The sprint discussion thread

Games Halo 5: Guardians
13964

> 2533274801973487;13962:
> > 2533274848599184;13957:
> >
>
> And you responce to my speculation are even more speculation?
> silent majority that likes sprint → specualtion
> people wanting Halo to change if it had stayed true to it’s roots → specualtion
> believing people make rational dicisions based on research and thinking → specualtion
> CoD-Halo comparison → specualtion
> As I said, your comparison is just as good as anyone elses because as long as 343 doesn’t dare to take a shot at a modern classic Halo, no one will ever know.
>
> And just to be clear, I never said that noone is capable of actually thinking and coming to the conclusion that they like sprint due to XY reason, I just doubt many people do, they either don’t care or repeat whatever 343’s PR-team has fed them (“makes the game faster” “industrie standards” “Immersion, makes you feel like a spartan”)
> neither did I assume MS wasn’t looking at “the most profit oriented way”. But market developments aren’t some crystal clear science, you have to take risks some time… HCE was a huge bet against common market trends and it became HUGE and revolutionized console FPS gaming, you cannot expect this to happen over and over again but their philosophy of “adopting modern trends → attracting more players → even more money” didn’t work out…Halo is in decline ever since Reach, this is not solely to blame on Sprint but losing it’s identity for many people (as said, not just sprint but other aspects as well) might have a bigger influence then you want it to be, and I doubt this is something 343/MS planned all along , maybe the almighty MS might not be able to foretell sales and trends all that good after all.

Youll notice that all you things you listed I speculated about, I had written as “possible”. As in, a possibility. Not something I am stating as some sort of fool proof theory with no evidence. Speculation is when people say that removing sprint will suddenly make Halo popular again. Thats what Ive been arguing against. Im sorry if you didnt understand that.

Does the MCC count as a shot at classic Halo? The question here is if its worth it for 343 to make a classic Halo. If people suspected it would do worse than current Halo, then I’d surmise that people wouldnt want classic Halo to return, right? Because this entire thread is framed as if for the greater good of Halo. Which, as I said before, is SPECULATION. You cant just throw buzz words back at me and expect that to form an argument.

I never compared CoD and Halo, except to say that the Infinite Warfare trailer dislike count is a great way of getting the developer and the company to realize that you dont like the way the series is going. Rather than 1000+ people circle jerking each other on a Waypoint thread out of a game population of millions. Seems fairly logical to me, especially with recent leaks pointing to a return to WW2 era.

It seems to be the biggest risk HCE took was coming out on a console rather than PC. Besides that, it distilled the PC shooters of its time into a meaningful console experience. Microsoft is a risk averse company. Any public company is. They’ll take a risk if compelling evidence is put forth that they should. And I’m assuming, since no classic Halo has been announced, that Microsoft’s data and information doesnt give them enough evidence to want 343 to make a classic Halo.

Look honestly, I’m just trying to get one simple point across

A large majority of this thread, even most of Waypoint, I’d argue, has some random limit in their mind that the current popularity and interest in Halo is the lowest it could ever be, which is completely untrue and based in nothing except speculation. Halo could be more popular than this, or Halo could be like Medal of Honor. The fact im trying to point out is, nobody knows. So stop arguing against Sprint from a position of “having Halo’s best interests at heart”.

13965

> 2535428931873471;13963:
> > 2533274848599184;13952:
> > > 2535428931873471;13951:
> > > While you make a decent point, keep in mind taht Microsoft and 343 are the same companies that are continually ignoring most of what the community says in favor of what they think will work, which rarely does.
> >
> > Isnt this point of view born from two equally speculative premises.
> > One being, that somehow, the **outspoken members on Waypoint and YouTube represent the majority of the community.**And two being, twofold, in that if the way Halo is now is “not working”, then the alternative you suggest is guaranteed to work, else why bother to change it unless for personal preference.
>
> In response to your first point, while it may be valid, the people that are speaking on Waypoint, reddit, and YouTube do represent the community. If the majority of those people want something, it’s the majority of the people who’s opinions matter. Why would I say such a seemingly callous thing? I say it because the people that aren’t posting about Halo don’t care, or at least don’t care enough to talk about it. The people that do talk about the game and want it to be better are the ones 343 and Microsoft need to appeal to, not the ones who might buy Halo if it’s on sale and play it for a few weeks. In response to your second point, actually yes, that’s pretty much right. You can’t argue that Halo’s downfall occurred when bungie and 343 began changing major things in the games. The more change that there’s been, the worse the games have done. This obviously shows that people don’t want Halo to change. It was never necessary, at least to the extent that it occurred. A game’s formula never should be deviated from in such an extreme manner. It rarely works well or is well received.

I never asked anyone to represent me, so why am I being represented by these people? What is this, Halo election featuring Favyn and Greenskull?

