The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1902

> 2533274825830455;1900:
> > 2533274945422049;1899:
> > this could shorten the time between engagements without truely affecting the map scaling
>
> This is kind of a pointless statement, because so could regular sprint, if the maps just weren’t scaled. But the whole point is that the maps are scaled precisely because you don’t want shorter time between encounters. If you did want shorter times between encounters, you could just make the maps more compact, or increase the base movement speed without any need to introduce any kind of sprint mechanic. Sprint is completely unnecessary to accomplish what you’re talking about. There are better ways.
>
> Also, the whole limited duration and slow turn rate thing is a bad idea because it would feel horrible to use. Putting aside the fact that trying to make sprint work is from the beginning a doomed idea, there’s a reason sprint was made infinite: if nothing else, the mechanic should at least feel good to use. Having to slow down every fiver seconds is not fun. It doesn’t make you feel powerful. Same goes for movement that feels like ice skating. The player needs simple controls that feel responsive and don’t have arbitrary restrictions. If you’re worried about fixing the issues with sprint, there’s a very simple solution: don’t have sprint.

if the base movement speed is just increased, maps would have to be scaled larger to balance cqc and midrange encounters. infinite snappy sprint is a replacement for higher base movement speed, with the addition of lowering your weapon. the proposed low powered, ghost-boost like sprint is there to support the base movement in certain situations, and is limited to make its use a tactical descissiin, not a necessity (like in halo 5) or a cruch (like in halo 4).

sprint that is usefull in close quarters, direct combat or difficult terrain stretches maps ( the same is true for significantly higher base movement speeds) because it always needs to be accounted for.

a sprinting mechanic that just provides a slightly shorter empty-space traversal time is a utility that would actually make the game faster (faster, not sweaty).
the sprinting would only be slightly faster (10% maybe) than normal run&gun so you don’t feel hindered while not sprinting.

it may sound marginal, but a 5-7 second difference crossing a map, for example highground, can have a huge impact on a game.

1903

> 2592250499807011;1901:
> > 2533274956613084;1895:
> > > 2592250499807011;1881:
> > > > 2535436974294570;1880:
> > > > if 343 listen to the community
> > >
> > > This has been their problem since they were created. They. Don’t. Listen.
> > >
> > > If they ever change that, maybe halo can be great again.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > it’s literally impossible to defend sprint
> > >
> > > 9 years of discussion on the topic has led me to this conclusion as well.
> > >
> > > Just a question if 343 will change course and start listening
> >
> > It’s far more accurate to say there’s no defence of sprint that is congruent with your ideals for the series. It’s simply untrue to say there’s no defence for sprint, and it seems less than honest.
> >
> > And ultimately, there will never be unanimous decision about any of this. Because sprint isn’t “objectively” bad for Halo. Very few things are.
>
> If sprint isn’t objectively bad, make an argument for why it’s objectively good. Some of you guys seem quite upset about the idea that objectivity exists in entertainment, but you seem unable to make any actual arguments for your own preferences. My claim of objectiveness on this is largely because there are a variety of arguments to be made for why sprint does NOT work with halo’s fundamental design principles, but I’ve not really ever seen arguments for why it does. If there were strong arguments on each side, I’d be willing to concede the matter to preference. But when only one side has strong arguments, that tends to suggest to me that the other side is just wrong.
>
> You assert it’s not bad, without making any arguments for why it’s good. I suspect that if you make the attempt, you will resort to some kind of “but i liiiiiike it” or “halo is too slowwwwwww without sprint” which are not arguments for why it’s good game design.
>
> I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to ask the pro-sprint crowd why sprint and/or movement abilities make for good halo game design. I’m still waiting for the answers.
>
> And as above, I’m thinking about arena, not warzone - warzone has very different design elements and sprint is fine there.
>
> And when 70% of your core community tells you repeatedly “I don’t want this in the game” and you do it anyway, I’m not sure that counts as listening.

the “classic” application application of sprint does indeed not work in halo.

