The return of classic movement mechanics?

[Darwi]

> 2535415744086631;5761:
> We aren’t asking for a slower game.

And fans of advanced movement don’t necessarily want to just go faster.

As a keen observer of this thread it took me a while to view things as two different game-styles as opposed to simply sprint / no-sprint.

Now I can kind of see classic halo as a game that penalises you for bad movement and new halo as a game that rewards you for good movement. Apologies if that is too simplistic.

And while we wait to see what Infinite actually holds for us - just wanted to thank everyone, on both sides, for the efforts (and passion) they are putting into these arguments.

[Wild_Vegetable]

> 2585548714655118;5762:
> > 2535415744086631;5761:
> > We aren’t asking for a slower game.
>
> And fans of advanced movement don’t necessarily want to just go faster.
>
> As a keen observer of this thread it took me a while to view things as two different game-styles as opposed to simply sprint / no-sprint.

I guess that is something I do struggle with, because depending on who you ask, their response is verbatim “I want to go faster.” But I had never heard anyone against sprint say “I want to go slower.”
Some people do have more nuance and go “I want to sometimes go faster,” but that’s when I point to other methods, such as the sword and speed boost power up that by all means should satisfy their conditions.

It’s only when people go “sprint is necessary, and nothing else,” do arguments generally start falling to yelling, because one or more sides starts off unwavering to alternate methods or introspect.

[Darwi]

> 2533274833081329;5763:
> > 2585548714655118;5762:
> > > 2535415744086631;5761:
> > > We aren’t asking for a slower game.
> >
> > And fans of advanced movement don’t necessarily want to just go faster.
> >
> > As a keen observer of this thread it took me a while to view things as two different game-styles as opposed to simply sprint / no-sprint.
>
> I guess that is something I do struggle with, because depending on who you ask, their response is verbatim “I want to go faster.” But I had never heard anyone against sprint say “I want to go slower.”
> Some people do have more nuance and go “I want to sometimes go faster,” but that’s when I point to other methods, such as the sword and speed boost power up that by all means should satisfy their conditions.
>
> It’s only when people go “sprint is necessary, and nothing else,” do arguments generally start falling to yelling, because one or more sides starts off unwavering to alternate methods or introspect.

Yeah, I think both sides can be guilty of that. There is a style of game play they prefer… and the most obvious difference is sprint. So it’s easy to assume that sprint is the difference. The reasons behind each style though are far more nuanced… and I certainly appreciate the insight that you get reading back though some of these pages. Even responses to posts I’ve made. Thankfully there hasn’t been a lot of yelling. Mostly

And personally I feel the key is to be able to go faster when you want. Combined with thrust, hover, slide. You can mix it up… and if you are good enough you can reverse a gunfight when it was you who were caught in the bad position. Well, not me personally very much It functions as an inherent part of the game - so is not going to be covered by holding the sword or a power up.

Hence my comparison of punishing bad positioning vs rewarding good movement.

I’ve enjoyed all the Halo games. I’m currently still enjoying H5 a lot. And I have to admit that it’s been a while since I’ve put any decent time into classic Halo. If I had to really put a figure on it I would admit that I probably enjoyed H2 just as much in it’s time (I wasn’t as big a fan of H3). So I know they can both be fun. What I will say, and this is probably a bit convoluted, is that I hate losing at H5 a lot less. When you are outclassed it just seems less infuriating. Like you had a chance to get back into the fray. Your destiny is in your hands.

Subjective much?

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2533274825830455;5753:
> See, herein lies the point you’re not seeing. What you’re really saying (or what you ought to be saying if you were thinking more broadly) is “the Halo 3 BMS isn’t optimal for the cover spacing and enemy layout on Cortana”.

sigh Always a fault in my understanding, and the way that I’m thinking, isn’t it? One step forward, two steps back. Here I thought we were making progress.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Nor is it what I should be saying. Because the layout of “Cortana” is fine in both design and distribution of cover. Halo 3’s BMS is fine for covering space in general. The enemy’s layout changes frequently and rapidly, especially as they are Flood Pure forms, more prone to the Ranged Form. They’re not stationary, and this adds to the tediousness of an active situation. Having a temporary boost to go from cover to cover would be beneficial in that situation, which does not suffer from an overabundance of downtime.

