The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1102

> 2535430289047128;1097:
> Once again, almost nobody here gets the point of returning to the classic formula. The point is not to change it to the classic formula because that would be better, it’s simply because it was what halo was supposed to be in the first place. I don’t care whether or not sprint, clamber, ADS, or Spartan abilities of any kind make the game more fun for some people. It’s not that the classic formula would be better, it’s simply because it was what Halo was supposed to be in the first place. That should be all that matters but people don’t seem to care, even some people on my side arguing for a return to the classic formula say they wanted because it’s better. That is relative. That’s not what matters, what matters is that that’s not what halo is. I’m not talking legally, I’m talking gameplay wise.

Not sure I fully agree. As has already been mentioned, Halo was initially “supposed to be” an RTS. Then it was “supposed to be” a third person shooter. Then it was “supposed to be” a Mac exclusive.
Neither of those happened.
(Well, Halo Wars did and we got some third-person-animations when carrying turrets and the game was eventually released on Mac… but the core gameplay of the main series on Xbox has none of these traits.)

By that same line of thought you could say that Halo wasn’t supposed to have vehicle boarding because it wasn’t in the first game. Or it was never supposed to have dual wielding, because Bungie didn’t include it even though their previous Marathon games did have it.

I’m not arguing for classic movement because I’m following some arbitrary checklist for what Halo must or mustn’t have in its gameplay. I’m arguing because I genuinely believe that Run’n’Gun makes for a better Halo game than Stop’n’Pop. I konw that I would enjoy it a helluvalot more than the last few FPS titles released under the franchise name, and I also know, both personally and from the internet, that I am not alone in this opinion, not by a longshot. Are we the majority or minority? I don’t know. That’s why I said that 343 should just release a classic game and find out. But either way, that doesn’t mean that I’m generally against new mechanics or features just because they weren’t there before. It just needs to be carefully weighed how much they add and how much they detract from the experience.

That being said, you are right to some degree in that the series still needs to retain enough of its franchise identity. That’s why I intentionally used the phrase “a better Halo game” in the previous paragraph. Too much change will alienate its very own target audience, which is what has been observed to various degrees with the Halo community. The key word here is “brand recognition”. Otherwise we could just taky any game on the market, rip its mechanics 1:1, reskin the assets and just release it under the “Halo” name. To me, personally, H5G was that last straw. I do not recognise Halo in that game, not in the mechanics, not in the visuals, not in the sound design, nowhere at all. Other people may have different breaking points, some already reached theirs before, others may not have arrived there yet at all.

1103

> 2535430289047128;1097:
> Once again, almost nobody here gets the point of returning to the classic formula. The point is not to change it to the classic formula because that would be better, it’s simply because it was what halo was supposed to be in the first place. I don’t care whether or not sprint, clamber, ADS, or Spartan abilities of any kind make the game more fun for some people. It’s not that the classic formula would be better, it’s simply because it was what Halo was supposed to be in the first place. That should be all that matters but people don’t seem to care, even some people on my side arguing for a return to the classic formula say they wanted because it’s better. That is relative. That’s not what matters, what matters is that that’s not what halo is. I’m not talking legally, I’m talking gameplay wise.

Not sure I agree with you on this one man. I feel like this type of thinking is why so many people still think us classic fans are against change.

1104

> 2535430289047128;1097:
> Once again, almost nobody here gets the point of returning to the classic formula. The point is not to change it to the classic formula because that would be better, it’s simply because it was what halo was supposed to be in the first place. I don’t care whether or not sprint, clamber, ADS, or Spartan abilities of any kind make the game more fun for some people. It’s not that the classic formula would be better, it’s simply because it was what Halo was supposed to be in the first place. That should be all that matters but people don’t seem to care, even some people on my side arguing for a return to the classic formula say they wanted because it’s better. That is relative. That’s not what matters, what matters is that that’s not what halo is. I’m not talking legally, I’m talking gameplay wise.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here. On one hand, you seem to acknowledge that whether classic Halo is better is ultimately subjective. On the other hand, you don’t seem to realize that “what Halo is supposed to be” is equally subjective. There’s no way you can make it objective. With that out of the way, on the subjective level, which is the only sensible way to judge this, I find this attiude kind of nonsensical. After all if you didn’t find classic Halo to be a better, more fun experience for yourself, I can’t imagine why you would still think “this is what Halo is supposed to be”.

The only way in which this makes sense is that there are of course underlying reasons why someone likes Halo in particular, something unique which makes them want to play Halo instead of some other game they enjoy. However, I think people who try to reduce this to a checklist of gameplay mechanics to have and not have are being too reductionist and painting themselves into a corner where they can’t conceive any improvements to the game that would make it more fun while maintaining the uniqueness of the game. And like Itz Nater pointed out, this attitude is exactly what always gives fans of the latest game more ammunition to say “you just want Halo 3.5”.