a version of sprint that is only viable in large spaces (open areas, long corridors) (like sprinting is realy life - you don’t sprint around a corner ) could (!) work. it should be a utility used used for the situations in which you would use a vehicle or mancanon, but there is non around (those should be the better option).
or if ihe main fight on a small map is on the different side from you and you are willing to take a huge risk.
it is asolution for for the “the whole action is is somewhere else” problem (for example: bloodgulch, fight in red base, you are at the rocketlauncher spawn spawn and don’t have a warthog: now you can sprint a bit of the remaining distance to the fight)

1904

Sprint can be objectively shown to change the gameplay, and it can also be deemed bad for competitive play with minimal extrapolation. However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.

1905

> 2533274794648158;1904:
> Sprint can be objectively shown to change the gameplay, and it can also be deemed bad for competitive play with minimal extrapolation. However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.

mainstream sprint changes halos halos gameplay for the worse. a limited utility sprint to move across larger areas when no vehicle is aviable (with slow turn like the ghost boost and a quasi stamina- meter) could work. it it could reduce the empty time between engagements on on larger maps without needing to scale up the indoor areas.

this kind of sprint would have little use in the arena style moments, but could make those more common.

1906

> 2533274887895476;1897:
> Personally I just hope they keep sprint if they’re removing all of the newer mechanics. Wouldn’t make too much sense for a super soldier not being able to run.

My god, it’s so discouraging to see this same reasoning pop up every few pages. Gameplay should be more important than realism.

What doesn’t make sense is adding sprint when the soldier was already able to at all times during gameplay while shooting. Adding the “sprint button” only makes it so guns-up-at-all-times gameplay doesn’t exist. It’s the most game changing mechanic that has altered how Halo used to play.

1907

> 2533274945422049;1902:
> if the base movement speed is just increased, maps would have to be scaled larger to balance cqc and midrange encounters.

Can you elaborate on this? Balance in what way? Do you mean that increasing base movement speed makes close quarters encounters more common relative to midrange encounters, or the other way around? How? Because I don’t see why this would be the case.

> 2533274945422049;1902:
> infinite snappy sprint is a replacement for higher base movement speed, with the addition of lowering your weapon. the proposed low powered, ghost-boost like sprint is there to support the base movement in certain situations, and is limited to make its use a tactical descissiin, not a necessity (like in halo 5) or a cruch (like in halo 4).

You would need to convince me that this is in any way a meaningful tactical decision.

> 2533274945422049;1902:
> sprint that is usefull in close quarters, direct combat or difficult terrain stretches maps ( the same is true for significantly higher base movement speeds) because it always needs to be accounted for.
>
> a sprinting mechanic that just provides a slightly shorter empty-space traversal time is a utility that would actually make the game faster (faster, not sweaty).
> the sprinting would only be slightly faster (10% maybe) than normal run&gun so you don’t feel hindered while not sprinting.

The general map scale is determined roughly by the average rate of encounters that you’re aiming for. For a given sized map, this is determined by how fast (in terms of time) players can move between key locations on the map (including from spawn to combat). If you want to make the game faster, i.e., increase the rate of encounters, you either increase player speed, or decrease the effective distances between key locations.

The crucial point here is that sprint, or higher movement speed in general, does not stretch maps. Not wanting to make the game faster does. If you just want a faster game, you don’t need to worry about stretching maps when you increase player speed.

Your sprint that can’t be used tight spaces obviously only makes the gameplay faster on maps with few tight spaces. If you’re just seeking to make the gameplay faster, why would you place such a restriction on map design?

> 2533274945422049;1902:
> it may sound marginal, but a 5-7 second difference crossing a map, for example highground, can have a huge impact on a game.

If Bungie had wanted it to take five seconds less to run across High Ground, they would’ve made it shorter. This is the fundamental issue with any suggestion of using sprint to make the game faster: the problems you’re seeking to solve with sprint can always be solved with map design. Sprint, in any form, is completely unnecessary for this purpose.

