The return of classic movement mechanics?

Games Halo Infinite
1942

> 2533274825830455;1941:
> > 2592250499807011;1940:
> > Maybe “bad” is communicating something I do not intend - and it certainly seems that some people have heard me implying things I do not mean to imply, such as “people are wrong to like sprint” - but it really does seem to me that, if I am correct that sprint introduces a contradictory design to the game, that it is fair to label that as “bad design”. That doesn’t seem too unreasonable, but if people would prefer “counterproductive design” or “self-contradictory design” then by all means sub that in for every time you see me type the words “bad design”.
>
> Perhaps to get to the bottom of this, suppose that we all agree to play along and admit that sprint is counterproductive/self-contradictory/bad design. The question is, why should anyone care? Why should we care? Other than because of the ominous “[negative adjective] design” itself, of course. Since surely, we wouldn’t want [negative adjective] design in our game now, would we?

It seems difficult to argue that a game benefits from having conflicting design elements. I can’t figure out how to argue that to be the case; maybe someone else can think of counterexamples of games that have contradictory design elements that in the end work together to make a superior game. I’ve tried to think of examples and come up short. So, barring that, it seems to me that if we want infinite to be the best game it can be, all its design elements should be complementary, and contradictory design is “bad”. If others are aware of counterexamples I’ve not thought of, where conflicting design elements improve a game, I’m happy to recant the particular verbiage of “bad”.
–edit–
I think to argue the contrary, you would need something like the following :

  1. our game is designed around A and B
  2. A and B are, to some degree, contradictory
  3. Because we designed around both A and B, we are able to accomplish design goal C, which would not be possible without A and B

This is why I think 343’s own argument about lore is to date the strongest design argument for sprint. I think there are problems with that argument, some of which I’ve addressed, but it’s the most reasonable design argument I’ve yet seen.
–end edit–

If I happen to be correct in all this, then that would mean sprint needs to go, or the location control on maps needs to be changed somehow (pickups dynamically changing spawn location throughout the match, for example), for infinite to be as good as possible.

I’m guessing that everyone on this forum - on all sides of this discussion - shares a desire to see 343 make the best halo game possible.

1943

> 2533274825830455;1941:
> > 2592250499807011;1940:
> > Maybe “bad” is communicating something I do not intend - and it certainly seems that some people have heard me implying things I do not mean to imply, such as “people are wrong to like sprint” - but it really does seem to me that, if I am correct that sprint introduces a contradictory design to the game, that it is fair to label that as “bad design”. That doesn’t seem too unreasonable, but if people would prefer “counterproductive design” or “self-contradictory design” then by all means sub that in for every time you see me type the words “bad design”.
>
> Perhaps to get to the bottom of this, suppose that we all agree to play along and admit that sprint is counterproductive/self-contradictory/bad design. The question is, why should anyone care? Why should we care? Other than because of the ominous “[negative adjective] design” itself, of course. Since surely, we wouldn’t want [negative adjective] design in our game now, would we?

Welp, for me it’s pretty simple. It’s not fun. Yes that’s subjective and personal to me, but I honestly don’t find 343’s iterations of Halo fun to play and I know it is because of sprint. I can harp on all the extra things they did to the game that I also don’t like (e.g. weapon timing callouts, spartans talking to each other, hit-markers, the sounds, pistol meta, art style, maps, etc.), you get it. But the original formula just excited me extraordinarily and made me want to play hours on end. I still have this feeling when I play Bungie’s Halo to this day. Yes I am biased toward arena games as I also loved Quake and UT and CS growing up, but the introduction of sprint just grates me like no other. The smooth and graceful gameplay I’ve come to love goes out the window with it.

I guess I’m only one person, but the answer to “why should anyone care?” is that I know I’m not the only person who feels this way. I can’t name another game that has had this amount of sustained negative feedback (on youtube and elsewhere) to the changes that have been made to a franchise. You know something’s wrong.

1944

> 2592250499807011;1938:
> > 2533274956613084;1935:
> > Just because you observe any number of “clear pillars” in the game design of Halo games (or you recognise some pattern), doesn’t mean that the pattern that you see is actually designed, or “core” to the design of Halo in anyone’s mind but your own
>
> If the design is there, then it is designed. 343 didn’t throw cats on the keyboard to code the game. I make no claims about the relative value (i.e. rather they are “core” to the design or not) of those designs, but it is beyond any doubt that they exist and that they are a part of what distinguishes Halo’s multiplayer from that of other shooters.
>
> You keep trying to put words in my mouth, or to nuance my arguments in ways I have sought carefully to avoid, so that you can accuse me of being subjective in my arguments. Please stop.