> If Halo 3 had a faster BMS, or if Cortana had a different level design with different geometry or different enemies, then this problem you’re describing wouldn’t exist.

You assume. As it seems to me, because that’s what you want to be the solution. Yet the Flood Pure Forms already move faster and more nimbly than the player while in the Stalker Form. If the player had a higher BMS, it is reasonable to assume that, as that is how the enemy is designed, they would also have higher speeds and agility to compensate.

> Your point being? … I haven’t said Evade dooesn’t interfere with combat abilities. I’ve merely hinted at it being a preferred alternative to sprint because it interferes less with combat abilities than sprint,

My point clearly being that - contrary to your stance that movement mechanics must complement both movement and combat, none of the movement mechanics have done so. So do you not want any of them in Halo? Or is it just Sprint that’s inexplicably destructive?

I also demonstrated how Evade interferes far more than Sprint does, especially as you have no control over it once it’s engaged, but I see that’s been backpedalled. This is exceptionally frustrating in that you criticize my attention and understanding, yet things like these make it seem very much as though every point I’m making - even ones agreed to and conceded at the time, or factually true as supported by evidence - are flatly ignored.

> No. See, you think you understand, but you’re actually just happy to take a version that’s in your head and run with it, instead of wanting to understand how we see things. You’re not genuinely interested. How do I know? Because you’re not asking questions about our views.

Hmm.

> 2533274804813082;5582:
> But a better question to this common complaint; if the pursuing team is so unskilled as to let them escape, why do they not deserve to get away? Because it draws the game out?

> 2533274804813082;5612:
> Now, what - functionally - is the difference between a crouch jump and clamber?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> How is it a detriment to the flow and balance of the game?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> And where are some of these areas?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> So again, can you provide examples where Sprint is an absolute necessity to traversing the map?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> > …sprint takes away your ability to minimize many of those risks,
>
> How. Provide examples. By removing your ability to fire? Instant firing that ends Sprint. By removing your ability to turn? 360° turning while sprinting. What minimizing abilities remain?

> 2533274804813082;5630:
> A better question is why do you need to shoot while sprinting?

> 2533274804813082;5642:
> > As I believe I mentioned earlier, I’m not a programmer, but I do know that introducing more variables to the player in terms of speed affects how the AI must target the player.
>
> And how do you know that? What area of coding or AI programing specifically addresses player unpredictability, to where Sprint would absolutely baffle it? Especially in light of vehicle speed and that players are not on a rail, or otherwise limited in their movement path?

> 2533274804813082;5642:
> Again, why do you need to shoot while Sprinting?

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> what is the difference in simply having game types and playlists without Sprint as a core mechanic, and other playlists with?

> 2533274804813082;5652:
> So how severe does Sprint really get in the way of shooting? How much are you truly sacrificing?

> 2533274804813082;5675:
> And yet, you directly tie a player getting away as detrimental to the experience, and not making for “good gameplay”. Why is that?

> 2533274804813082;5653:
> So while those 5 mph are a difference, is it enough of a loss to where Sprint becomes a detriment?

> 2533274804813082;5679:
> I’ll pose to you the same question that I did elsewhere: Why do you need an increase of 2.38 m/s while in combat or clearing a room?

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> I’ll ask you what I’ve asked three others; why do you need to be moving at maximum speed (130%) while firing?

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> Is Top BMS not sufficient? How so? Having that option would be one thing, but why is it needed?

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> How does Sprint interfere with combat any more so than using grenades or reloading? Or going to jump forward across a gap, unable to alter your trajectory in midair?

> 2533274804813082;5680:
> And what makes it so major, to the point that literally an instantaneous reversal of the limitations become such a spear in the side?

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> Is that loss of 5 mph detrimental to gameplay, to the point where firing during a 30% increase is necessary or prudent?

> 2533274804813082;5695:
> Why? What is the reason for that, and why is full BMS not optimally as fast as possible while remaining alert?

