The sprint discussion thread

[Luke_Pawlowski]

> 2533274846068053;8429:
> Sprint has made this game relevant again. I agree that there is more skill involved with no sprinting because having to be able to land shots under pressure, however I believe the sprint and the thruster ability has made this game so great. This has been the best online competitive halo since halo 3.

What? Generic gameplay is what has hurt the series. Sprint is a big part of that. The only reason that 343i have given for sprint being in the game is that “players expect it now”. They are making the game generic on purpose. It’s killing the core fan base. No one that likes CoD, or Battlefield, or any other game that has sprint is going to leave their favorite series to come play Halo because it has sprint now. That doesn’t make any sense. Look at the sales for Halo 5. No one likes the game. It’s time for 343i to stop alienating their core to try to pull over nobody.

[TheDempsey115]

Perhaps making sprint the way it was in Reach would be a good alternative.

[tsassi]

> 2535450703392903;8438:
> > 2533274928710760;8422:
> > > 2535443674201980;8421:
> > > I wish I could sprint faster, slide faster, and boost further. It feels incredible to move so quickly and fluidly. I enjoy every aspect of the H5 fast pace. If anything, get rid of slowing me to a crawl when I take a bullet in the shield.
> >
> >
> > I think the sliding mechanic in Titanfall 2 where you gain momentum by sliding down slopes should be implemented in Halo 6. Check it out if you don’t know what i mean.
>
>
> They already had that in H5.
>
> 343 removed it.

To be frank, given an appropriately steep slope, this mechanic has always been in Halo (though probably not in a way the user you quoted was thinking). This is a great example of one of those situations where you don’t actually need to add a new ability to implement a mechanic. Using slopes to translate vertical momentum into horizontal (and, in fact, horizontal momentum into vertical) is a great idea. Its use is restricted to locations where there is an appropriately sloped surface around, and is therefore under complete control of the map designer. It creates paths on the map that aren’t immediately obvious to the player and require effort and ingenuity to find, and experience to learn.

However, the first place to go wrong with this mechanic is to think that it should be available to the player at any moment (like sliding when it’s generally executed in shooters), and that it needs to be a separate ability. None of this is needed. In most games, surface friction disappears when the slope goes beyond a certain angle. Moreover, when falling, a collision with any slope translates vertical momentum into horizontal momentum. Using these facts, players can use natural slopes on maps (even the edges of railings are generally enough) to increase their jump distance, and by repeated jumping move faster than standard movement speed. If the map designer is aware of this, they can design maps in such a way that a player jumping from a right angle gains access to routes inaccessible by normal means. When maps are designed properly with this in mind, this simple feature of the game’s physics engine can elevate movement in the game to a whole no level without requiring the developer to specifically design any new abilities.

What’s more, coupled with a horizontal boost mechanic, such as Evade in Reach, this feature of slopes can actually be used to significantly incerase the player’s potential jump height given an appropriate slope. For example, I challenge anyone to try to get to the top of the vents on Powerhouse using only Evade. In principle, any horizontal boost can be implemented in such a way that it makes this possible. This is actually why I hold Evade (and Thruster Pack to some extent) to higher regard than any of the other armor/Spartan abilities attempted over the years.

Of course, all of this requires you to accept that great game design doesn’t come from designing new gameplay mechanics, but finding innovative uses for old ones, and that this is enough to evolve gameplay. But I’m afraid that this is a philosophy that’s too difficult for many people to accept.

[BRIAN_TYRANT]

Personally I would prefer no change to the gameplay mechanic’s whatsoever at this point in time, as I see nothing at all wrong with it. Thing is you change one thing to suit one group of fans, you ruin it for another. I’ve been playing since the release of CE and have more experience with the franchise than most, sure I hate how halo 5s armor customization is limited compared to reach and 4, and I also hate the lack of spawnable ai in forge, or at least a wider range of human bodies, (Spartans and marines) or even straight up flyable pelicans instead of a vehicle glitch being supported instead. However those are things I’d like to see in the future and they by no means have an effect on my enjoyment of the game. But the mechanics, they are solid in my opinion

[Lorient_Avandi]

> 2533274795123910;8420:
> > 2533274913913392;8408:
> > Halo 3
> > 50 - Sandtrap (longways)
> > 40 - Sandtrap (shortways)
> > 57 - Valhalla
> > 30 - Heretic
> > 16 - The Pit
> > 39 - Standoff
> > Halo 2
> > 45 - Headlong
> > Halo 5
> > 27 - Guillotine (Headlong) - sprinting
> > 35 - Guillotine (Headlong) - walking
> > 27.5 - Truth (Heretic) -sprinting
> > 37 - Truth (Heretic) - walking
> > 29.5 - Deadlock (Standoff) - sprinting
> > 38 - Deadlock (Standoff) - walking
> > 39 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Sprinting
> > 50 -Altar- Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Walking
> > 20 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Sprinting
> > 25 - Altar0Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Walking
> > 46 - Viking -Valhalla (Remake) - Sprinting
> > 60 - Viking - Valhalla (Remake) - Walking
> > 9 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Sprinting
> > 11.5 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Walking
> > Halo 4
> > 34 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > 41.5 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Limited Sprinting
> > 55 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Walking
> > 9 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > 10.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Limited Sprinting
> > 14.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Walking
> >
> > So overall it depends on the map, but it takes about the same time to walk across most of the maps, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, in Halo 4 and 5 as it did in 2 and 3. Sprint legitimately speeds up the time it takes to get from one point to another on a map. It is not just an illusion.
>
>
> Good job.
>
> Are these averages from many runs on one map? Say ten runs. Or did you run once flawless run and take the time? From what point of the maps, to where on the same map are you running? Do you take a special route where you can’t make it in a straight line?
>
> Also, Ragnarok and Pitfall are 1:1 remakes of Valhalla and The Pit.
>
> Now then, let’s start.
>
> Illusion, yes and no. If you take a map, design it around base movement speed only, and then after that throw in a sprint function that increases your speed by 30%, then you cross the map faster. Even if we take a sprint game with maps designed around sprint, in that case you get across a map faster than not sprinting.
>
> However, considering that maps are designed around the mechanics present in a game, you’ll see that it is the map designer who is in charge of how fast you get places, regardless of what mechanics are present. Sprint only allows you to cross a map relatively faster than not sprinting in the same game. Clamber does not allow you to reach places that are not intended to be reached, outside of glitches and oversights of course.
>
> Let’s take Haven, Halo 4’s smallest launch map and compare travel times with Halo 3’s Guardian. Quite consistent in travel times despite Halo 4’s sprint speed being faster than Halo 3’s BMS. Time wise they’re close, in size, far from close.
>
> In this case, Haven is rather large for being Halo 4’s smallest launch map, only Skyline is smaller, and not by a lot, compared to atleast Guardian in Halo 3.
>
> So, you get places as fast as the map designer intends you to, in this sense, sprint is an illusion.
>
> As for Pitfall and Ragnarok, i343 deemed that these maps were managable with sprint. Valhalla being a vehicle map and The Pit not being small in the first place. Neither of them however played like their previous counter parts.
>
> The map size increase is generally meant for smaller maps, not large BTB maps feautring vehicles, because vehicles themselves allow players to cross a map even faster than sprint. Take a fast vehicle on any map and you’ll reach any place faster than an infantry person.
>
> PS: How is truth in the same league as Headlong??? I don’t recall truth being that large or headlong that small. I don’t recall any times in the leagues of 20 seconds when a moderator made a more thorough run through of truth and compared it to midship.

Truth and heretic I did by walking across the entire outer ring, those 2 I didn’t just go from point a to b. I started and ended in the same spot. And I did each run once or twice cuz I didn’t have a ton of time. But I took the same path for the various maps. I don’t know how to explain where I started and ended in each map, not all were straight lines. If I knew how to shoe you my Xbox dvr I would.

