The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1162

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> > 2535430289047128;1148:
> > > 2533274798957786;1099:
> > > > 2535430289047128;1097:
> > > >
>
> Well, I think the idea of “bringing back the old mechanics” is based on a misconception that the old mechanics went away. We are now at 58 pages and although the focus has been on Sprint for a few pages, what I am still getting from what I read here is that it’s not so much that classic mechanics should return, but more along the lines of, “mechanics introduced in Reach and every game afterwards should be eliminated, except for the one or two that I like.” The most vocal critics are the ones that actually played the pre-Reach games. Given that movement mechanics in MCC have been declared “broken”, the only true assessment that can be made is playing the original games on the consoles they were written for, and then comparing that experience to Halo 4 and Halo 5.
>
> I purposely left Reach out of that equation because Reach was a spinoff…
>
> So yes, playing CE on the original Xbox with it’s giant controllers against friends that are in the same room is a different experience from playing 5 online on an Xbox One or Xbox X using an Elite controller set up just the way you like, with opponents/teammates spread all across the planet. That experience (original CE experience) would be difficult to duplicate, and having your opponent/teammate in the same room does make the experience different (don’t forget, dual screen comes back with Halo: Infinite. At least you can have one friend play with you on the same machine).
>
> I believe it’s pretty clear that Halo 4 was more a direct result of Reach than any of the previous games…
>
> So, two problems with “classic movement mechanics” is that the concept itself is lost on anyone that never played CE on the original xbox, or never played the other games made for the 360. Unless they can find those old consoles they can’t possibly compare the old games to what they’re used to now. No amount of tweaking will convince older players that the game on the Xbox X plays exactly like it did on the old consoles using the old controllers, and younger players simply won’t care. This is why “bringing back” the old mechanics won’t amount to anything, because changing the movement mechanics doesn’t address the real issues regarding online multiplayer popularity. Yes, it will make some people happy. Not enough to matter, though. At best, removing post-Reach mechanics entirely in both the campaign and multiplayer would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now, but not more so, in my opinion. In a world where offering more or different seems to attract players, offering less seems like a bad idea. The most logical option as I see it, is to have every single current movement mechanic return, but tweaked so that they don’t overwhelm the “classic” mechanics. Most people tend to suggest equipment and pickups. I don’t agree but it’s a way, and I would accept it.
>
> More to the point, it appears that aversion towards enhanced abilities has more to do with a weakened opponent’s ability to “cheat death” or “get out of jail free” than it does being able to get around a map like you used to. There are a number of players out there (perhaps older players used to host advantage) that believe when they aim at you and pull a trigger, you should die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed. Being where I tossed a grenade means you have to die from the grenade. No getting out of its way. How many times have I heard the phrase, “I had to waste a grenade in order to kill him” because the opponent avoided the first one but every grenade tossed is supposed to result in a kill. All of the post-Reach mechanics are regarded as ways to avoid being killed and, therefore, have no place in Halo where old school mechanics made it unlikely you would survive a close-quarters engagement if you didn’t shoot first. If you are not currently a beast at the game, stripping away the abilities won’t make you a better player but, more importantly, it will be even more difficult to stand out. If you are the type of player that believes abilities force you to chase down players to get the kill, then perhaps you should examine the wisdom of using that old strategy in a new game instead of trying to get the developer to remove the things that make it harder for you to get a kill.

You’re right to say bringing back classic mechanics ALONE wouldn’t do anything. Full sandbox, more stable and original multiplayer, a bigger and better campaign, a working theater, etc without classic mechanics would probably be enough to bring a lot of people back. I’m just saying tho, you won’t know how well people would respond to a new “classic” Halo until you TRY it. And I think 343i are a bit afraid to now, which is understandable. SO… maybe Favyn (think that’s who said it) was right to suggest a spin-off series after all for classic mechanics. HECC, maybe even just a DLC for Infinite with an extra campaign that incorporates classic gameplay into it whilst having the first campaign be modern would be a fine test. Not saying anything like DESTINY, with their DLC campaigns, just saying more along the lines of Xenoblade Chronicels 2 Torna: The Golden Country (look it up, it’s amazing) where it’s a DLC that’s almost its own entire game but not quite that just happens to use the same engine as the first and just tweaks the gameplay. But, that’s only if 343i would be willing to DO that. I think it’d be successful, but we don’t know til they try; they need to be willing. Now, I only do this as a historical comparison, when people tell me “how dare you compare _____ to _____” I don’t care because a comparison really isn’t an insult, it’s just a comparison, so no this is NOT an insult to 343i at all; in fact other than how they handled Halo 5 I actually quite like them as a company. Anyways, if 343i aren’t willing to test out this formula, it’s kinda like how in the past, America wasn’t willing at first to give equal rights to blacks or women. It took a while, too, because people claimed that blacks and women weren’t as smart as white men. When some told these people that they’d have to actually EDUCATE them in the first place to actually know how smart they were, the bigots of the time used loop logic and said that since blacks and women already typically weren’t very smart they couldn’t learn in the first place. If 343i wouldn’t be willing to test classic formula in a new game AT ALL, it’d be using similar logic to the aforementioned people. To say a new classic game or even DLC wouldn’t be successful because people wouldn’t accept it and Halo 5 has a higher playerbase than MCC without ever trying to make a new classic experience and test it in the first place uses the logic of “I’m too afraid to see what happens so I won’t.”. So MAKE A SMALL SPIN OFF OR DLC THAT WOULDN’T COST YOU MUCH IF IT FAILED AND THERE WOULDN’T BE A HIGH RISK. It probably wouldn’t fail as hard as Halo 5 compared to most AAA FPSs anyway…