1908

> 2533274794648158;1904:
> However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.

No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game, with equal player starts, around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.

It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.

I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.

1909

> 2592250499807011;1908:
> > 2533274794648158;1904:
> > However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.
>
> No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.
>
> It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.
>
> I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.

You’re missing the point. Your “objectively bad design” is based on your arbitrary subjective standards for what “good design” is. People can have differing standards, in particular, with respect to what they value in Halo. Whether or not sprint does a thing may be objective. However, whether that thing is good, bad, or neutral is fundamentally subjective.

1910

> 2533274825830455;1909:
> > 2592250499807011;1908:
> > > 2533274794648158;1904:
> > > However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.
> >
> > No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.
> >
> > It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.
> >
> > I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.
>
> You’re missing the point. Your “objectively bad design” is based on your arbitrary subjective standards for what “good design” is. People can have differing standards, in particular, with respect to what they value in Halo. Whether or not sprint does a thing may be objective. However, whether that thing is good, bad, or neutral is fundamentally subjective.

There is no world where self-contradictory design elements can be considered good. Sorry to break it to you, but attempting to hide behind the “people have different standards” argument doesn’t work in this particular instance, because the matter I’m highlighting is not the standards of “people” but the standards of the game’s own design. These exist and can be examined completely independently of any subjective preferences of players.

1911

> 2592250499807011;1910:
> > 2533274825830455;1909:
> > > 2592250499807011;1908:
> > > > 2533274794648158;1904:
> > > > However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.
> > >
> > > No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.
> > >
> > > It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.
> > >
> > > I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.
> >
> > You’re missing the point. Your “objectively bad design” is based on your arbitrary subjective standards for what “good design” is. People can have differing standards, in particular, with respect to what they value in Halo. Whether or not sprint does a thing may be objective. However, whether that thing is good, bad, or neutral is fundamentally subjective.
>
> There is no world where self-contradictory design elements can be considered good. Sorry to break it to you, but attempting to hide behind the “people have different standards” doesn’t work in this particular instance, because the matter I’m highlighting is not the standards of “people” but the standards of the game’s own design. These exist and can be examined completely independently of any subjective preferences of players.

What you’re failing to understand here is that there is more to the game than the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match. That is only part of the game’s design, and how much you value it differs from how much the developers valued it which differs from how much other players value it. For you, it may be the most important thing, and anything that decrases the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match should not be in the game. However, for someone else that aspect of the game’s design may be less important, and they may be willing to partially compromise it to get something else. For someone who only plays campaign, it could be completely irrelevant.

When you talk about “the game’s own design”, the only meaningful way to interpret that is to mean the developers’ standards. In that regard, it’s clear that both 343i and Bungie have not held player positioning in multiplayer to as high regard as you do. Both were willing to compromise on that because there were other things they regarded to be more valuable. However, in this sense, talking about “good design” and “bad design” is somewhat meaningless because the games were made by people, many of whom probably had very different ideas and standards of game design. “The game’s own design” is exactly how the game ended up to be designed, as a compromise of the ideals of the people who designed it, and therefore we can’t say anything conclusive about its quality relative to those standards, unless the team that designed it collectively agrees that it didn’t come out as intended. It’s therefore quite meaningless to pretend to criticize the game from that point of view.

Really, whether you want to admit it or not, you’re criticizing the game by your own arbitrary, subjective standards. The quicker you realize this fact, and recognize where the line between subjective and objective is drawn, the quicker you can understand why even after nine years we still have sprint.

