Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 150
  4. 151
  5. 152
  6. 153
  7. 154
  8. ...
  9. 156
tsassi wrote:
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.
Does this imply that my views are not sincere? The replies that I make take quite a bit of time as well, tsassi, and just because your reply is sincere to your perspective doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with it.

Quote:
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.
No, at this point it wouldn't be easy at all. The Spartans are canonically founded, right from the very beginning in fact, as being very agile and capable of great speeds due not only to the mechanical augmentation of their MJOLNIR armor, but also their biological augmentations. The modern representation is living up to what Spartans should be more than the "Classic Games" did. To "explain sprint away" would involve completely re-writing what the Spartans are.

I think you misunderstand when I say that the lore is bound by the real world. In regards to sprinting, it's established canon that Spartans can do it. It is also established canon that Kelly-087 sets the record at speeds in excess of 40 mph. What is not established, and would not be able to be written in no matter what a writer puts, are Spartans running at speeds of 100-150 mph. Normal, unaugmented Marines using MJOLNIR armor. They can't do this because Halo is bound to a sense of realism that is founded on real-world physics. Science that follows logically based on what we know now, and that follows a logical progression. Hell, even the Flood is based on a real world fungus. The writers can't just put anything in.

Quote:
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.
That's a very bold sentiment coming from the person that put forward Zero Compromise. Tell me tsassi, when I go into this knowing that there's going to be no compromise, why should I bother to try and understand? Don't feed me the line of "this is why there's no compromise," because before you brought up that there was no intention to compromise from your end, I was trying. For damn near half a year before the arguments got circular. How much understanding has been taken from your side - honestly taken? Because all I remember is more "options" thrown out without really listening at all. Even the laughable suggestions to "just crouch" when we want to move slowly, or even more recently putting a dedicated "walk button" that just transfers the function of Sprint.

For as much as you snarkily accuse me here, your side doesn't care what our point is either. This was made quite clear when you said "Zero Compromise".

tsassi wrote:
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 think you're being intentionally biased here. Prior to you providing the raw data, running measured distances and verifying them multiple times took a lot of effort. Not to mention finding canonical sources for arguments, specific instances in both Campaign and Multiplayer that support situational arguments. I think you're being incredibly unfair and accusatory with this veiled jab, and it really paints the tone of this entire 151 page "discussion."

Excuse me, "extra" mechanic? You mean core mechanic, right? Because that's what you said.
Let me clarify for you: A core mechanic in that it is integral to how a Spartan can cover ground in Halo (circa 2010,) treated as "extra" or a "boost" in that you don't need to travel 23 mph all the time. In the same regard, crouching is a core mechanic; it's been in every single Halo game. It's an extra mechanic to movement as you don't always need to crouch.

Compare this to, as I said and which you even quote, ancillary abilities like Spartan Charge and sliding. It's really not that hard to understand what I was saying, Vegeto.
Does this imply that my views are not sincere?
Nope. Just that you can't tell someone trying to explain their perspective from someone trying to sell you on something. You treat everything I say as a claim to be debunked.

To "explain sprint away" would involve completely re-writing what the Spartans are.
"A new stabilization firmware in the GEN3 armor allows the wearer aim accurately even when running at full speed. Improvements to the force multiplying circuits also enable the wearer to perform strafe and backtracking maneuvers without sacrificing speed, allowing them to keep sight on the enemy in any situation."

Done. No rewriting needed, just a new set of armor that Halo Infinite already has. Of course, if you have strong pro-sprint bias, you may not like this, but the truth is that it's completely consistent with all established canon.

What is not established, and would not be able to be written in no matter what a writer puts, are Spartans running at speeds of 100-150 mph.
And 343i could retcon that at any moment if they needed to. See what I mean with the lore being arbitrary?

Hell, even the Flood is based on a real world fungus.
Going from a fungus that infects insects fo Flood is like going from horses to unicorns.

Tell me tsassi, when I go into this knowing that there's going to be no compromise, why should I bother to try and understand?
Empathy? Curiosity? Deeper understanding of the issue? Whatever's the opposite of "arrogance"? Basic decency and respect?

I mean, why not?

Don't feed me the line of "this is why there's no compromise," because before you brought up that there was no intention to compromise from your end, I was trying. For damn near half a year before the arguments got circular. How much understanding has been taken from your side - honestly taken? Because all I remember is more "options" thrown out without really listening at all. Even the laughable suggestions to "just crouch" when we want to move slowly, or even more recently putting a dedicated "walk button" that just transfers the function of Sprint.
I used to be arrogant. I used to think that no sensible person could like sprint, and that if only they understood the effects of sprint on gameplay, their opinion would change. At some point, however, over a period of time I experienced a perspective shift. I came to the in hindsight obvious realization that not everyone values the same things I do. Later, I came to the subtler, though perhaps still obvious realization that people understand things in very different ways. What sounds very natural to one person seems like a very convoluted way of thinking to another.

These realizations have changed the way I approach the discussion. I became less adamant that everybody should dislike sprint. I understood that I need to explain the subjective reasoning and perspective behind my views more. I realized that I need to better understand the thinking and motives of my opponents, and develop some sense of empathy for them.

