I feel like there should be 2 modes aka (CLASSIC MODE) where it’s easily explained, no sprint, no thrust, no nothing but simple movement. Or what we have now so people can enjoy the new mechanic.
I feel like this would be good as a seperate playlist in arena.
> 2533274846700578;4333:
> > 2535466923611736;4332:
> > > 2535414876585185;1:
> > > Halo 6 could be the game EVERYONE wants by removing sprint in campaign (yes because who the -Yoink- needs TWO movement speeds in campaign???) and
> > > arena multiplayer at first I thought a no sprint playlist might be optimal but hear me out. I pretty sure the new spartan abilities (save -Yoinking!- spartan charge) would be GENERALLY accepted in a halo game if they werent accompanied by sprint it would feel more competitive more strategic and would also still be recognizable to the fine tuned experience we got in halo 5. Warzone and customs would be a whole other beast entirely retaining ALL the features that made halo 5 successful would keep warzone great and would also allow more options for custom games, for those people that actually wanted to play in a sprint arena type setting they could actually fire up the in game custom game lobby adjust the filter and be good to go! lets face it, sprint has NO place in competitve halo and to argue that it does would just be absurd. this would allow arena maps to continue to be designed the PROPER way and please the vets and basically everyone whos willing to give it a chance and you wouldnt lose much of your sprint loving audience at all because there would still be sprint in the game it would just take a backseat!
> > > Thoughts? :3
> >
> >
> > I sorta agree, but I still think it should stay in the campaign. However removing it in multiplier would make it more strategic.
> >
> > (Also what’s -Yoink-? Is this some kind of inside joke??)
>
>
> They’re never going to do that. Movement should be consistent across all game modes. Casuals will jump into the multiplayer after playing campaign and not understand why they can’t sprint. It’ll turn some people off.
This is an extremely relevant point. Inconsistent gameplay causes confusion and therefore irritation.
As for the guy who doesn’t know what -Yoink- is, it is the website censoring curse words or otherwise unsavory terms.
> 2535440283237581;4338:
> > 2533274968707582;4336:
> > Before the anti-sprinters begin bashing me, understand that I’m one of you guys at heart. But I feel the need to play devil’s advocate in an attempt to further this discussion and make the pro sprint community look more respectable than what it currently is. Feel free to criticize my points, but with a mature tone (like Naqser and Tsassi).
> >
> > But here’s something I’d like to propose for sprint: how about we make the mechanic actually function like sprinting in real life (a speed boost for a shorter time period like 4 to 5 seconds, with a significantly faster speed) but allow it to activate regardless of whatever direction you face, allowing you to sprint sideways as an example? You can potentially boost creativity by encouraging more map awareness when players attempt to escape gunfights and even allow for more skill jumps that require more distance to cover (assuming that jump height also marginally increases). The time it takes players to bring up their weapon after sprinting should also be instant to ensure that players can attack as quickly as possible when they encounter an enemy or reach their destination from sprinting. But keep the charge up time in order to reach terminal velocity so that players can’t immediately back out of a losing gunfight.
> >
> > There are also ways to mitigate sprint’s downsides in its current form in halo 5 such as creating map design that encourages aggression and map cycling more so than map control and sitting back to wait for your opponents to rush you, increasing map flow and the number of encounters. You can also increase individual empowerment (by making the starting magnum stronger) to punish players who are ill prepared in a gunfight, decreasing the long average time of encounters (as a result of good defensive mechanics).
> >
> >
> > snipped in a couple areas
>
>
> First off, heavily tweaking the existing Sprint mechanic like what you propose would focus time/resources on doing so whereas dropping the mechanic altogether would allow the devs to focus on other ways to spice up the gameplay. I don’t really see how you find ditching Sprint would require the same (or more) focus as modifying it.
>
> As for your proposed changes to Sprint, I don’t see it as an improvement in any meaningful way. You say that allowing players to move faster in any direction will bolster creativity in its use. but how? If players still have to lower their weapon to Sprint, the only change here is that they can look behind them. They still can’t do anything differently in terms of tactics, the ability is still required to make certain jumps (players must relinquish control/choice of their weapons), and it creates a possibility for players to “Sprint-strafe” in a firefight to get close and beat down his/her opponent with ease. Essentially, this version of “Sprint” would maintain most/all of the existing mechanic’s flaws and add further issues.
