The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1782

> 2533274825830455;1778:
> > 2592250499807011;1769:
> > 3) If Halo is to be an arena shooter, which is what Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, and 5 are, then yes, sprint is “unnatural”, because it takes one of the most fundamental elements of arena FPS, which is map positioning and control, and makes it less significant. There’s a reason that ZERO great arena FPS games have ever included movement abilities. They work in other kinds of shooters - such as loadout-based games like CoD - but not in arena FPS games.
> >
> > […]Nothing I’ve just said is preference. You may have a preference for sprint, but it’s objectively bad in an arena FPS. It doesn’t speed the game up, and it lessens the importance of player positioning on the map IN A GENRE THAT IS ALL ABOUT MAP POSITIONING AND CONTROL. It’s completely awful game design
>
> Your mistake here is the assumption that there’s some strict mold to which an arena shooter fits. You can make the argument that sprint is no good for arena shooters because this and that, but that is still an argument fundamentally founded on preference: preference regarding what an arena shooter should be. Even if we agree that sprint makes it easier to escape a bad position, whether this is enough to make the game a worse arena shooter is a matter of opinion. Even if we value the importance of good positioning, we can easily disagree how far we want to go with that. There exists no official design specification for an arena shooter stating some minimum for how important positioning needs to be.
>
> Regarding sprint, I’d personally say that the ability to move and shoot at the same time is much more important as a defining characteristic than how important positioning is. But again, that’s just my opinion on what arena shooters should be about. There’s nothing objective about it.
>
> Genres in general are not objective. They’re loosely defined boxes born from people’s need to categorize things, not strict scientific definitions that have been scrutinized in various conferences and honed to a mathematical degree of precision. And the further you go into sub-genres, the looser it gets. Some arena shooter purists wouldn’t necessarily even agree with us that Halo is an arena shooter, because it’s always been just a watered down version with slow movement speed and limited weapon carrying capacity.
>
> When you try to claim things to be objective, you open yourself to a lot of easy hits, because the truth is that fewer things are objective than you think you are. The issue which causes your intuition to fail is that objective statements need to be at least in principle unambiquously falsifiable, but most people fail the unambiquity part, because turns out the concepts they use are often far too vague to be of any use.
>
> Also, I’d like to point out that zero great arena shooters have included advanced movement, because arguably zero great arena shooters have been made during this millenium (again, I’m discounting Halo because you’d probably upset a bunch of Quake fans by calling Halo a great arena shooter). The mechanics in question at that time simply weren’t popular, probably because first person shooters were still a fairly new thing, and the developers didn’t really have the resources to make complex games at the time. It’s really pointless speculation whether the designers of those games would’ve been opposed to things like climbing, dodge mechanics, and such unless we go and ask them. (My bet would be that the developers are often more open to experimentation than the players who fall in love with their games.)

Thank you. My personally opinion on abilities:

Sprint- Mixed bag, I dislike the fact you can’t shoot and Sprint, but I do appreciate how it punishes bad positioning for over extending which is a part of Halo that I have always enjoyed.

Smart Scope- I personally feel that too many weapons have it, I thought classic halo had too few weapons that had scoping. I think at best this should be slow firing automatics and precision weapons, but not SMG, SAW, Shotguns, Energy Sword, etc.

Thrust- I look Doom Eternal’s Dash as the best FPS implementation where you can still aim with no animation delay, I find all the movement skill jumps using Thrust are incredibly skill based and would love to see a further evolution of this ability.

Clamber- I like Clamber for skill jumps in Halo 5 as Halo 5 has the most skill jumps out of any Halo thanks to Clamber. Maybe implement it so small weapons can still be fired while clambering, but not using a rocket launcher etc.

Sliding- Sliding is another one of my favorite mechanics coupled with Thrusitng because Thrust Sliding is extremely punishing and you can fire the entire time. A potential implementation if Sprint does not return is making it so a foward Thrust on the ground followed by Crouching forces Sliding adding to the competitive depth.

I personally would love to see Sprint removed not because I don’t like it, but because it uses up a button that I think could be effectively used for armor abilities. I know many may be frustrated at Armor Abilities returning, but I would want only one or two on each map with maps balanced for it like they are power weapons or pick ups and you have to fight for them.

Example 1: An extremely vertical map that spawns a Jet Pack and Ground Pound with a similar structure to say Ivory Tower, both would be limited to the constraints of the map design.

Example 2: A rework of Backwash with hard to see mist where Promothean Vision is in a sense a power weapon.

1783

Halo is more of an arena/squad hybrid FPS. Definitely not purely arena.

1784

> 2533274825830455;1778:
> Regarding sprint, I’d personally say that the ability to move and shoot at the same time is much more important as a defining characteristic than how important positioning is. But again, that’s just my opinion on what arena shooters should be about. There’s nothing objective about it.

Exactly. The layout is as important as the map size. I’m really not a fan of the argument that every map has to be designed around map control positions with low risk & high reward. I don’t know where this assumption comes from, but Halo was never a game which was just about map control.( I’m not talking about primus, but this is something that a lot of people say)
Some maps will force you to move around all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. The only difference is, that back in the day you had your guns up (almost) all the time so what you had was constant action. Take a look at maps like Damnation, you will most likely never be able to camp on the same position for over 20 seconds. Not even the highest positions on these maps are safe, just because of the fall damage.