The closest thing to “what Halo is supposed to be” that I consider as a fruitful question is: what experiences has the gameplay of Halo offered me that other games don’t? But again, this is a manifestly personal question. It doesn’t help you justify someone else why classic Halo is more preferable.

1105

1104 comments oh god, this shows how split the community is about this topic

1106

> 2533274936074323;1105:
> 1104 comments oh god, this shows how split the community is about this topic

Meh, I don’t think it shows a massive community split. It’s been mostly the same few people posting. There is definitely a split, but a lot of people are in the middle.

I don’t know if there was ever any consideration of multiplayer when equipment and then Abilities appeared in the game. They seem to be most acceptable in campaign. Transferring them to multiplayer successfully has always been an issue. In campaign, the maps fit the abilities, and the enemy is AI. In multiplayer they mostly just re-skin CE maps and all sorts of problems emerge because the enemy is not a machine. Either multiplayer maps have to be bigger to accommodate the abilities, or the abilities have to work differently from campaign so they don’t overwhelm the map.

There is definitely a difference in opinions as to what constitutes appealing multiplayer. For some it’s bare-knuckles CQB on a small map, and for others it’s full-bore campaign-style action with vehicles and large maps. I think Halo 4 provided the best balance of alternative online play. Because of Spartan Ops, I wouldn’t have given two hoots if they had removed Abilities from War Games. I was able to choose between playing as a full-on Spartan doing Spartan stuff (although this was not executed well), or playing against other players on multiplayer maps that were too small, in my opinion. The choice for me was easy: PVE with poor plots but no one gets pissed if I use a Jet Pack beat playing on a map so small you don’t need Abilities, but you have them anyway so why not.

Yeah, to me it looks like map size matters. If there are going to be Abilities, they need maps made to accommodate vehicles. Sprint makes sense on a large map. On a small map it’s too easy to abuse. Same for any Ability. That’s what makes people mad.

1107

> 2533274825160595;1036:
> > 2533274863262182;1032:
> > One argument I love to pose to defenders of the H5 moveset is that you don’t need to really UNDERSTAND a map anymore. I want everyone to stop and think about Construct in Halo 3. If anyone tries jumping from top open or closed to the sniper spawn, they know that you have to jump from the elevated parts of the ramp. You can’t jump from the lower part. Otherwise, your feet clip the edge and you fall. Furthermore, once you’re on the Sniper ramp, you’ve committed. You cannot jump back easily to those lanes for quick cover, meaning you have to drop down or go back to lobby. Take this same instance in Halo 5. Clamber allows you to jump from anywhere and make the jump back from anywhere. Very Very rarely do you see intentional map design where a player is forced in one direction in Halo 5 due to moveset limitations. You don’t have to be precise when you jump from P2 to P3 on Truth. You just have to clamber the edging at any point. But you had to be careful when doing the same jump on Midship/Heretic because there was a specific ledge to stand on. Only look as far as the Halo CE maps that were “remade” for H5. In H5, these maps are played with sprint. And it is obvious that the maps have been ballooned up to compensate for the H5 moveset. If your really think about this, the fact that the map is increased in size really serves no purpose. Where in Halo CE you were able to walk around the map with one speed, in H5, you are forced to have your gun lowered to sprint around the map and get to places in the exact same time as Halo CE. The idea of Sprint = Speed is an obvious illusion. When you add sprint, you increase the map size so you negate any “speed” that you gained by adding sprint. It’s essentially mapping your top speed to a button and preventing you from aiming when that button is pressed vs. automatically moving at top speed with no limitations. The only real argument in their defense is “I wanna feel cool. REEEEEE”
>
> You understand that there are jumps in Halo 5 that you cant get up too without jumping off another object right? Not everything is accessible with clamber. If construct was made just how it is and put into Halo 5 yes you would only need to clamber up to it, that is the reason they redesign maps. However, the fact that they have to redesign the maps for the new abilities doesn’t somehow mean the abilities are bad or redundant.
>
> When I say it is for speed i dont mean area transversal, I mean combat speed. The speed you are moving in comparision to another player. Without sprint you cant blitz people. You can’t do the sprint, slide, jump, thrust combo. You can’t use that combo with hover to cross even greater distances in the air. You can’t spartan charge. You can’t catch people off guard when they are sprinting and you are not. You can’t run away(there are tactical ways to use this like leading one or more enemies to the rest of your team or into a trap).
>
> I will put this out there. I personally dont want sprint as many of these could be dont without sprint but with other abilities after watching the Doom eternal gameplay i can guarantee that. However, what im hoping for gameplay wise still wouldn’t be “classic gameplay”.

