> 2535409816624774;14480:
> To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
Doom 2016.
> 2533274806427910;14483:
> > 2547348539238747;14478:
> > > 2533274806427910;14467:
> > > > 2547348539238747;14460:
> > > > > 2533274984290840;14455:
> > > > > Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
> > > >
> > > > It’s the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
> > >
> > > It’s a good system, but I hated the fact that they removed health system from Halo: CE, and replaced it with a regenerating health system in Halo 2 and 3. That was stupid. They brought it back in Reach (and ODST, with Stamina in place of Shields), but while only a small portion of your health would regenerate, along with your shields, it shouldn’t regenerate at all.
> >
> > Well obviously “fun” is subjective.
> >
> > The point I was making is that it was changed from a design choice. Bungie wanted to keep the combat flowing, and they wanted to keep every fight equal. By keeping the medi-pack system it left players at the mercy of previous fights. Potentially slowing down the pace by forcing players to look for health packs, or losing your next fight because you took too much damage in the last fight.
> >
> > For competitive games, and faster action, having fully regenerating health is the best mechanic for that gameplay design.
> >
> > Obviously it is not the be-all and end-all of health systems.
>
> Of course fun is “subjective”. It’s not much of a valid argument, though, because simply adding a “fun” mechanic isn’t the same as adding mechanic which encourages map movement and could still be “fun”.
>
> It being a design choice doesn’t matter to me; Bungie never cared for competitive Halo, anyway. I still think it was flawed system because it didn’t gave the player information on how much non-shielded damaged they took before they died. Halo 5, so far, is the only game to fix that, but I still hate the regenerative health system. Halo 3 had, by far, the worst health system in the series. The Medi-pack system in Halo: CE didn’t “force” player to heal themselves, it was a choice they could make on their own. Also, the game had relatively fast kill-times, compared to anything else before Halo 5, and you had other map pickups which could help you survive a match longer, so the medi-packs weren’t that important in CE because they weren’t as prominent or useful as powerups like Overshield, Camo, and Power Weapons. Regenerative Health is something that can also slow the game down, because since you don’t have indication of how much overall health you do have, it encourages camping (something you see games such as CoD). That just the point: players that died are not equal because they respawn with low tier weapons while others are in possessed with Precision and/or Power Weapons. This is a balancing issue in every single game after CE (since it’s the only game to get the weapon sandbox right), because you don’t spawn with a true utility weapon that can be effective to use against a Rocket/Sniper user, you spawn with an automatic (H2’s SMG and 3’s AR) and a weapon that might as well be exchanged most of the time (every pistol after CE). **You are automatically at a disadvantage.**It didn’t make the action faster, or more competitive; it made players more likely to stay in one place - that’s not fun to watch, or engaging.
>
> CE’s Health System wasn’t the best thing, ever, either, but it’s leagues above what we got with Bungie’s two subsequent Halo games.
If we’re quickly going to talk about health.
Non-regenerating health, some argue, is better overall, even in competitive MP settings.
How?
The more errors you do, the more it’ll reflect on your health and as such will affect you in subsequent fights.
If you’re really good in MP, you won’t get hurt as much.
Then, after a fight, would you go after better weapons to keep them out of the enemy’s hand, at the risk of going in with lower health than optimal?
Or do you go for health?
Also, consider Single Player campaigns.
With non-recharging health, any encounter error you do, will stack up. Even smaller encounters with enemies can have consequences longer down the line.
With regenerating health, you have a refresh, meaning any small encounter is useless and only there to add to the action, any larger encounter has that is meant to be challenging has to be enough to kill you even with recharging health.
Looking at Halo 2,3,4 and 5, you’d actually only need one bar for both health and shields, with an indication that you’re now vulnerable to headshots after a certain threshold of having taken damage. Yeah sure, there is a difference in damage between weapons against shielded and unshielded enemies. Overall though, if health underneath the shields is regenerating, there’s little to no difference between shields and health.
Having it not regenerate make the two systems different from each other.
Sure, hoarding health packs may be an issue to some, and getting one while not benefiting it to the fullest, isn’t, “ideal”, perhaps.
However, I’ve suggested it before in other threads, but couldn’t we combine non-regenerating health, regenerating and health packs?
Like this:
-Health is by default not regenerating.
