> 2533274855279867;8347:
> > 2533274816931642;8333:
> > > 2533274855279867;8326:
> > > > 2533274816931642;8324:
> > > > > 2533274855279867;8248:
> > > > > > 2535429702231966;8243:
> > > > > > > 2533274855279867;8239:
> > > > > > > > 2533274819567236;8228:
> > > > > > > > > 2533274855279867;8227:
> > > > > > > > > > 2533274819567236;8226:
> > > > > > > > > > > 2535466914543129;8225:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2533274855279867;8224:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve seen footage, but never an official source for “pacing issues”. I’m curious what bungie was trying, because there are definitey parts of h2 campaign that would be great with sprint.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Bungie never came out and said that sprint ruins the pacing because if that was the case then why would they include it in Reach? The “claim” comes from a youtuber that claims to have spoken to a developer. Speaking of developers, who wants a new Halo dev?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It wouldn’t be hard to confirm whether or not he’s telling the truth. He told us the name of the employee who told him that. Had he simply said, “an ex-Bungie employee told me this” without mentioning a name, then there would be reason not to believe. Plus, there’s this, where one of the animators confirms it and provides closest thing to proof as one could. This isn’t some sort of conspiracy theory, it’s just about whether or not a mechanic was cut from a game from 12 years ago, there’s nothing to hide. Skeptical? Then go ask the employee yourself. Otherwise, it’s just denial.
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, Bungie was already mentally checked out by Reach. They used Reach as a testing ground for Destiny. Can’t say I’m surprised you hadn’t noticed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Denial? No one is denying that the animation exists or that it was created by Bungie. But the lack of source for why it was cut is the issue. Even if it was cut due to “pacing issue” what does that mean? Campaign pacing? Development Pacing? PvP pacing?
> > > > > > > > > Then to say that Reach doesn’t count is just as much of a denial. It seems to me, given the quote you link to about bungie being slammed with Halo 3, they solved their “pacing issues” satisfactorily with reach. You could then contend that Halo 2 and possibly 3 would have had sprint had the solution been available earlier.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I said, go ask the employee.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’ll just call him right up… oh yeah. He said it was nonsense. Sprint was scrapped because Microsoft wanted halo to remain unique from other shooters. It had nothing to do with pacing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I can gather, there was no reason given by the developers to why it was cut in Halo 2. It is more logical that it was cut was because of pacing and how it could influence gameplay. It being scrapped because of Microsoft is more logical today with how 343 and Microsoft work than Bungie and Microsoft back in the early 2000s. Unless either side calls up a developer, then both sides don’t have a complete argument, but logically the anti-sprint camp has more logical arguments to remove sprint, than anyone wanting sprint to stay. Not to mention there is a large group of people against sprint, and many of the polls even show there is more of a stance against sprint than for it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was being facetious when I invoked Microsoft. I don’t doubt that pacing is the reason, but we have no idea what pacing means in this context. It could have been the pacing of development, or triggered events in the levels, or the times it took to travel on certain levels and how that interacted with the music… etc etc etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > To argue that pacing must mean the flow of PvP is unfounded.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You could avoid having to explain yourself by stating that you’re playing Devil’s Advocate.
> > > >
> > > > To argue that pacing must refer to campaign design is equally unfounded.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure. Which is why I never suggested that it MUST refer to anything. A more careful reading would make my position clearer I believe. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was playing the Devil’s Advocate with the way I phrase things.
> >
> >
> > I didn’t realize that you were playing Devil’s Advocate when we first spoke. It was only after you revealed that I didn’t know what your actual position was that I realized what you were doing. If I hadn’t had that experience, then I wouldn’t have recognized it here. What is clear to you is not always apparent to others, especially when all they have to go on is text from someone who is a stranger to them. You do a disservice to your efforts by not demonstrating transparency. There are all kinds of people out there, including those who fail to think for themselves. Don’t act surprised when you are mistaken for one such person because of how you come across.
> >
> > Actually, your series of arguments indirectly supports the notion that pacing must mean campaign design. Why not simply state what you think it might be, and why you think it might be that? Anything outside of that simply clutters up the dialogue.
>
>
> quoth myself, “It could have been the pacing of development…”
>
> Could have been. Not must have been. You might be a stranger to me, but the text is there. And, for the most part, the meaning of the words I use is clear and unambiguous. The issue is not my choice of words, but rather the reading of them. I am never surprised when someone fails to read properly… but always saddened.
>
> As for the indirect support of campaign design… I suppose that makes more sense to me after putting thought into it. It was not an opinion I had formed when I first queried what Bungie was doing during development. I might argue it now, but aside from a sense given by how early the animations for sprint were created as well as their mode of initiation (they turn on after a few moments of moving forward was what I think the video said was the original design- that sounds like a campaign thing more than PvP if we consider maps sizes) we don’t have much to go on. It could just as well been a campaign choice to include sprint that was later nixed when the multiplayer guys said, “Pacing issues campaign guys. You just made a bunch of pacing issues.”
Bringing up the point that the pacing could’ve been entirely related to the campaign’s design, and not providing the support for the opposing side, would be arguing for the former. Defining terms is important in a debate, yes, but the way that you are going about it muddles those definitions. Could the pacing problems have been related to the campaign? Yes. Could they have been related to PvP? Yes. Do we know one way or another? No. So how can we use that information constructively? I would argue that the best approach would be openly discussing the potential implications of sprint in classic Halo gameplay, on classic Halo maps/levels. I can’t imagine sprint on Lockout, I would’ve never used it. My point is that Devil’s Advocate has its place, when it’s done well.
I think that you would be wise to acknowledge that your word choice could affect how the rest of your words are read. Poor communication arises from two possible things: the speaker failing to be clear, and the listener failing to understand. I understood what you were trying to do, because of our previous interaction. Others, obviously didn’t.
Why would it be a campaign-only thing? Who’s to say that Bungie wouldn’t have designed multiplayer maps that meshed with such a game mechanic? Why did they wait until Reach to introduce it? Finally, can’t Campaign, Arena, and Warzone all have different game mechanics, and still work? Why, or why not?