> 2533274804813082;5698:
> > that doesn’t change the fact that its easier to [explore] if you can look around at full speed
>
> How?

> 2533274804813082;5698:
> Where exactly is the impact on the game, outside of intermittent forward mobility?

Yep. I’ve never asked for clarification on views and stances. I’m totally not interested in understanding why someone’s view is what it is, or coming to a compromise so that everyone is happy.

No, I think that the issue is I don’t accept your stances. When I actually get an answer to a view or stance, it’s not one to sway me into thinking that Sprint is a terrible thing. And when I get a claim that is falsifiable, it does not hold up as reasonable. None of this indicates that I do not understand - when it’s actually expressed - where you all are coming from.

> Like, did you ever stop to consider why you were so adamant about sprint covering more distance than Evade?

Y’know, it’s quite funny that you’re using that as the example. I stated that Sprint was more effective than Evade once, and when you provided evidence that it is not, I admitted my error. Even now, going forward, I know that Evade is better for covering ground, if you can navigate safely.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

> 2535441307847473;5751:
> The buffs that melee weapons often receive through sprint are indeed concerning,

Melee weapons receive no buff to themselves. Sprint allows a player to cover ground quicker than BMS, allowing them to get close enough to hit quicker, but the weapons themselves remain as-is. Energy Swords boosted BMS, as did Tartarus’ Gavel, yet as I demonstrated to celestis a higher BMS still benefits from Sprint, as the mechanic is a percentage-increase boost. Even going 200% BMS, Sprint will still make you move faster.

> you’ve simply given an example of how choosing when to reload can be beneficial in the sense that you are avoiding the inherent downside of reloading.

Manual reload versus automatic reload. Yes, that is what I was driving at, that choosing to reload prior to an engagement rewards with a beneficial situation.

> Except Jetpack doesn’t just provide upward mobility, it also extends your horizontal “jump” distance significantly,

As did the Gravity Lift. You’re still splitting hairs, and for as much as I’m criticized for always “needing to be right”, you’re trying real hard with said hair-splitting. The function of the two remains connected and similar. That they do not perform exactly the same is irrelevant; the relationship between them is clear.

> 2535441307847473;5752:
> As for locking away max speed, this has nothing to do with perception, in a game with sprint, sprint represents the fastest speed (max speed) that the player can move at on foot, the fact that so many actions are not doable while sprinting shows how sprint locks max speed away from combat actions.

Given that Sprint is an increase relative to whatever the BMS is, yes it is absolutely a perception. You could be going even 300% BMS, and Sprint would still be faster. Because, as is its function and form of mechanic, it is a boost to Speed, not 100% speed.

> For the most part yes, this is what I would rather see in Halo … I’m hoping that this can finally clear up some of our disagreements.

Well, that depends. Your preferred method of boosted movement is there, readily available for Matchmaking and Multiplayer. If you’re still hell-bent on Scorched Earth and removing Sprint from Campaign, then we’re not going to agree on much at all.

> As for why it doesn’t spawn I’m not an ex Bungie developer but I’m pretty sure it has to do with balancing.

I’m pretty sure that it has to do with while you can physically drive a Warthog on High Ground, you cannot effectively do so in a packed Multiplayer match, and it would become an absolute death trap to where it’s rendered non-functional.

> What exactly do you mean by “take advantage of the playspace” if not allowing vehicles to take advantage of their speeds? Vehicles wouldn’t need much space at all if they were slow

You are absolutely not taking into consideration the presence of other players and their ability to more easily destroy a large vehicle that both cannot move around effectively or utilize greater range for tank shells and mortars.

This is why we see tanks on BTB and larger maps like Zanzibar, though even then the latter is risky. If the maps were designed around their speed, Scorpions would not be on BTB maps as they are slow.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> No, that’s not what I’m saying. Nor is it what I should be saying. Because the layout of “Cortana” is fine in both design and distribution of cover. Halo 3’s BMS is fine for covering space in general.