But, your comment was well written and I mostly agree with it. I’m only quoting you because this is still somewhat of a response to your comment. Also, you said most of us classics began their Halo playing with the classic games, which is probably true. But, I actually only got into Halo a couple years back when a friend gave me Halo 5 for a present, I eventually tired of it, and decided to try the older games with MCC and to my delight found them better than 5, even WITH the glitches the game no longer has.

1163

Yes, there are diverse points, pros and cons, etc. Love to hear them! 343i is a blessing to contend with us fans. I love it!

1164

I realized just how much I liked them after I heard when being interviewed about battle royale in Infinite they said “The only BR we’re concerned with is the Battle Rifle… the classic one.”.

1165

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> Well, I think the idea of “bringing back the old mechanics” is based on a misconception that the old mechanics went away. We are now at 58 pages and although the focus has been on Sprint for a few pages, what I am still getting from what I read here is that it’s not so much that classic mechanics should return, but more along the lines of, “mechanics introduced in Reach and every game afterwards should be eliminated, except for the one or two that I like.” The most vocal critics are the ones that actually played the pre-Reach games. Given that movement mechanics in MCC have been declared “broken”, the only true assessment that can be made is playing the original games on the consoles they were written for, and then comparing that experience to Halo 4 and Halo 5.

Don’t be so hung up on looking at this as a simple mechanic that souöd or shouldn’t be removed but rather a whole “movement philosophy”(?), for me, it’s not so much “I want sprint/thrust/whatever gone” but rather “I want to be in control of my gameplay all the time without having this seperation between a traversal-mode and a combat-mode”. I’d be open to try new movement mechanics as long as they don’t interfere with that “philosophy”, maybe a double jump like in Doom or maybe change thrust to allow keeping your weapon up like in TF2(?). The only thing I do not see working out, no matter how much you try to tweak it is sprint…
I’ve never seen people saying the movement mechanics in MCC are broken?! The games themself don’t work properly (at least they didn’t before the patch, I didn’t have the time to test the new version yet…)

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> I believe it’s pretty clear that Halo 4 was more a direct result of Reach than any of the previous games, and that is what fuels the misconception that classic movement mechanics went away.

Again, it’s not a about singular mechanic that went way (or didn’t) but the bigger picture. It’s “universal movement mode”(classic) <-> “seperation between combat and traversal” (modern)
So yes, the single parts that made up classic movement did not go away but due to how new addition were implemented, the overall picture changed and the classic mindset got lost.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> I present Halo 4 as “Exhibit A” for what happens when getting a product on the shelves is more important than making a good product. I blame 343i for sloppy work, but I blame Microsoft more for Corporate Meddling.

could you provide some source for that claim? As far as I remember, H4 was the only game that didn’t have massive rewrites and cut contend due to time restraints?
I allways had the impression that H4 was how 343 wanted it to be. Didn’t they actually redo parts of their game because they felt too much like traditional Halo?! I think someone did say somthing like this in some interview…

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> So, two problems with “classic movement mechanics” is that the concept itself is lost on anyone that never played CE on the original xbox, or never played the other games made for the 360.

call me naive but I allways thought gamers aren’t that dumb…
sure it would feel different at first but I think most people would understand.
If new gamers will like this style of gameplay comes down to how 343 modernizes it (higher BMS, higher FOV, crisp movement&aiming, etc) and hwo the game in in general.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> This is why “bringing back” the old mechanics won’t amount to anything, because changing the movement mechanics doesn’t address the real issues regarding online multiplayer popularity.

Well yes and no, bringing back the old mechanics won’t make the game the No. 1 console shooter again even if the game it self is of good quality but what it could potentially do is appease the fanbase which might lead to a healthier online population and might attract new players if the existing playerbase isn’t up in arms all the time.
It would still be interesting to see how many peope would actually miss sprint if the game feels fast enough and 343 does good marketing and changes public oppinion from “a super soldier should behace like a regular guy and should lower his weapon while running” back to “a super soldier doesn’t need to lower his weapon while running”.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> More to the point, it appears that aversion towards enhanced abilities has more to do with a weakened opponent’s ability to “cheat death” or “get out of jail free” than it does being able to get around a map like you used to.