I think that the sacrifice of “combat speed” for better map design is the tradeoff I want to propose. Don’t get me wrong, I love Halo 5. I love the moveset. I love having to Sprint-Thrust-Slide-Stabilize my way from Yard to top Yellow on Plaza. I love bump-thrusting from Silver to S3 on Coli. However, as a long time Halo fan, the Halo 5 maps are the most bare-bones, basic and rudimentary Halo maps we have had. You don’t see interesting “Standoffy” maps like the Pit. Not to mention that a Guardian/Lockout style of map is impossible in this game because the game design does not allow for claustrophobic zone-based maps with top mid as an intersection. Maps are elongated, open, lane based and basic. You cannot do anything with the map design due to the spartan abilities. In order to compensate for the movement options, the design of the map has to provide several options for the player at all times. Meaning that at any point on the map, you have 2-5 possible directions to choose from. While this design isn’t as obvious on a map like Truth, it is at the core of the design of Coliseum or Plaza. Creating an open map with multiple options at any time for movement abilities means you sacrifice the ability to design more limited movement scenarios (i.e. Dropping from top blue to bottom blue on Lockout. You fall and can’t return up without making noise and making yourself a target via the lift.) Just think about how much open area there is on Coli, Plaza, The Rig, Fissure. So while I like the use of movement mechanics in Halo 5, the map design is severely impaired and restricted as a result. I want good maps again. I want a map like The Pit, Countdown, HangEmHigh, Guardian, Lockout, Wizard, High Ground. Those are unique gameplay ideas that are not possible in Halo anymore.

1108

> 2533274825830455;1101:
> > 2533274968894951;1098:
> > I really cannot believe that Sprint, after the countless post on various Sprint threads in which it was PROVEN to be a game-breaking mechanic that added nothing to the gameplay besides the illusion of going faster, is STILL being defended!? I don’t want to sound like a jerk, but there’s enough evidence against Sprint by now that it makes those who defend it factually wrong. Sprint can never be balanced to work as effectively as single-movement speed. I know all of this sounds harsh and arrogant, but it’s the hard truth. This thread shows that there are still many people not willing to accept that.
>
> Not to curb your enthusiasm or anything, but there are few things about sprint that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The statement “sprint is game-breaking” certainly hasn’t been proven, because it’s far too vague. What does it mean that a mechanic is game-breaking? Can you define it using clear terminology in a way that everybody can agree with the definition? If your definiton is vague, or people don’t find it reasonable, any proof relying on it (even supposing you had a valid one) is useless to them.
>
> In any case, the question “should sprint stay?” is not an objective question, it’s just a matter of opinion. When you talk about “evidence against Sprint” you assume that everybody values the same type of gameplay that you value. For someone else, your “evidence” might be completely irrelevant. No one is “factually wrong” by virtue of defending sprint. I could throw a ton of defenses of sprint your way that cannot be factually wrong because they are not falsifiable, for instance, “I like sprint because it makes me feel faster, therefore it should stay”. Regardless of what I think about that statement, it’s not factually wrong because it never asserts anything factual. Therefore someone who defends sprint on that basis is not factually wrong.
>
> I’m a great advocate of discussing the objective aspects of sprint. However, in order to properly have that discussion, we need to understand where the line between subjective and objective is drawn. That’s why i don’t appreciate when people come here throwing around words like “proven”, “factually”, and “truth” about something that is clearly subjective. By all means, if you can find the line between subjective and objective, feel free to talk about the objective aspects of sprint, but if you can’t, please don’t act like you’re some bastion of truth and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong.

It is a FACT that maps that accommodate sprint are elongated compared to older Halo titles. It is a FACT that 343’s community forgers had to elongate the Halo CE Maps when introducing them to H5 because of sprint. It is a FACT that sprinting across Truth takes roughly the same time as walking across Midship. Just because you refuse to acknowledge these facts doesn’t mean they aren’t objectively true. You want the fine line between subjective and objective? Compare walking distances in H5 to older Halos. Compare travel time on H5 remade maps to their original counterparts with/without sprint. The map design of older games is sacrificed for these wide, empty maps due to Sprint. There are ways to objectively prove this.

But regardless how much data we throw at you people, your response will always be “You are entitled to your own opinion.” So continue to refuse to acknowledge facts.

1109

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> It is a FACT that maps that accommodate sprint are elongated compared to older Halo titles.

Yes.

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> It is a FACT that 343’s community forgers had to elongate the Halo CE Maps when introducing them to H5 because of sprint.

Yes.

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> It is a FACT that sprinting across Truth takes roughly the same time as walking across Midship.

Yes.

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> Just because you refuse to acknowledge these facts doesn’t mean they aren’t objectively true.

Refuse to acknowledge what facts? Feel free to show where I ever implied that I wasn’t aware of the three facts you listed. I’ll wait.

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> You want the fine line between subjective and objective? Compare walking distances in H5 to older Halos. Compare travel time on H5 remade maps to their original counterparts with/without sprint. The map design of older games is sacrificed for these wide, empty maps due to Sprint. There are ways to objectively prove this.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this is news to me. I’m not sure why you think it would be, because it’s not in any way controversial, and the discussion of sprint’s effects on map sizes carries all the way back to Reach. We’ve known all this for eight years.