>
> What I think needs to be done is to remove all of the contemporary movement mechanics, take away factors that facilitate the “less mobility = more combat effectiveness” mentality (Sprint, Clamber, greater accuracy while crouched, etc.), and look to innovating on weapon/map design to expand on Halo’s gameplay without interfering with the harmony between movement and combat.
>
> Examples:
>
> - Re-evaluate the weapon sandbox, remove/replace/alter redundant weapons, incorporate secondary uses/tactics for various weapons, and do these things in ways that make interplay more dynamic and interesting. Replace the Beam Rifle with the Focus Rifle, giving it a suppressing “stun” effect when shooting at the head? Scrap the DMR and Carbine, reintroducing the Needle Rifle and giving its super-combine a lingering AoE and/or allow it to super-combine on vehicles? Add a secondary ability to the Grav Hammer that creates a temporary grav lift field allowing it to be used as a key to certain routes on the map, become a significantly better melee weapon against vehicles than the Energy Sword, and creating the dynamic of redirecting projectiles like rockets (although this one could also be performed by a well-timed standard swing).
> - Incorporate more dynamic elements to further encourage map control. Buttons, shootable triggers, and timed intervals can be used for a plethora of things: extend/retract bridges, open/close doors, turn teleporters/grav lifts/man cannons on and off, raise and lower cover/platforms/water levels, increase/decrease gravity, the list goes on.
I like the dialogue here kudos for someone actually facilitating a point for sprint.I have to agree with the argument though. If you remove sprint you don’t have to design maps to accommodate it nor need you do anything similar with the game mechanics outside of make slide (or anything else they want to keep) a performable action independent of sprint. I also agree with simplifying and removing redundancies in the sandbox. A perfect example was the evolution of the splinter grenade. It was worthless in Halo 4 and is arguably a little too useful in Halo 5 since they turned it into more a trip trap area of denial rather then a crappy little spurt that you had to sit in to die.
> 2535440283237581;4338:
> > 2533274968707582;4336:
> >
>
>
> First off, heavily tweaking the existing Sprint mechanic like what you propose would focus time/resources on doing so whereas dropping the mechanic altogether would allow the devs to focus on other ways to spice up the gameplay. I don’t really see how you find ditching Sprint would require the same (or more) focus as modifying it.
>
> As for your proposed changes to Sprint, I don’t see it as an improvement in any meaningful way. You say that allowing players to move faster in any direction will bolster creativity in its use. but how? If players still have to lower their weapon to Sprint, the only change here is that they can look behind them. They still can’t do anything differently in terms of tactics, the ability is still required to make certain jumps (players must relinquish control/choice of their weapons), and it creates a possibility for players to “Sprint-strafe” in a firefight to get close and beat down his/her opponent with ease. Essentially, this version of “Sprint” would maintain most/all of the existing mechanic’s flaws and add further issues.
Here’s an issue you need to consider however; 343 has never created an original no sprint game yet, and chances are that their first game without sprint can prove difficult to implement, even if they still look back on prior halo games for inspiration on how they design their flow of game play. I also can’t help but assume that their creativity for spicing up game play is lackluster at best, and downright unoriginal at worst. There may be some sort of an annoying replacement to sprint if they do remove it, and the thruster pack will then be considered the most controversial mechanic around. Yes, modifying sprint can be complicated, but my proposal is kind of optional, considering how sprint is implemented better than before, even if it does stretch out maps (which should theoretically give 343 a reason to implement more map traversal mechanics in their maps like your suggestions).
What I had in mind with my tweaking of sprint was to not only allow players to perform skill jumps without the need to face forward (which would ideally occur with the removal of clamber), but to encourage more map awareness from using a mechanic that currently interferes with a player’s offensive capabilites and the ability to flexibly obtain information on the opponents’ position. I want players to be able to scout enemy positions while maintaining full mobility (with the emphasis on knowing your map routes at the same time) so that players don’t feel completely useless while sprinting. Skilled players can look at other map positions for enemy locations while maintaining accurate map traversal (in spite of fast sprint speed), including skill jumps, while weak players are forced to face forward in whatever location they sprint to in order to maintain accurate map movement, at the cost of map vision limited to where the player is running to.
Your description of sprint strafing can be a problem in the first couple weeks of game play due to higher skill curves, but this can be alleviated by increasing base movement speed so that sprinters can’t reach their target with ease. The tweaking of spartan charge so that it requires a charge up time (while presenting a distinct animation from normal sprinting during the charge up time to increase predictability) would also help in reducing the effectiveness of sprint strafing to close the distance. The gradual increase of average player skill would slowly diminish the effectiveness of such a tactic, so I don’t believe that is something to worry too much about in the overall game play for halo.
