The sprint discussion thread

Games Halo 5: Guardians
15746

> 2533274829213703;15740:
> > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > 2533275031935123;15734:
> > > > 2533275001522797;15727:
> > > > How is sprint an upgrade? Imagine being born only able to walk and you can never run for the rest of your life. Is that enough?
> > >
> > > That’s an incredibly facetious argument. Gameplay trumps immersion.
> > >
> > > As for what Tennyson said (mobile is a pain to edit), making Halo homogenous with everything else is never the way to go. At that point, it joins the roster of bland military space shooters and loses the unique identity it once had. Halo 5 experienced a massive die off after release, and is in very dire straits now. I frequently get matched with the same people, game after game. Heck, I got matched with the same people in SWAT a day after I played them.
> > > You’re bringing up Titanfall 2, but the entire reason that game died was because EA very foolishly thought that putting it up against Battlefield 1, a hotly anticipated title, was a good idea. Titanfall 2 has more in common in terms of movement style with Halo 5 than it does with Halo 1-3.
> > >
> > > Sprint does massive damage to Halo. The fact that after 700+ pages of arguement, where the best defense Sprint has is “Immersion” should be pretty telling that the system has to go.
> >
> > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise. It’s my opinion that if we achieve such a mixture, we can’t take sprint out. Sprint is just too fundamental of a facet of gameplay at this point. We’ve had it since Reach. It would be quite jarring to many who enjoyed Reach and after to just all of a sudden play on HCE-style movement.
> >
> > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> >
> > Lastly on the Titanfall 2 remarks, I’d say it’s far more probable that Titanfall 2 got killed because it was tied to a bad name. Titanfall 1 felt incomplete at it’s absolute best and was an Xbox exclusive. There was no real campaign, the multiplayer was ridiculously erratic with the sheer amount of customizability, and it was niche in general. Titanfall 2, despite being a very good game, can’t really shake that tarnish that the first game had.
> >
> > With that in mind, is Halo not by now a tarnished name? I mean, we have Act Man pumping out 5+ videos ragging on H5. While I do agree with him and I’m not jabbing at him in any way, that does not shine well on the Halo name. With all the severely negative press that the 343 games got, can we say that H6, no matter how much they listened to the online community, will recover? I severely doubt it, and I also doubt removing Sprint is going to help keep the game afloat.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> As the old saying goes, a game for everyone is a game for no one. Compromising would just annoy both sides.
> Sprint was not a staple in Reach, it was only an option.
>
> The question is more of how many have we lost with having it in?
>
> Without any definite proof, one could say Titanfall failed because of it’s enhanced mobility. Heck, games that previously featured it are now reverting to their own classic styles like Call of Duty, or flat out dying like Titanfall.
>
> Act Man has also had a very positive video regarding the returning art style and possibilities of classic movement returning.
>
> Halo Infinite will probably have an iffy launch due to the history, but if it is actually good, people will flock to it. Just like when Halo CE launched in 2001, they have to prove themselves.

We can’t just please one side and leave the other to rot. That probably does even more damage than a compromise.

Secondly, ehhhhhh. I wouldn’t be too optimistic. Titanfall 2 is a pretty polished game and had some great press, yet people didn’t flock to it, likely because Titanfall 1 was pretty barebones and it sullied the name of the franchise. First impressions matter. People who didn’t like 343 games are probably not going to get 6 because of the 343 name on the cover.

Besides, if sprint was only an option in Reach and wasn’t necessary, let’s just go back to that system. I don’t see that being too problematic.

