The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1622

> 2535439743850365;1620:
> > 2533274909712896;1604:
> > > 2535439743850365;1603:
> > > Imo, it would be best if they just tried compromising with Reach controls, without lock up, etc. Just sprint and jetpack.
> >
> > That still retains the problems that come with spartan abilities still being in the game.
> >
> > The problem that arises from these being in the game is that all it does is increase map size to compensate for the faster movement speeds and ability to reach higher places. If a map designer wanted it to take you 5 seconds to run between point A and B, it will take you 5 seconds. Without sprint this distance is just shorter, allowing for closer quarters gameplay, increasing the usefulness of certain weapons and decreasing the prominence of others. With clamber/ a jetpack, if you’re not wanted to be able to reach a certain area/make a certain jump, you won’t be able to regardless. All that changes is the height of different sections to make it impossible to reach with those abilities.
> >
> > If you say sprint is needed to make the player faster, why is it the only option? Increasing FOV gives the same effect and doesn’t require a change in map design philosophy (larger vs smaller maps, prominence of vehicles and man cannons, etc.). (FOV is also the reason many say Halo 3 is very slow, despite having the same BMS as the previous games. The FOV is lower, and that’s the only difference).
> >
> > These abilities also change a major part of Halo’s core gameplay: the fluidity of combat. With sprint you lower your weapon and speed up. During this time you can’t fire, but you move faster. When you engage an enemy you’ll slow down and raise your weapon, allowing combat. Clamber (I know you didn’t talk about having clamber, I’m just pointing this out) does the same with stopping combat. As I’ve said before it doesn’t allow you to reach newer areas, those areas are just higher up so you can’t access them with clamber. Where before you’d just need to crouch jump, now you clamber. The difference being you can’t shoot and look about while clambering. Whereas without this combat occurs on the move no matter where you are.
> >
> > All these do is create a stop in combat. Whereas before you could fight while traversing larger areas, making interesting jumps, etc., now you have to stop combat for a little if you want to move a little faster to traverse an open area (that’s designed to be more open to compensate for your increased speed) without making yourself a super easy, slow target.
> >
> > Sprint just breaks the fluidity of the game. Clamber/Jetpacks just increase map verticality to compensate for the increased achievable heights for the player.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Take ads of the assault rifle probably, along with other full auto weapons.
> >
> > ADS is a whole other topic, but to summarise my opinions on it: Halo’s gotten along just fine for 14 years before it was added. All it is is a gimmick to attract people from other FPS games to make them feel more comfortable with the controls.
>
> Honestly, while I haven’t had significant experience with classic halo mp as others, I don’t see much of an issue with sprint. However, I guess there are those that know better than I, and am completely willing to admit that. I just don’t want the same halo over and over again, controls included.
>
> I certainly don’t think sprint is the only option.
>
> On another note, jetpack is a fun way to mix things up. It should certainly not be on everything.

One of the things that made classic Halo so fun was the constant running and gunning that occurred. Sprint changed that by how I’ve mentioned before. And I agree, as do I think everyone, we don’t want Halo to be the same thing over and over again, that gets stale and boring. However at it’s core it should be the same thing, with small changes between games with certain weapons, new gametypes, and other possible equipment. As long as those things don’t fundamentally alter the gameplay like enhanced mobility, I’m fine with it.

And I agree with jetpack being a fun thing. It would be rather interesting to see it as a pickup on a couple of maps, and see the scenarios that would emerge by having a player with the ability to fly around for a short time. Just, as you said, not on everything.

1623

> 2533274956613084;1621:
> > 2533274815533909;1618:
> > > 2533274833081329;1607:
> > > > 2533274956613084;1606:
> > > > although in some respects, the addition of sprint as a new movement mode is, by it’s very nature, the removal of the capability to shoot while moving at maximum speed, and this could, in some respects, be conceived as a reduction in the (relative) speed of combat, the effect that sprint has on shield regen, in my mind, exonerates it from any damage it conceivably causes via it’s relative slowing down of the combat: of the two restrictions placed on sprint, this is the much more significant one, as hampering shield regen, as a trade for a relative speed boost, provides a reasonably significant choice to the player (which is obviously beholden to the map design), as it may drastically increase the vulnerability of the player taking advantage of it. Thus, it’s yet another risk-reward trade, along with the millions of other similar trades that must be worked to play the game.
> > >
> > > While I’m not against the shield restrictions on Sprint, it begs the question of “Does this choice need to exist in the first place?”
> > >
> > > Because it’s not that Sprint was always overpowered and needed a restrictions, because we didn’t always have Sprint.
> > >
> > > It’s not that regular movement was underpowered and needed Sprint, because there was more than one solution to that problem.
> > >
> > > So why did we need to create a distinction between movement and shooting, and then place different punishments for making one choice over the other?
> >
> > Bang on Vegeto30294!! I couldn’t of said it better.
> >
> > I think people really need to think about what you said here really, REALLY hard!! Seriously ask yourself these questions and see what answers you come up. I would love to hear what people come up with… Maybe I’ll actually hear something different other then “your a super solider, you should be able to sprint” or “It just makes sense” or “people expect to be able to sprint in video games today” …though I highly doubt it.
> >
> > Again, great post bud :slight_smile:
>
> Obviously “Super soldiers should be able to sprint” and “it just makes sense” are bad arguments for sprint to remain in Halo. I think the much stronger argument for sprint is that, in the way it is implemented, it provides a risk-reward setup for a choice that can be made in game, just like Crouch did before sprint.
>
> Crouch: - Places a lower limit on movement speedbut provides the trade off of:
> - Being harder to hit (a smaller hitbox) - Being invisible to people’s motion trackersSprint - Halts shield regen - Prevents the player engaging in combatbut provides the trade off of:
> - Greater speed with which to escape to nearby cover or catch up to slower vehiclesI understand the argument that removing the ability of a player to shoot is bad or contrary to the Halo formula. I similarly understand the argument that the inclusion of Sprint is typically bad for map design.
>
> However, I think that including another risk/reward trade is a good thing and allows for more diverse gameplay. I wouldn’t be averse to removing the limitation on shooting, while sprinting - the fact you can only sprint roughly forwards combined with halted shield regen possibly offset the gameplay advantage of improved speed. But I believe that removing the movement mode entirely wouldn’t be positive.

This might as well be a reply to the other post, but let me ask you, how often do you use crouch, especially for travel (so outside of crouch jumping)?

Also, the limit to speed isn’t really a consequence of crouch, it’s a consequence of the motion tracker. Case in point, you can already slow yourself down and still be off the radar. You could argue that Crouch (at least from Halo 2 onwards) was created so that specific speed can be easily maintained without holding a certain percentage of the stick.

You’d be a smaller target, but being an immobile/slow moving target is a really bad strategy in Halo. Without your ability to strafe effectively, someone can just pick you off because you’re incapable of dodging shots while your opponent is. Being a smaller hitbox doesn’t help all that much except for head bobbing.