-Your armor holds a reserve of health, “biofoam”, which will regenerate your health if needed, these reserves can run out, and if depleted can’t regenerate health.
-Health packs replenish your “biofoam reserves”.
> 2535409816624774;14480:
> To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
At the end of the day the only thing that’s gonna settle this argument is having the sprint fans play a modern Halo game that is balanced and built for classic movement.
Until then, they’re gonna have bad experiences on old outdated games with dead communities, classic playlists that use a weapon sandbox balanced for advanced movement, and various options like MCC and Reach that are full of sweaties and afk’s. The older folks that are pro sprint will look back and say that the new games are objectively better for all their features, but won’t acknowledge the dozens of other improvements that have been made to make the game feel better.
They can’t be convinced. They won’t see it until they play it, and the only way for them to play it is for a modern Halo game with a healthy community to have the classic style.
> I completely believe that lore should influence the way the game plays. Spartans can’t sprint now? No wonder so many Spartans died. Halo Reach sprint irritated me because it was an AA. I always thought, so Spartans need to pick this equipment up to do what all humans can already do. Personally, I don’t care either way, as long as the game feels realistic(in it’s own universe) and make me feel like a super soldier.
Here’s your lore: Cortana has disarmed the galaxy with Guardians and the Domain and now only our older tech works. The old kits aren’t as flexible, the equipment is less modular and must be deployed, and the smart-link systems are non-functional. But wait, let me guess: when a lore argument opposes you, it’s somehow no longer valid.
There is so much people wants to remove sprint.
> 2533274833081329;14486:
> > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
>
> Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
>
> Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
>
> Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
>
> If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that’s really all I am saying. Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
> 2535409816624774;14489:
> > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> >
> > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> >
> > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> >
> > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> >
> > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
>
> Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
Of course Overwatch isn’t old-school Arena Shooter; it was never advertised as such in the first place. It’s a class-based FPS game.
Adding new mechanics into the game isn’t just “evolution”. It has to stay true to the game roots.
This discussion is VERY important now for the direction for Halo especially with the new Halo 3 playlist 343i presented . I was usually of the side for keeping sprint, but 343i has finally done an amazing job with mixing new and old Halo. I’ll give credit where credit is due, hats off. Sure the flinch and spawns are funky but it feels like true progressive halo game play. 343 you are on to something here.
> 2533274806427910;14490:
> > 2535409816624774;14489:
> > > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> > >
> > > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> > >
> > > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> > >
> > > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> > >
> > > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
> >
> > Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
>
> Of course Overwatch isn’t old-school Arena Shooter; it was never advertised as such in the first place. It’s class-based FPS game.
>
> Adding new mechanics into the game isn’t just “evolution”. It has to stay true to the game roots.
I 100% agree with you. That is why MW3 was the best selling Call of Duty game, but later games showed a downward trend. They took innovation too far.
> 2535417761739301;14487:
> At the end of the day the only thing that’s gonna settle this argument is having the sprint fans play a modern Halo game that is balanced and built for classic movement.
>
> Until then, they’re gonna have bad experiences on old outdated games with dead communities, classic playlists that use a weapon sandbox balanced for advanced movement, and various options like MCC and Reach that are full of sweaties and afk’s. The older folks that are pro sprint will look back and say that the new games are objectively better for all their features, but won’t acknowledge the dozens of other improvements that have been made to make the game feel better.
>
> They can’t be convinced. They won’t see it until they play it, and the only way for them to play it is for a modern Halo game with a healthy community to have the classic style.
>
>
>
>
> > I completely believe that lore should influence the way the game plays. Spartans can’t sprint now? No wonder so many Spartans died. Halo Reach sprint irritated me because it was an AA. I always thought, so Spartans need to pick this equipment up to do what all humans can already do. Personally, I don’t care either way, as long as the game feels realistic(in it’s own universe) and make me feel like a super soldier.
>
> Here’s your lore: Cortana has disarmed the galaxy with Guardians and the Domain and now only our older tech works. The old kits aren’t as flexible, the equipment is less modular and must be deployed, and the smart-link systems are non-functional. But wait, let me guess: when a lore argument opposes you, it’s somehow no longer valid.