15747

> 2533274944752684;15745:
> > 2533274833081329;15741:
> > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise.
> >
> > That’s how we ended up with Halo 5, yet people aren’t happy with the result. The old phrase pleasing everyone yet pleasing no one stuff comes up.
> >
> > I mean look at how Halo 5 handled the competitive community and the casual community, especially in the beginning. Textbook definition.
> >
> > Forcing compromise doesn’t mean everyone gets to play the stuff they want, it just means that both sides are now forced to deal with features they don’t like.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> >
> > I mean you already seem convinced that removing Sprint loses a large chunk of the community. Exactly how much would we lose if we got rid of it? There’s no more evidence of that than removing Sprint, but in my experience, I have rarely seen a (rational) player say they would leave the game if itdidn’t have Sprint, only if the game played slow as a result, which isn’t the same thing.
>
> Compromise is never perfect, but it can be adjusted. We can make Halo tip a little more classic, but it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t go as far as removing sprint. Besides, two mildly irritated sides with a good compromise (which I’m not saying H5 is) is a lot better than being worshipped by one and having another hate your guts.
>
> For the second half, my reasoning is this:
> - The people still playing Halo 5 are the ones still with the franchise. That means that they may favor sprint at the absolute least. - Removing sprint may alienate some of those players still with us. - Removing sprint is only going to bring back the few classic guys who still are considering Halo. If we lost so many people, I doubt most of them care about the franchise anymore. - Thus, it’s better to keep sprint and to make a compromise that tips more towards the classic style than how it is currently.People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint. I doubt sprint was the big boogeyman for Halo 5’s death, as it had a terrible launch, microtransactions, and overall just a terrible press atmosphere that could’ve contributed to its demise.

Well that all comes back to what I say multiple times.

What makes Sprint this magical force that can never be removed or replaced? What makes it so important that people would straight up not buy the game if this one mechanic is missing?

And by “removed or replaced”, I’m putting extra emphasis on “replaced.” Because there are ways to do what Sprint does without using Sprint itself.

What if everything is exactly the same as Halo 5’s gameplay, but with Sprint missing? That’s almost fully modern (well, not really, Halo 4 exists and that’s more “modern”) with one classic element back. Apparently that’s enough to make the modern players upset? If so, then that essentially means there is no compromise.

"People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint."
Sprint functioned differently and was created with an entirely different purpose, it was an Armor Ability while there were other arguably worse Armor Abilities out there (Armor Lock, Jetpack), and 343i made the No Sprint No Bloom update a year later for some playlists.

15748

> 2533274833081329;15747:
> > 2533274944752684;15745:
> > > 2533274833081329;15741:
> > > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise.
> > >
> > > That’s how we ended up with Halo 5, yet people aren’t happy with the result. The old phrase pleasing everyone yet pleasing no one stuff comes up.
> > >
> > > I mean look at how Halo 5 handled the competitive community and the casual community, especially in the beginning. Textbook definition.
> > >
> > > Forcing compromise doesn’t mean everyone gets to play the stuff they want, it just means that both sides are now forced to deal with features they don’t like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> > >
> > > I mean you already seem convinced that removing Sprint loses a large chunk of the community. Exactly how much would we lose if we got rid of it? There’s no more evidence of that than removing Sprint, but in my experience, I have rarely seen a (rational) player say they would leave the game if itdidn’t have Sprint, only if the game played slow as a result, which isn’t the same thing.
> >
> > Compromise is never perfect, but it can be adjusted. We can make Halo tip a little more classic, but it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t go as far as removing sprint. Besides, two mildly irritated sides with a good compromise (which I’m not saying H5 is) is a lot better than being worshipped by one and having another hate your guts.
> >
> > For the second half, my reasoning is this:
> > - The people still playing Halo 5 are the ones still with the franchise. That means that they may favor sprint at the absolute least. - Removing sprint may alienate some of those players still with us. - Removing sprint is only going to bring back the few classic guys who still are considering Halo. If we lost so many people, I doubt most of them care about the franchise anymore. - Thus, it’s better to keep sprint and to make a compromise that tips more towards the classic style than how it is currently.People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint. I doubt sprint was the big boogeyman for Halo 5’s death, as it had a terrible launch, microtransactions, and overall just a terrible press atmosphere that could’ve contributed to its demise.
>
> Well that all comes back to what I say multiple times.
>
> What makes Sprint this magical force that can never be removed or replaced? What makes it so important that people would straight up not buy the game if this one mechanic is missing?
>
> What if everything is exactly the same as Halo 5’s gameplay, but with Sprint missing? That’s almost fully modern (well, not really, Halo 4 exists and that’s more “modern”) with one classic element back. Apparently that’s enough to make the modern players upset? If so, then that essentially means there is no compromise.
>
> "People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint."
> Sprint functioned differently and was created with an entirely different purpose, it was an Armor Ability while there were other arguably worse Armor Abilities out there (Armor Lock, Jetpack), and 343i made the No Sprint No Bloom update a year later for some playlists.