Multilockon explains it better than me: There are no rules, Multilockon (youtube)

1785

> 2535473481267884;1784:
> > 2533274825830455;1778:
> > Regarding sprint, I’d personally say that the ability to move and shoot at the same time is much more important as a defining characteristic than how important positioning is. But again, that’s just my opinion on what arena shooters should be about. There’s nothing objective about it.
>
> Exactly. The layout is as important as the map size. I’m really not a fan of the argument that every map has to be designed around map control positions with low risk & high reward. I don’t know where this assumption comes from, but Halo was never a game which was just about map control.( I’m not talking about primus, but this is something that a lot of people say)
> Some maps will force you to move around all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. The only difference is, that back in the day you had your guns up (almost) all the time so what you had was constant action. Take a look at maps like Damnation, you will most likely never be able to camp on the same position for over 20 seconds. Not even the highest positions on these maps are safe, just because of the fall damage.
>
> Multilockon explains it better than me: There are no rules, Multilockon (youtube)

To be clear, I am not arguing that map control positions which are low risk high reward is how every map ought to be designed. I would say, however, that every map ought to have powerful pickups on it (rockets/sniper/shotgun/camo/overshield/whatever fits the map) which provide players with an advantage. This is something which every Halo map has had, including the ones which lack clearly defined control locations on the map apart from the powerups.

Given this design, and assuming players in the game are of somewhat even skill, then the path to victory is largely - though not exclusively - gaining control of those pickups, which are location-dependent on the map.

I do not mean to imply that this should mean that camping certain positions of a map is necessary. However, this design does mean that player positioning on the map is highly significant at all times. Sprint, which lessens the significance of a player’s position at any given moment, doesn’t mesh at all with this basic design concept. Variable movement obfuscates this design choice, while constant movement emphasizes it. Why put gameplay elements in your game which obfuscate the core design principles for its gameplay? How is that desirable at all?

1786

> 2535473481267884;1784:
> > 2533274825830455;1778:
> > Regarding sprint, I’d personally say that the ability to move and shoot at the same time is much more important as a defining characteristic than how important positioning is. But again, that’s just my opinion on what arena shooters should be about. There’s nothing objective about it.
>
> Exactly. The layout is as important as the map size. I’m really not a fan of the argument that every map has to be designed around map control positions with low risk & high reward. I don’t know where this assumption comes from, but Halo was never a game which was just about map control.( I’m not talking about primus, but this is something that a lot of people say)
> Some maps will force you to move around all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. The only difference is, that back in the day you had your guns up (almost) all the time so what you had was constant action. Take a look at maps like Damnation, you will most likely never be able to camp on the same position for over 20 seconds. Not even the highest positions on these maps are safe, just because of the fall damage.
>
> Multilockon explains it better than me: There are no rules, Multilockon (youtube)

Yup, CE has a distinct lack of holding power positions (BR tower, P2, etc.), a concept that people somehow fell in love with even though it doomed Halo to mediocrity when it showed up.

1787

> 2535473481267884;1784:
> > 2533274825830455;1778:
> > Regarding sprint, I’d personally say that the ability to move and shoot at the same time is much more important as a defining characteristic than how important positioning is. But again, that’s just my opinion on what arena shooters should be about. There’s nothing objective about it.
>
> Exactly. The layout is as important as the map size. I’m really not a fan of the argument that every map has to be designed around map control positions with low risk & high reward. I don’t know where this assumption comes from, but Halo was never a game which was just about map control.( I’m not talking about primus, but this is something that a lot of people say)
> Some maps will force you to move around all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. The only difference is, that back in the day you had your guns up (almost) all the time so what you had was constant action. Take a look at maps like Damnation, you will most likely never be able to camp on the same position for over 20 seconds. Not even the highest positions on these maps are safe, just because of the fall damage.
>
> Multilockon explains it better than me: There are no rules, Multilockon (youtube)

Map control isn’t about camping in one powerful position. In fact, map control doesn’t need to involve sitting in one position at all. What map control in Halo is involves making sure that your team gets the power weapons, and trying to have the advantageous position to your opponents. The map can force, and should force, players to move in order to maintain control, but map control is still absolutely involved. On some CE maps, all these elements are very apparent: there is height variation and you want to be at the top, but the rocket launcher is at the bottom so you can’t just sit upstairs. Both of these are elements of map control, but they are spread out such that if a team wants to win, they have to do this constant up-down movement. Damnation and Prisoner are both great examples of this.

1788

> 2592250499807011;1769:
> 2) Halo IS an arena shooter. Halo 5 literally defines itself as one. Control power weapons/etc to win. It tells this to you. The only Halo game that was NOT an arena shooter was launch Halo 4 with ordinance drops, loadouts, and no weapons on map
>
> 3) If Halo is to be an arena shooter, which is what Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, and 5 are, then yes, sprint is “unnatural”, because it takes one of the most fundamental elements of arena FPS, which is map positioning and control, and makes it less significant. There’s a reason that ZERO great arena FPS games have ever included movement abilities. They work in other kinds of shooters - such as loadout-based games like CoD - but not in arena FPS games.
>
> If they want to give up on being an arena shooter and chase CoD or Fortnite or whatever else, then they can enjoy a dead game like they did with Halo 4. This is a proven mistake of disastrous portions for the franchise
>
> Nothing I’ve just said is preference. You may have a preference for sprint, but it’s objectively bad in an arena FPS. It doesn’t speed the game up, and it lessens the importance of player positioning on the map IN A GENRE THAT IS ALL ABOUT MAP POSITIONING AND CONTROL. It’s completely awful game design

Yeah, no.
All of this is wrong. And I’m saying that as somebody that wants sprint gone too.
Halo isn’t an Arena shooter. Never was. Probably never will be.