Obviously you didn’t understand my post. I said “I dont care either way, as long as the game feels realistic (in its own universe)”. As for lore, maybe I should rephrase it as consistent: Master Chief sprints in Halo 3 and why is sprint an AA in Reach. I would prefer no sprint to a sprint AA. If sprint isn’t in the game, then we can all imagine that all Spartans can run but not in gameplay. If sprint is an in-game pickup, my reaction is: why do Spartans need a piece of equipment to run?
if sprint is removed in Halo 6, I don’t care. I am sick of the people assuming that I’m hypocritical without waiting for a response. I am fine with sprint and without. Stop jumping to conclusions and understand that most of the Halo community is more similar than different. I would prefer to be able to move at sprinting speed and shoot. If that is what the anti sprint people want, then I’m in agreement. I would love to race across a map shooting the whole way.
I see the same arguments again and again. “Sprint sucks and you have no proof of it being good” or “Sprint makes Halo less unique” and “All games have sprint and people who don’t like sprint are old and I unadaptable” or “Sprint is in all other modern games”. No one clearly expresses why they hate it or love it. I want to move faster and I don’t care if it is sprint or regular walking, at a faster speed. I hate moving like a snail in Halo 3. I like Halo 4 because of loadouts and fun maps not sprint.
> 2535409816624774;14492:
> > 2533274806427910;14490:
> > > 2535409816624774;14489:
> > > > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> > > >
> > > > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> > > >
> > > > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> > > >
> > > > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> > > >
> > > > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
> > >
> > > Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
> >
> > Of course Overwatch isn’t old-school Arena Shooter; it was never advertised as such in the first place. It’s class-based FPS game.
> >
> > Adding new mechanics into the game isn’t just “evolution”. It has to stay true to the game roots.
>
> I 100% agree with you. That is why MW3 was the best selling Call of Duty game, but later games showed a downward trend. They took innovation too far.
What the later games did wasn’t even innovative at all, just pandering to the lowest common denominator as the series has always been. Everything after WaW is not worth playing.
> 2547348539238747;14478:
> > 2533274806427910;14467:
> > > 2547348539238747;14460:
> > > > 2533274984290840;14455:
> > > > Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
> > >
> > > It’s the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
> >
> > It’s a good system, but I hated the fact that they removed health system from Halo: CE, and replaced it with a regenerating health system in Halo 2 and 3. That was stupid. They brought it back in Reach (and ODST, with Stamina in place of Shields), but while only a small portion of your health would regenerate, along with your shields, it shouldn’t regenerate at all.
>
> Well obviously “fun” is subjective.
>
> The point I was making is that it was changed from a design choice. Bungie wanted to keep the combat flowing, and they wanted to keep every fight equal. By keeping the medi-pack system it left players at the mercy of previous fights. Potentially slowing down the pace by forcing players to look for health packs, or losing your next fight because you took too much damage in the last fight.
>
> For competitive games, and faster action, having fully regenerating health is the best mechanic for that gameplay design.
>
> Obviously it is not the be-all and end-all of health systems.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535416616313329;14475:
> > > 2727626560040591;14474:
> > >
> >
> > The point of a game is for fun. So, yes I want to feel like a super soldier. I don’t play games so everyone can over analyze something as simple as sprint. I just play multiplayer for a good time, I’m not a professional athlete that is worried if every fight is completely fair and balanced. I have no idea why people think that sprint even changes the game that much. Why is it controversial enough to justify 724 pages of debate? So what, just s boost to speed at the cost to shooting. Make a decision, shoot or move faster.
>
> 3) In those 724 pages are some very good arguments against sprint. There’s also a ton of repeating of those arguments because people keep coming in here saying “I’ve not read any of the previous pages but I like sprint so I think it should stay”, and then people like me have to condense those arguments in a reply for the new commenters to actually read. Which quite frankly is insulting, because if you aren’t going to try read the comments to understand the argument you are trying to counter with a personal preference you are just wasting everyone’s time.
>
> But for sprint itself. As I said on the previous page. Video games aren’t about replicating the real world. They are about creating a world that runs on its own rules. Part of these include things like grenade damage, explosion radius, kill times, ranges of engagements, bullet magnetism, and this list goes on and on. Nothing is on accident. Its a highly controlled world. Throwing in a mechanic like sprint has an effect on everything you’ve built before. All of a sudden players are sprinting out of grenade ranges, our of combat before they are killed etc, and all that extends the kill times. Then that has an effect of the length of matches, so you add in a delay to shields when sprinting, (again) etc. What you’ve effectively done is add in a mechanic that changes your game on a base level.The ability to move AND shoot helped give rise to Halo’s team work, because you could move and control the map while also shooting at the enemy. You didn’t have to choose between moving to a team mate and shooting at the guy he’s fighting with. You could do both.