Sprint is the foundation for the building of H5’s movement. You take it out, and most of it unravels. Listen, you guys can take clamber, charge, pound, you can take any of the extra gimmicks. A lot of those aren’t completely necessary to have a decent modern experience. But sprint is kind of fundamental. It has more weighting than something like thrusters or slide. Having that 2 geared movement contributes to that freedom of movement that one-geared doesn’t really have.

That’s the big differentiating factor between classic and modern. Modern is a fluid, experimental, and free style that gives the player a lot of freedom. Classic is a tried and true formula that sacrifices freedom for exceptional flow. Surely, there must be a middle ground.

What if we took out all of H5’s extras, but kept sprint and thrusters? Would that be too disagreeable?

15749

> 2533274944752684;15744:
> There are people who obviously are apathetic yet still have issues. That’s not something you really need to clarify. What I am saying is that the majority of people who don’t complain online are fine with what they got. […] But others don’t have those intensely high standards, and they in general have fun playing the game.

No. These are completely baseless assumptions. There’s no factual basis for them. People who don’t have high standards are entirely capable of not finding something fun. Not just that, but for people who aren’t that invested into a franchise to begin with, it’s very easy to go “meh, I don’t really like these changes” and just quit, because they don’t have that emotional drive to keep playing. You cannot know what portion of the people who used to play Halo in the past are completely fine with the new style, and what portion is not.

> 2533274944752684;15744:
> Besides, it’s more of a faulty adage than a rule of thumb. It’s generally correct though.

No it’s not. It’s just a projection of your own biases. No more correct than me saying “the people playing Halo 5 are the minority, and everyone else has lost interest due to the changes”.

15750

> 2533274944752684;15745:
> > 2533274833081329;15741:
> > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise.
> >
> > That’s how we ended up with Halo 5, yet people aren’t happy with the result. The old phrase pleasing everyone yet pleasing no one stuff comes up.
> >
> > I mean look at how Halo 5 handled the competitive community and the casual community, especially in the beginning. Textbook definition.
> >
> > Forcing compromise doesn’t mean everyone gets to play the stuff they want, it just means that both sides are now forced to deal with features they don’t like.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> >
> > I mean you already seem convinced that removing Sprint loses a large chunk of the community. Exactly how much would we lose if we got rid of it? There’s no more evidence of that than removing Sprint, but in my experience, I have rarely seen a (rational) player say they would leave the game if itdidn’t have Sprint, only if the game played slow as a result, which isn’t the same thing.
>
> Compromise is never perfect, but it can be adjusted. We can make Halo tip a little more classic, but it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t go as far as removing sprint. Besides, two mildly irritated sides with a good compromise (which I’m not saying H5 is) is a lot better than being worshipped by one and having another hate your guts.
>
> For the second half, my reasoning is this:
> - The people still playing Halo 5 are the ones still with the franchise. That means that they may favor sprint at the absolute least. - Removing sprint may alienate some of those players still with us. - Removing sprint is only going to bring back the few classic guys who still are considering Halo. If we lost so many people, I doubt most of them care about the franchise anymore. - Thus, it’s better to keep sprint and to make a compromise that tips more towards the classic style than how it is currently.People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint. I doubt sprint was the big boogeyman for Halo 5’s death, as it had a terrible launch, microtransactions, and overall just a terrible press atmosphere that could’ve contributed to its demise.

