The sprint discussion thread

> 1. Sprint reduces the penalty of the respawn timer by allowing spawning players to get back to a desirable position faster than they would be able to otherwise.

No. Map & mobility knowledge lets players remove the penalty associated with respawning.
And if sprint is designed into the map, you’re not getting places faster than intended.

> 2. Sprint increases a player’s margin for error by allowing faster access to and from engagements.

Well, that kinds says players can make more mistakes and it requires skill to know how to use it.

> 3. Sprint makes it more difficult for a player’s location to be tracked and communicated. This snowballs into affecting spawning via positional influence rapidly enough to make some spawning situation seem unnecessarily chaotic or random. Additionally this negatively affects an individual’s ability to predictably grenade or shoot at corners and doorways.

One the one hand, “remove Motion Tracker” is a sure way to ensure this feels true at all times.

On the other hand, it doesn’t matter if a player has a top speed governed by a button or not, they can choose to run at full speed to mess with their opponents, or not.

It’s absolutely bonkers to claim you must run at full speed all the time because that’s how Halo’s played, and MT’s been removed to limit crouching’s use to ensure that.

Sprint does not transfer onto “Oh the spawns aren’t predictable anymore and I can’t predict pre-nading” because it’s about map position. A losing team can sprint around all the low ground and kill boxes they want, they need to get to a power position or weapon to gain control. Sprint isn’t affecting that negatively.

> 4. Sprint as a base trait results in maps in which the distances between cover rarely feel ideal yet often feel either stretched out or too short. This can also snowball into longer than ideal lines of sight, giving more power to snipers while reducing the relative utility of other weapons (it’s harder to hit longer distance shots beyond red reticle range, especially with the BR and Magnum thanks to their recoil).

Oh man, thanks to Smart-Link and the RRR extensions, it’s funny it’s even mentioned :wink:

> 5. Sprint is a dominant trait; including it negatively affects other aspects of gameplay and map design that would have benefited other traits such as jumping and throwing grenades because so much of the game has to be built around it. It stretches the “gun, grenades, melee” triangle into a “gun, grenades, melee, movement” kite where movement occupies the largest point.

There’s 2 challenges for this, the always sprinting and the never sprinting. Do you really think you’ll dominate a H5 game by always sprinting?
I’ve seen the Spartan Charge challenge videos, they don’t end up well for the sprinter.

Also, Thruster is a dominate trait in H5, Sprint a complimenter. Sprint is the doorway to which Thruster is used to fly around a map… Sliding with an M6 equipped is quicker to fire than tapping YY (minus gunfighter).

With Ground Pound and Clamber, verticallity is heavily promoted.
With Hover and Ground Pound, grenade jumps are a whole new level.

And darn straight H5 has a tetrahedron, an Onyx Tetrahedron. But again, Sprint isn’t a point, mobility itself is the point. Clamber, Hover, Thruster, Slide and Ground Pound are all part of mobility and greater influences on mobility and map design than just Sprint.

> 6. When played at higher levels not a single Halo game with Sprint comes close to the pace of a Halo CE 2v2 or Halo 2/ZBNS Reach 4v4 played by the same or equally skilled players. These games feel more immersive because the player is actively doing more throughout the majority of the game, whereas in Sprint-Halo a lot of time on many maps is given up to carefully holding a position and attempting to bait a single kill at a time from the opposing team.

No.
https://youtu.be/eaNfzgQe3qg
The pace of something cannot be blanketed so easily. Notice how that might as well have been Reach with someone choosing Active Camo as their loadout? And fast? Of course not on a rather big map like Hang’em High.

But glad there’s talk about actively doing something as a means of fun. That’s what Thruster, Slide, Clamber, Hover, Ground Pound are all for.

True, they’re not unintended button combos like CE or H2, but they do allow the comboing of buttons to contribute to combat or movement on a near constant input. Not nowhere near as passive as Reach or H4 were with their abilities.

> 7. Sprinting forces the player to lower their weapon, thus it is inherently defensive in nature and favours a player attempting to reposition himself. Without Sprint the state of combat is maintained until either playr dies or both fully regain their shields.