1912

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> > 2592250499807011;1910:
> > > 2533274825830455;1909:
> > > > 2592250499807011;1908:
> > > > > 2533274794648158;1904:
> > > > > However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.
> > > >
> > > > No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.
> > > >
> > > > It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.
> > > >
> > > > I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.
> > >
> > > You’re missing the point. Your “objectively bad design” is based on your arbitrary subjective standards for what “good design” is. People can have differing standards, in particular, with respect to what they value in Halo. Whether or not sprint does a thing may be objective. However, whether that thing is good, bad, or neutral is fundamentally subjective.
> >
> > There is no world where self-contradictory design elements can be considered good. Sorry to break it to you, but attempting to hide behind the “people have different standards” doesn’t work in this particular instance, because the matter I’m highlighting is not the standards of “people” but the standards of the game’s own design. These exist and can be examined completely independently of any subjective preferences of players.
>
> What you’re failing to understand here is that there is more to the game than the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match. That is only part of the game’s design, and how much you value it differs from how much the developers valued it which differs from how much other players value it. For you, it may be the most important thing, and anything that decrases the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match should not be in the game. However, for someone else that aspect of the game’s design may be less important, and they may be willing to partially compromise it to get something else. For someone who only plays campaign, it could be completely irrelevant.
>
> When you talk about “the game’s own design”, the only meaningful way to interpret that is to mean the developers’ standards. In that regard, it’s clear that both 343i and Bungie have not held player positioning in multiplayer to as high regard as you do. Both were willing to compromise on that because there were other things they regarded to be more valuable. However, in this sense, talking about “good design” and “bad design” is somewhat meaningless because the games were made by people, many of whom probably had very different ideas and standards of game design. “The game’s own design” is exactly how the game ended up to be designed, as a compromise of the ideals of the people who designed it, and therefore we can’t say anything conclusive about its quality relative to those standards, unless the team that designed it collectively agrees that it didn’t come out as intended. It’s therefore quite meaningless to pretend to criticize the game from that point of view.
>
> Really, whether you want to admit it or not, you’re criticizing the game by your own arbitrary, subjective standards. The quicker you realize this fact, and recognize where the line between subjective and objective is drawn, the quicker you can understand why even after nine years we still have sprint.

Thank you. I’m so tired of people using the “this is objectively bad” argument.

Opinions will always be subjective. I might not like sprint in the way that it restricts gunplay, but other people like the mechanic. Sprint being bad is not a universal truth.

1913

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> What you’re failing to understand here is that there is more to the game than the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match. That is only part of the game’s design

Now you are just making up a straw man argument I’ve never made. You are refuting something I have never argued. Of course positioning and sprint are only part of the game’s design. I’ve even pointed out repeatedly that I think Halo 5 is a good game and sprint doesn’t magically make a halo game bad and lack of sprint doesn’t magically make a halo game good.

It is you who apparently is failing to understand my arguments.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> how much you value it differs from how much the developers valued it which differs from how much other players value it.

This has nothing to do with my argument. If you recall our previous discussion, I explicitly pointed out that the magnitude of negative effect sprint has on the game is irrelevant. It could be so small as to be negligible. And my argument would still hold - it is objectively bad design.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> For you, it may be the most important thing, and anything that decrases the importance of positioning in a multiplayer match should not be in the game.

I never said I consider this the most important thing. And the reason it shouldn’t be in the game has nothing to do with how important I think it is. It has to do with it being self-contradictory design.

Again, it appears that it is you who is failing to understand the argument at hand.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> However, for someone else that aspect of the game’s design may be less important, and they may be willing to partially compromise it to get something else.

Of course. I’ve said repeatedly that some people prefer sprint and that it doesn’t bother me that some people prefer sprint. That is not an argument for why it should be considered good design.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> For someone who only plays campaign, it could be completely irrelevant.

I’ve been pretty clear that I am talking exclusively about arena.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> When you talk about “the game’s own design”, the only meaningful way to interpret that is to mean the developers’ standards. In that regard, it’s clear that both 343i and Bungie have not held player positioning in multiplayer to as high regard as you do. Both were willing to compromise on that because there were other things they regarded to be more valuable.

I agree completely. And what’s the result? Worse games that are received more poorly than their predecessors who did not add this objectively bad design element.

343i is free to value other things and add bad self-contradictory design elements to their game. Bungie did this with Reach and even in some ways with 3 (the BR spread). And their community will continue to point out that these things are just bad for the game.

