The movement speed for the classic games were certainly appropriate in relation to the map sizes, but I still do understand the argument that classic movement feels slow. What I don’t understand is the constant need to justify that position with lore/sprint arguments. Like alright, classic movements feels slow. What we should ask first is: Is there a way to fix this issue without adding other mechanics? I’d argue yes. The most obvious answer would be to increase the BMS and the FoV, which we haven’t done yet, have we? I’ve always felt Halo’s gotten the bare minimum in this regard.
> 2533274794648158;1582:
> The movement speed for the classic games were certainly appropriate in relation to the map sizes, but I still do understand the argument that classic movement feels slow. What I don’t understand is the constant need to justify that position with lore/sprint arguments. Like alright, classic movements feels slow. What we should ask first is: Is there a way to fix this issue without adding other mechanics? I’d argue yes. The most obvious answer would be to increase the BMS and the FoV, which we haven’t done yet, have we? I’ve always felt Halo’s gotten the bare minimum in this regard.
This would be the best solution in my eyes. We don’t need all this clutter in Halo’s movement. This would keep it clean and simple (very accessible to casual players as well in this regard) yet FAST all while keeping the gun up while moving.
> 2533274825830455;1579:
> > 2533274879757912;1576:
> > Pretty sure accuracy had no part in this conversation but ok?
> >
> > And I understand forums are places for people to discuss differing opinions; but why has this suddenly felt like it’s become a competition to see who can beat me down with the ‘you’re wrong, I’m right’ hammer? Ok, you disagree with me; fair enough, and you’ve got your own set of statistics, knowledge, and data to prove me wrong. Great. But it’s not necessary to treat me like I’m some idiot.
> >
> > You got set data to prove me wrong? Fair enough; present it and I’ll probably agree with you. If not, that’s my opinion and I have a right to it.
> >
> > I just don’t see how it’s fair to jump down my throat because I feel something just doesn’t feel right with how we move. The maps in Halo were MASSIVE in the older games; so excuse me if it doesn’t quite feel like I’m moving that fast when presented with large, open landscapes and the inability to function like I should to move around the map just a bit faster. Something that should be completely within my abilities to do as a Space Marine that’s literally walked out in the vacuum of space and actually SPRINTED according to its own lore.
> >
> > It’s fine if Bungie didn’t want to go with a Sprint function in their earlier games. Fine with that completely. But am I not allowed to express that I wish they had considered it? Or that it fits just fine and doesn’t need to be removed based on ‘what Halo used to be’?
>
> Hold on, I’m not trying to treat you like an idiot. I only pointed out that Spartans in the games are quite fast, in a way I thought was mildly humorous. And that’s because I really can’t not find it amusing whenever people claim the Spartans in the games are “walking” or other such things that imply they’re slow. It’s better to take it with amusement than to take it seriously and lose one’s mind.
>
> Look, it’s fine to say you feel slow when running at base speed. That’s totally fine, most of us can relate to that. It’s just that before you go out there to complain that the Spartans “crawl”, or “walk briskly”, or use any other way to imply that they’re not actually running in the games, maybe it’s a good idea to do a fact check. Or failing that, not make claims you can’t confirm and can be refuted with a simple fact check. There’s a fair discussion to be hand on the topic of “why does movement in Halo sometimes feel slow”, but it requires a critical open mind that doesn’t jump into conclusions.
>
> Nobody’s jumping on your throat. There’s no reason to take our comments personally, because nobody’s attacking you. We just don’t agree with the things you said, we explain our disagreements, and that’s how the discussion proceeeds. There’s no need to assume any sort of hostility if there are no personal attacks.
>
> Maps in Halo can be large. In fact, they’ve only grown in size, going to Halo 5 to compensate for the faster movement of players. However, we could perhaps explore alternatives to sprint. For example, as much as Blood Gulch is loved by the fans, that sort of open design that’s really good for vehicles isn’t necessarily ideal for on-foot play. Perhaps players on foot need cover, more interior spaces, more fast transit mechanisms like man cannons and teleporters, more things to break up the monotony of open design and to get players to combat faster. Perhaps simply just smaller maps can sometimes be the answer. Sprint is not the only solution to large maps.
