The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
942

> 2533274798957786;935:
> What ever happened to "opinions are not necessarily right or wrong? I said “classic movement” would only appeal to esports enthusiasts. That’s my opinion and it remains so. The only way I could be wrong is if Halo: Infinite releases with only “classic movement” and it’s a huge runaway success the likes of which Microsoft has never seen before. Until then it’s just speculation on my part and I can’t claim it to be true any more than you can claim it to be false. You disagree, yet I do not claim that you are wrong. We shall see.

Declaring a statement an opinion does not make it unable to be wrong. In particular, the opinion you presented is quite a definite statement: “classic movement would only appeal to esports enthusiasts”. Therefore, if we can find a single person who is not an esports enthusiast but likes classic movement, your statement is false. Even if you weaken it sufficiently, it is still a statement, the thruthfulness of which could be decided fairly unambiguously by simply polling people. It is not a subjective statement in the sense that you can in principle definitively find out how many Halo players identify as “esports enthusiasts” and how many like classic Halo, and what is the overlap between these two sets.

> 2533274798957786;935:
> So I say that if you make a new game and you don’t give Spartans the movement abilities they have gained since Halo 3 you are going backwards. I have no opinion one way or the other about what equipment can be picked up on the battlefield, outside of that being a dull and boring way to get equipment.

You’re free to find whatever you want dull and boring. However, your statement was “most people would find it dull and boring”. Again, this is a falsifiable statement if we were to just poll the community. It is unambiguously either true or false.

I’m not disputing how you feel about classic gameplay, I’m disputing your claims regarding how other people feel about classic gameplaý. I’m saying that you making statements like “most people would find [classic Halo] dull and boring” is totally unhelpful because you’re just trying to claim your personal opinion as the majority opinion without any evidence.

943

> 2533274894112092;938:
> > 2535456029664360;936:
> > > 2533274894112092;927:
> > > I’m still trying to figure out where people get the idea that not having sprint automatically equals a slow paced game. Even Halo 3 with it’s god awful field of view, I rarely feel like it takes long to run into other players and traverse the map, and I never get this feeling while playing Halo 2. I miss when maps were actually unique and interesting. Every map in Halo 5 is so bland thanks to the art style and having to design everything around spartan abilities, which as many of you have pointed out, add very little depth to Halo.
> >
> > I dont think artstyle has anything to do with maps
>
> Maybe not in how the maps are built, but many people have criticized Halo 5’s maps for looking too industrial. They obviously have to design everything to compliment enhanced mobility, but they could’ve done a better job making the maps aesthetically pleasing.

Yea i was going to write that.

944

> 2533274795123910;934:
> > 2533274974695300;930:
> > I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a video from someone like FAVYN who says, and I paraphrase, “if you want to evolve Halo you don’t do it through changing the gameplay, you do it by map design and new weapons” and think to myself “you can only do so much by doing that, you need to change the gameplay in a way”.
>
> You’d be surprised with how small chages can have a big impact on how a game feels, or what kind of changes outside of player mechanics there are to test out.
>
> I mean, remove all advanced movement things from Halo 5, do you then “float” around like in Halo CE?
> Then we got FoV, which is the reason a lot of people think Halo CE, 2 and 3 have different BMS, when in reality they have the same BMS. I even believed that before I got familiar with how FoV really works.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274974695300;933:
> > why is the Halo community so against advanced movements and the DOOM community is more open to it?
>
> Are you part of the Doom community?
> I’m not, but I wouldn’t assume there aren’t people in the doom community against advanced movement.
> Another thing to consider could be the massive time span between Doom 2016 and Doom 3, the latter which wasn’t all too well recieved, I don’t think many had their hopes up for a more traditional Doom to ecer be released. Did you know that the first versions of Doom 2016 was satirically called Call of Doom by the developers themselves? They scrapped it and started over.
>
> Halo has seen regular releases since its first game in 2001.

Like I said, there’s only so much you can do until you say “what now?”. Look at the 3D Mario games. Excluding the 3DS and Wii U games (because they aren’t the traditional 3D Mario), each 3D Mario introduced new gameplay elements and also expanded the level design. Yes each game plays similarly but still bring something to change things up. Sunshine has F.L.O.O.D and Odyssey has Cappy. This can also extend to the 2D games a bit.

You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.

Also I don’t think being a regular release or not has anything to do with this.

