Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 149
  4. 150
  5. 151
  6. 152
  7. 153
  8. ...
  9. 155
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.
That's a lot of opinion there, and speaking for a lot of people. Hi, Halo fan here (since Day 1, just in case it matters), and I very much like the "new Halos" and still play them. Along with older FPS games (and y'know, I still try to Sprint in those too? It's very disapointing, and would have made games like Morrowind so much easier.)

But what FPS games were Halo Reach trying to copy? Let me guess, the tired dead horse of Call of Duty? Never mind Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Far Cry, Star Wars: Battlefront, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, The Darkness, Bioshock, Turok, Borderlands... Boy, that's a lot of games to copy. There's probably some that I forgot, too. Gee, almost like having Sprint is expected to an extent, and putting it in a game is far less "copying" and more keeping up with the times. Kind of invalidates your insistance upon "traditional FPS games" as they haven't really existed en masse since 2010 at least.

Quote:
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.
Boy, for accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, it really seems like you don't know what you're talking about. While you're sprinting, your shields don't recharge. So if you're "sprinting around the map like a rat", you're ultimately just as easy to kill. And while other games don't have shields per se, they do have regenerating health that acts identically to Halo's shield mechanic. Which, if I'm not mistaken, also doesn't regenerate when sprinting, or even moving. You've got to stop moving to allow your "health" to regenerate. Halo's always had other FPS games beat there, as so long as you're not taking damage your shields regenerate.
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.
I remembered DOOM when going through my library. Though notably, DOOM did have a "dash" feature, and it's gameplay focused on what the developers called "push forward combat" that emphasized constant speed and discouraged taking cover or slowing down. Something Halo doesn't share. DOOM also had double jumping, executions, an expansive carried arsenal, clambering, down-scope aiming, and various runes that could be paralleled to Armor Abilities. DOOM: Eternal is also including dodging mechanics comparable to Thrusters, as well as climbing which is somewhat rare in FPS games. Not just moving up a ladder with one's gun drawn (a la Combat Evolved) but latching to the wall and climbing with a dedicated animation. Point being (for those who groan and roll eyes) that for it's lack of Sprint, DOOM shared commonality with Halo 5 and other FPS games in many other regards, as well as sharing the drive to evolve and modernize.

And yes, while Overwatch doesn't have Sprint as a core mechanic, as mentioned somewhere a year ago there is a character that has a sprint function in a game that's a class-based FPS. I also forgot Mirror's Edge and Mirror's Edge Catalyst, which while they don't have sprint either, their gameplay is radically different than other FPS games and focuses primarily on running, discouraging gunplay entirely.

Still considering those FPS games that still don't have sprint and manage to do well, my point here specifically is that Sprint is far more common in FPS games to an overwhelming majority that unless a game can mitigate it with something else (dedicated fast-paced gameplay, class-based combat, parkour focus, etc) it's a foolish thing to not include in modern games.

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.
You really need to read what I wrote before you address it. Key words: in modern era games. Post 2010, even though sprint has been around in FPS games since at least 2006, and in other types of games like RPG's for even longer.

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.
Yeah... Read above what I said to tssasi. Or what I said to Naqser a year ago. Moving 120% all the time is not the point, nor is it a viable solution to replace or envelop sprint. Sprint is a situational tool that is useful, albeit not in every single situation. Allotting space on a finite system of input (the left analog stick) to increase the maximum running speed to 120% diminishes the ranges for slower movements, as stated, useful perhaps not in Multiplayer but quite situationally useful in campaign and Machinima. Big picture.

Quote:
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?
Examples of walking and jogging above. Also given for moving 120% on foot; sprinting sure would have been useful for levels like Halo or The Ark, if one didn't want to use a vehicle.

Quote:
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.
If the player was put into a situation where sneaking was useful or tactically superior, yes. It would make it more difficult. However such boosts and perks aren't found in the campaign, so this isn't really an issue as sneaking isn't very common in matchmaking.

Quote:
Fine, a "better" analogy (even then, not perfect):
Or just drop the analogies entirely, as they're not working for you.
WerepyreND wrote:
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)
No, my "argument" was that I can't think of any. Not that they don't exist, but thanks for assuming to put words in my mouth. They've since been adressed multiple times, as well as added to, yet remain a minority among many other FPS games that do include sprint mechanics as core.

And yes, one character out of 30 haivng a sprint mechanic in a class-based FPS does count for something, though I'm willing to give you that Overwatch doesn't have sprint as a core mechanic. It also doesn't have 29 other unique abilities that various characters have as core abilities, yet there they are.

Quote:
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?
Fair point. Yet they remain a handful of games out of... how many? (not to mention Gears of War is a Third Person Shooter, not an FPS; if we're expanding the genre, then this would also bring in several other TPS and RTS games that have sprinting, so the numbers would skew even further.)

As to how these games get away with not jumping, my guess would be their style of gameplay. Gears of War focuses on brutal and cover-based combat. Where exposing yourself is often a risk, and the less time you're in cover the more time you're getting shredded. Jumping would inevitably pose a greater risk. It's been a while since I've played Rainbow Six: Vegas, so I couldn't speak for that, yet it and Rainbow Six Siege are tactical shooters, with emphasis on infiltration and stealth as opposed to guns-blazing assault. They also gear for more realism, in which jumping isn't so common.