> 2533274825830455;1911:
> “The game’s own design” is exactly how the game ended up to be designed, as a compromise of the ideals of the people who designed it, and therefore we can’t say anything conclusive about its quality relative to those standards

What a bunch of nonsense. Pure, utter nonsense. It is absolutely the case that we can critique a game based on the terms of its final design. That’s literally what happens with every single game that comes out. What is this game attempting to do? How well did they do it?

Your argument, at its logical end, requires that all evaluation of a game be considered subjective and that objective standards of evaluation cannot and/or do not exist. The sooner you realize that such a view is itself arbitrary and subjective, the quicker you will understand why I am so adamant that you are wrong in this discussion, and why I told you earlier that I am convinced that you do not disagree with my game design arguments, and are rather expressing a mere philosophical objection which is gravely mistaken and does not have any relevance to what I am setting forth.

Critiquing a game on its own terms of design is exactly how you do objective critique. You let the developers set the terms. And then you analyze how well their product holds together on its own terms. And so long as Halo sets forth static location control on maps as one of its design pillars, then sprint is objectively bad design for that mode because it introduces a self-contradictory design mechanic to the game. How important that is, or how significant its effect are on the game, is up for debate and 100% irrelevant to my argument that it is bad design.

1914

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> > > 2533274945422049;1902:
> > > if the base movement speed is just increased, maps would have to be scaled larger to balance cqc and midrange encounters.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this? Balance in what way? Do you mean that increasing base movement speed makes close quarters encounters more common relative to midrange encounters, or the other way around? How? Because I don’t see why this would be the case.

At a certain base speed movement in close quarters would be hectic, because the room is traversed to fast to be meaningfully used in gameplay. although a lowered player acceleration might help in this case.

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> > 2533274945422049;1902:
> > infinite snappy sprint is a replacement for higher base movement speed, with the addition of lowering your weapon. the proposed low powered, ghost-boost like sprint is there to support the base movement in certain situations, and is limited to make its use a tactical descissiin, not a necessity (like in halo 5) or a cruch (like in halo 4).
>
> You would need to convince me that this is in any way a meaningful tactical decision.

infinite sprint can be used at any time without end. “rationing” your sprint meter ( if other advanced movement mechanics would be included they would pull from the same meter) according to the encounter ahead and not overusing sprint would be tactical descissions you would have to manage.

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> > 2533274945422049;1902:
> > sprint that is usefull in close quarters, direct combat or difficult terrain stretches maps ( the same is true for significantly higher base movement speeds) because it always needs to be accounted for.
> >
> > a sprinting mechanic that just provides a slightly shorter empty-space traversal time is a utility that would actually make the game faster (faster, not sweaty).
> > the sprinting would only be slightly faster (10% maybe) than normal run&gun so you don’t feel hindered while not sprinting.
>
> The general map scale is determined roughly by the average rate of encounters that you’re aiming for. For a given sized map, this is determined by how fast (in terms of time) players can move between key locations on the map (including from spawn to combat). If you want to make the game faster, i.e., increase the rate of encounters, you either increase player speed, or decrease the effective distances between key locations.

a heightened player base speed does not only increase the density of encounters, but also increases the speed in encounters, which may throw of the gameplay. a seperation between out of combat and in combat speeds could reduce this problem.

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> The crucial point here is that sprint, or higher movement speed in general, does not stretch maps. Not wanting to make the game faster does. If you just want a faster game, you don’t need to worry about stretching maps when you increase player speed.

a too fast player speed screws with the engagement distances ( weapon balance) and tends to force higher aim assist (to keep the games acessability). the problem is not to fast combat during encounters, but the distance between them. if you want to keep the speed and feel of combat and the possibilities for combat on the map (lines of sight, ranges, vehicles, etc. -> weapons on the map and overall map design) while increasing the density of encounters, some kind of sprint would do this job.

