> 2533274819567236;1662:
> > 2535466914543129;1659:
> > > 2535450900176268;1651:
> > > I wonder how many people like this would still feel this way if someone actually sat down with them and thoroughly explained all the effects sprint has on the game.
> >
> >
> > I’ve seen this before yet every time someone says this they never go into detail.
>
>
> Are you only willing to read the explanations if they’re all in one single post? Because they’ve been pointed out numerous times throughout this thread and you still seem oblivious to them.
Seriously, that’s a bit of a cop out. For instance, over the first ten pages of this tread (which is as much as I bothered to check), not a single explanation of sprint’s effects appeared. Instead, multiple apthetic posts along the lines of “they’ve already been said a million times” or “no point in explaining because you wouldn’t understand” appeared. For example, you had multiple posts back and forth with comedyshermit when they said they haven’t seen a single good argument against sprint. Instead of giving one, you just kept insisting that such arguments exist, and comedyshermit just doesn’t understand. You know, you had the opportunity to turn that into “explain why this is not a good argument”, but you didn’t.
The reality is that most people just take the attitude “the arguments are out there, I don’t need to explain”. But “go look for yourself” is not an argument at all, but is just a lazy effort to convince yourself that you’ve won the argument without putting any actual effort into it. Out of the people who try to say something, most only put half of the effort into actually making a thorough explanation. So sure, they arguments are out there. They’re just buried in thousands of pages of old forum threads where most “arguments” are lazy copouts.
If somebody asks you for an argument, it’s counterproductive for everyone to respond with “Oh, they’re out there. You’re just oblivious to them.” It doesn’t advance the discussion, it doesn’t make the person asking any more wiser, and it doesn’t advance your agenda in any way.
You see, the thing about the internet is that no matter how many times a thing gets explained, there are always people who haven’t heard about it. I used to be into the sprint debate, and I’ve done my fair share of trying to explain the negative effects of sprint on gameplay, but I just got tired of it because it’s exhausting. However, if I look back at my post history, I have a hard time finding an argument that thoroughly explains everything I would’ve wanted to say, even though I thought I was doing a good job. Not to mention many of my arguments have become obsolete as the implementation has changed. And to be perfectly honest, I find it incerasingly difficult to argue that sprint as it is implemented in Halo 5 is really bad for gameplay. It has been nerfed so much since Reach that I’d almost be ready to say that it has reached what I said some years ago: the only way to get rid of the negative effects of sprint is to nerf it to oblivion.
Anyway, I’m going to go out there and say that the number of good arguments made against sprint isn’t nearly as high as you would think it is, and all the ones that are genuinely good have been buried under piles of copouts, half-effort arguments, and plain silly arguments.