>
> The short of it is Halo 5 adds far more complexity, but isn’t all that much more fun or deep. That’s an issue and sprint is on of those complexity layers (the worst one since it then also leads on to abilities), and these extra complexity layers are actually off-putting for most players. This is one of the biggest reasons for Halo’s decline in population. The casual audience that once enjoyed the game, no longer enjoy it
I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don’t consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I’m all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3’s movement is.
The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the majority of gamers are kids. Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can’t get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
> 2535409816624774;14489:
> > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> >
> > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> >
> > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> >
> > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> >
> > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
>
> It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
> I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that’s really all I am saying. Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
There’s no point in copying a trend if the trend doesn’t work in your game, or if you have to change everything about your game to make it fit.
You see Sprint everywhere because a lot of shooters follow the same role. High action, lot’s of cover, with little health and guns can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if not instant. For the most part, Halo does not have that, considering it has shields and health, and the time to kill a player is on average nearly a full second.
It’s why Halo has never attempted the ability to go prone yet, despite it being in other shooters.
Halo thought Loadouts were that “successful trend” in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Look how much good that did us.
Trends do exist for a reason. But when you add things because they’re trendy, you stop innovating and start imitating.
> 2535416616313329;14495:
> If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I’m all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint.
Well there you go, you just found one. Faster Base Movement speed.
It’s a concept so simple that it already exists in Halo 5. It’s called Speed Boost. With this power up, now you’re always moving at a speed faster than base Halo 5 in all directions while still maintaining the ability to shoot and everything else.
Why give yourself a mechanic with benefits and consequences when you can use a different mechanic with all the same benefits with none of the consequences?
> 2533274833081329;14496:
> > 2535409816624774;14489:
> > > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> > >
> > > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> > >
> > > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> > >
> > > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> > >
> > > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
> >
> > It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
> > I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that’s really all I am saying. Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
>
> There’s no point in copying a trend if the trend doesn’t work in your game, or if you have to change everything about your game to make it fit.
>
> You see Sprint everywhere because a lot of shooters follow the same role. High action, lot’s of cover, with little health and guns can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if not instant. For the most part, Halo does not have that, considering it has shields and health, and the time to kill a player is on average nearly a full second.
>
> It’s why Halo has never attempted the ability to go prone yet, despite it being in other shooters.
>
> Halo thought Loadouts were that “successful trend” in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Look how much good that did us.
>
> Trends do exist for a reason. But when you add things because they’re trendy, you stop innovating and start imitating.
I don’t disagree. None of the things you said necessarily mean that sprint specifically shouldn’t work. If it seemed tacked on, then I would agree. But it plays off of the other abilities within the confines of the game. Mechanics can certainly be imitated, but that is a hard line to draw when most shooters draw so much from each other. Halo 6 could do well by taking away some abilities, but lack of sprint would make it difficult for people coming from other games to feel comfortable. Maybe they will knock it out of the park with a fast movement speed, then you can be the first to say that you told me so. I just don’t see that happening until Halo 7.
> 2535409816624774;14498:
> > 2533274833081329;14496:
> > > 2535409816624774;14489:
> > > > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> > > >
> > > > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> > > >
> > > > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> > > >
> > > > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> > > >
> > > > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
> > >
> > > It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
> > > I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that’s really all I am saying. Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
> >
> > There’s no point in copying a trend if the trend doesn’t work in your game, or if you have to change everything about your game to make it fit.
> >
> > You see Sprint everywhere because a lot of shooters follow the same role. High action, lot’s of cover, with little health and guns can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if not instant. For the most part, Halo does not have that, considering it has shields and health, and the time to kill a player is on average nearly a full second.
> >
> > It’s why Halo has never attempted the ability to go prone yet, despite it being in other shooters.
> >
> > Halo thought Loadouts were that “successful trend” in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Look how much good that did us.
> >
> > Trends do exist for a reason. But when you add things because they’re trendy, you stop innovating and start imitating.