Sure it was inspired by Arena shooters. But there just is too much mechanically different for it to be classified as the very same thing: Limited weapon restriction (Arena shooters let you carry all weapons at the same time), health/shield regen (AS have you scrounge for life and armor), hell, even weapon reloading goes against Arena mechanics. There is a lot more to Arena shooters than just “control power weapons to win”. In fact, power positions aren’t even a thing in AS games, because having to resupply on so many items at the same time (health, shield, ammo, etc.) forces you to be constantly on the move across the entire map instead of advancing to a power weapon spawn every few minutes.

As for H5G, it is the least similar to Arena shooters, precisely because of sprint and ADS, all the mechanics that change moment-to-moment gameplay at will. While I agree that getting rid of this is beneficial for Halo, it’s not because I see “being an Arena shooter” as an endgoal. Too many other things would need to be cut in order to achieve that.

Looking at your second-to-last paragraph, I’m assuming you’re under the misconception that every game that isn’t a modern warfare shooter (did they ever get an official term?), tactic shooter, Hero shooter or a battle royale shooter would automatically make it an Arena shooter by default. However, there are more than just a handful of genres out there, whether they have been officially named or not, especially when it comes to hybrids, with Halo being one of them.

> 2592250499807011;1780:
> Halo 1/2/3/Reach/5 all are arena FPS, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Making a claim like “Halo isn’t a real arena FPS because it has shield regen” would be equivalent to me saying “Halo 5 isn’t a real arena FPS because it has sprint”… both those statements are highly arbitrary at a game design level. Arena FPS is defined by two simple things: equal player starts for everyone, and pickups on the map are available to give advantages over other players. Rather or not regenerating health/shields/etc is good design or not is a completely different conversation than anything that has been in this thread.

Both of these statements are correct, but if you want to go into game design, you’d actually have to explain what they mean in the greater sense of the meta: Shield regen makes Halo not an Arena Shooter because it removes the need to stock up on base consumables. Not completely removing the need for map movement, there are still powerups and weapons, but you definitely don’t have to move around the map in order to get into the same fighting shape you spawned in. Sprint makes Halo not an Arena shooter because it removes the constant combat capabilities that Arena shooters are built upon. Now, true, this was one of the features that Halo always had in common with Arena shooters as it was clearly inspired by them, and it’s also something I want urgently back for Halo, but just because there are similarities does not make it the same thing. Cats and Dogs both have tails but they’re still not the same animal.

> 2592250499807011;1781:
> It’s not really a stretch to say that an arena FPS is defined by equal player starts and by power positions/weapons/pickups on the map being the key to winning. That’s a pretty clear-cut subset of the FPS genre that would fit into this, and it would catch everything that anyone calls an arena FPS for the past 30 years.

It certainly wouldn’t catch Quake III Arena, arguably the defining Arena Shooter. That game had vastly different player models with different heights and different visibilities, thereby completely destroying the notion of “equal starts”. I agree with weapons and pickups, but they’re not enough to define the Arena Shooter genre on their own; even Battlefront 2015 had those. And I’ve already addressed the issue with “power positions”.

> 2592250499807011;1781:
> It’s also the explanation that 343 uses for Halo 5’s gameplay.

Going by what 343 is claiming about their gamplay is never a good idea, regardless of topic. They also said ADS wouldn’t add penalties to hip-fire, yet it does. Them misusing the term “Arena” for their own agenda does not change what the word actually means.

> 2592250499807011;1781:
> I’ve got a cup for your tears about that right over here, Quake and UT purists.

Well, if you deliberately want to go against those guys that literally invented and defined the genre, be my guest, but I’ll still correct you every single time for using the word wrong, just as I would 343.

EDIT: @tsassi: See? I already told you last time that there are users on these forums that will literally call H5G “an Arena Shooter” because people start redefining the meaning of words at will, and you didn’t believe me.

1789

@tsassi: & @Primus Ego Sum:

I think we are all on the same page, I just mixed up something, excuse me :smiley: It was more about map layout and not really about power positions in terms of pick ups like power weapons / power ups.
Speaking of fall damage - I’m aware that most people are against it - but I would like it to return as an option. Before someone comes with lore arguments - gameplay > lore (for me personally)

As a result, we would most likely get more interesting maps. I know, that I always mention Damnation, but take the highest catwalk (sniper position) as an example - you’re never safe because you’ll die once you fall down or take a huge damage. But the risk & reward balance is given here (enough time to pick up the power weapon, get a kill and retreat) - a bad example, however, would be maps like Hang’ em High, where some power weapons will never be picked up throughout the whole round, because you’ll most likely get killed instantly once you get there.
In any other Halo Game (I’m not talking about this map in particular now, it’s more about high positions on any given map now) you have the possibility to jump down (at any height) without consequences.
And I’m not saying that one way is better than the other one (I can live with or without the fall damage) but as I mentioned before, it won’t harm anyone if we would have it as an option. I really think that you could be way more creative with interesting map layouts where you can balance the risk & reward factor in more vertical maps.

1790

I knew there’d be someone upset about the idea that Halo is an Arena FPS. I’ve been pointing out on various forums since 2001 that Halo is by design an Arena FPS, and that argument has never once failed to attract some Quake/UT purist tears.

I’ll concede this: Halo is a very dumbed down Arena FPS compared to some of the PC Arena FPS games of yore (and always has been). But it’s an Arena FPS.

