as Halo-style games would they?
No because those games further deviate to differentiate themselves, if 1 BMS and barebones spawns are like halo, then 5 deviates before it ticks that box, unlike quake and doom.Also i do read everything before i break it apart line by line, i just choose to isolate it that way.
Maybe I could’ve said there can be to much randomness. My point was adding things for the sake of being random isn’t really good for competitive play as you’re adding more elements a player has to take into consideration, hence how there can be to much randomness. Where that line of “to much” is can be debated.