>
> I don’t disagree. None of the things you said necessarily mean that sprint specifically shouldn’t work. If it seemed tacked on, then I would agree. But it plays off of the other abilities within the confines of the game. Mechanics can certainly be imitated, but that is a hard line to draw when most shooters draw so much from each other. Halo 6 could do well by taking away some abilities, but lack of sprint would make it difficult for people coming from other games to feel comfortable. Maybe they will knock it out of the park with a fast movement speed, then you can be the first to say that you told me so. I just don’t see that happening until Halo 7.
Sprint plays off the abilities because most of the abilities were made because of Sprint. Spartan Charge fully exists to limit Sprint. The only ability that doesn’t share any relations with Sprint is Ground Pound, and sure enough that’s the ability that impacts the game the least.
Shooters all draw from each other to at least some extent, but they do have a huge difference that serves as the foundation to their gameplay. Halo is already different from most other shooters and always have been.
You don’t want people from other games to come to your game to try the same thing, you want people from other games to come to your game for a new experience. That’s like one of the biggest reasons Halo 4 fell apart under a month after launch.
> 2535416616313329;14495:
> > 2547348539238747;14478:
> > > 2533274806427910;14467:
> > > > 2547348539238747;14460:
> > > > > 2533274984290840;14455:
> > > > > Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
> > > >
> > > > It’s the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
> > >
> > > It’s a good system, but I hated the fact that they removed health system from Halo: CE, and replaced it with a regenerating health system in Halo 2 and 3. That was stupid. They brought it back in Reach (and ODST, with Stamina in place of Shields), but while only a small portion of your health would regenerate, along with your shields, it shouldn’t regenerate at all.
> >
> > Well obviously “fun” is subjective.
> >
> > The point I was making is that it was changed from a design choice. Bungie wanted to keep the combat flowing, and they wanted to keep every fight equal. By keeping the medi-pack system it left players at the mercy of previous fights. Potentially slowing down the pace by forcing players to look for health packs, or losing your next fight because you took too much damage in the last fight.
> >
> > For competitive games, and faster action, having fully regenerating health is the best mechanic for that gameplay design.
> >
> > Obviously it is not the be-all and end-all of health systems.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2535416616313329;14475:
> > > > 2727626560040591;14474:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The point of a game is for fun. So, yes I want to feel like a super soldier. I don’t play games so everyone can over analyze something as simple as sprint. I just play multiplayer for a good time, I’m not a professional athlete that is worried if every fight is completely fair and balanced. I have no idea why people think that sprint even changes the game that much. Why is it controversial enough to justify 724 pages of debate? So what, just s boost to speed at the cost to shooting. Make a decision, shoot or move faster.
> >
> > 3) In those 724 pages are some very good arguments against sprint. There’s also a ton of repeating of those arguments because people keep coming in here saying “I’ve not read any of the previous pages but I like sprint so I think it should stay”, and then people like me have to condense those arguments in a reply for the new commenters to actually read. Which quite frankly is insulting, because if you aren’t going to try read the comments to understand the argument you are trying to counter with a personal preference you are just wasting everyone’s time.
> >
> > But for sprint itself. As I said on the previous page. Video games aren’t about replicating the real world. They are about creating a world that runs on its own rules. Part of these include things like grenade damage, explosion radius, kill times, ranges of engagements, bullet magnetism, and this list goes on and on. Nothing is on accident. Its a highly controlled world. Throwing in a mechanic like sprint has an effect on everything you’ve built before. All of a sudden players are sprinting out of grenade ranges, our of combat before they are killed etc, and all that extends the kill times. Then that has an effect of the length of matches, so you add in a delay to shields when sprinting, (again) etc. What you’ve effectively done is add in a mechanic that changes your game on a base level.The ability to move AND shoot helped give rise to Halo’s team work, because you could move and control the map while also shooting at the enemy. You didn’t have to choose between moving to a team mate and shooting at the guy he’s fighting with. You could do both.
> >
> > The short of it is Halo 5 adds far more complexity, but isn’t all that much more fun or deep. That’s an issue and sprint is on of those complexity layers (the worst one since it then also leads on to abilities), and these extra complexity layers are actually off-putting for most players. This is one of the biggest reasons for Halo’s decline in population. The casual audience that once enjoyed the game, no longer enjoy it
>
> I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don’t consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I’m all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3’s movement is.
