Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 148
  4. 149
  5. 150
  6. 151
  7. 152
  8. ...
  9. 155
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.
Yup, all posts are edited and what not just to go against you. I can't believe I am back on this flaming thread againWell back on topic, I don't mind clamber (yes I saw Flayvn's videos, just don't agree with it). I do think it needs to be tightened up a bit. It just reminds me of the ladders in Halo CE and why they were removed with H2. Needs better 3rd person animations to show the actual climbing, and maybe split the animations between high and low clamber.
Sprint I don't mind but if I was going to put it back in it would not be a standard feature. In a matter of fact if I could I would have clamber and sprint and evade be those armor abilities again like in Reach. You can only get one or one of the others. Sprint gives you more planar mobility, but mostly straight, Evade gives you better lateral mobility, and clamber gives you better vertical mobility. So players would have to chose which one they want.
Well que the replies of why I am wrong and should never be allowed to discuss halo again.
I can't believe I am back on this flaming thread again
tsassi wrote:
That's the great thing about forums: no one's forcing you to click on threads.
All I did was question the definition of "forwards" and "backwards" when it comes to designing mechanics, which seems apt in this discussion about movement mechanics.

I guess I won't get my answer to my direct question?

Where did I say I liked Halo 3?
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.
It was edited for spelling errors. You keep trying to prove that H5 was a step backwards. So let me ask you, what was your favorite halo game and did it bring anything new or did it stick to the formula?
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.
It was edited for spelling errors. You keep trying to prove that H5 was a step backwards. So let me ask you, what was your favorite halo game and did it bring anything new or did it stick to the formula?
I like and dislike every Halo game for different reasons, so whichever one happens to be my favorite is kinda irrelevant.

I can tell you that whichever one it happens to be, did add new things to the game, it also took things away - things that people said were "staples" "core gameplay" and anyone who didn't like it could go back to playing Halo X-1.

So my return question(s): Can a game move forward while removing things at the same time? Can the result still be enjoyable?
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.
It was edited for spelling errors. You keep trying to prove that H5 was a step backwards. So let me ask you, what was your favorite halo game and did it bring anything new or did it stick to the formula?
And I'd still like to see how you define forward.
It's kind of difficult to understand how you view Halo 5 as "forward" when you have yet to actually explain what "forward" mean.

Also, playing with the scenario that Halo Infinite is nowhere like Halo 5, and that it'd disappoint you ( considering you think Infinite should have most of what Halo 5 has ), would you happily follow your own advice that you give others?

Go play MCC if thats what you want halo to be.
Play it as much as you've played it before, and untill the next installment is released. Then, what if that Halo isn't to your liking? Would you continue playing Halo 5 for 3-4 more years? What about Halo 8, and if that isn't to your liking? 3-4 more years of Halo 5?
CrazeTurk wrote:
The difference is that your arguments for keeping sprint are based on thin air,
No, not really. They're based on what has become the expected standard for FPS games in the modern era. And has existed in Halo for a decade now. Those mean something, despite your objection, in as much as using the Left Stick to move and strafe, and the Right Stick to look around and aim was a radically new thing when it was established as a default by Halo back in 2001. A decade after dual analog was introduced and became a standard for FPS, sprint has done the very same.

tsassi wrote:
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.
Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Halo has enough that makes it unique from other FPS games - storyline and gameplay - that including a standard movement mechanic in no way equates to blandly blending in. Though I truly must wonder just what your side wants Halo to do to remain unique, as every effort to change The Game is met with backlash and an apparent desire to keep things 2007.

But your entire time here, you only offered "Just make two sets of playlists!"
No, my time in this thread discussing with the both of them is longer than the last couple of days. I'd have to dig back through 149 pages, but if memory serves it's been about a year. Dropping any attempt at discussion for benefits of Sprint to compromises of gameplay came only with statement from ya'll's camp that there is no intention or desire to compromise. So why bother trying to discuss it? What'll happen will happen; I've said before that if sprint is removed (though I really doubt it,) somehow I'll manage to get along just fine. Will you? Or will we continue to see threads complaining about how it's "Not Halo (never mind the last decade)"?

