Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 147
  4. 148
  5. 149
  6. 150
  7. 151
  8. ...
  9. 155
Halo 5 is a step above 4 not backwards. The pvp was great the story was cool IMO. What even is your point? You made no sense when you said "And this is also the same franchise that wanted to go to the past instead of be more like Halo 4, and now everyone likes the result that is Halo 5."
Loadouts - Gone
Ordnance - Gone
Instant Respawn - Gone
Armor Abilities - Most were removed except for a retooled Thruster Pack
Killcams - Gone
Promethean Weapons - Nerfed

Guess what was brought back from older games for late Halo 4 to Halo 5?

  • Equal Starts
  • Static weapon spawns
  • Active Camo is a power up on the map
  • Longer Respawns
  • Ranks
  • The ability to drop the flag /s
If we're supposed to only move forward and not backwards, Halo 5 should have embraced all of those things, not remove them. But since you're able to enjoy Halo 5 without them, you're basically living proof that going backwards isn't inherently bad.
Some of those were brought back if you bothered to play competitive. So what else is your problem with halo 5. Why have you stuck around to bash anyone that likes halo 5? Why you gotta hate on the people that like halo 5? You very salty.
See I didn't say anything about hating Halo 5. I like Halo 5 more than Halo 4 because it went backwards. So do you, that's why you're dodging the point.

Everything I said was just an observation. If you see it as a personal attack, maybe it's time for some self-reflection.
As in we all have to walk around really slowly and such?
I don't want that to happen. Thats gonna be one way to ruin speed runs. I personally like Halo 5's controls, they can of course glitch out and give you southpaw sometimes or boxer, or green thumb. It really loves to glitch
I played the first halo when I was in high school. I continued to play the rest of the games because they were fun and they usually added something new with each title. I don't know why so many people want to keep halo in the past by demanding the studio "stick to the formula". I love the old halo's but I really had fun with halo 5 pvp and warzone. I hope 343 continues with were they left off with Halo 5. For anyone that wants to stay in the past that's why they made the master chief collection.
And anyone who wants to stay like Halo 5 can go play Halo 5. It's still there for you. See how that works?

And this is also the same franchise that wanted to go to the past instead of be more like Halo 4, and now everyone likes the result that is Halo 5.
I will for sure keep playing halo 5 after infinite has come out. But Halo needs to move forward and not stay in the past to satisfy the old community. Im gonna let you finish, but H5 had great pvp and I loved fire team osiris.
Could you please define what "forward" means?

doesn't hurt repeating this:
Naqser wrote:
Ironically to me, Bungie is almost only mentioned, or any of its titles, when someone pro-advanced movement, tells someone anti-advanced what they want, or when a person from the pro-group fails to understand that there aren't many in the anti-group which are opposed to all change, and could see some of the new additions used in the future, or entirely other features and mechanics.
It's also kind of interesting that some of the most popular games out there today, haven't changed much since their inception, or haven't looked at what other similar games are doing and then implementing that.
CS:GO, DotA, LoL, Minecraft to name a few.
But here we are with Halo, which has seen quite a lot of change, and in some instances, its only survival and success hangs on doing what other shooters are doing (sent well with Halo 4, and any MMO doing what WoW is doing), and heading in such an obscure direction, though often cited, as "forward".
Okay, then keeping it in and calling it "foolish to remove" (while your comment never explains why it's important to keep, btw) is unfair to the half of the community that doesn't like Sprint.
Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise. It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint. Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are... I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed. Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
Okay, then keeping it in and calling it "foolish to remove" (while your comment never explains why it's important to keep, btw) is unfair to the half of the community that doesn't like Sprint.
Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise. It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint. Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are... I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed. Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
The difference is that your arguments for keeping sprint are based on thin air, because no other arguments can be made to justify it’s existence in Halo. Any ‘compromise’ is therefore inferior to no compromise at all. ‘Industry standard’ and ‘Halo has it for 10 years’ doesn’t mean anything. Better pacing, map design and consistency do.
It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint.
That is a very good point. After all, being different never pays off. It's better to be the safe predictable franchise everyone knows the name of, but forgets after Christmas, than to face the fear of not fitting in with the crowd. There is no value in uniqueness, originality, or identity. Follow the path laid by those who are more successful than you are, so you can at least hope to be associated with them, because you will never be at their level.
Okay, then keeping it in and calling it "foolish to remove" (while your comment never explains why it's important to keep, btw) is unfair to the half of the community that doesn't like Sprint.
Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise. It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint. Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are... I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed. Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
But your entire time here, you only offered "Just make two sets of playlists!" which Naqser (and tsassi) explained would not work for anyone.

Then you immediately jumped to "you just want what works for you!" - you gave up after one attempt. He actually asked you a perfectly relevant question that you refused to answer, which really only proves his point to why your compromise didn't work.