It’s not possible to mix up the “classic” with Enhanched Mobility. In order to please everyone, you’ll please no one.
To your 4 points

  1. I don’t like the gameplay, and I still play H5 as much as MCC. But it’s mainly because of Forge. This has nothing to do with abilities. I still support this franchise, because I want the real formular back. And there are a ton of people like me. Halo has lost a lot of fans and the fact that the majority of the remaining ones still support the real formular is fascinating. It shows, how much passion people have for Halo.

  2. Why should they? A lot of them haven’t even experienced the true gameplay. Maybe they will like it even more?

  3. The people you call “a few classic guys” have carried one of the biggest franchises in gaming for a decade. People are so desperate for the real formular - they’re even creating their own games. I don’t know if it’s forbidden to call that games by their name here, but you can look them up everywhere. Hell, one of them was just there for a couple of days in April and it draw way more attention, than H5. Given the fact that this game is 11 years old - it’s just crazy.

  4. Again, that’s not possible.

  5. Reach has got a lot of praise for it’s campaign, forge, the huge amount of variety in Multiplayer, the art style, the music and the customization - not the gameplay.
    Please be more specific.

15751

> 2533274944752684;15748:
> > 2533274833081329;15747:
> > > 2533274944752684;15745:
> > > > 2533274833081329;15741:
> > > > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > > > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise.
> > > >
> > > > That’s how we ended up with Halo 5, yet people aren’t happy with the result. The old phrase pleasing everyone yet pleasing no one stuff comes up.
> > > >
> > > > I mean look at how Halo 5 handled the competitive community and the casual community, especially in the beginning. Textbook definition.
> > > >
> > > > Forcing compromise doesn’t mean everyone gets to play the stuff they want, it just means that both sides are now forced to deal with features they don’t like.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > > > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> > > >
> > > > I mean you already seem convinced that removing Sprint loses a large chunk of the community. Exactly how much would we lose if we got rid of it? There’s no more evidence of that than removing Sprint, but in my experience, I have rarely seen a (rational) player say they would leave the game if itdidn’t have Sprint, only if the game played slow as a result, which isn’t the same thing.
> > >
> > > Compromise is never perfect, but it can be adjusted. We can make Halo tip a little more classic, but it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t go as far as removing sprint. Besides, two mildly irritated sides with a good compromise (which I’m not saying H5 is) is a lot better than being worshipped by one and having another hate your guts.
> > >
> > > For the second half, my reasoning is this:
> > > - The people still playing Halo 5 are the ones still with the franchise. That means that they may favor sprint at the absolute least. - Removing sprint may alienate some of those players still with us. - Removing sprint is only going to bring back the few classic guys who still are considering Halo. If we lost so many people, I doubt most of them care about the franchise anymore. - Thus, it’s better to keep sprint and to make a compromise that tips more towards the classic style than how it is currently.People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint. I doubt sprint was the big boogeyman for Halo 5’s death, as it had a terrible launch, microtransactions, and overall just a terrible press atmosphere that could’ve contributed to its demise.
> >
> > Well that all comes back to what I say multiple times.
> >
> > What makes Sprint this magical force that can never be removed or replaced? What makes it so important that people would straight up not buy the game if this one mechanic is missing?
> >
> > What if everything is exactly the same as Halo 5’s gameplay, but with Sprint missing? That’s almost fully modern (well, not really, Halo 4 exists and that’s more “modern”) with one classic element back. Apparently that’s enough to make the modern players upset? If so, then that essentially means there is no compromise.
> >
> > "People still consider Reach to be a great game from what I see, and that had sprint."
> > Sprint functioned differently and was created with an entirely different purpose, it was an Armor Ability while there were other arguably worse Armor Abilities out there (Armor Lock, Jetpack), and 343i made the No Sprint No Bloom update a year later for some playlists.
>
> Sprint is the foundation for the building of H5’s movement. You take it out, and most of it unravels. Listen, you guys can take clamber, charge, pound, you can take any of the extra gimmicks. A lot of those aren’t completely necessary to have a decent modern experience. But sprint is kind of fundamental. It has more weighting than something like thrusters or slide. Having that 2 geared movement contributes to that freedom of movement that one-geared doesn’t really have.
>
> That’s the big differentiating factor between classic and modern. Modern is a fluid, experimental, and free style that gives the player a lot of freedom. Classic is a tried and true formula that sacrifices freedom for exceptional flow. Surely, there must be a middle ground.
>
> What if we took out all of H5’s extras, but kept sprint and thrusters? Would that be too disagreeable?