I’m not trying to put arguments into your mouth, I just took your statement that they were “distinctive design choices [for Halo]” as synonymous for “core”, and I don’t think that’s an unfair move.

And I don’t agree. It’s possible to have one “element of design” appear as a result of poorly implementing another, or just as an accidental byproduct of another. Is bunny hopping in CS:GO “designed”? No, it’s not. It’s an engine problem. But it’s an aspect of that game that adds depth and skill. Similarly, it’s possible that some aspects of Halo’s design weren’t originally deliberate, but just happy accidents. You know, like it’s also possible that the only reason CE had fair starts is because the devs realised the game only had a few utility weapons, and didn’t see the point in having 2 possible loadouts instead of one.

> 2592250499807011;1938:
> To the former: the fact that a person observes something does not suddenly make that something a matter of subjectivity. I observe that 2+2=4 and 2+2 does in objective fact actually equal 4. It doesn’t equal 4 because I observe it, and if you observe that 2+2=5, that doesn’t magically change how math works in reality; you would just be wrong. Likewise, I observe that Halo’s arena multiplayer is designed with equal player starts and control of specific locations on the map as basic elements of its gameplay, and Halo is in objective fact designed with equal player starts and control of specific locations on the map as basic elements of its gameplay.

I think you can objectively say “Halo 5 has fair starts” and “Power weapons spawn at specific locations”, but when you observe the latter as “map control baked into the design”, or observe either as “design principles”, you’re making an assumption that I don’t think you can back up, unless you work at 343. And even then, you’ll have to redefine “good design” to be “adherence to design doctrine” to get anywhere. And that strikes me as pointless, because I’m sure the design document for Halo 5 included Sprint and Thrust and Clamber and Ground Pound.

> “Halo 5 would be better (or at least better designed) than it already is if it had not been designed around sprint”

You still can’t say that with objectivity at all. The closest you could say is: “Halo 5 would adhere closer to the design principles I observe for the series, if it were not designed around sprint”. It wouldn’t objectively be better, so thanks for putting “or at least better designed” in there. But better designed according to what. There is no objective good design for Halo.

1945

The biggest thing that I notice from jumping between the Classic Style of Halo and 343 era games is how the inclusion of sprint hurts the game far too much for it to be included in future titles. However, classic movement unless the setting is dialed up feels too slow and cumbersome. Furthermore, map traversal for campaign is negatively effected by classic movement. Sprint needs to go, but we cannot go back to what we had in CE-3 with so many games since then have conditioned players to expect faster movements speeds (from Overwatch to Destiny to Doom 2016 what classic fans call enhanced mobility is here to stay in FPS). Sprint for me has 3 major issues, 1: It lowers your gun meaning that you are not always ready to fight (thus engagements too often are decided upon which player saw the other first) 2: It allows too many escapes and encourages a cat and mouse style chase (Guardians lessened this, but not enough) 3: Maps have become very stretched out making both engagements and map design suffer. While I have not read the entire thread (that should not come as surprise due to its length and perhaps my idea has been already discussed) what I would like is a mechanic where the player builds momentum when traveling for a sufficient distance (and thus time) to reach top speed. The entire time the player 's gun is out and if shot the player breaks out of this momentum building mechanic. I believe this mechanic solves all three issues I laid out. Your gun is always up making the first point null, it makes escapes more difficult since players no longer can dramatically increase their speed all at once, and if maps were designed for base movement speed, but with additions (or options) that could only be reached by high momentum movement