So anyone who doesnt post on here because they enjoy Halo 5 either doesnt care about it or will only buy it on sale and play it for a few weeks? Yes, I suppose all the level 150’s got there by spending all day arguing on Waypoint, makes sense.

Theres a difference between correlation and causation. There is correlation between Halo’s decline in sales and gameplay changes. Also, Halo’s popularity declined after Obama was elected. Does this mean Obama made Halo fail? Like I mentioned in another post, has it ever crossed your mind that this is not the lowest point that Halo could go? What if Halo had remained the same, and had done even worse than it does now? How would we all be arguing then? The decline in Halo can show many things. It can show that people dont want change, but it can also show that people dont want Halo. No one seems to consider that second alternative.

Forza Horizon is a succesful deviation from Forza Motorsport, makes large changes, including switching the game from simulation to almost Arcade style. And now, it sells better than the standard Motorsport series. Medal of Honor. Never changed. Is gone now. Doom came back for a bit, sold the most on PC, 1 million copies in 4 months. Is that the kind of sales we want for Halo 6? Im not implying this is what would happen if Halo were to return to classic gameplay, merely pointing out various industry examples that pretty much counterpoint a lot of your statements.

13966

[deleted]

13967

Popping back in for a pre-emptive “Happy 700 pages”, everyone.

13968

> 2533274848599184;13950:
> > 2533274801973487;13948:
> > > 2533274848599184;13947:
> > > > 2533274887665513;13946:
> > > > I would be really great to hear some input on this discussion from at least one of the designers at 343. We are almost at 700 pages! Sprint/Enhanced mobility is clearly the most controversial design choice made to Halo. I just want to hear some reasoning. Do people think these additions seriously improve Halo? No I didn’t want a Halo 3 remake by the way, just an improved Halo that respected its foundation, direction and fan base instead of changing it. Halo only lost its audience when its direction changed.
> > > >
> > > > What does sprint actually add to the game? Is it really worth all the hassle having to rethink the way we design and scale maps as well as balance weapons just because you felt like adding a mechanic to please inpatient people? This time could have been spent adding more modes, maps and other features instead of trying to redesign Halo for a new movement system.
> > > >
> > > > Asides from “other games have sprint therefore players expect it so Halo needs it” what justifies the inclusion of sprint in Halo? I really disagree with the whole “players these days expect this” mentality. It’s such a huge generalization that makes people sound so incredibly narrow minded. Who the hell is actually dropping a game because it doesn’t have one mechanic they saw in another game? I hope people are not this ignorant to other styles of game play. People don’t want every game to play the same do they? This mentality comes from a corporate standpoint and not a creative one. I imagine publishers are terrified of stand out original games because they don’t know if they will sell well. The exception here is that Halo has already proved itself in the past. I don’t understand what is to be lost here. There is still a lot of money to be made out of a classic based Halo game.
> > >
> > > Isnt that just speculation?
> >
> > bringing a product to the market is usually based on speculations…
> > 343 speculated people will love perks, loadouts and all that junk, and some do, some didn’t
> > 343 speculated people will love SA’s, map remasters and H5’s campaign, and some do , some didn’t
> > and it’s the same with a sprint-less Halo , some will love it, some will dislike it
>
> Sure but are we really saying our speculation, from sitting inside our houses and conversing with like minded individuals, is actually equal to the speculation that comes from Microsoft and 343?

Our speculation is quite similar to how businesses do act.

13969

> 2533274848599184;13965:
> > 2535428931873471;13963:
> > > 2533274848599184;13952:
> > > > 2535428931873471;13951:
> > > > While you make a decent point, keep in mind taht Microsoft and 343 are the same companies that are continually ignoring most of what the community says in favor of what they think will work, which rarely does.
> > >
> > > Isnt this point of view born from two equally speculative premises.
> > > One being, that somehow, the **outspoken members on Waypoint and YouTube represent the majority of the community.**And two being, twofold, in that if the way Halo is now is “not working”, then the alternative you suggest is guaranteed to work, else why bother to change it unless for personal preference.
> >
> > In response to your first point, while it may be valid, the people that are speaking on Waypoint, reddit, and YouTube do represent the community. If the majority of those people want something, it’s the majority of the people who’s opinions matter. Why would I say such a seemingly callous thing? I say it because the people that aren’t posting about Halo don’t care, or at least don’t care enough to talk about it. The people that do talk about the game and want it to be better are the ones 343 and Microsoft need to appeal to, not the ones who might buy Halo if it’s on sale and play it for a few weeks. In response to your second point, actually yes, that’s pretty much right. You can’t argue that Halo’s downfall occurred when bungie and 343 began changing major things in the games. The more change that there’s been, the worse the games have done. This obviously shows that people don’t want Halo to change. It was never necessary, at least to the extent that it occurred. A game’s formula never should be deviated from in such an extreme manner. It rarely works well or is well received.
>
> I never asked anyone to represent me, so why am I being represented by these people? What is this, Halo election featuring Favyn and Greenskull?
>
> So anyone who doesnt post on here because they enjoy Halo 5 either doesnt care about it or will only buy it on sale and play it for a few weeks? Yes, I suppose all the level 150’s got there by spending all day arguing on Waypoint, makes sense.
>
> Theres a difference between correlation and causation. There is correlation between Halo’s decline in sales and gameplay changes. Also, Halo’s popularity declined after Obama was elected. Does this mean Obama made Halo fail? Like I mentioned in another post, has it ever crossed your mind that this is not the lowest point that Halo could go? What if Halo had remained the same, and had done even worse than it does now? How would we all be arguing then? The decline in Halo can show many things. It can show that people dont want change, but it can also show that people dont want Halo. No one seems to consider that second alternative.
>
> Forza Horizon is a succesful deviation from Forza Motorsport, makes large changes, including switching the game from simulation to almost Arcade style. And now, it sells better than the standard Motorsport series. Medal of Honor. Never changed. Is gone now. Doom came back for a bit, sold the most on PC, 1 million copies in 4 months. Is that the kind of sales we want for Halo 6? Im not implying this is what would happen if Halo were to return to classic gameplay, merely pointing out various industry examples that pretty much counterpoint a lot of your statements.