Quote:
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?
No one's shouting, Vegeto. No names are being called, and so far as I know, no feelings hurt. For the record, I'm not content with the "deal with it" argument, because a) I hate seeing the community constantly divided, and b) there should be some middle ground that can be reached. But b) can't happen when your group has no intention at all of trying to reach it. For as much as you scold me here for being content with the "deal with it", your side is just as content with their stance of "screw everyone who enjoys the new mechanics, I want the old way!" So you've no ground to try and shame me on this.

WerepyreND wrote:
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...
This is a very poor analogy. Very poor. It's better to just stick with the given hypothetical of

Developer: Here's this mechanic
You: I don't like this mechanic
Developer: Okay, well a lot of people do. How about we give you this equal space so that you don't have to use it?
You: I don't want it in the game at all. Period. For no one.

Quote:
Funny I can think of two high profile FPS games that don't have universal sprint off the top of my head.
And they are...?

Quote:
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
And those games are...?
Naqser wrote:
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?
A compromise was suggested, Naqser. Rather than saying "well just stick with playing Halo 3", offering a split playlist for matchmaking and options to turn off sprint et al in campaign - with maps made to accommodate both movement options - would suffice. Then everyone gets to play just how they want to. But it seems the Anti-Sprint camp isn't content unless it's gone entirely. It's like a vegan demanding that no one eat meat because they don't.

Quote:
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.
And this was discussed months ago. It's not about having a higher BMS (which Halo 5 actually does), or "feeling like you're going faster". Having the max BMS be the middle ground (fast, but not fastest) with a circumstantial "extra push" with the click of a button gives a more dynamic range of control over how the player moves, specifically adjusting pressure on the analog stick to move slowly or at max BMS. Upping that maximum to compensate or "simulate" Sprint makes that level of control all the more difficult. And while this is rarely used in Matchmaking, it is common in the Campaign; which would be affected if Sprint is removed entirely, as the Anti crowd seem so hellbent on. You accuse me of not understanding your side of the argument, but has this been taken into consideration in the past 149 pages? Or was there an aire of "it's good enough, just deal with it", like I met when discussing it with you a year ago?

Quote:
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 made all the easier, Naqser, when it's flat out said "I have no intention of compromise". I mean, that's as selfish as it gets. Having a list of things that the Pro-Sprint side suggested is all well and fine, but how is that received on your end? Is it considered, or is it met with the same "no intention of compromise"? I believe I've stated before that yes, I wouldn't miss things like Spartan Charge and Slam. In fact, I'd almost be glad to see the former go. Sprint being reduced to a 10 second interval (for example)? Sure. But that's only as good in so far as your side is willing to make allowance for limitations - assuming, of course, that this discussion is doing anything aside from two sides of the fanbase bickering at one another.

Neither was my more recent suggestion a "small piece", if your going to reference it at least do so properly. I was quite clearly discussing an equal split playlist, akin to the split between Social and Ranked playlists.

Quote:
As far as "industry standard" goes, please do define what that means.
As stated up above, Sprint has become a commonplace movement mechanic in First Person Shooter games, just as dual analog control became an absolute irrevocable standard in 2001. Redacting one of my previous and recent comments, I'm looking through my games and coming up with only 3 FPS game out of 26 that do not have sprint as a mechanic (DOOM, Mirror's Edge, and Mirror's Edge Catalyst). And that's not counting the 3rd Person RPG games that have it, either. For a game to not include Sprint in the modern era of video games - especially FPS games - is practically odd, niche, or "retro". It is not a smart move going forward.

Quote:
Then again, I have a feeling that there'll be a lot of caveats that invalidate titles brought to your attention.
You'd be wrong, but thanks for assuming about me so blatantly.

Quote:
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.
Don't flatter yourself, Naqser. You're not my "big bad guy", I was simply responding to an accusation. However if your camp can be so brashly selfish as to flat-out say "no compromise", then why should I even bother to do the same? You've no ground to try and shame me for being equally selfish in wanting Sprint to remain as it should.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
tsassi wrote:
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.
Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Halo has enough that makes it unique from other FPS games - storyline and gameplay - that including a standard movement mechanic in no way equates to blandly blending in. Though I truly must wonder just what your side wants Halo to do to remain unique, as every effort to change The Game is met with backlash and an apparent desire to keep things 2007.
Every grain of sand is unique in their own special way, morphed by millenia of tumbling in the winds of time. Yet, as you walk along the shore, rarely do you stop and marvel the unique intricacy of the grains you pass, for there are far too many of them, and from a distance they all look the same.

