> 2533274811492694;6078:
> I just want to say one this. Gameplay back then in the older games was limited to what you could do because of hardware limitations. Now we have allot more options in what we can do. You guys are telling me, when they can plug you into the computer like the matrix, you’re gonna still want to walk at the same speed at all times? If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
>
> Gameplay will change as hardware changes. They are parallel with each other. If you wanted the same halo as back in the day then that’s what you guys should ask for. Maybe they should support halo 2 and just keep coming out with DLC’s to add on to the game for you guys that can’t stop complaining about what the company is doing. “I don’t like sprint” “I don’t like armor abilities” “I don’t like the new weapon skins” “I don’t like anything that’s new or remotely innovative”.
>
> The thing is 343 isn’t making the game just for you. They have to sell this game to the new generations as well. Adding new features is a method of doing that. As soon as sprint is removed, I guarantee there would be allot more of an uproar.
Okay then, what kind of technological marvel has been developed in the last two decades that enable the mechanics we see today?
> 2533274820921394;6079:
> > 2533274811492694;6078:
> > I just want to say one this. Gameplay back then in the older games was limited to what you could do because of hardware limitations. Now we have allot more options in what we can do. You guys are telling me, when they can plug you into the computer like the matrix, you’re gonna still want to walk at the same speed at all times? If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
> >
> > Gameplay will change as hardware changes. They are parallel with each other. If you wanted the same halo as back in the day then that’s what you guys should ask for. Maybe they should support halo 2 and just keep coming out with DLC’s to add on to the game for you guys that can’t stop complaining about what the company is doing. “I don’t like sprint” “I don’t like armor abilities” “I don’t like the new weapon skins” “I don’t like anything that’s new or remotely innovative”.
> >
> > The thing is 343 isn’t making the game just for you. They have to sell this game to the new generations as well. Adding new features is a method of doing that. As soon as sprint is removed, I guarantee there would be allot more of an uproar.
>
>
> I agree completely. I’m sure if it had been possible in 2001 for clamber to have been a thing in Halo: CE it would have had it.
It was possible. Why would clamber be impossible in 2001?
> 2533274795123910;6082:
> > 2533274811492694;6078:
> > I just want to say one this. Gameplay back then in the older games was limited to what you could do because of hardware limitations. Now we have allot more options in what we can do. You guys are telling me, when they can plug you into the computer like the matrix, you’re gonna still want to walk at the same speed at all times? If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
> >
> > Gameplay will change as hardware changes. They are parallel with each other. If you wanted the same halo as back in the day then that’s what you guys should ask for. Maybe they should support halo 2 and just keep coming out with DLC’s to add on to the game for you guys that can’t stop complaining about what the company is doing. “I don’t like sprint” “I don’t like armor abilities” “I don’t like the new weapon skins” “I don’t like anything that’s new or remotely innovative”.
> >
> > The thing is 343 isn’t making the game just for you. They have to sell this game to the new generations as well. Adding new features is a method of doing that. As soon as sprint is removed, I guarantee there would be allot more of an uproar.
>
>
> Okay then, what kind of technological marvel has been developed in the last two decades that enable the mechanics we see today?
Well, to be fair, animation tools have probably improved a lot over time, and what can be implemented fast and looks smooth today could’ve taken long to work out and looked clunky back in 2001. Not that this is directly hardware related, but the richness of animation in today’s game is definitely due to technological reasons and not because developers didn’t care back in the day. In addition, any mechanics that interact with map geometry (e.g. Clamber) probably require some real time calculations to not look jaggy or fake when transitioning from one animation to another. Not that this would’ve completely prevented developers from implementing these mechanics. They just might’ve taken much more effort without readily available tools and looked less convincing in the end.
> It’s a risk-reward type of change that does some good to Halo 5’s gameplay and map design.
What are your stances on gravity lifts, man cannons, and teleporters? Because those mechanics served the exact same purpose as sprint with their own levels of risk-reward game play, while streamlining halo’s formula of constant combat and without needing to excessively stretch any geometry of average 4v4 maps.
> 2533274825830455;6084:
> > 2533274795123910;6082:
> > > 2533274811492694;6078:
> > > I just want to say one this. Gameplay back then in the older games was limited to what you could do because of hardware limitations. Now we have allot more options in what we can do. You guys are telling me, when they can plug you into the computer like the matrix, you’re gonna still want to walk at the same speed at all times? If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
> > >
> > > Gameplay will change as hardware changes. They are parallel with each other. If you wanted the same halo as back in the day then that’s what you guys should ask for. Maybe they should support halo 2 and just keep coming out with DLC’s to add on to the game for you guys that can’t stop complaining about what the company is doing. “I don’t like sprint” “I don’t like armor abilities” “I don’t like the new weapon skins” “I don’t like anything that’s new or remotely innovative”.