Naqser wrote:
Would you however be content with one or two playlists in multiplayer playing somewhat like older games, in a game tailored around the disabled mechanics, which are enabled in every other mode present in the game?
Like picking out a single raisin to eat a small small part of an entire raisin cookie.
It has never been a good solution.
So the better solution is entirely remove a mechanic that the other half of the fanbase enjoys? That is not a good solution, neither is it fair. Especially since this all boils down to Multiplayer, but removing Sprint entirely would affect Campaign, as well as Multiplayer for players who enjoy the mechanics.
How could anyone even attempt to come through with a compromise if you're so quick to devolve into the same shouting match you claim other people are doing?

And on my point, since you're content with having your main point be "Deal with it, I'm happy Sprint is here to stay and other people just need to get used to it!" Then it should be a valid argument to use on you, which means these past three days of trying to judge people as selfish for wanting what they like was a giant waste of everybody's time.
Okay, then keeping it in and calling it "foolish to remove" (while your comment never explains why it's important to keep, btw) is unfair to the half of the community that doesn't like Sprint.
Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise. It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint. Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are... I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed. Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
Murderer: I'm going to stab you.
Me: I don't want to be stabbed.
Murderer: How about I stab you just a bit?
Me: I don't want to be stabbed period.
Murderer: Hey now I'm just trying find a compromise here...

Compromise isn't always an option even if we wish it could be. And yes, I believe it would be better for everyone involved to just say "deal with it" one way or the other. Funny I can think of two high profile FPS games that don't have universal sprint off the top of my head. I think you didn't try very hard. And it is going to really bake your noodle when I tell you there are two popular shooters that have continued to release without the fundamental ability to jump so i wonder why they can get away with not having that "industry standard." Why are some "Industry standards" seemingly optional?

It is almost like making a game that is both good and popular doesn't come down to ticking off boxes on a checklist. Something being common doesn't inherently make it a "standard" and having a standard doesn't preclude outliers from being successful.
It would be amazing if the old mechanics to return. Halo 5 kinda ruined the point of the warthog since running was almost the same as driving. Old mechanics make warthogs feel more fun.
Well, we've recently seen that there's a very selfish streak with absolutely no intention at compromise, so I'm disinclined to continue at pursuing hypothetical compromise.
Having given this some thought and reflection, I asked myself, did you actually offer a compromise, or did you just point at a spot and suggest the others go play there instead?

See, my understanding of a compromise is that two opposing parties give in on different preferences they have, in order to reach a solution they both can work with. As has been said though, a compromise rarely leave anyone actually happy with the result as it's less than ideal for all involved parties.

That's not to say options haven't been presented.
The "anti-side" have for instance advocated increased BMS, larger FoV, motion blur and more violent bobbing at high speeds to give a similar feeling to that of sprinting.

The "pro-side" have suggested being able to use small arms when sprinting, or retaining a tempory high BMS after exiting sprint, an automatic sprint which activate quickly so the user doesn't have to, have sprint be only be temporary as in Halo 4 without a perk.

Between these and your suggestion, there are two big differences.
1: The ones who put these suggestions forward took into account what the other side wants, trying to get closer to that without adventuring their own preferences.
2: The end result would affect the entire game.

From your suggestion I don't really see an understanding in what your opposition wants, and your suggestion is limited to a small section of the whole piece, not only that but your suggestion doesn't even tangent any mechanic on a functional level, it's merely "disable it" and use your own rules in your small segregated playspace.

Sure, I'm selfish, but I'm not the person who has yet to elaborate on why I should give up on my own preferences for people I don't know who weren't interested in what I like from the start.
Are you prepared to give in/up on mechanics and features to your liking so that others who aren't of the same opinion as you potentially may like what you now like less, more?

Quite easy to call "selfish" but I get an entirely different feeling when all I've gotten is "As long as I get what I want, you can get a small piece where you can do what you want".

It's probably easier to just resort back to "Deal with it", as sprinting in various games - FPS included - is industry standard. I can't think of a single FPS game that's come out in the last five years that doesn't have sprint.
Now that'd be constructive.
As far as "industry standard" goes, please do define what that means. Otherwise I'm just going to assume it's a buzzword, whatever excuse you may have to not define that phrase.
Last five years? Quite impressive considering the amount of FPS titles that have been released in that time span.
Then again, I have a feeling that there'll be a lot of caveats that invalidate titles brought to your attention.

Halo's had it for near 10 now. One would think that's a long enough time to get used to something, but here we are...
I wish getting used to something, meant getting to like it.

I take solace in the strong likelihood that Sprint is not going to be removed.
Good for you.