But with all this about Crouch, why wouldn’t I see that removed just like Sprint? Well the main and obvious answer is that the game(s) doesn’t revolve around Crouch and the maps don’t entirely need to keep Crouch in mind during design. Anyone can move as slow as they want, even slower than Crouch itself. But the game and its mechanics are generally based around the fastest movement the player can go, or at least the fastest movement the player uses often. You can design a map, put Speed Boost somewhere, and be more or less fine, because Speed Boost is a power up - it’s temporary, can be cut short, and only one player has it at a time. With Sprint, anyone can just decide to go 20% faster at any point in time at the press of a button with little to no consequence, so you need to create maps that account for anyone and everyone using Sprint at any time, or making a smaller map that makes Sprint more of a freely used powerup.

That’s why I cannot compare Crouch to Sprint. You can add or remove crouch, and it’s an inconvenience on the controls. When you add or remove Sprint, you’re changing a whole set of mechanics, even mechanics that aren’t directly attached to Sprint, or even the player.

1624

> 2533274956613084;1621:
> > 2533274815533909;1618:
> > > 2533274833081329;1607:
> > > > 2533274956613084;1606:
> > > > although in some respects, the addition of sprint as a new movement mode is, by it’s very nature, the removal of the capability to shoot while moving at maximum speed, and this could, in some respects, be conceived as a reduction in the (relative) speed of combat, the effect that sprint has on shield regen, in my mind, exonerates it from any damage it conceivably causes via it’s relative slowing down of the combat: of the two restrictions placed on sprint, this is the much more significant one, as hampering shield regen, as a trade for a relative speed boost, provides a reasonably significant choice to the player (which is obviously beholden to the map design), as it may drastically increase the vulnerability of the player taking advantage of it. Thus, it’s yet another risk-reward trade, along with the millions of other similar trades that must be worked to play the game.
> > >
> > > snip
> >
> > snip
>
> I think the much stronger argument for sprint is that, in the way it is implemented, it provides a risk-reward setup for a choice that can be made in game, just like Crouch did before sprint.

I believe that this is the fundamental misunderstanding behind Sprint. Sprint does not add any risk-reward setup to the game. Rather, it changes the risk-reward setup that was already present in the game. In Halo CE-3, player positioning is a huge factor in your gameplay; the difference between a great player, a good player, and an average player often comes down to knowledge and ability to position correctly to gain an advantage. When there is no sprint, and when there are no movement abilities, literally every push of the left thumbstick is a risk-reward choice because your absolute position on the map is incredibly important at all times, because there are no abilities by which another player can devalue your positioning.

When sprint, or other movement abilities, are added, this whole dynamic changes at its most fundamental level. No longer is precise or absolute positioning on the map as valuable. Rather, it is your dynamic positioning, resulting from your decisions on how to use your abilities such as sprint, that begins to matter more. This presents an illusion of choice to the player, who now thinks “well, I can sprint but can’t shoot, or can run slowly and can shoot” etc… but in reality, what has happened is that the entire strategy of the movement system and map design has changed. Player choice is not introduced, its nature is simply altered.

This is why, for example, team slayer in Halo 3 depended largely on fighting over specific control points on a map, and team slayer in Halo 5 depends largely on sticking together with your team (wherever they are on the map) and never getting caught on your own. Because in Halo 3 it is your absolute positioning on the map that is most significant, and in Halo 5 it is your dynamic positioning relative to other players.

1625

> 2592250499807011;1624:
> I believe that this is the fundamental misunderstanding behind Sprint. Sprint does not add any risk-reward setup to the game. Rather, it changes the risk-reward setup that was already present in the game. In Halo CE-3, player positioning is a huge factor in your gameplay; the difference between a great player, a good player, and an average player often comes down to knowledge and ability to position correctly to gain an advantage. When there is no sprint, and when there are no movement abilities, literally every push of the left thumbstick is a risk-reward choice because your absolute position on the map is incredibly important at all times, because there are no abilities by which another player can devalue your positioning.
> When sprint, or other movement abilities, are added, this whole dynamic changes at its most fundamental level. No longer is precise or absolute positioning on the map as valuable. Rather, it is your dynamic positioning, resulting from your decisions on how to use your abilities such as sprint, that begins to matter more. This presents an illusion of choice to the player, who now thinks “well, I can sprint but can’t shoot, or can run slowly and can shoot” etc… but in reality, what has happened is that the entire strategy of the movement system and map design has changed. Player choice is not introduced, its nature is simply altered.

Thanks for that one - this is a totally different way of thinking about it to me. I hadn’t really considered the possibility that sprint itself merely changed the nature of the choices that you make instead of adding an extra choice. Please excuse me, though, if I’ve completely misunderstood something, but I don’t really get how sprint has such an effect on the importance of relative positioning rather than one’s absolute position on the map. If I had to guess I’d say that the argument is that adding Sprint fundamentally changes the map design (I would imagine by opening spaces up so that sprint doesn’t feel terrible as a result of continuously running into walls, or other smaller obstacles), which has a knock-on effect on the importance of one’s location on the map, but I might be totally misunderstanding what the relationship is here.

> 2533274833081329;1623:
> Also, the limit to speed isn’t really a consequence of crouch, it’s a consequence of the motion tracker. Case in point, you can already slow yourself down and still be off the radar. You could argue that Crouch (at least from Halo 2 onwards) was created so that specific speed can be easily maintained without holding a certain percentage of the stick.
>
> You’d be a smaller target, but being an immobile/slow moving target is a really bad strategy in Halo. Without your ability to strafe effectively, someone can just pick you off because you’re incapable of dodging shots while your opponent is. Being a smaller hitbox doesn’t help all that much except for head bobbing.
>
> But with all this about Crouch, why wouldn’t I see that removed just like Sprint? Well the main and obvious answer is that the game(s) doesn’t revolve around Crouch and the maps don’t entirely need to keep Crouch in mind during design. Anyone can move as slow as they want, even slower than Crouch itself. But the game and its mechanics are generally based around the fastest movement the player can go, or at least the fastest movement the player uses often. You can design a map, put Speed Boost somewhere, and be more or less fine, because Speed Boost is a power up - it’s temporary, can be cut short, and only one player has it at a time. With Sprint, anyone can just decide to go 20% faster at any point in time at the press of a button with little to no consequence, so you need to create maps that account for anyone and everyone using Sprint at any time, or making a smaller map that makes Sprint more of a freely used powerup.
>
> That’s why I cannot compare Crouch to Sprint. You can add or remove crouch, and it’s an inconvenience on the controls. When you add or remove Sprint, you’re changing a whole set of mechanics, even mechanics that aren’t directly attached to Sprint, or even the player.

In response to your first point, I may be misunderstanding the point, but I think calling the speed limit on crouch a result of the motion tracker is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: yes, it is a consequence of the motion tracker in that the speed limit is chosen to avoid appearing on it, however, I think that’s similar to arguing that mid-range weapons are a consequence of short-range weapons. It’s conceivably true, but I don’t think it’s really an argument.

I agree that immobility is a bad strategy in Halo, and when I referred to crouch as being beneficial in reducing hitbox size, I mainly meant in respect to head bobbing. I see that’s a weaker argument than I originally believed though, because head bobbing does have minimal effect on speed.