I'm not afraid to admit that I still lack on the understanding part. I still don't understand what parts of the sprint mechanic are important to you and why. When I suggest a walk button, it's a genuine suggestion to the "more dynamic range of control", and so is "just crouch". I can say that I honestly don't understand why people prefer a separate button for moving at different speeds, and why it needs to be the higher speed that's locked behind a button press. Likewise, while I think I understand the immersion perspective and why the animation is important and why people don't want to be sprinting in all directions, I don't really understand why not having these limitations wouldn't make people feel more like super soldiers. It seems extremely strange to me that people want to move like a super soldier in every other regard, but then they want to run like a normal human. It's something I really can't reconcile.

The point is: I still try to understand. I may not be good at it. Sometimes I'm really bad at it. But I still try. Why? Because I don't want to be the one whose opinion is so good and so important that he doesn't even need to consider differing views. Because I like to think I care more about the truth than "winning" internet arguments, and I can't keep thinking that unless I actually try to do something about it.

For as much as you snarkily accuse me here, your side doesn't care what our point is either. This was made quite clear when you said "Zero Compromise".
You're right, my side doesn't care, but I do. However, what you need to understand is that me caring and having empathy is different from me sacrificing my enjoyment of the game for the enjoyment of someone else. I want to be clear here: I don't expect you to sacrifice your enjoyment for me either. I can completely understand if you don't want to give up sprint, and there are no hard feelings. I don't think selfishness in regards to asking for specific features in a product that you are considering buying is in any way rude or disrespectful towards others who are planning on buying that product. I may not like what you want, but you are completely within your right to wish for Halo Infinite to be your perfect game.

I think you're being intentionally biased here. Prior to you providing the raw data, running measured distances and verifying them multiple times took a lot of effort. Not to mention finding canonical sources for arguments, specific instances in both Campaign and Multiplayer that support situational arguments. I think you're being incredibly unfair and accusatory with this veiled jab, and it really paints the tone of this entire 151 page "discussion."
I was referring specifically to the argument regarding map sizes. Prior to Snockooz, no one had, to my knowledge, ran as many maps in an effort to study the map sizes.

I'm afraid, you're reading too much into this comment. While I can admit that your previous post was very frustrating and disheartening, you were not in my mind when I was writing that comment. In fact, it's a reference to all the previous discussions about map sizes I remember, since all those have been based on a couple of cherry picked examples (on both sides). It's actually somewhat self-depreciating, because I knew fully well that I hadn't put in the effort to back up my claims with much data in those discussions.
tsassi wrote:
You treat everything I say as a claim to be debunked.
Debunking requires there to be purely facts. Here we're dealing with opinions and perspectives; while facts may be used - such as the actual speeds of Spartans in-game - to either support or criticise an opinion, I can't rationally debunk your opinion. Nor did I try to, I only expressed my rationale for why I disagree with the perspective that Sprint is a reduction or limitation.

Quote:
"A new stabilization firmware in the GEN3 armor allows the wearer aim accurately even when running at full speed. Improvements to the force multiplying circuits also enable the wearer to perform strafe and backtracking maneuvers without sacrificing speed, allowing them to keep sight on the enemy in any situation."

Done. No rewriting needed, just a new set of armor that Halo Infinite already has. Of course, if you have strong pro-sprint bias, you may not like this, but the truth is that it's completely consistent with all established canon.
Perhaps, but it's also completely unnecessary. All that you've really done here is create a write in for an increase of BMS. Which, as expressed, isn't the issue or a solution; Sprint allows players to go faster, just not all the time.

Quote:
And 343i could retcon that at any moment if they needed to. See what I mean with the lore being arbitrary?
I think we both know that's not realistic. 343i could also retcon that the Covenant is capable of Dungeon's & Dragon's style magic, the Master Chief is actually a demon from the Seven7h layer of Hell, and Cortana is a faerie of the The Seelie Court. But they won't, and they "can't", because that's really not what Halo is. Neither are the Spartans capable of those speeds because it is unrealistic within the established Universe. It's much more than just what a writer can do, and entirely with what fits.

Quote:
Going from a fungus that infects insects fo Flood is like going from horses to unicorns.
Not really, no. Because Ophiocordyceps unilateralis behaves just like the Flood to a terrifying degree. It physically infects the ant (just like an Infection Form), and alters its biology and behavior patterns. Just like the Flood. It's also augments the ant's bite strength (just as the Flood augments physical strength of it's Combat Forms), and spreads throughout the ant colony through fungal spores. Like Flood Spores.

Point being that one of the more fantastical elements of Halo - bordering on straight Fantasy (as a genre) - has strong roots and inspiration in horrifying scientific fact.

Quote:
I'm not afraid to admit that I still lack on the understanding part. I still don't understand what parts of the sprint mechanic are important to you and why. When I suggest a walk button, it's a genuine suggestion to the "more dynamic range of control", and so is "just crouch". I can say that I honestly don't understand why people prefer a separate button for moving at different speeds, and why it needs to be the higher speed that's locked behind a button press.
I've read your whole post before going in to reply, so I'm going to keep trying to convey my perspective here with you. Skipping forward a bit - I overreacted.

Having sprint be the "extra" rather than a walk button is more optimal because it makes more biological sense. We spend most of our natural time either walking or jogging, sometimes running, and very rarely sprinting. In a given week, I can think of one or two instances where I've actually sprinted - usually to get out of an unfavorable situation like a downpour, or to get to a certain point faster than normal. Sprint as a game mechanic mimics this biological function (satisfying psychological familiarity,) and comes more naturally because it is so rarely used.