I’m not going to keep pushing on this, because I realize I’m starting to deviate too much from my original goal, which was just to bring up the fact sprint is never the only way to resolve these kinds of issues in level design. I feel like I’ve said as much as I should say. I’ll just have to leave it for you to consider.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> You assume. As it seems to me, because that’s what you want to be the solution. Yet the Flood Pure Forms already move faster and more nimbly than the player while in the Stalker Form. If the player had a higher BMS, it is reasonable to assume that, as that is how the enemy is designed, they would also have higher speeds and agility to compensate.

Are you saying that it’s… what the devs intended? I’m not going to argue against that, but I do point out, the same could be said about the situation where the player had sprint.

Of course I assume a level design solution would work, because I’ve always had a lot of faith in level design. I think good movement design is like a 80/20 split between level design and mechanics design. This is fundamentally one of the reasons I’m suspicious of new movement mechanics.

Of course I realize that this is a completely unfalsifiable thing to argue about, because it’s about your personal enjoyment in relation to the infinite number of hypothetical level design possibilities. That’s why saying level design is the answer is probably the wrong course of action, and I should rather just recommend you give it a good honest consideration.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> My point clearly being that - contrary to your stance that movement mechanics must complement both movement and combat, none of the movement mechanics have done so. So do you not want any of them in Halo? Or is it just Sprint that’s inexplicably destructive?

Running and jumping are movement mechanics too. They’re also the only movement mechanics Halo had until Reach.

But to answer your question: I wouldn’t want any of the Halo Reach/4 movement Armor Abilities, or Halo 5 Spartan Abilities, as they work in their respective games, as base movement mechanics in Halo. However, I think some of the concepts (like Evade/Thruster Pack) could be designed to conform to this principle. While I wouldn’t necessarily like it, Clamber, too, could be designed in a way that it never forces the player to give up their combat abilities. In fact, sprint could be designed in such a way too, of course, but it seems like nobody on either side is really into that idea.

Regarding your second question, I really have to say that sprint is uniquely contradictory. All other advanced movement abilities thus far only involve a brief <1 second penalty. You can for example be moving full speed with Evade, and be shooting and throwing grenades between the animations. You can shoot and throw grenades even while flying with a Jetpack. Sprint is really the only advanced movement mechanic that separates the player from all their combat abilities for extended periods of time.

There is obviously a spectrum of different extents to which a movement ability separates movement from combat. Most of the advanced movement mechanics since Reach are at the lower end of the spectrum, but sprint sits uniquely at the top. In this sense, it kind of is uniquely the worst, and that’s why it gets all the attention.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> I also demonstrated how Evade interferes far more than Sprint does

I don’t think you have demonstrated such a thing. You of course mentioned how Evade locks you into one movement direction for a brief period. However, since the period of loss of abilities is so brief, it hardly impacts combat. Of course you shouldn’t take this as a defense of its limitations: if a similar mechanic returned to Halo, the maneuverability should definitely be designed so as to have minimal interference with combat.

EDIT: In the post we’re discussing, you mentioned “the inability to turn at all”. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but now I feel like I should clarify that this is “turning”, as in moving in a different direction, right? Because you absolutely can turn the camera during the animation, just not move in that direction.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> Yep. I’ve never asked for clarification on views and stances. I’m totally not interested in understanding why someone’s view is what it is, or coming to a compromise so that everyone is happy.

Thanks for taking the time to go through the questions you’ve asked in this thread. The questions you listed are a useful reference for my point. Most of the questions you listed are asking for verification of (an alleged) fact. Those are not questions trying to understand the intricacies of someone’s train of thought. They’re asking for proof of some claim you’re not inclined to believe.

Even the questions that could show genuine interest in someone’s perspective if phrased as such are instead phrased very argumentatively: e.g. “why do you need to” with the emphasis and all. You’re not trying to understand why somebody wishes to play a certain way. You’re asking why they need to play a certain way. That way, when they answer the question, you can push on that “need” part until they admit the obvious: of course they don’t need anything; it’s just a game after all.

Questions seeking for understanding ask about the other person’s feelings or beliefs. Questions seeking for argument ask for a reason to believe. Obviously, the phrasing isn’t the point in itself. Rather, it’s the intent which impacts the phrasing. Of course, how you respond to the answer also counts.