[pajama_dad]

> 2533274816931642;8355:
> > 2533274855279867;8325:
> > > 2533274819567236;8262:
> > > > 2533274855279867;8259:
> > > > in denial of what? What am I denying? Asking a question is not denial. Rather, I’m very curious about the design choices and plans for h2 and would like to know more. but I’m not going to bother the guy. You think the art director is going to have intimate knowledge of the design of sprint so many years later? Memories fail. Art directors direct art. i could tweet him, but to what end? to find out he vaguely remembers that it was a problem with pacing and he didnt have to work on the animations any longer? Had there been more information you’d think we’d have heard about it already… you know, since someone already contacted the guy regarding the animations and posted a video on youtube about it and all we got was “pacing issues”
> > > >
> > > > Based on the available information its unlikely we can get anything more definitive than “pacing issues”
> > >
> > >
> > > In denial of what the reason was for sprint getting cut. If you’re gonna suggest he meant something else, then prove it. You’re just making excuses in case you’re wrong. If you won’t back up what you believe, then there’s nothing more to discuss on that video.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274855279867;8260:
> > > > > 2533274819567236;8252:
> > > > > > 2535466914543129;8250:
> > > > > > I can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that a -Yoinking!- mechanic is your main priority when story and quality content are what makes games great. I don’t want to have to this but if you make me I’ll get you an intervention.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gameplay is more important than both of those things.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > depends on the kind of game. Witcher 3 has arguably boring combat compared to something flashy like DmC… but combat isnt why you play witcher. Story and content can be the gameplay, as we see in the telltale games.
> > >
> > >
> > > For an FPS, gameplay is more important. Whoa, who would’ve thought that’s the genre I was talking about?
> >
> >
> > I don’t believe anything about the video. I think you’re imposing stuff onto me.
> >
> > As for gameplay being more important in an FPS… snarky though you are, completely correct you are not. Both are what made halo as popular as it is. Fallout 4 is very much a shooter, but it is getting a lot of heat for its lack of story and content. Borderlands the Presequel has fantastic borderlands styled gameplay, but it was knocked because it lacked the content and story of number 2.
> >
> > Oh, and halo 5 has really great gameplay (preferences not with standing), but it gets hit hard by a lot of players for its story and content.
> >
> > See how much good that snark did you? Not much. The fact is gameplay is comprised of a lot of different parts- including story. I think you mean to refer to the shooting mechanics in a FPS taking priority over the story line. And that is a matter of opinion.
>
>
> The next Fallout could build on the solid gameplay that 4 has. Fallout 3 was completely different from its predecessors.
>
> Borderlands the Presequel, oh man, don’t even go there. There was A LOT more wrong than the limited content. The gameplay had been completely changed, you had to replay the entire story to farm for specific weapons. There were a handful of one-time only drops in Borderlands 2, and they were nothing special. There were also weapon nerfs, and–just don’t go there. They made the only reasonably farmable boss stop dropping Legendaries, which people were using in order to moongrind in an attempt to get the weapons that you had to replay the story to get… STAHP!
>
> I, for one, enjoyed learning about Jack.

I’ve played Fallout 4 on one of my character for about 4 days and most of that was just exploring the world. I felt the RPG aspects of the game were far too few and far less meaningful than in previous games. So yeah, take the awesome shooting and give me some more of the roleplaying and story and I’m sold.

And your point about the Presequel gameplay is very relevant to this- gameplay is more than just shooting. Presequel had great shooting. The boosting and butt-slamming and character trees were fantastic. But the loot grind was not as good as before. The story was ok. I think it was very enjoyable, but not as complete a package. All in all I was really disappointed that the handsome collection didn’t integrate the two games. Let me take my Borderlands 2 characters and explore Elpis. Let me take Athena down to Pandora. How great would it be to have Roland talking to Roland in Moxxy’s bar? Or have Claptrap attending Claptrap’s Birthday? Or have Jack not have to go through the trouble of getting himself to imitate Jack? That would have been HOT!

[pajama_dad]

> 2533274913913392;8446:
> > 2533274795123910;8420:
> > > 2533274913913392;8408:
> > > Halo 3
> > > 50 - Sandtrap (longways)
> > > 40 - Sandtrap (shortways)
> > > 57 - Valhalla
> > > 30 - Heretic
> > > 16 - The Pit
> > > 39 - Standoff
> > > Halo 2
> > > 45 - Headlong
> > > Halo 5
> > > 27 - Guillotine (Headlong) - sprinting
> > > 35 - Guillotine (Headlong) - walking
> > > 27.5 - Truth (Heretic) -sprinting
> > > 37 - Truth (Heretic) - walking
> > > 29.5 - Deadlock (Standoff) - sprinting
> > > 38 - Deadlock (Standoff) - walking
> > > 39 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Sprinting
> > > 50 -Altar- Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Walking
> > > 20 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Sprinting
> > > 25 - Altar0Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Walking
> > > 46 - Viking -Valhalla (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > 60 - Viking - Valhalla (Remake) - Walking
> > > 9 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > 11.5 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Walking
> > > Halo 4
> > > 34 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > 41.5 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Limited Sprinting
> > > 55 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Walking
> > > 9 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > 10.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Limited Sprinting
> > > 14.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Walking
> > >
> > > So overall it depends on the map, but it takes about the same time to walk across most of the maps, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, in Halo 4 and 5 as it did in 2 and 3. Sprint legitimately speeds up the time it takes to get from one point to another on a map. It is not just an illusion.
> >
> >
> > Good job.
> >
> > Are these averages from many runs on one map? Say ten runs. Or did you run once flawless run and take the time? From what point of the maps, to where on the same map are you running? Do you take a special route where you can’t make it in a straight line?
> >
> > Also, Ragnarok and Pitfall are 1:1 remakes of Valhalla and The Pit.
> >
> > Now then, let’s start.
> >
> > Illusion, yes and no. If you take a map, design it around base movement speed only, and then after that throw in a sprint function that increases your speed by 30%, then you cross the map faster. Even if we take a sprint game with maps designed around sprint, in that case you get across a map faster than not sprinting.
> >
> > However, considering that maps are designed around the mechanics present in a game, you’ll see that it is the map designer who is in charge of how fast you get places, regardless of what mechanics are present. Sprint only allows you to cross a map relatively faster than not sprinting in the same game. Clamber does not allow you to reach places that are not intended to be reached, outside of glitches and oversights of course.
> >
> > Let’s take Haven, Halo 4’s smallest launch map and compare travel times with Halo 3’s Guardian. Quite consistent in travel times despite Halo 4’s sprint speed being faster than Halo 3’s BMS. Time wise they’re close, in size, far from close.
> >
> > In this case, Haven is rather large for being Halo 4’s smallest launch map, only Skyline is smaller, and not by a lot, compared to atleast Guardian in Halo 3.
> >
> > So, you get places as fast as the map designer intends you to, in this sense, sprint is an illusion.
> >
> > As for Pitfall and Ragnarok, i343 deemed that these maps were managable with sprint. Valhalla being a vehicle map and The Pit not being small in the first place. Neither of them however played like their previous counter parts.
> >
> > The map size increase is generally meant for smaller maps, not large BTB maps feautring vehicles, because vehicles themselves allow players to cross a map even faster than sprint. Take a fast vehicle on any map and you’ll reach any place faster than an infantry person.
> >
> > PS: How is truth in the same league as Headlong??? I don’t recall truth being that large or headlong that small. I don’t recall any times in the leagues of 20 seconds when a moderator made a more thorough run through of truth and compared it to midship.
>
>
> Truth and heretic I did by walking across the entire outer ring, those 2 I didn’t just go from point a to b. I started and ended in the same spot. And I did each run once or twice cuz I didn’t have a ton of time. But I took the same path for the various maps. I don’t know how to explain where I started and ended in each map, not all were straight lines. If I knew how to shoe you my Xbox dvr I would.