Oh look, Spartan Charge and Slide :wink:

https://youtu.be/eaNfzgQe3qg Why would you choose this video as an example of slow gameplay? That was a game of slayer to 50 played 2v2 that only lasted 12:45. If anything that video showcased how much faster CE is than H5. Most games of slayer to 50 in H5 last about that long (closer to 10 min) and those games are played 4v4. Twice as many people on the map shooting at each other at any given time and somehow the game isn’t half as long. There is a whole lot more that goes into the pace of a game than your charcter’s movement speed. The fact that in CE you spawn with a utility weapon that has a 0.6 sec perfect ttk and in H5 you spawn with a utility weapon that has a perfect ttk of 1.4 sec (over twice as long as the CE magnum) should already tell you plenty about the difference in pace between those two games. Also, considering the camo on that map spawns every minute on the dot and all players on the map have equal knowledge of when it’s coming up the only way it could be played anything like a player having camo as their loadout is if they had total map control and earned it every time it spawned by out slaying their opponent or having superior positioning…exactly as it should be.

People saying they like Sprint because you can move faster.
How is that a good thing and why does Halo need it in it’s gameplay? I thought Halo already had great gameplay why don’t they just innovate outside the gameplay.

> 2533275035781111;12764:
> > 2535411404144276;12753:
> > > 2533274827519891;17:
> > > > 2533274989334266;12:
> > > > > 2533274880633045;11:
> > > > > > 2535414876585185;1:
> > > > > > Halo 6 could be the game EVERYONE wants by removing sprint in campaign (yes because who the -Yoink- needs TWO movement speeds in campaign???) and
> > > > > > arena multiplayer at first I thought a no sprint playlist might be optimal but hear me out. I pretty sure the new spartan abilities (save -Yoinking!- spartan charge) would be GENERALLY accepted in a halo game if they werent accompanied by sprint it would feel more competitive more strategic and would also still be recognizable to the fine tuned experience we got in halo 5. Warzone and customs would be a whole other beast entirely retaining ALL the features that made halo 5 successful would keep warzone great and would also allow more options for custom games, for those people that actually wanted to play in a sprint arena type setting they could actually fire up the in game custom game lobby adjust the filter and be good to go! lets face it, sprint has NO place in competitive halo and to argue that it does would just be absurd. this would allow arena maps to continue to be designed the PROPER way and please the vets and basically everyone whos willing to give it a chance and you wouldnt lose much of your sprint loving audience at all because there would still be sprint in the game it would just take a backseat!
> > > > > > Thoughts? :3
> > >
> > > yet overwatch, and counterstrike are just fine
> >
> > OW has ton of Heroes with movement abilities. Besides a movement ability is also very important to balance correctly when making the character, as someone like Tracer wouldn’t be as affective without her blinks. Needles to say, bad comparison.
> >
> > OT; As for sprint, i really like the implementation in Halo 5, the only thing i find extremely frustrating is the Spartan charge ability, which in “some Arena maps” can be very annoying
>
> No one has anything against movement abilities as a whole, it’s just sprint, which only one character in overwatch has.

But sprint is counted as a movement ability anyway… I mean if they just implement movement abilities other than sprint, and removed sprint, I wouldn’t mind that, as long as there is something to replace it. I’m neither that for or against sprint, I like it in larger maps and in campaign, but can also understand the complaints regarding arena.

Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5

Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
Pokemon has sold over 10m

A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”

Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes

> 2535410901623492;12788:
> Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
>
> Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> Pokemon has sold over 10m
>
> A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
>
> Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes

I know right. How can people say stuff like “Halo needs to evolve” “Halo needed these changes to stay relevant” 343i should make a real Halo game. These new fans can either adapt or go because Halo 1-3’s gameplay is what Halo should be.

> 2535410901623492;12788:
> Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
>
> Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> Pokemon has sold over 10m
>
> A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
>
> Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes

Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.

> 2533275035781111;12790:
> > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> >
> > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> >
> > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> >
> > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
>
> Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.

Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…

> 2535410901623492;12791:
> > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > >
> > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > >
> > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > >
> > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> >
> > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
>
> Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…

Four of those series listed have undergone one of the biggest changes in video game history; that is, the transition from 2D to 3D. Moreover, Mario is probably the worst game you can take as an example of having minimal changes, considering that if you disregard all the numerous spin-off, even the mainline Super Mario games introduce significant new game changing mechanics from sequel to sequel.

Let’s be honest to ourselves here. We don’t want to pretend that making changes to gameplay would suddenly make a game more relevant, but let’s not pretend that every franchise can survive the test of time with minimal changes either. The reality is that there’s no magic bullet approach to keeping game series relevant in long term. You cannot argue how one game would succeed based on the success of others. You cannot claim what works for one game works for every game. You cannot draw conclusions concerning Halo’s success from the success of other games.

No one knows whether Halo would’ve been more or less popular had it evolved in a different direction at any point. As far as popularity is concerned, Halo never needed to change, but neither did it need to stay the same. It didn’t need anything, things just went one way, and we can only ever speculate what might have happened had they gone some other way.

> 2535410901623492;12788:
> Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
>
> Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> Pokemon has sold over 10m
>
> A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
>
> Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes

Exactly, these back and forth arguments can keep going on indefinitely and nobody is ever going to get the upper hand because as they added mechanics (like sprint) they also added balancing mechanisms. The real bottom line is did it make the game play better, more fun, or just plain change it… and how many people liked how it changed. The problem with the bottom line is simple, “better” and “more fun” are subjective.

We’ve seen every argument for why sprint “is needed” that people can come up with and there isn’t a single one that can’t be countered. But the plain simple fact is what it is. I don’t need to go into some long winded, in-depth post to counter it. All I have to do is point to any pre-sprint Halo title… and yes… it’s just that simple. The only people who will likely try to refute this are those who simply refuse to accept that a mechanic that they like and want isn’t “needed” and try to prove that argument by nit picking details pursuant to why “they need” it.

Of course, the argument sounds much more convincing if someone can make it look like Halo needed it. When I see statements like “Halo needs sprint because”… I automatically convert it to “I need sprint because”. “Sprint is necessary because”… becomes “I find sprint necessary because”… etc. The only argument that has at least some merit is that the game needs to evolve. If I take your statement at face value (which I’m not into that game at all and have no knowledge of it, so I kind of have to) even the need to evolve and change is arguable to a point.

The way I see it, if the state of this game (or more accurately, its fans) has driven this subject to well over 600 pages just over 1 mechanic… then obviously it’s more than just sprint that’s causing problems. I personally feel it’s the fact that they keep throwing a bunch of cheap filler mechanics at game play that doesn’t need them to begin with.

I would challenge 343 to actually refine Halo as a game, rather than to just keep throwing a bunch of the “latest, greatest” fluff at it, in hopes that something sticks. If they’d focus on refining the game itself, its maps and basics, rather than having to continuously refine the whole formula just to balance a plethora of little more than “push button X to counter additional mechanic Y” then they’d be more likely to improve peoples’ experiences rather than expanding them for the sake of it.

> 2533274825830455;12792:
> > 2535410901623492;12791:
> > > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > > >
> > > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > > >
> > > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > > >
> > > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> > >
> > > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
> >
> > Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…
>
> Four of those series listed have undergone one of the biggest changes in video game history; that is, the transition from 2D to 3D. Moreover, Mario is probably the worst game you can take as an example of having minimal changes, considering that if you disregard all the numerous spin-off, even the mainline Super Mario games introduce significant new game changing mechanics from sequel to sequel.
>
> Let’s be honest to ourselves here. We don’t want to pretend that making changes to gameplay would suddenly make a game more relevant, but let’s not pretend that every franchise can survive the test of time with minimal changes either. The reality is that there’s no magic bullet approach to keeping game series relevant in long term. You cannot argue how one game would succeed based on the success of others. You cannot claim what works for one game works for every game. You cannot draw conclusions concerning Halo’s success from the success of other games.
>
> No one knows whether Halo would’ve been more or less popular had it evolved in a different direction at any point. As far as popularity is concerned, Halo never needed to change, but neither did it need to stay the same. It didn’t need anything, things just went one way, and we can only ever speculate what might have happened had they gone some other way.