To assign a "walk button" would be a psychological step backwards. A massive one. It would be on-par with Alone In The Dark's mechanic of having to manually click the Left Stick to blink. Not only this, but you mentioned that Halo is a game structured around movement, and specifically fast movement. Not so much Aggresive Forward Combat like DOOM, but fast movement all the same. The BMS has stayed relatively the same (and gotten 2 mph faster in Halo 5,) so it's not like Halo is really slower. Given that fast movement is Halo's direction, it makes more sense to have a button dedicated to speed, rather than slowing down.

Quote:
I don't really understand why not having these limitations wouldn't make people feel more like super soldiers. It seems extremely strange to me that people want to move like a super soldier in every other regard, but then they want to run like a normal human. It's something I really can't reconcile.
I'd have to time myself, but I really don't think I can run 15 mph. Maybe when I'm sprinting, but definitely not 23 mph for that. And I'm not being sarcastic here, I really don't think I can move like a Spartan how we do in the game, even in the Original Trilogy.

Increasing the speed to what Sprint is, isn't about immersion or anything like that. It's about control. I remember increasing movement speeds in Halo 3 and Halo Reach, just to introduce some chaos, and that's exactly what it was. Halo 3, we needed to use nothing but automatic weapons to have any chance at hitting anyone. Playing on maps like The Pit or High Ground were clear out, as there wasn't enough space; we had to opt for maps like Valhalla and Sandtrap. In Halo Reach, it caused a lot of chaos with Firefight, and practically necessitated using explosives and invincibility.

Removing Sprint probably wouldn't affect much. But it would be incredibly jarring. Even now, going back to the Original Trilogy, my friends and I (I can't speak for everyone) constantly try to Sprint at given times. It's a constant effort to remember that we can't. In a similar fashion, going back to play the original Halo 3 (and Halo 3: ODST) is a jarring experience, having to re-train that RB is the button to reload, use vehicles, and pick up weapons. I'm grateful for the MCC here, as I can map universal controls and have it set to the X button as is standard.

Quote:
I was referring specifically to the argument regarding map sizes. Prior to Snockooz, no one had, to my knowledge, ran as many maps in an effort to study the map sizes.
I apologize for that, then.
Excuse me, "extra" mechanic? You mean core mechanic, right? Because that's what you said.
Let me clarify for you: A core mechanic in that it is integral to how a Spartan can cover ground in Halo (circa 2010,) treated as "extra" or a "boost" in that you don't need to travel 23 mph all the time. In the same regard, crouching is a core mechanic; it's been in every single Halo game. It's an extra mechanic to movement as you don't always need to crouch.

Compare this to, as I said and which you even quote, ancillary abilities like Spartan Charge and sliding. It's really not that hard to understand what I was saying, Vegeto.
I view a core mechanic as something the game is heavily designed for or around. It's not a seen as boost or extra because the rest of the level/game isn't designed that way, regardless of how a "human" actually functions.

As Tsassi said earlier, pacing and level design is mostly around the maximum speed the player can move at that point in time, since most people are going to opt for that speed when given the chance. Anything slower than maximum speed is more often than not due to personal player choice - unless the game requires you to use it.

You brought up crouch - yes, 90% of the time it is a personal player choice. The game isn't designed around crouch, the sandbox functions the same with or without it, and not only are stealth moments few and far in between, but most of those stealth moments don't require you to crouch or even succeed in stealth in the first place.

You brought up vehicles in Halo or The Ark - yes, not using a vehicle is a player choice against what the level is designed for. The game puts it in front of you, marks a nav point on it, yells at you for not using it, and in the former case, teaches you how to use it. Sure, the player can choose to ignore all of that and go on foot, but when they complain that it's too slow and tedious, they have no one to blame but their own choice (nor will Sprint even solve the issue anyway because you don't run as fast as a Warthog).

The same way you say wanting to do things at maximum speed is an unrealistic personal problem, so is wanting a whole mechanic to work around pushing a stick part of the way. It's just one sides being catered to and not the other, and here we are back to that pesky "no compromise" that rears its head.

So I don't view Sprint as an "extra" ability because there's nothing extra about it. It's the maximum speed the player can go and therefore the speed most players will go, and map designers know that. The only reason people use this "Base Movement Speed" as much as they do because mechanics were removed from the maximum speed and left at the gate. That's not a player choice, otherwise I should still be allowed to choose to use those mechanics while sprinting, but I can't because apparently lore & realism get in the way, but those arent important for the half dozen other "immersion breaking" things in the series.
Quote:
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.
No, at this point it wouldn't be easy at all. The Spartans are canonically founded, right from the very beginning in fact, as being very agile and capable of great speeds due not only to the mechanical augmentation of their MJOLNIR armor, but also their biological augmentations. The modern representation is living up to what Spartans should be more than the "Classic Games" did. To "explain sprint away" would involve completely re-writing what the Spartans are.
Wrong.
Spartan-II's not only being able to shoot while sprinting but retaining full accuracy while doing so has been well-established in Halo lore for more than a decade.
Recent Halo games have sprint speeds of roughly ~12m/s which is lower than the speeds at which Spartan-II's have been documented to be able to sprint and still keep full combat capabilities.
15m/s in Halo Legends, for example.
Reach got away with it as you were playing Spartan-III's which are/were generally weaker than their preceding generation.
An argument could also be made for Spartan-IV's not reaching the full potential they would have gotten if augmented as children, although 343 claims they are on the exact same level as II's.
As for Chief in the campaigns, however, sprint in its current implementation in the games goes directly against canon as it arbitrarily forces your weapon down for what is essentially a fast stroll.
Removing sprint (and upping the BMS) would finally reconcile a huge contradiction that the recent games had with the overall lore of the universe.
@Snockooz

Here's my response to your analysis of the map sizes, and my improved analysis.