I know from experience that there’s no convincing folks of the opposite conviction, so I won’t even bother. I’d have more luck talking to the wind. I’ll just say this: my definition would catch everything that has ever been called an arena FPS, including Q3A (quibbling over player models is a significant stretch), and it would exclude every FPS that has never received that designation (Battlefront is a loadout and class based shooter and map pickups are not location based but rather are random; it fails both criteria). Other definitions require fighting about which arena FPS is a true arena FPS and leaves you stuck in a permanent “no true Scotsman” situation.

1791

> 2592250499807011;1772:
> > 2533274947298273;1770:
> > > 2592250499807011;1769:
> > > > 2533274947298273;1767:
> > > > > 2592250499807011;1763:
> > > > > > 2533274794139417;1759:
> > > > > > > 2535428779736382;1690:
> > > > > > > > 2533274794139417;8:
> > > > > > > > I’ve been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can’t go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that’s the case good bye halo I loved u so much
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What’s childish is crying about sprint which is a natural movement in modern games and wanting people to pay 60 bucks of their money for a halo3 clone. If you like Halo 3 that much go back and play Master Chief Collection don’t stop the regular evolution of games
> > > > >
> > > > > Sprint is not a natural movement mechanic for an arena shooter. See my above post. It’s an objectively bad mechanic for Halo, which is the problem. Sprint is a natural movement mechanic for other kinds of shooters, but not arena shooters. It’s an unnatural mechanic for an arena FPS, which is why it harms Halo and makes it worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea you need sprint to speed up the game is hilariously ignorant. For one thing, it’s been pretty conclusively shown that sprint does NOT speed up the game. For another, there’s this thing called base movement speed and acceleration. It can be increased. And that DOES speed up the game…
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that removing sprint would automatically make a halo 3 clone is so stupid that it barely deserves a response. Neither Halo 1 nor Halo 3 have sprint. Would you say Halo 3 is a Halo 1 clone? I doubt it…
> > > >
> > > > With regards to the “speed” of the game, well that definitely needs to be defined. Average rate of kills? Sure sprint may not increase the “speed” of the game, meaning that older Halo titles had more or less the same (or even higher) rate of kills. But there’s no doubt that sprint speeds up player movement and adds a lot of mechanics that can make the game “feel” faster. You can’t deny that sprinting moves your spartan faster, and coupled with spartan abilities like thrust and sliding can allow you to cover distance faster than any other halo game. So yea, it does “speed” up the game in that regards.
> > > >
> > > > You keep trying to classify Halo in terms of what YOU want it to be. It needs to be an arena shooter. It needs to be Halo 1-3. It’s “unnatural” if it does not adhere to what I think it should be. These aren’t objective arguments, they’re all preference.
> > >
> > > 1) The game may “feel” faster, but that feeling is a lie. The game is at best the same speed because the maps are enlarged to compensate for sprint. You definitely can not cover a map faster than any other halo game. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCTyWf4EI7USprint doesn’t speed up player movement relative to the map. It slows it down.
> > >
> > > 2) Halo IS an arena shooter. Halo 5 literally defines itself as one. Control power weapons/etc to win. It tells this to you. The only Halo game that was NOT an arena shooter was launch Halo 4 with ordinance drops, loadouts, and no weapons on map
> > >
> > > 3) If Halo is to be an arena shooter, which is what Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, and 5 are, then yes, sprint is “unnatural”, because it takes one of the most fundamental elements of arena FPS, which is map positioning and control, and makes it less significant. There’s a reason that ZERO great arena FPS games have ever included movement abilities. They work in other kinds of shooters - such as loadout-based games like CoD - but not in arena FPS games.
> > >
> > > If they want to give up on being an arena shooter and chase CoD or Fortnite or whatever else, then they can enjoy a dead game like they did with Halo 4. This is a proven mistake of disastrous portions for the franchise
> > >
> > > Nothing I’ve just said is preference. You may have a preference for sprint, but it’s objectively bad in an arena FPS. It doesn’t speed the game up, and it lessens the importance of player positioning on the map IN A GENRE THAT IS ALL ABOUT MAP POSITIONING AND CONTROL. It’s completely awful game design
> >
> > You didn’t actually read my post, I think. All that video states is that Halo 5 maps are larger than Halo 3 maps. Which is true. Playing Halo 3’s Heretic is downright claustrophobic after playing Halo 5’s Truth. This is exactly because movement* is quicker in Halo 5, TTK is less, etc. *Note: I don’t define movement as the rate of passing some arbitrary points in a map and using that metric to compare with the rate of passing arbitrary points in an entirely different map in an entirely different game. Just because they share the same layout and the same theme does not mean they should play identically to each other–and this is not an argument for “bad game design” when they do not.
> >
> > Stop trying to shoehorn Halo 5 into what you think an arena shooter should be. There’s no bible that states that arena shooters can’t have sprint. Your arguments that sprint removes the game’s focus on map positioning and control is unsubstantial at best.
>
> Can you traverse maps faster with sprint? No.

This is inherently false. While I am not a sprint proponent by any means, this just isn’t true. Maps like Ragnarok in Halo 4 can be traversed faster than Valhalla in Halo 3 (these maps are 1:1 in size). Even walking the maps is nearly the same. The base movement speed of Halo 3 and 4 is very similar. What you are defining as “traversing maps faster” is getting from one end of the map to the other, which is entirely based on map design, which has been mostly stretched since the inclusion of sprint. You in fact do move faster with sprint and the base movement speed was not significantly downgraded as is believed. There’s a reason vehicles play much less significant roles in Halo 5 and that is because you can and do traverse maps faster.