>
> Personally, even though I’m quick to point out the actual in-game movement speed for Spartans, I really don’t care what the lore says. For one, gameplay is primarily designed to be interesting and fun, not accurate to lore. Secondly, people’s needs and interpretations of the lore tend to be so arbitrary. People go on and on about how Spartans can sprint, but don’t actually care for how fast that sprint speed is. (The Halo 5 sprint is not the 60 km/h you’re looking for.) They talk about the importance of sprint all day, but aren’t nearly as passionate about other basic actions such as going prone. They ignore when Spartans are shown sprinting and firing their weapons without any apparent penalty in accuracy.
I apologize, I haven’t been in a very good mindset today and might have taken you out of context or even unintentionally added my own context (to make a long story short, an old friend I used to play Halo with perished in a vehicle related accident and I’m still a bit shaken up from it.)
So as to not start a fire, I’m going to step away from this conversation for a bit, a few days perhaps. If I can come back to the conversation with a level head, I will and speak as a civil human being. If not, well then I apologize if I upset anyone or said anything that might have seemed rude. I came to this post with the intent of posting an opinion and it escalated farther than I would like (of which may or may not have been my own doing and if it was, again, I apologize.).
Let’s all be honest here, the only way H:I will make the most fans happy if the games plays like classic halo.
As far as the campaign goes, no one knows what the mechanics will look like.
But playlists with both types of movement mechanics (sprint and no sprint) with different maps are very likely.
> 2533274874014416;1586:
> As far as the campaign goes, no one knows what the mechanics will look like.
>
> But playlists with both types of movement mechanics (sprint and no sprint) with different maps are very likely.
That would be would require two sandboxes to work unless the base game is classic halo and then there are a few playlist for sprint (even though that still wouldn’t be fun for fans who like modern halo gameplay)
> 2533274936074323;1585:
> Let’s all be honest here, the only way H:I will make the most fans happy if the games plays like classic halo.
Indeed, I can’t say I’ve heard many people say that Halo CE-3 suck because you move too slowly, meanwhile the split in the community in the newer games is very apparent.
The only complaint I see about classic movement mechanics is “you move too slowly,” but why does this require sprint and other spartan abilities? It could easily be solved with a higher BMS and FOV, as well as smaller maps.
As well, as I’m sure it’s been mentioned numerous times in this massive thread, the new movement mechanics ruin the Golden Triangle of Halo (weapons-grenades-melee). Larger maps mean less close quarters combat, decreasing the frequency of melee attacks, as well as the prominence of close range weapons . Thruster packs allow you to easily dodge grenades. And the increased speed that sprint gives makes you less reliant on vehicles on larger maps (one thing that made the mongoose actually useful).
Halo was made popular with classic mechanics, and those mechanics still hold up well today (and don’t cause nearly the controversy enhanced movement does today). They’re part of what made Halo Halo, and the biggest complaint I hear about H4 and H5 is that they don’t feel like Halo anymore, and I agree.
> 2533274936074323;1585:
> Let’s all be honest here, the only way H:I will make the most fans happy if the games plays like classic halo.
Let’s actually be honest here, and admit that we don’t have a clue what most Halo fans think, since we have only interacted with a small subset of them, have no reason to expect that subset to not be a biased sample, and don’t in any case even have data on the preferences of that subset.
> 2533274909712896;1589:
> The only complaint I see about classic movement mechanics is “you move too slowly,” but why does this require sprint and other spartan abilities? It could easily be solved with a higher BMS and FOV, as well as smaller maps.
>
> As well, as I’m sure it’s been mentioned numerous times in this massive thread, the new movement mechanics ruin the Golden Triangle of Halo (weapons-grenades-melee). Larger maps mean less close quarters combat, decreasing the frequency of melee attacks, as well as the prominence of close range weapons . Thruster packs allow you to easily dodge grenades. And the increased speed that sprint gives makes you less reliant on vehicles on larger maps (one thing that made the mongoose actually useful).