I’d say both of these point somehow conect, you are able to “cheat death” because you are not able to get around a map like you used to.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> There are a number of players out there (perhaps older players used to host advantage) that believe when they aim at you and pull a trigger, you should die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed.

They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed by pressing a panic-buttom(!)
If the opponent tunrs around and got the upper hand due to his better aim and/or straff, I have no problem with that. It’s part of what makes Halo so special compared to games like CoD/BF.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> If you are the type of player that believes abilities force you to chase down players to get the kill, then perhaps you should examine the wisdom of using that old strategy in a new game instead of trying to get the developer to remove the things that make it harder for you to get a kill.

Have you ever considered that people judge games based on how fun they are, not how good you play?
Making sure that people do not lose interest in a game due to losing all the time is something a good matchmaking has to do! Holding back good players simply sucks for those beeing held back but nobody would care if you’replaying against people roughly your own skill most of the time.
Old Halo (or Gears) are games where even losing can be fun, some of the most fun I’ve had playing video games is getting crushed by some a lot more skilled players on HCE.
And since I brought up Gears; GoW4 is a good example of how a trasition to a new dev schould look like! They didn’t try to reinvent the series by looking at other games, they looked at their own franchise and thought of ways to enhance that gameplay rather then adopting trends that were a big deal 3-4 years ago.

1166

To be honest, I know that some people claim that the classic movement is the best, but I do enjoy having Sprint, and I think the clambering ability in Halo 5 is a nice touch. I wish that the player’s movement speed was more on par with Halo 1 - 3, but other wise I don’t mind most of the new movement mechanics found in Halo 4 and 5.

1167

I was playing on H2A Bloodline last night and it reminded me of the speed boost in it. I think having sprint as a pickup like that would work much better.

1168

> 2535436090432793;1158:
> > 2547348539238747;1150:
> > > 2533274825830455;1149:
> > > > 2535430289047128;1148:
> > > > You have a point with Microsoft and all, but they ALSO were the ones intervening HEAVILY in Halo 5.
> > >
> > > This is something I hear people say a lot, but is there actually any first hand source for it?
> >
> > Not as far as I’m aware, I think it stems from those who were trying really hard to defend 343i, and deflected the blame to MS.
> >
> > All of which I still take issue with seeing as the studio head of 343i is a freaking MS corporate vice president. Not many people tell a person of that level what to do or not do, and in that position that person would serve as a direct line of communication (most likely the official line) between the two organisations.
> >
> > We’ve seen community managers, artists, game designers etc all come and go at 343i, but Bonnie Ross remains a constant. As I keep saying. 343i IS MS.
>
> And sorry to ask, but who is Bonnie Ross? And what she really did it for our community?

Bonnie Ross is a video game developer. She has worked for MS for many years and on many titles. She commanded that much respect within MS that when Bungie left, they tasked her with (or she insisted that she) build up and lead a new company with the sole purpose of leading and developing Halo games. The studio we know as 343 industries. Bonnie Ross still remains an MS employee, and a high ranking one, but she is also the head of 343i. In short, everyone who works for 343i answer to Bonnie Ross, she is the top dog.

1169

I don’t expect to have a complete reversal and go back to Halo 3’s gameplay. Nor do I think it would be fair. Regardless of whether you started with Halo: CE or Halo 5, if you’re a Halo fan, you’re a Halo fan. Going completely with either classic or modern gameplay will upset some fans.
So I think it’d be best to start with Halo 5’s as a platform and simplify it from there. If sprint stays, it needs to still be tied to shields. But I could do without ground pound, spartan charge, and hovering. I don’t mind clamber and thrusters, as they make traversal easier and a little more fun; skill jumps can still be present even with these two abilities.

I don’t envy 343 for having to make this decision.

1170

> 2535419441797248;1169:
> I don’t expect to have a complete reversal and go back to Halo 3’s gameplay. Nor do I think it would be fair. Regardless of whether you started with Halo: CE or Halo 5, if you’re a Halo fan, you’re a Halo fan. Going completely with either classic or modern gameplay will upset some fans.
> So I think it’d be best to start with Halo 5’s as a platform and simplify it from there. If sprint stays, it needs to still be tied to shields. But I could do without ground pound, spartan charge, and hovering. I don’t mind clamber and thrusters, as they make traversal easier and a little more fun; skill jumps can still be present even with these two abilities.
>
> I don’t envy 343 for having to make this decision.

