> 2533274956613084;1930:
> > 2592250499807011;1929:
> > snip
>
> I can understand how you’d think my “objective” breakdown of Halo was lacking, but I could conceivably add to it until it’s clear that it’s only referring to Halo, without including subjectivity, Halo 5, for example, objectively:
> - Includes two playable fireteams of four, one includes Master Chief, and the other includes Spartan Locke - Includes the following weapons: the SAW, the Assault Rifle, the Magnum [etc.] - Involves a conflict against aliens that include: Elites, Grunts, Jackals and Hunters - Includes the following vehicles, of which many can be utilised in the single player, and many can also be utilised in Multiplayer: the Warthog, the Ghost [etc.] - Presents a linear story - Is available on Xbox One - Has been Xbox One X enhanced - Originally released in 2015 - Received content updates after release - Included microtransactions with randomised content - [I could still go on, but I imagine at this point I’ve made clear that you can say enough objective things to specify what you’re talking about]
Most of this has nothing to do with anything I’ve been arguing in this thread. Yes, it identifies a game as Halo 5, but it does not identify Halo’s arena multiplayer by its game design.
The only game design statement in your list that applies to arena multiplayer, which is what I have been exclusively arguing about with “sprint is objectively bad design” is “Includes… weapons… [and] vehicles… which… can also be utilised in multiplayer”. Literally every other word in this part of your post has zero applicability to Halo’s arena multiplayer design.
> 2533274956613084;1930:
> My argument was that you can’t claim that “Sprint is bad” is an objective fact. And you’ll never be able to do that. Because applying a value judgement on a feature in Halo requires you to evaluate a feature based on your subjective experience. Even if you argue that sprint is “self-contradictory” -> “and therefore bad”, I’m going to have a different view on your “objective fact”, because I may not think sprint is “self-contradictory”, and even if I conceded that it was, I don’t have to follow you to your conclusion.
I’ve not evaluated anything based on my subjective experience, throughout this argument.
My entire argument is that sprint is bad (“self-contradictory”) design based on 343i’s own design principles for Halo 5, as well as based on Bungie’s design principles for Halo 1-Reach, in arena multiplayer.
I observe the following two design principles (which obviously do not constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are two of the more distinctive design choices which distinguish Halo multiplayer from the multiplayer of other shooters), which are not based on anything subjective (and again, note that I’m exclusively talking about arena multiplayer):
- Halo is designed around equal player starts
- Halo is designed around controlling particular static locations on the map (rather that be power locations, map pickups, etc)
I then observe that sprint devalues the location of a player on the map relative to any other static location on the map, and conclude that it is therefore self-contradictory and bad design.
Those aren’t the only design elements of Halo. They may not even be the most important elements of its design. But they are very recognizable pillars of Halo’s multiplayer gameplay and have been since 2001, with the sole exception of the train wreck that was Halo 4.
> 2533274956613084;1930:
> The value you place on top of the design goals is a subjective judgement that you’re basing your argument off of.
Here’s the thing, I am not making a value judgment about the importance of sprint or its absence. That’s completely irrelevant to anything I’ve been arguing. I’ve maintained throughout that sprint could have negligible negative impact on the gameplay and my argument still holds for a game with the above two design principles.
For example, what if sprint was in the game but only increased move speed by 1%? Well, it would basically be irrelevant at that point to the actual gameplay, but it’s still bad design.
I am not arguing for how important or unimportant sprint is. I am simply pointing out that if you have a game with the above two design principles, it will always necessarily be a better designed game without sprint than with it, and that this is an unavoidable objective fact unless you want to say that self-contradictory design elements are somehow good, which is absurd.
> 2533274956613084;1930:
> But look, I’ll give it a go to make this point more clear:
> "Sprint is good for Halo, because
> - It provides the illusion that the game is moving faster, and acts as a basis for more flashy moves like slide and spartan charge, which in turn make the game more exciting and dynamic because they increase the number of things that can be happening at any given moment. - Increasing the number of things that could be happening at a given moment is good design in terms of the skill required to play, because it requires a good player to form a larger list of both proactive and reactive gameplay patterns that work around sprint. - Flashy moves are good design for newer players too, as it makes the game more similar to other games they’re likely to have played, and thus increases the chance they will understand Halo."I don’t agree with this as an argument. However, it is just as objective as your argument
This argument is not objective at all, because it is not based on observations related to the game’s design, but rather is entirely based on observations of a player’s hypothetical subjective experience.
#1 is purely subjective player experience. Lots of players, myself included, would not say sprint makes the gameplay more exciting and dynamic.
#2 is highly debatable and it’s not necessarily an argument for sprint per-se, just an argument for complexity in a general sense; sprint doesn’t really increase the number of things that can be happening that a skilled player must track, it’s much more a change than an addition and I’m not sure any pro or top-skill players have ever argued that Halo 5 has a higher skill gap than older games because of sprint; it makes things different but you’d be hard pressed to argue that it makes things more skill-based
#3 Unless “we want to be similar to other games” is a principle of your design, this is irrelevant. Anecdotally, “we want to be similar to other games” has been pretty much shown as a disastrous design idea for Halo… Halo 4 was more or less definitive proof of this.
I appreciate the effort trying to put a cogent argument together for sprint, but I don’t think you have understood the fundamental nature of the argument I am making for why it is bad design.
