Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

[Locked] "Classic" gameplay is excruciatingly slow

OP Spidah Handz406

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. ...
  6. 8
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
That's not true at all, you just stop sprinting and start shooting when ever you want to. The fact is that it is faster, you have a faster way of getting to where the fight is, you have a faster way of flanking and tricking your enmnies, you have a faster way to flee if you want to. That doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it, I completely understand why people don't think sprint feels like Halo. But I really disagree with you here.
Spam8358 wrote:
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
That's not true at all, you just stop sprinting and start shooting when ever you want to. The fact is that it is faster, you have a faster way of getting to where the fight is, you have a faster way of flanking and tricking your enmnies, you have a faster way to flee if you want to. That doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it, I completely understand why people don't think sprint feels like Halo. But I really disagree with you here.
Half of what you described is a crutch as well maps were expanded because of sprint. People have done hundreds of side by side comparisons of time spent fighting and time spent out of fights across Halos. 4 and 5 both had players spend more time out of engagements then previous titles. Disagree all you want but its been a proven fact that sprint has slowed gameplay.
I don't really like the terms "classic" and "advanced" when referring to the movement systems in Halo.

I think "classic" implies that the old systems were the gold standard which cannot be improved upon, and the term "advanced" implies an inherent improvement over other titles.

I'd like to see the "classic" and "advanced" systems rebranded as "simple" and "complex" respectively. The pros/cons of these systems remain the same, but i think the implication of their label is more clear when referred to as "simple or complex".

Do you want a simple Halo game with no gimmicks to muddy the sandbox, or do you want a complex Halo game with movement options always at your fingertips?

I think it's a scale, where nobody wants a system that is too simple or too complex. Personally, i feel that Halo Infinite may have found a good spot on the scale, but i'll need to see multiplayer gameplay to know for sure.
D1LLYBEAN wrote:
I don't really like the terms "classic" and "advanced" when referring to the movement systems in Halo.

I think "classic" implies that the old systems were the gold standard which cannot be improved upon, and the term "advanced" implies an inherent improvement over other titles.

I'd like to see the "classic" and "advanced" systems rebranded as "simple" and "complex" respectively. The pros/cons of these systems remain the same, but i think the implication of their label is more clear when referred to as "simple or complex".

Do you want a simple Halo game with no gimmicks to muddy the sandbox, or do you want a complex Halo game with movement options always at your fingertips?

I think it's a scale, where nobody wants a system that is too simple or too complex. Personally, i feel that Halo Infinite may have found a good spot on the scale, but i'll need to see multiplayer gameplay to know for sure.
I really like this mindset and way of thinking about it. I like it a lot. I personally think somewhere in the middle is best. Add bits of complex gameplay to the simple base.
Spam8358 wrote:
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
That's not true at all, you just stop sprinting and start shooting when ever you want to. The fact is that it is faster, you have a faster way of getting to where the fight is, you have a faster way of flanking and tricking your enmnies, you have a faster way to flee if you want to. That doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it, I completely understand why people don't think sprint feels like Halo. But I really disagree with you here.
Half of what you described is a crutch as well maps were expanded because of sprint. People have done hundreds of side by side comparisons of time spent fighting and time spent out of fights across Halos. 4 and 5 both had players spend more time out of engagements then previous titles. Disagree all you want but its been a proven fact that sprint has slowed gameplay.
Making a match longer is not the same as slowing down gameplay, there are more elements to think about in a shorter period of time, that is what makes the gameplay faster, you have to plan when to use sprint and not, be ready around corners and be quick to stop sprinting if needed, if you are sprinting while your oponent isnt then you might die etc.
That is not proof, it’s a biased speculation.

that being said, slower gameplay doesnt make it worse, it’s just pointless to claim that if you ask me.
but if it feels faster to you, and you like it, great.
But to me gameplay in both single player and mp in h3 feel a lot slower than halo 4, but I still think h3 is an overall better game. But I have to be real here.
F16 HUNTER wrote:
Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.
Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?
Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.
Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.
Firstly, not having party matching nor a counter still doesn't prove your point. The first is a matchmaking feature and the second is still something nearly all games then and now don't do anymore.