Finally I don’t really see the problem with seeing sprint as a freely used power up because of the obvious limitations it has, but maybe I’m just missing some bigger picture stuff here.

1626

> 2533274956613084;1621:
> Sprint - Halts shield regen - Prevents the player engaging in combatbut provides the trade off of:
> - Greater speed with which to escape to nearby cover or catch up to slower vehiclesI understand the argument that removing the ability of a player to shoot is bad or contrary to the Halo formula. I similarly understand the argument that the inclusion of Sprint is typically bad for map design.
>
> However, I think that including another risk/reward trade is a good thing and allows for more diverse gameplay. I wouldn’t be averse to removing the limitation on shooting, while sprinting - the fact you can only sprint roughly forwards combined with halted shield regen possibly offset the gameplay advantage of improved speed. But I believe that removing the movement mode entirely wouldn’t be positive.

Is it good that an entirely unrelated mechanic to movement, gets altered and tied to, a new mechanic which is based on movement? Is it even something intuitive?
It’s odd that shields do not start recharging as long as you’re sprinting, when they recharge in every other situation other than when you take damage.

Is it a good mechanic when it offers you a better chance of escaping an encounter you deem you’ve lost? Where’s the line between good and bad regarding mechanics that offer a better chance of escaping? I’m sure we could come up with other movement mechanics that offer far better chances of escaping an encounter, than the chances sprint provide.

What exactly is “more diverse gameplay”? And how does current sprint affect that? And how would your sprint affect that?

1627

> 2533274795123910;1626:
> > 2533274956613084;1621:
> > Sprint - Halts shield regen - Prevents the player engaging in combatbut provides the trade off of:
> > - Greater speed with which to escape to nearby cover or catch up to slower vehiclesI understand the argument that removing the ability of a player to shoot is bad or contrary to the Halo formula. I similarly understand the argument that the inclusion of Sprint is typically bad for map design.
> >
> > However, I think that including another risk/reward trade is a good thing and allows for more diverse gameplay. I wouldn’t be averse to removing the limitation on shooting, while sprinting - the fact you can only sprint roughly forwards combined with halted shield regen possibly offset the gameplay advantage of improved speed. But I believe that removing the movement mode entirely wouldn’t be positive.
>
> Is it good that an entirely unrelated mechanic to movement, gets altered and tied to, a new mechanic which is based on movement? Is it even something intuitive?
> It’s odd that shields do not start recharging as long as you’re sprinting, when they recharge in every other situation other than when you take damage.
>
> Is it a good mechanic when it offers you a better chance of escaping an encounter you deem you’ve lost? Where’s the line between good and bad regarding mechanics that offer a better chance of escaping? I’m sure we could come up with other movement mechanics that offer far better chances of escaping an encounter, than the chances sprint provide.
>
> What exactly is “more diverse gameplay”? And how does current sprint affect that? And how would your sprint affect that?

I’m sorry but I just don’t see the danger in tying movement mechanics to unrelated mechanics - I think on a case by case basis this can be fine. As a player, it’s probably not intuitive, I will grant, but as a limitation on an ability that allows a player to escape battle I believe it makes sense.

In response to the second main point - is it a good mechanic when it offers you a better chance of escaping - I don’t think it necessarily does offer a “better chance at escaping”; it offers a situationally dependent, different way about escaping, at least in a game with thrusters. I see this choice as something that adds to the depth of the gameplay - although Primus Ego Sum’s argument is one I think I could find pretty convincing with a better understanding of it. I don’t think an instant “get out of battle button” is a good idea; and I see sprint as a much less egregious escape mechanism because it vastly decreases your chances in the next fight you enter even if you successfully escape a fight, via shield restrictions.

And finally, by more diverse gameplay, obviously to some extent I can only talk to my own definition and understanding of the way the game plays, but I view having a larger pool of distinct, reasonable, options at any moment as providing “more diverse gameplay”, and insofar as I don’t believe that sprint invalidates any strategy that existed prior to it’s inclusion, and I do believe it adds some valid ways of dealing with situations, I believe it increases the breadth of possibly gameplay. Sprinting without lowering your gun would, I believe, not lower the breadth of gameplay either, and so plays into my notion of diverse gameplay.

1628

> 2533274956613084;1625:
> > 2592250499807011;1624:
> > I believe that this is the fundamental misunderstanding behind Sprint. Sprint does not add any risk-reward setup to the game. Rather, it changes the risk-reward setup that was already present in the game. In Halo CE-3, player positioning is a huge factor in your gameplay; the difference between a great player, a good player, and an average player often comes down to knowledge and ability to position correctly to gain an advantage. When there is no sprint, and when there are no movement abilities, literally every push of the left thumbstick is a risk-reward choice because your absolute position on the map is incredibly important at all times, because there are no abilities by which another player can devalue your positioning.
> > When sprint, or other movement abilities, are added, this whole dynamic changes at its most fundamental level. No longer is precise or absolute positioning on the map as valuable. Rather, it is your dynamic positioning, resulting from your decisions on how to use your abilities such as sprint, that begins to matter more. This presents an illusion of choice to the player, who now thinks “well, I can sprint but can’t shoot, or can run slowly and can shoot” etc… but in reality, what has happened is that the entire strategy of the movement system and map design has changed. Player choice is not introduced, its nature is simply altered.
>
> Thanks for that one - this is a totally different way of thinking about it to me. I hadn’t really considered the possibility that sprint itself merely changed the nature of the choices that you make instead of adding an extra choice. Please excuse me, though, if I’ve completely misunderstood something, but I don’t really get how sprint has such an effect on the importance of relative positioning rather than one’s absolute position on the map. If I had to guess I’d say that the argument is that adding Sprint fundamentally changes the map design (I would imagine by opening spaces up so that sprint doesn’t feel terrible as a result of continuously running into walls, or other smaller obstacles), which has a knock-on effect on the importance of one’s location on the map, but I might be totally misunderstanding what the relationship is here.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274833081329;1623:
> > snip
>
> snip

Yeah, I would argue that this is why the community is so divided on the issue. Sprint, on the surface, looks like a pretty minor thing, but it provides a fundamentally different style of gameplay than a game without movement mechanics.
The reason sprint/abilities has such a strong effect on reducing the importance of absolute position on the map is threefold:

  1. The maps are larger, because they are designed for sprint. Necessarily, this makes any one position on the map less important than it would otherwise be. If you have a hundred options of where to be in a room, any one of them is less significant than if you were in a room with only ten options of where to be.

  2. Sprint and other movement abilities enable you to get out of a bad position much more easily than in older games. This means that you get less punished for bad positioning, and also that you get less rewarded for advantageous positioning. The general area of the map that you are in is often the thing that becomes important, not your actual specific location.

  3. The positions of other players are less predictable at all times, because their movement options are varied and you don’t know how exactly they might travel from point A to point B. Because the exact location of players on the map is less predictable, there is less incentive to focus on it - and again, general area of the map becomes the only thing of any significant importance.