I’d rather just get rid of Sprint and clamber, ground pound is hit or miss, Thruster and Hover stays. The game already takes a massive step forwards with map design and less complicated traversal

1171

> 2533274801973487;1165:
> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > Well, I think the idea of “bringing back the old mechanics” is based on a misconception that the old mechanics went away. We are now at 58 pages and although the focus has been on Sprint for a few pages, what I am still getting from what I read here is that it’s not so much that classic mechanics should return, but more along the lines of, “mechanics introduced in Reach and every game afterwards should be eliminated, except for the one or two that I like.” The most vocal critics are the ones that actually played the pre-Reach games. Given that movement mechanics in MCC have been declared “broken”, the only true assessment that can be made is playing the original games on the consoles they were written for, and then comparing that experience to Halo 4 and Halo 5.
>
> Don’t be so hung up on looking at this as a simple mechanic that souöd or shouldn’t be removed but rather a whole “movement philosophy”(?),

You have mistaken me for someone else. I am questioning the whole “classic movement mechanics” thing with respect to their “return.”

> for me, it’s not so much “I want sprint/thrust/whatever gone” but rather “I want to be in control of my gameplay all the time without having this seperation between a traversal-mode and a combat-mode”

I had to ask my son what you are talking about. After he explained it to me I understood why I didn’t know. Apparently when I play any Halo game this is not an issue for me. I took a moment to watch the end of the HCS thing in London, and it seemed to me that it wasn’t bothering them, either.

Also, while other people might get what you mean when you mention other games like TF2 and Doom, understand that I have never played those games and the reference is lost on me. I know what Halo plays like, and I know the differences between Halo games. Those are the only references, in terms of movement mechanics, that make any real sense to me. I can compare Reach to GoldenEye, though, as I’ve played both.

> I’ve never seen people saying the movement mechanics in MCC are broken?! The games themself don’t work properly (at least they didn’t before the patch, I didn’t have the time to test the new version yet…)

It’s been said in this very thread.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > I believe it’s pretty clear that Halo 4 was more a direct result of Reach than any of the previous games, and that is what fuels the misconception that classic movement mechanics went away.
>
> So yes, the single parts that made up classic movement did not go away but due to how new addition were implemented, the overall picture changed and the classic mindset got lost.

This is what I have been saying since I started posting in this thread, except for the classic mindset part. I’ve been saying “classic movement mechanics” never went away. They were overshadowed by Armor Abilities in Reach, and buried alive by Spartan Abilities in Halo 4. Would anyone disagree with me that Halo 4 may have been better received if it had reminded you of Halo 3 more than Reach? Anyone? I believe that was 343i’s call and as a result, in Halo 5 we got different abilities instead of more abilities. That’s a start.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > This is why “bringing back” the old mechanics won’t amount to anything, because changing the movement mechanics doesn’t address the real issues regarding online multiplayer popularity.
>
> Well yes and no, bringing back the old mechanics won’t make the game the No. 1 console shooter again even if the game it self is of good quality but what it could potentially do is appease the fanbase

Appease the Halo fanbase? That’ll be the day.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > There are a number of players out there (perhaps older players used to host advantage) that believe when they aim at you and pull a trigger, you should die. No ifs, ands, or buts. They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed.
>
> They don’t like the idea of an opponent being able to avoid being killed by pressing a panic-buttom(!)

Yes, of course you are correct. The actual phrase used was, “They get a get-out-of-jail free card at the push of a button.” Yep, that’s how I remember it. It was -Yoink- then, and it’s -Yoink- now.

> Have you ever considered that people judge games based on how fun they are, not how good you play?

Yes. Still, if you are the kind of player that believes Abilities force you to chase down a player to get a kill, I would suggest an alternate strategy rather than trying to force the developer into completely removing the Abilities. In other words, if your reason for completely removing Abilities is because you believe they are strictly an easy way to avoid death from even the most skilled players, that’s a bad reason.

1172

> 2533274798957786;1171:
> if your reason for completely removing Abilities is because you believe they are strictly an easy way to avoid death from even the most skilled players, that’s a bad reason.

Wanting a deep yet non-complex game with as little hand holding as possible, is a bad reason to want to remove abilities.

They say there are no stupid questions, but here comes a couple:
-What then is a good reason for wanting their removal?
-What are the bad reasons for wanting abilities in?
-What are the good reasons for wanting the abilities in?

1173

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> Well, I think the idea of “bringing back the old mechanics” is based on a misconception that the old mechanics went away. We are now at 58 pages and although the focus has been on Sprint for a few pages, what I am still getting from what I read here is that it’s not so much that classic mechanics should return, but more along the lines of, “mechanics introduced in Reach and every game afterwards should be eliminated, except for the one or two that I like.”

No, your criticism is based on the misconception that a game having “classic mechanics” just means the presence of the most basic base Halo mechanics. if you continue to have this discussion under that misconception, you will keep on arriving at erroneous conclusions.

You need to understand that “classic mechanics”, the way people use the concept, is defined not only by inclusion, but also by exclusion. If you include sprint, the game doesn’t have classic mechanics anymore, if you include Jetpack, the game doesn’t have classic mechanics anymore. If a game includes any mechanic that was not present in the original trilogy, the game does not have “classic mechanics”.

