> 2533274943854776;6289:
> > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > >
> > >
> > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > >
> > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
>
>
> You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
Why do I keep getting comments like these, telling me that complexity doesn’t necessarily add depth? Yes, I agree, only add specific complexities if it compliments depth. Trust me, I understand. Adding clamber to CE would be a bad idea because the maps aren’t designed around that feature.
> 2535454426512730;6290:
> I wrote about thread about how 343 could compromise sprint, but it got locked and monitor told me to discuss it right here. This is my ideal to sprint as neutral player on the topic. What do you guys think?
>
> My ideal to sprint:
>
> - Players never lower their weapon, which means players can shoot, melee, and grenade while sprinting.
> - When “sprinting”, players go faster obviously.
> - When “sprinting”, the sensitivity becomes lowest setting in the game to make hard to turn or look around, which makes player heading to pretty much one direction. (maybe even lower than the lowest sensitivity. As a player who uses 1~2 sensitivity, it is not hard for me to turn or look around, so I think it has to be lower than the lowest sensitivity. There should be specific low sensitivity for this.)
> - If player melee enemy player while sprinting, that player goes to assassination animation for about three seconds. The player who has been assassinated have two seconds to survive from the assassination, if teammate saves that player by killing the player who tried to assassinate. This will replace Spartan Charge and will have consequence for doing it.
> - If player pressed crouch button, it goes to slide like it is now.
> - The shield recharge bit slower while sprinting.
I’m sorry but this is just a straight up horrible set of ideas.
> 2533274895603860;6302:
> > 2533274943854776;6289:
> > > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > > >
> > > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
> >
> >
> > You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
>
>
> Why do I keep getting comments like these, telling me that complexity doesn’t necessarily add depth? Yes, I agree, only add specific complexities if it compliments depth. Trust me, I understand. Adding clamber to CE would be a bad idea because the maps aren’t designed around that feature.
“Just let people shoot while sprinting, maybe with an accuracy penalty.”
Sprinting prevents strafing, which not only helps in combat but also -Yoink!- you in lining up shots.
Sprinting is limited to a forward cone, obviously you can’t sprint sideways. If you aim too far outside of that cone too quickly then you will stop sprinting. Good luck tracking strafing targets.
Then throw on random recoil and accuracy penalties just because people have to be penalized for moving…for some reason…
Even if you could shoot while sprinting it would not be particularly practical.
> 2535456165221911;6300:
> > 2535442956515589;6299:
> > > 2535456165221911;6297:
> > > > 2535442956515589;6296:
> > > > This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> > > > *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > > > How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
> > >
> > >
> > > How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
> >
> >
> > The title of this thread alone is a cry for attention, Halo isn’t about not having sprint, it’s about innovating the series in a way that adds a unique touch to it that makes it different, here’s how Halo’s Sprint when introduced (Reach) differs from CoD’s Sprint:
> >
> > 1) Halo Sprint was not built in for most gamemodes
> >
> > 2) Halo Sprint was not infinite, it had about a 15 second timer
> >
> > 3) Halo maps were not made to revolve solely around sprint.
> >
> > Now see I can agree Halo 5’s sprint system should go, I think if anything we should have Reach’s sprint system, as it was well better made. Your sprint meter runs out, you need to let it recharge, you corner yourself oh well, you need to make a jump too far to normally make, sprint jump to the rescue! The thing is Halo 5’s sprint is unbalanced BECAUSE the gameplay revolves around it.
>
>
> You want sprint to be removed from Halo, if it is going to be like Halo 5’s. Reguardless of your side, you shouldn’t just call people or post troll when it’s just about they expressing their opinion. I still don’t see how this is a troll post.
No I don’t want sprint removed from Halo, I want it to be less important true, but I still want it to exist, much like it did in Reach.