Even 343i doesn’t fully agree with the first part, since they said that it was super divisive when including it into Halo 5, and ex-343 Neighbor said that Halo 5 played fine if you just removed Sprint (and Clamber) but increased the movement speed and jump height by like 10-20%.

I’m not seeing this “freedom of movement” on two styles of movement. All you did was separate what you could originally do in one mode into two modes that only work independently, and made up new disadvantages along the way.

  • You can only move your maximum speed in one direction: forwards. That means anything you can do going forwards can’t always be done going sideways or backwards. The game forces you to travel forwards at nearly all times. - You’re limited from shooting or doing damage in most cases. If you shoot, you can’t sprint, but you must sprint to catch people who are also Sprinting but you can’t shoot. So it leads to this stop-and-shoot gameplay, more reminiscent of games like Call of Duty."What if we took out all of H5’s extras, but kept sprint and thrusters? Would that be too disagreeable?"
    Well yes, because Sprint is still there, that’s the whole problem, that’s what the 780+ pages here is about. You said it yourself, it’s fundamental, people just see it as a fundamental flaw with Halo 5’s gameplay.

Especially since you’re trying to barter Spartan Charge, but Spartan Charge fully exists because of Sprint, so you can’t get rid of that anyway if you’re keeping Sprint, since you’re just going to need it again.

