[deleted]
[deleted]
It’s so disappointing this debate is still happening to this day. I haven’t been on the forums awhile and today I seen this thread and felt obligated to contribute to it. I have grown tired of trying to make a change in halo, hence why I have kept my mouth shut and stayed away from the forums for awhile because it feels like we are screaming at a brick wall. I love halo and want halo to return to its former glory so I’m going to throw a comment on this thread.
First off I’d like to thank all of the anti-sprinter’s for still fighting the battle. I have been waiting for 7 years for a halo game that actually feels new and also like halo. Honestly I do not have to make a list of cons about sprint on my comment because I have scimmed through this thread and I see all the points I could make have already been covered to death. Just mark me down as another anti-sprinter.
All of my halo friends I use to run with back in the day are all gone now, and its not because of “more competition” nor is it just people getting older and uninterested in games, the answer I always receive is halo is not halo anymore. I still play halo because It’s the closest thing to old halo. I can’t go play other games because I’m not interested in them. There is no other game out there that comes close to what the old halo’s were.
I just want to keep this debate alive before all of us get tired and quit Halo and the new generation of fans grow giving halo a brand new community praising the game. Then after that 343 will say I told you so when in reality everyone left. This is something I’m slowly seeing.
No i don’t want a classic playlist. that wont do anything for me. How about you pro-sprinters and pro armor ability people get your one playlist and see how it feels. Design the game around classic halo and add the nonsense as options in custom games.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> Changes in trends, aging, Halo isn’t immune to any of these things.
Yes however Halo is on a positive side with both of those. Mobility is a trend, borderline trend I would have to say, it’s been a fad since the Brink game and people are getting tired of it. The latest “trend” of FPS games currently rising in popularity is that they have very litle in common! Those games are doing their own thing and are being unique in the process, that’s what gamers want.
In terms of aging, the only thing dated about Halo’s gameplay is the release date of those games that have it. If it were to come out today given gamer’s taste, It’s most certainly going to be beloved once again.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> Because sprint doesn’t make maps bigger, the designers’ vision does.
It does however, but in a certain way. As I’ve mentioned before players now have 2 sets of speed and the sheer existence of there being 2 and what needs to be done in achieving the fastest is the problem here. In order to make the mechanic feel it’s working, and have the player also “feel” they are moving faster, the maps have to accomendate sprint. A couple of other people also pointed you out on this quote.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> On the flip side, players are able to move faster, which allows a player to cover a larger part of the map in a given amount of time, which incerases the likelihood of encountering an opponent. The large amount of open area also increases the likelihood of having a direct line of sight at an opponent. Both of these are effects that can increase the rate of encounters, and therefore possibly the pace of gameplay. You see, it’s not as simple as you think it is.
>
> The history of this argument that sprint makes the game slower is quite interesting. I remember years ago arguing that sprint doesn’t make the game faster, because the maps have been designed with certain pace as a goal, not a fixed size. Since then, somewhere along the line someone decided that it’s not enough to argue that sprint doesn’t actually achieve its main claimed “benefit”, but that it actually does the opposite and makes the game slower. And while I’ve never been completely opposed to this argument, I’ve always been doubtful about it for the exact same reason I’m doubtful about sprint making gameplay faster: maps are designed for a given pace, not for size.
That is all an illusion and it ties in back to what you said, maps. There was ample ways to cover ground in previous games as well and since everyone moved at the same speed, you know for certain where you’ll encounter them. Prior Halo games have a treasure trove of beloved maps and they featured varied gameplay due to their stucture, flow, and enticing players to grab something of the ground.
Remember before, your mobility and ability to fight were both one and the same. This means you have to do both at the same time, which again means one’s ability to do well in winning games is all about the little things a player can pull off since everyone is completely on the same playing field. While at the same time, this introduces mind games that the current game simply can’t offer since you know players move at a set pace, capable of firing. The only speed adjustment a player can do is slow down while moving (usually by crouch walking), which is a negative thing but it allows bypassing of radar which is a fair tradeoff.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> Of course you can claim to know, and I can claim to know that there’s a pink unicorn at the center of the Earth. Doesn’t mean there actually is.