The point is that we have to try new things.
Like going back to the previous good ol’ mechanics that we know and love, to really see if it was just correlation, or causation.
We can’t just sit here and think, oh let’s just say it’s correlation, NO!
343i has to try it out, not as a remaster, not as a remake, but a title, maybe a spin-off, or a main installment for that matter.

This is halo we are talking about, the original trilogy gave the series SOOOO much potential, every game since has been leaching off of that success.
We have room to experiment, and we should make use of it.

13970

> Does the MCC count as a shot at classic Halo? The question here is if its worth it for 343 to make a classic Halo. If people suspected it would do worse than current Halo, then I’d surmise that people wouldnt want classic Halo to return, right? Because this entire thread is framed as if for the greater good of Halo. Which, as I said before, is SPECULATION. You cant just throw buzz words back at me and expect that to form an argument.

MCC was broken to the point where you couldn’t even launch the menu UI properly
http://halobugs.com/#?s=most_recent?v=halo_mcc

And this is only halo ce

13971

> 2535470314519336;13970:
> > Does the MCC count as a shot at classic Halo? The question here is if its worth it for 343 to make a classic Halo. If people suspected it would do worse than current Halo, then I’d surmise that people wouldnt want classic Halo to return, right? Because this entire thread is framed as if for the greater good of Halo. Which, as I said before, is SPECULATION. You cant just throw buzz words back at me and expect that to form an argument.
>
> MCC was broken to the point where you couldn’t even launch the menu UI properly
> Halo Bugs
>
> And this is only halo ce

MCC was also a collection of older games and a re-imagining/remaster of one of them. Not really much “new” things with it, as there is a difference between continued classic and old classic.

13972

[deleted]

13973

> 2533274887665513;13972:
> The speculation point is a good one. Thing is, Halo’s classic formula has been proven to work. This new formula while not the only cause, has certainly correlated with the series decline. The only way to get some proof going is at least a spin-off (well made, not lazy or MCC level buggy) that embraces classic Halo and innovates from there. Classic Halo and new Halo are pretty different games. Then again so were CE and Halo 2. I think we could definitely have Halo 6 carry on from H5 while having another game that finds a middle ground between CE and H2/3. I would say this could prove which is best but I think both styles of game play deserve to be fleshed out. I think H5 could evolve into a pretty cool game of its own if it made no attempt to be Halo. Right now I see two pretty incompatible formulas between old and new Halo. Either drop one entirely or allow both to separate and develop both styles. This would be a bit like CoD where you have different companies releasing their own versions within one series. Have a classic Halo team as well as a new one maybe? A spin-off seems like the best bet for classic Halo if 343 must continue with enhanced mobility.

Indeed. The only problem is getting Microsoft and 343 to realize that this might just be the best way going foreword. If 343 aren’t willing to chance a classic game while still having their new formula to fall back on should a new classic Halo style game not sell as well, then we won’t know for sure which style would do better.

13974

The problem with sprint is that it’s very difficult to get rid of at this point. Sprint has now been a baseline trait for two games, ever since 2012. Microsoft would break the continuity of the franchise by switching back and forth with the mobility system. They see sprint as ‘‘an evolution of the franchise’’ even when they probably know that sprint itself was a bad idea, they wouldn’t admit it by removing it. There is no turning back for Microsoft. As much as I want to see Sprint disappear forever from Halo, it’s not going to happen any time soon.

13975

> 2533274968894951;13974:
> The problem with sprint is that it’s very difficult to get rid of at this point. Sprint has now been a baseline trait for two games, ever since 2012. Microsoft would break the continuity of the franchise by switching back and forth with the mobility system. They see sprint as ‘‘an evolution of the franchise’’ even when they probably know that sprint itself was a bad idea, they wouldn’t admit it by removing it. There is no turning back for Microsoft. As much as I want to see Sprint disappear forever from Halo, it’s not going to happen any time soon.