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> Your sprint that can’t be used tight spaces obviously only makes the gameplay faster on maps with few tight spaces. If you’re just seeking to make the gameplay faster, why would you place such a restriction on map design?

sprint could still be used in tighter spaces to shorten some travel times (trough rooms and hallways for example) but not around corners, so it is not directly usefull in encounters, but helps getting there. it would be a high risk utility in small areas ( do you want to get to the rocket launcher faster but risk being easily gunned down by the enemy who also aproaches the rocket launcher? (small map -> maybe just 1.5 seconds difference)).

> 2533274825830455;1907:
> > 2533274945422049;1902:
> > it may sound marginal, but a 5-7 second difference crossing a map, for example highground, can have a huge impact on a game.
>
> If Bungie had wanted it to take five seconds less to run across High Ground, they would’ve made it shorter. This is the fundamental issue with any suggestion of using sprint to make the game faster: the problems you’re seeking to solve with sprint can always be solved with map design. Sprint, in any form, is completely unnecessary for this purpose.

A shorter map would compromise the intended areas for encounters and the ranges. resulting in a different weapon placement which could possibly hurt the expirience.

A possible alternative to my proposed sprint could be a higher top speed together with a higher initial acceleration and lower medium acceleration.
this would result in the same strafing behaviour as before and solve the long distance traversal problem, but could result in a too strong focus on run&gun gameplay and thereby reducing the need for positional map control.

My proposed utility- sprint mechanic would keep the sped up traversal largely out of combat scenarios. this would keep the importance of good positioning. it also adds an element of risk vs. reward descission making in acquiring weapons on the map ( speed vs. defense). with the proposed mechanics proper map control can deny the enemy the use of sprint, because sprinting would make you a vulnerable target.

Mainstream sprint mechanics solve non of these problems in halo.

classic halo has no sprint
in modern halo sprinting is a necessity
I propose to make it a utility - sprinting would not be necessary but possible and nice to have

a faster base movement speed is not excluded by the proposed sprint concept. the proposed sprint mechanic would layer a small speedboost on the maximum base speed, making it possible to reach speeds that would otherwise be detrimental to map design and gameplay.

1915

Is it just me, or is this whole discussion starting to become rather toxic? As if it wasn’t already.

1916

> 2533274977253120;1915:
> Is it just me, or is this whole discussion starting to become rather toxic? As if it wasn’t already.

Well, after 96 pages the discussion will have evolved and changed and had many new participants reiterating things already said, etc. A little toxic? Yeah, but that shows how much some people care. Not everyone is restrained enough to keep it civil unfortunately. The important part is that the discussion is still active and visible to 343 (which shows that it is important to at least a decent chunk of those who still play Halo).

1917

> 2592250499807011;1913:
> …

i found the problem in your debate with tsassai: your definition of “bad”.
“bad” implies a moral judgement to something, which is subjective.
“unhelpfull” would be better description, because helpfullness can be qualitatively discerned.

the current application of the concept sprint in halo is unhelpfull to the intended gameplay.

1918

> 2592250499807011;1901:
> > 2533274956613084;1895:
> > > 2592250499807011;1881:
> > > > 2535436974294570;1880:
> > > > if 343 listen to the community
> > >
> > > This has been their problem since they were created. They. Don’t. Listen.
> > >
> > > If they ever change that, maybe halo can be great again.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > it’s literally impossible to defend sprint
> > >
> > > 9 years of discussion on the topic has led me to this conclusion as well.
> > >
> > > Just a question if 343 will change course and start listening
> >
> > It’s far more accurate to say there’s no defence of sprint that is congruent with your ideals for the series. It’s simply untrue to say there’s no defence for sprint, and it seems less than honest.
> >
> > And ultimately, there will never be unanimous decision about any of this. Because sprint isn’t “objectively” bad for Halo. Very few things are.
>
> If sprint isn’t objectively bad, make an argument for why it’s objectively good. Some of you guys seem quite upset about the idea that objectivity exists in entertainment, but you seem unable to make any actual arguments for your own preferences. My claim of objectiveness on this is largely because there are a variety of arguments to be made for why sprint does NOT work with halo’s fundamental design principles, but I’ve not really ever seen arguments for why it does. If there were strong arguments on each side, I’d be willing to concede the matter to preference. But when only one side has strong arguments, that tends to suggest to me that the other side is just wrong.
>
> You assert it’s not bad, without making any arguments for why it’s good. I suspect that if you make the attempt, you will resort to some kind of “but i liiiiiike it” or “halo is too slowwwwwww without sprint” which are not arguments for why it’s good game design.
>
> I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to ask the pro-sprint crowd why sprint and/or movement abilities make for good halo game design. I’m still waiting for the answers.
>
> And as above, I’m thinking about arena, not warzone - warzone has very different design elements and sprint is fine there.
>
> And when 70% of your core community tells you repeatedly “I don’t want this in the game” and you do it anyway, I’m not sure that counts as listening.