On the Halo tracker thing, I can only defend it based on my best guess so I can't really say your wrong. But my guess is that it resets on each season. So yes, it wouldn't give you the exact player count.
If the population was good, it would have party matching.
Ok so I was a bit confused on what Party Matchmaking was, but do you mean how the modes have a player cap on party size? Like rumble only letting one player queue in? Just want to clarify.
If I teamed up with 3 other guys in Team Slayer and we all had mics, then we get matched up against 4 solo players without mics. That's a problem. We should be matching up with other parties of 4 to keep the matches balanced.
That seems more like a feature than an indication of population, no? Said thing existed for Warzone and was not a thing for certain modes due to having that party cap. Yet I don't see how the game not having this feature means its population is good or not, objectively speaking.
It's a feature that was removed because the population was low in H4 and now H5. If it were a thing today, players wouldn't be able to find a match. Conclusion: make a good Halo game and you'll have a higher player count.
I mean. Not to cherry pick, yet totally cherry pick. Bringing it back today would indeed mostly like cause issues. On a game that is 5 years old and being pushed aside for MCC as of right now. The playerbase is definitely small now, but that is to be expected.

I don't believe it was ever a thing in the arena modes of Halo 5. They put all their eggs in the rank basket (which was probably not good with how shotty H5's MMR is). They went the route of adding the party cap to stop stacking. Warzone got a new mode because of the stacking.

It never existed to be removed. That is more of a design oversite than a measure of a player population. Your entire agrument for that last few posts hinges on this feature being in the game and removed when it never was. 343 tried other ways to counter it. If thry worked is a different topic.
It has nothing to do with how old the game is. H5 never had party matching to begin with. And nothing is being fixed on the MCC. It still suffers from day 1 problems.
Spam8358 wrote:
Spam8358 wrote:
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
That's not true at all, you just stop sprinting and start shooting when ever you want to. The fact is that it is faster, you have a faster way of getting to where the fight is, you have a faster way of flanking and tricking your enmnies, you have a faster way to flee if you want to. That doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it, I completely understand why people don't think sprint feels like Halo. But I really disagree with you here.
Half of what you described is a crutch as well maps were expanded because of sprint. People have done hundreds of side by side comparisons of time spent fighting and time spent out of fights across Halos. 4 and 5 both had players spend more time out of engagements then previous titles. Disagree all you want but its been a proven fact that sprint has slowed gameplay.
Making a match longer is not the same as slowing down gameplay, there are more elements to think about in a shorter period of time, that is what makes the gameplay faster, you have to plan when to use sprint and not, be ready around corners and be quick to stop sprinting if needed, if you are sprinting while your oponent isnt then you might die etc.
That is not proof, it’s a biased speculation.

that being said, slower gameplay doesnt make it worse, it’s just pointless to claim that if you ask me.
but if it feels faster to you, and you like it, great.
But to me gameplay in both single player and mp in h3 feel a lot slower than halo 4, but I still think h3 is an overall better game. But I have to be real here.
Thing 1Thing 2I never said anything about making the match longer I said it makes people spend more time running around and less time in engagements then previous Halos. Sprint is made even more redundant when they do have to expand the maps meaning that if maps stayed the same size and no sprint would have meant people could shoot and move at essentially the same pace the entire time. Making spr8nt pointless to begin with. All it does is make zoomed more comfortable as they are too used games that have sprint.
Spam8358 wrote:
Spam8358 wrote:
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
That's not true at all, you just stop sprinting and start shooting when ever you want to. The fact is that it is faster, you have a faster way of getting to where the fight is, you have a faster way of flanking and tricking your enmnies, you have a faster way to flee if you want to. That doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it, I completely understand why people don't think sprint feels like Halo. But I really disagree with you here.
Half of what you described is a crutch as well maps were expanded because of sprint. People have done hundreds of side by side comparisons of time spent fighting and time spent out of fights across Halos. 4 and 5 both had players spend more time out of engagements then previous titles. Disagree all you want but its been a proven fact that sprint has slowed gameplay.
Making a match longer is not the same as slowing down gameplay, there are more elements to think about in a shorter period of time, that is what makes the gameplay faster, you have to plan when to use sprint and not, be ready around corners and be quick to stop sprinting if needed, if you are sprinting while your oponent isnt then you might die etc.
That is not proof, it’s a biased speculation.