The community gets more divided every halo game released tho, so it wouldn’t do much harm if they were to simply release a game that doesn’t have sprint.

Hell we could do more good than bad, we could rejoin the community. Everybody would be hyped.
Remember the hype at E3 2014, about the MCC. Weren’t you just thinking “halo is back halo is back halo is back halo is back halo is back”???
Imagine that again, where the community would be sooo darn hyped!

13976

> 2533274848599184;13965:
> > 2535428931873471;13963:
> > > 2533274848599184;13952:
> > > > 2535428931873471;13951:
> > > > While you make a decent point, keep in mind taht Microsoft and 343 are the same companies that are continually ignoring most of what the community says in favor of what they think will work, which rarely does.
> > >
> > > Isnt this point of view born from two equally speculative premises.
> > > One being, that somehow, the **outspoken members on Waypoint and YouTube represent the majority of the community.**And two being, twofold, in that if the way Halo is now is “not working”, then the alternative you suggest is guaranteed to work, else why bother to change it unless for personal preference.
> >
> > In response to your first point, while it may be valid, the people that are speaking on Waypoint, reddit, and YouTube do represent the community. If the majority of those people want something, it’s the majority of the people who’s opinions matter. Why would I say such a seemingly callous thing? I say it because the people that aren’t posting about Halo don’t care, or at least don’t care enough to talk about it. The people that do talk about the game and want it to be better are the ones 343 and Microsoft need to appeal to, not the ones who might buy Halo if it’s on sale and play it for a few weeks. In response to your second point, actually yes, that’s pretty much right. You can’t argue that Halo’s downfall occurred when bungie and 343 began changing major things in the games. The more change that there’s been, the worse the games have done. This obviously shows that people don’t want Halo to change. It was never necessary, at least to the extent that it occurred. A game’s formula never should be deviated from in such an extreme manner. It rarely works well or is well received.
>
> I never asked anyone to represent me, so why am I being represented by these people? What is this, Halo election featuring Favyn and Greenskull?
> So anyone who doesnt post on here because they enjoy Halo 5 either doesnt care about it or will only buy it on sale and play it for a few weeks? Yes, I suppose all the level 150’s got there by spending all day arguing on Waypoint, makes sense.
> Theres a difference between correlation and causation. There is correlation between Halo’s decline in sales and gameplay changes. Also, Halo’s popularity declined after Obama was elected. Does this mean Obama made Halo fail? Like I mentioned in another post, has it ever crossed your mind that this is not the lowest point that Halo could go? What if Halo had remained the same, and had done even worse than it does now? How would we all be arguing then? The decline in Halo can show many things. It can show that people dont want change, but it can also show that people dont want Halo. No one seems to consider that second alternative.
> Forza Horizon is a succesful deviation from Forza Motorsport, makes large changes, including switching the game from simulation to almost Arcade style. And now, it sells better than the standard Motorsport series. Medal of Honor. Never changed. Is gone now. Doom came back for a bit, sold the most on PC, 1 million copies in 4 months. Is that the kind of sales we want for Halo 6? Im not implying this is what would happen if Halo were to return to classic gameplay, merely pointing out various industry examples that pretty much counterpoint a lot of your statements.

No, the level 150s got there by playing the complete deviation from Halo’s multiplayer formula that is Warzone. 343 completely punishes those of us that don’t like Warzone by giving us 600xp for a 10 minute match when Warzone players sometimes get up to 6000 for a 15 minute match. I’ve seen plenty of people that are quite a bit higher level than me who have like half of my multiplayer time because I pretty much exclusively play arena. Whatever though, that’s a whole other issue and not worth getting into here.
I’m not saying that everyone who doesn’t post about Halo in discussions at all doesn’t care about it, but that people who do will almost always care more than the ones that don’t.
I’m fully aware of the difference between correlation and causation. Say what you will, but reach was a rather large deviation from Halo 1-3 (and I know that Halo 2 was quite different from Halo 1, but at least they feel similar when you play them) Reach didn’t retain as many players as Halo 3 but was still pretty successful. It still looked like Halo and didn’t feel completely different from a Halo game, so it didn’t do terrible. This next part is where your statement about how Halo could be doing worse because people don’t want Halo, and your point about how there’s apparently no more correlation between Obama being elected and Halo deviating from it formula in relation to the sales drop are both essentially proven wrong. Halo 4 sold the 3rd most copies of any game in 2012, but retained very few of those players and got absolutely trashed. Sure, people are coming around to the campaign now that we’ve gotten a worse one in Halo 5, but the multiplayer is still widely regarded as the worst in the series. Halo 4 did a great job of landing a nearly fatal wound, and 343 is still slowly trying to revive the franchise. Maybe you’re right that people don’t want Halo anymore, but people definitely wanted it in 2012.
In relation to your last point, I don’t know much about Forza, so I can’t say much about what that change did or how the franchise was doing before the change, and I won’t respond to that and make myself look like a fool since I wouldn’t know what I was talking about. Medal of Honor hasn’t been big for a very long time, because Call of Duty and Battlefield do what it tried to much better than it did. That’s more of a situation where there’s an over saturated market for that specific type of FPS, and it didn’t perform well enough to compete. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make with DOOM, seeing as after the 90’s it was pretty much dead and they had to do something different fro people to buy it. That situation is completely different from the situation Halo was in where Halo 3 was a super popular game and they changed it for no reason.