There is no other misconception here than you misinterpreting what people mean when the talk about the return of classic mechanics, or about classic gameplay.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> At best, removing post-Reach mechanics entirely in both the campaign and multiplayer would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now, but not more so, in my opinion.

Well, that seems kind of, pointless. I, too, can offer my completely uneducated opinion and say “at worst, returning to classic gameplay would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now”. But what’s the point? It’s like giving our opinions on whether a coin will land heads or tails. It’s not an educated guess. It’s not based on careful analysis of data. It’s just a blind guess driven by our respective biases. Of course you as a supporter or advanced movement will think that classic Halo can’t possibly be more popular than what we have now. And of course I as an opponent of classic movement will think that classic Halo can’t possibly be less popular than what we have now. No one benefits from it. It’s just a chance to for us to air our biases under the guise of a prediction.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> In a world where offering more or different seems to attract players, offering less seems like a bad idea.

Offering more of what? It’s not like movement mechanics is the only thing a game can expand upon.

And what about different? It’s been almost eleven years since the last classic Halo game. Since then the industry has changed a lot, and there has been a whole new generation of gamers. In a world filled with triple A games trying to attract players with flashy animations, simple gameplay mechanics is different while adding more flashy animations is not.

> 2533274798957786;1160:
> All of the post-Reach mechanics are regarded as ways to avoid being killed and, therefore, have no place in Halo where old school mechanics made it unlikely you would survive a close-quarters engagement if you didn’t shoot first.

The latter part of this sentence indicates that you don’t understand what’s going on. Classic mechanics absolutely make it possible to survive if you don’t get the first shot, provided that you have a good strafe and that you’ve chosen your position well. It’s only that classic Halo asks you to be more prepared in order to be able to survive the situation. Halo has never been about who shot first.

The issue has never been that players can get away at all, but that they can get away with less effort.

1174

> 2533274825830455;1173:
> your criticism is based on the misconception that a game having “classic mechanics” just means the presence of the most basic base Halo mechanics.

I don’t believe I said anything like that. What I have been saying is that “classic mechanics” seems to mean only mechanics that were in the game before Reach. Actually, if I get specific I characterize “classic mechanics” as those present in Halo 3, which many classic fans will tell you was the most popular Halo release, because of the mechanics. As you say:

> 2533274825830455;1173:
> … “classic mechanics”, the way people use the concept, is defined not only by inclusion, but also by exclusion. If you include sprint, the game doesn’t have classic mechanics anymore, if you include Jetpack, the game doesn’t have classic mechanics anymore. If a game includes any mechanic that was not present in the original trilogy, the game does not have “classic mechanics”.

This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > At best, removing post-Reach mechanics entirely in both the campaign and multiplayer would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now, but not more so, in my opinion.
>
> Well, that seems kind of, pointless. I, too, can offer my completely uneducated opinion and say “at worst, returning to classic gameplay would result in Halo being about as popular as it is now”. But what’s the point?

The point, my friend, is to have a discussion. It’s a discussion forum.

Worked, didn’t it.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > In a world where offering more or different seems to attract players, offering less seems like a bad idea.
>
> Offering more of what?

With respect to video games, more than what we got in the previous release. Doesn’t have to be more movement mechanics. It’s rare, though, that a game sequel plays precisely like the original. I say rare because I’ve never seen it myself, but I’m not ruling out the possibility that there’s a game out there that’s as old as Halo and has never changed. If there is, I bet it’s way more popular than Halo. It’d have to be.

> In a world filled with triple A games trying to attract players with flashy animations, simple gameplay mechanics is different while adding more flashy animations is not.

Just so we’re clear, I am not necessarily in favor of adding anything, especially movement mechanics. I think there’s enough of those already. I’m also not necessarily in favor of removing anything. There are some things that weren’t Halo before, but they’re Halo now. A mechanic should be removed because it doesn’t work. Dual wielding didn’t work. It screwed with the weapon balance. Apparently, the net result of dual weilding couldn’t exceed that of the best weapon used singly. So, weapons made for dual wielding sucked individually. Dual wielding could come back if properly implemented because who doesn’t like the idea of dual weilding?

I’m in this thread to debunk the notion that “classic movement mechanics” went away, and some sort of “return” needs to happen.

> > 2533274798957786;1160:
> > All of the post-Reach mechanics are regarded as ways to avoid being killed and, therefore, have no place in Halo where old school mechanics made it unlikely you would survive a close-quarters engagement if you didn’t shoot first.
>
> The latter part of this sentence indicates that you don’t understand what’s going on. Classic mechanics absolutely make it possible to survive if you don’t get the first shot, provided that you have a good strafe and that you’ve chosen your position well.