Halo is not this. You play as a biologically and mechanically augmented supersoldier that canonically zips and leaps around the battlefield, guns blazing and ripping things apart with anything and everything combatively useful. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Halo should slow down to a crawl and opt for canon-breaking realism.
Yeah... Read above what I said to tssasi. Or what I said to Naqser a year ago. Moving 120% all the time is not the point, nor is it a viable solution to replace or envelop sprint. Sprint is a situational tool that is useful, albeit not in every single situation. Allotting space on a finite system of input (the left analog stick) to increase the maximum running speed to 120% diminishes the ranges for slower movements, as stated, useful perhaps not in Multiplayer but quite situationally useful in campaign and Machinima. Big picture.
So your reasons are now immersion (which you aren't the first to bring up) and Machinima (which is a niche version of the former)

First off before anything else, it's 100% , not 120%. 120% implies that the extra 20% is above what the map or mechanics intended, except the maps - both in Campaign and Multiplayer - are designed around Sprint. You said yourself that the base movement speed is the "middle ground", but the game isn't solely designed around that middle ground.

Its not like real life where you are pushing yourself "beyond your maximum." As far as the map/environment/AI/etc. is concerned, Sprint is your normal speed, and everything else is moving slower than intended due to player choice.

(Meanwhile, as I watch my biologically and mechanically augmented super soldier be unable to swim or hold two weapons at the same time unlike what is canonically proven...)

With the analog sticks part, I could bring up what tsassi said a year ago.

tsassi wrote:
However, when it comes to sprint, the freedom seems entirely illusory based on [someone else's] description. After all, it's not as if you couldn't run at two different speeds in classic Halo games. You absolutely could. In fact, you could run at at least 256 different speeds (or however many bits of the precision of the analog stick the games used), but players rarely if ever made use of that freedom. However, it would be an understatement to say that players rarely took advantage of that freedom. For all practical purposes, Halo 5 doesn't have any more movement modes than classic games did, all it does is prevent the player from shooting when moving at the highest speed. If you want to move slower than maximum speed in classic Halo, you can absolutely do it.
Finally, crouch exists for most of those practical purposes. It's the stop gap between <100% and 100%. It's the mechanic used for stealth purposes and what gives "more control" in slower movement. The only downside is that it looks weird on Machinimas, but it's not like you can run at 90% speed with Sprint.

Now we have two stopgaps from maximum speed, and one of them is getting more and more useless as time and mechanics go on.
There is absolutely no way this game won't have the classic gameplay
That's purely speculation. Making assumptions like this is goofy at best.
the oldest of Halo fans have adored! I am so pumped for this!
I think the first part of this statement is biased based on the second part. There are plenty of older Halo fans that like the new mechanics.
I think your response to this man's innocent opinion is a bit inappropriate or as you put it 'goofy at best'. A So So Sniper is using hyperbole in the first quote, because his excited and on top of this Microsoft has described the game as a 'Spiritual Reboot', a small but exciting hint. I think it's reasonable to say that this game will likely incorporate classic factors. About your second sentence, you are in fact being biased because you haven't conducted a census to prove your point, you are in fact 'speculating', even if you did conduct a census, which I would love to see you try, a substantial portion of the community has fell off and your survey would still be deemed biased. Any-who I think I can speak for most people, but simpler movement mechanics would be preferred, over 'advanced movement'. I will make a speculation, however and assume you are a fan of the newer movement mechanics? If I'm wrong more power to you.
@TheKiltdHeathen
There are fundamental differences in how the opponents of sprint view the situation from yours. You view sprint as an addition, which comes through in your language: "120% speed", "faster than normal". You view it as extra on top of the BMS. However, what you need to understand is that for opponents of sprint the mechanic is fundamentally a reduction. The maximum speed of the game is what it is. In classic games players could do anything at maximum speed, but sprint puts restrictions on what they can do at maximum speed. In a way, for us, "maximum speed" is the same as "ought-to-be base speed". For you, sprint gives a new mode of movement, for us, it takes away freedom.

This perspective is motivated by how movement speed relates to level design. If you're designing a level (multiplayer or single player, doesn't matter), a major consideration is how long it takes for the player to move to a location of interest (be that an encounter, a power weapon, high ground, or whatever). This consideration is at the core of pacing, which largely determines the feel of the level, e.g., whether it's fast and frantic, or slow and methodical. As a rule of thumb, when moving between locations of interest, the player usually goes for the fastest method of transportation available. This is why the scale of level design is often motivated by the fastest speed available to the player.

So, since the maximum speed is in a sense the most important speed, and level design is used to set the pacing, we reach the perspective where it kind of doesn't matter whether the maximum speed is 3.38 or 2.6 or 2.25, because the levels are ultimately designed to have certain pacing anyway. Hence it doesn't matter that sprint is technically faster than classic BMS, as noted in the popular Heretic–Truth comparisons. From a gameplay point of view, it's more relevant that moving through Truth at maximum speed the player can do much less than they could do moving through Heretic at maximum speed.

There's no right perspective here. It's just a mode of thinking. But if you want to understand the anti-sprint side, you need to understand this philosophical perspective, even if it isn't the one you prefer. Understanding it answers a lot of the questions you have.

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.
The issue with realism arguments is that we're ultimately discussing a sci-fi game which regularly doesn't care for what's possible or physically realistic. Strictly speaking, as noted earlier, the classic Halo BMS is 6.86 meters per second. For comparison, the world record 5K speed is 6.60 meters per second. If you want to run 400 meters in under a minute, you need to run at 6.67 meters per second. Now, you can go to your local track with a laser pointer glued onto an airsoft gun and see for yourself how well you manage to keep aim. There's a reason why even real soldiers shoot from a stationary position if they actually intend to hit something.

So, once we've established that what is already happening at BMS in Halo games is not possible for a regular human, but is possible for a super soldier in this video game, why is it suddenly such a stretch that keeping an accurate aim at maximum speed wouldn't be possible for a Spartan? Why is it such a stretch that a fictional super soldier in a fictional power armor using fictional technology wouldn't be able to move in every direction at maximum speed while maintaining accuracy? It's an entirely arbitrary restriction on the abilities of Spartans, not really motivated by anything than post hoc justification for a gameplay mechanic.

