The sprint discussion thread

Games Halo 5: Guardians
12804

I simply look at the success of Halo CE, 2 and 3…and then compare it to the success of Halo 4 and Halo 5…

My friends list used to play the original trilogy religiously, and I mean every day…

I understand there is more than one reason for losing player population, but the biggest elephant in the room, and the most debated point for multiplayer, is the inclusion of sprint…

Halo DOES NOT NEED to conform to standard elements in FPS’s these days e.g. sprint and quick mobility, yet it’s a sad truth that 343 can’t see that the direction their taking the franchise is off a cliff…

Just get rid of sprint already, we’re two games on from Halo 3 and neither have had anywhere near the success of player retention…

12805

> 2603643534597848;12783:
> 1) You clearly will dismiss any alternative to your thinking. Anyone not thinking like the whole does not belong. I’ve long abandoned the ideal that Halo2 does indeed suck myself.
>
> 2) What you really don’t realise is many times on a Counter Strike forum, now and from YEARS AGO, and I mean older than your anti-H4 sprint post, is that while it’s agreed players carry a magic pocket that holds any weapon of size, the “reality” of the situation is that the larger the weapon out, the more it affects your BMS from its weight. So much so that using a Knife allows players to run really fast.
>
> The game uses a bit of “reality” to create a gameplay mechanic you’re wrongly saying it doesn’t.

  1. Thinking we should be able to do things in game because the EU says so is foolish. If this were the case, why are plasma pistols not as damaging as they should be?

  2. I know this. I am saying that it is still unrealistic to move faster as you’re still holding the other weapons. This is not realistic.

> Yes, in CE, those long walks and the first sound of a frag ting. Part of the group that was hoping for cancelled H2 sprint (though remnants remain).
> H2 didn’t launch with a lot of small maps… Just 2 actual “small” maps. Most were squad-BTB maps that could be played 4x4 due to more verticallity over horizontal distance.
> H3 didn’t launch with small maps. They came in Foundry and the Mythic pack. MLG increased BMS by 10% because maps were indeed enlarged compared to H2.

Long walks? To be clear here, this is all from the perspective of competitive players. BTB I could understand, but that isn’t an issue when teleporters and vehicle placement is good (see Headlong).

H2 had plenty of small-mid 4v4 maps. Launch isn’t exactly an issue, it still had around 4-6. At the end I’m counting 10. None of these maps made me feel as if I wanted to go faster. Everyone was within my area.

H3 had some of the worst launch maps. EVER. Later on it got better. This is also not the reason MLG bumped the speed up. The maps were fine. It was the FOV that was the issue, and since we can’t change that, they bumped up speed. Midship, Blackout, Guardian, Construct, they’re all smaller maps. The long killtimes and slow movement speed created a boring game to watch and play.

> Really?
> H5’s Arena maps all roughly occupy the Pit’s floor space, give or take, and CE-H3 used 2.25BMS, Reach is 2.18BMS, H4 is 2.2BMS and H5 is 2.6BMS.

I highly doubt this. Do you mean the bottom levels, or the entire playable space? Playing against better players without sprinting puts you at a huge disadvantage for collapsing on spawns and rotating, I’m sure your numbers for the BMS are correct but the maps have definitely been enlarged to accommodate the movement. See Fathom, don’t sprint through an entire game. The map is clearly too large and you’re going to slow. The same can be applied for most maps, besides Eden and The Rig, both of which are highly segmented.

> Sprint or not, a camper is taking down someone in their line of view. Sprint is more about getting away from grenades or to and from a battle because combat BMS is slow when one readies their weapon to fire (which is a requirement in CoD, not H5).
>
> Battlefield has you spawn in better positions than Halo’s BTB. You’re more often able to get a vehicle than a medic!
>
> It’s casual gamer knowledge to make these kinds of statements, not intimately knowledgeable.

I think that’s what the original poster meant. Sprint is used to get away and to gunfights in COD, as the movement speed and kill times work in a way that in order to efficiently move around, you need sprint, and in order to shoot, you sacrifice some of your movement speed. In Halo, the first is partially true. The problem with Halo is that with the longer killtimes, sprint can now be used to get away from gunfights. This is the problem. Giving a player an opportunity to escape when they shouldn’t be able to is a problem, as it allows more bad plays.

12806

> 2533274939777077;12803:
> > 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.

Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?

Also, you can’t arbitrarily define Halo’s identity and then say it’s ruined. Halo’s “identity” is purely subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what it is.

12807

> 2533274848599184;12806:
> > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > 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.
>
> Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?

Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:

COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.

12808

> 2533274922666376;12804:
> I simply look at the success of Halo CE, 2 and 3…and then compare it to the success of Halo 4 and Halo 5…
>
> My friends list used to play the original trilogy religiously, and I mean every day…
>
> I understand there is more than one reason for losing player population, but the biggest elephant in the room, and the most debated point for multiplayer, is the inclusion of sprint…
>
> Halo DOES NOT NEED to conform to standard elements in FPS’s these days e.g. sprint and quick mobility, yet it’s a sad truth that 343 can’t see that the direction their taking the franchise is off a cliff…
>
> Just get rid of sprint already, we’re two games on from Halo 3 and neither have had anywhere near the success of player retention…

It’s not fair to blanket the problems of the Halo series into sprint. It’s also not fair to use previous game metrics to decided what would work in today’s industry. The game industry has changed drastically, as has the consumers.

I’d also like to ask why it’s the job of the Sci fi military space shooter to dumb down on movement and abilities, while all the modern shooters breach further and further into that futuristic/Sci fi genre. What exactly are FPS standards? Is this something a consumer expects?

12809

> 2533274848599184;12808:
> > 2533274922666376;12804:
> > I simply look at the success of Halo CE, 2 and 3…and then compare it to the success of Halo 4 and Halo 5…
> >
> > My friends list used to play the original trilogy religiously, and I mean every day…
> >
> > I understand there is more than one reason for losing player population, but the biggest elephant in the room, and the most debated point for multiplayer, is the inclusion of sprint…
> >
> > Halo DOES NOT NEED to conform to standard elements in FPS’s these days e.g. sprint and quick mobility, yet it’s a sad truth that 343 can’t see that the direction their taking the franchise is off a cliff…
> >
> > Just get rid of sprint already, we’re two games on from Halo 3 and neither have had anywhere near the success of player retention…
>
> It’s not fair to blanket the problems of the Halo series into sprint. It’s also not fair to use previous game metrics to decided what would work in today’s industry. The game industry has changed drastically, as has the consumers.
>
> I’d also like to ask why it’s the job of the Sci fi military space shooter to dumb down on movement and abilities, while all the modern shooters breach further and further into that futuristic/Sci fi genre. What exactly are FPS standards? Is this something a consumer expects?

I’m not blanketing all of Halo’s problems into sprint alone…I think campaign storyline, map design and marketing have a lot to answer for as well.

Why isn’t it fair? The base fact is that Halo 4 and Halo 5 haven’t been as successful at retaining a population as previous titles.

I agree the industry and consumers have changed, however a company moving away from the basic formula, in order to appeal to the newest crowd of youngsters, isn’t going to work for its long-term success. I mean seriously, how many high mobility/ sprint FPS’s are out at the moment?

I never said it’s the job of the sci-fi shooter to dumb down on movement and abilities, or that modern shooters have begun to overlap into a sci-fi theme…The basic premise is that Halo had a core gameplay that was solid, successful and it worked…I personally expect it to stay that way.

12810

> 2533274970658419;12807:
> > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
>
> Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
>
> COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.

Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.

The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them prove anything.