1946

> 2533274829843842;1945:
> The biggest thing that I notice from jumping between the Classic Style of Halo and 343 era games is how the inclusion of sprint hurts the game far too much for it to be included in future titles. However, classic movement unless the setting is dialed up feels too slow and cumbersome. Furthermore, map traversal for campaign is negatively effected by classic movement. Sprint needs to go, but we cannot go back to what we had in CE-3 with so many games since then have conditioned players to expect faster movements speeds (from Overwatch to Destiny to Doom 2016 what classic fans call enhanced mobility is here to stay in FPS). Sprint for me has 3 major issues, 1: It lowers your gun meaning that you are not always ready to fight (thus engagements too often are decided upon which player saw the other first) 2: It allows too many escapes and encourages a cat and mouse style chase (Guardians lessened this, but not enough) 3: Maps have become very stretched out making both engagements and map design suffer. While I have not read the entire thread (that should not come as surprise due to its length and perhaps my idea has been already discussed) what I would like is a mechanic where the player builds momentum when traveling for a sufficient distance (and thus time) to reach top speed. The entire time the player 's gun is out and if shot the player breaks out of this momentum building mechanic. I believe this mechanic solves all three issues I laid out. Your gun is always up making the first point null, it makes escapes more difficult since players no longer can dramatically increase their speed all at once, and if maps were designed for base movement speed, but with additions (or options) that could only be reached by high momentum movement

Sounds promising. And there is no reason why campaign and multiplayer couldn’t have slightly different rates of momentum change if required.

And a 4th problem with sprint is the Spartan’s one tap vulnerability from behind. In the good old days you had time to watch and control the space behind you… so a one hit kill was a valid penalty. But with faster speeds, and increased vertical movement, you simply can’t protect your rear. The one hit melee is now a relatively cheap kill… and probably needs to go.

1947

> 2585548714655118;1946:
> > 2533274829843842;1945:
> > The biggest thing that I notice from jumping between the Classic Style of Halo and 343 era games is how the inclusion of sprint hurts the game far too much for it to be included in future titles. However, classic movement unless the setting is dialed up feels too slow and cumbersome. Furthermore, map traversal for campaign is negatively effected by classic movement. Sprint needs to go, but we cannot go back to what we had in CE-3 with so many games since then have conditioned players to expect faster movements speeds (from Overwatch to Destiny to Doom 2016 what classic fans call enhanced mobility is here to stay in FPS). Sprint for me has 3 major issues, 1: It lowers your gun meaning that you are not always ready to fight (thus engagements too often are decided upon which player saw the other first) 2: It allows too many escapes and encourages a cat and mouse style chase (Guardians lessened this, but not enough) 3: Maps have become very stretched out making both engagements and map design suffer. While I have not read the entire thread (that should not come as surprise due to its length and perhaps my idea has been already discussed) what I would like is a mechanic where the player builds momentum when traveling for a sufficient distance (and thus time) to reach top speed. The entire time the player 's gun is out and if shot the player breaks out of this momentum building mechanic. I believe this mechanic solves all three issues I laid out. Your gun is always up making the first point null, it makes escapes more difficult since players no longer can dramatically increase their speed all at once, and if maps were designed for base movement speed, but with additions (or options) that could only be reached by high momentum movement
>
> Sounds promising. And there is no reason why campaign and multiplayer couldn’t have slightly different rates of momentum change if required.
>
> And a 4th problem with sprint is the Spartan’s one tap vulnerability from behind. In the good old days you had time to watch and control the space behind you… so a one hit kill was a valid penalty. But with faster speeds, and increased vertical movement, you simply can’t protect your rear. The one hit melee is now a relatively cheap kill… and probably needs to go.

i think automaticaly reaching this momentum would result in an increase of double melee/ back rush down incidents. but its still better than normal sprint.

i propose a mechanic like the momentum increase proposed by Spartan Ralphie, but with a slight change: the starting of the momentum increase is button toggled, but when you have the increased momentum your turning rate (aiming sensitivity) is reduced. if you start shooting/punching/throwing grenades you drop out of the ongoing momentum boost and loose your build up momentum to friction ( not instantly) (you can turn normaly again (instantly able to shoot, the turning speed quzickly increases back to normal (so you can’t just snap around (counters the benifit to suprising somebody by being faster)), but take a few steps in the previously momentum rich direction (residual momentum), like you would do with a mancanon.

this would reduce the prevelance of cheap speed based kills and running away, because themomentum makes you faster but less manuverable otherwise ( kind of like a ghost boost). The button toggling of this would be necessary to prevent accidental reductions in manuverability. the extra momentum shouldn’t be higher than 20% over the normal walking speed ( halo 5 sprint is around 40%) ( a slightly higher base movement speed would be nice either way).

during the internaly increased momentum phase shield recharge rates should be lowered ( not during external momentum phases, like mancanons)( desincentivice running away or rushing in).

extra momentum could increase the melee damage, but could also increase the damage taken from melee in the same way ( to counter the charge- attack problem: step aside, let the other run past ( because of residual momentum) and get a free melee boost ( you practicaly trip the runner ))

not holding the movent ministick at full forward also cancels the extra momentum.