945

> 2592250499819446;937:
> > 2533274974695300;933:
> > > 2533274833081329;932:
> > > > 2533274974695300;930:
> > > > > 2533274833081329;929:
> > > > > > 2533274974695300;928:
> > > > > > So in taking about Halo and classic movements I wanna bring in another point of view regarding this never ending topic, and that is the DOOM reboot series. Let’s be honest here if it wasn’t for DOOM we would have never gotten Halo and those original games were more limited with their gameplay. Then with the reboot you would assume that the DOOM community would be outraged because DOOM(2016) added double jump and a move similar to clamber in Halo 5, but no, they weren’t. In fact they love the new gameplay. Now look at DOOM Eternal. That game looks to be straying farther away from the original gameplay of DOOM by having a grapple hook and a thrust ability. So why can the DOOM community be more welcoming to the new gameplay yet you guys are having this never ending war regarding “classic” gameplay and the new gameplay?
> > > > >
> > > > > DOOM is brought up fairly often in comparison to Halo in this context, because DOOM 2016 shows a game that can still be well received and feel really fast-paced, despite not having a Sprint mechanic. DOOM Eternal still doesn’t have one, which means they aren’t straying from their original gameplay in that aspect.
> > > > >
> > > > > A thrust ability, in a vacuum, isn’t all that bad (of course, depending on implementation). Also, it has a shorter range in Doom Eternal and is pretty much solely used to dodge an incoming attack.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have mixed feelings about the grappling hook, but at least it works on fighting flying enemies and gives them a little more freedom of movement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Either way, none of those abilities really contradict existing gameplay, nor does the game push you so much to use them or the map depending on its use (maybe the grappling hook does? I haven’t seen too much gameplay).
> > > > >
> > > > > EDIT: Apparently the grappling hook only attaches to enemies, according to Hugo Martin:
> > > > >
> > > > > “We could make it so you could grapple to anything, but it might, in the context of a Doom game, turn it into … something where it gets a little out of control.”
> > > > > It’s like how you don’t see people complaining about hijacking vehicles in Halo 2, or vehicle seat switching in Halo 5. They’re mechanics that change the way you view vehicles, but does not actually impede gameplay in doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Then why does the Halo community hate the notion of advanced mobility in general? I can say remove everything except clamber and thrust (obviously both of them improved) you will still get people saying “no advanced movements in any way, shape, or form”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a video from someone like FAVYN who says, and I paraphrase, “if you want to evolve Halo you don’t do it through changing the gameplay, you do it by map design and new weapons” and think to myself “you can only do so much by doing that, you need to change the gameplay in a way”.
> > >
> > > I believe Clamber has its own set of problems (yes, even in DOOM). I personally don’t have any problem with Thrust and Hover. Some people do have a problem for whatever reason they have. When people say “improved”, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s done well, considering we “improved” Sprint twice only to be right back here.
> > >
> > > I don’t watch Favyn all that much, but there’s his video of improving Halo’s gameplay without changing base mechanics. He still talks about other mechanics (vehicle boarding, equipment, etc.), but not stuff that can be activated at any time, anywhere, which is what he seems to dislike so much.
> >
> > Yes they “improved” sprint, but it’s still sprint. A mechanic in which you have to lower the weapon so you can’t shoot while moving fast. Improving clamber and thrust can make the game closer to the classic gameplay. But there’s still a question that still lingers, why is the Halo community so against advanced movements and the DOOM community is more open to it?
>
> I have played every Doom and every Halo except Halo Wars 2 to date, I think the difference between Doom and Halo is what has been lost. Halo has added things at the cost of others, whilst Doom has added and not removed imo.
>
> I watched everything of Doom Eternal from Quakecon, and it looks incredible, they’re are expanding the lore, the new Slayer looks good and the new mods are welcome, but it looks like being Doom to the core. Halo has lost what made it Halo imo.

So the fix is easy. Keep thrust but shorten the distance you go when you use it, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling so something like crouch jumping is still viable, remove the stabilizer, sprint, spartan charge, ground pound, and slide, bring back the old smart link and remove the new one, and increase the BMS slightly. There you have it, classic Halo but with advanced movements that complement the style Halo is known for. The problem is, people will still say that is not the Halo they want. I just gave the simplest fix, but the community will still say no to this fix and say “advanced movements does NOT belong in Halo”.

946

> 2533274974695300;944:
> You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.

Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…

947

> 2533274801176260;946:
> > 2533274974695300;944:
> > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
>
> Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…

Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.

948

> 2533274974695300;947:
> > 2533274801176260;946:
> > > 2533274974695300;944:
> > > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
> >
> > Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…
>
> Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.

Halo was never about advanced movements. Like Celestis said, adding them put Halo in its own sub genre, which is a depressing thought as it is. So no, I don’t think that’s being harsh at all. What I don’t understand is why people still defend it. It didn’t exist in classic Halo. Now we’re defending it like there’s some obligation to keep it? Advanced movement isn’t fun in Halo. What we had before was. When something already works, why change it? We didn’t ask for a new battle rifle, but hey, they got rid of the old one we loved and gave us a new one that looks little if nothing like its older counterpart. Thanks?