I want to start with by saying that "map size" as it relates to sprint is a thorny concept. Total floor area is the most natural measure of "map size", but not only is it difficult to measure in practice. That's why we have to use other quantities, and the choice of a quantity that's feasible to measure consistently and meaningful is difficult.

This brings me to the first issue with your data. The time to travel from one point to another only makes sense if it directly follows a definite axis of the map, and travels through the whole map. These conditions are only fulfilled by a few maps to a reasonable extent. For the rest of the maps, the choice of path is too arbitrary and inconsistent. This is the reason maps like The Pit, Haven, and Truth are often referenced: they're symmetric maps with well defined axes that everyone can agree on. This is also a reason that has deterred me from testing more maps in the past.

The issue with the method for other maps is very apparent in your video on Adrift. You choose one path that runs via one side of Adrift, but the distance between your starting and end point on this map isn't related in any meaningful way to the distance between your starting and end point on, say, Truth for example. It's not the longest straight line between two points on the map, it's not the shortest. It's just an arbitrary, relatively straight path on the map that is easy to run.

Another, though far less severe, issue with running maps is that since different games have different base movement speeds, the travel times don't immediately tell us anything about the relative map sizes.

To resolve these issues, instead of running through the maps with a stop watch, I measure distances directly using the in-game coordinates (accessible via a button combination). Then, to get a consistent quantity that doesn't depend on an arbitrary choice for a given map, I measure two distances: the length of the map projected along the X axis, and the length of the map projected along the Y axis. Whichever is larger I label the "long axis" and the smaller I label the "short axis". I stress that what I care most about here is consistency, and removing arbitrary choice of "where should I run on this particular map" that can introduce bias into the results. I don't care that much whether my choice seems "natural" in any meaningful way.

The other issue I had was your map choices. for the most part I understand why you didn't use certain large maps. However, I don't understand why you left out Landfall (accident?), I think Breakout maps should also be included in the analysis, and I don't agree with the decision to lump Halo 5 remixes with each other (while Molten as a remix of The Rig). Remixes are not the same as the original maps. They aren't necessarily even the same size, so they need to be included.

The method

So, for my analysis:
  • I measured the long and short axis (as described above) on every map in Halo 3, 4, and 5. For purposes of reproducbility I give the exact standards I used to find the points: For a given axis, I need the smallest and largest value of the coordinate along that axis such that it is located within the playable area. The "playable area" here is wherever the player can stand perpetually without falling, getting killed eventually, or getting pushed by an invisible wall. Hence, if there's a railing at the edge of the map, I stand on the furthest point of it such that there is geometry under the center of my charcter (center being the single point that represents the character's position).
  • I split the maps into a variety of subsets for which I computed relevant "typical" values for the long and short axes.
  • To be precise, for the "typical value" I used the median of the data, because it deals with outliers better than the mean. So, one really long map isn't suddenly going to make the "typical long axis" really large. If you dlslike medians, feel free to compute means, I won't.
With that in mind, all the data I gathered can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWpekId_iiUPAlZ8lXGu_2zMz0QplLXv/view

NOTE: There are a couple of Halo 5 Forge BTB maps marked with C, which I call "crooked axis", in the data. On these maps the "natural axes" you'd deduce from the map's design don't align with the coordinate axes for some reason. This means that the above method won't be faithful to the actual shape of the map. This is only significant for Basin, which is at a 45 degree angle from the coordinate axes. It sits duplicate in the data because I tried to fix this. It didn't work out, but I didn't bother removing it from the data because it's a BTB map, so it doesn't have any impact on the important results.

The results

The relevant results can be found in the table at the bottom of the above file which lists the ratios of median axis lengths and minimum axis lengths of Halo 4 and 5 relative to Halo 3 to signify the difference in typical map size. These ratios are listed in the following scenarios:
  1. When all maps are included
  2. When maps denoted as BTB and medium are excluded (denoted \BM in the text file)
  3. When BTB, medium, and Breakout maps are excluded (denoted \BbM)
  4. When only maps that appear in the Snockooz data set are included (denoted \BbMS)
  5. When only maps that appear in the Snockooz data set are included, and all remixes are excluded (denoted \BbMRS)
The crucial result is in that in almost all of the above scenarios both the median long axis and the median short axis are longer in Halo 4 and Halo 5 than they are in Halo 3. The single exception is the "all maps included" Halo 5/Halo 3 ratio for the long axis, which is 0.975 (i.e., Halo 3 is longer). This is explained by the fact that in Halo 3 the number of BTB maps relative to arena maps is greater than in Halo 5. Apart from that, all the ratios are greater than 1, i.e., the median map length in Halo 4 and 5 is greater than the median map length in Halo 3. This supports the claim that the typical 4v4 arena map in Halo 4 and 5 is larger than the typical 4v4 arena map in Halo 3; that is, average arena map sizes have grown with the introduction of sprint.
As in we all have to walk around really slowly and such?
Yh not a fan of the walking around if you ask me ahah!
Perhaps, but it's also completely unnecessary. All that you've really done here is create a write in for an increase of BMS.
Oh, I agree. But I only came up with the explanation because you and other anti-sprinters always come up with "but it wouldn't fit the lore" in the first place. That was your argument: "to 'explain sprint away' would involve completely re-writing what the Spartans are", wasn't it? I simply demonstrated nothing would need to be rewritten. As far as I'm concerned, sprint could be removed without any explanation whatsoever. With that said, I don't think it would hurt to give one to those who seek it.