1792

> 2533274913913392;1791:
> > 2592250499807011;1772:
> > > 2533274947298273;1770:
> > > > 2592250499807011;1769:
> > > > > 2533274947298273;1767:
> > > > > > 2592250499807011;1763:
> > > > > > > 2533274794139417;1759:
> > > > > > > > 2535428779736382;1690:
> > > > > > > > > 2533274794139417;8:
> > > > > > > > > I’ve been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can’t go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that’s the case good bye halo I loved u so much
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What’s childish is crying about sprint which is a natural movement in modern games and wanting people to pay 60 bucks of their money for a halo3 clone. If you like Halo 3 that much go back and play Master Chief Collection don’t stop the regular evolution of games
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sprint is not a natural movement mechanic for an arena shooter. See my above post. It’s an objectively bad mechanic for Halo, which is the problem. Sprint is a natural movement mechanic for other kinds of shooters, but not arena shooters. It’s an unnatural mechanic for an arena FPS, which is why it harms Halo and makes it worse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea you need sprint to speed up the game is hilariously ignorant. For one thing, it’s been pretty conclusively shown that sprint does NOT speed up the game. For another, there’s this thing called base movement speed and acceleration. It can be increased. And that DOES speed up the game…
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea that removing sprint would automatically make a halo 3 clone is so stupid that it barely deserves a response. Neither Halo 1 nor Halo 3 have sprint. Would you say Halo 3 is a Halo 1 clone? I doubt it…
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards to the “speed” of the game, well that definitely needs to be defined. Average rate of kills? Sure sprint may not increase the “speed” of the game, meaning that older Halo titles had more or less the same (or even higher) rate of kills. But there’s no doubt that sprint speeds up player movement and adds a lot of mechanics that can make the game “feel” faster. You can’t deny that sprinting moves your spartan faster, and coupled with spartan abilities like thrust and sliding can allow you to cover distance faster than any other halo game. So yea, it does “speed” up the game in that regards.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep trying to classify Halo in terms of what YOU want it to be. It needs to be an arena shooter. It needs to be Halo 1-3. It’s “unnatural” if it does not adhere to what I think it should be. These aren’t objective arguments, they’re all preference.
> > > >
> > > > 1) The game may “feel” faster, but that feeling is a lie. The game is at best the same speed because the maps are enlarged to compensate for sprint. You definitely can not cover a map faster than any other halo game. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCTyWf4EI7USprint doesn’t speed up player movement relative to the map. It slows it down.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Halo IS an arena shooter. Halo 5 literally defines itself as one. Control power weapons/etc to win. It tells this to you. The only Halo game that was NOT an arena shooter was launch Halo 4 with ordinance drops, loadouts, and no weapons on map
> > > >
> > > > 3) If Halo is to be an arena shooter, which is what Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, and 5 are, then yes, sprint is “unnatural”, because it takes one of the most fundamental elements of arena FPS, which is map positioning and control, and makes it less significant. There’s a reason that ZERO great arena FPS games have ever included movement abilities. They work in other kinds of shooters - such as loadout-based games like CoD - but not in arena FPS games.
> > > >
> > > > If they want to give up on being an arena shooter and chase CoD or Fortnite or whatever else, then they can enjoy a dead game like they did with Halo 4. This is a proven mistake of disastrous portions for the franchise
> > > >
> > > > Nothing I’ve just said is preference. You may have a preference for sprint, but it’s objectively bad in an arena FPS. It doesn’t speed the game up, and it lessens the importance of player positioning on the map IN A GENRE THAT IS ALL ABOUT MAP POSITIONING AND CONTROL. It’s completely awful game design
> > >
> > > You didn’t actually read my post, I think. All that video states is that Halo 5 maps are larger than Halo 3 maps. Which is true. Playing Halo 3’s Heretic is downright claustrophobic after playing Halo 5’s Truth. This is exactly because movement* is quicker in Halo 5, TTK is less, etc. *Note: I don’t define movement as the rate of passing some arbitrary points in a map and using that metric to compare with the rate of passing arbitrary points in an entirely different map in an entirely different game. Just because they share the same layout and the same theme does not mean they should play identically to each other–and this is not an argument for “bad game design” when they do not.
> > >
> > > Stop trying to shoehorn Halo 5 into what you think an arena shooter should be. There’s no bible that states that arena shooters can’t have sprint. Your arguments that sprint removes the game’s focus on map positioning and control is unsubstantial at best.
> >
> > Can you traverse maps faster with sprint? No.
>
> This is inherently false. While I am not a sprint proponent by any means, this just isn’t true. Maps like Ragnarok in Halo 4 can be traversed faster than Valhalla in Halo 3 (these maps are 1:1 in size). Even walking the maps is nearly the same. The base movement speed of Halo 3 and 4 is very similar. What you are defining as “traversing maps faster” is getting from one end of the map to the other, which is entirely based on map design, which has been mostly stretched since the inclusion of sprint. You in fact do move faster with sprint and the base movement speed was not significantly downgraded as is believed. There’s a reason vehicles play much less significant roles in Halo 5 and that is because you can and do traverse maps faster.

Yup, you can get around a 1:1 remade map which was not designed for sprint faster with sprint than without it. Ragnarok is an example of a map not designed for Halo 4/5.