And this was discussed months ago. It's not about having a higher BMS (which Halo 5 actually does), or "feeling like you're going faster". Having the max BMS be the middle ground (fast, but not fastest) with a circumstantial "extra push" with the click of a button gives a more dynamic range of control over how the player moves, specifically adjusting pressure on the analog stick to move slowly or at max BMS. Upping that maximum to compensate or "simulate" Sprint makes that level of control all the more difficult. And while this is rarely used in Matchmaking, it is common in the Campaign; which would be affected if Sprint is removed entirely, as the Anti crowd seem so hellbent on. You accuse me of not understanding your side of the argument, but has this been taken into consideration in the past 149 pages? Or was there an aire of "it's good enough, just deal with it", like I met when discussing it with you a year ago?
This argument is very difficult to wrap my head around and empathize with, since never in Halo have I felt the need to move slower than at maximum speed—not in multiplayer, not in campaign. Could you explain: what do you use it for? Is this some kind of immersion thing?

Beyond that, I don't understand what the issue is with the existing system. I at least feel like easily enough range in the deflection of the analog stick. I can run at maximum speed, or I can walk very slowly. But if you feel like this is not the case, sprint doesn't seem like the only solution. How about a walk button? Press the D-pad, and you move at half of the maximum speed?

It would perhaps be easier to have a bit of empathy if we could understand why it's so important to have the maximum speed behind a button press, why it can't work in all directions, and why it needs an animation. But even if we understand why those three things are so important to you, you need to understand that the exact opposite is very important to us: no limitations at maximum speed. That's what makes a compromise so difficult. Any suggestion that retains the sprint animation is a "compromise" only in the sense of WerepyreND's murderer: the other side doesn't actually get anything in exchange of giving something up.

The split game compromise is never taken seriously because any competent developer knows that it's a nonsensical nightmare. Designing campaign levels and maps for two vastly different styles of gameplay will only lead to something that don't play well with either or play well with one, but poorly with the other. Even ignoring that, once you have the game, you've commited to supporting two sets of playlists. In the best case scenario, this means that you've essentially halved the potential number of players in every playlist. In the worst case scenario, one gameplay style turns out to be vastly more popular. In that case, you'll be getting complaints from the less popular side about how they are being treated unfairly (even if they aren't) and how the matchmaking sucks. It's a solution that naively sounds like the best of both worlds, but one a sensible developer would never choose.

As much as you may not like it, there are good reasons why none of the solutions you'd offer are never accepted.
CrazeTurk wrote:
tsassi wrote:
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.
Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Halo has enough that makes it unique from other FPS games - storyline and gameplay - that including a standard movement mechanic in no way equates to blandly blending in.
You're right. It's worse. Reach and its successors didn't just blend in. They were complete and utter abominations which belonged nowhere, in no niche. They tried to copy other FPS games and it turned into an absolute hot flaming piece of -Yoink-. Halo fans don't like the new Halos, while people who play traditional FPS games don't like them either. The games are in no mans land which is why nobody plays them anymore.

To your point about sprint: you have no idea what you're talking about. Halo in it's classic format worked due to the harmony of various mechanics, not just one mechanic. Halo wasn't just about not having sprint; it was about not having sprint, while having shields, a unique respawn system, with a unique sandbox, etc. The thing to keep in mind, is that all of these aspects were designed and balanced without the existence of sprint.Just to take an example off the top of my head. Let's think about the consequence of combining shields, a traditional element of Halo, with sprint, a completely uncomplimentary mechanic stolen from traditional FPS games. The reason the pair is a disaster is because shields give enough protection to provide incentive to players to just sprint around the map like rats, creating more chaotic gameplay. Traditional FPS games with sprint DO NOT usually have shields, meaning they need to be more calculated with map movement. Additionally, in traditional FPS games, in the instance that there is an engagement, there is almost certainly a death as a consequence due to short kill times. In Halo, due to the shield system, a player can escape or bypass engagements with sprint despite taking several shots. This creates slower and more jarring gameplay.