Ah but again, our claims are grounded in reality and are true since anyone is capable of seeing it with their own eyes. There’s no tricks, no gimmicks here, just pure Halo magic.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> Seriously speaking, you don’t know, you believe. It’s possible that you have some line of reasoning to support your belief, but ultimately you can’t prove that your belief is true. To start with, knowing the answer would mean that you have a quantitative definition of both strategy and predictability. That already would make me very happy because I’ve repeatedly failed at coming up with one. Then you would also have to be able to apply these definitions to given two games to rank them. That’d make it even more impressive. But alas, you have no such thing.
We prove our belief is true on the right grounds, a backdrop if you will where it is approriately and logically applicable. I dare say anti sprinters know exactly what they are talking about to anaylze a mechanic so thoroughly when it comes to strategy and prediactability. They know exactly how a game of Halo should play out if one fights against system, to figure out “why” Halo has changed and doesn’t play right.
Where do you think any of these comparsions you see in the forums, this very thread and in video format tsassi? I told you in the last post even we have prior games to compare things, with a couple of choices that are also quite different in their own right as well.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> If there is proof, then show me the proof. Of course, there actually is no proof. There are just arguments that appeal to the poster’s intuition, but those arguments are not proofs. A proof takes a set of definitions, and/or previously proven statements, and formally shiows that another statement logically follows from those. There are no proofs in this discussion.
There is, but you are wanting more or perhaps you are simply playing devil’s advocate. Sprint has been discussed to hell and back (see what I did there?) since the day it was shown to appear in Reach. If you’d like, I can put together everything I can find and witness to put together for you.
We do not dismiss pro sprinter’s arguments or stances keep in mind. We have taken their claims and put them to the test, and they fail to provide anything groundbreaking.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> No, not really. I’m just looking for a formal proof. If it’s not one, it’s at best a convincing argument, and in an absolute best case scenario (though rarely in this discussion) it might even have enough evidence supporting it that believing otherwise would just be silly, but it’s not a proof.
>
> Actually, I’m not expecting anyone to prove anything. I really just wish that everyone would be critical towards their own arguments, understand where they are making a leap in logic, try to think how they could improve their arguments, and ultimately understand the limitations of their arguments (i.e., that a proof is not possible). I have a long history of being dissatisfied with the quality of my arguments against sprint. I hope others would, too.
Everyone has been critical, critical about the mechanic, in their arguments, in collecting data. The results are there to see, that sprint is an overall bad mechanic for what makes Halo itself. I don’t think most people are dissatisfied about their arguments except in the past when some would probably just dismiss pro sprinter points outright.
We feel confident, on both a gameplay front, and on the business aspect of things as well.
(Also powerrrr so much powerrrr! Thanks for the tip.)
i like sprint, but i think i use it too much
> 2533274887665513;13844:
> > 2533274825830455;13838:
> > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > > How is it not true though?
> >
> > Because sprint doesn’t make maps bigger, the designers’ vision does.
>
> What? The designers vision? You treat it like we have a choice between making a classic scale map and a 343 scale map. I don’t make maps larger because I have always dreamed and envisioned a larger map, I make it larger because classic scale maps are almost always entirely broken by H5s movement. Map design responds to movement. If the movement changes, the maps change. How is this debatable? Do you make maps? I would assume not because every good designer I know in the forge community complains about how the movement limits their ability to design maps well. If everyone in this community had been designing Halo maps for as long as I had, I guarantee more would see the problem with designing for multiple movement speeds.
This, just this. Honestly. I encourage pro sprinters to go try to make a simple forge map in halo 5, one designed with sprint (and only sprint, you know, so it’s a little easier for them) then a map for no sprint. Then make them test it with friends. I’d think they instantly change their minds, especially after balancing it with ALL of Halo 5s movement mechanics…
> 2533274825830455;13842:
> > 2533274795123910;13839:
> > I think that a part of the “Map size” argument is how effective \ usable sprint is.