another thing i propose is a slight bounciness to your character to utilize gained momentum ( bouncing of walls at an angle, performing trick jumps, skipping over enemies, etc.) and a stronger impact of player momentum on map objects and other players/ AI’s ( pushing crates, pushing enemies)(could be usefull and funny)

if thrusters were to stay they could synergize with the proposed momentum mechanics without much change ( maybe a downward thrust could be implemented). they could function like small mancanon boosts ( they should not be animation-based but momentum based)

melees strenghtened by extra momentum could replace spartan charge and ground pound and open the door for many other things possible.

animation based clamber should be removed in my opinion.
a second " half strenght jump " hitbox on your feet (can only be used for jumps, has no “smooth step” capabilities like the normal feet hitbox) could work simmilarly. but it would be manual, omni directional, would need to be timed and would benifit from crouch jumping ( the additional half- jump hitbox is connected to your feet, so crouching would move it upwards , just like the normal feet hitbox). the height reachable by this second jump-only hitbox should be the same as crouch jumpimping, so skilled players could use crouch jumping instead and not lose momentum. crouch jumping combined with the jump-only hitbox could reach up to chest high obstacles.

the mainstream tradeof for sprint is " mobility vs. shooting " which does not fit in halo. my proposed tradeof would be " momentum vs. agility ", leaving the golden triangle untouched.

a tradeof is necessary because otherwise the already sped up player has an advantage over the not yet sped up, hurting the gameplay by making it more twitch- shooter esque (COD) or to run&gun heavy (Doom). the tradeof is conected to a button to make it voluntary.

1948

> 2592250499807011;1818:
> > 2533274801176260;1817:
> > You just admitted to the definiton being incomplete.
>
> In battlefront’s case, it doesn’t even matter. It’s a class based loadout shooter. My definition doesn’t need to change to exclude battlefront.

Your first criterion is wrong, and without it, it would include Battlefront, even with classes. That was the entire point I was making. You have shown a complete failure of understanding the argument.

But I don’t even have to go that far: Even if we were to keep both cirteria, your definition would still include games such as GTA4, which has equal starts, weapons and powerups as pickups on map, etc (and even in fixed spawns). And they’re still not an Arena shooter.

> 2592250499807011;1818:
> The only real point of substance in your post is the quake player models, and I already told you I disagree with you that the different models negates a design of even player starts.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re still wrong. Different player models mean different visibilities, means different hitboxes, means the players aren’t equal. Unless being attacked from straight above, a smaller player has an inherent advantage over a taller player by being harder to spot and harder to hit.

> 2592250499807011;1818:
> It’s not the same as Invasion, where elites had different abilities etc than spartans (and the entire game mode was asymmetrical objective).

There were symmetrical modes within Invasion, such as Invasion Slayer on Hemmorrhage and even if one were to adjust the settings to only feature one “loadout” and give it to both teams, it still wouldn’t turn into “equal starts” because the players themselves aren’t equal, independent of the equipment they spawn with.

> 2592250499807011;1818:
> The rest of your post is pure “no true scotsman” at its best… You’re just asserting “halo can’t be a true arena shooter because [arbitrary reason]”.

The rest of my post is me correcting you slapping a wrong label onto a game because of whatever. I don’t know what your agenda is, nor do I care. I have always and will always correct false statements that I come across (other examples including “smart scope has no spread buffs” and “sprint makes the game faster” or just recently the hilarious “smart scope gives you better peripheral vision”).

Oh, and just on a side note: That’s not a “No true Scotsman” fallacy. An NTS has one quickly change a generalization ad hoc to exclude a counterexample. I have never given a generalization, nor have you ever given a counterexample. If anything, you made the NTS when you suddenly added “fixed spawns” to your criteria to exclude games that disprove your definition.

Pointing out something contradicts a definition is a valid claim, even if one were to invoke the attribute “true” to describe it. (Which, btw, I didn’t.)

  • “No true vegetarian would eat meat.” - “No true atheist believes in God.” - "No true Christian believes that Jesus isn’t the son of God.If you’re trying to make an Argument from Fallacy in the future, then at least make sure you use the definitions correctly. (Oh the irony.)

> 2592250499807011;1818:
> This whole discussion is off topic anyway.

Maybe, but not pointless. Truth never is.