Perhaps this makes me "no better" than Naqser, but again there's little incentive to be better at this point, as dissidents have no intention of compromise.
I like how classfully condencending this is.
You wanted to compromise, failing to even understand the opposition, and as such never touched a single mechanic functionally, which is where the shoe is tight. Hasn't paid attention to a single "classic playlist" since Halo Reach ,( not to mention later on the gaming market ) and gets told why those playlists don't work, then gets mad, stops trying to convince anyone and ignores basically anything other than small things he can use as an excuse to abandon his apparently big desire to compromise.
I'm glad I can be your bad guy to look down on and use as a benchmark of "badness", and to openly talk about in that manner.
Halo 5 is a step above 4 not backwards. The pvp was great the story was cool IMO. What even is your point? You made no sense when you said "And this is also the same franchise that wanted to go to the past instead of be more like Halo 4, and now everyone likes the result that is Halo 5."
Loadouts - Gone
Ordnance - Gone
Instant Respawn - Gone
Armor Abilities - Most were removed except for a retooled Thruster Pack
Killcams - Gone
Promethean Weapons - Nerfed

Guess what was brought back from older games for late Halo 4 to Halo 5?

  • Equal Starts
  • Static weapon spawns
  • Active Camo is a power up on the map
  • Longer Respawns
  • Ranks
  • The ability to drop the flag /s
If we're supposed to only move forward and not backwards, Halo 5 should have embraced all of those things, not remove them. But since you're able to enjoy Halo 5 without them, you're basically living proof that going backwards isn't inherently bad.
Some of those were brought back if you bothered to play competitive. So what else is your problem with halo 5. Why have you stuck around to bash anyone that likes halo 5? Why you gotta hate on the people that like halo 5? You very salty.
See I didn't say anything about hating Halo 5. I like Halo 5 more than Halo 4 because it went backwards. So do you, that's why you're dodging the point.

Everything I said was just an observation. If you see it as a personal attack, maybe it's time for some self-reflection.
What point am I dodging?
And yeah everything you hate about my opinion of what Halo should become might seem like a personal attack but it's not. Go play MCC if thats what you want halo to be. But Halo Infinite should have most of what H5 had. #the chief is in chryo #343 start a new story # #Locke did nothing wrong
Some of those were brought back if you bothered to play competitive. So what else is your problem with halo 5. Why have you stuck around to bash anyone that likes halo 5? Why you gotta hate on the people that like halo 5? You very salty.
See I didn't say anything about hating Halo 5. I like Halo 5 more than Halo 4 because it went backwards. So do you, that's why you're dodging the point.

Everything I said was just an observation. If you see it as a personal attack, maybe it's time for some self-reflection.
What point am I dodging?
"If we're supposed to only move forward and not backwards, Halo 5 should have embraced all of those things, not remove them. But since you're able to enjoy Halo 5 without them, you're basically living proof that going backwards isn't inherently bad."
I just want to emphasize how nonsensical phrasing this issue in terms of a compromise is. A compromise implies concessions: I lose something I value, you lose something you value. We settle for compromises when there's something much more valuable at stake. For example, if WerepyreND's murderer offers to cut me to hospital shape instead of stabbing me to death, I better take that offer if I can't negotiate it further because that sure is preferable to dying.

But here, we're talking about a video game. If I don't like what I'm offered, I can just not buy it. I don't need Halo. I'd prefer very much if Halo Infinite was a game I actually want to play, but if it's not, it's not a big deal for me to just give up. Coming from two games I did not want to play, I'm actually in a very strong position to negotiate, because either I get exactly what I want, or I just keep going like I've gone for the past seven years. I have nothing to lose in this.

Now, I can't force anyone to not try to compromise. But just understand that a compromise only works if both parties actually have something to lose. This might be an upsetting realization if you're the type of person who's really into concessions. In that case, I suggest you to take a step back and realize this is just a casual conversation about our preferences, not the nexus of Halo Infinite's development.
Hopefully we have the following for halo infinite ~
sprint ~
slide ~
clamber ~
thrust ~
I don’t understand how people could say there hasn’t been a game in the last 5 years when overwatch an awesome game doesn’t have sprint except soldier and guess what it still is really popular. Honestly halo should go back to great map design, no sprint, more rewarding for aim and tactical moves of high control points and power weapons it’s the core of the game.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
See you're going to have to point out where did I mention liking Halo 3, or mentioned Halo 3 at all really.

It's getting more than a little annoying dealing with your strawman, and and claiming to know what I like and don't like. The only person who consistently talks about Halo 3 is you.
And yeah everything you hate about my opinion of what Halo should become might seem like a personal attack but it's not. Go play MCC if thats what you want halo to be. But Halo Infinite should have most of what H5 had. #the chief is in chryo #343 start a new story # #Locke did nothing wrong
Since you edited this after I posted my comment:

I don't hate your opinion. I like your opinion. You liking Halo 5 proves me correct, so please continue to like Halo 5 even more.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Thanks for linking a thread where I criticize the "great" Bungie and Halo 3. Suddenly you're contradicting yourself now.

And again, you try to place yourself as "above the forum" while you're simultaneously quoting me and the comments behind me. It's really just easier to let a mod handle it at this point.

Now try to answer my now direct question: Where did I say I liked Halo 3?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 147
  4. 148
  5. 149
  6. 150
  7. 151
  8. ...
  9. 155