15752

> 2533274944752684;15746:
> > 2533274829213703;15740:
> > > 2533274944752684;15738:
> > > > 2533275031935123;15734:
> > > > > 2533275001522797;15727:
> > > > > How is sprint an upgrade? Imagine being born only able to walk and you can never run for the rest of your life. Is that enough?
> > > >
> > > > That’s an incredibly facetious argument. Gameplay trumps immersion.
> > > >
> > > > As for what Tennyson said (mobile is a pain to edit), making Halo homogenous with everything else is never the way to go. At that point, it joins the roster of bland military space shooters and loses the unique identity it once had. Halo 5 experienced a massive die off after release, and is in very dire straits now. I frequently get matched with the same people, game after game. Heck, I got matched with the same people in SWAT a day after I played them.
> > > > You’re bringing up Titanfall 2, but the entire reason that game died was because EA very foolishly thought that putting it up against Battlefield 1, a hotly anticipated title, was a good idea. Titanfall 2 has more in common in terms of movement style with Halo 5 than it does with Halo 1-3.
> > > >
> > > > Sprint does massive damage to Halo. The fact that after 700+ pages of arguement, where the best defense Sprint has is “Immersion” should be pretty telling that the system has to go.
> > >
> > > Halo should never be homogenous, of course. But like I said, there needs to be some damage control measures here. Going full Classic is going to anger a majority of the people who like H5’s flexibility. Going full Modern is going to make the Classic guys even angrier than before. We need a perfect mixture, not one that angers the fan base as a whole, but one that forces compromise. It’s my opinion that if we achieve such a mixture, we can’t take sprint out. Sprint is just too fundamental of a facet of gameplay at this point. We’ve had it since Reach. It would be quite jarring to many who enjoyed Reach and after to just all of a sudden play on HCE-style movement.
> > >
> > > Sprint and its removal is one of those high-risk things. If we take it out, we could lose a large chunk of the community. But how much would we lose if we kept it in? Sure, make your argument for the gameplay benefits, but I don’t think the losses would be as high player-wise. I’m no fortune teller, but I have a hunch nonetheless.
> > >
> > > Lastly on the Titanfall 2 remarks, I’d say it’s far more probable that Titanfall 2 got killed because it was tied to a bad name. Titanfall 1 felt incomplete at it’s absolute best and was an Xbox exclusive. There was no real campaign, the multiplayer was ridiculously erratic with the sheer amount of customizability, and it was niche in general. Titanfall 2, despite being a very good game, can’t really shake that tarnish that the first game had.
> > >
> > > With that in mind, is Halo not by now a tarnished name? I mean, we have Act Man pumping out 5+ videos ragging on H5. While I do agree with him and I’m not jabbing at him in any way, that does not shine well on the Halo name. With all the severely negative press that the 343 games got, can we say that H6, no matter how much they listened to the online community, will recover? I severely doubt it, and I also doubt removing Sprint is going to help keep the game afloat.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > As the old saying goes, a game for everyone is a game for no one. Compromising would just annoy both sides.
> > Sprint was not a staple in Reach, it was only an option.
> >
> > The question is more of how many have we lost with having it in?
> >
> > Without any definite proof, one could say Titanfall failed because of it’s enhanced mobility. Heck, games that previously featured it are now reverting to their own classic styles like Call of Duty, or flat out dying like Titanfall.
> >
> > Act Man has also had a very positive video regarding the returning art style and possibilities of classic movement returning.
> >
> > Halo Infinite will probably have an iffy launch due to the history, but if it is actually good, people will flock to it. Just like when Halo CE launched in 2001, they have to prove themselves.
>
> We can’t just please one side and leave the other to rot. That probably does even more damage than a compromise.
>
> Secondly, ehhhhhh. I wouldn’t be too optimistic. Titanfall 2 is a pretty polished game and had some great press, yet people didn’t flock to it, likely because Titanfall 1 was pretty barebones and it sullied the name of the franchise. First impressions matter. People who didn’t like 343 games are probably not going to get 6 because of the 343 name on the cover.
>
> Besides, if sprint was only an option in Reach and wasn’t necessary, let’s just go back to that system. I don’t see that being too problematic.

Probably going to hit my post limit on this thread alone, but here we go.

Not really, mixing both just fails to make either happy and they’ll both leave.

I highly doubt a console exlcusive’s sequel that was multiplatform, which had polished gameplay and some great press died simply to the fact that the first game was meh. The advertising campaign alone was huge and made sure to address the new and fixed aspects. If trashing the name ruined any chances of success, Halo shouldn’t even try a sequel. The point is Titanfall 2 failed to get sales for one reason, and failed to hold players for possibly another.

While armor abilities were better in Reach, they were still poorly received. Plus due to Reach being considered the beginning of the downward trend of Halo, modeling a game after it wouldn’t be the best choice. Evidence being that Reach’s dedicated players stagnated instead of the growth with Halo 2&3, followed by a decline with Halo 4. While the reasons of this would have to be thoroughly examined, modelling a sequel based on the “best” game would most likely be the wisest choice.

15753

Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
Solutiion:
Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).

Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.

15754

> 2535454318282171;15753:
> Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
> **Solutiion:**Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).
>
> Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.

Only issue with that is that 343i has to pretty much balance maps, weapons, vehicles, and the like for two very different playstyles. At that point, it would just be better to make two games.