I said unlikely, not impossible. I’m not the greatest player, and that was made abundantly clear to me in Halo 3. Not getting the first shot usually meant death for me. Usually, but not always. If I did manage to get the first shot, and then pressed that advantage (cause it’s Halo so no one-shot kills without a power weapon, unlike CoD) I probably didn’t die, and there was a good chance the other guy did. I mean, if you weaken the other guy’s shield first, it’s more likely you’ll get his down before he gets yours down, along with who has grenades and who doesn’t. What people complain about is that when someone is on the receiving end and know’s their shields are about done, they can just push a button and all their problems are solved. Never worked for me like that, but apparently anyone else in that predicament clearly never suffered my fate because they used Sprint or something. Maybe they were all playing a different version. Bottom line is if you suck, Abilities won’t help you. If you don’t suck, Abilities don’t matter.

> The issue has never been that players can get away at all, but that they can get away with less effort.

Don’t talk about effort in a video game where it’s all thumbs and forefingers. Playing a video game doesn’t require any more effort than posting in a forum. Avoiding death being easier because it requires a button press as opposed to a D-pad press and a joystick move or something… give me a break.

1175

> 2533274803493024;5:
> > 2535449076192416;1:
> > There is absolutely no way this game won’t have the classic gameplay
>
> That’s purely speculation. Making assumptions like this is goofy at best.
>
>
> > 2535449076192416;1:
> > the oldest of Halo fans have adored! I am so pumped for this!
>
> I think the first part of this statement is biased based on the second part. There are plenty of older Halo fans that like the new mechanics.

I mean the more jetpacks and thrusters and sprint they add the more the game dies so.

1176

343i watch this video, it outlines a bunch of things you’ve done wrong with the Halo franchise since Halo 4. I beg that you watch it because if Halo Infinite isn’t a true Halo game, I ain’t buyin it!

1177

Quoting from both of your posts but I’m too lazy to pick them apart properly but this should do just fine:

> 2533274798957786;1171:
>

> I don’t believe I said anything like that. What I have been saying is that “classic mechanics” seems to mean only mechanics that were in the game before Reach. Actually, if I get specific I characterize “classic mechanics” as those present in Halo 3, which many classic fans will tell you was the most popular Halo release, because of the mechanics. As you say:

In addition to what tsassi said and to clarify what I’ve been saying:
To me: “classic mechanics” (or to be more accurate: the classic movement philosophy)= having one universal combat&traversal movement speed (excluding the highly situational crouch and vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, etc…) and beeing able to perform any kind of movement (move, crouch, jump, and whatever 343 can think of) without having to lower your weapon and having to do some sort of additional animation that takes away control from the player.

So to make some examples.
Things that could potentially work within a classic movement philosophy:

  • Double Jump (beeing able to press jump while in the air to get a seccond boost) -> could work as within a classic movement philosophy (if it actually is fun is a different story that would have to be tasted) - Wall kick (beeing able to get a seccond boost when pressing jump while hitting a wall)-> could work as within a classic movement philosophy (if it actually is fun is a different story that would have to be tasted) - Thrust that allows you to keep your weapon up -> could work as within a classic movement philosophy (if it actually is fun is a different story that would have to be tasted)Things that do not work within a classic movement philosophy:
  • Sprint - Clamber - Thrust with an animation that takes away control from the player and forces him to lower the weapon - laying down-mechanic that uses a animation that takes away control from the player and forces him to lower the weaponStuff like a Jetpack would technically work within that classic movement philosophy if it would restrict your ability to fire your weapon while using it but ultimatly it wouldn’t work well for balancing and would break map flow so I didn’t include them in the list.
    I cannot say those mechanics i listed above would be fun in a Halo game but it’s something that would be compatible with my definition of a “classic movement (philosophy)” so no it’s not restricted to what has been there in H3 for me.

> I’m in this thread to debunk the notion that “classic movement mechanics” went away, and some sort of “return” needs to happen.

Can you please stop holding on to that semantic inaccuracy?
Yes technically you’re right and the “classic movement mechanics” didn’t go away but thats why I’ve been saying (and so did tsassi) that it’s not just about having a specific mechanic but about what is built around that mechanic.
But yes, the correct title of this thread should be “the return of the classic movement philosophy/style” I guess but I think the meanig should be clear by now…

> "I had to ask my son what you are talking about. After he explained it to me I understood why I didn’t know. Apparently when I play any Halo game this is not an issue for me. I took a moment to watch the end of the HCS thing in London, and it seemed to me that it wasn’t bothering them, either.

Define “bothering”. In the end it’s their job to do good, but when they play the game, you cannot tell if they would prefer the older gameplay style or the newer.

> “Yes, of course you are correct. The actual phrase used was, “They get a get-out-of-jail free card at the push of a button.” Yep, that’s how I remember it. It was -Yoink- then, and it’s -Yoink- now.”