> 2533274890584596;4284:
> > 2535471109694535;4257:
> > And in case you haven’t noticed, this whole thread has talked about going back to halo 3 and referring to how the game should return to it.
>
>
> That’s not even close to the argument being made here and if you think it is, it’s no wonder your contributions continue to be completely useless. People bring up Halo 3 because it was the last major game in the series that still played like Halo at launch (I’m not counting ZBNS Reach) and it was the most successful (not necessarily the best) game in the series by a respectable margin. That doesn’t mean we want Halo 6 to be a carbon copy of Halo 3. Halo 3 wasn’t perfect. What we want is a NEW Halo game that iterates on the formula without blatantly undermining fundamental elements of the core gameplay mechanics and aesthetics. What we want is a step UP from Halo 3, instead of a step down and at an angle towards Call of Duty.
>
> But even assuming we DID want that, so what? What is wrong with that, especially at this point? It’s been almost 10 years since the last game in this series that really stuck to its guns in terms of series identity and 343 is a NEW company that was tasked with shepherding a hugely successful and beloved franchise. It wasn’t their job to “innovate” it into the ground. It wasn’t their job to make it something different. Their job was to make a HALO GAME and the fact that they thought they could go on some “innovative” (i.e. derivative) tangent with the formula before they had even demonstrated that they had any clue why it worked suggests no shortage of hubris on their part. And they still haven’t fully owned up to the mistake, while apologists on places like Waypoint defend the idiotic decisions and pretend it hasn’t clearly failed.
>
> Take an opposite example: Gears of War 4 by The Coalition. This game is very clearly a refined Gears of War 3 and they have gone out of their way to reassure fans to that effect. And why is that a good thing? Because they have explicitly said that their goal is to figure out exactly why the originals worked and refine the best parts from that trilogy in their SEQUEL. They aren’t trying to cram in big, game-changing mechanics to make a super modern, innovative “Super GoW of Duty.” They are demonstrating to the existing fan base that they understand the FOUNDATIONS of that formula and why it works. And I strongly suspect that part of the reason they are being so transparent about this is the utter failure that was H4, another sequel to a hugely successful Xbox series by a new company.
>
> And continuing on this trend, just take a look at the hot, new modes in each respective game. Gears 4 introduces Dodgeball, a smart take on the unique approach that Gears takes with life pools in death match. It is a clever subversion of expectations that takes existing core elements and cleverly repurposes them into something intense and entertaining. And it plays on the same maps. It feels like Gears.
>
> Halo 5 has Breakout, a game mode that hardly even resembles Halo, embraces none of the fundamental elements of formula, has a completely different, entirely shallow meta, and requires completely tailored made maps that are worthless for any other game mode because it is so completely dissimilar from even the bastardized Halo formula that Guardians features. At best, it’s poor man’s Counterstrike, but really, it’s just a bad paintball mode that 343 crammed into HCS. Breakout is a poster child of 343-style innovation. That they are making a Halo game is forever an after-thought and a limitation on their larger apparent goal of ripping off ideas from other games.
>
> Warzone is the same thing. It eliminates traditional Halo notions of map control, it does away with power weapon and vehicle cycles, it simplifies map flow to 3 major points and bases, it puts your weapons in vending machines, it adds terrible PvE interactions courtesy of League of LEgends and DotA 2’s popularity. And why is that? Because MOBAs and Battlefield are successful and 343’s multiplayer designers are more interested in those trends than they are in expanding and improving what Halo offers.
>
> So, in summation, while literally no one has suggested that the next Halo game needs to be Halo 3 2, why would that be a bad thing? Why would 343 demonstrating that they know how to make an actual Halo game be a problem? Halo 3 was hugely successful, culturally influential, and sustained a large, dedicated population for years. Every “modernized” Halo after it has done notably worse, but they shouldn’t look at what Halo 3 did right? lolwut?
This man has the right idea. Great comparison to GoW4, and how its devs are taking a better route than 343 has done with carrying forward their respective franchises. Loved your post, and I appreciate the time and effort you took to type it all out.