I don’t think sprint is “objectively good”. It’s just not “objectively bad” either. I agree that objectivity exists in entertainment, but an objective criticism of a piece of entertainment, like a game, comes down exclusively to stating the mechanics and not making value judgements about them. Halo 5 is objectively:

  • Presented in a first person perspective - A game that has guns in it - A game that allows you to move - A game with a campaign, multiplayer and a map editorAs soon as I start to say things though - like “Halo 5 forge is objectively better than Halo Reach forge”, I’m just wrong. It’s a belief that I hold, but it’s not objective, even though there would be near unanimous agreement among forgers of that fact, because I haven’t clearly parameterised the area within which I’m making the statement. Sure, Halo 5’s forge may allow you to place more objects, and more of any specific object, but it doesn’t have Falcons, so someone who sees Forge as a means for creating pseudo-cooperative air superiority game types will point out that Halo 5’s forge is inferior.

And even though I wouldn’t personally argue that sprint should be in Halo, you’re missing the point that, if somebody likes a game to play a certain way because they perceive it as fun, their right to say “Sprint makes Halo objectively better, because I like playing Halo as a party game, and sprint makes it more fun” is exactly the same as your right to say “Sprint makes Halo objectively worse”. That is to say, you’re both in the wrong because your value judgements need to be parameterised and contextualised to even attempt to make such an objective statement.

So, that said, I’m not going to try to make an argument for why sprint is objectively good, because

  • I’ve already conceded that it’s probably actually bad for multiplayer - I can’t argue that it’s objectively good, because there is simply no such argument that can be made. I mean even if we got over the objective thing, what does good even mean? Good with respect to what? Gameplay? In that case what are we even aiming for in terms of gameplay? Because if I think Titanfall 2 is the pinnacle of gameplay, and you think Unreal Tournament is, we’re going to have very different opinions, even if we’re both being “objective” according to our goalposts for gameplay.On 343 “not listening”, I will grant that they haven’t done what some people want for the movement mechanics, but just because they don’t bend their will to 100% of the requests of fans, doesn’t mean they’re outright not listening. If they removed sprint, I bet we’d find a lot of people coming out of the woodwork to defend it and claim “343 didn’t listen” to their pleas to keep it. They definitely listen. But ultimately, it’s their ship to steer, and sometimes it’s going to go in a direction you don’t want. Remember, Bungie brought loadouts to the franchise, and ultimately, 343 did end up killing them due to fan feedback on the competitive side. They’re very clearly trying.

And now, in response to Echo p q: tsassi made one of the points I wanted to make here (and also made my whole objective point again too, I guess I better get faster) - Halo Reach had sprint as an armor ability (so not every player had it, and it was on a cooldown), and even so, back then, people were making the argument that sprint (and jetpack especially), were causing maps to be stretched. The map designers designed the map with respect to the minimum time it takes to get from one side to the other, and even if not every player has it, or it’s unlikely that the player will have it fully charged at any given moment, this minimum traversal time was effected by sprint, and would be by your implementation of it too.

