> 2535430546770643;8030:
> > 2533274855279867;8027:
> > > 2535430546770643;8024:
> > > > 2533274855279867;7981:
> > > > > 2535430546770643;7926:
> > > > > > 2533274855279867;7924:
> > > > > > > 2533274816931642;7909:
> > > > > > > > 2533274855279867;7878:
> > > > > > > > i dont mean that these things cant exist, but that they dont always make sense. Narrows is a fine map, so was beaver creek. But there are a number of maps where these two things would be out of place.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As an aside, the teleporters on beaver creek were not about crossing large spaces, they were about tactics and multiple pathways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > An example of an awkward teleporter is headlong. There is no reason for it in the original. Its out of place in the city setting. A man cannon is likewise not appropriate thematically, hence the remake using an engine of a crashed vehicle. you can only get so far with this kind of stuff before you really start limiting the kinds of large maps and spaces you can create and still feel natural.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That’s fair, but do you think that sprint is the best answer? Why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You’re right about that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That teleporter wasn’t awkward during objective games, like One Bomb Assault, or Two Flag CTF. It wasn’t put there for the map to feel more natural, it was there to provide tactics for objective-based gametypes. The only slayer variant that worked well with Headlong was Snipers. High Ground was another asymmetrical map that was objective-focused, but it was smaller, and much more linear. The teleporters on Wetworks were tactical and natural: they were one route, of several, that you could take the flag, and they made sense. As for the creative limit of teleporters and man-cannons, I don’t feel that it has been reached, by a longshot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do I think Sprint is the best answer for what? Creating large maps that can support a great number of people but for which teleporters, mancannons, and/or vehicles might not be the best solution? Then yeah… the set up sorta puts sprint as the best solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That shouldn’t be the question you ask though. the issue is if sprint is good for the Halo that 343 has created and will likely create. And my answer to that is, again, the problems we have are not necessarily sprints fault. Rather, they are a failing of 343 to create ideal maps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But still, we haven’t gotten to the heart of the matter. What we should be asking: Is 343 capable of incorporating sprint into a halo game and still maintain the level of quality we’ve come to expect?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To this I would answer, “Probably not.”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yet… is this even the issue? Would 343 be able to create a halo without sprint that manages to recapture the feel and fun of the originals? Again, I don’t think Sprint is the issue. I rather think what we’re seeing is an inherent problem with taking an IP and giving it to another group. Passions and Visions change and so the product is going to be a very different beast no matter what you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will say that I think 343 has done admirably with weapon balance. I thought Halo 4 played very well under the right settings (umm… get that ordnance crap outta there! Instant respawn? GARBAGE!!!), but suffered from maps that were uninspired at best (though I think a couple were verging on being decent. I couldn’t name them though). Halo 5 is much the same. Despite the gameplay, overhaul I still think we’re dealing with subpar maps. I don’t know what their process is, but its not putting out the same stuff as Bungie did. Even the “boring maps” of halo 2- colossus and burial grounds are two that come to mind- were wonderful with the right gametypes and could be fantastic playgrounds for the gameplay of halo 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, is the teleporter in Headlong awkward? Yes. Not gameplay wise, but thematically. What business does a teleporter have sitting in the middle of a construction zone? Can we justify the existence of these things? Sure. Forerunners and covenant tech can explain away a lot… but what in the world are man cannons doing in the middle of the Halo 5 warzone maps? These things would kill just about any non-spartan that uses them. Sure they play well, but now we’ve already started hitting walls where the coherence of gameplay and theme breaks down. We’ve seen two games where 343 can’t create a standout map.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but yeah… lets blame sprint for ruining halo rather than consider that the IP just isn’t going to survive the changeover well
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sprint was here and a major issue before 343 took over.
> > > > >
> > > > > Big maps would work fine with a high BMS. In fact they would work better because not only would they be large but they would be scaled in such a way that would eliminate the “no man’s land” areas that plague big maps in sprint halo games.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > nonsense. Sprint was not a major problem (good luck qualifying that term satisfactorily), and dead zones appear in just about any large map. Sidewinder had plenty of spaces that were barren. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to sprint.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was most definitely a large issue. The MLG playlist saw a 10x jump in population when sprint was removed. What kind of logic would suggest it was a major issue in h4 and h5 but not in Reach? That makes no sense. Sorry if it destroys your revisionist history lesson.
> > >
> > > Maps like sidewinder had areas designed for vechile play. That’s not the same as large deadzones areas that are designed for foot traffic.
> >
> >
> > you dont think mlg jumped because the list more closely resembled previous halos? no AA’s at all (edit: as ladouts. I know they were pickups). no bloom? map selection? Please lets talk revisionist history.
> >
> > Yes sidewinder is vehicular. So what maps have such dead zones that you think were intended for intense combat and not thoroughfare?
>
>
> It literally changed over night to ZBNS and saw a 10x population jump. Was some of that due to no bloom? No question. But to assert that NONE of it was because of sprint going is just straight up ridiculous. Don’t be silly.
>
> Look no further than h5’s viking. H3’s Valhalla was a vechile and foot traffic friendly map. Viking has massssssive deadzones that can hardly be traversed at all. Games are way more stagnant on viking than they were on Valhalla because of the map scaling.
I never said none of that was sprint- i don’t know if you’re strawman’ing me, stating the obvious, or simply misreading. Now, I have no doubts that there were people who disliked sprint. But to laud the 10x increase in a Sprint debate is disingenuous at best. My suspicion was that bloom played the biggest part of it, followed by the AA’s and then map selection. Reach played really well without bloom, as it turns out, more so with the right settings.
I’ll have to look up viking. the recent halo games have been so bland that I really couldn’t name a single map… (y’know its that one map with the stuff and the thing…). The thing about it now isn’t that sprint is causing these dead zones, but that 343 can’t manage to design a map that plays exceptionally. My guess is that they intended some of these areas to be more empty and only act as a path or region in-between other zones. That isn’t sprint, thats 343 making maps larger simply by making empty space. There is nothing about sprint that necessitates large empty space.