>
> Halo was made popular with classic mechanics, and those mechanics still hold up well today (and don’t cause nearly the controversy enhanced movement does today). They’re part of what made Halo Halo, and the biggest complaint I hear about H4 and H5 is that they don’t feel like Halo anymore, and I agree.
totally agree
> 2533274909712896;1589:
> As well, as I’m sure it’s been mentioned numerous times in this massive thread, the new movement mechanics ruin the Golden Triangle of Halo (weapons-grenades-melee). Larger maps mean less close quarters combat, decreasing the frequency of melee attacks, as well as the prominence of close range weapons . Thruster packs allow you to easily dodge grenades. And the increased speed that sprint gives makes you less reliant on vehicles on larger maps (one thing that made the mongoose actually useful).
The “golden triangle” is such a vague concept that everyone takes it to mean whatever they want. It means nothing to me. However, decreasing the frequency of melee attacks is a good thing. Though I’d argue that the introduction of sprint—which has increased the asymmetry between forward and backward movement speeds—has only increased the frequency of melee attacks, not decreased it. In any case, melee attacks make for less interesting encounters, because it’s a low skill attack that is alternative to a higher skill gun duel. Melee attacks don’t deserve as prominent role in Halo combat as they’ve had.
> 2533274825830455;1592:
> > 2533274909712896;1589:
> > As well, as I’m sure it’s been mentioned numerous times in this massive thread, the new movement mechanics ruin the Golden Triangle of Halo (weapons-grenades-melee). Larger maps mean less close quarters combat, decreasing the frequency of melee attacks, as well as the prominence of close range weapons . Thruster packs allow you to easily dodge grenades. And the increased speed that sprint gives makes you less reliant on vehicles on larger maps (one thing that made the mongoose actually useful).
>
> The “golden triangle” is such a vague concept that everyone takes it to mean whatever they want. It means nothing to me.
Maybe it means nothing for you, but It means a lot to many others… it’s not only a question of melee, but many other things. For example, the trick of knowing how to use the frag grenades a few meters away from you, making them carambulate where you had your feet a moment before and then finish your opponent with a headshot. All things that worked well when the spaces were very small and there were no thrusters.
I’m sorry if the grammar is not perfect, I’m using the translator.
Although fans of the new gameplay may try to argue, in the three classic games of the saga (more the first two in my opinion) there was a magic that only those who played them a lot at the time (not today with tmcc), can understand. Probably there will be someone who, despite being a long-time player, prefers new mechanics. But they are very few. Most are so disappointed with the new Halo course from 2012 to today (but also from Reach) that they have abandoned it. Few have remained, while most, being new, can not really understand what Halo was.
Imho, classic was better and it would be better again with a modern graphic engine and a good set of maps, modern and remakes.
> 2533274874453277;1593:
> Maybe it means nothing for you, but It means a lot to many others… it’s not only a question of melee, but many other things. For example, the trick of knowing how to use the frag grenades a few meters away from you, making them carambulate where you had your feet a moment before and then finish your opponent with a headshot. All things that worked well when the spaces were very small and there were no thrusters.
>
> I’m sorry if the grammar is not perfect, I’m using the translator.
>
> Although fans of the new gameplay may try to argue, in the three classic games of the saga (more the first two in my opinion) there was a magic that only those who played them a lot at the time (not today with tmcc), can understand. Probably there will be someone who, despite being a long-time player, prefers new mechanics. But they are very few. Most are so disappointed with the new Halo course from 2012 to today (but also from Reach) that they have abandoned it. Few have remained, while most, being new, can not really understand what Halo was.
>
> Imho, classic was better and it would be better again with a modern graphic engine and a good set of maps, modern and remakes.