> 2533274968707582;4343:
> > 2535440283237581;4338:
> > > 2533274968707582;4336:
> > >
> >
> >
> > First off, heavily tweaking the existing Sprint mechanic like what you propose would focus time/resources on doing so whereas dropping the mechanic altogether would allow the devs to focus on other ways to spice up the gameplay. I don’t really see how you find ditching Sprint would require the same (or more) focus as modifying it.
> >
> > As for your proposed changes to Sprint, I don’t see it as an improvement in any meaningful way. You say that allowing players to move faster in any direction will bolster creativity in its use. but how? If players still have to lower their weapon to Sprint, the only change here is that they can look behind them. They still can’t do anything differently in terms of tactics, the ability is still required to make certain jumps (players must relinquish control/choice of their weapons), and it creates a possibility for players to “Sprint-strafe” in a firefight to get close and beat down his/her opponent with ease. Essentially, this version of “Sprint” would maintain most/all of the existing mechanic’s flaws and add further issues.
>
>
> Here’s an issue you need to consider however; 343 has never created an original no sprint game yet, and chances are that their first game without sprint can prove difficult to implement, even if they still look back on prior halo games for inspiration on how they design their flow of game play. I also can’t help but assume that their creativity for spicing up game play is lackluster at best, and downright unoriginal at worst. There may be some sort of an annoying replacement to sprint if they do remove it, and the thruster pack will then be considered the most controversial mechanic around. Yes, modifying sprint can be complicated, but my proposal is kind of optional, considering how sprint is implemented better than before, even if it does stretch out maps (which should theoretically give 343 a reason to implement more map traversal mechanics in their maps like your suggestions).
>
> What I had in mind with my tweaking of sprint was to not only allow players to perform skill jumps without the need to face forward (which would ideally occur with the removal of clamber), but to encourage more map awareness from using a mechanic that currently interferes with a player’s offensive capabilites and the ability to flexibly obtain information on the opponents’ position. I want players to be able to scout enemy positions while maintaining full mobility (with the emphasis on knowing your map routes at the same time) so that players don’t feel completely useless while sprinting. Skilled players can look at other map positions for enemy locations while maintaining accurate map traversal (in spite of fast sprint speed), including skill jumps, while weak players are forced to face forward in whatever location they sprint to in order to maintain accurate map movement, at the cost of map vision limited to where the player is running to.
>
> Your description of sprint strafing can be a problem in the first couple weeks of game play due to higher skill curves, but this can be alleviated by increasing base movement speed so that sprinters can’t reach their target with ease. The tweaking of spartan charge so that it requires a charge up time (while presenting a distinct animation from normal sprinting during the charge up time to increase predictability) would also help in reducing the effectiveness of sprint strafing to close the distance. The gradual increase of average player skill would slowly diminish the effectiveness of such a tactic, so I don’t believe that is something to worry too much about in the overall game play for halo.
The arguments here are both well thought out and intellectual, but have either of you considered how sprint unapologetically breaks the concept of the Golden Triangle? I am all in favor of evolving and positively changing Halo, but the GT is one of those aspects of Halo that keeps the game true to itself. Also, the idea of retaining sprint means that all the negatives that come with it, (non-classical map design, unpredictable and random player movement, etc.) will stay as well. To me, it seems that 343 can please everyone and deliver on the fast pace and feel that players really crave by upping the base speed and eliminating sprint.
> 2533274890584596;4284:
> > 2535471109694535;4257:
> > And in case you haven’t noticed, this whole thread has talked about going back to halo 3 and referring to how the game should return to it.
>
>
> That’s not even close to the argument being made here and if you think it is, it’s no wonder your contributions continue to be completely useless. People bring up Halo 3 because it was the last major game in the series that still played like Halo at launch (I’m not counting ZBNS Reach) and it was the most successful (not necessarily the best) game in the series by a respectable margin. That doesn’t mean we want Halo 6 to be a carbon copy of Halo 3. Halo 3 wasn’t perfect. What we want is a NEW Halo game that iterates on the formula without blatantly undermining fundamental elements of the core gameplay mechanics and aesthetics. What we want is a step UP from Halo 3, instead of a step down and at an angle towards Call of Duty.