> > As tsassi said, i343 map developers could have made smaller maps than we have now, question is then how usable sprint would be on them.
> > If we take Swat as an example, sprinting isn’t that good of an idea, and last time I played it I recall not sprinting much, as well as others having the same idea. That then again is in my skill range.
> >
> > Smaller maps could lead to more “pants down” moments and as a result sprint isn’t useful. Why would a player default feature be implemented if it in most maps would be less useful than desired?
>
>
>
> > 2533274913398097;13841:
> > This, in my opinion, is splitting hairs. It’s true that nothing is stopping the developer from creating a Midship-sized map, in the same way that there’s nothing stopping a developer from placing 9 Rocket spawns on one side of a symmetrical map and making every respawn point face a wall. The real issue is whether a map would play well if you did that. And from my experience in playing and watching Halo 5, a Midship-sized map does not play well in this game.
>
> I don’t disagree that small maps could be worse, although I don’t see how smaller maps are necessarily worse with sprint than larger maps. It seems like you’re really just trading one set of issues for another set of issues. Comparing a Midship sized map (which really isn’t even that small) to an obviously ridiculous design decision is certainly unwarranted.
Well, I’m not saying smaller maps would be worse, or even that they’d be worse with sprint, I’m looking at the usability of sprint on those hypothetically smaller maps.
If say I encounter someone 3 out of 4 times when I turn a corner sprinting, at most ranges, either I stop sprinting altogether or decrease the distance I sprint which on a small map would be a negligible time save (I’d assume, and thus less useful sprint than we have now) to minimise the chances of being caught with my pants, sorry, gun down.
> 2533274887665513;13844:
> > 2533274825830455;13838:
> > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > > How is it not true though?
> >
> > Because sprint doesn’t make maps bigger, the designers’ vision does.
>
> What? The designers vision? You treat it like we have a choice between making a classic scale map and a 343 scale map. I don’t make maps larger because I have always dreamed and envisioned a larger map, I make it larger because classic scale maps are almost always entirely broken by H5s movement. Map design responds to movement. If the movement changes, the maps change. How is this debatable? Do you make maps? I would assume not because every good designer I know in the forge community complains about how the movement limits their ability to design maps well. If everyone in this community had been designing Halo maps for as long as I had, I guarantee more would see the problem with designing for multiple movement speeds.
You’re missing his point, and also I think neglecting something.
A: Sprint being implemented does not automatically scale all maps up.
Map designers create larger maps because you think that’s the right way to do so based on your idea of what you want to accomplish.
i343 could easily have had smaller maps, thus sprint didn’t make the maps bigger at all, how they’d play is an entirely different question.
B: Had sprint been the old default speed, map size could potentially remained the same as it was before sprint, but at the cost of BMS.
Sprint was implemented and maps remained the same size.
> 2533274795123910;13851:
> > 2533274887665513;13844:
> > > 2533274825830455;13838:
> > > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274808578327;13820:
> > > > How is it not true though?
> > >
> > > Because sprint doesn’t make maps bigger, the designers’ vision does.
> >
> > What? The designers vision? You treat it like we have a choice between making a classic scale map and a 343 scale map. I don’t make maps larger because I have always dreamed and envisioned a larger map, I make it larger because classic scale maps are almost always entirely broken by H5s movement. Map design responds to movement. If the movement changes, the maps change. How is this debatable? Do you make maps? I would assume not because every good designer I know in the forge community complains about how the movement limits their ability to design maps well. If everyone in this community had been designing Halo maps for as long as I had, I guarantee more would see the problem with designing for multiple movement speeds.
>
> You’re missing his point, and also I think neglecting something.
>
> A: Sprint being implemented does not automatically scale all maps up.
> Map designers create larger maps because you think that’s the right way to do so based on your idea of what you want to accomplish.
>
> i343 could easily have had smaller maps, thus sprint didn’t make the maps bigger at all, how they’d play is an entirely different question.
>
> B: Had sprint been the old default speed, map size could potentially remained the same as it was before sprint, but at the cost of BMS.