Quote:
And 343i could retcon that at any moment if they needed to. See what I mean with the lore being arbitrary?
I think we both know that's not realistic.
No, but making Spartans aim and move freely at maximum speed is, as I demonstrated above.

Not really, no. Because Ophiocordyceps unilateralis behaves just like the Flood to a terrifying degree. It physically infects the ant (just like an Infection Form), and alters its biology and behavior patterns. Just like the Flood. It's also augments the ant's bite strength (just as the Flood augments physical strength of it's Combat Forms), and spreads throughout the ant colony through fungal spores. Like Flood Spores.
I hope you understand the orders of magnitude difference in complexity of the human nervous system versus the ant nervous system. You're long way away from fungal infections to sentient mushrooms.

Point being that one of the more fantastical elements of Halo - bordering on straight Fantasy (as a genre) - has strong roots and inspiration in horrifying scientific fact.
The key word is "inspiration". Of course elements in fiction are often inspired by reality, but that hardly says anything about how realistic these elements are. Or do you also think it's reasonable that there might be giant sentient robots out there transforming into cars, since that's what Transformers is all about, and cars surely exist? Inspiration from reality is not the same as realism.

I've read your whole post before going in to reply, so I'm going to keep trying to convey my perspective here with you. Skipping forward a bit - I overreacted.

Having sprint be the "extra" rather than a walk button is more optimal because it makes more biological sense. We spend most of our natural time either walking or jogging, sometimes running, and very rarely sprinting. In a given week, I can think of one or two instances where I've actually sprinted - usually to get out of an unfavorable situation like a downpour, or to get to a certain point faster than normal. Sprint as a game mechanic mimics this biological function (satisfying psychological familiarity,) and comes more naturally because it is so rarely used.
I guess I can see how that would make sense to someone. Although it's a completely alien point of view to me. But is this the thing that makes sprint fun to you? This parallel to your experience as a regular human?

Not only this, but you mentioned that Halo is a game structured around movement, and specifically fast movement. Not so much Aggresive Forward Combat like DOOM, but fast movement all the same. The BMS has stayed relatively the same (and gotten 2 mph faster in Halo 5,) so it's not like Halo is really slower. Given that fast movement is Halo's direction, it makes more sense to have a button dedicated to speed, rather than slowing down.
It's not that simple. It's the relation of movement and combat that makes Halo "structured around movement". You see, in many other shooters, especially nowadays, movement and combat are essentially two separate modes: you put your gun down and sprint where you want to go, and when you see an opponent you more or less stop to zoom (i.e., at the very least walk really slowly) either because iron sights force you to, or because at a higher speed your accuracy would be terrible. It's this kind of stop-move-stop-move type of gameplay. There's little interplay between movement and combat.

In contrast, in many old school shooters, like Halo, you can move and shoot at the same time very freely. You can jump and strafe during encounters. You can kill opponents while swiftly making your way around the map. There's this deep interplay between how you move and how you fight. Encounters aren't won by who sees who first, but by who has the best strafe. Being able to shoot at opponents or prevent them from moving by carefully placed grenades while also making your way to a better position is key to success. It's always move-move-move.

An ability like sprint that prevents the player from shooting at maximum speed is antithetical to this kind of gameplay, because suddenly they need to decide whether they want to move around effectively, or whether they want to fight. That is not to say it's completely dead. Of course strafing is still there, jumping is still there. However, the shooting while going somewhere isn't. The player needs to shift away from combat if they want to get somewhere fast. It decreases the interplay between movement and combat.

I'd have to time myself, but I really don't think I can run 15 mph. Maybe when I'm sprinting, but definitely not 23 mph for that. And I'm not being sarcastic here, I really don't think I can move like a Spartan how we do in the game, even in the Original Trilogy.
Sorry, when I said "run like a normal human", I meant being unable to shoot accurately while moving at maximum speed. To me this is just such a feature that separates a super soldier from just better than average soldier. In classic Halo, that's how I always saw it: I'm running as fast as I can while mowing down enemies at perfect accuracy. I could reconcile the gameplay movement speed with the canon speed of Spartans, because obviously they can't have the player flying through the battlefield at 15 m/s from a gameplay standpoint. The gameplay can't be 100% faithful to the lore, because that wouldn't necessarily make for a very fun experience.

Then came along sprint and broke that. Suddenly we have these weak Spartan III's who can't even keep their weapons up at full speed. That's how I perceived it.
As I have stated before, I am a fan of H5's enhanced movement, and the strategy of using sprint when needed like H4. If there is a reason for Chief losing the ability to sprint, fine. Don't just throw it away for no reason.
There seems to be a couple of different fronts this is being argued from, lore, map scaling and such. I don't need to chip in on those arguments as they're already off on their own tangents, but one being thrown around i could add my 2c is compromise.