> 2533274804813082;5765:
> No, I think that the issue is I don’t accept your stances. When I actually get an answer to a view or stance, it’s not one to sway me into thinking that Sprint is a terrible thing. And when I get a claim that is falsifiable, it does not hold up as reasonable. None of this indicates that I do not understand - when it’s actually expressed - where you all are coming from.

That you even bring up falsifiability when I’m just asking you to be understanding of our views exemplifies your mindset. You’re only interested in the claims you perceive as falsifiable. You’re not interested in the human story of how people with different perspectives and preferences come to see the same reality.

It’s not about swaying you into thinking sprint is terrible. Understanding doesn’t have to mean agreement. You can be understanding of and empathetic to our views, and still like sprint, because you don’t have to share those views.

To give you an example of something I’ve come to terms with over the years: for some people, part of the appeal of sprint is the animation. The realism of having the character’s running be animated more like that of a real human makes them more immersed in the game world. I don’t feel any of this. The things that make me immersed are just fundamentally different. However, I believe I’ve come to be able to describe this perspective in a way that the people who share it would be comfortable with. This view is completely sensible and reasonable, and at the same time completely incompatible with no-sprint, and completely impossible for me to agree with. I would like to say I understand it, but of course that’s not for me to judge.

That’s the other thing: you’re actually not in charge of determining whether you understand other people’s views. They will be the ultimate judge of that.

[TheKiltdHeathen]

I’m not in charge of what I understand.

Alright, cool, I think that brings our back-and-forth to a close here.

[Nice_teeits]

Wow… this debate is still ongoing?

Fact is, “advanced” movement mechanics (like sprint) and “new” abilities (like the grapple hook) will kill Halo. This isn’t up for debate – we’ve seen what happens when sprint and new abilities are introduced to Halo – in fact, we’ve seen it happen twice now (Halo 4 and Halo 5). Both Halo 4 and Halo 5 aren’t as popular as “classic” Halo games.

Face reality: Halo is supposed to be an “old school” competitive shooter. Forcing Halo into a “new” way of playing is detrimental. Sprint has no place in Halo. Advanced movement has no place in Halo. New “abilities” have no place in Halo. It’s not just my opinion – game population proves this – we’ve seen this in real time with the bomb Halo 4 and the almost-bomb Halo 5.

By all means, continue to argue the merits of sprint and whatever other goofy “new” mechanic you want to introduce to Halo. But be prepared for ridicule and a low player base. Don’t say history didn’t warn you that this would happen.

[tsassi]

> 2533274804813082;5768:
> I’m not in charge of what I understand.
>
> Alright, cool, I think that brings our back-and-forth to a close here.

I mean, when it comes to other people’s views, no. It shouldn’t come as a surprise. People are experts on their own views, others are not. That’s just how it is.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I just want to say, I respect you even though I disagree with you. I realize the feeling may not be mutual, but still.

[Deathstrokex12]

> 2625759425622793;5769:
> Wow… this debate is still ongoing?
>
> Fact is, “advanced” movement mechanics (like sprint) and “new” abilities (like the grapple hook) will kill Halo. This isn’t up for debate – we’ve seen what happens when sprint and new abilities are introduced to Halo – in fact, we’ve seen it happen twice now (Halo 4 and Halo 5). Both Halo 4 and Halo 5 aren’t as popular as “classic” Halo games.
>
> Face reality: Halo is supposed to be an “old school” competitive shooter. Forcing Halo into a “new” way of playing is detrimental. Sprint has no place in Halo. Advanced movement has no place in Halo. New “abilities” have no place in Halo. It’s not just my opinion – game population proves this – we’ve seen this in real time with the bomb Halo 4 and the almost-bomb Halo 5.
>
> By all means, continue to argue the merits of sprint and whatever other goofy “new” mechanic you want to introduce to Halo. But be prepared for ridicule and a low player base. Don’t say history didn’t warn you that this would happen.

Ok, I’ve ghosted this thread long enough and I’ve grown a bit tired of posts like this.