> 2535442956515589;6306:
> > 2535456165221911;6300:
> > > 2535442956515589;6299:
> > > > 2535456165221911;6297:
> > > > > 2535442956515589;6296:
> > > > > This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> > > > > *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > > > > How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
> > >
> > >
> > > The title of this thread alone is a cry for attention, Halo isn’t about not having sprint, it’s about innovating the series in a way that adds a unique touch to it that makes it different, here’s how Halo’s Sprint when introduced (Reach) differs from CoD’s Sprint:
> > >
> > > 1) Halo Sprint was not built in for most gamemodes
> > >
> > > 2) Halo Sprint was not infinite, it had about a 15 second timer
> > >
> > > 3) Halo maps were not made to revolve solely around sprint.
> > >
> > > Now see I can agree Halo 5’s sprint system should go, I think if anything we should have Reach’s sprint system, as it was well better made. Your sprint meter runs out, you need to let it recharge, you corner yourself oh well, you need to make a jump too far to normally make, sprint jump to the rescue! The thing is Halo 5’s sprint is unbalanced BECAUSE the gameplay revolves around it.
> >
> >
> > You want sprint to be removed from Halo, if it is going to be like Halo 5’s. Reguardless of your side, you shouldn’t just call people or post troll when it’s just about they expressing their opinion. I still don’t see how this is a troll post.
>
>
> No I don’t want sprint removed from Halo, I want it to be less important true, but I still want it to exist, much like it did in Reach.
Why. What does it add to the gameplay. Why does Halo need it.
> 2533274808669104;5713:
> > 2533274818878819;5709:
> > > 2533274808669104;5387:
> > > > 2533274818878819;5384:
> > > > Who the hell cares about what the Halo vets think. Vets=whinny babies
> > >
> > >
> > > You need consumers to sell a product, without “vets” there would not be a halo 5 or halo 2 for that matter. “vets” have invested plenty time and $ into the franchise and their word is as good as some “noob” who just found out the franchise existed before 2012. Do you have anything to contribute?
> >
> >
> > You honestly do not need the halo vets anymore because there are so many new players coming in to basically replace the Halo vets and they will keep on buying the new Halo games.
>
>
> If you had any metric to back that up Id be surprised. Is your end game: people will buy a product they’ve never played before just because, and therefore the vets can bugger off?
> 2533274846700578;6307:
> > 2535442956515589;6306:
> > > 2535456165221911;6300:
> > > > 2535442956515589;6299:
> > > > > 2535456165221911;6297:
> > > > > > 2535442956515589;6296:
> > > > > > This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> > > > > > *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > > > > > How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The title of this thread alone is a cry for attention, Halo isn’t about not having sprint, it’s about innovating the series in a way that adds a unique touch to it that makes it different, here’s how Halo’s Sprint when introduced (Reach) differs from CoD’s Sprint:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Halo Sprint was not built in for most gamemodes
> > > >
> > > > 2) Halo Sprint was not infinite, it had about a 15 second timer
> > > >
> > > > 3) Halo maps were not made to revolve solely around sprint.
> > > >
> > > > Now see I can agree Halo 5’s sprint system should go, I think if anything we should have Reach’s sprint system, as it was well better made. Your sprint meter runs out, you need to let it recharge, you corner yourself oh well, you need to make a jump too far to normally make, sprint jump to the rescue! The thing is Halo 5’s sprint is unbalanced BECAUSE the gameplay revolves around it.
> > >
> > >
> > > You want sprint to be removed from Halo, if it is going to be like Halo 5’s. Reguardless of your side, you shouldn’t just call people or post troll when it’s just about they expressing their opinion. I still don’t see how this is a troll post.
> >
> >
> > No I don’t want sprint removed from Halo, I want it to be less important true, but I still want it to exist, much like it did in Reach.
>
>
> Why. What does it add to the gameplay. Why does Halo need it.
Because I like the movement it adds, it makes it so snipers can’t take you out as easily in an open area, it basically makes it harder to kill people, even if it is cheap, I like it.