12811

> 2533274922666376;12809:
> > 2533274848599184;12808:
> > > 2533274922666376;12804:
> > > I simply look at the success of Halo CE, 2 and 3…and then compare it to the success of Halo 4 and Halo 5…
> > >
> > > My friends list used to play the original trilogy religiously, and I mean every day…
> > >
> > > I understand there is more than one reason for losing player population, but the biggest elephant in the room, and the most debated point for multiplayer, is the inclusion of sprint…
> > >
> > > Halo DOES NOT NEED to conform to standard elements in FPS’s these days e.g. sprint and quick mobility, yet it’s a sad truth that 343 can’t see that the direction their taking the franchise is off a cliff…
> > >
> > > Just get rid of sprint already, we’re two games on from Halo 3 and neither have had anywhere near the success of player retention…
> >
> > It’s not fair to blanket the problems of the Halo series into sprint. It’s also not fair to use previous game metrics to decided what would work in today’s industry. The game industry has changed drastically, as has the consumers.
> >
> > I’d also like to ask why it’s the job of the Sci fi military space shooter to dumb down on movement and abilities, while all the modern shooters breach further and further into that futuristic/Sci fi genre. What exactly are FPS standards? Is this something a consumer expects?
>
> I’m not blanketing all of Halo’s problems into sprint alone…I think campaign storyline, map design and marketing have a lot to answer for as well.
>
> Why isn’t it fair? The base fact is that Halo 4 and Halo 5 haven’t been as successful at retaining a population as previous titles.
>
> I agree the industry and consumers have changed, however a company moving away from the basic formula, in order to appeal to the newest crowd of youngsters, isn’t going to work for its long-term success. I mean seriously, how many high mobility/ sprint FPS’s are out at the moment?
>
> I never said it’s the job of the sci-fi shooter to dumb down on movement and abilities, or that modern shooters have begun to overlap into a sci-fi theme…The basic premise is that Halo had a core gameplay that was solid, successful and it worked…I personally expect it to stay that way.

Well Halo 5 supposedly has great player retention. If you want to go tin foil hat and argue it’s all fabrications, I can’t do much there. I can argue that the industry changing has a lot to do with Halo’s retention and sales.

The thing is, you have no idea if 343 is targeting youngsters specifically or if they are creating the own vision for Halo.

How many high mobility shooters out there are started as a sci-fi military shooter? Halo and Titanfall. I don’t consider Overwatch to fit into the same genre, and each character has their own movement ability or effect.

Halo 2-3 are very different from CE. Reach is a failed experiment. There is no core Halo that prohibits sprint, or states that gun ready movement is completely needed. Even the revered golden triangle doesn’t account for what I’d say is an important part of Halo’s gameplay, map position. Something that gets tied into movement most of the time.

12812

> 2533274848599184;12810:
> > 2533274970658419;12807:
> > > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> >
> > Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
> >
> > COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.
>
> Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.
>
> The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them prove anything.

The medal of honor series has been pretty bad, the latest one was terrible. Crysis has also only had 3 games, and look at the reception of those. I don’t know enough about those games to comment, however, Crysis 3 is regarded as a great game. Not sure what you mean.

AC is also released yearly with almost no changes. Using it as an example is reaching.

No, the difference is that AC hardly changed, and died due to it’s repetition. Halo was doing fine, 3 years between every mainline game, and each was more successful than the last.

12813

> 2533274848599184;12810:
> > 2533274970658419;12807:
> > > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> >
> > Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
> >
> > COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.
>
> Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.
>
> The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them proCrysve anything.

Medal Of Honour Died for the same reason other arena shooters died to Halo. because CoD ended up doing it in more accessible and simpler way to the mass audiences compared to the competition. MoH was ressurected and tried to copy CoD, MoH died.

Assassins Creed was suffering from the same issue as modern CoD was prior to IW, it’s not a repetitive formula, its the same formula EVERY YEAR. Give people time to want more, and it can last decades, Pokemon, GTA, Elder Scrolls, Zelda and Mario are but a few examples. CoD has gotten away with it for so long because, whether people like to admit it or not, there were fairly large differences between IW and Treyarch CoDs, not necessarily in gameplay, but in art style, tone, custom class mechanics, progression and storytelling, and, well Zombies. Enough that the easily entertained consumer who likes his yearly instant gratification software will throw money at it.

12814

> 2533274970658419;12812:
> > 2533274848599184;12810:
> > > 2533274970658419;12807:
> > > > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> > >
> > > Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
> > >
> > > COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.
> >
> > Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.
> >
> > The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them prove anything.
>
> The medal of honor series has been pretty bad, the latest one was terrible. Crysis has also only had 3 games, and look at the reception of those. I don’t know enough about those games to comment, however, Crysis 3 is regarded as a great game. Not sure what you mean.
>
> AC is also released yearly with almost no changes. Using it as an example is reaching.
>
> No, the difference is that AC hardly changed, and died due to it’s repetition. Halo was doing fine, 3 years between every mainline game, and each was more successful than the last.