Sprint and Advanced movements didn’t “kill” Halo. Competition did. What games in 2007 were actually around that could compete with Halo? What online multiplayer shooter games on console were there aside from Halo and a very few select others?

Lets look at what happened between Halo 3 and Halo reach. The online community itself split as PC gaming took off, and PlayStation finally started having an online playerbase, people left for both with neither of those platforms having Halo, and PC JUST got Halo within these past few years. CoD went through 4 games by the time reach came out, Gears went through 2, Medal of Honor, A host of Battlefield games that finally moved to console, a few ghost recons. Not only did Halo have to fight these AAA games that released either yearly or every 2 years on its own console, it had to deal with these also releasing on PlayStation and PC, all taking away from its overall population.

the entire market went from a niche selection of FPS games to an over saturated market with CoD taking the top spot by 2012. Halo’s population took a hit due to its long development cycle, and a mix of competition coming from other platforms and a host of new competitors that finally gave the market variety.

[Naqser]

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> Ok, I’ve ghosted this thread long enough and I’ve grown a bit tired of posts like this.

While I agree that it isn’t a good post, the one you quoted, here’s where the difference in point of views start.

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> Sprint and Advanced movements didn’t “kill” Halo. Competition did. What games in 2007 were actually around that could compete with Halo? What online multiplayer shooter games on console were there aside from Halo and a very few select others?

2007 is regarded by many as a “golden year” in gaming, seeing the start of many different franchises we see active today.
Not only that, but there are those who see 2007 as one of the last years of actual variation in what was released.

How big of a percentage of the gaming community actively limit their gaming library to “online multiplayer shooter game on console”?
Is this percentage large enough to warrant limiting the competition of Halo, to what’s even only a part of what Halo is as a game?
Halo gamers didn’t play Skyrim, Mass Effect, Assassin’s Creed, GoW, DotA, LoL, Starcraft, Sports games, racing games, sims games and so forth?
Exclusively on Xbox? Or could you own whatever Nintendo had back then, a Playstation, and/or possibly a PC as well?

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> Lets look at what happened between Halo 3 and Halo reach. The online community itself split as PC gaming took off,

What exactly happened here that made PC “take off”?
As far as I recall, PC gaming had already “took off” long before that, and had always been a major precense in gaming.

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> and PlayStation finally started having an online playerbase, people left for both with neither of those platforms having Halo, and PC JUST got Halo within these past few years.

I don’t recall what titles PS had at the time, but it did have some which made people interested in it, outside of brand loyalty of course.
People being Halo fans doesn’t mean abandoning all other games, genres and platforms.

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> CoD went through 4 games by the time reach came out, Gears went through 2, Medal of Honor, A host of Battlefield games that finally moved to console, a few ghost recons. Not only did Halo have to fight these AAA games that released either yearly or every 2 years on its own console, it had to deal with these also releasing on PlayStation and PC, all taking away from its overall population.

Yet Halo did perfectly fine during that time.
Also, I was under the impression the competition was “console”, PC isn’t regarded as a console.

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> the entire market went from a niche selection of FPS games to an over saturated market with CoD taking the top spot by 2012. Halo’s population took a hit due to its long development cycle, and a mix of competition coming from other platforms and a host of new competitors that finally gave the market variety.

Niche selection of FPS games? There has always been plenty of different FPS games.
And how does “over saturated market” get to go along with “market variety”?

[Fractal_Echo]