949

> 2535447940912902;948:
> > 2533274974695300;947:
> > > 2533274801176260;946:
> > > > 2533274974695300;944:
> > > > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
> > >
> > > Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…
> >
> > Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.
>
> Halo was never about advanced movements. Like Celestis said, adding them put Halo in its own sub genre, which is a depressing thought as it is. So no, I don’t think that’s being harsh at all. What I don’t understand is why people still defend it. It didn’t exist in classic Halo. Now we’re defending it like there’s some obligation to keep it? Advanced movement isn’t fun in Halo. What we had before was. When something already works, why change it? We didn’t ask for a new battle rifle, but hey, they got rid of the old one we loved and gave us a new one that looks little if nothing like its older counterpart. Thanks?

And that’s the main point on why a brought up DOOM. DOOM didn’t have any of that fancy-shmancy advanced movements yet the two new games have them and they work. Why? Because they made them to complement the original gameplay which not only did it bring in new players to the DOOM franchise, the older fans liked it and welcomed the changes. Also we defend the new gameplay because, surprise surprise, people actually like it. So here’s my question, why are you guys so against it and don’t offer any feedback as to how you can improve it while making it closer to what you guys had? Because all I see you guys going to the extreme and say just remove it entirely. And what do you expect the newer players that we got thanks to the new movements to do? For them to suck it up and accept that the old gameplay is “better”? That would be just as bad if not worse than it being the other way around, because we would loose what ever new players we brought/can bring. I gave an example three time on how you can do it, it’s possible.

950

> 2535447940912902;948:
> > 2533274974695300;947:
> > > 2533274801176260;946:
> > > > 2533274974695300;944:
> > > > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
> > >
> > > Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…
> >
> > Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.
>
> Halo was never about advanced movements. Like Celestis said, adding them put Halo in its own sub genre, which is a depressing thought as it is. So no, I don’t think that’s being harsh at all. What I don’t understand is why people still defend it. It didn’t exist in classic Halo. Now we’re defending it like there’s some obligation to keep it? Advanced movement isn’t fun in Halo. What we had before was. When something already works, why change it? We didn’t ask for a new battle rifle, but hey, they got rid of the old one we loved and gave us a new one that looks little if nothing like its older counterpart. Thanks?

So you want a halo 3 clone?

Every game should have something different to offer. 343i are used to changing gameplay mechanics.

A classic halo experience is what we need but with added features that benefit it and don’t mess with the golden halo triangle.

Increase bms, fix clamber and thrust and remove the others, you have solid gameplay mechanics. This way it’ll appeal to everyone and be innovative.

951

> 2533274974695300;947:
> Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.

So far, they haven’t given us any reason to believe that they can work. Sure, they might. But at some point, you’re just gonna have stop banging your head into the wall once you realized you’re not getting through. Reminds me of that quote often misattributed to Einsein. You know, the “Definition of insanity…” one.
I’m also not saying that Halo should never again try to change its formula, and for what it’s worth, I find your compromise acceptable enough (although I’m not sure if “can’t use it while falling” is enough to fix clamber or even appease the people that have an issue with it). But not for the next game. After this huge draught period without a Halo that actually felt like Halo (depending on who you ask, it’s been longer than a decade by now), the franchise absolutely needs to go back to the last iteration that worked and give the community some respite before it starts experimenting again. In fact, it already needed to go back before H5G, and the return of classic movement is so long overdue, it’s a wonder the franchise hasn’t collapsed in on itself yet. (Or collapsed more than it did).

952

> 2533274801176260;951:
> > 2533274974695300;947:
> > Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.
>
> So far, they haven’t given us any reason to believe that they can work. Sure, they might. But at some point, you’re just gonna have stop banging your head into the wall once you realized you’re not getting through. Reminds me of that quote often misattributed to Einsein. You know, the “Definition of insanity…” one.
> I’m also not saying that Halo should never again try to change its formula, and for what it’s worth, I find your compromise acceptable enough (although I’m not sure if “can’t use it while falling” is enough to fix clamber or even appease the people that have an issue with it). But not for the next game. After this huge draught period without a Halo that actually felt like Halo (depending on who you ask, it’s been longer than a decade by now), the franchise absolutely needs to go back to the last iteration that worked and give the community some respite before it starts experimenting again. In fact, it already needed to go back before H5G, and the return of classic movement is so long overdue, it’s a wonder the franchise hasn’t collapsed in on itself yet. (Or collapsed more than it did).

You may be right, but do you think it’s healthy for Halo to make yet another drastic change on top of another drastic change? and do you think 343 are comfortable enough to make a classic Halo? Right now 343 should focus on the gameplay they have and use the little actual feedback they have to make the next Halo game.

953

> 2533274974695300;952:
> You may be right, but do you think it’s healthy for Halo to make yet another drastic change on top of another drastic change? and do you think 343 are comfortable enough to make a classic Halo? Right now 343 should focus on the gameplay they have and use the little actual feedback they have to make the next Halo game.