Medal of Honor is the original Call of Duty. Anything that started with Steven Speilberg deserves some respect. Its a series that barely changed, and even with new guns and new settings, it died out. It was replaced. Crysis had 4 games, it started as a huge PC hit, but didnt change to the industry, and is now probably dead. You argued that the games you mentioned had changed and were suffering, but all I see in the list you posted in some of the most populated games on the market. (CoD, Battlefront, CS Go)

Lets be honest, if Crysis 3 is considered a great game, Halo 5 must be the -Yoink!- best game ever made. Crysis 3 cost $66 million dollars to make, and sold 200,000 copies in its inital month of sales. It sold considerably less than Crysis 2, which sold considerably less than Crysis 1, and Crysis 1 was a PC only game, with the infamous “Can it run Crysis?” line implying that only the best of the best computers could run Crysis. Crysis didnt change, and essentially ruined Crytek. They arent even considering another game in the franchise.

AC changed enough. It introduced multiplayer, made free roaming better, introduced guilds and bosses and gangs. Its just that the “core gameplay” stagnated. The whole “go hear, listen to this conversation, kill this guy” was too boring after 6 games. Halo is a universe that is very much time locked compared to AC, so the yearly releases shouldnt mean that much when there is so much to explore. The last entry in the series to do fairly well (Black Flag) actually took you to a different place in the world. Instead of sneaking around in the shadows and walking around everywhere, you were sailing a ship through the Caribbean, killing whales and looting. Then they went back to large cities, full of fetch quests and eavesdropping, and it stagnated.

The point im trying to make is that for every game you say has not changed and retained a large part of their fanbase (for the record, my initial statement was “Name a game that hasnt changed and has still retained its core fanbase”, and you didnt answer that), I can name a number of games that failed to adapt to the industry and got left behind as a result.

12815

> 2535410901623492;12813:
> > 2533274848599184;12810:
> > > 2533274970658419;12807:
> > > > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> > >
> > > Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
> > >
> > > COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.
> >
> > Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.
> >
> > The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them proCrysve anything.
>
> Medal Of Honour Died for the same reason other arena shooters died to Halo. because CoD ended up doing it in more accessible and simpler way to the mass audiences compared to the competition. MoH was ressurected and tried to copy CoD, MoH died.
>
> Assassins Creed was suffering from the same issue as modern CoD was prior to IW, it’s not a repetitive formula, its the same formula EVERY YEAR. Give people time to want more, and it can last decades, Pokemon, GTA, Elder Scrolls, Zelda and Mario are but a few examples. CoD has gotten away with it for so long because, whether people like to admit it or not, there were fairly large differences between IW and Treyarch CoDs, not necessarily in gameplay, but in art style, tone, custom class mechanics, progression and storytelling, and, well Zombies. Enough that the easily entertained consumer who likes his yearly instant gratification software will throw money at it.

Medal of Honor was dying long before CoD was ever relevant, and I think it worthy to note CoD only became relevant when it stopped being a WW2 shooter and became something more modern and relateable. MoH was resurrected, and then EA brought it into direct competition to Battlefield at the peak of its popularity (Bad Company 2). Medal of Honor did fine the first time, but Warfighter is what actually killed the series for good.

Again, Assassin’s Creed is not the same formula every year, at least in the sense of what we are talking about. The only thing that stagnated the AC series is the “core gameplay”. Ubi hit a gold mine with Black Flag, where they used the setting to its full amount, where you could intercept messages, loot pillage and plunder, and fight the Templars your own way. It probably helped that the main character wasnt really raised to be an Assassin. Then, Unity went and took it all back to eavesdropping and large buildings, and brought AC down. Ubisoft took a year off from AC to let the core gameplay become relevant again.

GTA, Zelda, and Mario have all changed. I only started playing Elder Scrolls from Oblivion, so I cant comment on the others, but Skyrim and Oblivion feel plenty different to me. All of those games have transitioned from 2D-3D, and quite frankly, there are so many in the series that they eventually get grouped in different ways. Pokemon hasnt changed, but there isnt much to do to change the way battling works. What I can say is that the games have gotten much, much easier, and that the little things like EXP share working on all Pokemon instead of 1 and Wonder Trade have changed the way the game is played.

12816

> 2533274848599184;12806:
> > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > 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.
>
> Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
>
> Also, you can’t arbitrarily define Halo’s identity and then say it’s ruined. Halo’s “identity” is purely subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what it is.

343 changed things that didn’t need changing, added things that didn’t need adding, and removed things that shouldn’t have been removed. Change is not always a good thing.