If you truly feel like this restriction helps you connect with your character, and helps it feel more real to you, that's fine. But as an argument it doesn't carry very far, since the lore is arbitrary and not bound by the real world, and immersion is such a personal matter.

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?
Halo is, at its heart, a shooter centered around movement. It's very evident in the design language, how the player has a lot of health so that they don't need to worry about getting hit by an unexpected bullet, how the jump height is high so that players can move through the level with great agility, how movement has no impact on accuracy so that players can integrate movement into combat encounters. The idea of smoothly combining movement and combat is deep in the ethos of Halo. That's largely what the skills in the game are centered around, and presumably why many players were originally attracted to it.

When you introduce sprint to create a rift between movement and combat, you harm the ethos of Halo. Of course, whether you personally care about this particle aspect of the ethos is your own business, but it's there nonetheless, and many people do care a lot about it. For many it's the reason they're drawn to the gameplay of Halo, and what sets it apart from many other popular shooters.

If you find a part of the ethos that is damaged by the two weapon limit, then by all means, start a campaign against it. However, as far as I know, there's no such part, which makes sense because it's been with us from the very beginning.
WerepyreND wrote:
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)
No, my "argument" was that I can't think of any. Not that they don't exist, but thanks for assuming to put words in my mouth.
See the problem I have with that is that it only leaves you with two options as to why you would even bring it up in the first place. Either your memory really is that bad, or you were being disingenuous to make your position look stronger.
Quote:
They've since been adressed multiple times, as well as added to, yet remain a minority among many other FPS games that do include sprint mechanics as core.

And yes, one character out of 30 haivng a sprint mechanic in a class-based FPS does count for something, though I'm willing to give you that Overwatch doesn't have sprint as a core mechanic. It also doesn't have 29 other unique abilities that various characters have as core abilities, yet there they are.
I don't see how 1/30 characters having sprint can really count for anything any more than Sombra existing makes it a stealth game or Widowmaker makes it Sniper Elite....
Quote:
Quote:
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?
Fair point. Yet they remain a handful of games out of... how many? (not to mention Gears of War is a Third Person Shooter, not an FPS; if we're expanding the genre, then this would also bring in several other TPS and RTS games that have sprinting, so the numbers would skew even further.
Yes, I was including genres in that example, which is exactly the point. No matter how common a mechanic is, there are no "standards" of game design that devs have to meet to potentially reach a large audience. If it is possible for other titles to forgo these "standards", then it should be just as easy for Halo to find success with a formula that has already been proven to be successful before.
Quote:
As to how these games get away with not jumping, my guess would be their style of gameplay. Gears of War focuses on brutal and cover-based combat. Where exposing yourself is often a risk, and the less time you're in cover the more time you're getting shredded. Jumping would inevitably pose a greater risk. It's been a while since I've played Rainbow Six: Vegas, so I couldn't speak for that, yet it and Rainbow Six Siege are tactical shooters, with emphasis on infiltration and stealth as opposed to guns-blazing assault. They also gear for more realism, in which jumping isn't so common.

Halo is not this. You play as a biologically and mechanically augmented supersoldier that canonically zips and leaps around the battlefield, guns blazing and ripping things apart with anything and everything combatively useful. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Halo should slow down to a crawl and opt for canon-breaking realism.
The bolded is exactly the point. Regardless of whether you like sprint or not, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny it changes Halo's gameplay style and some people just don't like that change. It doesn't inherently make that change 'bad', just not a certain demographics cup of tea and no amount of "balancing" can really fix that and giving them a fraction of what they had before won't help either.

Folks always bring up the "super soldier" discussion like what a "super soldier" is doesn't wildly change from one set of media to the next especially in Halo's case. I was already feeling like a "super soldier" moving around at ~15mph shooting with perfect accuracy, punching 9ft tall aliens in the face, flipping over vehicles by myself, etc. From my perspective all sprint and friends do is make me feel more like average joe soldier, but I digress.

Unless you consider classic Halo to be "slowing down to a crawl" then no I'm not. I'm suggesting that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a proven formula like classic Halo can potentially find an audience no matter how many games include x, y, or z mechanic because "standard" game mechanics don't exist.
Curious on jump height, wondering which game had the best jump height, or if the most optimal one is simply the highest? But I think CE had the lowest and that was fine, so does jump height matter much?
tsassi wrote:
@TheKiltdHeathenThere are fundamental differences in how the opponents of sprint view the situation from yours. You view sprint as an addition, which comes through in your language: "120% speed", "faster than normal". You view it as extra on top of the BMS. However, what you need to understand is that for opponents of sprint the mechanic is fundamentally a reduction. The maximum speed of the game is what it is. In classic games players could do anything at maximum speed, but sprint puts restrictions on what they can do at maximum speed. In a way, for us, "maximum speed" is the same as "ought-to-be base speed". For you, sprint gives a new mode of movement, for us, it takes away freedom.

This perspective is motivated by how movement speed relates to level design. If you're designing a level (multiplayer or single player, doesn't matter), a major consideration is how long it takes for the player to move to a location of interest (be that an encounter, a power weapon, high ground, or whatever). This consideration is at the core of pacing, which largely determines the feel of the level, e.g., whether it's fast and frantic, or slow and methodical. As a rule of thumb, when moving between locations of interest, the player usually goes for the fastest method of transportation available. This is why the scale of level design is often motivated by the fastest speed available to the player.