Adding sprint and movement abilities to the game doesn’t suddenly make position on the map irrelevant (how many games would a team win trying to control bottom middle on Truth?), but it significantly affects it and changes the game’s choice/consequence model to lower the consequences and rewards of basic movement in order to try and shift the consequences and rewards to non-basic movement (your abilities). And, I would argue, the result is a Halo game which is far less strategic and far less rewarding for intelligent play.

1629

> 2592250499807011;1628:
> Yeah, I would argue that this is why the community is so divided on the issue. Sprint, on the surface, looks like a pretty minor thing, but it provides a fundamentally different style of gameplay than a game without movement mechanics.
> The reason sprint/abilities has such a strong effect on reducing the importance of absolute position on the map is threefold:
> 1) The maps are larger, because they are designed for sprint. Necessarily, this makes any one position on the map less important than it would otherwise be.
>
> 2) Sprint and other movement abilities enable you to get out of a bad position much more easily than in older games. This means that you get less punished for bad positioning, and also that you get less rewarded for advantageous positioning. The general area of the map that you are in is often the thing that becomes important, not your actual specific location.
>
> 3) The positions of other players are less predictable at all times, because their movement options are varied and you don’t know how exactly they might travel from point A to point B. Because the exact location of players on the map is less predictable, there is less incentive to focus on it - and again, general area of the map becomes the only thing of any significant importance.
>
> Adding sprint and movement abilities to the game doesn’t suddenly make position on the map irrelevant (how many games would a team win trying to control bottom middle on Truth?), but it significantly effects it and changes the game. And, I would argue, the result is a Halo game which is far less strategic and far less rewarding for intelligent play.

Yeah I think you’ve brought me over to the dark side with that. It’s a very convincing argument and I don’t think there’s anything I can say or think to properly counter it in any slightly objective sense.

It’s a sad point to concede because I do really enjoy the fluidity and perceived versatility of Halo 5’s movement system in a way I just didn’t in the earlier games.

But yeah. Well played, I think you’re right and that’s a really strong objection to the return of advanced movement.

And I suppose, regardless of what they do with the movement system, Infinite will still be a new Halo game, and it’ll hopefully be a blast to play either way. I just hope that if they drop sprint they also drop smart-link.

1630

> 2592250499807011;1628:
> 3) The positions of other players are less predictable at all times, because their movement options are varied and you don’t know how exactly they might travel from point A to point B. Because the exact location of players on the map is less predictable, there is less incentive to focus on it - and again, general area of the map becomes the only thing of any significant importance.

This is one of the most overlooked facets of the classic gameplay that is ever so important. Thanks for mentioning it. You really can’t understate how much sprint fundamentally changes Halo’s movement and engagements.

1631

I really hope for a mix of both classic and modern movement mechanics,
like the Sprint and clamber i hope they stay.
As for the dodge and ground pound, they are cool but don’t really feel like Halo or a ability that every spartian should have all the time(could be good for a zeroG or lowG game mode) .

1632

I think 80% of the people wanting no sprint are the old players that it really is quite something that they remain 50% of the community to this day. In my opinion if I were the head of some other studio and I really didn’t have any investment in how the game turns out besides profit and I didn’t care about the community or anything I would still give the older players double the per capita voting power because 1. Loyalty is a sign of being a more profitable customer than others. 2. Newcomers that were attracted to modern halo who weren’t attracted to old halo are by definition attracted by things that make halo less halo, and that are already established enough in the industry that even by the slim chance halo does those things better, the people attracted by that are still going to like other games better who make those newer things their sole purpose. 3. 343 has kind of recognized that making halo a generic game is objectively a bad idea, screw people who want halo to not be halo we’re not listening to them, and in my opinion the people best qualified to say what made halo what it was halo are the people who’ve played old halo and liked it for what it was.

1633

> 2533274893350306;1632:
> I think 80% of the people wanting no sprint are the old players that it really is quite something that they remain 50% of the community to this day. In my opinion if I were the head of some other studio and I really didn’t have any investment in how the game turns out besides profit and I didn’t care about the community or anything I would still give the older players double the per capita voting power because 1. Loyalty is a sign of being a more profitable customer than others. 2. Newcomers that were attracted to modern halo who weren’t attracted to old halo are by definition attracted by things that make halo less halo, and that are already established enough in the industry that even by the slim chance halo does those things better, the people attracted by that are still going to like other games better who make those newer things their sole purpose. 3. 343 has kind of recognized that making halo a generic game is objectively a bad idea, screw people who want halo to not be halo we’re not listening to them, and in my opinion the people best qualified to say what made halo what it was halo are the people who’ve played old halo and liked it for what it was.

I don’t think you can say that people that like modern Halo games don’t like Halo being less Halo. They’ve just got a different conception on the important aspects of Halo. I’m pretty certain that if you replaced all the vehicles and weapons in Halo with real-life look alikes, even the new players would hate it. I also think you’re probably objectively wrong - people who started with Halo 4 and 5 are probably more likely to be invested in the next two games than people who started with CE, as they’re more likely to be younger and have more free time. And keeping the game classic probably comes at the cost of it feeling more alien to prospective purchasers, and so is probably something stakeholders would not be a fan of.

I think whatever decision 343 makes, it will be somewhere in the middle (at this point it kind of has to be), and I think they’re going to listen to people’s opinions and make a decision based on their perceived total strength of each ‘opinion’. For example, while some people prefer the modern art style, they’re unlikely to care as much as people who prefer the old art style, so the latter is winning out. I think we’ll see similar judgements made for movement and multiplayer, with social multiplayer charging further in the direction that Halo 4 or arguably Reach began to take the series, (as newer players are likely to be fans of Big Team Battle from Halo 4 or Warzone from 5), and a more classic focus for the competitive multiplayer as it is more commonly a home for series veterans.

In summary, it’s all compromises. If you go in expecting 343 to pander to old Halo fans, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment - and you’re probably objectively wrong that it would be more profitable to fully steer in that direction too.

1634

> 2533274956613084;1621:
> Obviously “Super soldiers should be able to sprint” and “it just makes sense” are bad arguments for sprint to remain in Halo. I think the much stronger argument for sprint is that, in the way it is implemented, it provides a risk-reward setup for a choice that can be made in game, just like Crouch did before sprint.
>
> Crouch: - Places a lower limit on movement speedbut provides the trade off of:
> - Being harder to hit (a smaller hitbox) - Being invisible to people’s motion trackersSprint - Halts shield regen - Prevents the player engaging in combatbut provides the trade off of:
> - Greater speed with which to escape to nearby cover or catch up to slower vehiclesI understand the argument that removing the ability of a player to shoot is bad or contrary to the Halo formula. I similarly understand the argument that the inclusion of Sprint is typically bad for map design.
>
> However, I think that including another risk/reward trade is a good thing and allows for more diverse gameplay. I wouldn’t be averse to removing the limitation on shooting, while sprinting - the fact you can only sprint roughly forwards combined with halted shield regen possibly offset the gameplay advantage of improved speed. But I believe that removing the movement mode entirely wouldn’t be positive.