> Sprint was implemented and maps remained the same size.
If sprint were to be the same as old base speed, then the gameplay would be a crawl as base speed with sprint would be even slower. Having sprint at the current speed, then playing on original sized maps would lead to shotguns and swords + sprinting far to easy to use (I.e reach arena maps). Stretching the maps is admittedly the best solution.
I do understand both you tsassi’s points though, it’s just that sprint has too many point that need to be balanced out for it to “fit” halo, as evident in Halo 5.
> 2533274913398097;13843:
> Sorry, just exaggerating the point to make it clearer. But Midship is quite a small map, even in Halo 2/3. I posted this comparison between them in the last page: ViewSync - Multiple YouTube Viewer
>
> The Heretic match is non-stop. aPG spawns, he starts shooting, and he basically doesn’t stop until he’s dead.
>
> To be specific, Halo 3 ended 50-38 and Halo 5 ended 50-40. The Halo 3 match lasted 4 minutes and 48 seconds, and the Halo 5 match lasted 8 minutes and 19 seconds. I’m working on collecting more data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BkmA26fzSDaq4DFcAiKvXf3PazW4aAEoUZewlUm0trw/edit?usp=sharing. I may have to redo the Halo 5 matches though, because they’re from when the map had a Fuel Rod and I’d prefer to collect from only matches with the Energy Sword. As I said in the original post, this doesn’t prove that spartan abilties are the sole reason for the slower pace, but it does show that Halo 5 has a slower pace than at least Halo 3, and in my opinion, gives a reasonable amount of evidence to support that.
Interesting. That spreadsheet is pretty convincing even with such a little amount of data, because the differences are so drastic. Keep up the good work. More data to test our beliefs is what we always need.
> 2533274887665513;13844:
> What? The designers vision? You treat it like we have a choice between making a classic scale map and a 343 scale map. I don’t make maps larger because I have always dreamed and envisioned a larger map, I make it larger because classic scale maps are almost always entirely broken by H5s movement. Map design responds to movement. If the movement changes, the maps change. How is this debatable? Do you make maps? I would assume not because every good designer I know in the forge community complains about how the movement limits their ability to design maps well. If everyone in this community had been designing Halo maps for as long as I had, I guarantee more would see the problem with designing for multiple movement speeds.
You’re missing the point. You don’t design a large map because you want a large map, but because you want to limit the movement of players, and you can’t do that on a smaller map because players can move so fast and jump so far. But that’s only because you want that sort of gameplay. But if you want really frantic, chaotic gameplay, you will restrict yourself to a small box. Now, we can all express our distaste for such chatoic gameplay because it has little depth. On the flip side, it could be kind of fun if you’re not trying to have a serious match.
That’s just an example, I hope you get the point. We have a certain idea, the vision, of how a match of Halo should play due to years of experience. But someone who’s not interested in that sort of gameplay could come up with very different map design decisions. “Good gameplay” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We decide what we want, and make our design decisions based on that.
> 2533274808578327;13847:
> If you’d like, I can put together everything I can find and witness to put together for you.
I mean, if you want to. Just keep in mind that I already dislike sprint. So, I’m not sure what you think you can convince me about that I don’t already believe.
> 2533274808578327;13847:
> Everyone has been critical, critical about the mechanic, in their arguments, in collecting data. The results are there to see, that sprint is an overall bad mechanic for what makes Halo itself. I don’t think most people are dissatisfied about their arguments except in the past when some would probably just dismiss pro sprinter points outright.
So, you’re saying everyone has been critical about everything but themselves? Are you honestly satisfied with every argument you’ve ever made? You don’t think you’ve ever made unwarranted leaps of logic, or explained yourself badly? If so, I envy you. I wish I was as good with arguments as you are.
> 2533274808578327;13847:
> (Also powerrrr so much powerrrr! Thanks for the tip.)
I know, it’s amazing. 
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> I mean, if you want to. Just keep in mind that I already dislike sprint. So, I’m not sure what you think you can convince me about that I don’t already believe.