> > >
> > > The thing is 343 isn’t making the game just for you. They have to sell this game to the new generations as well. Adding new features is a method of doing that. As soon as sprint is removed, I guarantee there would be allot more of an uproar.
> >
> >
> > Okay then, what kind of technological marvel has been developed in the last two decades that enable the mechanics we see today?
>
>
> Well, to be fair, animation tools have probably improved a lot over time, and what can be implemented fast and looks smooth today could’ve taken long to work out and looked clunky back in 2001. Not that this is directly hardware related, but the richness of animation in today’s game is definitely due to technological reasons and not because developers didn’t care back in the day. In addition, any mechanics that interact with map geometry (e.g. Clamber) probably require some real time calculations to not look jaggy or fake when transitioning from one animation to another. Not that this would’ve completely prevented developers from implementing these mechanics. They just might’ve taken much more effort without readily available tools and looked less convincing in the end.
Yes, animation tools have indeed improved, but that’s the visual side of things. The mechanical side is an entirely different story, that is what I’m after.
> 2533274795123910;6086:
> > 2533274825830455;6084:
> > Well, to be fair, animation tools have probably improved a lot over time, and what can be implemented fast and looks smooth today could’ve taken long to work out and looked clunky back in 2001. Not that this is directly hardware related, but the richness of animation in today’s game is definitely due to technological reasons and not because developers didn’t care back in the day. In addition, any mechanics that interact with map geometry (e.g. Clamber) probably require some real time calculations to not look jaggy or fake when transitioning from one animation to another. Not that this would’ve completely prevented developers from implementing these mechanics. They just might’ve taken much more effort without readily available tools and looked less convincing in the end.
>
>
> Yes, animation tools have indeed improved, but that’s the visual side of things. The mechanical side is an entirely different story, that is what I’m after.
But a lot of the mechanics we have today are heavily animation reliant. We can dance around the issue all day long, but developers don’t implement mechanics solely for the depth they would add, but also to immerse players. Immersion requires convincing animation. Sure, you can ignore this part of the discussion, and of course you’re then going to come out believing that the only reason Halo CE didn’t had Spartan Abilities was that Bungie didn’t think or care about it. But if you actually care about why modern shooters generally have more complex movement mechanics than shooters in 2001, you can’t ignore the visual side.
It just dawned on me. Ocarina of Time, widely considered to be one of the best games ever, had clamber. On the Nintendo 64. In 1998.
Yeah it looked fairly janky by modern standards. But those are by modern standards. Back then no one was expecting ultra-smooth 60FPS animations, and I’m sure three years later on the Xbox it would’ve been improved considerably. Also, none of this seemed to concern them when they added vehicle boarding with only the bare minimum of animation. So color me unconvinced.
Furthermore, tell me OoT isn’t an “immersive” game despite its dated visuals. Go on.
> 2533274825830455;6087:
> > 2533274795123910;6086:
> > > 2533274825830455;6084:
> > > Well, to be fair, animation tools have probably improved a lot over time, and what can be implemented fast and looks smooth today could’ve taken long to work out and looked clunky back in 2001. Not that this is directly hardware related, but the richness of animation in today’s game is definitely due to technological reasons and not because developers didn’t care back in the day. In addition, any mechanics that interact with map geometry (e.g. Clamber) probably require some real time calculations to not look jaggy or fake when transitioning from one animation to another. Not that this would’ve completely prevented developers from implementing these mechanics. They just might’ve taken much more effort without readily available tools and looked less convincing in the end.
> >
> >
> > Yes, animation tools have indeed improved, but that’s the visual side of things. The mechanical side is an entirely different story, that is what I’m after.
>
>
> But a lot of the mechanics we have today are heavily animation reliant. We can dance around the issue all day long, but developers don’t implement mechanics solely for the depth they would add, but also to immerse players. Immersion requires convincing animation. Sure, you can ignore this part of the discussion, and of course you’re then going to come out believing that the only reason Halo CE didn’t had Spartan Abilities was that Bungie didn’t think or care about it. But if you actually care about why modern shooters generally have more complex movement mechanics than shooters in 2001, you can’t ignore the visual side.
indeed.
But the quality of something isn’t tied to it not being available to do.
The exact visual representation of Ground pound would be difficult to implement into Halo CE.
A different visual one I’m certain wouldn’t, with the same mechanical effect. Immersive visual representation mind you.