A change between 2D and 3D, oddly enough, isn’t as “massive” if the core Ideals of the franchise are left intact.

Mario has gone 3D, but remained a platformer game about an Italian plumber, coins were still a focus, beating levels was still a focus, and Nintendo continue to produce new 2D/3D scrolling level Mario games

Pokemon, while going 3D, is still a completely turn based RPG about throwing balls at pocket monsters

GTA is still an open world crime simulater that parodies society

The Core identity of those titles remains intact. this is innovation to enhance a design, they build on what was established by enhancing out the best parts of those games.

Fallout, conversely, has done altogether about turn from what it was, however with a few significant differences from Halo the current 3 3D fallouts were released over 10 years after the previous major title, and since going have followed common formula, and released every few years.

That isn’t what Halo has done. Halo has not added things that enhance Halos identity as a Arcadey Legacy Sandbox Arena Shooter. it had changed what it is entirely, 3 times in 6 years, mixing elements of the other trendy mechanics into the formula

> 2535410901623492;12791:
> > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > >
> > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > >
> > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > >
> > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> >
> > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
>
> Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…

blaming the changes is like ignoring the ten different gorillas in the room (CoD stealing the throne is one many of many reasons), also this isn’t comparison on a apples to oranges scale you guys are comparing vegetables, fruits, and anything else sold in supermarkets.
Pokemon is essentially crack for kids.

> 2594261035368257;12793:
> > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> >
> > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> >
> > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> >
> > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
>
> Exactly, these back and forth arguments can keep going on indefinitely and nobody is ever going to get the upper hand because as they added mechanics (like sprint) they also added balancing mechanisms. The real bottom line is did it make the game play better, more fun, or just plain change it… and how many people liked how it changed. The problem with the bottom line is simple, “better” and “more fun” are subjective.
>
> We’ve seen every argument for why sprint “is needed” that people can come up with and there isn’t a single one that can’t be countered. But the plain simple fact is what it is. I don’t need to go into some long winded, in-depth post to counter it. All I have to do is point to any pre-sprint Halo title… and yes… it’s just that simple. The only people who will likely try to refute this are those who simply refuse to accept that a mechanic that they like and want isn’t “needed” and try to prove that argument by nit picking details pursuant to why “they need” it.
>
> Of course, the argument sounds much more convincing if someone can make it look like Halo needed it. When I see statements like “Halo needs sprint because”… I automatically convert it to “I need sprint because”. “Sprint is necessary because”… becomes “I find sprint necessary because”… etc. The only argument that has at least some merit is that the game needs to evolve. If I take your statement at face value (which I’m not into that game at all and have no knowledge of it, so I kind of have to) even the need to evolve and change is arguable to a point.
>
> The way I see it, if the state of this game (or more accurately, its fans) has driven this subject to well over 600 pages just over 1 mechanic… then obviously it’s more than just sprint that’s causing problems. I personally feel it’s the fact that they keep throwing a bunch of cheap filler mechanics at game play that doesn’t need them to begin with.
>
> I would challenge 343 to actually refine Halo as a game, rather than to just keep throwing a bunch of the “latest, greatest” fluff at it, in hopes that something sticks. If they’d focus on refining the game itself, its maps and basics, rather than having to continuously refine the whole formula just to balance a plethora of little more than “push button X to counter additional mechanic Y” then they’d be more likely to improve peoples’ experiences rather than expanding them for the sake of it.

I 100% Agree

> 2533274839169051;12795:
> > 2535410901623492;12791:
> > > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > > >
> > > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > > >
> > > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > > >
> > > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> > >
> > > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
> >
> > Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…
>
> blaming the changes is like ignoring the ten different gorillas in the room (CoD stealing the throne is one many of many reasons), also this isn’t comparison on a apples to oranges scale you guys are comparing vegetables, fruits, and anything else sold in supermarkets.
> Pokemon is essentially crack for kids.