> 2533274863262182;1108:
> But regardless how much data we throw at you people, your response will always be “You are entitled to your own opinion.” So continue to refuse to acknowledge facts.

It’s cute how you just assume things about me because I just happened to respond critically to a post that agrees with your agenda. Since you’re apparently new here, I suggest you might want to check some of my post history to see who I am and where I stand, in particular pertaining to classic movement and sprint. I’m sure it will be an enlightening read.

The issue here is that while you clearly know that the three statements you listed are facts, you don’t fully understand what these facts mean for sprint. Namely, you don’t understand that they are neither against nor in favor of sprint. They are just facts about sprint. Whether the increase in map sizes is a bad thing or not ultimately comes down to opinion. More generally, whether sprint is good or bad is ultimately subjective. This is what the person I quoted also failed to understand, and is why I was criticizing their post.

1110

> 2533274825830455;1109:
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > It is a FACT that maps that accommodate sprint are elongated compared to older Halo titles.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > It is a FACT that 343’s community forgers had to elongate the Halo CE Maps when introducing them to H5 because of sprint.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > It is a FACT that sprinting across Truth takes roughly the same time as walking across Midship.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > Just because you refuse to acknowledge these facts doesn’t mean they aren’t objectively true.
>
> Refuse to acknowledge what facts? Feel free to show where I ever implied that I wasn’t aware of the three facts you listed. I’ll wait.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > You want the fine line between subjective and objective? Compare walking distances in H5 to older Halos. Compare travel time on H5 remade maps to their original counterparts with/without sprint. The map design of older games is sacrificed for these wide, empty maps due to Sprint. There are ways to objectively prove this.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this is news to me. I’m not sure why you think it would be, because it’s not in any way controversial, and the discussion of sprint’s effects on map sizes carries all the way back to Reach. We’ve known all this for eight years.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274863262182;1108:
> > But regardless how much data we throw at you people, your response will always be “You are entitled to your own opinion.” So continue to refuse to acknowledge facts.
>
> It’s cute how you just assume things about me because I just happened to respond critically to a post that agrees with your agenda. Since you’re apparently new here, I suggest you might want to check some of my post history to see who I am and where I stand, in particular pertaining to classic movement and sprint. I’m sure it will be an enlightening read.
>
> The issue here is that while you clearly know that the three statements you listed are facts, you don’t fully understand what these facts mean for sprint. Namely, you don’t understand that they are neither against nor in favor of sprint. They are just facts about sprint. Whether the increase in map sizes is a bad thing or not ultimately comes down to opinion. More generally, whether sprint is good or bad is ultimately subjective. This is what the person I quoted also failed to understand, and is why I was criticizing their post.

I want to apologize for my aggression. I thoroughly misread your entire post and misunderstood what your argument was. I was definitely in error here. My mistake.

1111

> 2535449076192416;1:
> EDIT: 1100 comments. What have I done?

Nothing. You just started a really “sensitive” topic within the Halo community.

1112

> 2533274974695300;1111:
> > 2535449076192416;1:
> > EDIT: 1100 comments. What have I done?
>
> Nothing. You just started a really “sensitive” topic within the Halo community.

A sensitive topic that started with the Reach beta back in May 2010, which got far worse and heated with each progressive release ignoring (and if anything worsening) the mechanic itself.

1113

By the time Infinite comes out i bet this will have 2000 comments or more

1114

> 2533274798957786;1106:
> > 2533274936074323;1105:
> > 1104 comments oh god, this shows how split the community is about this topic
>
> Meh, I don’t think it shows a massive community split. It’s been mostly the same few people posting. There is definitely a split, but a lot of people are in the middle.
>
> I don’t know if there was ever any consideration of multiplayer when equipment and then Abilities appeared in the game. They seem to be most acceptable in campaign. Transferring them to multiplayer successfully has always been an issue. In campaign, the maps fit the abilities, and the enemy is AI. In multiplayer they mostly just re-skin CE maps and all sorts of problems emerge because the enemy is not a machine. Either multiplayer maps have to be bigger to accommodate the abilities, or the abilities have to work differently from campaign so they don’t overwhelm the map.
>
> There is definitely a difference in opinions as to what constitutes appealing multiplayer. For some it’s bare-knuckles CQB on a small map, and for others it’s full-bore campaign-style action with vehicles and large maps. I think Halo 4 provided the best balance of alternative online play. Because of Spartan Ops, I wouldn’t have given two hoots if they had removed Abilities from War Games. I was able to choose between playing as a full-on Spartan doing Spartan stuff (although this was not executed well), or playing against other players on multiplayer maps that were too small, in my opinion. The choice for me was easy: PVE with poor plots but no one gets pissed if I use a Jet Pack beat playing on a map so small you don’t need Abilities, but you have them anyway so why not.
>
> Yeah, to me it looks like map size matters. If there are going to be Abilities, they need maps made to accommodate vehicles. Sprint makes sense on a large map. On a small map it’s too easy to abuse. Same for any Ability. That’s what makes people mad.