A Playstatation game called The Unholy War, 3D fighting game, had three flying characters that performed bombdives with their bodies. One being a suicide bomb and the two others caused an explosion. Somewhat similar to ground pound.
> 2533274819302824;6080:
> The -Yoink-? What does hardware have to do with gameplay mechanics? You guys seriously don’t believe there were games with clamber around the original xbox era?
>
> Definitely one of the weaker pro-sprint arguments I’ve heard.
>
> The lack of these mechanics back then wasn’t because it would be impossible to implement them. It was because developers either didn’t care about adding them or simply hadn’t thought about doing it.
>
>
>
>
> > If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
>
>
> And what the -Yoink- is that even supposed to mean?
The link in your signature should be enough to tell the fanboys that halo is still tactical without sprint, idk why ppl still defend it
> 2533274819567236;6081:
> > 2533274819302824;6080:
> > The -Yoink-? What does hardware have to do with gameplay mechanics? You guys seriously don’t believe there were games with clamber around the original xbox era?
> >
> > Definitely one of the weaker pro-sprint arguments I’ve heard.
> >
> > The lack of these mechanics back then wasn’t because it would be impossible to implement them. It was because developers either didn’t care about adding them or simply hadn’t thought about doing it.
>
>
> Arguments like his are good way to find out who the young ones are. At least then we can’t really expect them to know too much about the topic at hand.
> 2533274819302824;6088:
> It just dawned on me. Ocarina of Time, widely considered to be one of the best games ever, had clamber. On the Nintendo 64. In 1998.
>
> Yeah it looked fairly janky by modern standards. But those are by modern standards. Back then no one was expecting ultra-smooth 60FPS animations, and I’m sure three years later on the Xbox it would’ve been improved considerably. Also, none of this seemed to concern them when they added vehicle boarding with only the bare minimum of animation. So color me unconvinced.
>
> Furthermore, tell me OoT isn’t an “immersive” game despite its dated visuals. Go on.
>
> And if you don’t like that argument then here’s some climbing from an Xbox era game. Wouldn’t say it’s too bad for that era.
>
> TLDR:
> They damn well could’ve had clamber in Halo if they actually wanted to.
All kinds of games had climbing type animations back then. Usually 3rd person games. So the animations looking good was even more important.
> 2533274968707582;6085:
> > It’s a risk-reward type of change that does some good to Halo 5’s gameplay and map design.
>
>
> What are your stances on gravity lifts, man cannons, and teleporters? Because those mechanics served the exact same purpose as sprint with their own levels of risk-reward game play, while streamlining halo’s formula of constant combat and without needing to excessively stretch any geometry of average 4v4 maps.
I would say that sprinting should stay but have it be staggered or timed like in Halo Reach. The thrusters in this game has really changed the way Halo is played. Yes it is a mechanic but one of the reasons why its harder to kill someone. I can hold my own but with all the changes in this Halo, this is the first halo game that my KD ratio actually has decreased. All games are different but this one took a big branch from COD. This game was primarily built around war zone. I like being able to call in anything I want but with the decreased health and shield strength, I feel like I’m lacking. Keep sprint but have it staggered or timed
> 2533274819302824;6080:
> The -Yoink-? What does hardware have to do with gameplay mechanics? You guys seriously don’t believe there were games with clamber around the original xbox era?
>
> Definitely one of the weaker pro-sprint arguments I’ve heard.
>
> The lack of these mechanics back then wasn’t because it would be impossible to implement them. It was because developers either didn’t care about adding them or simply hadn’t thought about doing it.
>
>
>
>
> > If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
>
>
> And what the -Yoink- is that even supposed to mean?
The cool thing is, that’s your opinion. Just cause you say its a weak argument doesn’t mean there aren’t others that think it’s a great one. This thread was created and catered to the kind that don’t like these things. Regardless my point stands.
The games will progress, as you stated developers will get new ideas, and implement them into newer games and you will continue to complain and ask for those innovations to be removed. Instead, you could be offering critiques to improve them.
Why don’t you put in an application to 343 while your at it? Maybe you do have some great ideas but until you have a direct hand in the games creation nothing will change. You will just hinder it’s future.
> 2533274968707582;6085:
> > It’s a risk-reward type of change that does some good to Halo 5’s gameplay and map design.
>
>
> What are your stances on gravity lifts, man cannons, and teleporters? Because those mechanics served the exact same purpose as sprint with their own levels of risk-reward game play, while streamlining halo’s formula of constant combat and without needing to excessively stretch any geometry of average 4v4 maps.