>
> But even assuming we DID want that, so what? What is wrong with that, especially at this point? It’s been almost 10 years since the last game in this series that really stuck to its guns in terms of series identity and 343 is a NEW company that was tasked with shepherding a hugely successful and beloved franchise. It wasn’t their job to “innovate” it into the ground. It wasn’t their job to make it something different. Their job was to make a HALO GAME and the fact that they thought they could go on some “innovative” (i.e. derivative) tangent with the formula before they had even demonstrated that they had any clue why it worked suggests no shortage of hubris on their part. And they still haven’t fully owned up to the mistake, while apologists on places like Waypoint defend the idiotic decisions and pretend it hasn’t clearly failed.
>
> Take an opposite example: Gears of War 4 by The Coalition. This game is very clearly a refined Gears of War 3 and they have gone out of their way to reassure fans to that effect. And why is that a good thing? Because they have explicitly said that their goal is to figure out exactly why the originals worked and refine the best parts from that trilogy in their SEQUEL. They aren’t trying to cram in big, game-changing mechanics to make a super modern, innovative “Super GoW of Duty.” They are demonstrating to the existing fan base that they understand the FOUNDATIONS of that formula and why it works. And I strongly suspect that part of the reason they are being so transparent about this is the utter failure that was H4, another sequel to a hugely successful Xbox series by a new company.
>
> And continuing on this trend, just take a look at the hot, new modes in each respective game. Gears 4 introduces Dodgeball, a smart take on the unique approach that Gears takes with life pools in death match. It is a clever subversion of expectations that takes existing core elements and cleverly repurposes them into something intense and entertaining. And it plays on the same maps. It feels like Gears.
>
> Halo 5 has Breakout, a game mode that hardly even resembles Halo, embraces none of the fundamental elements of formula, has a completely different, entirely shallow meta, and requires completely tailored made maps that are worthless for any other game mode because it is so completely dissimilar from even the bastardized Halo formula that Guardians features. At best, it’s poor man’s Counterstrike, but really, it’s just a bad paintball mode that 343 crammed into HCS. Breakout is a poster child of 343-style innovation. That they are making a Halo game is forever an after-thought and a limitation on their larger apparent goal of ripping off ideas from other games.
>
> Warzone is the same thing. It eliminates traditional Halo notions of map control, it does away with power weapon and vehicle cycles, it simplifies map flow to 3 major points and bases, it puts your weapons in vending machines, it adds terrible PvE interactions courtesy of League of LEgends and DotA 2’s popularity. And why is that? Because MOBAs and Battlefield are successful and 343’s multiplayer designers are more interested in those trends than they are in expanding and improving what Halo offers.
>
> So, in summation, while literally no one has suggested that the next Halo game needs to be Halo 3 2, why would that be a bad thing? Why would 343 demonstrating that they know how to make an actual Halo game be a problem? Halo 3 was hugely successful, culturally influential, and sustained a large, dedicated population for years. Every “modernized” Halo after it has done notably worse, but they shouldn’t look at what Halo 3 did right? lolwut?
You guys see this? Someone that really gets it, sees it for what it is and lays it all down on the table. I’d like to shake his hand. If only 343i had this mentality of going through the list of things that have worked and keep them working. Instead it feels like they try to add a twist to them just for the sake of adding something, sometimes completely breaking the original idea. Halo was meant to have movement limitations and have its gameplay build around those limitations. Now people that are still playing keep shouting ‘but I’m a super soldier, I should be able so put my down and increase my speed in a larger and poorly scaled map, it would just feel weird if I couldn’t do that. And also, it’s 2016, like come one, every game should have sprint, clamber and thrusters etc.’
Inb4 I like sprint, don’t take sprint away, it increases pace, I’d rather keep sprint.
P.S. Halo’s not dead, but it’s just a shadow of what it use to be.
> 2533274891111509;4344:
> > 2533274890584596;4284:
> > > 2535471109694535;4257:
> > > And in case you haven’t noticed, this whole thread has talked about going back to halo 3 and referring to how the game should return to it.
> >
> >
> > That’s not even close to the argument being made here and if you think it is, it’s no wonder your contributions continue to be completely useless. People bring up Halo 3 because it was the last major game in the series that still played like Halo at launch (I’m not counting ZBNS Reach) and it was the most successful (not necessarily the best) game in the series by a respectable margin. That doesn’t mean we want Halo 6 to be a carbon copy of Halo 3. Halo 3 wasn’t perfect. What we want is a NEW Halo game that iterates on the formula without blatantly undermining fundamental elements of the core gameplay mechanics and aesthetics. What we want is a step UP from Halo 3, instead of a step down and at an angle towards Call of Duty.