Those are interesting times. I think the next step would be to look at the times from objective to objective.

The idea that sprint is an illusion isn’t that sprinting doesn’t make you fast (we know it does) but that maps have grown larger to compensate.
This I’m not sure of. I don’t think we’re seeing too many huge maps, but rather a lack of small ones. So the average size has increased but the objective sizes of maps might still fall into a similar range.

If we measure the time it takes to get from one objective to another in Halo 2 and 3, then consider the distances from one objective to another in 4 and 5 will we see a significant difference? Remakes should not be compared to originals as we know that sprinting changes speeds. Rather, we look at the overall trends in maps sizes by comparing Flag to Flag.

[pajama_dad]

> 2533274819567236;8437:
> > 2533274855279867;8434:
> > > 2533274819567236;8353:
> > > > 2533274855279867;8325:
> > > > > 2533274819567236;8262:
> > > > > > 2533274855279867;8259:
> > > > > > in denial of what? What am I denying? Asking a question is not denial. Rather, I’m very curious about the design choices and plans for h2 and would like to know more. but I’m not going to bother the guy. You think the art director is going to have intimate knowledge of the design of sprint so many years later? Memories fail. Art directors direct art. i could tweet him, but to what end? to find out he vaguely remembers that it was a problem with pacing and he didnt have to work on the animations any longer? Had there been more information you’d think we’d have heard about it already… you know, since someone already contacted the guy regarding the animations and posted a video on youtube about it and all we got was “pacing issues”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on the available information its unlikely we can get anything more definitive than “pacing issues”
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In denial of what the reason was for sprint getting cut. If you’re gonna suggest he meant something else, then prove it. You’re just making excuses in case you’re wrong. If you won’t back up what you believe, then there’s nothing more to discuss on that video.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2533274855279867;8260:
> > > > > > > 2533274819567236;8252:
> > > > > > > > 2535466914543129;8250:
> > > > > > > > I can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that a -Yoinking!- mechanic is your main priority when story and quality content are what makes games great. I don’t want to have to this but if you make me I’ll get you an intervention.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gameplay is more important than both of those things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > depends on the kind of game. Witcher 3 has arguably boring combat compared to something flashy like DmC… but combat isnt why you play witcher. Story and content can be the gameplay, as we see in the telltale games.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For an FPS, gameplay is more important. Whoa, who would’ve thought that’s the genre I was talking about?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don’t believe anything about the video. I think you’re imposing stuff onto me.
> > > >
> > > > As for gameplay being more important in an FPS… snarky though you are, completely correct you are not. Both are what made halo as popular as it is. Fallout 4 is very much a shooter, but it is getting a lot of heat for its lack of story and content. Borderlands the Presequel has fantastic borderlands styled gameplay, but it was knocked because it lacked the content and story of number 2.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and halo 5 has really great gameplay (preferences not with standing), but it gets hit hard by a lot of players for its story and content.
> > > >
> > > > See how much good that snark did you? Not much. The fact is gameplay is comprised of a lot of different parts- including story. I think you mean to refer to the shooting mechanics in a FPS taking priority over the story line. And that is a matter of opinion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gameplay made Halo as popular as it was. Story was a close second at best.
> > >
> > > Fallout 4 is not a shooter, it’s a role playing game. You can argue it, like I know you will, but you’ll still be wrong. Your Borderlands example is the result of player expectations of what they got from the series previously. It’s different from Halo 5 because Halo 5’s gameplay is still criticised in additions to its lack of content and poor story. And Reach and H4 had the content and story, but the gameplay gives them a bad reputation and resulted in a large population drop.
> > >
> > > Gameplay is more important in FPS than story or content. You can keep being wrong if you’d like, but it won’t change anything.
> >
> >
> > Role Playing game is not an exclusive genre. Action Rpg… Strategy Rpg… Fps Rpg (heard of Destiny?).
> >
> > Fallout 4 is a shooter. Fallout 3 wasnt to the same degree given you had to use vats to be successful in many many cases, but Fallout 4 has no such requirement. The shooting is great. It is a shooter. It just doesnt rely on shooting for its gameplay. It is also an RPG. And while Borderlands was a result of player expectations- its still about content and story, they expected more in the game and complained about it.
> >
> > As for halo. Yes, the gameplay was its highlight. Thats the general reason for halo success. But that isnt the argument. You said in FPS gameplay is first, not halo.That is absolutely incorrect.
> >
> > That halo relies on its shooting mechanics is historical fact- it was lauded for them. But it was also highly praised for its storyand lore. So which is more important is a matter of opinion. Different people place importance on different things. If you want to get less subjective you would need to be more specific. Online population relies on gameplay, as you mentioned with Reach. But wasnt Reach an issue of expectations? Vets expected more halo 3 and didnt quite get it?
>
>
> Fallout is an RPG with shooting in it. That doesn’t make it an FPS. It’s an Action RPG.
>
> It still applies to Halo. When making an FPS, you focus on gameplay first if you want it to resonate with a large audience, not story and content, those come second (somebody already gave Overwatch as an example). People don’t go to FPS games for the story, they play them for the gameplay. A good story is a bonus. The 1 in 50 people that feel otherwise don’t matter in this argument because they’re not the larger audience.
>
> Expectations only matter in regards to content and maybe story, things that are expected to be there. Good gameplay is a matter of opinion even if the larger audience doesn’t favor it.

Thats a definition thing. I think Fallout is as a bethesda franchise an RPG played from the First Person (I wouldn’t argue that Skyrim is a shooter because of Bows), but Fallout 4 has such good shooting it is a shooter- thought that is not its focus. I loved it because a solitary experience like that is really appealing to me. I liked that the shooting worked (I recall hating fallout 3 at first because it didn’t function as a shooter) as well as in many of the Halo’s and Destinies and CoD’s and Borderlands that I’ve played. A lot of fallout fans were not so pleased with how shooty it became. You might want to define “FPS” then if you’re going to exclude Fallout 4 but not, say, Borderlands or Destiny.

Overwatch is an interesting game now that you mention it. It does much of what halo did. You have solid shooting and gameplay, but that is backed up by a lot of character and story presented in less obvious ways. Dark Souls is similar. You play it because you love the action and the grind and the difficulty… but fans also love the lore and setting and mood.

If you look at all of the games out there, once you get to a level of quality with the fundamental gameplay the differences that persuade players often come down to the story. Why did I like Marathon and not Duke Nukem? Why was Overwatch so much more successful than Battleborn? Sometimes it comes down less to shooting- Battleborn is a very competent shooter moba thingy- and devolves into which of these worlds appeals to me more. Its why I loved Destiny at first but cannot stand playing CoD (except for Zombies).

[R4d1c47Ed]

> 2533274801176260;8425:
> > 2533274816931642;8316:
> > Those animations didn’t even make it out of the alpha. In the behind the scenes video that I watched, it was explained that Bungie always started with the story, and then designed the rest of the game around it. As for what that means with regard to the existence of sprint animations, I guess it’s up to you to infer what that means. Who knows, maybe it had something to do with hardware limitations, and the possible implementation of sprint would’ve been so limited that it was deemed an unnecessary use of resources. But then, there’s Occam’s Razor.
>
>
> Could you link this video to me? Because quite honestly, I’ve read the exact opposite. If I recall correctly it was in an interview with german magazine “Gamestar” from april 2000, where they said: “… denn die Kampagne für den Einzelspielermodus wird nach alter Bungie Tradition erst zum schluss festgelegt”, roughly translated “…because, according to old Bungie-tradition, the campaign for single player is only established in the end.”
> Unfortunately all scans of this interview are down, and I only found one guy quoting this text passage in a forums. If need be, I could try and find the magazine myself (if I even own it), but that might take a while, as all my old stuff is in my parent’s house.