Again, if the matchmaking works as intended, there shouldn’t be a big skill difference within one match.

> “Yes. Still, if you are the kind of player that believes Abilities force you to chase down a player to get a kill, I would suggest an alternate strategy rather than trying to force the developer into completely removing the Abilities. In other words, if your reason for completely removing Abilities is because you believe they are strictly an easy way to avoid death from even the most skilled players, that’s a bad reason.”

So I’m curious, what would you consider a “good” reason for disliking abilities?

And again, it’s not as black and white as you make it out to be. That is what I was talking about when It said somepeople judge games on how fun they are (to them…).
If what you refer to as a change of strategy (I’d say change of playstyle) leads to one not enjoying the game in the same way they used to, then it is perfectly acceptable to talk about those feelings.

1178

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.

Okay, so you can agree that the classic mechanics are gone from Halo 5, have been gone since Reach? That is, that they went away with Reach?

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> The point, my friend, is to have a discussion. It’s a discussion forum.
>
> Worked, didn’t it.

I just don’t see it lead anywhere interesting.

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> With respect to video games, more than what we got in the previous release. Doesn’t have to be more movement mechanics. It’s rare, though, that a game sequel plays precisely like the original. I say rare because I’ve never seen it myself, but I’m not ruling out the possibility that there’s a game out there that’s as old as Halo and has never changed. If there is, I bet it’s way more popular than Halo. It’d have to be.

Counter Strike is indeed way more popular than Halo.

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> I’m in this thread to debunk the notion that “classic movement mechanics” went away, and some sort of “return” needs to happen.

But they did. We haven’t had a new game with classic mechanics since Reach. There’s no point in trying to debunk a statement that’s obviously true.

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> If you don’t suck, Abilities don’t matter.

No, that’s exactly when they do matter.

> 2533274798957786;1174:
> Don’t talk about effort in a video game where it’s all thumbs and forefingers. Playing a video game doesn’t require any more effort than posting in a forum. Avoiding death being easier because it requires a button press as opposed to a D-pad press and a joystick move or something… give me a break.

Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot that if I’m ever short of money I can just walk into a DotA tournament (a game I’ve never played) and win it to pick a couple of million bucks, because playing video games requires no effort.

Give me a break.

1179

> 2533274825830455;1178:
> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.
>
> Okay, so you can agree that the classic mechanics are gone from Halo 5, have been gone since Reach? That is, that they went away with Reach?

I would agree with that. That’s what he’s been saying, that the only thing any one ever seems to want in Halo is a clone of the trilogy games, specifically Halo 3.

The issue I personally take with this is that it is naive to the utmost to think this will somehow save Halo, as most people within the community seem to think.

1180

> 2533274798011936;1179:
> > 2533274825830455;1178:
> > > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > > This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.
> >
> > Okay, so you can agree that the classic mechanics are gone from Halo 5, have been gone since Reach? That is, that they went away with Reach?
>
> I would agree with that. That’s what he’s been saying, that the only thing any one ever seems to want in Halo is a clone of the trilogy games, specifically Halo 3.
>
> The issue I personally take with this is that it is naive to the utmost to think this will somehow save Halo, as most people within the community seem to think.

In my 10+ years on Halo forums, I’ve seen 2 or 3 people who said they want Halo CE, 2 or 3 copies.

Want to hear a recurring scenario?
If not I suggest you stop reading.

Usually there’s someone who advlcates the removal of something(s), upon another person assumes that the first person only want a carbon copy of Halo X. Why? Because there’s no talk about other abilities, or changes to put in, as if starting a thread about a specific mechanic had to include other mechanics wanted by the OP.

“I want sprint removed”
yeah you just want a copy of Halo X

Quite a large assumption based on the opinion of one out of several new mechanics.

Of course the person wanting thing removed has to not look bad and says “no, I do not want a copy of Halo X”.
Three things can happen, the first person pulls out their GDD, game design document, the first person is asked what kind of Halo he/she wants, and a GDD is pulled out or things are just left at that.

When a GDD is pulled out and the person defending themselves spend time on elaborating what kind of Halo they want, it’s either not enough or it just gets ignored.
Usually when it’s not enough it’s refered to as Halo X.5, no matter what kind of things are suggested because it’s not what the reciever want to hear. Though I have yet to see anyone elaborate on what kind of changes are needed to make the full increment of 1, instead of just 0.5 from a game moving forward to a sequel. Just as no one has been able to supply me with a list of these “standard / staple” mechanics for FPS games despite confidentely proclaiming that mechanic Y is a thing every fps needs as it’s a standard / staple.

If it gets ignored, it is because no one cares, the one asking doesn’t care, and those participating in the thread doesn’t care for one person’s off-topic GDD as they are interested in the topic they clicked on.