1949

> 2592250499807011;1833:
> > 2533274977253120;1826:
> > > 343i isn’t going to drop movement abilities in Halo:Infinite
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> Because this discussion has been going on ever since 343 has existed and they’ve never once even hinted that they agree with - or even understand - the “no sprint” side of the argument.

While we can’t say they understand the anti-sprint side of the argument per se, what we do know about 343 is that (at least during development of H5G) the team was highly split on the implementation of sprint and the deciding factor was similarity to other shooters. So we can infer that about half of the team is against sprint, and since H5G underperformed compared to its predecessors, maybe they will get to call the shots this time.

1950

> 2592250499807011;1938:
> To the former: the fact that a person observes something does not suddenly make that something a matter of subjectivity. I observe that 2+2=4 and 2+2 does in objective fact actually equal 4. It doesn’t equal 4 because I observe it, and if you observe that 2+2=5, that doesn’t magically change how math works in reality; you would just be wrong.

Something to point out is that 2 + 2 = 4 is true because our definitions and axioms of integer arithmetic make it so. There is in fact an additive group, namely Z/4Z, where 2 + 2 = 0. The point is, the statements we make are only true so far as the basic assumptions that our statement is founded upon, and their truth matters only so far as we agree on the basic assumptions. Those assumptions are never so much about being wrong or right as they are about being useful for the situation at hand. And while no one would deny the usefulness of integer arithmetic, anyone working with modern cryptography can tell you how immensely useful it has been to understand that 2 + 2 does not need to equal 4, and anyone using the internet should appreciate that.

So, there are two takeaways from this:

  • To be able to properly claim a statement true, you need strong well-defined definitions and axioms for your basic assumptions. For statements that aren’t assumed true, you also need a logically sound proof. - The basic assumptions you make aren’t necessarily better or worse than those chosen by someone else.In a discussion about something as subjective as gameplay design, the basic assumptions are often quite vague and arbitrary.
1951

> 2533274801176260;1949:
> > 2592250499807011;1833:
> > > 2533274977253120;1826:
> > > > 343i isn’t going to drop movement abilities in Halo:Infinite
> > >
> > > How do you know this?
> >
> > Because this discussion has been going on ever since 343 has existed and they’ve never once even hinted that they agree with - or even understand - the “no sprint” side of the argument.
>
> While we can’t say they understand the anti-sprint side of the argument per se, what we do know about 343 is that (at least during development of H5G) the team was highly split on the implementation of sprint and the deciding factor was similarity to other shooters. So we can infer that about half of the team is against sprint, and since H5G failed, maybe they will get to call the shots this time.

I hate to get back in on this conversation, but rather than focus on sprint, I just want to key in on that last point you made: “… and since H5G failed…”. I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. People like to throw the term “failed” around a lot, it seems, but rarely do I feel it to be an accurate descriptor of a situation, and rarely does it seem to me that two people who claim a game has failed think failing means the same thing.

What do we know about H5? We know that financially, it’s been majorly successful, based on what little sales info we’ve gotten about it. We know that it was largely divisive among the player-base, based on feedback we’ve seen on Waypoint and other places on the internet; some people really like how H5 plays, some people don’t. We know that critically, H5 received generally positive reviews for it’s multiplayer (take that with a grain of salt if you want). We know that 3 years after it’s launch, people are still playing it, and while we don’t know population numbers, player testaments have generally been such that people still find games pretty easily in most playlists. We know that for 2 years after launch, it got semi-regular content updates, and 3 years after launch it still is maintained by the devs with playlist updates, matchmaking improvements, and the occasional playlist refresh.

Based on this information, I’m hard-pressed to say that H5 “failed” in any capacity. Was it the best Halo game ever made? Not to me, no. But I wouldn’t say that a game is a failure just because it’s not perfect or gets mixed reception. So when you say that H5 failed, what is your definition of “fail” and how did H5 not meet that standard you set? I ask this because I’m wondering what about the reception of H5 at large would make you think that the half of the dev team that’s against sprint would have a bigger impact on Infinite than the half that’s in favor of sprint. Because to me, that would suggest that your stance is that the failure of H5 in your eyes is rooted in sprint (correct me if I’m wrong).