The average age of pokemon player is 20 actually

> 2533274825830455;12792:
> > 2535410901623492;12791:
> > > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > > >
> > > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > > >
> > > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > > >
> > > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> > >
> > > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
> >
> > Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…
>
> Four of those series listed have undergone one of the biggest changes in video game history; that is, the transition from 2D to 3D. Moreover, Mario is probably the worst game you can take as an example of having minimal changes, considering that if you disregard all the numerous spin-off, even the mainline Super Mario games introduce significant new game changing mechanics from sequel to sequel.
>
> Let’s be honest to ourselves here. We don’t want to pretend that making changes to gameplay would suddenly make a game more relevant, but let’s not pretend that every franchise can survive the test of time with minimal changes either. The reality is that there’s no magic bullet approach to keeping game series relevant in long term. You cannot argue how one game would succeed based on the success of others. You cannot claim what works for one game works for every game. You cannot draw conclusions concerning Halo’s success from the success of other games.
>
> No one knows whether Halo would’ve been more or less popular had it evolved in a different direction at any point. As far as popularity is concerned, Halo never needed to change, but neither did it need to stay the same. It didn’t need anything, things just went one way, and we can only ever speculate what might have happened had they gone some other way.

The difference is that 343 made changes to Halo that were detrimental to the overall uniqueness of the franchise. The rest of those games, in most cases, made changes that didn’t alienate the original fan-base as much as Halo has.

Also, why exactly can we not compare the success of different games? If one game has a 15 hour campaign and one game has a 4 hour campaign, am I not allowed to compare them and say why one might have been more successful?

> 2535410901623492;12797:
> > 2533274839169051;12795:
> > > 2535410901623492;12791:
> > > > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > > > >
> > > > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > > > >
> > > > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> > > >
> > > > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
> > >
> > > Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…
> >
> > blaming the changes is like ignoring the ten different gorillas in the room (CoD stealing the throne is one many of many reasons), also this isn’t comparison on a apples to oranges scale you guys are comparing vegetables, fruits, and anything else sold in supermarkets.
> > Pokemon is essentially crack for kids.
>
> The average age of pokemon player is 20 actually

so they have been hooked since it’s launch :wink:

> 2533274839169051;12799:
> > 2535410901623492;12797:
> > > 2533274839169051;12795:
> > > > 2535410901623492;12791:
> > > > > 2533275035781111;12790:
> > > > > > 2535410901623492;12788:
> > > > > > Pokemon Sun and Moon have sold 2.5x more units than Halo 5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Halo 5 has 4.31m sales
> > > > > > Pokemon has sold over 10m
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A franchise with no deviation from it’s core formula ever, that has been around longer than Halo, on less popular console than Xbox, with “outdated” turnbased combat gameplay, is selling over double the franchise that “has to evolve to stay relevant”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, Halo reaaaaalllllly needed those changes
> > > > >
> > > > > Especially since halo has a three year cycle it’s not like there making the same game year after year, it has enough time to feel fresh again.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, just Like Pokemon, Battlefield, Gears Of War, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Mario, Zelda…
> > >
> > > blaming the changes is like ignoring the ten different gorillas in the room (CoD stealing the throne is one many of many reasons), also this isn’t comparison on a apples to oranges scale you guys are comparing vegetables, fruits, and anything else sold in supermarkets.
> > > Pokemon is essentially crack for kids.
> >
> > The average age of pokemon player is 20 actually
>
> so they have been hooked since it’s launch :wink:

Indeed

Which just shows how long a great formula can retain it’s fanbases attention when given the time stay fresh

> 2535410901623492;12794:
> A change between 2D and 3D, oddly enough, isn’t as “massive” if the core Ideals of the franchise are left intact.

Going from 2D to 3D is certainly more massive than anything that has happened to Halo. If you claim that any game that has undergone that change has retained its core ideals, I can only see saying that Halo has not as denial.