13977

> 2533274848599184;13956:
> > 2533274944267503;13953:
> > > 2533274848599184;13952:
> > > > 2535428931873471;13951:
> > > > > 2533274943854776;13949:
> > > > > > 2535428931873471;13943:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274848599184;13950:
> > > > > Sure but are we really saying our speculation, from sitting inside our houses and conversing with like minded individuals, is actually equal to the speculation that comes from Microsoft and 343?
> > > >
> > > > While you make a decent point, keep in mind taht Microsoft and 343 are the same companies that are continually ignoring most of what the community says in favor of what they think will work, which rarely does.
> > >
> > > Isnt this point of view born from two equally speculative premises.
> > > One being, that somehow, the **outspoken members on Waypoint and YouTube represent the majority of the community.**And two being, twofold, in that if the way Halo is now is “not working”, then the alternative you suggest is guaranteed to work, else why bother to change it unless for personal preference.
> >
> > While I would not say that we represent the majority of the community any more, there certainly is a large community desire for this gameplay, otherwise faanmade games like I01 wouldn’t be getting so much attention. Furthermore, I believe that it is fair to say that Halo in the current state is not working. Halo 5 sold about 5 million units and MCC sold less. Sure the Xbox One didn’t start off too well, but by this point we have a 26 million units being sold. That means Halo 5 has about a 19.2% adoption rate. Halo 3 (which I compare to because Halo 5 is oft compared to it) had 8.1 million units sold by January 2008, and at the same time the xbox 360 sold 17.7 million units. This means Halo 3 had an adoption rate of about 45.7%. If you look at total adoption rate for 360s, being 84 million, Halo 3 still had an adoption rate of just under 15%, and that’s ignoring for people buying multiple units per household for one reason or another. Ignoring adoption rate, just raw sales numbers show that the popularity of Halo is going down. While we cannot definitely tie this to to sprint in game, Halo Reach marked the beginning of the downturn of sales for Halo (the first to include sprint), which slowly went down until the steep plummet that is Halo 5. There are many issues with Halo, but I believe it is the denial of reality should we not consider the possibility that the decline of Halo’s success is in any way related to sprint and modern movement mechanics within the series.
>
> We cant use numbers when the original statement is flawed. No one knows the sales of Halo 5. All we can guarantee is that it sold more than 1 million units, and that 5 million units were either shipped or sold within the first 3 months. If that figure is the shipped numbers, it does not include digital sales, but we are unaware of how many of those shipped copies have been sold through. If that figure is sales numbers, then you have to account for another 16 months of sales for Halo 5.
>
> Id also like to address the whole “Microsoft doesnt give sales numbers because it knows Halo is failing”. MS doesnt give sales numbers for all of its major franchises, at least as far as I can tell. This means Forza, Gears of War, Halo, etc. Id argue this has more to do with their strategy against Sony than any assumption that their whole exclusives lineup is failing. Of anything, at least Forza continues dominance in its genre. The sales figure of that series are updated whenever it hits 1 million sales, or a major franchise milestone is hit. Halo is reported the exact same way. The NPD say that Forza is the leading racing franchise, for this generation, and yet its sales are reported the same way as Halo’s, or Gears of War’s.
>
> Cant compare adoption rates when we dont know any hardcore sales facts. Even for Halo 3, you have to consider the amount of consoles Halo 3 sold, people who bought more than one edition (like me, the legendary edition had the helmet, but only the limited edition had a physical beastiarium), and various other cases. Unless someone is willing to sit down and figure out the total number of Xbox consoles sold for the Halo 3 launch, the adoption rate over time, and then do the same for Halo 5, its really not a fair comparison.
>
> *“There are many issues with Halo, but I believe it is the denial of reality should we not consider the possibility that the decline of Halo’s success is in any way related to sprint and modern movement mechanics within the series.”*I agree that we should not ignore that changes in the series correlate to a decline in sales and popularity. But I also ask if thats where Halo was headed already, and whether there is anything that could have been done to keep the series at Halo 3 levels of popularity. The fact is that a majority of individuals on this site argue as if not changing Halo would have maintained its throne as the king of shooters, and while that is possible, its equally possible the series could have plummeted even further.

