The return of classic movement mechanics?

Vegeto30294 wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

DARTH CEDIOUS wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

DARTH CEDIOUS wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

If we have even starts, 4v4, skilled shooting rather than twitch shooting like cod or battlefield, a reliance on combining gun work, grenades, melee, map movement and control are what makes halos games to me.

Going by nothing but those things, you could just as well be talking about Gears of War...

Even if, there is no denying that is the core of Halo multiplayer. I'm sure anyone would agree every Halo game should have these things

I would disagree...some of those points might be part of what should be in a Halo game, but they are far from being the defining aspects, as I said, somewhat even starts small teams, skilled gunplay, combining gun work (I assume you are talking about using different weapon pick-up?), grenades, melee, map movement and control are key features of Gears as well but I'd never consider Gears and Halo to be the same...
You working definition does not work...

Sorry but to say melee and grenades are a huge importance in gears is a bit of a stretch. All the skills that were needed to play Halo 1-3 were still very much needed in Halo 5. The new movement did not change that but only gave us more decisions that need to be made. I would still like to see Spartan charge removed and ground pound for me is 50/50 due to it being too difficult to pull off that the vast majority who play don't even use it. I still want everything else to stay. Now I'm not saying I dislike the old movement. I did like and still like it as well but I now prefer to have tweaks to the Halo 5 system.

You could argue that there is a case of "Does there need to be a decision for X scenario?" If there is such a minute difference in enjoyment between whether it exists or not, and we are perfectly capable of designing both decisions in one action, why does it need to be split?

For example, every time I'm told that there needs to be a "Tactical" difference between combat readiness and faster movement, all I think is "why?" More options on a minute to minute basis isn't always a good thing (more often than not it's a bad thing, because you're being too complex over too deep) and even the game itself doesn't believe you should have that option, because once you're in combat, you can't switch to faster movement anymore.

And Spartan Charge & Ground Pound are themselves more decisions for the player to use, and the latter even has a very visible risk-reward system that people say is the reason Sprint needs to say. But what makes them different in the sense that those two are the ones that need to be removed?

pharoh dude wrote:

I see what you mean and it makes since but I do not see the new movement to be more complex rather than deep. While clamber can be useful for many players there are many jumps that don't need it and you can benefit from. It is not a night and day difference but it rewards players who take the time to know how to avoid using it.

pharoh dude wrote:

There is a risk reward with Sprint and to me that is fine. I like the extra thought I have to put into using it carefully.

pharoh dude wrote:

Overall I don't feel that the new movement is overly complex without being deep but really the opposite.

tsassi wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

I see what you mean and it makes since but I do not see the new movement to be more complex rather than deep. While clamber can be useful for many players there are many jumps that don't need it and you can benefit from. It is not a night and day difference but it rewards players who take the time to know how to avoid using it.

And classic movement rewards players who take the time to know how to not hit their shins on ledges. What's your point?

pharoh dude wrote:

There is a risk reward with Sprint and to me that is fine. I like the extra thought I have to put into using it carefully.

What extra thought? You sprint when it's safe, and don't sprint when it's not. All the thought here is relegated to having an awareness of your surroundings, which is a skill you need to use regardless of whether sprint exists or not.

pharoh dude wrote:

Overall I don't feel that the new movement is overly complex without being deep but really the opposite.

You can feel that all you want, but it would be nice if you were also able to demonstrate it. Basic movement skills (that actually have nothing to do with the mechanic in question when you dig a bit deeper) and the existence of a decision are cute and all, but together they don't constitute a great deal of depth.

The Noir Plague wrote:

ouv wrote:

As much as I don't want the quick ness of the new games to come back, I'm sure they will take somethings away and give us new things. I get the "You can get out of an engagement quickly" with all the new things but when we all moved slow, we thought about our next move rather than just rushing in and hoping to get out alive. Why do you think so many people play halo 2 and Halo 3 on MCC more than 4? I hate thrust and sprint and clamber, ground pound and charge aren't even worth mentioning like Armour lock and Bubble shield. No thanks

I'm hoping for Halo 3 style bubble shields to return.

tsassi wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

My point is that in the same way we learned not to hit our shins, we now also learn that clamber while useful can also be hurtful.

But that's the exact same skill. Where previously bad timing would've caused you to fail completely, it now just causes you to Clamber. There is no depth here, there's no new skill that needs to be learned, just less severe consequence of failure than in the past.

pharoh dude wrote:

You can crouch jump everything

This statement is easily proven false.

pharoh dude wrote:

Sprint is more than knowing your surroundings.[...] It's the ability to change your speed.

You have the ability to change your speed even if there is no sprint. This feature is not unique to sprint. Consequently, it also doesn't lead to any depth.

pharoh dude wrote:

Now certain jumps or areas on a map will require you use it to get to it.