Aside from anti-sprinters being thrown to the side somewhat in Reach (there were multiple non-AA playlists during the lifespan of Reach), and in 4 and 5, i haven't heard any good compromise offers aside from 'stay in your corner' and 'play MCC' in the 7-ish years i've commented here. Actually there has been 1, which was to give the ability to shoot while sprinting..but that in turn makes regular speed redundant and a 2-tier movement system unnecessary.

Alas there are 2 arguements, sprint for multiplayer and sprint for campaign. Since multiplayer is easier to argue imo i'll tackle that one first.

Multiplayer - In CE, 2, 3, non-AA Reach and even comp settings H4 you can move AND shoot, sprint is only good for running away and repositioning, when on a losing situation you have a strong option on your side and it's all at the press of a button. Even with a nerfed sprint the power to evade is strong and this comes at the direct cost of aggressive, action-heavy gameplay. Halo maps are not large, even BTB maps are small compared to other large-scale games, the maps were designed compact and cover-dense, there is not a need for long traversal as the action is always close-by. In any 4v4 map action is always less than 10 seconds away at all times, many maps it is straight off spawn. The shields and health, longer killtime weapons and the need to fight for map resources and positioning set it apart from other sprint games which are reactionary and instantaneous, where all power is off-spawn. Halo could take up another style but it has to sacrifice that style of play to do so, 343 seem very keen to lead on those of us who enjoy the classic style, only to disappoint. If they outright said they had no intent to satisfy that part of the community then it wouldn't be a problem, they just won't because of the fallout that would bring. A compromise cannot happen in multiplayer if all of the classic crowd want to be able to move AND shoot, despite it sounding trivial it's the underpinning of the pacing and flow of how Halo plays, sprint stops that.

Campaign - How has sprint affected the campaign gameplay of 4 or 5? Halo is quite a scenic game so the slower moments were intentionally designed that way in Bungie Halo, otherwise the same thing applies, move and shoot. More expansive areas were designed for vehicular play, no other shooter game has done vehicles better than Halo and i don't feel skeptical in claiming that, and tight areas don't require sprint. Never in 4 or 5 or Reach for that instance did i sprint and think "wow i'm having fun", in those games there seemed to be a lot more empty connector moments where sprint was a necessity. The value of sprint in these campaigns could be seen as a benchmark, the more i was sprinting the less fun i was a part of. The other element of fun found in the old campaigns were challenges that made you stuck at a section, they were unique puzzles to solve. Maybe you didn't have enough ammo or had the wrong gun, trying to run past it was hard but not impossible. Regardless it forced the player to be inventive and creative, now you just need a button press nearly all the time, running past a challenge is easy by comparison, even on legendary.

Does the value or need of movement options have to come at the cost of being able to move AND shoot?..probably not, but sprint cannot be a compromise and bridge that difference. Someone could argue against it, but i regard those 2 things as the most key element of both sides of the argument (from a gameplay perspective), a compromise would have to satisfy both factors.
tsassi wrote:
Another, though far less severe, issue with running maps is that since different games have different base movement speeds, the travel times don't immediately tell us anything about the relative map sizes.
This is my biggest problem with your methodology.

tsassi wrote:
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.
The point I was making is that the time it takes for the player to move to a location of interest while moving at Base movement speed hasn’t changed. If the Maps aren’t larger relative to the base movement speed then they aren’t larger because of sprint.

So, Here's the actual movement speeds..

Halo 3
7 to -5.992(12.992m) in 5.56 secs
218.966 m/m or 2.336 m/s

Map sizes
------------------------------long axis ---------------short axis
minimum ------------24.952(10.681 sec) ------17.019(7.285 sec)
minimum\BM " "
minimum\BMS " "

maximum ----------121.562(52.038 sec) -----106.362(45.531 sec)
maximum\BM------68.950(29.516 sec) -------50.881(21.781 sec)
maximum\BMS ---62.480(26.746 sec) -------43.853(18.772 sec)

Halo 4
7 to -6.057(13.057m) in 6.10 sec
128.429 m/m 2.140 m/s

Map sizes
------------------------------long axis ---------------short axis
minimum ----------38.190(17.845 sec) ----26.137(12.213 sec)
minimum\BM " "
minimum\BMS " "

maximum ---------119.060(55.635 sec) ---76.043(35.534 sec)
maximum\BM----- 68.052(31.800 sec) ----51.628(24.125 sec)
maximum\BMS " "

Halo 5
7 to -6.065(13.065m) in 5.12 secs
153.105 m/m or 2.551 m/s

Map sizes
------------------------------long axis ---------------short axis
minimum -----------31.848(12.484 sec) -----18.713(7.335 sec)
minimum\BM " "
minimum\BbM " ----------------------------------23.688(9.285 sec)
minimum\BbMS " "
minimum\BbMRS -35.946(14.090 sec) ------29.428(11.535 sec)

maximum ----------115.326(45.208 sec) ------95.093(37.276 sec)
maximum\BM------ 64.564(25.309 sec) ------40.734(15.967 sec)
maximum\BbM ----64.564(25.309 sec)------ 40.734(15.967 sec)
maximum\BbMS " "
maximum\BbMRS " "

It should be noted, I am using the default slayer setting for each game. Halo 3's and 5's movement for Slayer is set to default aka 100%. However, Halo 4's is set to 110% for it's default infinity and rumble Slayer settings.
I’m not going to do the times for all the maps as the math is very easy, so if you want them you can do the math yourself.