Well, they got feedback for pretty much the last 7 years, ever since they took over from Bungie, even before their first game, to go back to Halo 3 and start from there.
Are they comfortable enough? I don’t know, but they were comfortable enough making the last few “drastic changes” as you called them, while simultaneously lying about “going back to the roots”, so that really shouldn’t be an issue.
Will it drive players away? Pretty certainly. Will it drive more away than will be returning? I don’t know. Nobody does until somebody tries. Is it “healthy”? Again, we don’t know, but I cannot conceive it to be less healthy than trying for the third or fourth time in a row (depending if you count Reach or not) to cram stuff into people’s faces that they just don’t seem to like.
This is literally the same discussion we had after Halo 4, and back then they decided to go and try to improve/balance/fix the mechanics, and it didn’t work yet again.
At this point in time, a classic game absolutely needs to be made even if only for the one reason to finally answer the question if that was the reason for Halo’s decline.
Of course it still needs to be a competent and polished game, and not a glitchfest as the MCC was and (partially) still is…

954

> 2533274801176260;953:
> > 2533274974695300;952:
> > You may be right, but do you think it’s healthy for Halo to make yet another drastic change on top of another drastic change? and do you think 343 are comfortable enough to make a classic Halo? Right now 343 should focus on the gameplay they have and use the little actual feedback they have to make the next Halo game.
>
> Well, they got feedback for pretty much the last 7 years, ever since they took over from Bungie, even before their first game, to go back to Halo 3 and start from there.
> Are they comfortable enough? I don’t know, but they were comfortable enough making the last few “drastic changes” as you called them, while simultaneously lying about “going back to the roots”, so that really shouldn’t be an issue.
> Will it drive players away? Pretty certainly. Will it drive more away than will be returning? I don’t know. Nobody does until somebody tries. Is it “healthy”? Again, we don’t know, but I cannot conceive it to be less healthy than trying for the third or fourth time in a row (depending if you count Reach or not) to cram stuff into people’s faces that they just don’t seem to like.
> This is literally the same discussion we had after Halo 4, and back then they decided to go and try to improve/balance/fix the mechanics, and it didn’t work yet again.
> At this point in time, a classic game absolutely needs to be made even if only for the one reason to finally answer the question if that was the reason for Halo’s decline.
> Of course it still needs to be a competent and polished game, and not a glitchfest as the MCC was and (partially) still is…

We don’t need a classic Halo game. You guys would like a classic Halo, but you don’t need it. The problem I see is that the community seems to think that classic Halo is end all be all. And you are right. None of us here now know how thing will turn out until we see it be done. 343 are literally facing two risks with equal amount of consequences. Either 343 goes back to classic Halo and make a game that doesn’t meet the expectations of the people that wanted it making them even more mad for failing to meet said expectations, or 343 continues the path they are in angering the community for not listening to us. It’s almost like (and I hate comparing it to this) politics. Either you lean one or the other and the few people in the middle can barely be heard. We are in this never ending cycle that will never stop no matter what you do. That’s why you have the saying “you can’t please everyone”. So by the end, what CAN 343 do? Personally I’ve never subscribed to the idea of having a spin-off with the advanced movements and have the main games be classic Halo because that will just add fuel to the fire and we will be in the situation that the Sonic fanbase is in. What would I do? Do the gameplay changes I’ve mentioned, it’s the best comprise one can do while angering as little people as possible, and suffer the small consequence of the few people that aren’t happy. But that’s just me, and I know people won’t be happy with that.

And yes while there have been more constructive criticism in the Halo Reach and Halo 4 days, all of that have been diminished to either pro-AM or anti-AM. Yes we have 343 to thank for that happening but we can’t turn back time now can’t we?

955

> 2533274974695300;954:
> We don’t need a classic Halo game. You guys would like a classic Halo, but you don’t need it.

I didn’t mean “we” need a classic Halo. I meant “Halo needs a classic Halo.” And yes, it absolutely does. For one, it needs to figure out if the gameplay change is indeed the reason for the decline in sales and population over the last number of years so it knows how to move forward from here on out. Second, regardless of whether or not you like the last few games, Halo is having a severe identity crisis in that every game is radically different from the previous one. Going back to the last time Halo had an identity is a return into familiar territory for the alienated fanbase and a reassurance to the larger gaming community. Third: Specifically advanced movement is a dying trend and other franchises are abandoning it left and right: Titanfall flopped, CoD reverted to “Boots on the Ground”, Battlefield went WW1. If Halo were one of the few franchises to still try and follow it, when it was the one franchise that struggled to get it to work in the first place because it contradicts its core gameplay, it would be virtual suicide. (Doom is actually one of the few exceptions and I’m legitimately surprised that they of all games decided to jump on that train, especially now. And while I stand by what I said that right now it looks as if their take on it won’t impact the pacing as much, we won’t know until that game releases. id is known for making at least as many right decisions as wrong ones - on the one hand Doom 2016, on the other hand Quake Champions. Don’t forget that Reach and Halo 4 were also praised before the games came out.) I honestly think 343 might rather be able to keep ADS and still get away with it (which I would still hate with a passion but I’m trying to be realistic here) than any of the other stuff.