That’s not even bringing up the complete destruction of the Golden Triangle because of Sprint. It fundamentally changes the way that encounters occur, and that drastically changes the game.
> 2533274800772611;6096:
> > 2533274968707582;6085:
> > > It’s a risk-reward type of change that does some good to Halo 5’s gameplay and map design.
> >
> >
> > What are your stances on gravity lifts, man cannons, and teleporters? Because those mechanics served the exact same purpose as sprint with their own levels of risk-reward game play, while streamlining halo’s formula of constant combat and without needing to excessively stretch any geometry of average 4v4 maps.
>
>
> That’s not even bringing up the complete destruction of the Golden Triangle because of Sprint. It fundamentally changes the way that encounters occur, and that drastically changes the game.
Grav lifts, man cannons, teleporters. Gameplay wise, they remain the same as Sprint. But they don’t work with immersion purposes. Grav lifts and man cannons can exist in a game with sprint.
Golden Triangle. The triangle Bungie broke multiple times before throwing it out the window completely with Halo Reach? I understand the concept of guns, grenades, melee. I still feel like dual wielding gets in the way of this theory, as well as equipment. If you were to say that it just meant each part of the triangle was about being always on the offensive, then I’d argue that Halo 5 does that with sprint. I’ve never found the triangle to be a good argument, as the people that created it seemingly didn’t care about it at all. Halo was once described as 30 seconds of fun, over and over again. I think it still fits that description. But that’s a purely subjective description of Halo.
> 2533274795123910;6082:
> > 2533274811492694;6078:
> > I just want to say one this. Gameplay back then in the older games was limited to what you could do because of hardware limitations. Now we have allot more options in what we can do. You guys are telling me, when they can plug you into the computer like the matrix, you’re gonna still want to walk at the same speed at all times? If you said yes to that then I guess you guys are also the type that enjoys Minecraft for hours on end.
> >
> > Gameplay will change as hardware changes. They are parallel with each other. If you wanted the same halo as back in the day then that’s what you guys should ask for. Maybe they should support halo 2 and just keep coming out with DLC’s to add on to the game for you guys that can’t stop complaining about what the company is doing. “I don’t like sprint” “I don’t like armor abilities” “I don’t like the new weapon skins” “I don’t like anything that’s new or remotely innovative”.
> >
> > The thing is 343 isn’t making the game just for you. They have to sell this game to the new generations as well. Adding new features is a method of doing that. As soon as sprint is removed, I guarantee there would be allot more of an uproar.
>
>
> Okay then, what kind of technological marvel has been developed in the last two decades that enable the mechanics we see today?
Umm, what? You seemed to have missed the point. The thing is you highlighted it yourself. “GAMEPLAY” doesn’t isolate it to mechanics. Gameplay is everything, physics, mechanics, graphics, movements, animations and more. That’s everything.
But highlight two sentences out of a post and make that your argument when there’s a whole point to be made. That’s called selective reading.
In any one on one, shoot grenade melee still applies, sure there are a few variables now with the abilities and sprint in how you engage but Its still at the core of any gunfight and still the most useful tool set at your disposal to win any battles in H5. Sprint to put it simply is for map traversal. Now you could argue if its a relevant/necessary and or a positive inclusion and I would be inclined to agree but surely dual wielding broke the scared “golden triangle” more than sprint ever could ?
> 2533274819302824;6088:
> It just dawned on me. Ocarina of Time, widely considered to be one of the best games ever, had clamber. On the Nintendo 64. In 1998.
>
> Yeah it looked fairly janky by modern standards. But those are by modern standards. Back then no one was expecting ultra-smooth 60FPS animations, and I’m sure three years later on the Xbox it would’ve been improved considerably. Also, none of this seemed to concern them when they added vehicle boarding with only the bare minimum of animation. So color me unconvinced.
>
> Furthermore, tell me OoT isn’t an “immersive” game despite its dated visuals. Go on.
>
> And if you don’t like that argument then here’s some climbing from an Xbox era game. Wouldn’t say it’s too bad for that era.
>
> TLDR:
> They damn well could’ve had clamber in Halo if they actually wanted to.
I mean, so did Super Mario 64. It’s not like animating actions besids running and jumping is new in any way. That’s not really the point. The original argument which initiated this discussion was “gameplay will change as hardware changes”. It’s not really about whether we could implement mechanically similar abilities with less sophisticated animations if we wanted to, but it’s about the fact that better technology allows developers to implement richer motion and interaction for the player. As such, mechanics that rely heavily on animation become more attractive for developers as time goes on.
You don’t have to like it or agree with the approach, but denying the fact that technology is a significant influence on gameplay design would just be silly.