Yes, but this is not a positive thing. For example, such jumps are completely inaccessible in combat because you can't move at maximum speed while in combat.

pharoh dude wrote:

A good example would be truth in Halo 5. Going from red base to top center needs a combination of Sprint, crouch jump, and thrusters. Making this jump is hard and risky and you have to pick the correct time to use it like before the energy sword is about to spawn.

Nothing about the difficulty of this jump would change if you removed sprint from the equation. This is true for any jump where you need to be moving at maximum speed to initiate the jump. The reason is that difficulty of jumps comes from timing, and the timing of when you start sprinting is irrelevant to completing the jump. Any depth here has nothing to do with sprint.

tsassi wrote:

pharoh dude wrote:

The new skill that needs to be learned with clamber is when to use it. Anyone who is always clambering will suffer because their fluidity will be gone. I'm not taking anything away from crouch jump from the classic movement at all.

What you're still not understanding that this skill you're talking about is the exact same skill as you have with classic movement. Understanding when to use Clamber—or rather, when not to use it—amounts to understanding when you can make a jump with a crouch jump and when you can't, and being able to time your jumps appropriately. This is the skill you're talking about, and the introduction of Clamber adds nothing fundamentally new to it.

pharoh dude wrote:

IAgain, I did enjoy the classic movement but to say we the new movement didn't add depth is not true. Even HCS players were consistently improving from one tournament to another as they learn more about the mechanics.

I have not said that Spartan Abilities, overall, have no depth. What I have criticized is your particular example of how Clamber supposedly adds depth. Don't get me wrong, I know that there is some amount of depth to Spartan Abilties, I just doubt your ability to point out where it lies.

To clarify, no sensible person is doubting the notion that Spartan Abilities have no depth at all. The question is whether what they have makes up for what they take away, and whether all that is justified given the amount of complexity they introduce.

pharoh dude wrote:

There was no Halo where in the middle of a fight you would go for a hard jump.

Well, that's besides the point because not all jumps that require sprint are hard. With that said, there are some situations where you might want to go for a jump that requires a fair bit of timing while you're shooting. In any case, the fact is that jumps requiring sprint decrease the player's ability to combine movement with combat.

pharoh dude wrote:

So all the options that were there in the past are still there.

As explained above, this is not true.

pharoh dude wrote:

Going back to the truth jump. Going to Max speed in classic Halo did not have any risk unless trying to hide from the radar. Sprint takes away your ability to shoot. That is a risk that has to be taken if you want to make that jump. You have said timing is important in making a jump and it is. It's also just as important to choose when to do it. Sprint adds a layer of depth because it has its uses but the combination of when and how to use it is where the depth comes from.

Risk, risk, risk. All people who claim sprint to have any meaningful depth talk about is risk and reward, risks and choices. Let me tell you a couple of things about depth. First, the fact that there exists a choice with an associated risk does not imply any depth. I can make the choice to buy a lottery ticket, and there is a significant risk of losing a small sum of money associated to it. However, there is no depth in that choice, because there is no skill or knowledge involved in the choice.

The above is of course patently obvious, but you say "but there is skill because you must know when to use sprint". But I implore you to consider: what is it that you need to know for using sprint wisely? What particular piece of information do you need to make an educated decision on whether to sprint or not? Is this information unique to the sprint decision, or do you also use it for other decisions in the game? Is there any such information that is unique to sprint? You see, the depth fundamentally stems from your ability to obtain this necessary information and process it to an educated decision. If none of the information or the process is unique to sprint, all the skills used in sprinting are already there even if sprint is not. Then all sprint affects is the frequency at which those skills get used. But if those skills are already in very frequent use, then sprint doesn't lead to a meaningful amount of depth.

Here's the second thing I want to say: as a rule of thumb, knowing when to use a mechanic for its intended purpose does not constitute a significant amount of depth. A single such decision is often very straightforward when you have the necessary information. The depth, as explained above, is often in how to get that information, or in the fact that you have to make many decisions in rapid succession (as is the case with strafing). If all the depth you involved in using a mechanic is "knowing when to use it", then that mechanic probably has not much depth at all.

pharoh dude wrote:

What do you want in Infinite because I doubt we will agree on what adds depth and doesn't. I just want to know what your looking for exactly while leaving this chat behind

I don't know. I know I want elegant gameplay (i.e. maximal depth with minimal complexity) where movement and combat are not separated, but are mixed as tightly as possible. I want gameplay where movement doesn't come in the way of combat abilities, and where movement is integrated to combat via clever map design. I won't claim to know what mechanics that involves, because some I'm not so sure about, and some I may not have thought of. You see, the issue I have is that I know enough to know that I don't fully know how mechanics would work without being able to test them out. So I can't wish for anything too specific that I haven't already played.

It's a shame you want to leave the above discussion behind, because I think it's important to try to understand depth as best as we can. And to be honest, I feel like I was just starting to get warm with the last few paragraphs.