>
> The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the majority of gamers are kids. Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can’t get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
Can you explain these “weak” arguments from the “no-Sprint” crowd. The only weak argument that I know of is “it’s an illusion”. No, it isn’t. Also, Halo 3’s movement is terrible because Bungie stopped caring about Halo, they didn’t care how flawed it in comparison to the first two games. Movement Acceleration and a ridiculous narrowed FoV is why Halo 3 feels so slow in the first place. Halo 2 had narrower FoV than CE, but at least you could actually strafe in both of those games.
Also, I get sick and tired of people claiming Halo’s population took a nosedive simply because there’s more competition in the market, now, than in 2007. Halo 4 feels absolutely NOTHING like Classic Halo. You actually think Halo 4 has better balance than any Halo after it? You think people spawning with different weapons is balanced? You think Ordnance Drops are balanced for competitive play? Do you even know what balance means?
> No one clearly expresses why they hate it or love it.
People aren’t going to regurgitate seven years of the “Sprint” debate just for you to understand why it’s loved/hated by certain people. The fact is, it doesn’t belong in a game with slow kill-times. End of discussion.
> 2533274833081329;14499:
> > 2535409816624774;14498:
> > > 2533274833081329;14496:
> > > > 2535409816624774;14489:
> > > > > 2533274833081329;14486:
> > > > > > 2535409816624774;14480:
> > > > > > To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don’t Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that’s doing pretty well with no Sprint.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sprint doesn’t make a shooter successful.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you’re gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn’t as popular as the other shooters then.
> > > >
> > > > It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
> > > > I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that’s really all I am saying. Overwatch’s popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn’t an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It’s just a matter of finding that balance.
> > >
> > > There’s no point in copying a trend if the trend doesn’t work in your game, or if you have to change everything about your game to make it fit.
> > >
> > > You see Sprint everywhere because a lot of shooters follow the same role. High action, lot’s of cover, with little health and guns can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if not instant. For the most part, Halo does not have that, considering it has shields and health, and the time to kill a player is on average nearly a full second.
> > >
> > > It’s why Halo has never attempted the ability to go prone yet, despite it being in other shooters.
> > >
> > > Halo thought Loadouts were that “successful trend” in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Look how much good that did us.
> > >
> > > Trends do exist for a reason. But when you add things because they’re trendy, you stop innovating and start imitating.
> >
> > I don’t disagree. None of the things you said necessarily mean that sprint specifically shouldn’t work. If it seemed tacked on, then I would agree. But it plays off of the other abilities within the confines of the game. Mechanics can certainly be imitated, but that is a hard line to draw when most shooters draw so much from each other. Halo 6 could do well by taking away some abilities, but lack of sprint would make it difficult for people coming from other games to feel comfortable. Maybe they will knock it out of the park with a fast movement speed, then you can be the first to say that you told me so. I just don’t see that happening until Halo 7.
>
> Sprint plays off the abilities because most of the abilities were made because of Sprint. Spartan Charge fully exists to limit Sprint. The only ability that doesn’t share any relations with Sprint is Ground Pound, and sure enough that’s the ability that impacts the game the least.
>
> Shooters all draw from each other to at least some extent, but they do have a huge difference that serves as the foundation to their gameplay. Halo is already different from most other shooters and always have been.
>
> You don’t want people from other games to come to your game to try the same thing, you want people from other games to come to your game for a new experience. That’s like one of the biggest reasons Halo 4 fell apart under a month after launch.
Spartan charge, as well as shield regeneration, as well as the layout of the maps for the most part. There is literally no other way to implement a new thing without adjusting the game for it. You may be right about doing the same thing, but that mentality goes against your initial argument of sprint not being the reason these games are successful. They don’t come to Halo for sprint, but they feel comfortable that it is there. I would say that Halo bothered a few mechanics too many from Destiny, but sprint is a logical choice when comparing to games that 343 wants to take players from. Like I said in my initial post: it’s about finding a balance. I don’t think I will be changing your mind if you don’t like sprint. For what it’s worth, I don’t either.
> 2535416616313329;14495:
> > 2547348539238747;14478:
> > > 2533274806427910;14467:
> > > > 2547348539238747;14460:
> > > > > 2533274984290840;14455:
> > > > > Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
> > > >
> > > > It’s the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
>
> I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don’t consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. **(1)**If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I’m all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3’s movement is.