I don’t see talking about risk vs. reward as a very strong argument for anything. I’ve said it before that viewing gameplay design through the lense of risk vs. reward only offers a very rudimentary perspective, and just because there’s a trade-off to something doesn’t mean it’s good design. if we want to talk about risk and reward, the purest instance of it is gambling: you put in more money, you may win more money, but you may also lose all that money. Some people arguably love gambling, and find it exciting, but I hope we can all agree that there is no depth to a slot machine. The player has no agency on what the slot machine puts out, and therefore there is no strategy and nothing to learn, nothing to become better at.

The problem with the risk–reward oriented mindset is that there is no inherent depth to either risk or reward. So, if it’s depth we’re interested in, we’re not going to find an argument revolving around risk and reward convincing. What we want is something we can learn about the mechanic that can distinguish us from those who haven’t. The more there is to learn the better.

For sprint this naturally leads to the argument that since sprinting and not sprinting offer different advantages, then knowing when to sprint is the thing to learn. This has of course been discussed numerous times before, and the issue is that sprint doesn’t add much new to learn. The reason is that knowing when to sprint is fundamentally about having an understanding of the state of the game: how likely is it that I’m going to run into an opponent, etc., and this understanding of the state of the game is not exclusive to sprint, but is used all the time for every other decision. The understanding that is exclusive to sprint is very small, and therefore sprint in fact adds not a whole lot of depth. When we then take into account the negative effects of sprint, it quickly becomes a net negative.

1635

While as far as I’m concerned the “no sprint” side of this argument has won it in my mind at this point - at least for Halo, the competitive game, I think it’s worth trying to rebut a few of the points made by tsassi.

> 2533274825830455;1634:
> […]Some people arguably love gambling, and find it exciting, but I hope we can all agree that there is no depth to a slot machine. The player has no agency on what the slot machine puts out, and therefore there is no strategy and nothing to learn, nothing to become better at.

Of course this is true, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to argue that a slot machine is comparable to other risk-reward systems in games. It is definitely an example of a ‘game’ based on risk-reward trades, but as is stated, the player has no agency over the slot machine. By extension (also stated), there’s nothing to learn. But by adding player agency, many games are built upon this system: Tetris, beyond mechanical competency, is a game of risk-reward: you score better by wiping out more rows at once, but by leaving almost entirely complete rows on the board, you expose yourself to the eventuality that you lose due to bad dice rolls not giving you the I piece to wipe out rows.

I don’t think that mechanical depth is a good metric for the quality of a game either. Finding an acceptable example for this is a little tough, as there’s few goal-based activities with high depth and few risk-reward trades. Due to this the only example I can think of is data analysis in Excel or similar software. There are definitely people that love doing data analysis - especially as it relates to things that interest them; and Excel is a very “mechanically deep” application - between VBA scripting, macros and all the more forward facing features, I’d not really hesitate to say that nearly everything one could want to do is, technically, possible in Excel. There’s a really large skill gap between people new to the software, and people with a lot of experience using it; certainly as large of a skill gap as I’ve seen for any game. There’s almost nothing left up to dice rolls, and there’s very little risk-reward decision making. Yet, we don’t (often) see people competing to complete tasks in Excel, despite all of it’s features that cement it as perhaps the ‘game’ with the most potential for self improvement in existence. Obviously the software isn’t typically gamified, like slot machines are, but I severely doubt that gamifying Excel would bring it to the front page of Twitch (or Mixer).

I think there’s a good chance people read the above paragraph and think I’ve lost the plot a bit, so I really do apologise for my inability to find a better analogy, and it’s possibly fair to dismiss this argument based solely on my inability to think of a game that properly fits the bill of “really deep, lacking risk-reward trades”. I think this lack of examples though, possibly proves the point to an extent.

Now I don’t want to strawman tsassi’s argument: I’m under no illusion that you’re arguing that you’re arguing in favour of a game without risk-reward choices, and I’m sure you wouldn’t say that mechanical depth is the only important aspect of a game’s design. I just question though, how much more important it is than the other aspects of game design that people usually point to: progression systems, graphical design, sound design, level design, narrative, gameplay variety (which I think might be a contentious one, as some people would argue it’s the same as gameplay depth, which isn’t really an argument I want to go into if I don’t have to).

You’re probably right that Sprint doesn’t add a lot of depth (I think that pointing out the fact it’s reliant on the same knowledge with which you make basically every other decision is also particularly astute as a way to substantiate this claim) - and I now really do agree that it’s negatives probably do outweigh its’ positives in (traditional) competitive Halo, at least if we define Halo combat to be largely about map control (which is something I’m happy to do, as my favourite memories with Halo are all variations on a struggle for some point).

However I don’t necessarily agree that the depth added by Sprint is as minimal as you make it sound: it is reliant on your knowledge of the general state of the game, however as countless people have pointed out, Sprint doesn’t just entail an increase in maximum movement speed - it also includes all the things you, and others view as detractions from the gameplay. It doesn’t only allow the Sprint(er) to change their behavior, but can necessitate behavioral change in other players too, changing the meta of the game substantially, as Primus Ego Sum originally pointed out to me. The way it changes the rewards and punishments for positioning, being the main point.

I was talking to a friend about this, and after I relayed the argument that Sprint damages traditional concepts of map control, while trying to substantiate it with some auxiliary arguments to get there, he argued that these changes were a good thing.

He effectively argued that map control, in the traditional sense of the word, meant that really good plays were typically restricted to powerful positions on the map, and that this could make combat repetitive, and that because sprint allows people to escape combat, and thus encourages aggressors to follow them to an extent to get the kill, combat naturally flowed around the map leading to more versatile encounters.

I don’t see this argument as one that’s immediately flawed from a game design perspective - the only issue I can see with it is a result of viewing it through the lens of competitive Halo, and applying the fact that, in competitive games I prefer map control to plain combat to the argument in order to argue it runs contrary to the established gameplay.

Even taking for granted your claim that it’s effect on gameplay depth doesn’t hold a candle to its negative effects on the game as a whole, and agreeing with whatever conception of Halo you have from which this view was born, do you not see a possible, consistent view which, regardless of this imbalance maintains that sprint should remain a part of Halo - the Xbox console frontrunner and commercial venture?

Even though it’s tough to reconcile, is there not some value in the game making concessions to reach a larger audience?
I anticipate the counter argument that “Halo 4 didn’t do well, and neither did Halo 5”, “Their player counts are dwindling”. This may be true, but the reality is that with Halo coming to PC, and releasing on the next iteration of the Xbox, it’d be pretty irresponsible for 343i to release a game that feels like Halo CE or even Halo 3, because it would alienate a potentially massive audience of people who would otherwise experience Halo Infinite as their first entry into the universe.

I think in reality, some middle ground will be hit. I could see a kind of Frankenstein solution where Social games, Campaign, and whatever follows where Warzone left off will be employ advanced movement mechanics, and all the competitive modes employ more classical mechanics, like the Team Arena playlist in Halo 5 currently has no Spartan Charge or Ground Pound. While I view this as somewhat of a disappointing half solution, I think it’s the one that’ll work best.

I’m sorry this is probably a lot longer than it had to be to get the point I wanted to make across. I still believe that Sprint probably does have no place in competitive Halo. But I think it’s a deeper issue.