> >
> > But even assuming we DID want that, so what? What is wrong with that, especially at this point? It’s been almost 10 years since the last game in this series that really stuck to its guns in terms of series identity and 343 is a NEW company that was tasked with shepherding a hugely successful and beloved franchise. It wasn’t their job to “innovate” it into the ground. It wasn’t their job to make it something different. Their job was to make a HALO GAME and the fact that they thought they could go on some “innovative” (i.e. derivative) tangent with the formula before they had even demonstrated that they had any clue why it worked suggests no shortage of hubris on their part. And they still haven’t fully owned up to the mistake, while apologists on places like Waypoint defend the idiotic decisions and pretend it hasn’t clearly failed.
> >
> > Take an opposite example: Gears of War 4 by The Coalition. This game is very clearly a refined Gears of War 3 and they have gone out of their way to reassure fans to that effect. And why is that a good thing? Because they have explicitly said that their goal is to figure out exactly why the originals worked and refine the best parts from that trilogy in their SEQUEL. They aren’t trying to cram in big, game-changing mechanics to make a super modern, innovative “Super GoW of Duty.” They are demonstrating to the existing fan base that they understand the FOUNDATIONS of that formula and why it works. And I strongly suspect that part of the reason they are being so transparent about this is the utter failure that was H4, another sequel to a hugely successful Xbox series by a new company.
> >
> > And continuing on this trend, just take a look at the hot, new modes in each respective game. Gears 4 introduces Dodgeball, a smart take on the unique approach that Gears takes with life pools in death match. It is a clever subversion of expectations that takes existing core elements and cleverly repurposes them into something intense and entertaining. And it plays on the same maps. It feels like Gears.
> >
> > Halo 5 has Breakout, a game mode that hardly even resembles Halo, embraces none of the fundamental elements of formula, has a completely different, entirely shallow meta, and requires completely tailored made maps that are worthless for any other game mode because it is so completely dissimilar from even the bastardized Halo formula that Guardians features. At best, it’s poor man’s Counterstrike, but really, it’s just a bad paintball mode that 343 crammed into HCS. Breakout is a poster child of 343-style innovation. That they are making a Halo game is forever an after-thought and a limitation on their larger apparent goal of ripping off ideas from other games.
> >
> > Warzone is the same thing. It eliminates traditional Halo notions of map control, it does away with power weapon and vehicle cycles, it simplifies map flow to 3 major points and bases, it puts your weapons in vending machines, it adds terrible PvE interactions courtesy of League of LEgends and DotA 2’s popularity. And why is that? Because MOBAs and Battlefield are successful and 343’s multiplayer designers are more interested in those trends than they are in expanding and improving what Halo offers.
> >
> > So, in summation, while literally no one has suggested that the next Halo game needs to be Halo 3 2, why would that be a bad thing? Why would 343 demonstrating that they know how to make an actual Halo game be a problem? Halo 3 was hugely successful, culturally influential, and sustained a large, dedicated population for years. Every “modernized” Halo after it has done notably worse, but they shouldn’t look at what Halo 3 did right? lolwut?
>
>
> This man has the right idea. Great comparison to GoW4, and how its devs are taking a better route than 343 has done with carrying forward their respective franchises. Loved your post, and I appreciate the time and effort you took to type it all out.
I like how they came out and said yea Gears Judgement wasn’t the best idea and that they wanted to go back to classic. I did find the rifles a little too weak in the beta though since people would just run through the open without getting punished. I get that the gansher is the bread and butter of gears, but at least in 2 and 3 acting like you could just run up to someone got you punished. I didn’t see a lot of that in the beta, but still at least it’s back to more traditional gears.
High base speed.
Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
I still haven’t seen a bad thing about sprint yet. It fits seamlessly into H5, and it’s going to make H6 great.
My firefights with sprint are a lot more fun.
Fingers crossed we can sprint*shoot in H6.
> 2533274847473633;4349:
> I still haven’t seen a bad thing about sprint yet. It fits seamlessly into H5, and it’s going to make H6 great.
>
> My firefights with sprint are a lot more fun.
>
> Fingers crossed we can sprint*shoot in H6.
Thanks for dropping in and saying literally nothing. Good talk.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
How -Yoinking!- high do you have to be to want to remove sprint?
Sprint is needed, it’s a time waster without it.
> 2535411589973028;4348:
> High base speed.
>
> Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
>
> Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
> 2535473403773740;4353:
> > 2535411589973028;4348:
> > High base speed.