The issue I have with the golden triangle is that it’s not a design principle. It’s not a simple idea like the interplay of movement and combat—combat abilities being unimpeded by movement and vice versa. It’s a buzz phrase that’s been appropriated for so many purposes that you literally can’t tell what a person wants when they mention “the golden triangle” unless they explicitly explain what it is they want, making use of the phrase pointless. I’ve come to detest the phrase “the golden triangle” over the years, because it’s just this generic phrase (literally, every shooter has weapons, grenades, and melee) the community raises on a pedestal because Bungie once used it and it was catchy enough to stick, but it contains no generally agreed upon content apart from the obvious “weapons, grenades, and melee are important. Woohoo! We’ve solved the FPS formula”.
The context in which Bungie used the concept was when discussing what went wrong with SMG starts in Halo 2 in a ViDoc (the literal quotation from Lars Bakken is “the golden three things of Halo”). In fact, that’s the closest mention to “the golden triangle” I find from them. Searching for the phrase just gives a bnuch of forum posts from 2010 onwards, making me question how important it actually was to Bungie. In any case, what it literally meant for them was that in Halo 2 people were dual wielding SMGs too much. That’s it. Any deeper significance has been dreamed up by the community.
Look at the paragraph I quoted. If you remove the first sentence, involving “the Golden Triangle”, the post makes as much sense, and contains as much useful information as before. Nothing of value is lost by not talking about “the golden triangle”. All removing it does is raise the question “why would we want people to use more melee?”, where the post otherwise just relies on the authority of “the golden triangle”, implying that more melee is a good thing essentially “because golden triangle”. Literally, nothing of value would be lost from the discussion if no one mentioned “the golden triangle” ever again from this point on. If someone can convince me otherwise, that’s great, but until then I will keep detesting the phrase.
Also, your grammar is entirely understandable. There is no need to worry.
> 2533274874453277;1568:
> I think that it is a simple question of habitude. Anything done with the same tool for so many times will make you that familiar and easier to use. Likewise, a young player who started playing Halo in 2015 will find the magnum more familiar and instinctive. .
Not really. If it would be a complex system where you have to learn how to compensate recoil, learn about spray patterns and whatnot but Halos weapons are not that complex. HCE has a little bit of this since you have to compensate the bullets travel time but H2/4/5 use hitscan. If you’re doing better with one weapon it’s either because this weapon is easier to use (-> more aim assist/magnetism etc) or, a as I said, it’s just your perception.
> 2533274874453277;1568:
> I do not have much practice with these technicalities. I just say that I prefer H2 BR.
As I said, it’s quite easy to use.
> 2533274874453277;1568:
> I was referring to a fight on equal terms. When I played Halo 2 MLG settings, if I met people stronger than me, there was no magnetism that could make my life easier.
It would have ended much worse for you if the magnetism was weaker, as tsassi said, a lower skilled player will benefit more from an easier game than a better player.
> 2533274801973487;1595:
> > 2533274874453277;1568:
> > I think that it is a simple question of habitude. Anything done with the same tool for so many times will make you that familiar and easier to use. Likewise, a young player who started playing Halo in 2015 will find the magnum more familiar and instinctive. .
>
> If you’re doing better with one weapon it’s either because this weapon is easier to use (-> more aim assist/magnetism etc) or, a as I said, it’s just your perception.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274874453277;1568:
> > I was referring to a fight on equal terms. When I played Halo 2 MLG settings, if I met people stronger than me, there was no magnetism that could make my life easier.
>
> It would have ended much worse for you if the magnetism was weaker, as tsassi said, a lower skilled player will benefit more from an easier game than a better player.
Ok, it is a perception question. I continue to prefer the classic BR.
> 2533274825830455;1594:
> > 2533274874453277;1593:
> > Maybe it means nothing for you, but It means a lot to many others… it’s not only a question of melee, but many other things. For example, the trick of knowing how to use the frag grenades a few meters away from you, making them carambulate where you had your feet a moment before and then finish your opponent with a headshot. All things that worked well when the spaces were very small and there were no thrusters.
> >
> > I’m sorry if the grammar is not perfect, I’m using the translator.