You’re right, we don’t know the exact number, but like you said, at about 3 months we know 5 millions shipped. We’re not going to get better numbers than that at this point, so we have to assume that all 5 million were sold. I then compared this to Halo 3 at about 3.5 months in with Xbox 360 sales in the same month. Due to the fact that -Yoink!- won’t release exact sales numbers, we will never be able to know 100%, but we can look at the evidence and data available to the public and make some conclusions from there which will be the most accurate we have until more information is released.

As for the possibility of the series having ended up here anyway, I agree this is a reasonable idea. Halo Reach has less sales than Halo 3, though a number of reasons could be associated to that. Personally I think that the poor reception of Halo 4 and MCC had a massive impact on the community moreso than sprint but think that part of why some people left after 4 was due to sprint. Anecdotally I know this to be true, though I cannot say this reasoning had any serious effect on lifetime sales of Halo 5.

All that said, within the realm of market speculation, it is important to look at other FPS games and notice the large amount of praise for games like Doom and Overwatch shows the market for a classic movement style is still viable while the fans of BF and CoD are raging against things more modern mechanics which leads to the more successful (critically) Battlefield 1 and what appears to be a more classic styled CoD in WW2. In the end I think this shows that -Yoink!- should encourage 343 to do a classic styled Halo game as a spinoff to appease fans and to test the market.

13978

[deleted]

13979

> 2533274875084332;13786:
> > 2533274866652866;13783:
> > > 2533274887665513;13654:
> > > If I am honest I am not entirely sure how there is still any debate at all. I swear sprint has been objectively ripped apart 1000 times with the only counter being “I like the immersion”. If you like the immersion that is your opinion of course but sprint has been proven to hurt all aspects of Halos multiplayer design. It’s been explained so many times and in so much depth. Why is there still an argument?
> >
> > How does sprint hurt gameplay. You will need to provide evidence and explain yourself quite well.
>
> All you have to do is read the multiple posts in this very thread showing evidence. All explained far better than any “pro sprint” ‘arguments’ I’ve ever seen. However since there are 680 or so pages, ill put some brief points for you
>
> 1. They had to redesign the whole game around it. This is already a big sign sprint (and other…‘features’)do not fit in Halo, as 343 had to build every map and balance the whole game around sprint, clamber and thruster pack -the main 3). This is because with sprint, there are 2 possible movement speeds, creating a variance that must be accounted for at all times on every map.
>
> This leads to:
> Stretched maps/repetitive map design features to accommodate.
>
> The removal of skill jumps due to clamber, and very very easily dodged grenades due to thruster pack.
>
> 2. There are very few benefits to sprint. Anything that sprint achieves in terms of gameplay, can be done with innovating map design and tweaking base movement speed. E.g., have you noticed there are no more teleporters in Halo? Yep thank sprint for that. Teleporters were a way of increasing map traversal while adding a layer of strategy. Sprint is nothing more than a conforming imitation of the fps genre, to make players of generic fps games feel comfortable and familiar when they play Halo, only to leave it after a few weeks to return to whatever game they were playing previously.
>
> 3. 343 tested a classic Halo 4 prototype, with no sprint and such, to strongly positive feedback from their testers. They decided to scrap it because every fps has sprint and “gamers just expect it”. I linked this in one of my other posts on this thread. 343 are shafting the fans who made Halo great in favor of new players who did not like Halo when it was at its peak, and now 343 are changing it for those very players, and as a result many classic fans have left, this is evidence enough.
>
> Now, sprints effect goes beyond these points, but these are the main impacts it has.

Ive been here since the start ive read them.

So your point number 1 doesnt explain how sprint negatively impacts gameplay, it just says they had to design the maps around sprint and new mechanics. And you need to explain why variance is bad in a game. So if they made maps around sprint and the maps got bigger you need to explain why bigger maps are not as good.

  1. And teleporters limited the ability to shoot players while they moved from place to place, teleporters werent really used in halo 3. The man cannon was used later in halo 3 and later halos. So i dont really agree that because teleporters arent used anymore that somehow this is a sign of poor gameplay. Teleporters were getting used less and less.

3.And i would like a fact check on this one, where did you hear this from? I need sources or references

Now before anyone responds to this just note i dont really care if halo has sprint or doesnt, it is not what makes halo for me. Halo is about power weapons, map control, communication and knowing what spawn sites you block.

13980

> 2533274866652866;13979:
> 3.And i would like a fact check on this one, where did you hear this from? I need sources or references

Probably referring to this piece in a Gamasutra article:

> For Halo 4, he says there were a few epiphany moments that helped boost the morale of the team. One of the earlier ones that Holmes recalls was when the team completed a small piece of the Halo experience that he described as a “very traditional” Halo. User research showed that people thought it was a lot of fun, and it showed that the team was capable of making a Halo game that was true to what the series was about.
>
> 343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal.