1636

> 2533274956613084;1633:
> people who started with Halo 4 and 5 are probably more likely to be invested in the next two games than people who started with CE, as they’re more likely to be younger and have more free time.

Before I reply to the topic at hand, I just quickly want to address this statement: Where the hell does this idea of “younger = more time” come from and when will it finally die?
Seriously, is this a cultural thing? Is it really that way in the US? Because I can absolutely guarantee you that I’ve had significantly less free time as a kid than now. All-day school, and when I’m finally home after 10-12 hours, I still needed to do homework and/or learn for upcoming exams. Same in university, only difference was that I had some more influence on how to arrange my chores because exams were on fixed dates in the semester, but they were still there, a looming shadow. Ever since I work, I have an 8-hour-day and when I’m done, I’m actually done. With vacation that I can choose when I want, not when school/university wants it and on top of that my salary gives me the luxury of a car which cuts down commuting time to basically zero (instead of waiting for public transport).
Seriously, I think I have completed more games in the last 5-ish years than during all my schooldays put together.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> However I don’t necessarily agree that the depth added by Sprint is as minimal as you make it sound: it is reliant on your knowledge of the general state of the game, however as countless people have pointed out, Sprint doesn’t just entail an increase in maximum movement speed - it also includes all the things you, and others view as detractions from the gameplay. It doesn’t only allow the Sprint(er) to change their behavior, but can necessitate behavioral change in other players too, changing the meta of the game substantially, as Primus Ego Sum originally pointed out to me. The way it changes the rewards and punishments for positioning, being the main point.

You’re mixing up two different arguments here. First you’re arguing that sprint adds depth to the game, which you then try to prove by the fact that the meta of the game had changed. The premise, however, doesn’t follow from the reason you’re giving. If I’d remove melee from Halo, the meta would significantly change with players trying to stay at a distance from one another, because close combat would have been basically nullified (unless you got a sword/hammer/shotgun, etc.). The removal of melee however doesn’t add any depth to the gameplay, it just makes it different… possibly even reduces depth. Sprint on the other hand is a different beast. It’s inclusion already removed certain aspects of depth, because by its very nature it goes against the concept of run’n’gun that Halo followed before.
Adhering to the nomenclature laid out by Extra Credits, depth is “the number of meaningful choices that come out of one ruleset”. While sprint certainly expands the ruleset of the game (and hence the complexity) the reason why people argue that it doesn’t add depth is because sprint does not add any choices to the game. Your instinctive reaction to this now is to call BS and think I’m insane, because of course deciding when to sprint and when not to is a choice, but hear me out. The reason why I say that sprinting adds no meaningful choices is because you’re never actively deciding on whether to sprint or not. Not on its own at least. You always make some other choice that then forces you to sprint. Want to engage in combat? Don’t sprint. Want to escape from combat? Sprint. Want to get to point X (powerweapon, ally, enemy, etc.) fast? Sprint. All these were choices you already had in Halo before the inclusion of sprint, just the course of action you take upon making that choice changed. At no point in the game is it ambiguous whether or not sprinting is beneficial or not, so the “choice” is meaningless. There is only one correct response depending on what you want to accomplish in that particular moment, so it’s a reactionary mechanic at best.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> do you not see a possible, consistent view which, regardless of this imbalance maintains that sprint should remain a part of Halo - the Xbox console frontrunner and commercial venture?

People never had an issue with sprint remaining within Halo, but just not at the expense of classic gameplay as it has for basically a decade now. While one could be spiteful and delegate sprint and other advance movement mechanics to their respective alibi playlist (the same way that classic fans have been appeased so far), my preferred course of action has always been a spinoff-series that follows marines or Spartan-IV’s, both of which (to my knowledge at least, somebody correct me if I’m wrong) are not known to be able to shoot while sprinting the same way that Spartan-IIs can. Not only does it make sense with the lore, but it circumvents the issue of trying to balance the same title (maps, weapons, AI, etc.) for two gameplay styles.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> This may be true, but the reality is that with Halo coming to PC, and releasing on the next iteration of the Xbox, it’d be pretty irresponsible for 343i to release a game that feels like Halo CE or even Halo 3, because it would alienate a potentially massive audience of people who would otherwise experience Halo Infinite as their first entry into the universe.

I have some issues with that statement:
A - A game without sprint / with classic movement does not automatically feel “like Halo CE or even Halo 3” unless it is specifically designed that way.
B - Why would it be “irresponsible”? I could just as well claim it to be irresponsible to introduce all these people to a style of Halo that is less refined, less true to its origins and ultimately less popular to what Halo used to be. Even more so if 343 were to abandon it at some point in the future.
C - Especially with Infinite coming to PC, sprint and advanced movement are a huge problem. Contrary to consoles, these types of mechanics are not common in PC shooters, or at least the ones that become popular: Counterstrike, Team Fortress, the entire Arena shooter genre back before it was bastardized. I am actually genuinely surprised about PUBG going against this trend and succeeding. I think it’s because of the current Battle-Royale-craze and will die down eventually, but I can’t say for certain. Regardless, PC-players in general have been a lot less accepting of “flashy gimmicks” than console gamers in the past and 343 better carefully evaluate what they put into Infinite, if that game is to thrive on PC. (Also they probably need to put it on Steam or at least lift the Win-10-restriction, but that’s a different topic altogether).

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> I could see a kind of Frankenstein solution where Social games, Campaign, and whatever follows where Warzone left off will be employ advanced movement mechanics, and all the competitive modes employ more classical mechanics

Just a personal note in the end: I don’t really care about multiplayer, I’m a single player guy through and through, and if infinite even remotely has sprint anywhere in campaign, I will not touch that game, much less buy it. I already didn’t buy H5G (I got it used and for free) precisely because of that. Everything that the sprint and the accompanying abandonment of run’n’gun do to multiplayer pales in comparison to the effect it has on AI scripting, enemy health/shield balancing (as a ripple effect of the weapon balancing), level design, mission objectives, etc.

1637

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> Before I reply to the topic at hand, I just quickly want to address this statement: Where the hell does this idea of “younger = more time” come from and when will it finally die?
> Seriously, is this a cultural thing?

Ah firstly, I think it’s probably just a different perspective on school life - I am Australian, and my experience of school was such that I had continuous free time until the last month or two of the HSC (the final exams for High school / Secondary school in the US).
I kind of see the last few years of Uni as a real time-hog and I believe there’s a good chance that people would stop playing games for a good period and may not come back to the same thing after leaving. I may be wrong in this assumption though.

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> The premise, however, doesn’t follow from the reason you’re giving. If I’d remove melee from Halo, the meta would significantly change with players trying to stay at a distance from one another, because close combat would have been basically nullified (unless you got a sword/hammer/shotgun, etc.). The removal of melee however doesn’t add any depth to the gameplay, it just makes it different… possibly even reduces depth. Sprint on the other hand is a different beast. It’s inclusion already removed certain aspects of depth, because by its very nature it goes against the concept of run’n’gun that Halo followed before.