> >
> > Although fans of the new gameplay may try to argue, in the three classic games of the saga (more the first two in my opinion) there was a magic that only those who played them a lot at the time (not today with tmcc), can understand. Probably there will be someone who, despite being a long-time player, prefers new mechanics. But they are very few. Most are so disappointed with the new Halo course from 2012 to today (but also from Reach) that they have abandoned it. Few have remained, while most, being new, can not really understand what Halo was.
> >
> > Imho, classic was better and it would be better again with a modern graphic engine and a good set of maps, modern and remakes.
>
> The issue I have with the golden triangle is that it’s not a design principle. It’s not a simple idea like the interplay of movement and combat—combat abilities being unimpeded by movement and vice versa. It’s a buzz phrase that’s been appropriated for so many purposes that you literally can’t tell what a person wants when they mention “the golden triangle” unless they explicitly explain what it is they want, making use of the phrase pointless. I’ve come to detest the phrase “the golden triangle” over the years, because it’s just this generic phrase (literally, every shooter has weapons, grenades, and melee) the community raises on a pedestal because Bungie once used it and it was catchy enough to stick, but it contains no generally agreed upon content apart from the obvious “weapons, grenades, and melee are important. Woohoo! We’ve solved the FPS formula”.
>
> The context in which Bungie used the concept was when discussing what went wrong with SMG starts in Halo 2 in a ViDoc (the literal quotation from Lars Bakken is “the golden three things of Halo”). In fact, that’s the closest mention to “the golden triangle” I find from them. Searching for the phrase just gives a bnuch of forum posts from 2010 onwards, making me question how important it actually was to Bungie. In any case, what it literally meant for them was that in Halo 2 people were dual wielding SMGs too much. That’s it. Any deeper significance has been dreamed up by the community.
>
> Look at the paragraph I quoted. If you remove the first sentence, involving “the Golden Triangle”, the post makes as much sense, and contains as much useful information as before. Nothing of value is lost by not talking about “the golden triangle”. All removing it does is raise the question “why would we want people to use more melee?”, where the post otherwise just relies on the authority of “the golden triangle”, implying that more melee is a good thing essentially “because golden triangle”. Literally, nothing of value would be lost from the discussion if no one mentioned “the golden triangle” ever again from this point on. If someone can convince me otherwise, that’s great, but until then I will keep detesting the phrase.
>
> Also, your grammar is entirely understandable. There is no need to worry.
Ok, the definition “golden triangle” is inaccurate and was built by the community. However, I think that what the community thinks is more important than grammar, that is, what it means by the golden triangle. I myself have difficulty in giving a definition of it. I can try to say what it means to me.
In those days, the best ways to kill opponents were:
- Grenade + Headshot -> Place a grenade into the opponent’s feet and then finish it with a headshot.
- Melee + Headshot -> hit the opponent with a punch and finish it with a headshot
- Melee + Grenade -> hit the opponent with a punch and finish it with a grenade at hits feet (jumping away)
Why this? because it was the quickest way. The time to kill of many weapons was very long (expecially SMG & similar). Today, there are many things that makes those techniques not convenient.
- Sandbox: The short ttk of some weapons (SMG, storm rifle, etc) allows you to kill the opponent quickly if it is close.
- Thruster pack: people can evade more simply your grenades and kill you with a “perfect kill”.
- Sprint: Place a grenade into the feet’s opponent while he runs, is a gamble
- Maps: The most open spaces of the maps reduce the possibility of playing on the shore with grenades.
for reasons like these, it is often cheaper to try to use only the weapon to kill opponents. Not always obviously, but often. We can say that using only weapons is better because it takes more skill than the melee? maybe. But i I think the important thing is what makes players happy. I had more fun before, that’s all.
> 2533274825830455;1594:
> > 2533274874453277;1593:
> > Maybe it means nothing for you, but It means a lot to many others… it’s not only a question of melee, but many other things. For example, the trick of knowing how to use the frag grenades a few meters away from you, making them carambulate where you had your feet a moment before and then finish your opponent with a headshot. All things that worked well when the spaces were very small and there were no thrusters.