And I still think that such a fast-falling mechanic would be reasonably unintuitive. Maybe it would work better if it were tied to holding the thrust button or something?

[edit]And in response to Echo p q, again: the issue is not in the use “bad”, and “unhelpful” does not fix the problem here. It’s not in why it’s “unhelpful” either. It’s in what it’s “unhelpful” for.

*There is no one definition of Halo that is universally understood. Everyone has different ideals for the series. Whenever you try to attach “objective” value judgements to a subjective reality (your image of Halo), your argument becomes inherently subjective, as there is no objective image of Halo with sharp enough resolution to make value judgements upon.*Imagine a disc. Someone looks at it top down, and can “objectively” state that it is a circle. Someone else looks at it side on and can “objectively” state that it is a line / rectangle. Yet another person sees a (non-circle) ellipse. All of these views are subjective because they’re contingent on the angle from which you’re viewing the disc. We’re all doing the same thing with the Halo games, except there is no neat description that ties all these views together to create one congruous object. This is the position we’re in with Halo, except it’s a far more complicated shape. Everyone’s views are entirely contingent on where they’re looking from, and their arguments for what is “good” or “bad”, “helpful” or “unhelpful” are based on their view of Halo, and what it should be.

1919

> 2533274945422049;1917:
> > 2592250499807011;1913:
> > …
>
> i found the problem in your debate with tsassai: your definition of “bad”.
> “bad” implies a moral judgement to something, which is subjective.
> “unhelpfull” would be better description, because helpfullness can be qualitatively discerned.
>
> the current application of the concept sprint in halo is unhelpfull.

When applying it (sprint) to Halo’s original design principles, it’s contradictory. Maybe that is a better word than “bad” in this discussion, but Primus has already stated his argument using the that specific term already so his meaning isn’t hard to infer when he uses the word “bad.”

1920

> 2779900484279609;1919:
> > 2533274945422049;1917:
> > > 2592250499807011;1913:
> > > …
> >
> > i found the problem in your debate with tsassai: your definition of “bad”.
> > “bad” implies a moral judgement to something, which is subjective.
> > “unhelpfull” would be better description, because helpfullness can be qualitatively discerned.
> >
> > the current application of the concept sprint in halo is unhelpfull.
>
> When applying it (sprint) to Halo’s original design principles, it’s contradictory. Maybe that is a better word than “bad” in this discussion, but Primus has already stated his argument using the that specific term already so his meaning isn’t hard to infer when he uses the word “bad.”

It’s probably fair to say “Sprint runs contrary to Halo’s original design principles” (if such a list exists), but is that really a useful statement? It seems to me that the response would just be “why should I care?”. Are original design principles really something worth abiding to? Because if yes, we should all be outraged that Bungie made a first person shooter, rather than the original strategy game they showed at Macworld. It’s a useful statement as soon as you say “I like my Halo games to follow the design principles to the dot”, but that’s become a subjective statement because of your evaluation of the design principles as they relate to Halo.

I don’t know if that’s what you were trying to argue, but I just thought it was worth getting in before someone takes “contradictory to design principles” and runs with it as an “objective” way of arguing for or against game mechanics.

1921

> 2592250499807011;1908:
> > 2533274794648158;1904:
> > However, whether sprint is a negative mechanic in Halo is completely subjective.
>
> No. See my many posts previously in the thread for why. If you design a game, with equal player starts, around controlling static locations on a map, as halo 1, 2, 3, reach, and 5 are designed, then sprint is objectively bad design, as it is a mechanic which fundamentally lowers the significance of player location on the map.
>
> It’s the game design equivalent of using a self-refuting argument to make your point.
>
> I’ve posted at length explaining this a few pages back.

You’re basically saying it lowers the skill gap, which I agree with. Majority of players don’t give a toot about a skill gap, though. A player who enjoys sprint due to immersion or whatever will see the mechanic as a net positive for Halo. Players like you and I see it as negative. It’s preference, not objective.