> 2535410901623492;12794:
> Mario has gone 3D, but remained a platformer game about an Italian plumber, coins were still a focus, beating levels was still a focus, and Nintendo continue to produce new 2D/3D scrolling level Mario games

Yes and Halo is still a shooter game about a green cyborg, killing aliens is still a focus, beating levels is still a focus. But these are not the “core ideals” of Halo. They’re surface level descriptions about the game. Same goes for describing Mario games as “platformers where you play as an Italian plumber collecting coins with the goal of completing levels”. That’s as surface level as you get. Going from 2D platforming to 3D platforming is a massive change in gameplay. There were so many more mechanics, obstacles, and tactics in Super Mario 64 than in any of the 2D Mario games. Those games play nothing alike. Heck, even Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine (or Galaxy) are about as different in gameplay than Halo CE and 5.

> 2535410901623492;12794:
> Pokemon, while going 3D, is still a completely turn based RPG about throwing balls at pocket monsters

Honestly, I didn’t even think of Pokemon when I wrote that. I haven’t really played the new Pokemon games, so I didn’t think of the new ones being 3D, but I can’t really speak of them, though it seems to me like the 3D is only at the surface level based on what little I’ve seen.

> 2535410901623492;12794:
> GTA is still an open world crime simulater that parodies society

FYI, GTA used to be 2D. The other games I was referring to besides that and Mario were Zelda and Fallout.

> 2535410901623492;12794:
> The Core identity of those titles remains intact. this is innovation to enhance a design, they build on what was established by enhancing out the best parts of those games.

You define the “core identity” for each game in whatever way fits your agenda. Why isn’t the core identity of Halo “a space shooter about a war between humans and aliens”? That’s about as detailed description of Halo as you gave about Mario and GTA, and if that’s the core identity, then nothing has changed.

> 2533274939777077;12798:
> The difference is that 343 made changes to Halo that were detrimental to the overall uniqueness of the franchise. The rest of those games, in most cases, made changes that didn’t alienate the original fan-base as much as Halo has.

So, lucky them, right?

> 2533274939777077;12798:
> Also, why exactly can we not compare the success of different games? If one game has a 15 hour campaign and one game has a 4 hour campaign, am I not allowed to compare them and say why one might have been more successful?

There are successful games that are purely single player, and games that have no single player component to speak of. There are some amazing games that can be completed in a few hours, and terrible games that take ages to grind through. I don’t know what information you can glean from the number of hours one has to spend to complete the single player, it’s entirely arbitrary when it comes to the quality of that single player experience.

> 2533274825830455;12801:
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> > A change between 2D and 3D, oddly enough, isn’t as “massive” if the core Ideals of the franchise are left intact.
>
> Going from 2D to 3D is certainly more massive than anything that has happened to Halo. If you claim that any game that has undergone that change has retained its core ideals, I can only see saying that Halo has not as denial.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> > Mario has gone 3D, but remained a platformer game about an Italian plumber, coins were still a focus, beating levels was still a focus, and Nintendo continue to produce new 2D/3D scrolling level Mario games
>
> Yes and Halo is still a shooter game about a green cyborg, killing aliens is still a focus, beating levels is still a focus. But these are not the “core ideals” of Halo. They’re surface level descriptions about the game. Same goes for describing Mario games as “platformers where you play as an Italian plumber collecting coins with the goal of completing levels”. That’s as surface level as you get. Going from 2D platforming to 3D platforming is a massive change in gameplay. There were so many more mechanics, obstacles, and tactics in Super Mario 64 than in any of the 2D Mario games. Those games play nothing alike. Heck, even Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine (or Galaxy) are about as different in gameplay than Halo CE and 5.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> > Pokemon, while going 3D, is still a completely turn based RPG about throwing balls at pocket monsters
>
> Honestly, I didn’t even think of Pokemon when I wrote that. I haven’t really played the new Pokemon games, so I didn’t think of the new ones being 3D, but I can’t really speak of them, though it seems to me like the 3D is only at the surface level based on what little I’ve seen.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> > GTA is still an open world crime simulater that parodies society
>
> FYI, GTA used to be 2D. The other games I was referring to besides that and Mario were Zelda and Fallout.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> > The Core identity of those titles remains intact. this is innovation to enhance a design, they build on what was established by enhancing out the best parts of those games.
>
> You define the “core identity” for each game in whatever way fits your agenda. Why isn’t the core identity of Halo “a space shooter about a war between humans and aliens”? That’s about as detailed description of Halo as you gave about Mario and GTA, and if that’s the core identity, then nothing has changed.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274939777077;12798:
> > The difference is that 343 made changes to Halo that were detrimental to the overall uniqueness of the franchise. The rest of those games, in most cases, made changes that didn’t alienate the original fan-base as much as Halo has.
>
> So, lucky them, right?
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274939777077;12798:
> > Also, why exactly can we not compare the success of different games? If one game has a 15 hour campaign and one game has a 4 hour campaign, am I not allowed to compare them and say why one might have been more successful?
>
> There are successful games that are purely single player, and games that have no single player component to speak of. There are some amazing games that can be completed in a few hours, and terrible games that take ages to grind through. I don’t know what information you can glean from the number of hours one has to spend to complete the single player, it’s entirely arbitrary when it comes to the quality of that single player experience.