> 2533274883893694;5771:
> > 2625759425622793;5769:
> > Wow… this debate is still ongoing?
> >
> > Fact is, “advanced” movement mechanics (like sprint) and “new” abilities (like the grapple hook) will kill Halo. This isn’t up for debate – we’ve seen what happens when sprint and new abilities are introduced to Halo – in fact, we’ve seen it happen twice now (Halo 4 and Halo 5). Both Halo 4 and Halo 5 aren’t as popular as “classic” Halo games.
> >
> > Face reality: Halo is supposed to be an “old school” competitive shooter. Forcing Halo into a “new” way of playing is detrimental. Sprint has no place in Halo. Advanced movement has no place in Halo. New “abilities” have no place in Halo. It’s not just my opinion – game population proves this – we’ve seen this in real time with the bomb Halo 4 and the almost-bomb Halo 5.
> >
> > By all means, continue to argue the merits of sprint and whatever other goofy “new” mechanic you want to introduce to Halo. But be prepared for ridicule and a low player base. Don’t say history didn’t warn you that this would happen.
>
> Ok, I’ve ghosted this thread long enough and I’ve grown a bit tired of posts like this.
>
> Sprint and Advanced movements didn’t “kill” Halo. Competition did. What games in 2007 were actually around that could compete with Halo? What online multiplayer shooter games on console were there aside from Halo and a very few select others?
>
> Lets look at what happened between Halo 3 and Halo reach. The online community itself split as PC gaming took off, and PlayStation finally started having an online playerbase, people left for both with neither of those platforms having Halo, and PC JUST got Halo within these past few years. CoD went through 4 games by the time reach came out, Gears went through 2, Medal of Honor, A host of Battlefield games that finally moved to console, a few ghost recons. Not only did Halo have to fight these AAA games that released either yearly or every 2 years on its own console, it had to deal with these also releasing on PlayStation and PC, all taking away from its overall population.
>
> the entire market went from a niche selection of FPS games to an over saturated market with CoD taking the top spot by 2012. Halo’s population took a hit due to its long development cycle, and a mix of competition coming from other platforms and a host of new competitors that finally gave the market variety.

Wrong. -> “Halo was only REALLY POPULAR Because it had No Competition” is a BS Argument

[Fractal_Echo]

> 2625759425622793;5769:
> Wow… this debate is still ongoing?
>
> Fact is, “advanced” movement mechanics (like sprint) and “new” abilities (like the grapple hook) will kill Halo. This isn’t up for debate – we’ve seen what happens when sprint and new abilities are introduced to Halo – in fact, we’ve seen it happen twice now (Halo 4 and Halo 5). Both Halo 4 and Halo 5 aren’t as popular as “classic” Halo games.
>
> Face reality: Halo is supposed to be an “old school” competitive shooter. Forcing Halo into a “new” way of playing is detrimental. Sprint has no place in Halo. Advanced movement has no place in Halo. New “abilities” have no place in Halo. It’s not just my opinion – game population proves this – we’ve seen this in real time with the bomb Halo 4 and the almost-bomb Halo 5.
>
> By all means, continue to argue the merits of sprint and whatever other goofy “new” mechanic you want to introduce to Halo. But be prepared for ridicule and a low player base. Don’t say history didn’t warn you that this would happen.

Halo has a very thorough old school gameplay that is uniquely balanced. That should be honored.
classic “button toggle to go fast without a gun up” sprint is inmcompatible with that distinguishing factor and unique gameplay smoothness.

having a higher top movement speed that has a slight gun sway animation (with zero revery frames and no vanishing reticule) would be a nice as modern animation to show the characters speed and the slight speed increase that is often wanted in big map traversal.
crouch jump landing could be given a similar zero recovery frame weapon bob when landing and not firing, to make it feel more like climbing.

the modern argument is mostly about feeling. this can be taken care of with unintrusive animations that come secondary to gameplay. getting a few percent more speed after walking forwards for 5 seconds would be nice though for btb if vehicles and mancanons are not localy aviable or not situationaly good options. the long speedup delay and miniscule increase would prevent running away and would be simply there to shave of a few seconds when crossing a large uncontested map area.

thrusters in my opinion work resonably well with halo, but would have to be toned down drasticaly, so they are the addon to movement, not the main focus.

[QtoCool]

> 2535471015334583;5758:
> > 2533274794648158;5745:
> > > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > > If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it.
> >
> > This is such an odd thing to read. It seems extremely silly to me, to pin your entire enjoyment of Halo on a single mechanic. It just doesn’t feel sincere.
>
> Sorry but I don’t feel like walking throughout Infinites huge open world. In games like Halo 2 and 3 it’s okay but with this new vast open world I’m not putting up with it

Again movement speed is relative sprint speed is relative you are basically saying you need a weapon lowering animation to make you happy you guys logic is more flawed than North Korean elections.