I think that’s a reasonably good analogy, but I think in the case of Sprint, even by your definition, the change it makes to the meta doesn’t include a reduction in gameplay depth.
I think there’s a good chance you’ll read that and immediately decide I’m a lost cause on this - since you’ve laid out the way in which you believe it reduces depth in a pretty clear way. I think it’s a strong argument, but my premise only doesn’t follow if it’s true that Sprint does actually reduce depth, which I disagree with.

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> The reason why I say that sprinting adds no meaningful choices is because you’re never actively deciding on whether to sprint or not. Not on its own at least. You always make some other choice that then forces you to sprint. Want to engage in combat? Don’t sprint. Want to escape from combat? Sprint. Want to get to point X (powerweapon, ally, enemy, etc.) fast? Sprint. All these were choices you already had in Halo before the inclusion of sprint, just the course of action you take upon making that choice changed. At no point in the game is it ambiguous whether or not sprinting is beneficial or not, so the “choice” is meaningless.

Ultimately, I disagree with the bold parts of the statement above. I would completely agree if sprint had no drawbacks. But I think the restrictions that Sprint places on shield regen are enough to force most players to think more proactively about how they want to use the ability; particularly when escaping combat, and the restrictions it places on gun use forces players to further think about when it’s safe to Sprint. Getting caught while sprinting in what would otherwise be a pistol battle is equivalent to missing at least one shot - it’s a disadvantage that should provide a disincentive for misuse of the ability. Similarly the choice to sprint away from a combat encounter is the choice to possibly not have regenerated shields for the time that the next fight takes place, once again disadvantaging the misuser.

To reiterate, this is not to say that I think Sprint is good in competitive Halo; I now believe I understand the way in which it damages aspects of the game that I value. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as it’s implied by blanket statements like “At no point in the game is it ambiguous whether or not sprinting is beneficial”. Even sprinting to power weapons is a potentially bad move if the another person on the opposite team is walking towards the power weapon, only redeemed if the power weapon is suitably usable at close range.

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> my preferred course of action has always been a spinoff-series that follows marines or Spartan-IV’s

I totally agree with this as an idea, and would much prefer it to any compromise between the two different modes of gameplay. I’ve just never considered it as a possibility for the Halo series, but I’m possibly too pessimistic on that count.

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> A - A game without sprint / with classic movement does not automatically feel “like Halo CE or even Halo 3” unless it is specifically designed that way.
> B - Why would it be “irresponsible”? I could just as well claim it to be irresponsible to introduce all these people to a style of Halo that is less refined, less true to its origins and ultimately less popular to what Halo used to be. Even more so if 343 were to abandon it at some point in the future.
> C - Especially with Infinite coming to PC, sprint and advanced movement are a huge problem.

In response to A, it was poor wording on my part. I did actually mean the words I wrote, but their distance from the rest of what I said is definitely misleading. I think a game with classic movement could work, and be welcoming and successful, but I don’t think a game that felt like Halo CE could work, and more personally, I wouldn’t want another game that felt like Halo CE. Including Halo 3 there is possibly a little extreme as it’d probably do fine, but my point there was a pretty weak jab at the way I feel the movement in HCE has aged.

B - once again poor word choice, and again a statement based almost entirely on how I feel the game feels. Really an extension on my previous statement in not feeling like the Bungie era games really hold up in terms of how the movement feels. I think a Halo 5 without any of the advanced movement mechanics would play well, but it’s clearly a problem I have that I just continuously conflate a desire to go back to classic movement as a desire to go back to Halo 3’s movement.

C - Again my comment about PC was just trying to reference a new audience, and state that I don’t think introducing people to Halo with Halo CE is as easy as it is to introduce people with either H2A or H4 (only not including 5 because of the lack of split screen).

I think your points in rebuttal to that section of my diatribe have kind of served to show me that all my feelings on this topic are probably just remnants of a feeling (that I know is contentious) that Halo CE through to Halo 3 have aged beyond just their graphical fidelity.

> 2533274801176260;1636:
> Just a personal note in the end: I don’t really care about multiplayer, I’m a single player guy through and through, and if infinite even remotely has sprint anywhere in campaign, I will not touch that game

I’m not going to argue against your feelings here, just say that I hope then that Infinite doesn’t have Sprint in the campaign.

Thanks for that anyway. I’m sorry if you see my argument in favour of Sprint as really missing the point again. I just can’t see myself conceding that there is no occasion where the choice to use Sprint is not totally unambiguous. I think that tsassi’s point about the low demand on additional understanding of the game state is a good argument for the additional depth being low, but I think that the additional depth it provides is definitely somewhere above zero; even if that depth is then offset by the negative aspects of Sprint in terms of other cascading design choices, and the lessening of the importance of positioning.

1638

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> Now I don’t want to strawman tsassi’s argument: I’m under no illusion that you’re arguing that you’re arguing in favour of a game without risk-reward choices, and I’m sure you wouldn’t say that mechanical depth is the only important aspect of a game’s design. I just question though, how much more important it is than the other aspects of game design that people usually point to: progression systems, graphical design, sound design, level design, narrative, gameplay variety (which I think might be a contentious one, as some people would argue it’s the same as gameplay depth, which isn’t really an argument I want to go into if I don’t have to).

It’s good that you acknowledge that, because otherwise you would’ve ended up strawmanning my argument. After all, my argument had nothing to do with whether risks and rewards have a place in games (since they clearly do). What it concerned was this very prevalent mindset among at least users of this forum that everything is about risk and reward: if there is risk and if there is reward, then it’s all good. I very specifically used the word “rudimentary”, because that’s what it is: it’s a view that ignores a huge amount of things and instead concentrates on these two things.

What I probably need to mention at this point that whenever I talk about gameplay design of Halo, I always work under the assumption that we want a game with deep gameplay (and when I talk about gameplay depth, I always mean the skill depth rather than the broader experimental depth). Why? Because that’s just how I see Halo: as a skill based, competitive shooter. NOTE: this does not mean I don’t recognize other aspects of Halo. I also see it as a narrative game, as a party game, and as a tool for expressing creativity. However, because the skill content is the one aspect that’s closest to me, that’s what I value the most in gameplay design. Everyone is free to not care about that aspect of design, but if you don’t think that’s an important goal, then we really can’t have a meaningful discussion about the gameplay design of Halo. So, I just automatically assume that we’re all striving towards the same goal (which is strictly speaking a false assumption, but works well enough for practical purposes).

With that out of the way, there are absolutely other important aspects of a game’s design than gameplay depth. A game that is fun and interesting needs and benefits from attention to other things. However, for creating a skill based game, depth is absolutely one of the most important aspects of gameplay design to consider, really only second to usability. That is, if a mechanic has an overall negative impact on the game’s depth, then one needs an incredibly fantastic reason to justify its existence. Furthermore, if a mechanic adds no or very little depth, then its existence also needs a really good justification.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> I was talking to a friend about this, and after I relayed the argument that Sprint damages traditional concepts of map control, while trying to substantiate it with some auxiliary arguments to get there, he argued that these changes were a good thing.
>
> He effectively argued that map control, in the traditional sense of the word, meant that really good plays were typically restricted to powerful positions on the map, and that this could make combat repetitive, and that because sprint allows people to escape combat, and thus encourages aggressors to follow them to an extent to get the kill, combat naturally flowed around the map leading to more versatile encounters.