> 2533274818878819;6308:
> > 2533274808669104;5713:
> > > 2533274818878819;5709:
> > > > 2533274808669104;5387:
> > > > > 2533274818878819;5384:
> > > > > Who the hell cares about what the Halo vets think. Vets=whinny babies
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You need consumers to sell a product, without “vets” there would not be a halo 5 or halo 2 for that matter. “vets” have invested plenty time and $ into the franchise and their word is as good as some “noob” who just found out the franchise existed before 2012. Do you have anything to contribute?
> > >
> > >
> > > You honestly do not need the halo vets anymore because there are so many new players coming in to basically replace the Halo vets and they will keep on buying the new Halo games.
> >
> >
> > If you had any metric to back that up Id be surprised. Is your end game: people will buy a product they’ve never played before just because, and therefore the vets can bugger off?
>
>
> Yes.
Did you know that the mcc, a game that had a botched launch, is still very buggy and sold at least less physical copies has currently more players online?
> 2535442956515589;6309:
> Because I like the movement it adds, it makes it so snipers can’t take you out as easily in an open area, it basically makes it harder to kill people, even if it is cheap, I like it.
Actually, it’s way more easy to snipe a sprinting player, since his movement speed and direction are pretty much locked in place by the mechanic, making it easier to follow him with the reticule and predict his position at any given time.
> 2533274801176260;6311:
> > 2535442956515589;6309:
> > Because I like the movement it adds, it makes it so snipers can’t take you out as easily in an open area, it basically makes it harder to kill people, even if it is cheap, I like it.
>
>
> Actually, it’s way more easy to snipe a sprinting player, since his movement speed and direction are pretty much locked in place by the mechanic, making it easier to follow him with the reticule and predict his position at any given time.
> 2535426262519166;6303:
> > 2535454426512730;6290:
> > I wrote about thread about how 343 could compromise sprint, but it got locked and monitor told me to discuss it right here. This is my ideal to sprint as neutral player on the topic. What do you guys think?
> >
> > My ideal to sprint:
> >
> > - Players never lower their weapon, which means players can shoot, melee, and grenade while sprinting.
> > - When “sprinting”, players go faster obviously.
> > - When “sprinting”, the sensitivity becomes lowest setting in the game to make hard to turn or look around, which makes player heading to pretty much one direction. (maybe even lower than the lowest sensitivity. As a player who uses 1~2 sensitivity, it is not hard for me to turn or look around, so I think it has to be lower than the lowest sensitivity. There should be specific low sensitivity for this.)
> > - If player melee enemy player while sprinting, that player goes to assassination animation for about three seconds. The player who has been assassinated have two seconds to survive from the assassination, if teammate saves that player by killing the player who tried to assassinate. This will replace Spartan Charge and will have consequence for doing it.
> > - If player pressed crouch button, it goes to slide like it is now.
> > - The shield recharge bit slower while sprinting.
>
>
> I’m sorry but this is just a straight up horrible set of ideas.
> 2533274943854776;6310:
> > 2533274818878819;6308:
> > > 2533274808669104;5713:
> > > > 2533274818878819;5709:
> > > > > 2533274808669104;5387:
> > > > > > 2533274818878819;5384:
> > > > > > Who the hell cares about what the Halo vets think. Vets=whinny babies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You need consumers to sell a product, without “vets” there would not be a halo 5 or halo 2 for that matter. “vets” have invested plenty time and $ into the franchise and their word is as good as some “noob” who just found out the franchise existed before 2012. Do you have anything to contribute?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You honestly do not need the halo vets anymore because there are so many new players coming in to basically replace the Halo vets and they will keep on buying the new Halo games.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you had any metric to back that up Id be surprised. Is your end game: people will buy a product they’ve never played before just because, and therefore the vets can bugger off?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> Did you know that the mcc, a game that had a botched launch, is still very buggy and sold at least less physical copies has currently more players online?
> Xbox Games Catalog: All Games | Xbox
Fanboys: “Xbox most popular list is glitcheed currently!”
While halo 6 should definitely ditch sprint, there are other things that need changed if it is to return to how it once was:
. Sprint should be removed, obviously, that is sort of the point of this thread.