Upon watching it again, I’ve decided that I might’ve misinterpreted the context. However, is it reasonable to assume that sprint wasn’t necessary for Halo 2’s story? Why didn’t Bungie’s documentary mention sprint? Sprint has effected the art and design of Halo 5, so there has to be some reason as to why it was scrapped so early on in Halo 2’s development. The main two that come to mind, for me, are:

1.) Hardware limitations, this could be anything from the amount of potential scripts that need to be ran, to rendering issues.
2.) It altered the gameplay, which wasn’t what Bungie wanted, for one reason or another.

There are other possibilities, e.g. story telling, level design, the design of the music, etc.; however, the two that I listed above seem like the most likely explanations, IMO.

Anyway, if what you say is true, then that means that multiplayer was designed before the campaign, right? If that’s the case, then sprint being cut in the alpha is–interesting. Maybe it provided too many challenges to Halo 2’s development, I’m not sure how they would change the core gameplay without having to change other aspects of the game as well. Maybe it was just an idea that was only entertained and then put away. As for it resurfacing, and being a reality, in Reach, that’s another point that deserves further discussion.

I also found this to be really interesting.

[Obi_Wlan_Kenobi]

> 2533274855279867;8448:
> > 2533274913913392;8446:
> > > 2533274795123910;8420:
> > > > 2533274913913392;8408:
> > > > Halo 3
> > > > 50 - Sandtrap (longways)
> > > > 40 - Sandtrap (shortways)
> > > > 57 - Valhalla
> > > > 30 - Heretic
> > > > 16 - The Pit
> > > > 39 - Standoff
> > > > Halo 2
> > > > 45 - Headlong
> > > > Halo 5
> > > > 27 - Guillotine (Headlong) - sprinting
> > > > 35 - Guillotine (Headlong) - walking
> > > > 27.5 - Truth (Heretic) -sprinting
> > > > 37 - Truth (Heretic) - walking
> > > > 29.5 - Deadlock (Standoff) - sprinting
> > > > 38 - Deadlock (Standoff) - walking
> > > > 39 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Sprinting
> > > > 50 -Altar- Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Walking
> > > > 20 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Sprinting
> > > > 25 - Altar0Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Walking
> > > > 46 - Viking -Valhalla (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > > 60 - Viking - Valhalla (Remake) - Walking
> > > > 9 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > > 11.5 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Walking
> > > > Halo 4
> > > > 34 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > > 41.5 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Limited Sprinting
> > > > 55 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Walking
> > > > 9 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > > 10.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Limited Sprinting
> > > > 14.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Walking
> > > >
> > > > So overall it depends on the map, but it takes about the same time to walk across most of the maps, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, in Halo 4 and 5 as it did in 2 and 3. Sprint legitimately speeds up the time it takes to get from one point to another on a map. It is not just an illusion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good job.
> > >
> > > Are these averages from many runs on one map? Say ten runs. Or did you run once flawless run and take the time? From what point of the maps, to where on the same map are you running? Do you take a special route where you can’t make it in a straight line?
> > >
> > > Also, Ragnarok and Pitfall are 1:1 remakes of Valhalla and The Pit.
> > >
> > > Now then, let’s start.
> > >
> > > Illusion, yes and no. If you take a map, design it around base movement speed only, and then after that throw in a sprint function that increases your speed by 30%, then you cross the map faster. Even if we take a sprint game with maps designed around sprint, in that case you get across a map faster than not sprinting.
> > >
> > > However, considering that maps are designed around the mechanics present in a game, you’ll see that it is the map designer who is in charge of how fast you get places, regardless of what mechanics are present. Sprint only allows you to cross a map relatively faster than not sprinting in the same game. Clamber does not allow you to reach places that are not intended to be reached, outside of glitches and oversights of course.
> > >
> > > Let’s take Haven, Halo 4’s smallest launch map and compare travel times with Halo 3’s Guardian. Quite consistent in travel times despite Halo 4’s sprint speed being faster than Halo 3’s BMS. Time wise they’re close, in size, far from close.
> > >
> > > In this case, Haven is rather large for being Halo 4’s smallest launch map, only Skyline is smaller, and not by a lot, compared to atleast Guardian in Halo 3.
> > >
> > > So, you get places as fast as the map designer intends you to, in this sense, sprint is an illusion.
> > >
> > > As for Pitfall and Ragnarok, i343 deemed that these maps were managable with sprint. Valhalla being a vehicle map and The Pit not being small in the first place. Neither of them however played like their previous counter parts.
> > >
> > > The map size increase is generally meant for smaller maps, not large BTB maps feautring vehicles, because vehicles themselves allow players to cross a map even faster than sprint. Take a fast vehicle on any map and you’ll reach any place faster than an infantry person.
> > >
> > > PS: How is truth in the same league as Headlong??? I don’t recall truth being that large or headlong that small. I don’t recall any times in the leagues of 20 seconds when a moderator made a more thorough run through of truth and compared it to midship.
> >
> >
> > Truth and heretic I did by walking across the entire outer ring, those 2 I didn’t just go from point a to b. I started and ended in the same spot. And I did each run once or twice cuz I didn’t have a ton of time. But I took the same path for the various maps. I don’t know how to explain where I started and ended in each map, not all were straight lines. If I knew how to shoe you my Xbox dvr I would.
>
>
> Those are interesting times. I think the next step would be to look at the times from objective to objective.
>
> The idea that sprint is an illusion isn’t that sprinting doesn’t make you fast (we know it does) but that maps have grown larger to compensate.
> This I’m not sure of. I don’t think we’re seeing too many huge maps, but rather a lack of small ones. So the average size has increased but the objective sizes of maps might still fall into a similar range.
>
> If we measure the time it takes to get from one objective to another in Halo 2 and 3, then consider the distances from one objective to another in 4 and 5 will we see a significant difference? Remakes should not be compared to originals as we know that sprinting changes speeds. Rather, we look at the overall trends in maps sizes by comparing Flag to Flag.

You must understand that there are two kinds of sprint. In Reach, if you moved from one end of Battle Canyon to the other using sprint, you’d get there five seconds faster than you did in H2 or Ce. But in H5 if you go from Red base to Blue base on Truth using sprint, you’d get there one second faster than you did in H2. So in H5 you are moving at the Base movement speed of halos 1-3 when sprinting. Which means that sprint doesn’t actually make you go faster.

Secondly, the map size. What is the biggest 4v4/2v2 map in H5? Because why would they make the maps bigger if they added sprint? I never understood that. Why must the maps grow along with speed?