I agree that there is a lot of middle people (don’t care if the sprint animation is in or not) but I do feel the community is overall pretty split on this issue. I’m going by here and all other forms of soical media. I do think however that more and more people are ok with and very open to having a Halo game that has no sprint animation like the older ones. Games like Doom and especially Overwatch (which is arguably one of the most popular FPS in the last few years) have showned them that FPS without can work just fine without it.

I think the majority of people didn’t have much of an issue with equipment in Halo 3 because they were map pick, one time use items. I also think that the majority of people are fine with the IDEA (key word here lol) of armor abilities. The problem was how they were implemented. I’m pretty positive if armor abilities were map pick up items like equipment was and were one time use or something along these lines, the majority of people would be ok with them.

I do agree with you though that modes where it’s PvE like Spartan Ops, Firefight etc. No one really cares about x or y because your fighting against the computer. Hence why I feel things like AA or SA or whatever can definitely have a place in the game, but it those kinds of modes only in there current forms. Warzone to me, is terrible and should be scapped as it’s an unbalanced mess and trying to balance a mode like that isn’t logical at all. Someone is always going to more x items then you or access to something that you don’t and so on. I don’t think I need to get into the issues of warzone as they’re pretty well-documented. Where as Firefight, none if that matters because it’s PvE. It could be so much more then what it is and should be a greater focus in Halo 6. I really feel firefight could be that mode where stuff like AA, different weapon and vehicles, weapons like the target locator could really shine!

The way I see it is if things like AA, SA etc. are going to be in Halo modes across the board, they need to be more along the lines of single use, map pick up items like equipment. Otherwise, stuff like that should be left in modes that are PvE only (Spartan Ops, firefight, campaign Etc)

Sprint I still think is unnecessary and the majority of people I don’t think would care if it’s in it or not as long as the game is good and fun. Games like the new Doom and especially Overwatch have shown if the game is good and fun people will buy it, they don’t care if it doesn’t have x, y and z or not. Things like the sprint animation, AA, SA etc. just cause too many problems, especially with map design as you pointed out, I completely agree and it’s very hard to balance. So stuff like this is best left in PvE modes or they need to be redesign on how they work (like making AA or SA one time use,map pick up items for example like I said earlier)

Like I’ve said before, the sprint animation doesn’t sell games. Games that are fun (and balanced, they go hand in hand) is what sells games.

1115

I prefer classic movements. Sprint doesnt bother me all that much but the thrusters do.

1116

> 2533274815533909;1114:
> Games like Doom and especially Overwatch (which is arguably one of the most popular FPS in the last few years) have showned them that FPS without can work just fine without it.

Overwatch is not a good example of a no-sprint game. The most traditional FPS character in that game does indeed have sprint (and he’s a decently popular character at low to mid tiers, so he sees alot of use), and many other characters have some sort of advanced movement ability that functions like Evade. So it certainly isn’t an example of a “classic movement is best” type of game, and even looking at sprint alone, Overwatch does have it. But it’s comparing apples to oranges because Overwatch is a different type of game than Halo or even DOOM (2016). Map design in OW is very different from Halo and having the sprint animation or advanced movement doesn’t break the design for that game.

> 2533274815533909;1114:
> Games like the new Doom and especially Overwatch have shown if the game is good and fun people will buy it, they don’t care if it doesn’t have x, y and z or not.

I agree that a game being good doesn’t necessarily depend of individual mechanics like sprint. However, again, I think using OW is not a good example on why Halo should not have sprint, given that OW is a different kind of shooter and does in fact have sprint. And even DOOM isn’t a great example, as that game’s star was the single-player experience, not the multiplayer, and I agree with the idea that just because a certain movement system works in single-player doesn’t necessarily mean it will work in competitive multiplayer. And it’s worth noting that DOOM Eternal looks to be adding additional advanced movement mechanics to the game, which may or may not end up being controversial. We’ll have to wait and see.

1117

> 2533274817408735;1116:
> > 2533274815533909;1114:
> > Games like Doom and especially Overwatch (which is arguably one of the most popular FPS in the last few years) have showned them that FPS without can work just fine without it.
>
> Overwatch is not a good example of a no-sprint game. The most traditional FPS character in that game does indeed have sprint (and he’s a decently popular character at low to mid tiers, so he sees alot of use), and many other characters have some sort of advanced movement ability that functions like Evade. So it certainly isn’t an example of a “classic movement is best” type of game, and even looking at sprint alone, Overwatch does have it. But it’s comparing apples to oranges because Overwatch is a different type of game than Halo or even DOOM (2016). Map design in OW is very different from Halo and having the sprint animation or advanced movement doesn’t break the design for that game.
>
>
> > 2533274815533909;1114:
> > Games like the new Doom and especially Overwatch have shown if the game is good and fun people will buy it, they don’t care if it doesn’t have x, y and z or not.
>
> I agree that a game being good doesn’t necessarily depend of individual mechanics like sprint. However, again, I think using OW is not a good example on why Halo should not have sprint, given that OW is a different kind of shooter and does in fact have sprint. And even DOOM isn’t a great example, as that game’s star was the single-player experience, not the multiplayer, and I agree with the idea that just because a certain movement system works in single-player doesn’t necessarily mean it will work in competitive multiplayer. And it’s worth noting that DOOM Eternal looks to be adding additional advanced movement mechanics to the game, which may or may not end up being controversial. We’ll have to wait and see.