1952

> 2533274817408735;1951:
> What do we know about H5? We know that financially, it’s been majorly successful, based on what little sales info we’ve gotten about it. We know that it was largely divisive among the player-base, based on feedback we’ve seen on Waypoint and other places on the internet; some people really like how H5 plays, some people don’t. We know that critically, H5 received generally positive reviews for it’s multiplayer (take that with a grain of salt if you want). We know that 3 years after it’s launch, people are still playing it, and while we don’t know population numbers, player testaments have generally been such that people still find games pretty easily in most playlists. We know that for 2 years after launch, it got semi-regular content updates, and 3 years after launch it still is maintained by the devs with playlist updates, matchmaking improvements, and the occasional playlist refresh.

Well, we do have some ballpark figures for the population based on Xbox Live statistics and player trackers from Battlefield and Battlefront for reference and those were worse than Halo 4. We also know that the “5 Million sold units” number from early 2016 was blown up because it referred to “sold in” (aka sold to stores) and not “sold through” (aka sold to the end consumer), while they didn’t include digital in the figure, so what the actual number of sold copies was is anyone’s guess, it might be significantly larger than 5 Million, it might be significantly lower (and both of that still holds true now, because we never got an update number since).

But you’re correct in one aspect, I was too quick with the word “failure”, in part due to personal bias, and I will edit my post to rectify that.

> 2533274817408735;1951:
> So when you say that H5 failed, what is your definition of “fail” and how did H5 not meet that standard you set? I ask this because I’m wondering what about the reception of H5 at large would make you think that the half of the dev team that’s against sprint would have a bigger impact on Infinite than the half that’s in favor of sprint. Because to me, that would suggest that your stance is that the failure of H5 in your eyes is rooted in sprint (correct me if I’m wrong).

In this case I wasn’t even specifically thinking of sprint (at least not consciously), I was just aware of the game underperfoming in relation to its predecessors (within the time frames that we have numbers for) so my line of thinking was that as a company, the logical thing is to change parts of the product before its next iteration to stop the downwards trend. And movement mechanics might be one of these candidates, given that they seem to have been divisive even within the team. Of course that’s not a guarantee, just pointing out a possibility.

1953

> 2533274801176260;1952:
> In this case I wasn’t even specifically thinking of sprint (at least not consciously), I was just aware of the game underperfoming in relation to all of its predecessors (within the time frames that we have numbers for) so my line of thinking was that as a company, the logical thing is to change parts of the product before its next iteration to stop the downwards trend. And movement mechanics might be one of these candidates, given that they seem to have been divisive even within the team. Of course that’s not a guarantee, just pointing out a possibility.

I think H5 has done better than H4 in terms of its performance/longevity. Taking away campaign criticisms, H5’s multiplayer has largely been better recieved than H4’s. So in that respect, wouldn’t Halo be on an upwards trend (H4’s mp is notorious for having a huge population decline 1 year after its launch, but to my knowledge H5 hasn’t suffered such a fate)? If you have a different understanding about how H5’s mp compares to H4, please let me know, because the general consensus I’ve seen when comparing the two games has typically been “H4: good campaign, bad multiplayer; H5: bad campaign, good multiplayer”.

Thanks for clarifying your point about the failure thing. Maybe I’m a stickler for terminology. To me, a failed game is a pretty big deal: something broken and not worth playing at all. And while I personally am not a fan of H5, I wouldn’t call it broken or not worth playing at all. I feel like equating failure with controversy downplays how truly terrible games can be, and exaggerates how bad games are.

1954

> 2533274817408735;1953:
> I think H5 has done better than H4 in terms of its performance/longevity. Taking away campaign criticisms, H5’s multiplayer has largely been better recieved than H4’s. So in that respect, wouldn’t Halo be on an upwards trend (H4’s mp is notorious for having a huge population decline 1 year after its launch, but to my knowledge H5 hasn’t suffered such a fate)? If you have a different understanding about how H5’s mp compares to H4, please let me know, because the general consensus I’ve seen when comparing the two games has typically been “H4: good campaign, bad multiplayer; H5: bad campaign, good multiplayer”.

Well, to be fair, that is the consensus among those people still playing the game so there’s undoubtedly some bias there.

As for an overall source, I don’t think the data for H5G is collected in one singular place. However, I was active on the forums during the game’s initial release window (first half year, give or take) and every once in a while somebody would list the 24h peak population for both Battlefield 4 and Battlefront 2015, between which H5G was consistently sandwiched on the Xbox Live most played list (which afaik sorts by player count) and the upper limit was still usually smaller than the number from Halo 4 during its equivalent point in its lifetime. (For example, on December 18, Battlefront had a peak player count of 45k, with H5G being below that. Compare that to the Halo 4 peak shortly before christmas which was slightly below 100k, even when using the number before the holiday sales boost. Subsequently Battlefront peaked at 55k on Feb 4. Halo 4 at that same relative point in its lifecycle peaked around 80k. Apparently, even I was checking those numbers once in a while and in May/June H5G was below 20k/17k as opposed to Halo 4’s 30k/25k.)