So, since the maximum speed is in a sense the most important speed, and level design is used to set the pacing, we reach the perspective where it kind of doesn't matter whether the maximum speed is 3.38 or 2.6 or 2.25, because the levels are ultimately designed to have certain pacing anyway. Hence it doesn't matter that sprint is technically faster than classic BMS, as noted in the popular Heretic–Truth comparisons. From a gameplay point of view, it's more relevant that moving through Truth at maximum speed the player can do much less than they could do moving through Heretic at maximum speed.
The Idea that the addition of sprint mean that maps are larger is false. While Truth is a spiritual successor to Heretic it is also a functionally different map. Halo Reach and 4 Had 1 to 1 recreations of maps from Halo's CE-3. They weren't scaled up because of Sprint or if they were the difference isn't noticeable. xGLLx's Movemnt Times between Halo's CE-3 and Halo's Reach/4. In Halo 4 the BMS is faster than Halo 3 and the Sprint speed is even faster. It takes 34 secs to walk from base to base in Halo 3 Valhalla. It takes 32 secs to walk the same distance in Halo 4 Ragnarok and and 23 secs with sprint it. He never did The Pit and Pitfall so i decided to do it. Times for Halo 4 PItfall. Times For Halo 3 The Pit. It takes 15 secs to walk from one side to the other on Halo 4 Pit fall and 11 secs to sprint it. It take 17 secs talk walk the same distance in Halo 3 the Pit.

Sprints does not inherently make maps bigger. I couldn't care less whether you like or dislike the mechanic, I only care when you try to justify your opinions with false information.
But what FPS games were Halo Reach trying to copy? Let me guess, the tired dead horse of Call of Duty? Never mind Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Far Cry, Star Wars: Battlefront, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, The Darkness, Bioshock, Turok, Borderlands... Boy, that's a lot of games to copy. There's probably some that I forgot, too. Gee, almost like having Sprint is expected to an extent, and putting it in a game is far less "copying" and more keeping up with the times.
Not sure if you realise but you're making my point for me.

Quote:
While you're sprinting, your shields don't recharge. So if you're "sprinting around the map like a rat", you're ultimately just as easy to kill.
LMAO What? The quickest TTK with the H5 primary weapon is 1.2 seconds. In CoD Bo4, for example, the quickest TTK with pretty much every weapon in the game is less than 0.35 seconds. I'd also note most other CoDs have even shorter TTKs. This discussion has literally nothing to with your shields recharging or not recharging, it's the fact that you have shields in the first place.
Snockooz wrote:
tsassi wrote:
@TheKiltdHeathenThere are fundamental differences in how the opponents of sprint view the situation from yours. You view sprint as an addition, which comes through in your language: "120% speed", "faster than normal". You view it as extra on top of the BMS. However, what you need to understand is that for opponents of sprint the mechanic is fundamentally a reduction. The maximum speed of the game is what it is. In classic games players could do anything at maximum speed, but sprint puts restrictions on what they can do at maximum speed. In a way, for us, "maximum speed" is the same as "ought-to-be base speed". For you, sprint gives a new mode of movement, for us, it takes away freedom.

This perspective is motivated by how movement speed relates to level design. If you're designing a level (multiplayer or single player, doesn't matter), a major consideration is how long it takes for the player to move to a location of interest (be that an encounter, a power weapon, high ground, or whatever). This consideration is at the core of pacing, which largely determines the feel of the level, e.g., whether it's fast and frantic, or slow and methodical. As a rule of thumb, when moving between locations of interest, the player usually goes for the fastest method of transportation available. This is why the scale of level design is often motivated by the fastest speed available to the player.

So, since the maximum speed is in a sense the most important speed, and level design is used to set the pacing, we reach the perspective where it kind of doesn't matter whether the maximum speed is 3.38 or 2.6 or 2.25, because the levels are ultimately designed to have certain pacing anyway. Hence it doesn't matter that sprint is technically faster than classic BMS, as noted in the popular Heretic–Truth comparisons. From a gameplay point of view, it's more relevant that moving through Truth at maximum speed the player can do much less than they could do moving through Heretic at maximum speed.
The Idea that the addition of sprint mean that maps are larger is false. While Truth is a spiritual successor to Heretic it is also a functionally different map. Halo Reach and 4 Had 1 to 1 recreations of maps from Halo's CE-3. They weren't scaled up because of Sprint or if they were the difference isn't noticeable. xGLLx's Movemnt Times between Halo's CE-3 and Halo's Reach/4. In Halo 4 the BMS is faster than Halo 3 and the Sprint speed is even faster. It takes 34 secs to walk from base to base in Halo 3 Valhalla. It takes 32 secs to walk the same distance in Halo 4 Ragnarok and and 23 secs with sprint it. He never did The Pit and Pitfall so i decided to do it. Times for Halo 4 PItfall. Times For Halo 3 The Pit. It takes 15 secs to walk from one side to the other on Halo 4 Pit fall and 11 secs to sprint it. It take 17 secs talk walk the same distance in Halo 3 the Pit.

Sprints does not inherently make maps bigger. I couldn't care less whether you like or dislike the mechanic, I only care when you try to justify your opinions with false information.
Gamasutra article on map design with the map designers of Halo 4.

Sure, Truth is a different map than Midship, but if you look at the time to travel, they're quite close to each other.
You could also do Haven in Halo 4 with the mobility perk, and test Guardian from Halo 3.

As far as Ragnarok and Pitfall goes, yes, 1:1 remakes. I'd say Pitfall is a special case, and to add to that, it never blew up in popularity as much as The Pit did, and neither did it play the same way. Ragnarok as an extremely large map, most likely following another design philosophy. Has it been timed with a Mongoose or Warthog for instance? Adding to that, it too didn't really play the same way as Valhalla did.

