> 2533274880931322;7531:
> The new sprinting system needs to stay in Halo because times have changed and gaming is not what it use to be, if other shooter games didnt implement the sprinting system in the past then Halo would of stayed the same because Halo would of had no other movement mechanics to compete against, but because times have changed most games have evolved from their original state, Halo had to take that change in order to be a relevant game, and please dont Say"iv played Halo since Halo CE and that was a great game without sprinting" i would say true but that’s because times where different back then for games. Halo needs to keep its modern element or its going to be regarded as a old shooter with nothing new to it except its story and graphics. Halo has taken this change for the better because i feel like iv had the most fun with Halo 5 compared to other Halo games.
Then why are newer shooters now coming out with no sprint?
Also, some shooters (Here’s a CSGO example - http://www.pcgamer.com/csgo-patch-notes-nerf-tec-9/) have reverted changes in the newer game because they realized that the older game’s mechanics worked better, were more fun, and had better impact in the competitive scene.
Keeping the same game year after year (looking at you EAsports titles) can work. Making improvements, or evolution, in gameplay can also happen. But when the game begins to not “feel” like it’s original intent, then it’s time to evaluate if the evolution of the game is healthy. You can do that by asking these three questions
-
What has changed?
2. How do these changes have secondary effects to other aspects of the game? <strong>3. Can we accomplish our overall goals without Insert change from question 1 here?</strong>In the case of sprint, sprint has secondary effects on almost all aspects of gameplay. At it’s core, a shooter is really defined by it’s movement, and it’s TTK. These two points seem to be the root for all shooters.
So,
IF sprint changes so many aspects of game play that the feel of halo isn’t true to it’s roots. Then the question becomes can we accomplish the overall goal of having faster more dynamic pacing/movement WITHOUT having sprint?
I believe that yes, you can have more dynamic pacing and movement without sprint. By setting a standard movement speed, you can design maps more easily to fit this sandbox. Having sprint adds another variable to the map design sandbox that ends up being the most important variable.
A map designer can’t assume everyone will sprint whenever possible. But at the same time, the map designer MUST take into account the possibility of someone sprinting all the time. Designing a map that allows sprinters to dominate practically forces everyone to sprint in order to play the map the way that yields the best results. By having movement speed standard, the designer can correctly assume the intent of the player from a movement perspective because…well…its standard. The designer can also assume that if a person chooses to not move at the standard movement speed, then the player must being doing so for a tactical advantage.
You can use the above arguments for Pro-sprint as well. But my counter to this would be - What is the standardize speed that the designer should use to design his/her map? A map might be designed with sprint in mind, or a designer may make something that they intend for sprint to be used sparingly. But a core concept of good game design is that the original intent may not be what the player does. The designer must make a sandbox that is easy to balance when the player doesn’t do what was intended.
Edit forgot to answer my own question