> 2533274974695300;954:
> What would I do? Do the gameplay changes I’ve mentioned, it’s the best comprise one can do while angering as little people as possible, and suffer the small consequence of the few people that aren’t happy. But that’s just me, and I know people won’t be happy with that.

While I’ve already said that I’d be okay with the changes you suggested, that is a claim without basis. It might just end up to not satisfy anybody, because too much was removed for the Nu-Halo crowd while not enough was removed for the Classic-Halo crowd.

> 2533274974695300;954:
> 343 are literally facing two risks with equal amount of consequences. Either 343 goes back to classic Halo and make a game that doesn’t meet the expectations of the people that wanted it making them even more mad for failing to meet said expectations, or 343 continues the path they are in angering the community for not listening to us.

Option: Double down on enhanced movement
Pro: Satisfy EM-Part of the community. Possibility to gain new players that got left behind when other franchises abandoned EM. Draw from past experiences.
Con: Has not worked in the past. Lose the last few classic fans. Danger of there not being (m)any newcomers (the trend might be dying for a reason). Direct competition to Doom.
Risk: Middle to High

Option: Try and find a balance approach. Remove some abilities, keep other.
Pro: Might be the long-sought-after middle ground. Possibility to satisfy both extremes.
Con: Hard to achieve. Danger of keeping/removing the wrong mechanics. Vastly fractured community; in the end nobody might be satisfied.
Risk: Extremely High

Option: Revert to classic gameplay
Pro: The only one of the three options known to have at least worked in the past. Satisfy remaining classic fans. Possibilty of old fans returning.
Con: Zero guarantee that it still works today. Lose EM-fans. Likeliness of gaining new ones uncertain. No experience in developing classic gameplay from 343.
Risk: Middle to High

Out of all of 343’ options, finding a compromise seems to be the ideal option on paper! I just don’t see it happening. It might have worked had they tried with H5G, but as you already said, by now both extremes of the rift seem to have gone into an “all or nothing” stance. Given the current state of the community and 343’s past track record with bugs, content and balancing, I’m doubtful they could pull it off. And while I’m still convinced that going classic for at least the next game is the best direction to go, when compared to finding the elusive unicorn that is “balanced Halo”, it might actually be more prudent to move the exact opposite route and going all the way with enhanced movement, no longer being held back by how classic Halo played. At least then part of the community would be satisfied and it’s the thing that they seemingly wanted to do all along, so it might actually be a passion project. Because right now, what 343 needs most is to establish themselves as a competent developer after past failures (whatever their cause may be). Just be honest about the direction you’re going, stop pretending you’re building off the original trilogy and stop lying about going back to the roots…

> 2533274974695300;954:
> It’s almost like (and I hate comparing it to this) politics. Either you lean one or the other and the few people in the middle can barely be heard.

Off-topic, but… I assume you are american? Because this is a wrong but understandable statement if coming from somebody that is accustomed to what is virtually a two-party system. The rest of the world, however, doesn’t really work like that and not only are there usually more than two options, they are also not aligned in a linear fashion so they cannot be simplified into two extremes and a middle ground.

956

> 2533274825830455;942:
> Declaring a statement an opinion does not make it unable to be wrong. In particular, the opinion you presented is quite a definite statement: “classic movement would only appeal to esports enthusiasts”. Therefore, if we can find a single person who is not an esports enthusiast but likes classic movement, your statement is false. Even if you weaken it sufficiently, it is still a statement, the thruthfulness of which could be decided fairly unambiguously by simply polling people. It is not a subjective statement in the sense that you can in principle definitively find out how many Halo players identify as “esports enthusiasts” and how many like classic Halo, and what is the overlap between these two sets.
>
> You’re free to find whatever you want dull and boring. However, your statement was “most people would find it dull and boring”. Again, this is a falsifiable statement if we were to just poll the community. It is unambiguously either true or false.
>
> I’m not disputing how you feel about classic gameplay, I’m disputing your claims regarding how other people feel about classic gameplaý. I’m saying that you making statements like “most people would find [classic Halo] dull and boring” is totally unhelpful because you’re just trying to claim your personal opinion as the majority opinion without any evidence.

Or, I could be right. I was not trying to be helpful. I was attempting to get people to think about what “classic movement” means because it means something different to different people. This discussion seemed to be devolving into what should stay and what should go, and I thought maybe we should actually discuss “classic” movement itself. If you want to dwell on my opinion that’s up to you.

It just seems to me that all the pushback comes from players that participated in the Halo 2/Halo 3 heyday era. This is when Halo enjoyed great success despite changes to movement mechanics. In Reach they nerfed the Spartan and added equipment (I know Halo 3 added equipment. The Reach equipment is mostly worn and not deployed). This was the drastic change that was doubled down on from Halo 4 onward, and while it might get dialed back in the next game it’s not likely to disappear, since the story is not likely to go backwards either.