[R4d1c47Ed]

> 2533274855279867;8447:
> > 2533274816931642;8355:
> > > 2533274855279867;8325:
> > > > 2533274819567236;8262:
> > > > > 2533274855279867;8259:
> > > > > in denial of what? What am I denying? Asking a question is not denial. Rather, I’m very curious about the design choices and plans for h2 and would like to know more. but I’m not going to bother the guy. You think the art director is going to have intimate knowledge of the design of sprint so many years later? Memories fail. Art directors direct art. i could tweet him, but to what end? to find out he vaguely remembers that it was a problem with pacing and he didnt have to work on the animations any longer? Had there been more information you’d think we’d have heard about it already… you know, since someone already contacted the guy regarding the animations and posted a video on youtube about it and all we got was “pacing issues”
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on the available information its unlikely we can get anything more definitive than “pacing issues”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In denial of what the reason was for sprint getting cut. If you’re gonna suggest he meant something else, then prove it. You’re just making excuses in case you’re wrong. If you won’t back up what you believe, then there’s nothing more to discuss on that video.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274855279867;8260:
> > > > > > 2533274819567236;8252:
> > > > > > > 2535466914543129;8250:
> > > > > > > I can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that a -Yoinking!- mechanic is your main priority when story and quality content are what makes games great. I don’t want to have to this but if you make me I’ll get you an intervention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gameplay is more important than both of those things.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > depends on the kind of game. Witcher 3 has arguably boring combat compared to something flashy like DmC… but combat isnt why you play witcher. Story and content can be the gameplay, as we see in the telltale games.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For an FPS, gameplay is more important. Whoa, who would’ve thought that’s the genre I was talking about?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don’t believe anything about the video. I think you’re imposing stuff onto me.
> > >
> > > As for gameplay being more important in an FPS… snarky though you are, completely correct you are not. Both are what made halo as popular as it is. Fallout 4 is very much a shooter, but it is getting a lot of heat for its lack of story and content. Borderlands the Presequel has fantastic borderlands styled gameplay, but it was knocked because it lacked the content and story of number 2.
> > >
> > > Oh, and halo 5 has really great gameplay (preferences not with standing), but it gets hit hard by a lot of players for its story and content.
> > >
> > > See how much good that snark did you? Not much. The fact is gameplay is comprised of a lot of different parts- including story. I think you mean to refer to the shooting mechanics in a FPS taking priority over the story line. And that is a matter of opinion.
> >
> >
> > The next Fallout could build on the solid gameplay that 4 has. Fallout 3 was completely different from its predecessors.
> >
> > Borderlands the Presequel, oh man, don’t even go there. There was A LOT more wrong than the limited content. The gameplay had been completely changed, you had to replay the entire story to farm for specific weapons. There were a handful of one-time only drops in Borderlands 2, and they were nothing special. There were also weapon nerfs, and–just don’t go there. They made the only reasonably farmable boss stop dropping Legendaries, which people were using in order to moongrind in an attempt to get the weapons that you had to replay the story to get… STAHP!
> >
> > I, for one, enjoyed learning about Jack.
>
>
> I’ve played Fallout 4 on one of my character for about 4 days and most of that was just exploring the world. I felt the RPG aspects of the game were far too few and far less meaningful than in previous games. So yeah, take the awesome shooting and give me some more of the roleplaying and story and I’m sold.
>
> And your point about the Presequel gameplay is very relevant to this- gameplay is more than just shooting. Presequel had great shooting. The boosting and butt-slamming and character trees were fantastic. But the loot grind was not as good as before. The story was ok. I think it was very enjoyable, but not as complete a package. All in all I was really disappointed that the handsome collection didn’t integrate the two games. Let me take my Borderlands 2 characters and explore Elpis. Let me take Athena down to Pandora. How great would it be to have Roland talking to Roland in Moxxy’s bar? Or have Claptrap attending Claptrap’s Birthday? Or have Jack not have to go through the trouble of getting himself to imitate Jack? That would have been HOT!

I haven’t played any of the Fallout games.

Borderlands has always been about the loot. The fact that you can then use that loot to destroy enemies is what makes the Borderlands series so awesome. Boss farming got taken away, just like being able to fire got taken away in Halo 5. I mean, they aren’t really comparable, but you get the idea. Borderlands had elemental effects and resistances, and complex builds that stacked multipliers, as well as a persistent base percentage increase via the bad*** score. It’s by no means simple, as even the individual parts of each weapon can affect their base stats, which is in addition to the traits that are assigned by each of the unique weapon developers. It’s not a futuristic military sci-fi. The only thing that the Presequel really has in common with Halo 5 is that it pissed off a lot of its fans.

Halo is about being part of a military that’s fighting against aliens, who bleed, for the sake of humanity–not being Sonic.

[Celestis]

> 2533274816931642;8450:
> Anyway, if what you say is true, then that means that multiplayer was designed before the campaign, right? If that’s the case, then sprint being cut in the alpha is–interesting. Maybe it provided too many challenges to Halo 2’s development, I’m not sure how they would change the core gameplay without having to change other aspects of the game as well. Maybe it was just an idea that was only entertained and then put away. As for it resurfacing, and being a reality, in Reach, that’s another point that deserves further discussion.

I don’t know if multiplayer was designed before campaign. (Although in the case of Halo 2 maybe it really was.) I just think that Bungie builds the overall gameplay first, then creates playspaces wherein to fight enemies, adds them together to form a level and arranges the levels in sequence according to story last. In most Halo games, a lot of the levels are pretty interchangeable. What if we had crashlanded on the Silent Cartographer first? Halo 2 could have easily swapped the protagonists, with Chief trying to steal a long-range ship from the Threshold gas mine while the Arbiter invades Cairo Station with Regret. (Although the latter would have required some human enemies.) I’m just saying, I don’t think they write the story before anything else. More likely it’s being developed in parallel with the levels.

[Celestis]

> 2533274825830455;8444:
> To be frank, given an appropriately steep slope, this mechanic has always been in Halo (though probably not in a way the user you quoted was thinking). This is a great example of one of those situations where you don’t actually need to add a new ability to implement a mechanic. Using slopes to translate vertical momentum into horizontal (and, in fact, horizontal momentum into vertical) is a great idea. Its use is restricted to locations where there is an appropriately sloped surface around, and is therefore under complete control of the map designer. It creates paths on the map that aren’t immediately obvious to the player and require effort and ingenuity to find, and experience to learn.

Oh yeah, dat Bridge descent on AotCR. Would have been impossible without inclined slopes…

[Zr0Fear_v2]