As for Halo 4's BMS, do you have something to verify that?
Because, Ragnarok could easily be slightly slightly smaller than Valhalla, even if we regard it as a 1:1 remake.

While sprint on its own doesn't make maps larger, its design ideas and desired metrics which play in on how the map is shaped. If there's a desire to make a small map take 10 seconds to cross at the fastest default way possible which will be available on the map along a certain route, then between two titles, one with and one without sprint, the game with sprint will have larger maps, as long as sprint is faster than the non-sprint game's bms.
Naqser wrote:
Snockooz wrote:
tsassi wrote:
@TheKiltdHeathenThere are fundamental differences in how the opponents of sprint view the situation from yours. You view sprint as an addition, which comes through in your language: "120% speed", "faster than normal". You view it as extra on top of the BMS. However, what you need to understand is that for opponents of sprint the mechanic is fundamentally a reduction. The maximum speed of the game is what it is. In classic games players could do anything at maximum speed, but sprint puts restrictions on what they can do at maximum speed. In a way, for us, "maximum speed" is the same as "ought-to-be base speed". For you, sprint gives a new mode of movement, for us, it takes away freedom.

This perspective is motivated by how movement speed relates to level design. If you're designing a level (multiplayer or single player, doesn't matter), a major consideration is how long it takes for the player to move to a location of interest (be that an encounter, a power weapon, high ground, or whatever). This consideration is at the core of pacing, which largely determines the feel of the level, e.g., whether it's fast and frantic, or slow and methodical. As a rule of thumb, when moving between locations of interest, the player usually goes for the fastest method of transportation available. This is why the scale of level design is often motivated by the fastest speed available to the player.

So, since the maximum speed is in a sense the most important speed, and level design is used to set the pacing, we reach the perspective where it kind of doesn't matter whether the maximum speed is 3.38 or 2.6 or 2.25, because the levels are ultimately designed to have certain pacing anyway. Hence it doesn't matter that sprint is technically faster than classic BMS, as noted in the popular Heretic–Truth comparisons. From a gameplay point of view, it's more relevant that moving through Truth at maximum speed the player can do much less than they could do moving through Heretic at maximum speed.
The Idea that the addition of sprint mean that maps are larger is false. While Truth is a spiritual successor to Heretic it is also a functionally different map. Halo Reach and 4 Had 1 to 1 recreations of maps from Halo's CE-3. They weren't scaled up because of Sprint or if they were the difference isn't noticeable. xGLLx's Movemnt Times between Halo's CE-3 and Halo's Reach/4. In Halo 4 the BMS is faster than Halo 3 and the Sprint speed is even faster. It takes 34 secs to walk from base to base in Halo 3 Valhalla. It takes 32 secs to walk the same distance in Halo 4 Ragnarok and and 23 secs with sprint it. He never did The Pit and Pitfall so i decided to do it. Times for Halo 4 PItfall. Times For Halo 3 The Pit. It takes 15 secs to walk from one side to the other on Halo 4 Pit fall and 11 secs to sprint it. It take 17 secs talk walk the same distance in Halo 3 the Pit.

Sprints does not inherently make maps bigger. I couldn't care less whether you like or dislike the mechanic, I only care when you try to justify your opinions with false information.
Gamasutra article on map design with the map designers of Halo 4.

Sure, Truth is a different map than Midship, but if you look at the time to travel, they're quite close to each other.
You could also do Haven in Halo 4 with the mobility perk, and test Guardian from Halo 3.

As far as Ragnarok and Pitfall goes, yes, 1:1 remakes. I'd say Pitfall is a special case, and to add to that, it never blew up in popularity as much as The Pit did, and neither did it play the same way. Ragnarok as an extremely large map, most likely following another design philosophy. Has it been timed with a Mongoose or Warthog for instance? Adding to that, it too didn't really play the same way as Valhalla did.

As for Halo 4's BMS, do you have something to verify that?
Because, Ragnarok could easily be slightly slightly smaller than Valhalla, even if we regard it as a 1:1 remake.

While sprint on its own doesn't make maps larger, its design ideas and desired metrics which play in on how the map is shaped. If there's a desire to make a small map take 10 seconds to cross at the fastest default way possible which will be available on the map along a certain route, then between two titles, one with and one without sprint, the game with sprint will have larger maps, as long as sprint is faster than the non-sprint game's bms.
Thank you
Snockooz wrote:
The Idea that the addition of sprint mean that maps are larger is false. While Truth is a spiritual successor to Heretic it is also a functionally different map. Halo Reach and 4 Had 1 to 1 recreations of maps from Halo's CE-3. They weren't scaled up because of Sprint or if they were the difference isn't noticeable. xGLLx's Movemnt Times between Halo's CE-3 and Halo's Reach/4. In Halo 4 the BMS is faster than Halo 3 and the Sprint speed is even faster. It takes 34 secs to walk from base to base in Halo 3 Valhalla. It takes 32 secs to walk the same distance in Halo 4 Ragnarok and and 23 secs with sprint it. He never did The Pit and Pitfall so i decided to do it. Times for Halo 4 PItfall. Times For Halo 3 The Pit. It takes 15 secs to walk from one side to the other on Halo 4 Pit fall and 11 secs to sprint it. It take 17 secs talk walk the same distance in Halo 3 the Pit.