A large part of this is because 343 is trying to appeal to Non Halo fans, instead of the fans that Halo already has. They did this by making Halo more like other FPS’s and less like Halo, and therefore Halo lost it’s identity.

12817

> 2535455681930574;12728:
> Lazy link.

I don’t know where you dug up that blog, but there’s really no other way of saying it, other than that it’s wrong.
This isn’t even just me disagreeing with you anymore. thy ReaperMC already linked an article one page before you where not one, not two, but three scientists claim the exact opposite.

Dr. Ralph Mann (Ph.D. in Biomechanics, former sprinter)

> Contrary to popular belief, superior arm action does not produce superior sprint performance. In fact, regardless of the quality of the sprinter, there is no significant difference in the arm action. If a sprinter could improve the horizontal velocity simply by moving the arms faster, then even old, out of shape coaches could run as fast as the elite sprinter since virtually everyone can move their arms fast enough to produce an elite level stride rate of five steps per seconds.

Dr. Peter Weyand (Professor of Applied Physiology & Biomechanics):

> Once a runner is up to speed, the arms swing largely like passive pendulums, providing balance, minimizing center of mass energy losses and conserving the body’s momentum. While arm movements are coordinated with torso and leg movements to achieve the energy transfers that minimize center of mass energy losses, they certainly do not control leg movements and have very little effect on the all-important ground reaction forces.

Dr. Ken Clark (Professor of Kinesiology):

> Once the runner is up to top speed, the arms mostly serve to counter-balance the legs and have minimal effect on setting the tone for stride rate or length. While I don’t have an issue with incorporating a few basic arm drive drills into the early portion of practice, I have not had success either as an athlete or coach by making arm action a big area of technical focus.

https://www.freelapusa.com/a-farewell-to-arms-the-debate-over-arm-swing-mechanics-in-sprinting/.

It still baffles me how this superstition that something you do with your arms should improve the efficiency of a movement caused by the legs can keep itself alive so persistently since it doesn’t even hold up to superficial scrutiny, let alone an in-depth analysis.

Speed is determined by the momentum of the body, which in turn is caused by the force you apply onto the ground with your feet (taking into account the fricion coefficient), and resulting in a repulsion according to Newton’s third law. The angle at which this force is applied determines how much of said momentum is oriented forward (cosine of the angle) and upward (sine of the angle).
The problem is that the feet apply the force off-center relative to your body, which in turn will create a torque (M = r × F) on your lower body. This is where arm swinging comes into play. The arms swing in order to counterbalance this torque and keep the velocity oriented forward and the human body upright. They do not increase running speed unless you are using them to push yourself off of objects you run by.
If anything, arm swinging has the possibility to decrease speed gradually, as the periodic movement through the air causes friction which in turn reduces an object’s speed (generally speaking, not limited to runners/sprinters).
On the other hand, while arm swinging is beneficial to balance the body while running, it is but one out of many techniques that can be applied to this end, and is by no means required.
A paper investigating metabolic cost of different running methods mentions arm swinging, hands crossed behind the back, behind the head and in front of the chest as possible counter-balance techniques. It turns out that arm swinging has a positive effect on the energy consumption compared to the other three, but they are still valid alternatives in order to achieve the same balance, since none of the participants seem to have consistently fallen off the treadmill…

I apologize for the delayed post, but I was gone over the weekend and had no access to a computer. I could have replied on my phone but the post wouldn’t have had the proper formatting and correct linking that I felt was needed to convey the message.

Now that this topic has been thoroughly dealth with, can we please let this misconception finally die? I don’t mind people liking sprint as a mechanic. Me, personally, I hate it, but I can accept people having different preferences. But if you make your opinion on that matter, could you please at least live in the same reality as the rest of us does?
Thank you.

12818

Celestis

> I can accept people having different preferences. But if you make your opinion on that matter, could you please at least live in the same reality as the rest of us does?

This is should be the official quote of 2016…

> 2533274939777077;12816:
> > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> >
> > Also, you can’t arbitrarily define Halo’s identity and then say it’s ruined. Halo’s “identity” is purely subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what it is.
>
> 343 changed things that didn’t need changing, added things that didn’t need adding, and removed things that shouldn’t have been removed. Change is not always a good thing.
>
> A large part of this is because 343 is trying to appeal to Non Halo fans, instead of the fans that Halo already has. They did this by making Halo more like other FPS’s and less like Halo, and therefore Halo lost it’s identity.