I chose to use abbreviated, short descriptions for the sake of time, which, agreeably, hurt my point. I am aware and have played 2D GTA. it was still an open world game when it was 2D.

Core Ideals is a very broad statement, and means far more than my shortened descriptions stated, obviously. but that isn’t the point, that is picking apart a weaker area of my overall point that remained intact.

343 Halo, does not feel very much like Halo 1-3, or even Halo Reach. 343 has utterly different focus on what they see as Halo than Bungie did. Halo 1-3 and even Reach could be considered the video-gamefaction of movies like Alien and Predator. it is a Ridley Scott style Sci-fi universe in art style, dialogue and characters, while melding the explorative and mysterious elements of Star Wars. Gameplay wise it was influenced by legacy shooters like Half Life and Quake, but built specifically bring out the best in consoles. In Halo 1-3 you are depicted as playing as a walking tank, and even Halo Reach to some extent, and in Halo 1-3, you never lost the ability to shoot and move at the same time

And even that doens’t explain it all, but those are some big parts of what made Halo games, Halo, almost of all which are gone entirely.

And there is a running trend in the gaming industry of games than do 180 in the identity apartment, and attempt to copy over games, they die out.

What I said about going 2D to 3D was that if the core Ideals of a franchise remain intact, it doens’t have a massive impact on the identity of the game. the identity of games like GTA, Zelda, Mario have all remained intact through the transition from 2D to 3D. what attracted people the majority of people to those titles has remained intact

That isn’t the case for Halo

> 2533274825830455;12801:
> > 2535410901623492;12794:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274939777077;12798:
> > The difference is that 343 made changes to Halo that were detrimental to the overall uniqueness of the franchise. The rest of those games, in most cases, made changes that didn’t alienate the original fan-base as much as Halo has.
>
> So, lucky them, right?
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274939777077;12798:
> > Also, why exactly can we not compare the success of different games? If one game has a 15 hour campaign and one game has a 4 hour campaign, am I not allowed to compare them and say why one might have been more successful?
>
> There are successful games that are purely single player, and games that have no single player component to speak of. There are some amazing games that can be completed in a few hours, and terrible games that take ages to grind through. I don’t know what information you can glean from the number of hours one has to spend to complete the single player, it’s entirely arbitrary when it comes to the quality of that single player experience.

I was simply using the hours as an example. I see no reason why we’re apparently not allowed to say ‘This game was better because of this’, or ‘This game would have been better if it had this.’ I’m not saying longer campaign = better campaign, in many cases I would much prefer an awesome 3 hour campaign over a mediocre 16 hour campaign. I’m just saying that there’s no reason not to compare games to see which one is better, and for what reasons.

Also, what exactly do you mean by ‘So lucky them, right?’ I don’t see why Luck has anything to do with it. 343 made poor decisions with a lot of the changes they made to Halo. Other companies have been able to make changes to series, without completely ruining the series identity, and alienating the fanbase.