> >
> > I’m sorry if the grammar is not perfect, I’m using the translator.
> >
> > Although fans of the new gameplay may try to argue, in the three classic games of the saga (more the first two in my opinion) there was a magic that only those who played them a lot at the time (not today with tmcc), can understand. Probably there will be someone who, despite being a long-time player, prefers new mechanics. But they are very few. Most are so disappointed with the new Halo course from 2012 to today (but also from Reach) that they have abandoned it. Few have remained, while most, being new, can not really understand what Halo was.
> >
> > Imho, classic was better and it would be better again with a modern graphic engine and a good set of maps, modern and remakes.
>
> The issue I have with the golden triangle is that it’s not a design principle. It’s not a simple idea like the interplay of movement and combat—combat abilities being unimpeded by movement and vice versa. It’s a buzz phrase that’s been appropriated for so many purposes that you literally can’t tell what a person wants when they mention “the golden triangle” unless they explicitly explain what it is they want, making use of the phrase pointless. I’ve come to detest the phrase “the golden triangle” over the years, because it’s just this generic phrase (literally, every shooter has weapons, grenades, and melee) the community raises on a pedestal because Bungie once used it and it was catchy enough to stick, but it contains no generally agreed upon content apart from the obvious “weapons, grenades, and melee are important. Woohoo! We’ve solved the FPS formula”.
>
> The context in which Bungie used the concept was when discussing what went wrong with SMG starts in Halo 2 in a ViDoc (the literal quotation from Lars Bakken is “the golden three things of Halo”). In fact, that’s the closest mention to “the golden triangle” I find from them. Searching for the phrase just gives a bnuch of forum posts from 2010 onwards, making me question how important it actually was to Bungie. In any case, what it literally meant for them was that in Halo 2 people were dual wielding SMGs too much. That’s it. Any deeper significance has been dreamed up by the community.
>
> Look at the paragraph I quoted. If you remove the first sentence, involving “the Golden Triangle”, the post makes as much sense, and contains as much useful information as before. Nothing of value is lost by not talking about “the golden triangle”. All removing it does is raise the question “why would we want people to use more melee?”, where the post otherwise just relies on the authority of “the golden triangle”, implying that more melee is a good thing essentially “because golden triangle”. Literally, nothing of value would be lost from the discussion if no one mentioned “the golden triangle” ever again from this point on. If someone can convince me otherwise, that’s great, but until then I will keep detesting the phrase.
>
> Also, your grammar is entirely understandable. There is no need to worry.
The Golden Triangle never was a design principle. It was basic concept. Just because the community came up with the term doesn’t mean Bungie didn’t follow the concept. If you hadn’t left out the one part of it that was (IMO) the most important part, then I’d agree that “literally every shooter has weapons, grenades, and melee” and I’d also find it to be just a generic catch-phrase. But the one part you didn’t include is the very part (correct me if I’m wrong) that you support in many of your posts that argue against sprint… and that part is the idea that you should always have access to any one of those abilities at any point in time, with the singular exception of being in a vehicle.
Of all the ViDocs, interviews and etc. that I can recall seeing/reading, I never got the impression that any one part of the “Triangle” was emphasized any more than another, so I’d also agree with the idea that the argument of “more melee is a good thing essentially “because golden triangle.”” is using said triangle for a crutch. But to make another point in regards to “Searching for the phrase just gives a bnuch of forum posts from 2010 onwards, making me question how important it actually was to Bungie.” I can also recall an interview in which one of the Bungie devs pointed out that they felt H2’s dual wielding was a bit of a mistake on their part because it upset the balance of “the triangle”… who knows, maybe it was referred to as the “golden 3 rings of Halo” but whatever. People used melee and grenades less often because they didn’t want to drop that extra weapon when dual wielding and that affected gameplay in a way that they really didn’t intend and they felt it was imbalanced.