15755

> 2533274829213703;15754:
> > 2535454318282171;15753:
> > Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
> > **Solutiion:**Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).
> >
> > Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.
>
> Only issue with that is that 343i has to pretty much balance maps, weapons, vehicles, and the like for two very different playstyles. At that point, it would just be better to make two games.

Ok. How about this solution: No spartan abilities or thrust in multiplayer, but there is sprint. However, sprint can only be used when shields are full. Therefore, if you get shot, it breaks your sprint. Also, we revert to Halo 4’s limited sprint.

15756

> 2535454318282171;15753:
> Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
> **Solutiion:**Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).
>
> Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.

I object.

The issue is the balance of the thing. The game has to be balanced for two separate styles of play, and the game suffers overall as a result. One of Sprint’s most damaging effects has been on hitscan weapons. The current system has hitscan weapons severely messed up, with them being too sensitive or far too unreliable to be useful. See the Halo 3 throwback playthrough for all the issues with the system.
At that point, you may as well make two different games, as another user mentioned. Removing Sprint, increasing BMS and setting default Field of View to around 90-100 would solve a lot of problems players have with speed and flow of gameplay.

It’s totally and utterly facetious to claim that removing Sprint would drive away players. Not only is there no evidence to back that up, but the players still with the game are probably long time fans of the series. Of course, that’s pure speculation on my part. This system (along with a lot of decisions made for Halo 5) was designed for a fanbase who has already moved on to the next fancy, shiny thing.

> Ok. How about this solution: No spartan abilities or thrust in multiplayer, but there is sprint. However, sprint can only be used when shields are full. Therefore, if you get shot, it breaks your sprint. Also, we revert to Halo 4’s limited sprint

Again. No. It doesn’t solve the issue at all. See above post for why.

15757

> 2535454318282171;15755:
> > 2533274829213703;15754:
> > > 2535454318282171;15753:
> > > Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
> > > **Solutiion:**Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).
> > >
> > > Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.
> >
> > Only issue with that is that 343i has to pretty much balance maps, weapons, vehicles, and the like for two very different playstyles. At that point, it would just be better to make two games.
>
> Ok. How about this solution: No spartan abilities or thrust in multiplayer, but there is sprint. However, sprint can only be used when shields are full. Therefore, if you get shot, it breaks your sprint. Also, we revert to Halo 4’s limited sprint.

Even in a limited state, sprint would affect all the things I have mention.

While it would cost -Yoink!- money, maybe opening another studio and making a classic and new Halo game would be better, and release them at least a year apart. That way there is no compromising either version. But not very likely since the cost and all that.

15758

> 2533275031935123;15756:
> > 2535454318282171;15753:
> > Since arguing over whether to remove or not or some amorphous compromise is going to happen or not is clearly not working, I’m going to propose this one last time. I’d like anyone who hates this solution to vocally object and anyone who likes it to please state why or at least use the like button.
> > **Solutiion:**Halo Infinite’s campaign is no sprint nor spartan abilities. No thruster, clamber, and the like. The campaign and difficulties (easy, normal, heroic, legendary) are tailored to the no sprint campaign. Anyone who prefers sprint, thrust, slide and the like may activate difficulty skulls which have a score multiplier that reflects the impact these abilities have compared to other difficulty skulls (such as ones that boost ammo, or negative ones like the blind skull, iron skull, or the one where you have to melt to get shields back, etc).
> >
> > Halo infinite’s casual/social multiplayer starts with the core playlists (Core play, quick play, infection, etc) with no spartan abilities, no thrust, and no sprint (for oddball in core play, spartan abilities have to be turned off no matter what). There will be a quick play playlist with sprint and thrust ONLY. Rotational playlists that are deemed to need sprint will have it turned on, as well as other spartan abilities. Competitive play will have sprint and thrust ONLY, with a no sprint no thrust playlist. Warzone will have sprint and thrust ONLY. Any old abilities can be again turned on in custom games.
>
> I object.
>
> The issue is the balance of the thing. The game has to be balanced for two separate styles of play, and the game suffers overall as a result. One of Sprint’s most damaging effects has been on hitscan weapons. The current system has hitscan weapons severely messed up, with them being too sensitive or far too unreliable to be useful. See the Halo 3 throwback playthrough for all the issues with the system.
> At that point, you may as well make two different games, as another user mentioned. Removing Sprint, increasing BMS and setting default Field of View to around 90-100 would solve a lot of problems players have with speed and flow of gameplay.
>
> It’s totally and utterly facetious to claim that removing Sprint would drive away players. Not only is there no evidence to back that up, but the players still with the game are probably long time fans of the series. Of course, that’s pure speculation on my part. This system (along with a lot of decisions made for Halo 5) was designed for a fanbase who has already moved on to the next fancy, shiny thing.
>
>
> > Ok. How about this solution: No spartan abilities or thrust in multiplayer, but there is sprint. However, sprint can only be used when shields are full. Therefore, if you get shot, it breaks your sprint. Also, we revert to Halo 4’s limited sprint
>
> Again. No. It doesn’t solve the issue at all. See above post for why.