You do? I couldn’t tell that, it seems like you believe in sprint because you don’t acknowledge what it’s done to the game and maps.
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> So, you’re saying everyone has been critical about everything but themselves? Are you honestly satisfied with every argument you’ve ever made? You don’t think you’ve ever made unwarranted leaps of logic, or explained yourself badly? If so, I envy you. I wish I was as good with arguments as you are.
That’s not true at first, people have considered themselves if you remember people the sprint debate is taken very personal and was just a glorifed flame war. I’ve also seen though of people changing their viewpoint about sprint as more evidence has been presented, and more people getting convinced that something just isn’t right about Halo now compared to Halo then, I was in that camp intially too.
I’m satisifed with what I do, but I do not believe myself to be a good spokesperson for this. There are much better people out there who can weave their words better than me.
> 2533274808578327;13847:
> (Also powerrrr so much powerrrr! Thanks for the tip.)
> 2533274825830455;13838:
> I know, it’s amazing.
Yes it is, and can really let me make things look neat
> 2533274808578327;13854:
> You do? I couldn’t tell that, it seems like you believe in sprint because you don’t acknowledge what it’s done to the game and maps.
This is a common occurence. Because I question the arguments against sprint, people jump to the conclusion I’m defending sprint, and then it gets funny when they start trying to convince me with arguments I know all too well, often because I’ve made the same arguments before.
Which is all a bit tragic, because I think you are going to miss the point I’m trying to make if you assume that I don’t understand the effects of sprint on gameplay. It’s not that I don’t acknowledge these effects, but that the conclusions drawn are not always as straight cut as people believe them to be. I can convince myself that sprint makes gameplay shallower, and I can explain my line of reasoning to someone. But I can’t prove it, and I don’t have the evidence.
> 2533274825830455;13855:
> > 2533274808578327;13854:
> > You do? I couldn’t tell that, it seems like you believe in sprint because you don’t acknowledge what it’s done to the game and maps.
>
> This is a common occurence. Because I question the arguments against sprint, people jump to the conclusion I’m defending sprint, and then it gets funny when they start trying to convince me with arguments I know all too well, often because I’ve made the same arguments before.
>
> Which is all a bit tragic, because I think you are going to miss the point I’m trying to make if you assume that I don’t understand the effects of sprint on gameplay. It’s not that I don’t acknowledge these effects, but that the conclusions drawn are not always as straight cut as people believe them to be. I can convince myself that sprint makes gameplay shallower, and I can explain my line of reasoning to someone. But I can’t prove it, and I don’t have the evidence.
Why else would people take a stand for sprint? Nearly everything has been laid out on the table, and while it’s not all black and white, it’s quite close at this point in the community’s lifespan.
And you may not be able to prove or show evidence, but that’s okay. You stand against sprint in the first place, fellow brothers are fully capable of doing the hard work. It’s easy to see when passion runs through them, we all want a good Halo game, for the series to be just as good as before.
I’d be happy if Halo was even just three quarters as good as it once was.
> 2533274808578327;13854:
> > 2533274825830455;13838:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274825830455;13838:
> > So, you’re saying everyone has been critical about everything but themselves? Are you honestly satisfied with every argument you’ve ever made? You don’t think you’ve ever made unwarranted leaps of logic, or explained yourself badly? If so, I envy you. I wish I was as good with arguments as you are.
>
> That’s not true at first, people have considered themselves if you remember people the sprint debate is taken very personal and was just a glorifed flame war. I’ve also seen though of people changing their viewpoint about sprint as more evidence has been presented, and more people getting convinced that something just isn’t right about Halo now compared to Halo then, I was in that camp intially too.
>
> I’m satisifed with what I do, but I do not believe myself to be a good spokesperson for this. There are much better people out there who can weave their words better than me.
Exactly! Back in 2012, when Halo 4 was coming out, I downright defended the crap out of that game. I just wasn’t willing to agree on anything anyone was telling me when they said “Halo 4 was gonna be terrible because of this and that.” After a while, I began to see what they were saying and began to see their point of view, so I ended up changing my mind (especially about sprint), and here I am.