I’m aware that those games I mentioned are different types of FPS then Halo (though there are some similarities but I digress there because I don’t wish to get into that and that’s besides the point) but that wasn’t my point when it came to the sprint animation. Maybe I didn’t make my point clear. If that’s the case I apologize for that, but my point mainly was many people say FPS today (no matter the style) need to have the sprint animation because people expect it to be in or say the game won’t do well if it doesn’t have it. As I’ve said many times, have you ever in your right mind heard someone say “OMG that game looks AMAZING!! Oh the sprint animation isn’t in it… Ok nevermind then, I don’t want to play it” lolol sounds pretty dumb right? Well, that’s because it is lol it’s such a ridiculous way of thinking.

Those two games clearly show that a FPS (doesn’t matter the type or the style or if it’s multiplayer or single-player we are talking about, that’s not what I’m talking about remember) doesn’t need the sprint animation to be successful. It comes down too does the game play well and is it fun. Overwatch meets that criteria (when 95% + of the characters don’t have it I say we can include it and it still is a FPS) and Doom does also. Yes the multiplayer portion of Doom wasn’t received as well but again, I’m not talking about a specific part of the game. I’m making the point that you don’t need the sprint animation for game to be successful and accepted by people and I would say Doom certainly was successful. Anyone who thinks Doom wasn’t successful, should go look up how many awards it won too along with sales. That is/was my point there. If you don’t see that, then I guess we’ll just agree to disagree and move on. That’s all I was saying in that previous post (when it comes to the sprint animation of course :slight_smile: )

1118

> 2533274817408735;1116:
> > 2533274815533909;1114:
> > Games like the new Doom and especially Overwatch have shown if the game is good and fun people will buy it, they don’t care if it doesn’t have x, y and z or not.
>
> I agree that a game being good doesn’t necessarily depend of individual mechanics like sprint. However, again, I think using OW is not a good example on why Halo should not have sprint, given that OW is a different kind of shooter and does in fact have sprint. And even DOOM isn’t a great example, as that game’s star was the single-player experience, not the multiplayer, and I agree with the idea that just because a certain movement system works in single-player doesn’t necessarily mean it will work in competitive multiplayer. And it’s worth noting that DOOM Eternal looks to be adding additional advanced movement mechanics to the game, which may or may not end up being controversial. We’ll have to wait and see.

In case of a mechanic like sprint, I don’t see the relevance of the single player focus of DOOM. After all, the reasons people give for liking sprint are speed and immersion. The former is completely independent of game mode while the latter almost seems more important in single player (or at least is independent of game mode). Therefore if the lack of sprint was truly an issue, one would also expect it to be an issue in the single player of DOOM.

1119

> 2533274815533909;1117:
> I’m aware that those games I mentioned are different types of FPS then Halo (though there are some similarities but I digress there because I don’t wish to get into that and that’s besides the point) but that wasn’t my point when it came to the sprint animation. Maybe I didn’t make my point clear. If that’s the case I apologize for that, but my point mainly was many people say FPS today (no matter the style) need to have the sprint animation because people expect it to be in or say the game won’t do well if it doesn’t have it. As I’ve said many times, have you ever in your right mind heard someone say “OMG that game looks AMAZING!! Oh the sprint animation isn’t in it… Ok nevermind then, I don’t want to play it” lolol sounds pretty dumb right? Well, that’s because it is lol it’s such a ridiculous way of thinking.
>
> Those two games clearly show that a FPS (doesn’t matter the type or the style or if it’s multiplayer or single-player we are talking about, that’s not what I’m talking about remember) doesn’t need the sprint animation to be successful. It comes down too does the game play well and is it fun. Overwatch meets that criteria (when 95% + of the characters don’t have it I say we can include it and it still is a FPS) and Doom does also. Yes the multiplayer portion of Doom wasn’t received as well but again, I’m not talking about a specific part of the game. I’m making the point that you don’t need the sprint animation for game to be successful and accepted by people and I would say Doom certainly was successful. Anyone who thinks Doom wasn’t successful, should go look up how many awards it won too along with sales. That is/was my point there. If you don’t see that, then I guess we’ll just agree to disagree and move on. That’s all I was saying in that previous post (when it comes to the sprint animation of course :slight_smile: )