that being said, slower gameplay doesnt make it worse, it’s just pointless to claim that if you ask me.
but if it feels faster to you, and you like it, great.
But to me gameplay in both single player and mp in h3 feel a lot slower than halo 4, but I still think h3 is an overall better game. But I have to be real here.
Thing 1Thing 2I never said anything about making the match longer I said it makes people spend more time running around and less time in engagements then previous Halos. Sprint is made even more redundant when they do have to expand the maps meaning that if maps stayed the same size and no sprint would have meant people could shoot and move at essentially the same pace the entire time. Making spr8nt pointless to begin with. All it does is make zoomed more comfortable as they are too used games that have sprint.
Ohh right I completely missunderstood you.
Less engagements lead to longer games though when I think about it. Either way, one reason for that would be that the older games often dont give you an option to flee or give you the possibility to quickly relocate yourself, it takes away that element and those strategies that makes the gameplay feel faster and more is happening.
In the old games it’s often just kill or get killed, which gives you more engagement but less happening.
also running around is part of engaging with the enemy, and I often find myself fighting others more often and multiple people at the same time more often in h4 than the other games, that might have to do with my varied skill level in different games though so i’m not saying it is like that for everyone. But it makes me think that is relevant for who ever made this ”proof”
I don’t think a test based only on how often you an your enemy shoot eachother is an accurate test for this, if you must do a test at all I think it would be better to test how often the player uses a new command and how busy the hands are. How often do you throw grenades, melee, shoot, scope, sprint, stop sprinting, walk, armor ability switch weapon, reload, crouch, jump etc. how fast do you have to be and think when playing.
If you ask me, by that definition there is no doubt which would be faster, but you might disagree.

Edit: I think we have different definitions of ”fast gameplay” which is fine I guess.
F16 HUNTER wrote:
Don’t listen to the naysayers. They’re too stuck in 2007 to be reasoned with. Halo has to evolve to appeal to the masses & Infinite’s gameplay is a step in the right direction. I‘m with ya.
Why did they fail to appeal to the masses with Halo 4 and 5? They followed all the correct trends at the time, but the player base just fell off, especially with Halo 4. So what would make the masses stay with Halo Infinite? What would Infinite do to keep the player base when they could get a similar experience in other games?
Halo 5 failed? lol what? It was the most successful launch on the XB1 and is still higher-ranked on both Game Pass & the Microsoft Store than MCC. Halo 4 might have been a flop, but Halo 5 is far from it.
Halo 5 held a very strong player retention and stable community that was probably comparable to how Reach did in the end. It definitely did leaps and bounds better than Halo 4. Halo 5 was defiantly not a failure in the grand scheme.
Firstly, not having party matching nor a counter still doesn't prove your point. The first is a matchmaking feature and the second is still something nearly all games then and now don't do anymore.

