The problem with the whole lore supports gameplay and/or vice versa argument is that those who use it often see it as more cut-n-dried than it is. The truth is, it [either lore supports gameplay, vice versa] can… but it doesn’t have to and it doesn’t always.
Going back as far as Pac-Man and even earlier, we had a “story” that went along with the game, but we really didn’t need one. As gaming evolved, people found it appealing to have a story interwoven with their games. It made for a more immersive experience and helped to compel gamers to complete larger, longer and more complex levels. They were vested in more than just playing a game.
I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that games in a series need to evolve and change things up a little to keep their audience interested and playing each new iteration… gaming in general has to do that. As this thread proves, however, not everyone likes certain changes, additions or modifications from one game to the next.
Nowadays, games are expected to come with at least some kind of story and for good reason. But the concept that the lore and gameplay should, or even can, support each other can only go so far. If the idea that the story of any given game had to be limited to only what was accomplishable in gameplay itself, we wouldn’t have such epic sagas as Halo. I’d wager nobody wants that.
I doubt many would say that it’s an easy job to add a mechanic like sprint into a game that previously didn’t have it and that it requires a lot of effort to balance it. I also doubt that many would say it’s a hard job to fabricate some kind of lore based reason for almost any kind of game alteration. JMPO, but I’d say it’s probably much easier, more sensical, and much more common to adjust lore to compensate for changes in gameplay than to do the opposite. That being said, the way I see it, the game is the game and the story is the story. Discrepancies happen, that’s the cost of having a good story to accompany a game series. But IMO, the only people who are qualified to make the claim that the lore supports the gameplay or vice versa are 343 themselves. They’re the ones who have to perform the balancing act to make it work. They’re the ones who have to come up with (or not bother with) the lore that supports any gameplay change.
Personally, I think that gameplay always, always, always has to take precedence over story and it doesn’t matter if the lore supports it or even mentions it. If I love a particular game mechanic and I have fun playing the game, why would I care if lore supports it or not? I’m still going to play the game even if it doesn’t. If I hate a particular game mechanic, again, why would I care if lore supports it or not? It certainly isn’t going to magically make me like to play the game even if it does.