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.
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.
Quote:As far as "industry standard" goes, please do define what that means.
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.