Alright, well, if we have to optimize for one system alone, it makes the most sense to go with increased but close to classic BMS, classic FOV, an animation to walking that FEELS faster, and less bullet magnetism and hitscan bullcrap.

IMO thrust is more damaging than sprint to multiplayer because it allows people to quickly dash into cover, so that needs to go too.

15759

sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.

15760

> 2533275001522797;15759:
> sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.

What does that even mean? If you’re talking about viewing the franchise as only 343 games, that’s an incredibly myopic point of view on a franchise that stretches far beyond one mediocre and one horrendous game.

15761

> 2533275031935123;15760:
> > 2533275001522797;15759:
> > sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.
>
> What does that even mean? If you’re talking about viewing the franchise as only 343 games, that’s an incredibly myopic point of view on a franchise that stretches far beyond one mediocre and one horrendous game.

Well, sprint was in Reach but in Halo 4 and 5 you can always do it and you don’t have to choose it in a loadout. So, I’m talking about 343i games since 343i now own Halo and I doubt they will go back to Halo CE and add sprint if we talk about it here.

15762

> 2533275001522797;15759:
> sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.

Even with this in mind, you still got all the things I mentioned, plus Flinch which I forgot. Then again you said it has to be “an upgrade”, which you have yet to actually define.

15763

> 2533274795123910;15762:
> > 2533275001522797;15759:
> > sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.
>
> Even with this in mind, you still got all the things I mentioned, plus Flinch which I forgot. Then again you said it has to be “an upgrade”, which you have yet to actually define.

In other word loadouts were a downgrade so they were removed spartan ops was a downgrade so it was removed is that so hard to understand?

15764

> 2533275001522797;15763:
> > 2533274795123910;15762:
> > > 2533275001522797;15759:
> > > sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.
> >
> > Even with this in mind, you still got all the things I mentioned, plus Flinch which I forgot. Then again you said it has to be “an upgrade”, which you have yet to actually define.
>
> In other word loadouts were a downgrade so they were removed spartan ops was a downgrade so it was removed is that so hard to understand?

Sprint is also a downgrade. Therefore it should be removed, too. Right?

15765

> 2533274825830455;15764:
> > 2533275001522797;15763:
> > > 2533274795123910;15762:
> > > > 2533275001522797;15759:
> > > > sigh Like I said plenty of times before. I’m talking about Halo titles made by 343i.
> > >
> > > Even with this in mind, you still got all the things I mentioned, plus Flinch which I forgot. Then again you said it has to be “an upgrade”, which you have yet to actually define.
> >
> > In other word loadouts were a downgrade so they were removed spartan ops was a downgrade so it was removed is that so hard to understand?
>
> Sprint is also a downgrade. Therefore it should be removed, too. Right?

It’s not a downgrade as you can see it’s still in the game.