I’ve definitely doubted my arguments before, and no argument you come up with is perfect. If you’re looking for definitive proof, tsassi, then it’s not gonna happen. You just have to go by what you know and, if you think your wrong, then double check your data. No scientific study has ever been conducted where it was safe to assume that their hypothesis was 100% correct. Even well excepted theories are only excepted because there isn’t enough evidence to disprove them.
> 2533274912467533;13857:
> I’ve definitely doubted my arguments before, and no argument you come up with is perfect. If you’re looking for definitive proof, tsassi, then it’s not gonna happen. You just have to go by what you know and, if you think your wrong, then double check your data. No scientific study has ever been conducted where it was safe to assume that their hypothesis was 100% correct. Even well excepted theories are only excepted because there isn’t enough evidence to disprove them.
I’m not expecting proof, because I don’t believe it’s possible for reasons given earlier. And I initiated this discussion to begin with because Slaphead claimed that something was provable, and I wanted to point out that there is no proof. That was the initial point before this discussion evolved to something else.
I just want people to be honest with themselves about what we can, and cannot, say about sprint, and at what level of certainty. I’m always glad when people bring data on the table like Mufasa above, because one thing that often seems to be forgotten is that while theoretical discussion is nice and all, most of the time it doesn’t get us very far, and ultimately we have to go out there and test stuff systematically. Philosophy alone can lead even wise people astray.
For me I actually have 2 ideas for the enhanced movement fans and classic movement fans.
First, for Campaign, there would be a option that toggles sprint and it’s related movements (Ex: Spartan Charge) on and off. If there should be consequences in case it’s on I don’t know.
Second, for Matchmaking, there would be 2 groups of playlists, the Classic Playlists and Enhanced Playlists. Classic would have no sprint, clamber, thrusters, and the rest, and this playlist would have to feature more playlists like grifball, objective-based gamemodes, etc. Enhanced would have playlists mainly focused on slayer.
Both would share some playlists of course, but they should have exclusives, otherwise, if all playlists we’re available on both, I think most of the population would be in the Enhanced playlists.
> 2533274825830455;13858:
> > 2533274912467533;13857:
> > I’ve definitely doubted my arguments before, and no argument you come up with is perfect. If you’re looking for definitive proof, tsassi, then it’s not gonna happen. You just have to go by what you know and, if you think your wrong, then double check your data. No scientific study has ever been conducted where it was safe to assume that their hypothesis was 100% correct. Even well excepted theories are only excepted because there isn’t enough evidence to disprove them.
>
> I’m not expecting proof, because I don’t believe it’s possible for reasons given earlier. And I initiated this discussion to begin with because Slaphead claimed that something was provable, and I wanted to point out that there is no proof. That was the initial point before this discussion evolved to something else.
>
> I just want people to be honest with themselves about what we can, and cannot, say about sprint, and at what level of certainty. I’m always glad when people bring data on the table like Mufasa above, because one thing that often seems to be forgotten is that while theoretical discussion is nice and all, most of the time it doesn’t get us very far, and ultimately we have to go out there and test stuff systematically. Philosophy alone can lead even wise people astray.
Out of curiosity, how much have you viewed the debate outside Waypoint and also videos?
> 2533275010817669;13859:
> For me I actually have 2 ideas for the enhanced movement fans and classic movement fans.
> First, for Campaign, there would be a option that toggles sprint and it’s related movements (Ex: Spartan Charge) on and off. If there should be consequences in case it’s on I don’t know.
>
> Second, for Matchmaking, there would be 2 groups of playlists, the Classic Playlists and Enhanced Playlists. Classic would have no sprint, clamber, thrusters, and the rest, and this playlist would have to feature more playlists like grifball, objective-based gamemodes, etc. Enhanced would have playlists mainly focused on slayer.
> Both would share some playlists of course, but they should have exclusives, otherwise, if all playlists we’re available on both, I think most of the population would be in the Enhanced playlists.