“You just want a Carbon Copy of Halo X” is just a method of making the opposition look bad and thus undermine their arguments / preferences.
I mean, I could easily claim anyone who wants sprint to stay just want a carbon copy of Halo 4 / 5, and that any addition on top of that is just Halo 4.5, or Halo 5.5.

1181

> 2533274795123910;1172:
> > 2533274798957786;1171:
> > if your reason for completely removing Abilities is because you believe they are strictly an easy way to avoid death from even the most skilled players, that’s a bad reason.
>
> Wanting a deep yet non-complex game with as little hand holding as possible, is a bad reason to want to remove abilities

Sarcasm: >>detected<<.

> They say there are no stupid questions, but here comes a couple:
> -What then is a good reason for wanting their removal?

A stupid answer would be, “There are no good reasons.” My response would be that since I firmly believe they don’t need to be removed, I can’t think of a good reason to remove them. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any good reasons. In my opinion, there aren’t enough good reasons.

> -What are the bad reasons for wanting abilities in?

I don’t know all of them, but putting an ability in because “other games have it” would be a bad reason, in my opinion. Since I would like them to remain, I have difficulty constructing the logic necessary to create a bad reason without resorting to rediculous extremes.

> -What are the good reasons for wanting the abilities in?

Mainly because they are in the current game, and the next game is supposed to take place fairly soon after this one. I don’t see a logical way to explain either the absence of Abilities that existed just months earlier, or the presence of new Abilities so quickly given what has to be higher priorities due to the events of the current game. Even though “lore doesn’t matter” in matchmaking, it does.

> 2533274825830455;1178:
> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > This is what I have been saying all along, and if you interpreted anything I wrote differently, that was a misconception on your part.
>
> Okay, so you can agree that the classic mechanics are gone from Halo 5, have been gone since Reach? That is, that they went away with Reach?

No

> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > With respect to video games, more than what we got in the previous release. Doesn’t have to be more movement mechanics. It’s rare, though, that a game sequel plays precisely like the original. I say rare because I’ve never seen it myself, but I’m not ruling out the possibility that there’s a game out there that’s as old as Halo and has never changed. If there is, I bet it’s way more popular than Halo. It’d have to be.
>
> Counter Strike is indeed way more popular than Halo.

Touche.

> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > I’m in this thread to debunk the notion that “classic movement mechanics” went away, and some sort of “return” needs to happen.
>
> But they did. We haven’t had a new game with classic mechanics since Reach.

I don’t agree with that assessment. However, @Darth Cedious cleared this up for me in a nice, concise manner. It’s not the mechanics, it’s the philosophy behind the mechanics that went away. I get it now.

I still disagree, but for different reasons.

> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > If you don’t suck, Abilities don’t matter.
>
> No, that’s exactly when they do matter.

Not to me.

> > 2533274798957786;1174:
> > Don’t talk about effort in a video game where it’s all thumbs and forefingers. Playing a video game doesn’t require any more effort than posting in a forum. Avoiding death being easier because it requires a button press as opposed to a D-pad press and a joystick move or something… give me a break.
>
> Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot that if I’m ever short of money I can just walk into a DotA tournament (a game I’ve never played) and win it to pick a couple of million bucks, because playing video games requires no effort. Give me a break.

Might be some miscommunication here. I was referring to the effort required to get your character out of danger in a Halo match. Any Halo match. Regardless of how you got in the match, once you’re there and your character is one-shot and there’s a grenade incoming, the effort required to get out of the way with a one-button push is only slightly less than the effort to get out of the way with any other button or button combination (except when people using Boxer have to do that “claw” thing. Boxer gets no love). It’s like choosing between taking the elevator or the escalator because stairs mean actually climbing with your own muscles.

> 2533274795123910;1180:
> “You just want a Carbon Copy of Halo X” is just a method of making the opposition look bad and thus undermine their arguments / preferences.
> I mean, I could easily claim anyone who wants sprint to stay just want a carbon copy of Halo 4 / 5, and that any addition on top of that is just Halo 4.5, or Halo 5.5.

Indeed, I started my end of this discussion by declaring that using the Halo 3 engine would solve the problem. It was a preposterous notion meant to spur discussion about the definition of “classic mechanics”. I think this discussion may have just become different because it may become about the philosophy behind the mechanics, and not the mechanics themselves.

Don’t think of me as having my heels dug in here. I can be persuaded by logic and reason. I’m not convinced by passion and emotion, though. If the argument is that Halo has a movement philosophy that is, I don’t know, different? Unique? Radical?.. I will just mention GoldenEye 007 which came out for console in 1997 and was “the best game ever” until 2001, when Halo CE released. GoldenEye was a game I was regularly playing with my best friend and when CE came out we switched and never went back. Thing is we saw a lot of GoldenEye in Halo CE. Not saying anything was copied. Just saying that there was only so much you could do on a console in 2001, and Bungie did not stick with any philosophy that involved not adding any new mechanics when it came to Halo 2 or Halo 3.