On the Halo tracker thing, I can only defend it based on my best guess so I can't really say your wrong. But my guess is that it resets on each season. So yes, it wouldn't give you the exact player count.
If the population was good, it would have party matching.
Ok so I was a bit confused on what Party Matchmaking was, but do you mean how the modes have a player cap on party size? Like rumble only letting one player queue in? Just want to clarify.
If I teamed up with 3 other guys in Team Slayer and we all had mics, then we get matched up against 4 solo players without mics. That's a problem. We should be matching up with other parties of 4 to keep the matches balanced.
That seems more like a feature than an indication of population, no? Said thing existed for Warzone and was not a thing for certain modes due to having that party cap. Yet I don't see how the game not having this feature means its population is good or not, objectively speaking.
It has nothing to do with how old the game is. H5 never had party matching to begin with. And nothing is being fixed on the MCC. It still suffers from day 1 problems.
Imma have to hard disagree on MCC getting nothing fixed. Either way, a feature for groups to join together is still a bad metric to figure out if a player base is of decent size or not. Never said Halo 5 had a massive population. Yet it wasn't dinky either.
I can totally understand why sprinting in multiplayer is controversial for Halo, but in the campaign for Infinite, with a game this large in scope and scale, sprint makes a lot of sense to me. The size of the mission that was presented in the gameplay demo is too large not to allow it. It just makes sense for making exploration faster and easier. As for multiplayer, I personally don't mind if sprint is a part lf the game or not, it's never bothered me one way or the other.
I can totally understand why sprinting in multiplayer is controversial for Halo, but in the campaign for Infinite, with a game this large in scope and scale, sprint makes a lot of sense to me. The size of the mission that was presented in the gameplay demo is too large not to allow it. It just makes sense for making exploration faster and easier. As for multiplayer, I personally don't mind if sprint is a part lf the game or not, it's never bothered me one way or the other.
The demo shove a warthog in the player's face two minutes into the presentation.
There aren't many games which have massive maps and not any faster modes of travel than its players' fastest default speed. Skyrim has horses, Borderlands cars and Destiny hover bikes.
Any instance where that's not available, the player either messed up, or it is that way by design, and in that case, all sprint amounts to, is a sugar pill.

Halo Infinite's open world could be designed without sprint, and have it be amazing.

I have never played an open world game and gone "mmnaah, I'll sprint it, as I have it to use", when seeing something faster than sprint be available.
Sprintless Halo with open world?
The Banished surely have bases set up all around and they themselves utilise vehicles to get around, so players are bound to find vehicles there.
Long shot man cannons could be present to do a long fly-over.
Crashed UNSC ships, as in the demo, can have vehicles.
Logistics tube transport network players can jump into and appear elsewhere.
Then there are the classic teleporters, which could be changed into portals.

Exploration is as fast / slow and easy / difficult as i343 intends it to be, with or without sprint. It is all a design question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHUSlPq5Nag

All i can say is if you are pro sprint, clamer, etc please be willing to watch this vid and really digest everything this person is saying. If you want to debate after please make your case but I feel this Vid covers everything old halo fans constantly try and explain to ppl who are pro sprint clamber whatever. Please be open minded and actually really think about everything this person says this should hopefully end the debate for good.

Vid starts at 7min great clips at 9min whole vid is well worth a watch especially if your a fan of 343's style vs old school
BTB Bill wrote:
Sprint slows down gameplay by not allowing you to shoot your gun and move at the same time, as well as streching maps. Congrats on being coned into thinking you move fast.
What are you talking about lmao!?

Sprint being an option does not remove the ability to move and shoot a la “classic” Halo.

Some of you butthurt “classic” fans need to get over it. Sprint isnt new, it has been around since Reach.
The big issue for me is you can't shoot while sprinting. You have to stop and then it takes a second to be able to shoot again. Let's say give us the ability to shoot while sprinting; instead of holding the weapon cross-body, Chief/the player holds the weapon more "at the hip" per se, with the weapon still pointing forward. To counter this so that it's not too powerful, increase the reticle size and weapon bloom, in other words make accuracy take a huge hit, so that it can't be reliably used. Sprinting while shooting would be best used with full auto weapons for suppressing fire, where accuracy is less important. I think it could work.
Halo infinite is going to have battle royal, it is literally on their website. Just go to it change your geo-location to Japan, translate and scroll down to additional information. How does it feel knowing that the reason why there was no multiplayer reveal and we got 360 graphics after FIVE YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT, because they are trying to turn the series into fortnite for kids?

Also here is a link to their website if you don't believe me. https://www.xbox.com/ja-JP/games/halo-infinite

When your done you can come back and cope with whatever excuse you can come up with to defend phil spencer, but this is pretty indefensible. They don't even have the brass balls to post it on the US version.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. ...
  6. 8