This is just one issue off the top of my head. The newer Halo games have many of them.
gman592 wrote:
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.
Yeah, unless you don't follow video games much I don't know how people forget about Overwatch which arguably is the most popular FPS since it's release and is still going very strong. Not to mention a other little game called DOOM. Which might of not done as well in the MP side, but was received massively positive for it's single player game play. It's sold very well and even won multiple video game awards.
CrazeTurk wrote:
Quote:
Funny I can think of two high profile FPS games that don't have universal sprint off the top of my head.
And they are...?

Quote:
Those games that I think he's referring to are Overwatch and Doom. Overwatch has been the number one FPS game since it's released in terms of sales and popularity. Doom was hailed by critics and fans alike. Yes the MP wasn't received as well but the game mechanics and single player campaign was loved. It also won multiple video game awards.

As I've stated multiple times as well as other people, people don't care if the Sprint animation is in the game as long as the game is fun.
TBH I don't really care about the movement style. as long as eveyone has the same abilities. Unlike Halo Reach and Halo 4.

It's time for the truth to come out.

Halo 5>>>>>>>>>Halo Reach and Halo 4

But if the old style does come back. for the love of god up the movement speed.
CrazeTurk wrote:
The difference is that your arguments for keeping sprint are based on thin air,
No, not really. They're based on what has become the expected standard for FPS games in the modern era. And has existed in Halo for a decade now. Those mean something, despite your objection, in as much as using the Left Stick to move and strafe, and the Right Stick to look around and aim was a radically new thing when it was established as a default by Halo back in 2001. A decade after dual analog was introduced and became a standard for FPS, sprint has done the very same.

tsassi wrote:
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.
Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Halo has enough that makes it unique from other FPS games - storyline and gameplay - that including a standard movement mechanic in no way equates to blandly blending in. Though I truly must wonder just what your side wants Halo to do to remain unique, as every effort to change The Game is met with backlash and an apparent desire to keep things 2007.

But your entire time here, you only offered "Just make two sets of playlists!"
No, my time in this thread discussing with the both of them is longer than the last couple of days. I'd have to dig back through 149 pages, but if memory serves it's been about a year. Dropping any attempt at discussion for benefits of Sprint to compromises of gameplay came only with statement from ya'll's camp that there is no intention or desire to compromise. So why bother trying to discuss it? What'll happen will happen; I've said before that if sprint is removed (though I really doubt it,) somehow I'll manage to get along just fine. Will you? Or will we continue to see threads complaining about how it's "Not Halo (never mind the last decade)"?

Quote:
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?
No one's shouting, Vegeto. No names are being called, and so far as I know, no feelings hurt. For the record, I'm not content with the "deal with it" argument, because a) I hate seeing the community constantly divided, and b) there should be some middle ground that can be reached. But b) can't happen when your group has no intention at all of trying to reach it. For as much as you scold me here for being content with the "deal with it", your side is just as content with their stance of "screw everyone who enjoys the new mechanics, I want the old way!" So you've no ground to try and shame me on this.

WerepyreND wrote:
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...
This is a very poor analogy. Very poor. It's better to just stick with the given hypothetical of

Developer: Here's this mechanic
You: I don't like this mechanic
Developer: Okay, well a lot of people do. How about we give you this equal space so that you don't have to use it?
You: I don't want it in the game at all. Period. For no one.

Quote:
Funny I can think of two high profile FPS games that don't have universal sprint off the top of my head.
And they are...?

Quote:
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
And those games are...?
Sprint really isn’t an industry standard man. Halo didn’t have it originally and counter strike still doesn’t have it and counter strike is one of if not the most popular pc FPS games. Ever since sprint has tried to be implemented the community has become much smaller and more divided because of how it changed the gameplay.
No one's shouting, Vegeto. No names are being called, and so far as I know, no feelings hurt. For the record, I'm not content with the "deal with it" argument, because a) I hate seeing the community constantly divided, and b) there should be some middle ground that can be reached. But b) can't happen when your group has no intention at all of trying to reach it. For as much as you scold me here for being content with the "deal with it", your side is just as content with their stance of "screw everyone who enjoys the new mechanics, I want the old way!" So you've no ground to try and shame me on this.
Because as I said before, any compromise someone without Sprint would offer would inevitably have the phrase "remove Sprint" in it, which is apparently a deal breaker and "unfair" to those who do like Sprint.