At least this is the closest thing I know of 343i ever coming close to such statement. However, nothing was ever said about whether this build included sprint or not. In fact, what exactly the “very traditional” refers to is open for interpretation.

13981

> 2533274866652866;13979:
> > 2533274875084332;13786:
> > > 2533274866652866;13783:
> > > > 2533274887665513;13654:
> > > > If I am honest I am not entirely sure how there is still any debate at all. I swear sprint has been objectively ripped apart 1000 times with the only counter being “I like the immersion”. If you like the immersion that is your opinion of course but sprint has been proven to hurt all aspects of Halos multiplayer design. It’s been explained so many times and in so much depth. Why is there still an argument?
> > >
> > > How does sprint hurt gameplay. You will need to provide evidence and explain yourself quite well.
> >
> > All you have to do is read the multiple posts in this very thread showing evidence. All explained far better than any “pro sprint” ‘arguments’ I’ve ever seen. However since there are 680 or so pages, ill put some brief points for you
> >
> > 1. They had to redesign the whole game around it. This is already a big sign sprint (and other…‘features’)do not fit in Halo, as 343 had to build every map and balance the whole game around sprint, clamber and thruster pack -the main 3). This is because with sprint, there are 2 possible movement speeds, creating a variance that must be accounted for at all times on every map.
> >
> > This leads to:
> > Stretched maps/repetitive map design features to accommodate.
> >
> > The removal of skill jumps due to clamber, and very very easily dodged grenades due to thruster pack.
> >
> > 2. There are very few benefits to sprint. Anything that sprint achieves in terms of gameplay, can be done with innovating map design and tweaking base movement speed. E.g., have you noticed there are no more teleporters in Halo? Yep thank sprint for that. Teleporters were a way of increasing map traversal while adding a layer of strategy. Sprint is nothing more than a conforming imitation of the fps genre, to make players of generic fps games feel comfortable and familiar when they play Halo, only to leave it after a few weeks to return to whatever game they were playing previously.
> >
> > 3. 343 tested a classic Halo 4 prototype, with no sprint and such, to strongly positive feedback from their testers. They decided to scrap it because every fps has sprint and “gamers just expect it”. I linked this in one of my other posts on this thread. 343 are shafting the fans who made Halo great in favor of new players who did not like Halo when it was at its peak, and now 343 are changing it for those very players, and as a result many classic fans have left, this is evidence enough.
> >
> > Now, sprints effect goes beyond these points, but these are the main impacts it has.
>
> Ive been here since the start ive read them.
>
> So your point number 1 doesnt explain how sprint negatively impacts gameplay, it just says they had to design the maps around sprint and new mechanics. And you need to explain why variance is bad in a game. So if they made maps around sprint and the maps got bigger you need to explain why bigger maps are not as good.
>
> 2. And teleporters limited the ability to shoot players while they moved from place to place, teleporters werent really used in halo 3. The man cannon was used later in halo 3 and later halos. So i dont really agree that because teleporters arent used anymore that somehow this is a sign of poor gameplay. Teleporters were getting used less and less.
>
> 3.And i would like a fact check on this one, where did you hear this from? I need sources or references
>
> Now before anyone responds to this just note i dont really care if halo has sprint or doesnt, it is not what makes halo for me. Halo is about power weapons, map control, communication and knowing what spawn sites you block.

sigh You claim to have been here from the start yet don’t know how sprint effects the gameplay? Again, there are many posts here that explains just that, seeing as you “have read” them, you should know. Second, you say you need all this evidence and references, yet once again, I linked what I was talking about with the Halo prototype in another post her, further detracting from your claim that you apparently read everything. Further, sprint changing map design is DIRECTLY effecting gameplay, If you don’t understand this, then again many posts here which you have apparently read, that explain that. And finally, I used teleporters as just ONE example. They were used less in Halo 3 for obvious reason, as there were other map movement utilities like lift some and man cannons, on different maps. Why? So map design is not repetitive unlike the 343 games.

Seems to me you are picking out words rather than countering the whole arguement, and pretending that you have read other posts just so you can say you understand, when you very clearly do not.

13982

I’ll tell you the negatives of sprint.
Messes up the pace of halo, even Bungie mentioned this when thinking of adding sprint into halo 2.
I’ll explain, going from point A to B, now what sprint does is stretches this because to balance it correctly, so now if you want to shoot, your going slower, elongating your time of getting to point B.
Also, it messes up the pace as when you have to stop sprinting to shoot, you stop going at full speed, and when you want to travel the map you must lower your gun to travel again.
It’s this, slow-fast-slow-fast switching that bothers players.
You are also weaker compared to previous games, why can’t we have our choice to shoot while at full speed? We can tell the addition of sprint is just a stupid immersion gimmick that has been added in.
Sprint is unnecessary and was better without it, the community was split ever since the arrival of halo 2, but sprint has literally torn this community apart.