I don’t remember reading the part where someone said that people buy games because of the sprint animation specifically. I get that’s what you’re talking about, but is that really the topic of concern? I thought the topic was on advanced movement as a whole. Who was saying that games need the sprint animation to sell? I recall tsassi linking an article saying that 343 feels that sprint is an expectation in modern shooters, but I don’t recall seeing that point in the person you originally replied to.
The reason I brought up Doom and OW being different types of FPS is that not every shooter player buys every shooter. Some do, I’m sure, but I’d be willing to bet that’s not the norm. For instance, I’ve played every FPS Halo thus far, but never played a CoD or a Battlefield. That’s not to say I’m only loyal to one FPS franchise, but it’s not like I’ll play anything that’s an FPS. So for players who do focus more on one particular FPS franchise, the differences between franchises probably do play a factor in why they have their favorites. I don’t know when sprint first showed up in CoD, but CoDWWII still has it (and apparently it was updated to be unlimited when at launch it was limited sprint). So does CoD need sprint to be successful? If the next CoD got rid of it, would it bomb? I’d like to think not, but I do think it’s fair to say that mechanics like sprint at least play a role in the crowd they attract. At the same time, I don’t think that just because something works/doesn’t work in CoD doesn’t mean it will work/not work in Halo. It’s a tricky issue. But I do think that no one mechanic can be the make-or-break for a game’s success; it ends up being a collection of mechanics and other things. Hence why I think the conversation is bigger than just the sprint animation.
In the case of Overwatch, even if 95% of the characters don’t have a sprint animation, the fact that one character does means sprint is in the game, and any person who buys games specifically because they possess a sprint animation (crazy a notion as that is) would have that condition satisfied by Overwatch. Hypothetically. But then, I’ve never met a person who only buys games for the sprint animation, so I’ve no idea whether such a person would truly be satisfied with only one character showing a sprint animation. If you ever encounter such a person, please ask them for me.

> 2533274825830455;1118:
> In case of a mechanic like sprint, I don’t see the relevance of the single player focus of DOOM. After all, the reasons people give for liking sprint are speed and immersion. The former is completely independent of game mode while the latter almost seems more important in single player (or at least is independent of game mode). Therefore if the lack of sprint was truly an issue, one would also expect it to be an issue in the single player of DOOM.

The relevance would be in the case of balancing. With sprint in Halo, I feel like the majority of complaints for it come from the multiplayer side; I see a lot of “that guy can just sprint away from engagements” or “I have to lower my weapon to get to a firefight faster”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven’t seen them). So with DOOM’s most popular mode being the single player campaign, I don’t think balanced abilities was the main focus when designing Doom Slayer. And since Doom’s multiplayer isn’t as popular as it’s single player, I wonder if Halo 5 had multiplayer more like Doom, if it would have been better or worse received. I’m just doing thought exercises, because I don’t think any other FPS franchise can be compared 1:1 with another, and because I don’t have a horse in this race and like to play devil’s advocate.

1120

> 2533274817408735;1119:
> […] I don’t know when sprint first showed up in CoD, but CoDWWII still has it (and apparently it was updated to be unlimited when at launch it was limited sprint). So does CoD need sprint to be successful? If the next CoD got rid of it, would it bomb? I’d like to think not, but I do think it’s fair to say that mechanics like sprint at least play a role in the crowd they attract.
> […]

sprint in CoD showed up the first time in the very first CoD on PC with the united offensive expansion. (before that it had the same thing like CS that you ran faster with your pistol out than with any of the main weapons). also sprint wasn’t unlimited then.
in CoD 2 sprint was gone again and then came back with CoD 3 if i remember correctly (can’t say anything about the console CoDs “Finest Hour” and “Big Red 1”)

so you can say it was taken out once already from CoD and CoD 2 sold very well if i’m not mistaken.

but i have to say: i missed sprint in CoD 2 because i thought it added to the gameplay, because of the low time to kill and the need to sprint from cover to cover. i played search and destroy the whole time, so taking cover was also more important because you only had one life per round, so that could also be a reason that i missed it. also the need for stealth in search and destroy and your character being out of breath and people being able to hear someones heavy breathing were additions that came with sprint.

in halo i never missed sprint and to this day i prefer the classic movement mechanics and i’m hoping for them to return. that being said, i didn’t mind sprint in reach either but i did mind it in halo 4, although i couldn’t point my finger on what was bothering me at the time and why i only enjoid BTB in halo 4.
but halo isn’t CoD and what fits CoD doesn’t have to fit halo and the other way around to.