> 2533274855279867;8449:
> > 2533274819567236;8437:
> > > 2533274855279867;8434:
> > > > 2533274819567236;8353:
> > > > > 2533274855279867;8325:
> > > > > > 2533274819567236;8262:
> > > > > > > 2533274855279867;8259:
> > > > > > > in denial of what? What am I denying? Asking a question is not denial. Rather, I’m very curious about the design choices and plans for h2 and would like to know more. but I’m not going to bother the guy. You think the art director is going to have intimate knowledge of the design of sprint so many years later? Memories fail. Art directors direct art. i could tweet him, but to what end? to find out he vaguely remembers that it was a problem with pacing and he didnt have to work on the animations any longer? Had there been more information you’d think we’d have heard about it already… you know, since someone already contacted the guy regarding the animations and posted a video on youtube about it and all we got was “pacing issues”
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based on the available information its unlikely we can get anything more definitive than “pacing issues”
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In denial of what the reason was for sprint getting cut. If you’re gonna suggest he meant something else, then prove it. You’re just making excuses in case you’re wrong. If you won’t back up what you believe, then there’s nothing more to discuss on that video.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2533274855279867;8260:
> > > > > > > > 2533274819567236;8252:
> > > > > > > > > 2535466914543129;8250:
> > > > > > > > > I can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that a -Yoinking!- mechanic is your main priority when story and quality content are what makes games great. I don’t want to have to this but if you make me I’ll get you an intervention.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gameplay is more important than both of those things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > depends on the kind of game. Witcher 3 has arguably boring combat compared to something flashy like DmC… but combat isnt why you play witcher. Story and content can be the gameplay, as we see in the telltale games.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For an FPS, gameplay is more important. Whoa, who would’ve thought that’s the genre I was talking about?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t believe anything about the video. I think you’re imposing stuff onto me.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for gameplay being more important in an FPS… snarky though you are, completely correct you are not. Both are what made halo as popular as it is. Fallout 4 is very much a shooter, but it is getting a lot of heat for its lack of story and content. Borderlands the Presequel has fantastic borderlands styled gameplay, but it was knocked because it lacked the content and story of number 2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and halo 5 has really great gameplay (preferences not with standing), but it gets hit hard by a lot of players for its story and content.
> > > > >
> > > > > See how much good that snark did you? Not much. The fact is gameplay is comprised of a lot of different parts- including story. I think you mean to refer to the shooting mechanics in a FPS taking priority over the story line. And that is a matter of opinion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gameplay made Halo as popular as it was. Story was a close second at best.
> > > >
> > > > Fallout 4 is not a shooter, it’s a role playing game. You can argue it, like I know you will, but you’ll still be wrong. Your Borderlands example is the result of player expectations of what they got from the series previously. It’s different from Halo 5 because Halo 5’s gameplay is still criticised in additions to its lack of content and poor story. And Reach and H4 had the content and story, but the gameplay gives them a bad reputation and resulted in a large population drop.
> > > >
> > > > Gameplay is more important in FPS than story or content. You can keep being wrong if you’d like, but it won’t change anything.
> >
> >
> > Fallout is an RPG with shooting in it. That doesn’t make it an FPS. It’s an Action RPG.
> >
> > It still applies to Halo. When making an FPS, you focus on gameplay first if you want it to resonate with a large audience, not story and content, those come second (somebody already gave Overwatch as an example). People don’t go to FPS games for the story, they play them for the gameplay. A good story is a bonus. The 1 in 50 people that feel otherwise don’t matter in this argument because they’re not the larger audience.
> >
> > Expectations only matter in regards to content and maybe story, things that are expected to be there. Good gameplay is a matter of opinion even if the larger audience doesn’t favor it.
>
>
> Thats a definition thing. I think Fallout is as a bethesda franchise an RPG played from the First Person (I wouldn’t argue that Skyrim is a shooter because of Bows), but Fallout 4 has such good shooting it is a shooter- thought that is not its focus. I loved it because a solitary experience like that is really appealing to me. I liked that the shooting worked (I recall hating fallout 3 at first because it didn’t function as a shooter) as well as in many of the Halo’s and Destinies and CoD’s and Borderlands that I’ve played. A lot of fallout fans were not so pleased with how shooty it became. You might want to define “FPS” then if you’re going to exclude Fallout 4 but not, say, Borderlands or Destiny.
>
> Overwatch is an interesting game now that you mention it. It does much of what halo did. You have solid shooting and gameplay, but that is backed up by a lot of character and story presented in less obvious ways. Dark Souls is similar. You play it because you love the action and the grind and the difficulty… but fans also love the lore and setting and mood.
>
> If you look at all of the games out there, once you get to a level of quality with the fundamental gameplay the differences that persuade players often come down to the story. Why did I like Marathon and not Duke Nukem? Why was Overwatch so much more successful than Battleborn? Sometimes it comes down less to shooting- Battleborn is a very competent shooter moba thingy- and devolves into which of these worlds appeals to me more. Its why I loved Destiny at first but cannot stand playing CoD (except for Zombies).

FPS: A game where using guns and/or projectile based weapons is often the intended way to complete tasks and/or objectives.

Fill in the obvious blanks yourself (like the fact that it has to be in first person). Fallout allows you to complete tasks in a number of ways.

Overwatch doesn’t provide any story details in the game aside from a few voicelines by characters, it’s not what people buy the game for. They can experience the story in its entirety without playing the game. They play the game for the gameplay.

None of your examples do anything to suggest that gameplay isn’t more important than story.

I’ve long since grown tired of this pointless - and irrelevant, as far as this thread goes - argument though. Gameplay is more important than story and content in FPS. Accept it or don’t, it’s no skin off my back. Someone else can argue it with you if they so choose.

[Zr0Fear_v2]

> 2533274816931642;8450:
> > 2533274801176260;8425:
> > > 2533274816931642;8316:
> > > Those animations didn’t even make it out of the alpha. In the behind the scenes video that I watched, it was explained that Bungie always started with the story, and then designed the rest of the game around it. As for what that means with regard to the existence of sprint animations, I guess it’s up to you to infer what that means. Who knows, maybe it had something to do with hardware limitations, and the possible implementation of sprint would’ve been so limited that it was deemed an unnecessary use of resources. But then, there’s Occam’s Razor.
> >
> >
> > Could you link this video to me? Because quite honestly, I’ve read the exact opposite. If I recall correctly it was in an interview with german magazine “Gamestar” from april 2000, where they said: “… denn die Kampagne für den Einzelspielermodus wird nach alter Bungie Tradition erst zum schluss festgelegt”, roughly translated “…because, according to old Bungie-tradition, the campaign for single player is only established in the end.”
> > Unfortunately all scans of this interview are down, and I only found one guy quoting this text passage in a forums. If need be, I could try and find the magazine myself (if I even own it), but that might take a while, as all my old stuff is in my parent’s house.
>
>
> Upon watching it again, I’ve decided that I might’ve misinterpreted the context. However, is it reasonable to assume that sprint wasn’t necessary for Halo 2’s story? Why didn’t Bungie’s documentary mention sprint? Sprint has effected the art and design of Halo 5, so there has to be some reason as to why it was scrapped so early on in Halo 2’s development. The main two that come to mind, for me, are:
>
> 1.) Hardware limitations, this could be anything from the amount of potential scripts that need to be ran, to rendering issues.
> 2.) It altered the gameplay, which wasn’t what Bungie wanted, for one reason or another.
>
> There are other possibilities, e.g. story telling, level design, the design of the music, etc.; however, the two that I listed above seem like the most likely explanations, IMO.
>
> Anyway, if what you say is true, then that means that multiplayer was designed before the campaign, right? If that’s the case, then sprint being cut in the alpha is–interesting. Maybe it provided too many challenges to Halo 2’s development, I’m not sure how they would change the core gameplay without having to change other aspects of the game as well. Maybe it was just an idea that was only entertained and then put away. As for it resurfacing, and being a reality, in Reach, that’s another point that deserves further discussion.
>
> I also found this to be really interesting.

Concepts are tested and scrapped all time. They can’t all be winners, so when they’re not they get cut. There’s no reason to bring up a mechanic that didn’t even make it past the testing phase. A Halo 2 animator said as far as he could recall it didn’t even come up during development in Halo 3, so they hadn’t even tried to test it. If it was something they were forced to cut in Halo 2 for reasons other than gameplay, I’d imagine they very likely would’ve tried it out again. Obviously, with Halo 2 they didn’t realize how much time they needed, so they would’ve been more prepared during Halo 3’s development in that sense.

At best, even if it didn’t cause gameplay problems, it would still suggest that it didn’t benefit the game enough to include.

[pajama_dad]