So based on this Halo 4’s maps are larger relative to base movement speed, as both the maximum and minimum are larger. However, Halo 5’s maps still fall well within the maximum and minimum ranges set by Halo 3.
So the new question becomes, Why is Halo 4’s maps so much bigger than Halo 5’s when Halo 5 has far more movement mechanics and infinite sprint? If non infinite sprint forces maps to be larger, wouldn't infinite sprint force maps to be even larger than that?

Another Problem is that your using the median of the maps to judge. To reiterate a point I already made. All of these maps fall within the ranges set by Halo 3. Halo 5’s maps especially. There aren’t any 4v4 maps that are bigger than 4v4 maps in Halo 3. This is still the case with the evidence you provided. Yes there aren’t any extremely small maps but the lack of small maps is not evidence of maps in general being bigger. If this was then case the maximum sized non BTB maps for H5 and H4 would also be larger. There is also no evidence to indicate that the lack of small maps is because of sprint.

Also, next time please provide a screenshot or something showing where you got your numbers.
Snockooz wrote:
The point I was making is that the time it takes for the player to move to a location of interest while moving at Base movement speed hasn’t changed. If the Maps aren’t larger relative to the base movement speed then they aren’t larger because of sprint.
But it has. Take the Halo 4 in the scenario where we ignore medium sized and BTB maps, for instance. The long axis of Halo 4 maps is on average 1.23 times larger than of Halo 3 maps (1.493 for the short axis). Halo 4 default (i.e., 100%) BMS is 2.2 WU/s, whereas Halo 3 is 2.25. So, if the maps in Halo 4 are larger in absolute size, they are definitely larger relative to the BMS.

Yes, I know in many gametypes Halo 4 has BMS set to 110% these days. But the game was originally designed for a slower BMS than Halo 3, so the statement "map sizes have been increased relative to the BMS" still holds for the BMS the maps were designed for. Whether 343i later decided that they should raise the BMS is besides the point.

But even if we take the increase in BMS into account, because it's only a 10% increase, we're actually still left with larger maps relative to BMS, because in Halo 4, in any scenario, the median axis lengths are at least 23% longer than in Halo 3.

In Halo 5 you have a slightly messier story, because the median long axis is (in the \BM scenario) 7% longer, and 13% longer for the \BbMS scenario. And since the BMS is 15.6% larger in Halo 5, relative to the BMS, sure, it's not obviously larger. However, we should keep in mind that Halo 5 maps are more square than Halo 3 maps, seen from the median short axis scores (the median short axis of Halo 5 maps is always at least 24% longer). This still holds relative to BMS, so the area of Halo 5 maps, relative to BMS, is still larger.

I do have to say that debating over whether the Halo 5 maps are larger because of sprint, or because of the higher BMS is a futile exercise. For example, we could ask: if Halo 5 was designed from the beginning without sprint, and for a BMS of 2.6 WU/s, would we see the same scaling in map size? Would we see longer median axes than in Halo 3? That's a purely hypothetical question. But hypothetically, that sort of increase in maximum speed could be absorbed into map design changes that don't have to do with absolute size, and into statistical uncertainty (because the map designers obviously aren't designing with any median map size in mind). That's why even though Halo 5 sprint speed is 50% larger than the Halo 3 BMS, it would be naive to expect the median map axes to actually be 50% longer. The scaling isn't that simple. There are other ways you can combat the effects of an increase in maximum speed.

In that sense, sure, I can concede that I can't prove map sizes in Halo 5 are larger because of sprint. But then again, that's not necessarily the argument I want to make. You see, it's just that if the speeds at which players move increases, and developers want to retain a certain pace of gameplay, then at some point, given enough speed, they will have to make larger maps. The reason for the speed increase doesn't really matter, just that you have to adapt your map design to the faster movement speed somehow.

If I concede that I can't absolutely prove the map sizes to be larger because of sprint. Would you be willing to concede that you can't prove this to be false?

I'm not going to say conceding I can't prove something necessarily changes anything about my arguments. The reality is that as someone who has built maps, and understands how map design works, I know that sometimes I need to ask: "how fast can the player get from here to there?" And that question is exactly about the maximum speed at which the player can move between these points. From that point of view, I find the idea that increasing the maximum speed of players by 50% would not affect map design kind of nonsensical.

Snockooz wrote:
If this was then case the maximum sized non BTB maps for H5 and H4 would also be larger.
Not necessarily, because we have only two data points (largest small maps in Halo 4 and 5) here to compare to one (largest small map in Halo 3). Even if we can agree on what the largest small map in each game is, a map designer working on one game could have gone "You know what. I'm gonna make a huge--Yoink- 4v4 map with no vehicles" and the designers in another game could've focused on the smaller end of the small map spectrum. This is exactly the reason I didn't expect 50% upscaling from the Halo 5 median size, and why I didn't put too much focus on analyzing the smallest maps, just noted them because I was personally curious.