But you even concede the point that maps designed for sprint are enlarged. Which leads right into my point that sprint doesn’t make map traversal faster and thus does not speed up the game or the gameplay. Again, some you guys seem completely unable to comprehend my basic argument that movement relative to imaginary metersticks in the game is 100% irrelevant in a game that is designed around the importance of specific locations on the map. What matters to the actual gameplay is your movement relative to those locations, not your movement relative to imaginary and irrelevant measuring sticks. I think I’m done responding to further people who demonstrate that they cannot comprehend this argument. If you want to disagree with me, fine. But replies like this are not disagreeing with me at all; you are just demonstrating you don’t understand my argument, and then replying as if I am somehow arguing that players physically move the same speed in halo 3 as in halo 5 with sprint which is obviously false, and which has nothing to do with my arguments…

The reason vehicles are less significant in Halo 5 is because the BTB maps are small, claustrophobic garbage by the way. It doesn’t really have anything to do with sprint. Vehicles are just as impactful on Ragnarok as they ever were on Valhalla. And vehicles have never been a meaningful part of 4v4 game modes.

1793

> 2592250499807011;1792:
> > 2533274913913392;1791:
> > > 2592250499807011;1772:
> > > > 2533274947298273;1770:
> > > > > 2592250499807011;1769:
> > > > > > 2533274947298273;1767:
> > > > > > > 2592250499807011;1763:
> > > > > > > > 2533274794139417;1759:
> > > > > > > > > 2535428779736382;1690:
> > > > > > > > > > 2533274794139417;8:
> > > > > > > > > > I’ve been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can’t go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that’s the case good bye halo I loved u so much
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What’s childish is crying about sprint which is a natural movement in modern games and wanting people to pay 60 bucks of their money for a halo3 clone. If you like Halo 3 that much go back and play Master Chief Collection don’t stop the regular evolution of games
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sprint is not a natural movement mechanic for an arena shooter. See my above post. It’s an objectively bad mechanic for Halo, which is the problem. Sprint is a natural movement mechanic for other kinds of shooters, but not arena shooters. It’s an unnatural mechanic for an arena FPS, which is why it harms Halo and makes it worse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea you need sprint to speed up the game is hilariously ignorant. For one thing, it’s been pretty conclusively shown that sprint does NOT speed up the game. For another, there’s this thing called base movement speed and acceleration. It can be increased. And that DOES speed up the game…
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea that removing sprint would automatically make a halo 3 clone is so stupid that it barely deserves a response. Neither Halo 1 nor Halo 3 have sprint. Would you say Halo 3 is a Halo 1 clone? I doubt it…
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With regards to the “speed” of the game, well that definitely needs to be defined. Average rate of kills? Sure sprint may not increase the “speed” of the game, meaning that older Halo titles had more or less the same (or even higher) rate of kills. But there’s no doubt that sprint speeds up player movement and adds a lot of mechanics that can make the game “feel” faster. You can’t deny that sprinting moves your spartan faster, and coupled with spartan abilities like thrust and sliding can allow you to cover distance faster than any other halo game. So yea, it does “speed” up the game in that regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep trying to classify Halo in terms of what YOU want it to be. It needs to be an arena shooter. It needs to be Halo 1-3. It’s “unnatural” if it does not adhere to what I think it should be. These aren’t objective arguments, they’re all preference.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) The game may “feel” faster, but that feeling is a lie. The game is at best the same speed because the maps are enlarged to compensate for sprint. You definitely can not cover a map faster than any other halo game. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCTyWf4EI7USprint doesn’t speed up player movement relative to the map. It slows it down.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Halo IS an arena shooter. Halo 5 literally defines itself as one. Control power weapons/etc to win. It tells this to you. The only Halo game that was NOT an arena shooter was launch Halo 4 with ordinance drops, loadouts, and no weapons on map
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) If Halo is to be an arena shooter, which is what Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, and 5 are, then yes, sprint is “unnatural”, because it takes one of the most fundamental elements of arena FPS, which is map positioning and control, and makes it less significant. There’s a reason that ZERO great arena FPS games have ever included movement abilities. They work in other kinds of shooters - such as loadout-based games like CoD - but not in arena FPS games.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they want to give up on being an arena shooter and chase CoD or Fortnite or whatever else, then they can enjoy a dead game like they did with Halo 4. This is a proven mistake of disastrous portions for the franchise
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing I’ve just said is preference. You may have a preference for sprint, but it’s objectively bad in an arena FPS. It doesn’t speed the game up, and it lessens the importance of player positioning on the map IN A GENRE THAT IS ALL ABOUT MAP POSITIONING AND CONTROL. It’s completely awful game design
> > > >
> > > > You didn’t actually read my post, I think. All that video states is that Halo 5 maps are larger than Halo 3 maps. Which is true. Playing Halo 3’s Heretic is downright claustrophobic after playing Halo 5’s Truth. This is exactly because movement* is quicker in Halo 5, TTK is less, etc. *Note: I don’t define movement as the rate of passing some arbitrary points in a map and using that metric to compare with the rate of passing arbitrary points in an entirely different map in an entirely different game. Just because they share the same layout and the same theme does not mean they should play identically to each other–and this is not an argument for “bad game design” when they do not.
> > > >
> > > > Stop trying to shoehorn Halo 5 into what you think an arena shooter should be. There’s no bible that states that arena shooters can’t have sprint. Your arguments that sprint removes the game’s focus on map positioning and control is unsubstantial at best.
>
> Yup, you can get around a 1:1 remade map which was not designed for sprint faster with sprint than without it. Ragnarok is an example of a map not designed for Halo 4/5.
>
> But you even concede the point that maps designed for sprint are enlarged. Which leads right into my point that sprint doesn’t make map traversal faster and thus does not speed up the game or the gameplay. Again, some you guys seem completely unable to comprehend my basic argument that movement relative to imaginary metersticks in the game is 100% irrelevant in a game that is designed around the importance of specific locations on the map. What matters to the actual gameplay is your movement relative to those locations, not your movement relative to imaginary and irrelevant measuring sticks. I think I’m done responding to further people who demonstrate that they cannot comprehend this argument. If you want to disagree with me, fine. But replies like this are not disagreeing with me at all; you are just demonstrating you don’t understand my argument, and then replying as if I am somehow arguing that players physically move the same speed in halo 3 as in halo 5 with sprint which is obviously false, and which has nothing to do with my arguments…
>
> The reason vehicles are less significant in Halo 5 is because the BTB maps are small, claustrophobic garbage by the way. It doesn’t really have anything to do with sprint. Vehicles are just as impactful on Ragnarok as they ever were on Valhalla. And vehicles have never been a meaningful part of 4v4 game modes.