This doesn’t really make sense. First, I don’t really see what is meant by “really good plays” here. Are we talking just about triumphs of individual players, or do we include strategic victories over a longer time period? What counts as “really good” anyway? In any case, I find the claim dubious, because it seems to involve the common misconception that map control traditionally is all about powerful positions, getting them, and holding them down. But this is not true, since the whole purpose of spawning power weapons on the map is that if a team tries too much to hold a single position, they will not be able to hold the power weapons. A basic example of this is how rockets never spawn on the top of the map so that players have to get off the high ground to get them. Map control in Halo is traditionally very dynamic, and at higher levels of play camping is really not an option.

That gets us to the second issue, which is that powerful positions are, in fact, almost exclusively an issue of map design. If you have a position on the map where players can just sit, you have a bad map. Maybe you made the position too powerful, maybe you need to place power weapons further away from it or place more power weapons on the map or mess with their spawn times. It’s totally possible in classic Halo to have players constantly move around the map, and this is in fact what happens fairly well on most maps. There is no general issue with map flow in Halo, and even if there was, it could be resolved by map design.

Even if you had an issue with players sitting in powerful positions, making it easier for players to flee encounters doesn’t really solve anything. After all, a player is sitting in a powerful position presumably because they have no incentive to get out of it. If they’re trying to win, this is presumably because they are winning a match of Slayer, which means they can just wait for the enemies to come to them. So, the question is, why would they chase down a kill and give up the position of power when they have nothing to worry about? Chasing kills is already generally a bad idea. Chasing when you really don’t need to is even worse.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> Even though it’s tough to reconcile, is there not some value in the game making concessions to reach a larger audience?

No, not really. I mean, first and foremost I want a game I can have fun playing. If that makes the game less fun for others, then so be it. I’d rather have a less popular game I want to play than a highly popular game I have no interest in.

> 2533274956613084;1635:
> I anticipate the counter argument that “Halo 4 didn’t do well, and neither did Halo 5”, “Their player counts are dwindling”. This may be true, but the reality is that with Halo coming to PC, and releasing on the next iteration of the Xbox, it’d be pretty irresponsible for 343i to release a game that feels like Halo CE or even Halo 3, because it would alienate a potentially massive audience of people who would otherwise experience Halo Infinite as their first entry into the universe.

The icing on the cake is, of course, that there’s no reason to expect Spartan Abilities to be something that benefits the popularity of Halo. And that’s completely ignoring the fact that modern Halo has not fared nearly as well as classic Halo. The popularity argument in favor of advanced movement to me seems pretty weak, since the facts are stacked against it.

1639

In my opinion, the correct approach to the whole matter of providing a fresh experience which achieves the goals of feeling faster and also being more lore-friendly to super soldiers (a goal I don’t agree with but which 343 seems committed to) is to simply adopt the classic movement system (no added movement abilities) but increase the movement speed and acceleration of characters. Halo 3 +33% movement speed +33% acceleration (or something like that… Exact numbers would need testing) would feel very different, without compromising the core gameplay.

This is also borderline necessary to make the game more interesting on PC, as old Halo 3s movement speed is probably too slow to feel interesting when everyone has the better aim of a mouse.

It’s an interesting observation that no popular arena PC shooter ever uses sprint. Just faster base movement and acceleration.

1640

> 2533274825830455;1638:
> What I probably need to mention at this point that whenever I talk about gameplay design of Halo, I always work under the assumption that we want a game with deep gameplay (and when I talk about gameplay depth, I always mean the skill depth rather than the broader experimental depth). Why? Because that’s just how I see Halo: as a skill based, competitive shooter.

I think this is obviously going to be the hill this whole thing dies on.
Viewing Halo as solely a skill based, competitive shooter, I can concede nearly every point made against sprint, hence my insistence that “this is not to say that I think Sprint is good in competitive Halo”.
Unfortunately I see Halo as a party game first (as long as we’re including social playlists in that definition), narrative game second, competitive arena shooter third, and canvas fourth. So, while I’ll quickly concede that gameplay depth is a good thing for the arena shooter, which should probably have as large of a skill gap as is possible, if that comes at the cost of my fun in the other two modes that I view as more integral to my experience, it’s going to be inherently tough to watch a game series that I have recently found the most enjoyment in by chaining spartan abilities together lose those spartan abilities, someone’s going to get jipped no matter how the series goes (I mean, it’s probably possible to be good to the forgers whether we have new or old movement).

I’m sorry if you thought I was strawmanning your argument - I was ineptly trying to argue that there was inherent value in a range of other factors by using your argument that pure risk-reward isn’t fun and comparing it with, in my perception pure depth such that neither sounded like a good game.

I think it’s probable that, to contextualize your rebuttal of the anecdote I used, that the underlying claim is not actually that Sprint improves competitive Halo for the better but rather that Sprint artificially raises the skill floor such that you don’t get continuously destroyed by one better player in social games. I’m probably not skilled enough as a Halo player to recognise this difference either - I’ve not ventured beyond low Diamond in Halo 5, and only really played social game modes in the previous Halo games.

> 2533274825830455;1638:
> The icing on the cake is, of course, that there’s no reason to expect Spartan Abilities to be something that benefits the popularity of Halo. And that’s completely ignoring the fact that modern Halo has not fared nearly as well as classic Halo. The popularity argument in favor of advanced movement to me seems pretty weak, since the facts are stacked against it.

I’ve kind of conceded that I was arguing the wrong point here. My point was more one based on the fact that I feel like the gameplay of the original trilogy has aged poorly, and while I meant “I don’t like how Halo 3 plays now but would be okay with Halo 5 without advanced movement”, it came across as “I want Halo 5 movement”, which is my fault, because I very clearly appeared to be commenting on the advanced movement, while I only meant to comment on the base movement. I do not believe that a game that feels like Halo CE could be a commercial success these days. I think it’s kind of tough to explain what I mean when I say “feels like Halo CE”, but I think I just prefer the more nimble feel to the Halo 5, and I think that subtle animations probably play into the feeling too.

Especially on that last point, I’ll try to write more clearly. That was an easily avoided misunderstanding.

1641

> 2592250499807011;1639:
> In my opinion, the correct approach to the whole matter of providing a fresh experience which achieves the goals of feeling faster and also being more lore-friendly to super soldiers (a goal I don’t agree with but which 343 seems committed to) is to simply adopt the classic movement system (no added movement abilities) but increase the movement speed and acceleration of characters. Halo 3 +33% movement speed +33% acceleration (or something like that… Exact numbers would need testing) would feel very different, without compromising the core gameplay.
>
> This is also borderline necessary to make the game more interesting on PC, as old Halo 3s movement speed is probably too slow to feel interesting when everyone has the better aim of a mouse.
>
> It’s an interesting observation that no popular arena PC shooter ever uses sprint. Just faster base movement and acceleration.

It’d be interesting if they did that and changed the default controller deadzones in the controller layout. You could have a very sprint-like experience without sprint. Surely that’d damage map design in the same way sprint does now though, and present the same broad issues with the emphasis on positioning?