.Along with sprint armor abilities should be removed as they add unnecessary complication to halo, which in my opinion should be simplistic in gameplay as it once was.
.The original art style needs to return. I have tired time and time again to find the classic halo feeling in halo 4 and 5 and despite my efforts I just cannot feel it. This is because the new art style in many ways just seems like some generic sci fi style.
.Better writing: at this point do I even have to explain?
.Earnable armor: such as the system with which armor was unlocked in halo 3. Every armor had meaning, and that should return.
.Better armor: Don’t get me wrong, halo 5 has some really good looking armors. However, assuming everything I have written down becomes true, better looking armors would be great. especially if they were designed around the classic art style.
> 2533274925633740;6316:
> While halo 6 should definitely ditch sprint, there are other things that need changed if it is to return to how it once was:
>
> . Sprint should be removed, obviously, that is sort of the point of this thread.
>
> .Along with sprint armor abilities should be removed as they add unnecessary complication to halo, which in my opinion should be simplistic in gameplay as it once was.
>
> .The original art style needs to return. I have tired time and time again to find the classic halo feeling in halo 4 and 5 and despite my efforts I just cannot feel it. This is because the new art style in many ways just seems like some generic sci fi style.
>
> .Better writing: at this point do I even have to explain?
>
> .Earnable armor: such as the system with which armor was unlocked in halo 3. Every armor had meaning, and that should return.
>
> .Better armor: Don’t get me wrong, halo 5 has some really good looking armors. However, assuming everything I have written down becomes true, better looking armors would be great. especially if they were designed around the classic art style.
> 2535463261337659;6317:
> > 2533274925633740;6316:
> > While halo 6 should definitely ditch sprint, there are other things that need changed if it is to return to how it once was:
> >
> > . Sprint should be removed, obviously, that is sort of the point of this thread.
> >
> > .Along with sprint armor abilities should be removed as they add unnecessary complication to halo, which in my opinion should be simplistic in gameplay as it once was.
> >
> > .The original art style needs to return. I have tired time and time again to find the classic halo feeling in halo 4 and 5 and despite my efforts I just cannot feel it. This is because the new art style in many ways just seems like some generic sci fi style.
> >
> > .Better writing: at this point do I even have to explain?
> >
> > .Earnable armor: such as the system with which armor was unlocked in halo 3. Every armor had meaning, and that should return.
> >
> > .Better armor: Don’t get me wrong, halo 5 has some really good looking armors. However, assuming everything I have written down becomes true, better looking armors would be great. especially if they were designed around the classic art style.
>
>
> So halo 3?
Well, sort of. However, all I did was mention things that should basically go back to the way they were. I am not opposed to certain things being added in, such as new game modes, enemy types, or even a replacement for the req system, so long as the things I listed made their way into the game.
> 2535463261337659;6319:
> What about all the people that actually like the new things, like sprint, clamber, thrusters, ground pound, and the req system? Just throw them aside?
Then they can play H5, as that is usually the excuse for people wanting the original feel of the game. “Go play the original games”.
> 2535463261337659;6317:
> > 2533274925633740;6316:
> > While halo 6 should definitely ditch sprint, there are other things that need changed if it is to return to how it once was:
> >
> > . Sprint should be removed, obviously, that is sort of the point of this thread.
> >
> > .Along with sprint armor abilities should be removed as they add unnecessary complication to halo, which in my opinion should be simplistic in gameplay as it once was.
> >
> > .The original art style needs to return. I have tired time and time again to find the classic halo feeling in halo 4 and 5 and despite my efforts I just cannot feel it. This is because the new art style in many ways just seems like some generic sci fi style.
> >
> > .Better writing: at this point do I even have to explain?
> >
> > .Earnable armor: such as the system with which armor was unlocked in halo 3. Every armor had meaning, and that should return.
> >
> > .Better armor: Don’t get me wrong, halo 5 has some really good looking armors. However, assuming everything I have written down becomes true, better looking armors would be great. especially if they were designed around the classic art style.
>
>
> So halo 3?
