sprint and slide is not really an advanced movement. H5 was advanced because of how extreme they all were, especially when paired with thrusting, hover, and ground pound. They all lacked weight which resulted in players catapulting across maps. At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense. So they did what they had to do, dumb down H5s movement system, and reintroduce more sandbox elements from H3.Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person. For some, it's about the sandbox (something infinite is leaning into), for others its purely a compelling campaign, or fleshed out co-op experience. Hell, and for many its just shooting aliens in the face and tea bagging your friend. There is no universal with Halo no matter how much people claim there is. To me, that looked like Halo and I can look past the polish issues cause it's petty at best to complain about visuals (not artstyle) in a demo. Many reactions online also seem to criticize the game for that fact which I find hilarious. I listened to a podcast where they were like "that looked like halo but I wanted something different."
At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want. Halo has gone through this rampage cycle with every release (outside of maybe HW2). People will be mad cause its not what they personally want, they will play it, they will move on. As for a delay, eh I'm fine if it happens, I'm fine if it doesn't. The games multiplayer is ftp and it's on gamepass, if PUBG could thrive (and that was a mess technically) then Halo can as well, especially when the entire multiplayer suite is apparently free to play.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
Ah, someone who thinks their opinion is fact, cool. Ya, you are not correcting me. Sprint 100% affects map design but not necessarily fight to fight gameplay (in H5 anyway due to the shield mechanic, in H4 and reach it def did). Sure people run, but they could run in H2 and H3 as well. You could just make the argument it was "harder" to do so.
Quote:* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
Ya, you could make that argument but it should have been made 8-9 yrs ago, not now.
Quote:* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.
Here is the thing though, it was not the same between ce-3. H3 mechanically was vastly different from that of H1 and H2 given the inclusion of equipment and projectile-based weapons. From a core functionality standpoint though, they kept the initial player weak so I guess from that viewpoint they were the same. Then reach mucked that up and 343 did what anyone would do with a sequel, iterate on the previous installment, which was reach, not H3. Come H5, it went back on those iterations of 4, but also lost the aspects of 3 that were in 4 (to a minor extent anyway given map equipment was less of a thing).
Quote:* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
This isn't a war. There are no winners and losers. The franchise is not a living thing, it does not deserve anything. You could make the argument the old school fans (which I am a part of given I've been around since CE) deserve a true sequel to H3 from a gameplay perspective in which near nothing is iterated on and the only thing that changes is the sandbox. I'd be for that. However, I am also a realist and know Halo still has to be mass marketable. Does that mean additions made to the game should everything the competition does? No, that's what H4 was. It does mean Halo needs to be made somewhat appealable to the mass market while also holding onto what makes it Halo. In my eyes, a semi-modern movement system paired with an emphasis on sandbox orientated combat and gameplay does that. Are there issues I have with it? Ya sure, I would prefer the clamber not to be there at all. However, I am not making the game. I am not the only fan. There people who love H4 and H5 gameplay and their opinions mean no less than yours or mine. As a result, the game we get is not going to be the exact game each person envisions, and you know what, that happened with H2 and H3. It's not a new problem and honestly, I don't its a problem at all. Change is good, we just have to see if this iteration is better.