I was simply pointing out that you do, in fact, move faster with sprint. The change is rendered less significant due to the stretching of map sizes and does play into your “imagined speed” point. My point was that the simple of fact of “can you move faster with sprint” is “yes”. To say anything else is false. “Can you traverse maps faster with sprint?” the answer is yes. That’s all my point was.

As far as the effectiveness of vehicles, it does have to do with sprint. The standard, chaingun warthog, as well as mongoose, are used far less frequently in Halo 4 and 5 than any other Halo game. Sprint is a reasonable factor of that. Heavy vehicles and flying vehicles are a different story as those aren’t used quite as often as simple transportation. For those I agree with you in terms of Halo 5’s BTB map design rendering them less significant.

1794

> 2592250499807011;1772:
> 1) They make player positioning less important, because they provide options for players to escape from bad positions. This makes choices about player movement and positioning less significant. You are less rewarded for getting into an advantageous position, and you are less punished for getting into a bad position. It changes the choice/consequence model of basic player movement in a way that lessens the impact of both the choices and the consequences. Again, this is just definition level stuff.
>
> 2) Sprint in particular makes it less possible to predict player location on the map because you cannot easily predict how they are going to be moving. The effect of this is, again, that the significance of player positioning on the map is reduced.

There are a couple of things I need to mention about these two claims. When it comes to the first one, you are correct about the bad positions, but not obviously correct about the advantageous ones. You are not rewarded less for getting into a good position: high ground is still high ground and so on. Bad positions are punished less because the player is more likely to escape from bad positions. However, there is no similar mechanism at play when it comes to advantageous positions. You’ll have to argue harder. It’s also not immediately obvious why being rewarded less for advantageous positions would be a bad thing. To play devil’s advocate, perhaps advantageous positions in classic Halo games were too advantageous?

Regarding the second claim, Spartan Abilities make predicting player positions more difficult only to the extent that a higher movement speed does. It’s not clear why you regard lesser predictability as a bad thing. Obviously, the player’s position shouldn’t be too easy to predict, nor so hard that any chance of skillful prediction is lost. Your assertion is essentially that classic Halo was exactly at the optimal point of predictability: not too easy, not too hard. However, this assertion requires far more justification than you have given. The claim that this lessens the significance of positioning is also dubious. I do not see how these two are related.

To this second claim, I also say that a higher base movement speed has been suggested as a replacement for sprint. This has the exact same issue you described. Are you against increasing base movement speed from the 2.25 of the original trilogy?

1795

> 2533274825830455;1794:
> > 2592250499807011;1772:
> > 1) They make player positioning less important, because they provide options for players to escape from bad positions. This makes choices about player movement and positioning less significant. You are less rewarded for getting into an advantageous position, and you are less punished for getting into a bad position. It changes the choice/consequence model of basic player movement in a way that lessens the impact of both the choices and the consequences. Again, this is just definition level stuff.
> >
> > 2) Sprint in particular makes it less possible to predict player location on the map because you cannot easily predict how they are going to be moving. The effect of this is, again, that the significance of player positioning on the map is reduced.
>
> …When it comes to the first one, you are correct about the bad positions, but not obviously correct about the advantageous ones. …
>
> …To this second claim, I also say that a higher base movement speed has been suggested as a replacement for sprint. This has the exact same issue you described. Are you against increasing base movement speed from the 2.25 of the original trilogy?

With respect to #2, no. I’ve suggested several times in this very thread that if it is judged that Halo feels “slow”, then the solution is to increase base movement speed and acceleration. I don’t presume to know what value adjustment would be ideal, as that would need a lot of testing. I’m guessing that something like +25-35% might work well.

My argument about predicting where players are has to do with being unable to predict how long it will take players to move from point A to point B on a map. You are correct that at a certain level of constant speed, this also becomes unpredictable (at infinite movement speed, you could never predict player location because anyone could be anywhere at any time; as movement speed approaches this upper limit this becomes more and more the case). However, any level of variable movement (aka sprint) also makes this unpredictable, as you cannot easily predict how far a player will travel in any given unit of time.

With respect to #1, it simply follows that if you are less punished for bad positioning, you are less rewarded for good positioning, because players can more easily escape your advantageous positioning.