But anything less would just be an element of Sprint, which is a deal breaker for those against Sprint because it didn't address their issue beyond "I don't care."

Every idea will have either Sprint or no Sprint because it's a binary issue. The rare few that don't ould end up being a mediocre experience to everyone, or be completely unrealistic to implement (which yes, includes your Split Playlist idea).

If you really want to hear a compromise, the common one is "remove Sprint (see what I said?), increase BMS". Suddenly that's not enough because it's no longer about moving faster or immersion (despite some people saying that exact thing word for word).

According to you, we need a stop gap between 80% and 100% or else people simply can't control it as well.
And this was discussed months ago. It's not about having a higher BMS (which Halo 5 actually does), or "feeling like you're going faster". Having the max BMS be the middle ground (fast, but not fastest) with a circumstantial "extra push" with the click of a button gives a more dynamic range of control over how the player moves, specifically adjusting pressure on the analog stick to move slowly or at max BMS. Upping that maximum to compensate or "simulate" Sprint makes that level of control all the more difficult. And while this is rarely used in Matchmaking, it is common in the Campaign; which would be affected if Sprint is removed entirely, as the Anti crowd seem so hellbent on.
Never mind the fact that you'll seldom find an example of someone using anything between 1% and 79% speed in this current game, how often did you specifically need to go 80% speed in games without Sprint?

Additionally, this implies that using a Sword or a Speed Boost would be too hard for the player to control, because those increase your speed as well.

TL:DR, you're asked to choose an integer 0 or 1 (binary, so it even fits), but you insist that there is a 0.5 somewhere, despite the fact that 0.5 isn't an integer.
WerepyreND wrote:
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...
This is a very poor analogy. Very poor. It's better to just stick with the given hypothetical of

Developer: Here's this mechanic
You: I don't like this mechanic
Developer: Okay, well a lot of people do. How about we give you this equal space so that you don't have to use it?
You: I don't want it in the game at all. Period. For no one.
Two opposing sides do not always have a middle ground. There is such a thing as irreconcilable differences. Giving me "equal" space means I am getting half the space I used to. Not really a great "compromise" to tell me I can have half of what I used to for the same price based on arbitrary "standards". And that is only if the devs can actually design one game equally around two styles of gameplay with very different design needs, which is unrealistic to say the least. I would rather have either side(the size of which are by no means clear but I digress) get 100% of what they want rather than have 50% of what they want for the same price.
Quote:
Quote:
Funny I can think of two high profile FPS games that don't have universal sprint off the top of my head.
And they are...?
I would have figured you might be curious enough to bother taking any to look it up since you argument boiled down to "well I can't remember anything so it must not exist." But since we are here Doom and Overwatch(and no one character out of 30 having that ability doesn't count)
Quote:
Quote:
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
And those games are...?
Gears and Rainbow Six. So I'm going to ask again: If these games can get away with not having the ability to jump, something which was as common if not more so than sprint, why can't a shooter be successful without sprint?
Hopefully they stick to the classic movement/gameplay
If Halo Infinite is like the Halo 1 2 3 feeling and gameplay, i pre-order this game RIGHT NOW !
WerepyreND wrote:
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...
This is a very poor analogy. Very poor. It's better to just stick with the given hypothetical of

Developer: Here's this mechanic
You: I don't like this mechanic
Developer: Okay, well a lot of people do. How about we give you this equal space so that you don't have to use it?
You: I don't want it in the game at all. Period. For no one.
Fine, a "better" analogy (even then, not perfect):

Person A: I don't want to travel by plane.
Person B: I want to travel by plane.

Some people: Well why not a seaplane?
Person A: Why would I want that? I'm still in a plane that's just on water for short periods of time!
Person B: Why would I want that either? I'm in the air but I still have to land and take off on water! I'm not solely in a plane like those people at airports!
A & B: Also, not many people use seaplanes anymore! It's niche mode of travel nowadays!

You: Well how about for the first half we take a boat, and the second half we take a plane?
Person A: Didn't you hear me? I don't like planes. Getting in a plane for some of the time defeats the whole purpose.
Person B: I don't like boats. I want a plane.
A & B: Also, we don't have the money to realistically afford two halves, nor are we going to stop in the middle of the ocean to switch modes of transportation.