> 2533274943854776;8451:
> > 2533274855279867;8448:
> > > 2533274913913392;8446:
> > > > 2533274795123910;8420:
> > > > > 2533274913913392;8408:
> > > > > Halo 3
> > > > > 50 - Sandtrap (longways)
> > > > > 40 - Sandtrap (shortways)
> > > > > 57 - Valhalla
> > > > > 30 - Heretic
> > > > > 16 - The Pit
> > > > > 39 - Standoff
> > > > > Halo 2
> > > > > 45 - Headlong
> > > > > Halo 5
> > > > > 27 - Guillotine (Headlong) - sprinting
> > > > > 35 - Guillotine (Headlong) - walking
> > > > > 27.5 - Truth (Heretic) -sprinting
> > > > > 37 - Truth (Heretic) - walking
> > > > > 29.5 - Deadlock (Standoff) - sprinting
> > > > > 38 - Deadlock (Standoff) - walking
> > > > > 39 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Sprinting
> > > > > 50 -Altar- Sandtrap (Remake) longways - Walking
> > > > > 20 - Altar-Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Sprinting
> > > > > 25 - Altar0Sandtrap (Remake) shortways - Walking
> > > > > 46 - Viking -Valhalla (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > > > 60 - Viking - Valhalla (Remake) - Walking
> > > > > 9 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Sprinting
> > > > > 11.5 - Simulation -The Pit (Remake) - Walking
> > > > > Halo 4
> > > > > 34 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > > > 41.5 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Limited Sprinting
> > > > > 55 - Ragnarok (Valhalla) - Walking
> > > > > 9 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Unlimited Sprinting
> > > > > 10.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Limited Sprinting
> > > > > 14.5 - Pitfall (The Pit) - Walking
> > > > >
> > > > > So overall it depends on the map, but it takes about the same time to walk across most of the maps, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, in Halo 4 and 5 as it did in 2 and 3. Sprint legitimately speeds up the time it takes to get from one point to another on a map. It is not just an illusion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good job.
> > > >
> > > > Are these averages from many runs on one map? Say ten runs. Or did you run once flawless run and take the time? From what point of the maps, to where on the same map are you running? Do you take a special route where you can’t make it in a straight line?
> > > >
> > > > Also, Ragnarok and Pitfall are 1:1 remakes of Valhalla and The Pit.
> > > >
> > > > Now then, let’s start.
> > > >
> > > > Illusion, yes and no. If you take a map, design it around base movement speed only, and then after that throw in a sprint function that increases your speed by 30%, then you cross the map faster. Even if we take a sprint game with maps designed around sprint, in that case you get across a map faster than not sprinting.
> > > >
> > > > However, considering that maps are designed around the mechanics present in a game, you’ll see that it is the map designer who is in charge of how fast you get places, regardless of what mechanics are present. Sprint only allows you to cross a map relatively faster than not sprinting in the same game. Clamber does not allow you to reach places that are not intended to be reached, outside of glitches and oversights of course.
> > > >
> > > > Let’s take Haven, Halo 4’s smallest launch map and compare travel times with Halo 3’s Guardian. Quite consistent in travel times despite Halo 4’s sprint speed being faster than Halo 3’s BMS. Time wise they’re close, in size, far from close.
> > > >
> > > > In this case, Haven is rather large for being Halo 4’s smallest launch map, only Skyline is smaller, and not by a lot, compared to atleast Guardian in Halo 3.
> > > >
> > > > So, you get places as fast as the map designer intends you to, in this sense, sprint is an illusion.
> > > >
> > > > As for Pitfall and Ragnarok, i343 deemed that these maps were managable with sprint. Valhalla being a vehicle map and The Pit not being small in the first place. Neither of them however played like their previous counter parts.
> > > >
> > > > The map size increase is generally meant for smaller maps, not large BTB maps feautring vehicles, because vehicles themselves allow players to cross a map even faster than sprint. Take a fast vehicle on any map and you’ll reach any place faster than an infantry person.
> > > >
> > > > PS: How is truth in the same league as Headlong??? I don’t recall truth being that large or headlong that small. I don’t recall any times in the leagues of 20 seconds when a moderator made a more thorough run through of truth and compared it to midship.
> > >
> > >
> > > Truth and heretic I did by walking across the entire outer ring, those 2 I didn’t just go from point a to b. I started and ended in the same spot. And I did each run once or twice cuz I didn’t have a ton of time. But I took the same path for the various maps. I don’t know how to explain where I started and ended in each map, not all were straight lines. If I knew how to shoe you my Xbox dvr I would.
> >
> >
> > Those are interesting times. I think the next step would be to look at the times from objective to objective.
> >
> > The idea that sprint is an illusion isn’t that sprinting doesn’t make you fast (we know it does) but that maps have grown larger to compensate.
> > This I’m not sure of. I don’t think we’re seeing too many huge maps, but rather a lack of small ones. So the average size has increased but the objective sizes of maps might still fall into a similar range.
> >
> > If we measure the time it takes to get from one objective to another in Halo 2 and 3, then consider the distances from one objective to another in 4 and 5 will we see a significant difference? Remakes should not be compared to originals as we know that sprinting changes speeds. Rather, we look at the overall trends in maps sizes by comparing Flag to Flag.
>
>
> You must understand that there are two kinds of sprint. In Reach, if you moved from one end of Battle Canyon to the other using sprint, you’d get there five seconds faster than you did in H2 or Ce. But in H5 if you go from Red base to Blue base on Truth using sprint, you’d get there one second faster than you did in H2. So in H5 you are moving at the Base movement speed of halos 1-3 when sprinting. Which means that sprint doesn’t actually make you go faster.
>
> Secondly, the map size. What is the biggest 4v4/2v2 map in H5? Because why would they make the maps bigger if they added sprint? I never understood that. Why must the maps grow along with speed?

what? you are not moving at the base speed of halo 3.

Rather the ratios of speed and distance are proportional resulting in the same times (or roughly the same).

Sprint absolutely makes you faster. The question is whether or not maps have been thusly scaled to maintain similar travel times, making the addition of sprint less meaningful.

[pajama_dad]

> 2533274819567236;8456:
> > 2533274816931642;8450:
> > > 2533274801176260;8425:
> > > > 2533274816931642;8316:
> > > > Those animations didn’t even make it out of the alpha. In the behind the scenes video that I watched, it was explained that Bungie always started with the story, and then designed the rest of the game around it. As for what that means with regard to the existence of sprint animations, I guess it’s up to you to infer what that means. Who knows, maybe it had something to do with hardware limitations, and the possible implementation of sprint would’ve been so limited that it was deemed an unnecessary use of resources. But then, there’s Occam’s Razor.
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you link this video to me? Because quite honestly, I’ve read the exact opposite. If I recall correctly it was in an interview with german magazine “Gamestar” from april 2000, where they said: “… denn die Kampagne für den Einzelspielermodus wird nach alter Bungie Tradition erst zum schluss festgelegt”, roughly translated “…because, according to old Bungie-tradition, the campaign for single player is only established in the end.”
> > > Unfortunately all scans of this interview are down, and I only found one guy quoting this text passage in a forums. If need be, I could try and find the magazine myself (if I even own it), but that might take a while, as all my old stuff is in my parent’s house.
> >
> >
> > Upon watching it again, I’ve decided that I might’ve misinterpreted the context. However, is it reasonable to assume that sprint wasn’t necessary for Halo 2’s story? Why didn’t Bungie’s documentary mention sprint? Sprint has effected the art and design of Halo 5, so there has to be some reason as to why it was scrapped so early on in Halo 2’s development. The main two that come to mind, for me, are:
> >
> > 1.) Hardware limitations, this could be anything from the amount of potential scripts that need to be ran, to rendering issues.
> > 2.) It altered the gameplay, which wasn’t what Bungie wanted, for one reason or another.
> >
> > There are other possibilities, e.g. story telling, level design, the design of the music, etc.; however, the two that I listed above seem like the most likely explanations, IMO.
> >
> > Anyway, if what you say is true, then that means that multiplayer was designed before the campaign, right? If that’s the case, then sprint being cut in the alpha is–interesting. Maybe it provided too many challenges to Halo 2’s development, I’m not sure how they would change the core gameplay without having to change other aspects of the game as well. Maybe it was just an idea that was only entertained and then put away. As for it resurfacing, and being a reality, in Reach, that’s another point that deserves further discussion.
> >
> > I also found this to be really interesting.
>
>
> Concepts are tested and scrapped all time. They can’t all be winners, so when they’re not they get cut. There’s no reason to bring up a mechanic that didn’t even make it past the testing phase. A Halo 2 animator said as far as he could recall it didn’t even come up during development in Halo 3, so they hadn’t even tried to test it. If it was something they were forced to cut in Halo 2 for reasons other than gameplay, I’d imagine they very likely would’ve tried it out again. Obviously, with Halo 2 they didn’t realize how much time they needed, so they would’ve been more prepared during Halo 3’s development in that sense.
>
> At best, even if it didn’t cause gameplay problems, it would still suggest that it didn’t benefit the game enough to include.

at best? Maybe yeah, but you would have to define such a benefit to the game. If it was included later was that then a benefit to the game?