I’ve already said that these things are not absolute, and I’ll reiterate my example from earlier: there is no world in which it would be a winning strategy to try and control bottom middle of Truth in Halo 5. Sprint doesn’t magically make map position 100% irrelevant. These things operate on a spectrum, where sprint moves the gameplay focus away from map control for the reasons I’ve been articulating. And my basic argument is that if you are going to design your game around controlling specific locations on a map (as every Halo game except 4 has done), then game design choices which shift focus away from or lower the impact of that design are bad.

1796

> 2592250499807011;1795:
> My argument about predicting where players are has to do with being unable to predict how long it will take players to move from point A to point B on a map. You are correct that at a certain level of constant speed, this also becomes unpredictable (at infinite movement speed, you could never predict player location because anyone could be anywhere at any time; as movement speed approaches this upper limit this becomes more and more the case). However, any level of variable movement (aka sprint) also makes this unpredictable, as you cannot easily predict how far a player will travel in any given unit of time.

The only factor that matters here is the maximum distance a player could theoretically cover in a given amount of time. If the player can cover that distance, then they can cover any distance less than that simply by stopping for a moment. Whether the player has to lower their weapon in order to move at maximum speed is completely irrelevant for this consideration.

In general, any argument against sprint that doesn’t explicitly involve lowering one’s weapons or having high amount of asymmetry between forward, backward, and sideways speed also applies to base movement speed, because these two are the defining characteristics of sprint. This is something to keep in mind if you’re an opponent of sprint but a proponent of higher base movement speed.

> 2592250499807011;1795:
> With respect to #1, it simply follows that if you are less punished for bad positioning, you are less rewarded for good positioning, because players can more easily escape your advantageous positioning.

This doesn’t imply that your position is any less advantageous. The position is advantageous because it protects you or gives you fast access or good visibility to the rest of the map. None of these three things are diminished by your opponents having easier time escaping you. You still have all these advantages over your opponents, and if they want to kill you, they have to come and get you. If they escape, they fail.

1797

> 2533274825830455;1796:
> > 2592250499807011;1795:
> > My argument about predicting where players are has to do with being unable to predict how long it will take players to move from point A to point B on a map. You are correct that at a certain level of constant speed, this also becomes unpredictable (at infinite movement speed, you could never predict player location because anyone could be anywhere at any time; as movement speed approaches this upper limit this becomes more and more the case). However, any level of variable movement (aka sprint) also makes this unpredictable, as you cannot easily predict how far a player will travel in any given unit of time.
>
> The only factor that matters here is the maximum distance a player could theoretically cover in a given amount of time. If the player can cover that distance, then they can cover any distance less than that simply by stopping for a moment. Whether the player has to lower their weapon in order to move at maximum speed is completely irrelevant for this consideration.
>
> In general, any argument against sprint that doesn’t explicitly involve lowering one’s weapons or having high amount of asymmetry between forward, backward, and sideways speed also applies to base movement speed, because these two are the defining characteristics of sprint. This is something to keep in mind if you’re an opponent of sprint but a proponent of higher base movement speed.
>
> > 2592250499807011;1795:
> > With respect to #1, it simply follows that if you are less punished for bad positioning, you are less rewarded for good positioning, because players can more easily escape your advantageous positioning.
>
> This doesn’t imply that your position is any less advantageous. The position is advantageous because it protects you or gives you fast access or good visibility to the rest of the map. None of these three things are diminished by your opponents having easier time escaping you. You still have all these advantages over your opponents, and if they want to kill you, they have to come and get you. If they escape, they fail.

  1. This matters for “what’s the range of possible locations where they could be”, not “where are they now”. The latter is less predictable if they have a variable movement speed. You are correct that players can always just stop (and this is common in high level halo 3 for this very reason), but it is easier to predict player location without sprint than with it. Again, these aren’t absolute matters, but apply on a spectrum.

  2. I’m not personally a proponent of a faster movement speed. But I think it is orders of magnitude better as a “solution” to the “problem” of Halo feeling too “slow”. I do not agree that classic Halo feels slow, and I think that this whole thing is a solution in search of a problem. But that’s all subjective. What feels fast to me might not to someone else. And to that end, if this must be “fixed”, I think there is a qualitative difference between variable movement (sprint) and faster constant movement (increased speed) as escape from bad positioning is less of a problem, predicting player location is less of a problem, and all players are moving relative to map locations at constant speed at all times, keeping everyone always on a level existential playing field relative to the goal of “control positions on the map to win”.

  3. They don’t fail as much as if they got killed. And you aren’t as rewarded as if you’d gotten the kill AND held your advantageous position.

You are pressing examples of how this is not an absolute issue, but I am not claiming that these things are absolute. I wouldn’t have played a couple thousand games of halo 5 if sprint all of a sudden made halo bad. But it does make the game worse.

1798

Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic

1799

> 2533274936074323;1798:
> Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic

For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can’t we just have the best of both worlds?

1800

> 2533274977253120;1799:
> > 2533274936074323;1798:
> > Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
>
> For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can’t we just have the best of both worlds?

Halo 5 was the attempt at the best of both worlds, in more ways than one.

Trying to please everyone separately usually ends up pleasing no one.

1801

> 2533274977253120;1799:
> > 2533274936074323;1798:
> > Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
>
> For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can’t we just have the best of both worlds?

Artstyle: Maybe both
Story: Kinda both
Music: Can’t have both
Gameplay: Don’t even think about it

Basically the halo community in a nutshell