1121

> 2533274817408735;1119:
> > 2533274815533909;1117:
> > I’m aware that those games I mentioned are different types of FPS then Halo (though there are some similarities but I digress there because I don’t wish to get into that and that’s besides the point) but that wasn’t my point when it came to the sprint animation. Maybe I didn’t make my point clear. If that’s the case I apologize for that, but my point mainly was many people say FPS today (no matter the style) need to have the sprint animation because people expect it to be in or say the game won’t do well if it doesn’t have it. As I’ve said many times, have you ever in your right mind heard someone say “OMG that game looks AMAZING!! Oh the sprint animation isn’t in it… Ok nevermind then, I don’t want to play it” lolol sounds pretty dumb right? Well, that’s because it is lol it’s such a ridiculous way of thinking.
> >
> > Those two games clearly show that a FPS (doesn’t matter the type or the style or if it’s multiplayer or single-player we are talking about, that’s not what I’m talking about remember) doesn’t need the sprint animation to be successful. It comes down too does the game play well and is it fun. Overwatch meets that criteria (when 95% + of the characters don’t have it I say we can include it and it still is a FPS) and Doom does also. Yes the multiplayer portion of Doom wasn’t received as well but again, I’m not talking about a specific part of the game. I’m making the point that you don’t need the sprint animation for game to be successful and accepted by people and I would say Doom certainly was successful. Anyone who thinks Doom wasn’t successful, should go look up how many awards it won too along with sales. That is/was my point there. If you don’t see that, then I guess we’ll just agree to disagree and move on. That’s all I was saying in that previous post (when it comes to the sprint animation of course :slight_smile: )
>
> I don’t remember reading the part where someone said that people buy games because of the sprint animation specifically. I get that’s what you’re talking about, but is that really the topic of concern? I thought the topic was on advanced movement as a whole. Who was saying that games need the sprint animation to sell? I recall tsassi linking an article saying that 343 feels that sprint is an expectation in modern shooters, but I don’t recall seeing that point in the person you originally replied to.
> The reason I brought up Doom and OW being different types of FPS is that not every shooter player buys every shooter. Some do, I’m sure, but I’d be willing to bet that’s not the norm. For instance, I’ve played every FPS Halo thus far, but never played a CoD or a Battlefield. That’s not to say I’m only loyal to one FPS franchise, but it’s not like I’ll play anything that’s an FPS. So for players who do focus more on one particular FPS franchise, the differences between franchises probably do play a factor in why they have their favorites. I don’t know when sprint first showed up in CoD, but CoDWWII still has it (and apparently it was updated to be unlimited when at launch it was limited sprint). So does CoD need sprint to be successful? If the next CoD got rid of it, would it bomb? I’d like to think not, but I do think it’s fair to say that mechanics like sprint at least play a role in the crowd they attract. At the same time, I don’t think that just because something works/doesn’t work in CoD doesn’t mean it will work/not work in Halo. It’s a tricky issue. But I do think that no one mechanic can be the make-or-break for a game’s success; it ends up being a collection of mechanics and other things. Hence why I think the conversation is bigger than just the sprint animation.
> In the case of Overwatch, even if 95% of the characters don’t have a sprint animation, the fact that one character does means sprint is in the game, and any person who buys games specifically because they possess a sprint animation (crazy a notion as that is) would have that condition satisfied by Overwatch. Hypothetically. But then, I’ve never met a person who only buys games for the sprint animation, so I’ve no idea whether such a person would truly be satisfied with only one character showing a sprint animation. If you ever encounter such a person, please ask them for me.
>
>
> > 2533274825830455;1118:
> > In case of a mechanic like sprint, I don’t see the relevance of the single player focus of DOOM. After all, the reasons people give for liking sprint are speed and immersion. The former is completely independent of game mode while the latter almost seems more important in single player (or at least is independent of game mode). Therefore if the lack of sprint was truly an issue, one would also expect it to be an issue in the single player of DOOM.
>
> The relevance would be in the case of balancing. With sprint in Halo, I feel like the majority of complaints for it come from the multiplayer side; I see a lot of “that guy can just sprint away from engagements” or “I have to lower my weapon to get to a firefight faster”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven’t seen them). So with DOOM’s most popular mode being the single player campaign, I don’t think balanced abilities was the main focus when designing Doom Slayer. And since Doom’s multiplayer isn’t as popular as it’s single player, I wonder if Halo 5 had multiplayer more like Doom, if it would have been better or worse received. I’m just doing thought exercises, because I don’t think any other FPS franchise can be compared 1:1 with another, and because I don’t have a horse in this race and like to play devil’s advocate.

I completely agree.
A success for game it’s not only by a mechanic. It’s lore, gameplay, modes, coop experience, immersion, level design, and the fire power of an engine.
Each of these games is unique. I see fanboys around internet trying to comparing between Battlefield and Call Of Duty. Call of Duty works completely different than BF. Where 64 players on BF, only 16 players they can support. COD had more arcade style than Battlefield. Each one with their purposes. Overwatch get the idea from League Of Legends or Dota to make an FPS Style.
In my opinion, i don’t mind it so much about will have sprint or not. I think they could remove the Spartan Thursters and evade because the opponent can flee so much away from a direct combat. If they can bring I’m playing as a super soldier and fluid gameplay, I could accept.