>
> The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. (4) Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the (5) majority of gamers are kids. (2) Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can’t get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. (3) Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
-
Doom. It has been said several times on here already. Increasing base movement speed is more than possible. It’s also been said several times how part of Halo 3’s slow feel is because of a low FoV. For someone that claims to have read the arguments you are still seemingly arguing that without sprint we’d be left with movement as slow as Halo 3.
-
Many Halo 3 players weren’t kids. I made a ton of adult friends. And the majority of Halo 3 players had never played Halo 2, and many that I met had never played an FPS, left alone a MP title before. The appeal of Halo 3 wasn’t based on previous experiences. It was based on the simple-to-learn/simple-to-understand nature of the game. (again, please refer back to my previous post and the link there in. It shows depth vs complexity and how complexity can actually drive players away from games early).
-
Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that’s even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).
-
Now Halo Reach saw a decline. Wasn’t a death sentence for the game or franchise but it was significant. Halo Reach is also the first game to be a departure from the equal starts simple gameplay as well. Then along comes Halo 4. The sequel to the last Classic Halo title, Halo 3. Halo 4 sold fantastically, nearly rivaling Halo 3. The promises 343i made about bringing Halo back to its roots (and yes, they did make those claims. I was active on the forums way back then Even the first gif of gameplay was done to appear like Halo 3) drove hype, drove excitement for the game, drove sales. It wasn’t long however that people realised that Halo 4 did not deliver the classic experience 343i (and the title of Halo ‘4’) promised. So the game saw a huge drop in population.
-
No they aren’t. Only 29% of gamers are under 18. The average gamer is 31 years old. Funny that, since it better represents my age, and these gamers were almost adults when Halo 2 launched, they were 21 by the time Halo 3 came out. Linky. (This study is from 3 years ago, so that age has probably increased by at least another year)
The data seems to point at the fact that the more additions Halo took from COD in order to attract the people playing COD, the worse it performed. Now I hate the COD franchise, and actually including these elements drove me away from the Halo games. SO what really killed Halo was the lack of belief in the strength of being unique. Players were looking at COD and looking at Halo and seeing the two start to merge in their experiences. Only Halo did the experience far less effectively. SO COD lovers stayed on COD, and Halo loves left because Halo no longer felt like Halo. With all modern MP FPS shooters having Loadouts, Sprint and Abilities, Halo had the chance to side step competition and carve out its own community of players who don’t want a ‘modern’ shooter. Instead it tried to compete directly and has failed. So yes, sprint (sprint being a symptom of a larger cause) has helped with the decline in Halo’s popularity.
> 2547348539238747;14502:
> 3) Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that’s even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).
Would you also say that in 2012 players chose Blacks Ops 2 over Halo 4 for its deeper gameplay? I ask this because I think there’s a real danger of being overly subjective and inconsistent when speculating over why Halo 3 was as popular as it was, and Halo 4 wasn’t.
Strictly speaking, based on popularity alone, there’s no a priori reason to conclude that since Halo 3 was the most popular game on the Xbox 360 in 2007, and Halo 4 wasn’t in 2012, that people preferred Halo 3 over Halo 4. All you can say with certainty is that back in 2007, Halo 3 was more appealing than all other shooters released in the same year, and that in 2012 Halo 4 was not as appealing as some of the other shooters released that year. However, when you deduce that this must mean Halo 3 was more appealing than Halo 4, you assume that Halo 4 was unpopular because it was worse than Halo 3 in the eyes of players. But it’s equally possible that that the perceived quality of Halo games didn’t change in that time, and instead the rest of the FPS genre simply caught up and surpassed Halo.
So, while it’s true that Halo 4 didn’t have significantly more competition than Halo 3 did, it is entirely possible that the competition Halo 4 faced was more competent than what Halo 3 faced. (And “more competent” here simply means more capable of holding the attention of players, not any subjective evaluation of quality.) Without any additional information, we can’t rule out this possibility.
In general, answering the “why” of the population decline is pure speculation. There are internal factors that might play part such as changes in the game and franchise fatigue, as well as external factors such as trends. None of these can be ruled out as negligible based on the available data. Nobody knows why Halo isn’t as popular as it used to be.