I’ve been on these forums awhile and I’ve seen many of your posts. I also agree with the vast majority of them… and unless I’ve gotten the majority of them wrong somehow, they tend to support the… golden 3 rings of Halo… if you apply the concept that one should always have access to them aside from the vehicle exception. Your posts about sprint removing the ability to fire/grenade support it. Your posts about clamber removing the ability to shoot/grenade support it. There are others I’m sure, that’s just off the top of my head and I certainly don’t want to narrow the scope on any of your posts as being exclusive to that point.
In any case, that is my interpretation of the “golden triangle.” Sorry if you find it lacking, but I find the simplicity of it pretty easy to define, support and defend regardless of what it’s called.
> 2594261035368257;1598:
> I’ve been on these forums awhile and I’ve seen many of your posts. I also agree with the vast majority of them… and unless I’ve gotten the majority of them wrong somehow, they tend to support the… golden 3 rings of Halo… if you apply the concept that one should always have access to them aside from the vehicle exception. Your posts about sprint removing the ability to fire/grenade support it. Your posts about clamber removing the ability to shoot/grenade support it. There are others I’m sure, that’s just off the top of my head and I certainly don’t want to narrow the scope on any of your posts as being exclusive to that point.
>
> In any case, that is my interpretation of the “golden triangle.” Sorry if you find it lacking, but I find the simplicity of it pretty easy to define, support and defend regardless of what it’s called.
That’s the thing though, I never talk about the golden triangle. I talk about the principle that (some) people ascribe to the golden triangle. and I like to call it the interplay of movement and combat. And there are reasons I intentionally do it that way. First, I think it’s just more expressive. Realstically, it could just be me, but just as a phrase “the golden triangle” doesn’t create any image in my head. It’s just so abstract. “Weapons, grenades, melee” is too generic.
Secondly, the one thing that always hugely frustrated me about the golden triangle is it completely neglects movement in its statement, which to me is absolutely enormous part of the gameplay, even of the combat which the golden triangle is originally about. It feels absolutely criminal to me to emphasize melee—a really boring mechanic—and ignore movement. And when we raise the golden triangle on a pedestal, we push aside the movement.
The third reason is that this whole interplay of movement and combat is exactly that, interplay of movement and combat in general. Not interplay of movement and weapons specifically, not interplay of movement and melee specifically, definitely not interplay of crouching and grenades specifically, but of movement and combat in all their forms. I prescribe no special significance to specific movement or combat actions. The golden triangle, on the other hand, draws attention to the wrong things. This in turn gives rise to silly ideas like “there can’t be extra abilities because otherwise the triangle would be a square” which we see with Armor Abilities. Sure, there were perefectly legitimate arguments against armor abilities. I should know. But “it must be a triangle, not a square” was not one of them.
When I talk about the vagueness of the golden triangle, of course you can say what it means to you. But the point, the point was that even though you give it one personal meaning, someone else will give it another one. The golden triangle means whatever is in the classically minded person’s agenda at the moment. Sure, you can say that the golden triangle to you is all about the interplay of movement and combat, but I doubt anyone would’ve said that in 2011 when talking about the golden triangle was all the rage, and there was no need to be concerned about the interplay of movement and combat when it was mostly fine with Sprint only being an armor ability. So the golden triangle shapes to fill the needs for whatever people are upset about at the moment, carrying the authority of Bungie.
> 2533274825830455;1599:
> > 2594261035368257;1598:
> > I’ve been on these forums awhile and I’ve seen many of your posts. I also agree with the vast majority of them… and unless I’ve gotten the majority of them wrong somehow, they tend to support the… golden 3 rings of Halo… if you apply the concept that one should always have access to them aside from the vehicle exception. Your posts about sprint removing the ability to fire/grenade support it. Your posts about clamber removing the ability to shoot/grenade support it. There are others I’m sure, that’s just off the top of my head and I certainly don’t want to narrow the scope on any of your posts as being exclusive to that point.