Sprints does not inherently make maps bigger. I couldn't care less whether you like or dislike the mechanic, I only care when you try to justify your opinions with false information.
First of all, let me quote an old article where the lead multiplayer level designer, Kynan Pearson, of Halo 4 was interviewed:
Quote:
Similarly, Halo 4's designers keep a watchful eye on distance. "We definitely have standards for the size than [sic] something can be and the time it takes from one corner of a map to the other, or one objective sight to the other," says Pearson. "It's to make sure we're tuning the experience to keep the time-to-death down, or making sure that your time-to-engagement is enough to give you a breather between dying, but not so long that you're hunting through the map and not finding people." Again, game mechanics have a direct bearing. In Halo 3, sprinting was impossible. In Halo: Reach, sprinting was a selectable armor ability. In Halo 4, everyone's at it, and the maps have grown to compensate.
Yes, map sizes have increased with the introduction of sprint. This is a well established fact. You're free to say it's a good thing, bad thing, neutral thing, but it's not up for debate. No, you're not being clever or telling us anything we didn't already know by pulling out Ragnarok and Pitfall (or for that matter, any remakes). This whole thing was addressed literally over half a decade ago.

The claim has never been that "all maps are larger because of sprint". In fact, there are plenty of maps that don't even have a direct comparison because they are completely new. No, when we say "maps are larger", we mean that a typical 4v4 map in Halo 4/5 is larger than the typical 4v4 map in classic games. It's a purely statistical statement about map design trends. Hence the fact that Pitfall is an exact remake doesn't change anything.

Remakes don't count, because they are remakes, i.e., no changes to the original design. Furthermore, BTB maps don't count because nobody thinks they need similar scaling as smaller 4v4 maps. With that said, have you ever stopped to consider why the only launch remake in Halo 4 was a BTB map? Or why Halo 4 only has two remakes, a record low? Or why Halo 5 doesn't have any 4v4 remakes from the original trilogy (with the understanding that Truth is not a remake, of course because of its larger size)?

Next time, before accusing people of "false information", I'd appreciate if you'd at least try to understand what it is they are saying before wasting everyone's time with useless information.
tsassi wrote:
You view sprint as an addition,
Yes, I do. Because it is. You yourself gave the accurate movement speeds for all of the Halo games. Compared to the "Classic Halo" games, Reach and 4 slow down ever so slightly, yet their Sprint adds 4-5 mps to the "Classic BMS". Halo 5's BSM is, as you show, actually faster by 1.06 mps. Yet practically, they all float around the same speed; cutting out the fractions they're all at 2 WU/s.

What this means is that Sprint - which is built and treated as an extra mechanic, a boost as it were - adds onto the Base movement speed. It is a situational exertion past the normal boundary; just like in the real world, people who sprint don't do so all the time. And while Halo is a video game, it is one that has always been rooted in more believable "realism" for a Science Fiction setting.

While Sprint might be viewed as a "reduction" by you the Opponents of Sprint, this is not a realistic complaint. Halo Reach and Halo 4's BMS's are reductions, as they drop 0.15 mps, minimal though that is. I get that you take umbrage in that you "can't do things at maximum speed". Yet this is only because of the flawed view of taking an addition as the "maximum speed", rather than taking it as a boost - akin to a stereotypical "Nitro" button - to one's forward movement. You've created your own problem, rather than the problem being inherent to the mechanic itself.

Quote:
The issue with realism arguments is that we're ultimately discussing a sci-fi game which regularly doesn't care for what's possible or physically realistic.
Generally, no. But Halo always has. There is always a scientific answer to what can and can't be done; even in Halo Reach Sprint was explained as a hack that bypasses safety regulation in Mark V(B) armor.

Quote:
Now, you can go to your local track with a laser pointer glued onto an airsoft gun and see for yourself how well you manage to keep aim. There's a reason why even real soldiers shoot from a stationary position if they actually intend to hit something.
It is entirely possible to "run and gun", keeping decent accuracy while moving at a rapid pace. I've done it many times while playing both airsoft and paintball. What's not so easy is maintaining that same accuracy while sprinting. Your aim would be worse than the chaingun on the Halo: CE Scorpion. Which, given Halo's "realistic" restrictions to gameplay and what can be reasonably done, expecting to be able to fire your weapon while sprinting is somewhat silly.

Quote:
So, once we've established that what is already happening at BMS in Halo games is not possible for a regular human, but is possible for a super soldier in this video game, why is it suddenly such a stretch that keeping an accurate aim at maximum speed wouldn't be possible for a Spartan?
Well, first of all the average human speed while running (not sprinting) is 15 mph. Halo's BMS falls around there, ranging from 15 - 17.71 mph. Halo's BMS is absolutely possible for a regular human. Secondly, even with Spartans being advanced, augmented soldiers in a Sci-Fi setting, as we've also established Halo has believable restrictions based on either pure science or in-universe constant sciences. Physics is very much a thing in the Halo Universe, untouched as it is with reality, and when you sprint - even a Spartan - balance needs to be maintained that would make aiming a gun accurately very difficult. Retaining this maintains the sense of realism that Halo has established. The Lore is far less arbitrary than you think, and is bound by the real world more than you give credit for.

Quote:
Halo is, at its heart, a shooter centered around movement.
That's a very simplistic reduction. Every FPS is, at its heart, a shooter centered around movement. Halo 5 remains a shooter centered around movement, and every issue brought forward with Sprint seems to be self-imposed issues, not inherent issues with the mechanic itself. So too is comparing Halo 5 to the "Classics", with the arbitration that they're the only thing that Halo can ever be. If a Halo game is built with and around Sprint in mind, then it's not a broken system, it's simply one that you don't like. That does not mean that it needs to change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the other quotes, I might get to them tomorrow. It's my day off (and currently 02:15,) and I'm going to enjoy some Halo, rather than bicker on a forum all morning.
While Sprint might be viewed as a "reduction" by you the Opponents of Sprint, this is not a realistic complaint. Halo Reach and Halo 4's BMS's are reductions, as they drop 0.15 mps, minimal though that is. I get that you take umbridge in that you "can't do things at maximum speed". Yet this is only because of the flawed view of taking an addition as the "maximum speed", rather than taking it as a boost - akin to a stereotypical "Nitro" button - to one's forward movement. You've created your own problem, rather than the problem being inherent to the mechanic itself.
Thank you for taking my sincere attempt to explain our perspective, and stomping it to the ground. You've demonstrated in a beautiful way why nothing good ever comes out of this debate.