I suppose I continue to love Halo because I never compared one release to the next. I considered each main Halo release as a new Halo game, and only the story was being continued. I don’t think new players are as concerned about how Halo 5 movement mechanics compare to Halo CE mechanics because they’re playing Halo 5 and they’re not playing Halo CEA. In ten years they will be calling Halo 5 “classic” movement.

When talking about the future of the Halo franchise, “classic movement mechanics” is the strawman argument here. Retaining or eliminating Spartan Charge or Ground Pound will not be the determining factors of Halo’s success or failure. There are a lot of things to like about Halo that have nothing to do with the ability to crouch jump.

Back when Halo 4 was a new game I went to a local gaming event and there was this guy there with an old original Xbox hooked up to a CRT monitor. He was claiming to be the “best Halo CE player ever” and was taking on all comers. Right there at the same table was an Xbox running at any particular moment either Reach or Halo 4. The guy got a few takers, but the other Xbox was the busy one. My son and I talked with the guy at length and it became clear to us that this guy had memorized every pixel of every map in CE and knew every possible thing his opponent was likely to try. I suppose that made him extremely comfortable playing CE. He was clearly uncomfortable playing any Halo release made afterwards. As long as Halo remained CE and the maps remained unchanged he could be the superior player. He saw any change as an obstruction rather than as a challenge. I haven’t seen him since, but I doubt his attitude has changed. Some day that old Xbox will give up the ghost, though. I’ll bet many of you know someone like this.

i will say this, though. Part of the fun in the early games was discovering movement mechanics that were not intentional. Like crouch jumping. That was a player discovery that gave people that learned and mastered it an edge. The new mechanics, such as Stability or whatever it’s called, is not something players discover but in fact is explained to us in detail so it’s something you can expect all your opponents know about. With each new release things tighten up more and more and the difference between “skilled” and “not so skilled” becomes more negligible. I believe Reach was an experiment in replacing player-discovered unintentional mechanics with game-provided additional mechanics. However, the game-provided mechanics were labeled “unfair advantages” while, I suppose, crouch jumping was considered a “fair” advantage. Neither is an advantage of any sort. They’re just perceived that way.

For people that believe the franchise has lost its way, no amount of tweaking the mechanics will make any difference. Therefore, the fate of the franchise does not rest on tweaking the mechanics. Insisting that the movement mechanics are what made Halo 2 and 3 so popular is to ignore all the other segments of the community that paid as much for the game as anyone else. I could argue that Red vs Blue had as much of an impact on Halo’s popularity as MLG did. Saving or reviving Halo’s popularity will require a conscientious approach. I’m not saying that movement mechanics don’t deserve any attention at all. I’m merely saying that focusing on movement mechanics at the expense of all the other things that attract people to Halo is, at best, short-sighted.