> >
> > In any case, that is my interpretation of the “golden triangle.” Sorry if you find it lacking, but I find the simplicity of it pretty easy to define, support and defend regardless of what it’s called.
>
> That’s the thing though, I never talk about the golden triangle. I talk about the principle that (some) people ascribe to the golden triangle. and I like to call it the interplay of movement and combat. And there are reasons I intentionally do it that way. First, I think it’s just more expressive. Realstically, it could just be me, but just as a phrase “the golden triangle” doesn’t create any image in my head. It’s just so abstract. “Weapons, grenades, melee” is too generic. - Without wanting to seem malicious… it’s probably just you then. The triangle creates a perfectly clear image of a game design philosophy as I perceive it. You can call it “my” perception of what it is if you like and that may be true to a degree, but it’s my perception of a philosophy Bungie had. Abstract or not it exists, regardless of its name. Only so much of it can be open for interpretation.
>
> Secondly, the one thing that always hugely frustrated me about the golden triangle is it completely neglects movement in its statement, which to me is absolutely enormous part of the gameplay, even of the combat which the golden triangle is originally about. It feels absolutely criminal to me to emphasize melee—a really boring mechanic—and ignore movement. And when we raise the golden triangle on a pedestal, we push aside the movement. - Two sides to this coin. Your side sees it as “criminal” to emphasize melee while “ignoring” movement. My side sees it as accepting the fact that movement itself goes without saying because you have no game without it.
>
> The third reason is that this whole interplay of movement and combat is exactly that, interplay of movement and combat in general. Not interplay of movement and weapons specifically, not interplay of movement and melee specifically, definitely not interplay of crouching and grenades specifically, but of movement and combat in all their forms. I prescribe no special significance to specific movement or combat actions. The golden triangle, on the other hand, draws attention to the wrong things. This in turn gives rise to silly ideas like “there can’t be extra abilities because otherwise the triangle would be a square” which we see with Armor Abilities. Sure, there were perefectly legitimate arguments against armor abilities. I should know. But “it must be a triangle, not a square” was not one of them. - Not IMO. I see no issues with extra abilities interfering with the triangle in its simplest interpretation. As long as you still have access to the 3 base traits at any point in time, regardless of what abilities are added. Silly ideas are born of a misunderstanding of that. Just like you said. All FPS have weapons, grenades, melee. I believe that it’s a mistake to interpret the triangle as emphasizing specific combat actions. It refers to those three simply because they were the ones that were in the game… and the true emphasis is that you have access to any one of them at any point in time. FE: I’d have little issue with sprint if we still had access to weapons/nades/melee while “sprinting”. But that would reduce sprint to little more than pushing a button to go 20% faster which would be redundant and silly.
>
> When I talk about the vagueness of the golden triangle, of course you can say what it means to you. But the point, the point was that even though you give it one personal meaning, someone else will give it another one. The golden triangle means whatever is in the classically minded person’s agenda at the moment. Sure, you can say that the golden triangle to you is all about the interplay of movement and combat, but I doubt anyone would’ve said that in 2011 when talking about the golden triangle was all the rage, and there was no need to be concerned about the interplay of movement and combat when it was mostly fine with Sprint only being an armor ability. So the golden triangle shapes to fill the needs for whatever people are upset about at the moment, carrying the authority of Bungie. - It doesn’t matter to me what anyone would’ve said in 2011. For me, the golden triangle… or… my interpretation of it, hasn’t changed since I came to understand it for what it is and that’s been a long time ago. It hasn’t “shaped to fill” any need I have in order to justify my being upset about anything in particular, regardless of whether or not there is some presumed authority from Bungie.
> 2533274874014416;1586:
> As far as the campaign goes, no one knows what the mechanics will look like.
>
> But playlists with both types of movement mechanics (sprint and no sprint) with different maps are very likely.
So, what are you basing this on again?? I haven’t heard anything from 343I to indicate this. Did I miss something?
As of right now, unless I missed something, I think it’s safe to ONLY say no one knows anything about the movement mechanics in single or multipleplayer or what playlists will be in Halo 6.