The Lore is far less arbitrary than you think, and is bound by the real world more than you give credit for.
No, it really isn't. It would take only a couple of sentences for 343i to explain sprint away. You see, the lore isn't bound by the real world. It's bound by what a writer can convince people to believe about the real world, which is quite a lot.

That's a very simplistic reduction. Every FPS is, at its heart, a shooter centered around movment. Halo 5 remains a shooter centered around movement, and every issue brought forward with Sprint seems to be self-imposed issues, not inherent issues with the mechanic itself. So too is comparing Halo 5 to the "Classics", with the arbitration that they're the only thing that Halo can ever be. If a Halo game is built with and around Sprint in mind, then it's not a broken system, it's simply one that you don't like. That does not mean that it needs to change.
Usually people would make some half-baked attempt to pretend that they took some time to consider and understand the point I was trying to make. But you have the integrity and honesty to show that you just don't care what my point was. You proudly take a single sentence out of context, come up with a completely original interpretation of it, and just run with it. That's some admirable honesty, and saves me a lot of time. Thank you!
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
What this means is that Sprint - which is built and treated as an extra mechanic, a boost as it were - adds onto the Base movement speed.
Excuse me, "extra" mechanic? You mean core mechanic, right? Because that's what you said.

[Spartan Charge & Ground Pound] are ancillary abilities, reliant on a core one; and yes, at this point I do view Sprint as a core mechanic.
We're not gonna start devaluing Sprint and its purpose and effects on the game now, you even say in the same comment that the game is built around Sprint.

If a Halo game is built with and around Sprint in mind, then it's not a broken system, it's simply one that you don't like.
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.
I must've missed where you included the Campaign into the "compromise" because at first it was only a single playlist, then it was split playlists making it four divisions, and it was Multiplayer only. After that I haven't found where they'd allow users to make custom game modes for campaign. Care to show?

It's like a vegan demanding that no one eat meat because they don't.
Quote:
This is a very poor analogy. Very poor.
It's like being a vegan happy with sallad, then meat is added with condinemts that complement the meat, but not the sallad.
Removing the meat would still leave the condinemts in which do not enrich the sallad on their own in any way.

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.
Bolded: interesting, based on what? In which situations?

Also, considering that argument has been up earlier, wasn't it met with the same response as was given now? Or am I mixing things up with even earlier instances when the same type of "movement precision" argument was made, to which the response was quite identical to what was given for this time?
I mean, it's not like that argument hasn't been made before, but it's never been made by a developer as a reason for sprint's inclusion to my knowledge, and neither is it a massively widespread argument for its inclusion by anyone actually wanting it in.
Even then, I don't see why you even started argumenting it again as it was an example of what has been suggested, considering I also provided suggestions made pro-side as well.

You accuse me of not understanding your side of the argument, but has this been taken into consideration in the past 149 pages?
The way I see it, you either understand it but can't communicate it at all, or, you have understood it but lost your understanding of it at some point. Alternatively you think you understand it and has convinced yourself you do, but do not. Considering the recent post.

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?
In terms of what exactly?

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.
Here we are again, asked a question, and you non-deliver.
Are you going to explain why I should let what I like go? So someone who's not interested in what I like, can like what I now like less, more? Why shouldn't I be selfish when it comes to what I enjoy and want in Halo?

Each of those have been considered and pondered on at the instances they were suggested.
That is however besides the point, as it was to show that other pro-sprint suggestions have been made which alter the functionality of the mechanic, not a "just split limited resources" suggestion with all the extra package that it brings.
I fail to see how being glad to see something go is part of a compromise if both parties agree it should go, considering what was talked about regarding compromises in the first place.
So you'd be prepared to see everything that sprint brings to the game, dynamic control, more movement precision, immersion and more go? Color me sceptical.

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.
You do realise you've constantly added more and more to your suggestion, going from what has already been done before, but you've not payed any attention to, to the improbable and implausible suggestion of splitting the game in two.
How about we remember that there are limited resources, and I'd very much like for those resources to be spent om other things than the current Advanced mechanics.

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.
Only a short explanation of something that's come to be.
Not a definition of "industry standard" when it comes to game mechanics.
Is there a bucketlist of mechanics to include which are in popular games?

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.
Then there's the Vermintide series and Quake Champions.
Another very popular game is CS:GO for instance.
Modern era? What's "modern" about sprint?
Sure, checking off a bucketlist is a good move and has done wonders for games like DNF, MoH, HF and other game genres where there's a supposed bucketlist of features to use to be succesful.

You'd be wrong, but thanks for assuming about me so blatantly.
Covering my ground, essentially an "inb4".

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.
Of course I am, accusation or not, those came from somewhere, and it it's not like you weren't going along with it.
You be as selfish as you want, just as long as you don't shame someone else for it.
Naqser wrote:
Gamasutra article on map design with the map designers of Halo 4.
tsassi wrote:
First of all, let me quote an old article where the lead multiplayer level designer, Kynan Pearson, of Halo 4 was interviewed:
The Quote "Again, game mechanics have a direct bearing. In Halo 3, sprinting was impossible. In Halo: Reach, sprinting was a selectable armor ability. In Halo 4, everyone's at it, and the maps have grown to compensate." Is coming from author of the Article, not The multiplayer level designer, Kynan Pearson, that he interviewed. At no point does he give any evidence to back that claim. I couldn't care less what some random blog author thinks unless they have proof to back it.