[QtoCool]

If sprint was sooo good it wouldn’t have done this much damage to the community and the franchise as a whole.

[QtoCool]

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

> 2535471015334583;5744:
> > 2535415744086631;5740:
> > > 2535471015334583;5739:
> > > > 2535449076192416;5734:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Seriously, why are we all still talking about sprint and if it should be in the game or not. Sprint has already been confirmed almost a year ago now. That’s it
> >
> > Because a good portion of the population don’t want it in. Why are we still talking about playable elites?
> >
> > Generally speaking, most people who like sprint are casual players, and that’s fine. However they are more likely to jump to whatever the new flavor of the month is and drop Halo. That leaves the competitive/diehard fans having to deal with sprint even they’re not even the ones who wanted it in the first place.
>
> The majority of the players who play Halo will not care. To say the “casual” halo players don’t care about sprint is completely false. I’ve been playing halo since Halo 2 and I personally love sprint. If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it. Only the diehard fans like you said care about sprint. It’s a done deal, if you don’t like sprint don’t play the game because 343 will never remove sprint from Infinite.

We would gladly play without you if it didn’t have sprint. God I miss the days when people like you didn’t exist.

[tsassi]

> 2533274945422049;5773:
> Wrong. -> “Halo was only REALLY POPULAR Because it had No Competition” is a BS Argument

Not a fan of this video. Largely because it’s too brash and aggressive towards the audience it’s trying to convince, which just isn’t a good educational strategy if you’re trying to communicate a point to someone who isn’t already fully convinced about it. Like, I don’t need to be convinced that Halo 3 wasn’t the only FPS that existed in 2007, and I probably largely share Favyn’s beliefs about Halo in general, but still the presentation style made me more reserved and less inclined to trust the video. Not a great thing.

Contentwise I don’t have much to say because the topic is kind of a nothing-burger from my point of view. It does include my pet peeve which is this idea that Halo 3 outperformed CoD 4. This of course depends on what metric you look at. So, the Halo 3 having more unique users within the whole year of 2008 is completely true, but omission of the fact that on at least 30 of 52 weeks in 2008 CoD 4 had more weekly unqiue users should at the very least make one question what other claims might be, if not false, a biased presentation of the truth.

[Foxxtrot_64]

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Oh goody it’s still going

[Henry_Gerold]

> 2535407747275549;5777:
> > 2535471015334583;5744:
> > > 2535415744086631;5740:
> > > > 2535471015334583;5739:
> > > > > 2535449076192416;5734:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Seriously, why are we all still talking about sprint and if it should be in the game or not. Sprint has already been confirmed almost a year ago now. That’s it
> > >
> > > Because a good portion of the population don’t want it in. Why are we still talking about playable elites?
> > >
> > > Generally speaking, most people who like sprint are casual players, and that’s fine. However they are more likely to jump to whatever the new flavor of the month is and drop Halo. That leaves the competitive/diehard fans having to deal with sprint even they’re not even the ones who wanted it in the first place.
> >
> > The majority of the players who play Halo will not care. To say the “casual” halo players don’t care about sprint is completely false. I’ve been playing halo since Halo 2 and I personally love sprint. If Infinite doesn’t have sprint (which it already does and won’t be changing) I would never play it. Only the diehard fans like you said care about sprint. It’s a done deal, if you don’t like sprint don’t play the game because 343 will never remove sprint from Infinite.
>
> We would gladly play without you if it didn’t have sprint. God I miss the days when people like you didn’t exist.

Thank you this proves my point. You’re one of those people who only wants to walk in halo games and no sprint. And anyone who prefers sprint over walking you “wish they didn’t exist”. It’s pathetic, even 343 said in December’s Inside infinite how they were avoiding only pleasing the die hard fans because they how ridiculous you guys are. For gods sake stop talking about bringing sprint back in Infinite, because if you haven’t noticed by now, it has been confirmed and won’t be changing.

[Adio_Footwear]

People debating about sprint… imo Halo Infinite is already looking pretty doomed for being a free to play model with microtransactions… so gross. Hope they never disgrace MCC with that.