957

> 2533274801176260;955:
> > 2533274974695300;954:
> > We don’t need a classic Halo game. You guys would like a classic Halo, but you don’t need it.
>
> I didn’t mean “we” need a classic Halo. I meant “Halo needs a classic Halo.” And yes, it absolutely does. For one, it needs to figure out if the gameplay change is indeed the reason for the decline in sales and population over the last number of years so it knows how to move forward from here on out. Second, regardless of whether or not you like the last few games, Halo is having a severe identity crisis in that every game is radically different from the previous one. Going back to the last time Halo had an identity is a return into familiar territory for the alienated fanbase and a reassurance to the larger gaming community. Third: Specifically advanced movement is a dying trend and other franchises are abandoning it left and right: Titanfall flopped, CoD reverted to “Boots on the Ground”, Battlefield went WW1. If Halo were one of the few franchises to still try and follow it, when it was the one franchise that struggled to get it to work in the first place because it contradicts its core gameplay, it would be virtual suicide. (Doom is actually one of the few exceptions and I’m legitimately surprised that they of all games decided to jump on that train, especially now. And while I stand by what I said that right now it looks as if their take on it won’t impact the pacing as much, we won’t know until that game releases. id is known for making at least as many right decisions as wrong ones - on the one hand Doom 2016, on the other hand Quake Champions. Don’t forget that Reach and Halo 4 were also praised before the games came out.) I honestly think 343 might rather be able to keep ADS and still get away with it (which I would still hate with a passion but I’m trying to be realistic here) than any of the other stuff.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274974695300;954:
> > What would I do? Do the gameplay changes I’ve mentioned, it’s the best comprise one can do while angering as little people as possible, and suffer the small consequence of the few people that aren’t happy. But that’s just me, and I know people won’t be happy with that.
>
> While I’ve already said that I’d be okay with the changes you suggested, that is a claim without basis. It might just end up to not satisfy anybody, because too much was removed for the Nu-Halo crowd while not enough was removed for the Classic-Halo crowd.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274974695300;954:
> > 343 are literally facing two risks with equal amount of consequences. Either 343 goes back to classic Halo and make a game that doesn’t meet the expectations of the people that wanted it making them even more mad for failing to meet said expectations, or 343 continues the path they are in angering the community for not listening to us.
>
> Option: Double down on enhanced movement
> Pro: Satisfy EM-Part of the community. Possibility to gain new players that got left behind when other franchises abandoned EM. Draw from past experiences.
> Con: Has not worked in the past. Lose the last few classic fans. Danger of there not being (m)any newcomers (the trend might be dying for a reason). Direct competition to Doom.
> Risk: Middle to High
>
> Option: Try and find a balance approach. Remove some abilities, keep other.
> Pro: Might be the long-sought-after middle ground. Possibility to satisfy both extremes.
> Con: Hard to achieve. Danger of keeping/removing the wrong mechanics. Vastly fractured community; in the end nobody might be satisfied.
> Risk: Extremely High
>
> Option: Revert to classic gameplay
> Pro: The only one of the three options known to have at least worked in the past. Satisfy remaining classic fans. Possibilty of old fans returning.
> Con: Zero guarantee that it still works today. Lose EM-fans. Likeliness of gaining new ones uncertain. No experience in developing classic gameplay from 343.
> Risk: Middle to High
>
> Out of all of 343’ options, finding a compromise seems to be the ideal option on paper! I just don’t see it happening. It might have worked had they tried with H5G, but as you already said, by now both extremes of the rift seem to have gone into an “all or nothing” stance. Given the current state of the community and 343’s past track record with bugs, content and balancing, I’m doubtful they could pull it off. And while I’m still convinced that going classic for at least the next game is the best direction to go, when compared to finding the elusive unicorn that is “balanced Halo”, it might actually be more prudent to move the exact opposite route and going all the way with enhanced movement, no longer being held back by how classic Halo played. At least then part of the community would be satisfied and it’s the thing that they seemingly wanted to do all along, so it might actually be a passion project. Because right now, what 343 needs most is to establish themselves as a competent developer after past failures (whatever their cause may be). Just be honest about the direction you’re going, stop pretending you’re building off the original trilogy and stop lying about going back to the roots…
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274974695300;954:
> > It’s almost like (and I hate comparing it to this) politics. Either you lean one or the other and the few people in the middle can barely be heard.
>
> Off-topic, but… I assume you are american? Because this is a wrong but understandable statement if coming from somebody that is accustomed to what is virtually a two-party system. The rest of the world, however, doesn’t really work like that and not only are there usually more than two options, they are also not aligned in a linear fashion so they cannot be simplified into two extremes and a middle ground.

I guess we all have to go in the mindset of wait and see then. Keep our expectations low so that whatever happens we don’t go on these forums expressing SO much disappointment, if any. Right now I don’t expect much, literally made a thread about it, so I’m just a tiny bit pessimistic with some hope with the rest being oblivious to what 343 is going to do. Fir example, everyone was almost certain that 343 were gonna keep their artstyle, but then Halo Wars 2 were we saw something more similar to the old style so then we expected something similar to HW2 but Chief would wear his H4/H5 armor, but low and behold look what we saw in the Infinite trailer.

Also I’m puertorican, so we have multiple political parties.

958

> 2533274974695300;949:
> > 2535447940912902;948:
> > > 2533274974695300;947:
> > > > 2533274801176260;946:
> > > > > 2533274974695300;944:
> > > > > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…
> > >
> > > Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.
> >
> > Halo was never about advanced movements. Like Celestis said, adding them put Halo in its own sub genre, which is a depressing thought as it is. So no, I don’t think that’s being harsh at all. What I don’t understand is why people still defend it. It didn’t exist in classic Halo. Now we’re defending it like there’s some obligation to keep it? Advanced movement isn’t fun in Halo. What we had before was. When something already works, why change it? We didn’t ask for a new battle rifle, but hey, they got rid of the old one we loved and gave us a new one that looks little if nothing like its older counterpart. Thanks?
>
> And that’s the main point on why a brought up DOOM. DOOM didn’t have any of that fancy-shmancy advanced movements yet the two new games have them and they work. Why? Because they made them to complement the original gameplay which not only did it bring in new players to the DOOM franchise, the older fans liked it and welcomed the changes. Also we defend the new gameplay because, surprise surprise, people actually like it. So here’s my question, why are you guys so against it and don’t offer any feedback as to how you can improve it while making it closer to what you guys had? Because all I see you guys going to the extreme and say just remove it entirely. And what do you expect the newer players that we got thanks to the new movements to do? For them to suck it up and accept that the old gameplay is “better”? That would be just as bad if not worse than it being the other way around, because we would loose what ever new players we brought/can bring. I gave an example three time on how you can do it, it’s possible.

The new movement in Doom didn’t change the overall gameplay as drastically as Halo 5 did and there was a lot more creative freedom seeing as the original was designed for a potato.