Naqser wrote:
Sure, Truth is a different map than Midship, but if you look at the time to travel, they're quite close to each other.
You could also do Haven in Halo 4 with the mobility perk, and test Guardian from Halo 3.
No you cant unless your doing an a size comparision of all Halo 5's or 4's 4v4 maps to all of Halo 3's 4v4 maps. Something I do later on.

Quote:
As far as Ragnarok and Pitfall goes, yes, 1:1 remakes. I'd say Pitfall is a special case, and to add to that, it never blew up in popularity as much as The Pit did, and neither did it play the same way. Ragnarok as an extremely large map, most likely following another design philosophy. Has it been timed with a Mongoose or Warthog for instance? Adding to that, it too didn't really play the same way as Valhalla did.
I Don't care that Pitfall wasn't as popular as The Pit. That is no different than saying Halo 4 wasn’t as popular as Halo 3. There are numerous factors going into why that is. Much more than just movement mechanics.
I never said they played the same and them not playing the exact same doesn’t change my point. I don’t know what the times for the Mongoose or Warthog are but even if they were different it still wouldn’t change my point.

Quote:
As for Halo 4's BMS, do you have something to verify that?
Because, Ragnarok could easily be slightly slightly smaller than Valhalla, even if we regard it as a 1:1 remake.
That was based on the Times from Ragnarok and Pitfall. However, I did a Speed test with Forge blocks of the same size and it seems that Halo 3 and halo 4 have about the same base movement speed. This would mean that Ragnarok and Pitfall are smaller than their Halo 3 counter parts.

tsassi wrote:
Yes, map sizes have increased with the introduction of sprint. This is a well established fact. You're free to say it's a good thing, bad thing, neutral thing, but it's not up for debate. No, you're not being clever or telling us anything we didn't already know by pulling out Ragnarok and Pitfall (or for that matter, any remakes). This whole thing was addressed literally over half a decade ago.
And that “well established Fact” is false. I don’t care when this was last addressed. There have been numerous, “established Facts” throughout history that weren’t proven false till much later.

Quote:
The claim has never been that "all maps are larger because of sprint". In fact, there are plenty of maps that don't even have a direct comparison because they are completely new. No, when we say "maps are larger", we mean that a typical 4v4 map in Halo 4/5 is larger than the typical 4v4 map in classic games. It's a purely statistical statement about map design trends. Hence the fact that Pitfall is an exact remake doesn't change anything.
The typical 4v4 maps in Halo 4 and 5 aren’t larger than the typical 4v4 maps in Halo 3.

I'm using the Longest width of each map.
Halo 3
Construct 14sec
Epitaph 14sec
Guardian 11sec
Isolation 22sec
Narrows 25sec 17 with man cannons
Snowbound 17sec
Foundry 15sec
Blackout 12sec
Ghost town 17sec
The Pit 17 sec
cold storage 11sec
Assembly 15sec
Orbital 18sec
Citadel 15sec
Heretic 14sec

Halo 4
Adrift 17secs
Haven 17sec
Abandon 18sec
Relay 14sec
Solace 27sec 19sec with sprint
Monolith 20sec
Skyline 13sec
Pitfall 15sec
Vertigo 19sec

Halo 5
Coliseum 20sec from caves 13sec from sides
Eden/Empire 17sec
Fathom 16sec
Mercy 16sec
Molten 12sec
Overgrowth/plaza 13sec
Riptide 17sec
Stasis/Torque 16sec
The Rig 13sec
Truth/Regret 15sec
Tyrant 15sec

I’m not doing the variants because they are the exact same size. I’m also Not doing Halo 5 Forge maps because I hate the Map selection interface.

Besides Solace(which is the outlier) all of these maps fall in the range set by Halo 3. Halo 5’s maps especially.

Clearly there aren’t any extremely small maps like Guardian and Cold Storage. Though those types of maps were never the norm to begin with. 343 were likely trying to streamline the maps sizes given the number of them that sit at or around 17sec. Though there is about as much proof for this as there is for Sprint being the reason, that being Zero.


Quote:
Remakes don't count, because they are remakes, i.e., no changes to the original design. Furthermore, BTB maps don't count because nobody thinks they need similar scaling as smaller 4v4 maps.
I disagree entirely. IF the assumption is that the presence of sprint means they need to make maps larger to compensate, then remakes wouldn’t be the exception. Quite the opposite actually.

Quote:
With that said, have you ever stopped to consider why the only launch remake in Halo 4 was a BTB map? Or why Halo 4 only has two remakes, a record low? Or why Halo 5 doesn't have any 4v4 remakes from the original trilogy (with the understanding that Truth is not a remake, of course because of its larger size)?
I mean, It couldn’t be that 343 was trying to distance themselves from the Bungie Area and wanted to make mostly original maps. They clearly did that with many other aspects. They also knew that Forge was, is, and continues to be a thing and Players are able to make almost any map they want with it. No, that couldn’t have had anything to do with it. Sprint must be the reason….

Quote:
Next time, before accusing people of "false information", I'd appreciate if you'd at least try to understand what it is they are saying before wasting everyone's time with useless information.
I’ll keep that in mind if that ever happens.
@Snockooz I genuinely appreciate you actually doing the work of running maps to produce data for your argument. Putting in the effort instead of blindly insisting on something means so much to me, and is already much more than anyone else has ever done to me regarding this argument.

I will return to do a more complete discussion on map sizes, the issues I have with your methodology, and how to do it better (although still not ideally) once I have all my data together. I believe you can appreciate how time consuming going through fourty or so maps can be. I'll probably be done tomorrow.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 149
  4. 150
  5. 151
  6. 152
  7. 153
  8. ...
  9. 155