Just throw in some misconceptions about plane crashes and boat crashes and speed and all that.
tsassi wrote:
This argument is very difficult to wrap my head around and empathize with, since never in Halo have I felt the need to move slower than at maximum speed—not in multiplayer, not in campaign. Could you explain: what do you use it for? Is this some kind of immersion thing?
In part, yes. Not going to lie, immersion is a great thing, and it's nice to just walk around the environments at times. Yet there's also a sense of practicality to it; moving slower so that enemies don't detect you, particularly sneaking up on sleeping Grunts in Halo: CE, or lurking around New Mombasa in Halo 3: ODST. Then there's also Machinima. It's already a little finicky to gauge between walking, jogging, and then running. Were the BSM increased to 120% to envelop Sprint's speed, the ranges for those various movement animations would inevitably be minimized, and made all the more difficult to maintain.

Yes, as the system exists now these are easy to work with. There is no issue (on my end) with the existing system - I'm not sure where you got this impression. However, your suggestion is reminiscent of one that Naqser suggested a year ago; Aside from swapping Faster Than for Slower Than, how is adding a "Walk Button" any different than having a "Sprint Button"? Not to mention that the point, as I told him, is not going as fast as possible all the time. In situations of combat, more common in Halo than situations of stealth, moving faster than normal is more tactically appropriate than moving slower than standard. Thus as it stands, the existing system is quite optimal - and I share a lack of understanding of just what the issue is with the existing system. Seems only "bad" when compared to old systems of movement and their respective games. If a game is built around a system - in this case, Sprint - then it works.

Quote:
It would perhaps be easier to have a bit of empathy if we could understand why it's so important to have the maximum speed behind a button press, why it can't work in all directions, and why it needs an animation.
Well, it's a bit like how it works in real life. Have you ever tried to sprint backwards? Sideways? Doesn't quite work. While sprinting in Halo, you can however turn, which parallels how sprinting physically works. The act of sprinting is also pushing oneself beyond the standard "maximum" rate of movement. Running, in a word. So that covers questions 1 and 2. Why does it need an animation? Well, as covered with Naqser a year ago, that's the balance. Shields are the balance for speeds walking to running, they mitigate damage, while allowing you to return fire. In combat situations, Sprint allows you to escape, while inflicting the balance that you cannot return fire and your shields don't recharge. (Not only that, but try aiming a lazer pointer on a single spot while sprinting. It doesn't work; even a Spartan would need gyroscopically steadied aim to counter their movements.) The animation serves to visually convey to the player that while sprinting, their weapon use is disabled; the trade-off for momentarily choosing greater speed over whatever firepower they've chosen to carry.

Quote:
But even if we understand why those three things are so important to you, you need to understand that the exact opposite is very important to us: no limitations at maximum speed.
So what's the advantage, then? With no limitations or hindrances on 120% speed, why have 120% speed at all? Sprint is a tool, of which the player has a choice to use. There are drawbacks to it, mentioned above, that must be considered before using it, just like a player has to make choices when selecting the two weapons they're able to carry. So why, then, is it "very important" to have no limitations on this tool, when every other tool has limitations?

Quote:
The split game compromise is never taken seriously because any competent developer knows that it's a nonsensical nightmare. Designing campaign levels and maps for two vastly different styles of gameplay will only lead to something that don't play well with either or play well with one, but poorly with the other.
Not really. As you pointed out above, you can't Sprint in any direction. You're practically limited to forward, with turning possible. Even in Halo 5, Sprinting has tactical advantages in stretches as minimal as 66 feet, which in terms of level design is not much at all. Sprint is a situational tool; it's not useful in every situation, in the same way that a SPNKr isn't useful in close quarters combat. Campaign levels are way easier; any area that can be traversed with vehicles is optimal for Sprinting, which would allow players to use their (limited) arsenal over whatever vehicle they had the option to use. Would've been good for levels like Halo or The Ark. This manner of design would carry over to BTB maps, or even maps like Blood Gulch. And for smaller maps, say even maps like Lockout or The Pit, Sprint would be useful for long stretches of hallway while also remaining at a size and layout to where players don't need to Sprint if they don't choose to. But there's the crux of it all: player choice.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 148
  4. 149
  5. 150
  6. 151
  7. 152
  8. ...
  9. 155