Though to be honest H5G had a pretty rocky launch with missing and/or lackluster content, so the population probably has evolved differently in the long-term. However, in its early months, as far as I remember, H5G usually did worse than its predecessor. In absolute numbers, that is, if you want retention rates you’d need to normalize that to the respective sales figures - which we don’t have. However, it would certainly agree with that ambiguous “best player retention since Halo 3” statement, because if you had a large dropoff in the beginning, you’re more likely to keep the same remaining players returning for a long time.

Then there’s also the fact that from the peak population we cannot infer on the total amount of players; a game could hold a player number that is close to its peak consistently over 24 hours, or it could reach its peak within a few hours and drop to basically zero over the rest of the day… but that could go either way for Halo 4 or H5G, and I don’t think there’s a reason to assume that the peak-to-tot-ratio is night and day between those games.

> 2533274817408735;1953:
> And while I personally am not a fan of H5, I wouldn’t call it broken or not worth playing at all. I feel like equating failure with controversy downplays how truly terrible games can be, and exaggerates how bad games are.

While H5G might not be broken - if you want a broken game look no further than MCC - I truly do believe that H5G is not worth playing. I see absolutely nothing of value in it, save for forge maybe, but that’s basically pointless as I despise the gameplay that would take place on the admittedly excellent forge maps. And even so, I still hate the color palette of the forge items. I have never recommended the game to any of my friends, not even for novelty like I would, say, 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, and in fact even if I had any friends left that are still interested in the Xbox brand and had bought the XBone (which they didn’t mostly because of a loss of interest in Halo, switching to PS4 instead) I would openly discourage them from buying the game (although I would let them play my copy to make up their own mind). It truly is one of the worst functioning(!) games I have ever played.

1955

> 2533274801176260;1948:
> Your first criterion is wrong, and without it, it would include Battlefront, even with classes. That was the entire point I was making.

Class-based games do not have equal player starts. Do you really need that explained to you? You literally pick different starting abilities/equipment/gameplay roles/etc based on your class. Class or loadout based shooters are the antithesis of equal player starts. And yet you say that I’m the one failing to understand the argument after this. OK, I guess.

> 2533274801176260;1948:
> You can disagree all you want, but you’re still wrong. Different player models mean different visibilities, means different hitboxes, means the players aren’t equal. Unless being attacked from straight above, a smaller player has an inherent advantage over a taller player by being harder to spot and harder to hit.

By this narrow/strict kind of logic, Halo doesn’t have equal player starts either because you can change the color and (in later games) armor or character model of your player. You can say “you’re wrong” and disagree with me all you like, but I do not agree with or find your point here persuasive at all. It’s not like Quake 3 was built around a character selection meta like TF2 or Overwatch.

> 2533274801176260;1948:
> Oh, and just on a side note: That’s not a “No true Scotsman” fallacy

My argument is pretty straightforward:
A) “Arena shooters are those whose design elements include equal player starts and gameplay centering around controlling specific locations on the map to gain an advantage”
B) “Halo is designed around equal player starts and controlling specific locations on the map to gain an advantage”
C) “Therefore Halo is therefore an Arena shooter”

You then respond with “but [other arena game] does [other thing that halo doesn’t]” or “but [other non-arena game] does [thing similar to halo]” and conclude “therefore Halo CAN’T be an arena shooter”.

Seems like no true scotsman to me. I think you’d be better off just saying you disagree with my definition and providing your own that you think provides a more accurate classification.

1956

> 2592250499807011;1955:
> My argument is pretty straightforward:
> A) “Arena shooters are those whose design elements include equal player starts and gameplay centering around controlling specific locations on the map to gain an advantage”
> B) “Halo is designed around equal player starts and controlling specific locations on the map to gain an advantage”
> C) “Therefore Halo is therefore an Arena shooter”

I know what your argument is. Problem is, point A is wrong and incomplete, because it excludes Quake 3, which is an Arena shooter and includes GTA4 (among others) which isn’t an Arena shooter. Your conclusion cannot follow from the premise because the premise is wrong.