13983

> 2533274875084332;13981:
> > 2533274866652866;13979:
> > > 2533274875084332;13786:
> > > > 2533274866652866;13783:
> > > > > 2533274887665513;13654:
> > > > > If I am honest I am not entirely sure how there is still any debate at all. I swear sprint has been objectively ripped apart 1000 times with the only counter being “I like the immersion”. If you like the immersion that is your opinion of course but sprint has been proven to hurt all aspects of Halos multiplayer design. It’s been explained so many times and in so much depth. Why is there still an argument?
> > > >
> > > > How does sprint hurt gameplay. You will need to provide evidence and explain yourself quite well.
> > >
> > > All you have to do is read the multiple posts in this very thread showing evidence. All explained far better than any “pro sprint” ‘arguments’ I’ve ever seen. However since there are 680 or so pages, ill put some brief points for you
> > >
> > > 1. They had to redesign the whole game around it. This is already a big sign sprint (and other…‘features’)do not fit in Halo, as 343 had to build every map and balance the whole game around sprint, clamber and thruster pack -the main 3). This is because with sprint, there are 2 possible movement speeds, creating a variance that must be accounted for at all times on every map.
> > >
> > > This leads to:
> > > Stretched maps/repetitive map design features to accommodate.
> > >
> > > The removal of skill jumps due to clamber, and very very easily dodged grenades due to thruster pack.
> > >
> > > 2. There are very few benefits to sprint. Anything that sprint achieves in terms of gameplay, can be done with innovating map design and tweaking base movement speed. E.g., have you noticed there are no more teleporters in Halo? Yep thank sprint for that. Teleporters were a way of increasing map traversal while adding a layer of strategy. Sprint is nothing more than a conforming imitation of the fps genre, to make players of generic fps games feel comfortable and familiar when they play Halo, only to leave it after a few weeks to return to whatever game they were playing previously.
> > >
> > > 3. 343 tested a classic Halo 4 prototype, with no sprint and such, to strongly positive feedback from their testers. They decided to scrap it because every fps has sprint and “gamers just expect it”. I linked this in one of my other posts on this thread. 343 are shafting the fans who made Halo great in favor of new players who did not like Halo when it was at its peak, and now 343 are changing it for those very players, and as a result many classic fans have left, this is evidence enough.
> > >
> > > Now, sprints effect goes beyond these points, but these are the main impacts it has.
> >
> > Ive been here since the start ive read them.
> >
> > So your point number 1 doesnt explain how sprint negatively impacts gameplay, it just says they had to design the maps around sprint and new mechanics. And you need to explain why variance is bad in a game. So if they made maps around sprint and the maps got bigger you need to explain why bigger maps are not as good.
> >
> > 2. And teleporters limited the ability to shoot players while they moved from place to place, teleporters werent really used in halo 3. The man cannon was used later in halo 3 and later halos. So i dont really agree that because teleporters arent used anymore that somehow this is a sign of poor gameplay. Teleporters were getting used less and less.
> >
> > 3.And i would like a fact check on this one, where did you hear this from? I need sources or references
> >
> > Now before anyone responds to this just note i dont really care if halo has sprint or doesnt, it is not what makes halo for me. Halo is about power weapons, map control, communication and knowing what spawn sites you block.
>
> sigh You claim to have been here from the start yet don’t know how sprint effects the gameplay? Again, there are many posts here that explains just that, seeing as you “have read” them, you should know. Second, you say you need all this evidence and references, yet once again, I linked what I was talking about with the Halo prototype in another post her, further detracting from your claim that you apparently read everything. Further, sprint changing map design is DIRECTLY effecting gameplay, If you don’t understand this, then again many posts here which you have apparently read, that explain that. And finally, I used teleporters as just ONE example. They were used less in Halo 3 for obvious reason, as there were other map movement utilities like lift some and man cannons, on different maps. Why? So map design is not repetitive unlike the 343 games.
>
> Seems to me you are picking out words rather than countering the whole arguement, and pretending that you have read other posts just so you can say you understand, when you very clearly do not.

So i didnt say i have read everything, but i should have made myself clearer in my statement. I should have said i have read many of the arguments and after a while you see the same statements. I simply wanted to have a conversation and hear what the other side has to say and see if you could provide examples or evidence of how gameplay is negatively impacted by sprint.

So this is the thing i just dont agree with any of these posts that say that sprint is negatively changing the maps. So if maps are bigger how does this negatively impact gameplay. Ive heard things like bigger maps have bigger voids of inaction, but again how does this negatively impact gameplay.(if people can think of other things im more than happy to have a conversation about them)

The man canon was used in halo 3 but from my memory it was mainly used on BTB maps halo 4 and 5 still use this man canon mechanism.

And i understand the side of “anti-sprint” players however i have yet to hear good arguments for it. That goes the same with pro sprint players. Halo functions with or without it. And no matter what side you come down on dont think that the other side is stupid.