It sounds nice but it’s going to shallow the experience for both sides, that is time and resources that have to go into basically two games in one. We want as much of a focused experience and as many playlists as possible as someone wanting sprint and such.
> 2533274825830455;13853:
> You’re missing the point. You don’t design a large map because you want a large map, but because you want to limit the movement of players, and you can’t do that on a smaller map because players can move so fast and jump so far. But that’s only because you want that sort of gameplay. But if you want really frantic, chaotic gameplay, you will restrict yourself to a small box. Now, we can all express our distaste for such chatoic gameplay because it has little depth. On the flip side, it could be kind of fun if you’re not trying to have a serious match.
>
> That’s just an example, I hope you get the point. We have a certain idea, the vision, of how a match of Halo should play due to years of experience. But someone who’s not interested in that sort of gameplay could come up with very different map design decisions. “Good gameplay” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We decide what we want, and make our design decisions based on that.
This simple statement brings to light (more clearly at least and obviously IMO) why I dislike sprint. It’s addition has allowed and I think even promoted, on some level, a shift in gameplay to a more serious and competitive momentum and nearly disallowed much of the possibility of having a chaotic, fun and frantic option.
Personally, I think that the addition of sprint is the single biggest mistake ever made for the Halo series.
It’s not that I think sprint is “bad for game play” based on your statement because it clearly points out that dev(s) create the sandbox / environment to achieve the pace they’re seeking. It’s not that I think sprint improves gameplay, for the same reason. But it does change the feel of gameplay for each of us on an individual level and as this thread has lived long enough to indicate with little doubt, it’s a change that is either loved or hated [passionately FTMP] with not a lot of in between. It also has an impact on how the pace being sought is achieved through design, which is why so many people say it “doesn’t feel like Halo”.
I personally think the “better” way to make Halo appeal to both new and older fans would be to find a decent BMS and give us a much wider variety of map sizes, designs. A decent number of large, medium and small maps, along with a more focused attention to the multitude of other details that help set the pace would allow for plenty of variety in games from serious and steady to frantic and chaotic and anywhere in between. From the sounds of a few previous posts, it would’ve been easier to achieve the desired pace in most situations with only 1 movement speed to consider anyway… but I’m not a map maker.
Also, don’t think that I’m implying there isn’t enough variance in maps, sizes… I wouldn’t even know. It’s the large variety in map sizes and the combination of that with the attention to details that affect pace which, IMO, would negate the need for sprint. It would also, I think, allow for a much wider variety in gameplay experiences with anything from steady, serious tones to all out chaotic and frantic fun fests.
> 2594261035368257;13862:
> > 2533274825830455;13853:
> > You’re missing the point. You don’t design a large map because you want a large map, but because you want to limit the movement of players, and you can’t do that on a smaller map because players can move so fast and jump so far. But that’s only because you want that sort of gameplay. But if you want really frantic, chaotic gameplay, you will restrict yourself to a small box. Now, we can all express our distaste for such chatoic gameplay because it has little depth. On the flip side, it could be kind of fun if you’re not trying to have a serious match.
> >
> > That’s just an example, I hope you get the point. We have a certain idea, the vision, of how a match of Halo should play due to years of experience. But someone who’s not interested in that sort of gameplay could come up with very different map design decisions. “Good gameplay” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We decide what we want, and make our design decisions based on that.
>
> This simple statement brings to light (more clearly at least and obviously IMO) why I dislike sprint. It’s addition has allowed and I think even promoted, on some level, a shift in gameplay to a more serious and competitive momentum and nearly disallowed much of the possibility of having a chaotic, fun and frantic option.
I like what you say in your post, but this part bothers me just a little. It’s not that going competitive was bad, classic Halo was so simple, yet complex and modular that people can have their cake and eat in too, in so many different ways. I competed with Halo 2 in tournaments but I still just loved to have super silly and chaotic games as well.
> 2594261035368257;13862:
> Personally, I think that the addition of sprint is the single biggest mistake ever made for the Halo series.
Oh how I wish we could like just an individual piece of text numerous times.