> 2592250499807011;1955:
> You then respond with “but [other arena game] does [other thing that halo doesn’t]” or “but [other non-arena game] does [thing similar to halo]” and conclude “therefore Halo CAN’T be an arena shooter”.

No, that was something I said before you laid out your criteria. I’ve explained why Halo isn’t an Arena shooter because it lacks crucial features of the genre. That was and still is true. After you’ve posted your definition I’ve never even mentioned Halo again, but focused on disproving your definition.

> 2592250499807011;1955:
> Seems like no true scotsman to me.

I know it does, hence why I pointed out the difference between “pointing out when something doesn’t fit a classification” (like calling the sun a planet or calling a meat-eater a vegetarian) and changing definitions at a moments notice. Hint: I did the former, never the latter.

1957

> 2533274801176260;1956:
> I’ve explained why Halo isn’t an Arena shooter because it lacks crucial features of the genre.

In your mind and in the minds of many people who grew up on Quake/UT and only consider Quake/UT clones as “arena” FPS and cannot recognize the fundamental design similarities they have with Halo, I’m sure this is true.

1958

> 2592250499807011;1957:
> > 2533274801176260;1956:
> > I’ve explained why Halo isn’t an Arena shooter because it lacks crucial features of the genre.
>
> In your mind and in the minds of many people who grew up on Quake/UT and only consider Quake/UT clones as “arena” FPS, I’m sure this is true.

This is also true outside of those minds. You disagreeing won’t stop that from being the case, just as calling the sun a planet won’t suddenly make it so

1959

> 2533274801176260;1958:
> > 2592250499807011;1957:
> > > 2533274801176260;1956:
> > > I’ve explained why Halo isn’t an Arena shooter because it lacks crucial features of the genre.
> >
> > In your mind and in the minds of many people who grew up on Quake/UT and only consider Quake/UT clones as “arena” FPS, I’m sure this is true.
>
> This is also true outside of those minds. You disagreeing won’t stop that from being the case, just as calling the sun a planet won’t suddenly make it so

The problem with is that it’s completely fair to call Halo an Arena FPS, for reasons already articulated. Your definitions/required gameplay elements for a game to be considered “arena” are at least as arbitrary as anything I’ve put forward. But please, continue.

1960

Have you guys discussed adding Sprint to Thruster? It doesn’t make sense to separate Sprint and Thrusters because they both are the same in Halo. Merge Thrusters and Sprint. I would update the control layout to LB for Thrusters and Sprint. Or you can change your control layout. Sprint and Thrusters should be in the same place.

Press LB to activate Thrusters. It’ll have a recharge time, and it’ll behave like Halo 5’s thrusters.

Press and hold LB to activate Sprint, but it delays a few second before the thrusters goes into sprint mode. This Sprint would be harder to move around in sacrifice for greater speed. This sprint wouldn’t be ideal for arena because you can’t run away in time. Three seconds to activate sprint is a long time in Halo. It’s more viable in big maps, and that make sense. Sprinting should be useful only for big maps. You can fire while sprinting, but you won’t have the reticle to guide you.

Would guys add Sprint and Thrusters together? I believe that Sprint can be made into a Halo like mechanic. The current Sprint for Halo is too mainstream, so it has to be Haloified or something.

1961

> 2592250499807011;1959:
> > 2533274801176260;1958:
> > > 2592250499807011;1957:
> > > > 2533274801176260;1956:
> > > > I’ve explained why Halo isn’t an Arena shooter because it lacks crucial features of the genre.
> > >
> > > In your mind and in the minds of many people who grew up on Quake/UT and only consider Quake/UT clones as “arena” FPS, I’m sure this is true.
> >
> > This is also true outside of those minds. You disagreeing won’t stop that from being the case, just as calling the sun a planet won’t suddenly make it so
>
> The problem with is that it’s completely fair to call Halo an Arena FPS, for reasons already articulated. Your definitions/required gameplay elements for a game to be considered “arena” are at least as arbitrary as anything I’ve put forward. But please, continue.

The difference is, “my” definition does not contradict one of the most popular games of the genre. Yours does. In order to fully shoehorn Halo into the Arena shooter genre, you arbitrarly had to remove and add criteria to your definition, that created contradictions with preestablished releases. You’d need to make some pretty huge leaps in logic to have your baloney make sense. And so far, it doesn’t…