After the success of halo 2 and the failures of halo 2 do you think bumgie was really looking to revolutionize their game? The exclusion of a spint mechanic could have been from continued creative pressures to finish the product fully and on time. Equipment were little more than new weapons and new weapons are par for the development cycle, whereas the inclusion of sprint would have meant a lot of work with animations at the least, and hours of testing elsewhere. Its exclusion might have benefitted the game by giving them the time to finish.

With Reach, Bungie was more free to do what they wanted. Doesn’t that suggest sprint was something they might have wanted to do, but were under too much pressure to fully realize it?

[EWOKofDESTINY]

> 2533274832130936;8415:
> > 2533274807480458;8411:
> > > 2533274846370979;8406:
> > > Sheesh judging by the first page you got ostracized by the pro sprint crowd OP.
> > >
> > > I wouldn’t consider myself in either camp, but something different has to be done. I think if sprint stays then thruster and spartan charge need to leave. Spartan charge actually just needs to go no matter what.
> > >
> > > If sprint leaves then perhaps thruster and ground pound could stay. Thruster has changed modern halo into an incredibly evasive and conservatively played game.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps we keep sprint, keep Thruster , keep ground pound, but raise the time to kill? When I consider Halo 5 vs. Reach and 3, The first thing I notice is im dying much quicker.
> > >
> > > Whatever happens Halo 6 needs to do one thing : Differentiate. What we have right now is the red headed stepchild of modern Cod, titanfall, and Old Halo. It doesn’t work. Pick a direction and stick with it is my opinion.
> >
> >
> > I think it works perfectly. In fact I hope they make very few changes to gameplay for Halo 6.
>
>
> Why?
> So that game can have less than 30,000 people
> playing it nine months after launch too?

That’s definitely more of a function of the game being fairly barren at launch than a gameplay issue. In fact Halo 5’s gameplay has been more highly praised by players and critics than any halo previously.

[EWOKofDESTINY]

> 2533274846370979;8426:
> > 2533274807480458;8411:
> > > 2533274846370979;8406:
> > > Sheesh judging by the first page you got ostracized by the pro sprint crowd OP.
> > >
> > > I wouldn’t consider myself in either camp, but something different has to be done. I think if sprint stays then thruster and spartan charge need to leave. Spartan charge actually just needs to go no matter what.
> > >
> > > If sprint leaves then perhaps thruster and ground pound could stay. Thruster has changed modern halo into an incredibly evasive and conservatively played game.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps we keep sprint, keep Thruster , keep ground pound, but raise the time to kill? When I consider Halo 5 vs. Reach and 3, The first thing I notice is im dying much quicker.
> > >
> > > Whatever happens Halo 6 needs to do one thing : Differentiate. What we have right now is the red headed stepchild of modern Cod, titanfall, and Old Halo. It doesn’t work. Pick a direction and stick with it is my opinion.
> >
> >
> > I think it works perfectly. In fact I hope they make very few changes to gameplay for Halo 6.
>
>
> I do not think it works perfectly. I hope they do make changes to the gameplay for Halo 6.
> What we also have to consider is that you and I’s opinions aren’t the only thing to consider, we need to think about the HUGE amount of people who bought this game and don’t like it,stopped playing it, that DONT post on the forums.
>
> It’s a fact that Halo 5 didn’t perform very well when we compare to older Halo games.

Exactly, that’s the point I was trying to make. That our opinion of the gameplay is just that, an opinion. The issues most people had with gameplay were about lack of content and not gameplay. Multiple polls have shown that gameplay was generally well favored.

According to 343 Halo 5 has performed better than any other Halo game since Halo 3.

[Zr0Fear_v2]

> 2533274855279867;8458:
> > 2533274819567236;8456:
> > > 2533274816931642;8450:
> > > > 2533274801176260;8425:
> > > > > 2533274816931642;8316:
> > > > > Those animations didn’t even make it out of the alpha. In the behind the scenes video that I watched, it was explained that Bungie always started with the story, and then designed the rest of the game around it. As for what that means with regard to the existence of sprint animations, I guess it’s up to you to infer what that means. Who knows, maybe it had something to do with hardware limitations, and the possible implementation of sprint would’ve been so limited that it was deemed an unnecessary use of resources. But then, there’s Occam’s Razor.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you link this video to me? Because quite honestly, I’ve read the exact opposite. If I recall correctly it was in an interview with german magazine “Gamestar” from april 2000, where they said: “… denn die Kampagne für den Einzelspielermodus wird nach alter Bungie Tradition erst zum schluss festgelegt”, roughly translated “…because, according to old Bungie-tradition, the campaign for single player is only established in the end.”
> > > > Unfortunately all scans of this interview are down, and I only found one guy quoting this text passage in a forums. If need be, I could try and find the magazine myself (if I even own it), but that might take a while, as all my old stuff is in my parent’s house.
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon watching it again, I’ve decided that I might’ve misinterpreted the context. However, is it reasonable to assume that sprint wasn’t necessary for Halo 2’s story? Why didn’t Bungie’s documentary mention sprint? Sprint has effected the art and design of Halo 5, so there has to be some reason as to why it was scrapped so early on in Halo 2’s development. The main two that come to mind, for me, are:
> > > 1.) Hardware limitations, this could be anything from the amount of potential scripts that need to be ran, to rendering issues.
> > > 2.) It altered the gameplay, which wasn’t what Bungie wanted, for one reason or another.
> > > There are other possibilities, e.g. story telling, level design, the design of the music, etc.; however, the two that I listed above seem like the most likely explanations, IMO.
> > > Anyway, if what you say is true, then that means that multiplayer was designed before the campaign, right? If that’s the case, then sprint being cut in the alpha is–interesting. Maybe it provided too many challenges to Halo 2’s development, I’m not sure how they would change the core gameplay without having to change other aspects of the game as well. Maybe it was just an idea that was only entertained and then put away. As for it resurfacing, and being a reality, in Reach, that’s another point that deserves further discussion.
> > > I also found this to be really interesting.
> >
> >
> > Concepts are tested and scrapped all time. They can’t all be winners, so when they’re not they get cut. There’s no reason to bring up a mechanic that didn’t even make it past the testing phase. A Halo 2 animator said as far as he could recall it didn’t even come up during development in Halo 3, so they hadn’t even tried to test it. If it was something they were forced to cut in Halo 2 for reasons other than gameplay, I’d imagine they very likely would’ve tried it out again. Obviously, with Halo 2 they didn’t realize how much time they needed, so they would’ve been more prepared during Halo 3’s development in that sense.
> > At best, even if it didn’t cause gameplay problems, it would still suggest that it didn’t benefit the game enough to include.
>
>
> at best? Maybe yeah, but you would have to define such a benefit to the game. If it was included later was that then a benefit to the game?
> After the success of halo 2 and the failures of halo 2 do you think bumgie was really looking to revolutionize their game? The exclusion of a spint mechanic could have been from continued creative pressures to finish the product fully and on time. Equipment were little more than new weapons and new weapons are par for the development cycle, whereas the inclusion of sprint would have meant a lot of work with animations at the least, and hours of testing elsewhere. Its exclusion might have benefitted the game by giving them the time to finish.
> With Reach, Bungie was more free to do what they wanted. Doesn’t that suggest sprint was something they might have wanted to do, but were under too much pressure to fully realize it?

I touched on the possibility of pressure to release Halo 2 in that post. As far as I know, Halo 3’s development didn’t suffer from huge cuts or change of plans as we all know Halo 2 did. That was likely because they were better prepared in terms of getting things done on time. Had sprint been something they really wanted to include since Halo 2, they probably would have tested it right away at thestart of Halo 3s development.

I’m not sure why you say Bungie was any more “free to do what they wanted” with Reach than with Halo 3. It took the same amount of time and was arguably a larger game all around. Did they say there was less pressure with Reach?