Yes, I expect the new players to suck it up. It’s not that I’m against change in general. I’m against changing a game in such a way that it no longer plays the way it was originally intended to. What is even the point of having different games if they’re all just going to copy each other? Isn’t the point of having different games to have a unique experience playing each one?

You suggest classic players should compromise, but why? There is no logical reason whatsoever why classic gameplay should’ve changed to begin with. Change is necessary, sure, but the execution matters too. Doom is a perfect example of this. It is possible to emulate that example in a way that doesn’t sacrifice elements that already work PERFECTLY.

959

> 2535456029664360;950:
> So you want a halo 3 clone?

How does anything I said suggest I want a Halo 3 clone? lol. I’m not against changing things. Halo 3 changed a lot from Halo 2 and Halo 3 is still my second favorite behind it.

> 2535456029664360;950:
> Every game should have something different to offer. 343i are used to changing gameplay mechanics.

So I’m supposed to accept it just because they’re already used to doing it? I didn’t accept it the first time they did it and I probably won’t start now.

> 2535456029664360;950:
> A classic halo experience is what we need but with added features that benefit it and don’t mess with the golden halo triangle.

I feel the same way precisely.

960

> 2533274974695300;947:
> > 2533274801176260;946:
> > > 2533274974695300;944:
> > > You are right, I’m not part of the DOOM community, but I do lurk the comments sections a lot (sometimes I which I didn’t), and when you compare the comments sections of a DOOM video to the ones of a Halo video (this also extends to the types of video themselves) you see massive differences. With DOOM they always say how awesome the games are and how “this is how you do gameplay”, and when you look at Halo you always see things like how any form of advanced movements does not belong in Halo and so on.
> >
> > Again, this mostly boils down to what in the gameplay is changed. When I look at Doom, none of the new or modified mechanics fundamentally alter the moment-to-moment gameplay. Halo’s changes over the last few releases, however, literally put it into a different FPS-subgenre. Remember, that Halo also used to be in that same position, where changes and new additions were way more welcomed: Dual wielding, boarding, lock-on rockets, detachable turrets, portable equipment, etc. were all mechanics that have not been in the original game. What is the difference between those changes that were (mostly) well-received and the recent changes that are highly disputed? Well, if you’d ask me, I’d say that while those earlier additions to the formula did actually affect how the game was played on a more detailed level, it didn’t alter the pacing of the game. You were still running and gunning, you didn’t have to slow down in order to be able to shoot, or zoom in order to reduce your spread, face a wall in order to get on top of it, and so forth. Enhanced movement (along with some other changes to the formula, such as ADS) necessitate an entirely different playstyle that is more disjointed and deliberate than before: If you want to fight, you have to commit to fighting at the cost of your speed; if you want to climb a ledge, you have to commit to clambering it at the cost of your peripheral vision; if you want to move from A to B, you have to commit to sprinting at the cost of your offensive capabilities. Gone are the times when you were doing these things simultaneously, now you have to do them consecutively. And while there certainly are people that don’t mind or even prefer this playstyle, there are also more than enough that don’t enjoy it and more importantly got robbed of the possibility of playing the game the way they wanted to, for (from their point of view) seemingly no reason. You don’t see this reaction for e.g. Doom, because on a fundamentally basic level, nothing has changed and nobody got left behind…
>
> Ok, but being against the idea of advanced movements of any kind just because it wasn’t executed well before? That’s kinda harsh don’t you think? I already gave a few examples on how you can do it, it’s possible and I’m literally doing what you are talking about. Keep thrusters but lower the distance traveled, keep clamber but make it so you can’t use it while falling, remove everything else, and increase the BMS.

There are parts of the Doom community that were against decisions for Doom 2016. It was not movement related, but there was a lot who were and are against loadouts, they did not go down well. As I stated Halo as added so many things at the cost of others. Doom 2016 was reboot of a loved franchise that was true to it’s roots, Doom Eternal looks like it’s taking those roots and growing in the right direction, let’s hope 343i have the same success with Halo Infinite.

961

> 2535447940912902;959:
> > 2535456029664360;950:
> > So you want a halo 3 clone?
>
> How does anything I said suggest I want a Halo 3 clone? lol. I’m not against changing things. Halo 3 changed a lot from Halo 2 and Halo 3 is still my second favorite behind it.
>
>
> > 2535456029664360;950:
> > Every game should have something different to offer. 343i are used to changing gameplay mechanics.
>
> So I’m supposed to accept it just because they’re already used to doing it? I didn’t accept it the first time they did it and I probably won’t start now.
>
>
> > 2535456029664360;950:
> > A classic halo experience is what we need but with added features that benefit it and don’t mess with the golden halo triangle.
>
> I feel the same way precisely.

A completely classic halo wont appeal to many people. They should take everything that worked and use that such as thrust and clamber(of course they need tweaks).I think what I suggested stays true to the golden halo triangle.