> >
> > Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
> >
> > Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
>
>
> you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
> i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
> so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
> the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
> with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
> it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
> if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
> just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
There’s not a whole lot to “get right” in a sprintless game. It’s just one less thing you have to build the game around. Besides, they prototyped a traditional Halo game that people liked, so they likely can do it, they’re just choosing not to.
> 2533274878119620;4351:
> How -Yoinking!- high do you have to be to want to remove sprint?
While you make an intelligent and constructive point, I am completely sober. I want to remove sprint because I like Halo and would like games in the Halo series to play like Halo.
> 2533274823164935;4352:
> Sprint is needed, it’s a time waster without it.
Feel free to explain. Or don’t, because maps that are scaled for your base movement speed instead of sprint play just as fast if not faster than maps stretched for sprint (see: Halo 5 maps). Sprint creates the illusion of speed and you are clearly the target audience. I really wish people with nothing contribute didn’t feel the need to comma splice their way into this conversation without so much as reading a sentence of the arguments being made.
> 2535473403773740;4353:
> > 2535411589973028;4348:
> > High base speed.
> >
> > Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
> >
> > Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
>
>
> you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
> i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
> so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
> the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
> with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
> it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
> if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
> just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
How could it possibly be more difficult to SIMPLIFY the game mechanics and remove balance-changing gimmicks that 343 has had to drastically change other elements of the game to accommodate? I honestly don’t understand. So much of what 343 has changed in this game is the result of OTHER things they added that broke the formula. If they removed these gimmicks, balancing the experience would actually be simpler. And that’s before we consider the fact that they could just look at Halo CE, for example, and have an excellent model of a casual friendly, highly competitively viable Halo game that is simpler than Halo 5 as a result of the general lack of gimmicks.
Let me ask this question: Why the hell shouldn’t my superhuman space soldier be able to run?
> 2533274890584596;4355:
> > 2533274878119620;4351:
> > How -Yoinking!- high do you have to be to want to remove sprint?
>
>
> While you make an intelligent and constructive point, I am completely sober. I want to remove sprint because I like Halo and would like games in the Halo series to play like Halo.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274823164935;4352:
> > Sprint is needed, it’s a time waster without it.
>
>
> Feel free to explain. Or don’t, because maps that are scaled for your base movement speed instead of sprint play just as fast if not faster than maps stretched for sprint (see: Halo 5 maps). Sprint creates the illusion of speed and you are clearly the target audience. I really wish people with nothing contribute didn’t feel the need to comma splice their way into this conversation without so much as reading a sentence of the arguments being made.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535473403773740;4353:
> > > 2535411589973028;4348:
> > > High base speed.
> > >
> > > Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
> > >
> > > Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
> >
> >
> > you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
> > i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
> > so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
> > the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
> > with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
> > it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
> > if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
> > just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
>
>
> How could it possibly be more difficult to SIMPLIFY the game mechanics and remove balance-changing gimmicks that 343 has had to drastically change other elements of the game to accommodate? I honestly don’t understand. So much of what 343 has changed in this game is the result of OTHER things they added that broke the formula. If they removed these gimmicks, balancing the experience would actually be simpler. And that’s before we consider the fact that they could just look at Halo CE, for example, and have an excellent model of a casual friendly, highly competitively viable Halo game that is simpler than Halo 5 as a result of the general lack of gimmicks.
Halo CE is far too simplistic of a game for anythimg like it to sell in the current market unless driven by nostalgia.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> 2533274878119620;4357:
> > 2533274890584596;4355:
> > > 2533274878119620;4351:
> > > How -Yoinking!- high do you have to be to want to remove sprint?
> >
> >
> > While you make an intelligent and constructive point, I am completely sober. I want to remove sprint because I like Halo and would like games in the Halo series to play like Halo.
> >
> >
> > > 2533274823164935;4352:
> > > Sprint is needed, it’s a time waster without it.
> >
> >
> > Feel free to explain. Or don’t, because maps that are scaled for your base movement speed instead of sprint play just as fast if not faster than maps stretched for sprint (see: Halo 5 maps). Sprint creates the illusion of speed and you are clearly the target audience. I really wish people with nothing contribute didn’t feel the need to comma splice their way into this conversation without so much as reading a sentence of the arguments being made.
> >
> >
> > > 2535473403773740;4353:
> > > > 2535411589973028;4348:
> > > > High base speed.
> > > > Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
> > > > Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
> > >
> > >
> > > you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
> > > i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
> > > so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
> > > the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
> > > with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
> > > it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
> > > if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
> > > just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
> >
> >
> > How could it possibly be more difficult to SIMPLIFY the game mechanics and remove balance-changing gimmicks that 343 has had to drastically change other elements of the game to accommodate? I honestly don’t understand. So much of what 343 has changed in this game is the result of OTHER things they added that broke the formula. If they removed these gimmicks, balancing the experience would actually be simpler. And that’s before we consider the fact that they could just look at Halo CE, for example, and have an excellent model of a casual friendly, highly competitively viable Halo game that is simpler than Halo 5 as a result of the general lack of gimmicks.
>
>
> Halo CE is far too simplistic of a game for anythimg like it to sell in the current market unless driven by nostalgia.
False.
> 2533274878119620;4356:
> Let me ask this question: Why the hell shouldn’t my superhuman space soldier be able to run?
When should lore, canon and realism dictate what you should do in a game, when the game isn’t a simulator?
Why aren’t we proning, corner leaning, blind firing, survivng more ballistic bullets than we do now?
Why shouldn’t my superhuman space soldier be able to do all those things?
Especially survive ballistic bullets.
> 2533274878119620;4357:
> > 2533274890584596;4355:
> > > 2533274878119620;4351:
> > >
>
>
> Halo CE is far too simplistic of a game for anythimg like it to sell in the current market unless driven by nostalgia.
First of all, he provided an example of a game that was competitive but had casual value.
Furthermore, Why wouldn’t it sell? Have you tested the demographic to see if they wouldn’t buy and play something along those lines?
Going forward, you don’t think other ideas instead of sprint would and could be explored? Following any potential removal of sprint.
> 2533274890584596;4355:
> > 2533274878119620;4351:
> > How -Yoinking!- high do you have to be to want to remove sprint?
>
>
> While you make an intelligent and constructive point, I am completely sober. I want to remove sprint because I like Halo and would like games in the Halo series to play like Halo.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274823164935;4352:
> > Sprint is needed, it’s a time waster without it.
>
>
> Feel free to explain. Or don’t, because maps that are scaled for your base movement speed instead of sprint play just as fast if not faster than maps stretched for sprint (see: Halo 5 maps). Sprint creates the illusion of speed and you are clearly the target audience. I really wish people with nothing contribute didn’t feel the need to comma splice their way into this conversation without so much as reading a sentence of the arguments being made.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535473403773740;4353:
> > > 2535411589973028;4348:
> > > High base speed.
> > >
> > > Keep “terminal velocity” mechanic and link it to speed cues like wind swishing by. Also link “terminal velocity” to slide.
> > >
> > > Sprint is a limiting mechanic. Halo does not need it. In fact t the game has the potential to play and feel much faster without it.
> >
> >
> > you see, that’s the only gripe i have with all this “remove-sprint-talking”.
> > i consider myself a veteran, since i started with CE around 2002,
> > so i’ve played more Halo Games without sprint than with it, BUT,
> > the thing is, like others already pointed out, Bungie had some experience
> > with doing “sprintless” game, not like 343i.
> > it could have the potential to be better, yes, but don’t expect that everything would be perfect & peachy
> > if 343 took it out, since they don’t got any experience on “sprintless” games.
> > just because they could do it, doesn’t necessarily mean they could do it RIGHT.
>
>
> How could it possibly be more difficult to SIMPLIFY the game mechanics and remove balance-changing gimmicks that 343 has had to drastically change other elements of the game to accommodate? I honestly don’t understand. So much of what 343 has changed in this game is the result of OTHER things they added that broke the formula. If they removed these gimmicks, balancing the experience would actually be simpler. And that’s before we consider the fact that they could just look at Halo CE, for example, and have an excellent model of a casual friendly, highly competitively viable Halo game that is simpler than Halo 5 as a result of the general lack of gimmicks.
you don’t getting my point. you’re talking from the perspective of the player.
but i’m talking in terms of development. i think the overall consensus says,
that the speed of the player affects actually anything. the pace, the maps,
the fights & encounters, and so on.
the thing is, it wouldn’t be just removing sprint and everything’s peachy.
how fast should the speed be? what about the maps, the aiming?
what’s with spartan abilities?
you see, the removal of sprint would raise a lot of questions in terms of game design,
and my question is, are 343i the right people to ANSWER those questions & execute it right?