I think the truth lies somewhere between both of your views. Halo’s identity is unique to each player, rather than being a set in stone thing.

But if you look at the sub-communities of Halo and what they get out of Halo, break Halo down in to parts, you can clearly see certain aspects of the franchise going missing or changing and that changes how people perceive the franchise.

12819

> 2533274801176260;12817:
> > 2535455681930574;12728:
> >

> However, Mann qualifies his position by noting that this doesn’t mean arms aren’t important in sprinting. “They are critical to the maintenance of balance,” he says, “as well as providing a slight vertical lift during each stride.

And you quote balance many a times but the ignore it. Your quotes also note the momentum load taken off of the legs to allow for more efficient use of energy.
And if you look way back to what I posted, I highlighted this.

It was noted way back a couple pages, top speed may be strength, achieving top speed is a matter of balance. And as humans, we do not do things as most difficultly as possible on purpose, unless training.

Now of course, sprinters and runners get the benefit a flat surface. And while many coaches will agree to disagree on the subject, you can’t deny the technique of the Usian Bolt and his advice, or that many runners train sprinting uphill and/or using parachutes, which messes with their balance and you always see them pumping their arms.

Do remember, now you’re argueing that humans can sprint with just their legs for top speed under perfect conditions (and didn’t note, will produce more lactic acids in the legs due to more power exertion, so top speed for less time), and that’s why a super soldier should be able to sprint top speed on a variable surface battlefield while not moving their upper torso to compensate for balance, because they’ve got strong legs and burn lactic acids! That’s funny looking.

Of course, a Speed Booster can give enhancements to the suit, almost like using the Armour Lock function that keeps a Spartan safe in tumbles and crashes, to increase the suit’s leg strength enhancers for short periods of times.
Could design a suit around making an even faster Spartan than now. But they’d still be able to sprint. And go faster in many cases.

Which, btw, I did not bother addressing that a biped and quadruped’s top speeds are determined by gravity. To compare true fiction to reality, the Flash would not run faster because he’s super faster, he would leap great bounds due to being able to exert his vector independent to Earth’s accelerations (gravity & spinning). Not accounting for “Speed Force” waving its hand beyond making super speed.

12820

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> 2533274977241074;12613:
> sprint is helpful at times

This guy, this guy gets it.

12821

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

God I hate sprint in Halo. Makes it feel so awkward to have to to put your gun down ever 2 seconds to be able to just move around. Really kills the fluidity.

12822

<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> 2533274848599184;12810:
> > 2533274970658419;12807:
> > > 2533274848599184;12806:
> > > > 2533274939777077;12803:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Which games have made changes to the series and retained their original fanbase?
> >
> > Just goes to show you that maybe changing what people like isn’t a great way to maintain your original audience :slight_smile:
> > COD, CSGO (launch), Battlefront, and even Halo suffer(ed) from a situation where changing in order to stay fresh hurt the series. CSGO was almost unrecognizable at launch, no one played it and went back to CSS or 1.6. Look at it now. Things changed, and now it is closer to the original games.
>
> Medal of Honor, Crysis. Two games that barely changed and have been relegated to video game history. Assassin’s Creed. A series that became so reptitive that they had to create a break to bring back some enthusiasm.
> The difference between our two sets of games is your list has the largest games on the market right now, and my list has dead games. Your games still do very well (CoD is still the largest release every year). We can throw out lists all we want. none of them prove anything.

Actually crisis faded into obscurity because it start to go down the COD route and much like with Halo, the core fanbase absolutely rejected it and causal fans never migrated over.

12823

I read people’s comments about compromising sprint. One question, how can you compromise something that cannot be compromised? About the sprint, there are only two options, keeping or removing. Keeping sprint in certain aspect of game or removing it in certain aspect of game is not a compromise. Like some people countered, what if people want to play that certain aspect of game but never want sprint there or want sprint? Since they cannot play what they want with the gameplay they want, this sprint issue will probably continue, it doesn’t solve the problem. Like said at beginning, sprint is something that cannot be compromised. What people want is absence of sprint and another wants presence of sprint. You can’t compromise this.

By the way, this issue would have been never existed if 343 never added sprint to Halo.