Snockooz wrote:
Also, next time please provide a screenshot or something showing where you got your numbers.
I provide videos and pictures where I think it's relevant and helpful, because I know it comforts people. However, I have explained my methodology and how I got my numbers, I'm happy to assist anyone who wants to challenge my data, and I can explain my methods in more detail and help anyone understand them better. I will do what I can to help people reproduce my results, but I don't generally subscribe to the internet mentality of "pics or it didn't happen". In this case, I would just have a library of 200 boring pictures where I'm standing in various corners of maps and my coordinates are on the screen. I don't feel like taking those pictures would be worthwhile use of my time, or that looking at those pictures would be worthwhile use of anyone else's time.
tsassi wrote:
I'm not going to say conceding I can't prove something necessarily changes anything about my arguments. The reality is that as someone who has built maps, and understands how map design works, I know that sometimes I need to ask: "how fast can the player get from here to there?" And that question is exactly about the maximum speed at which the player can move between these points. From that point of view, I find the idea that increasing the maximum speed of players by 50% would not affect map design kind of nonsensical.
While Sprinting is the maximum speed of the players, its not the default speed. In halo, Kill time are much higher than in say COD. When you are in Combat or know your going to be in combat usually your not sprinting(unless your trying to get a spartan change). Maps have to be design for this in mind as well.
I honestly liked the Spartan thrust ability and if it's not a base mechanic 343 should put an option in custom games.
Snockooz wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I'm not going to say conceding I can't prove something necessarily changes anything about my arguments. The reality is that as someone who has built maps, and understands how map design works, I know that sometimes I need to ask: "how fast can the player get from here to there?" And that question is exactly about the maximum speed at which the player can move between these points. From that point of view, I find the idea that increasing the maximum speed of players by 50% would not affect map design kind of nonsensical.
While Sprinting is the maximum speed of the players, its not the default speed. In halo, Kill time are much higher than in say COD. When you are in Combat or know your going to be in combat usually your not sprinting(unless your trying to get a spartan change). Maps have to be design for this in mind as well.
Yes? That doesn't make anything I said less true.
I love Halo CE, 2, 3 and have been playing Halo since the original Xbox with Halo CE. I have played all of Halos multiplayer for CE to 5 and to tell the truth I love the old feel of Halo CE-3 but I don't see 343 getting rid of sprint here is why imo. We all know that the "old school players" want the "classic" Halo without sprint, etc. But honestly the bigger demographic that plays video games is not the "old school players" it's the young players that have grown up with COD and sprint, FORTNITE and sprint, PUBG and sprint. 343 is going to be targeting the bigger population of gamers and making a competitive game that these young players grew up playing. Sadly that has to include sprint. Honestly I played H5 at launch for about 2 months and because of the sprint and such I stopped playing but recently I came back and gave H5 a fair shake this time and I can honestly say that I actually enjoy the sprint mechanic (plz don't tear me apart I am all for "classic Halo") I just had to adjust to it just like anything new. Plus I have to admit also it gives Halo so much more possibilities in what you can do with it. You can sprint-thurst-slide-jump to get around the map faster to help a teammate in need or use it as a H5 "super jump" to get to high ground that you wouldn't be able to get to just by jumping or crouch jumping. I use this technique all the time now and others for map movement, getting to high ground, running away to stay alive, and more. Once I got use to these new mechanics I really do think that they make Halo better. We all have to come to grips that even if Bungie still made Halo they most likely would have added sprint as well because in what other ways would you evolve the gameplay? They don't want to release Halo after Halo with the same mechanics as the one before that and the 3 before that people would definitely get tired of the same recycled stuff. Also how would they appeal to the younger generation of players with such a "slow game" as a lot of them would put it?(HONESTLY IF YOU SPRINT IN HALO 5 FROM P1 TO P2 ON TRUTH(MIDSHIP) AND GO BACK TO H2 AND MOVE FROM P1 TO P2 AS FAST AS U COULD IT TAKES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IN BOTH GAMES NO MATTER WHAT, THE SPRINT DOESNT MAKE YOU GET TO P2 FASTER IN H5 BECAUSE OF HOW THE STAGES ARE PROPORTIONED, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME THERE IS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE A GUY MADE TO PROVE IT) If they did leave H5 with the "classic" movement then what could they have done to evolve Halo in the positive direction to please the old and new generation? ??
SG FeLLoN wrote:
I love Halo CE, 2, 3 and have been playing Halo since the original Xbox with Halo CE. I have played all of Halos multiplayer for CE to 5 and to tell the truth I love the old feel of Halo CE-3 but I don't see 343 getting rid of sprint here is why imo. We all know that the "old school players" want the "classic" Halo without sprint, etc. But honestly the bigger demographic that plays video games is not the "old school players" it's the young players that have grown up with COD and sprint, FORTNITE and sprint, PUBG and sprint. 343 is going to be targeting the bigger population of gamers and making a competitive game that these young players grew up playing. Sadly that has to include sprint. Honestly I played H5 at launch for about 2 months and because of the sprint and such I stopped playing but recently I came back and gave H5 a fair shake this time and I can honestly say that I actually enjoy the sprint mechanic (plz don't tear me apart I am all for "classic Halo") I just had to adjust to it just like anything new. Plus I have to admit also it gives Halo so much more possibilities in what you can do with it. You can sprint-thurst-slide-jump to get around the map faster to help a teammate in need or use it as a H5 "super jump" to get to high ground that you wouldn't be able to get to just by jumping or crouch jumping. I use this technique all the time now and others for map movement, getting to high ground, running away to stay alive, and more. Once I got use to these new mechanics I really do think that they make Halo better. We all have to come to grips that even if Bungie still made Halo they most likely would have added sprint as well because in what other ways would you evolve the gameplay? They don't want to release Halo after Halo with the same mechanics as the one before that and the 3 before that people would definitely get tired of the same recycled stuff. Also how would they appeal to the younger generation of players with such a "slow game" as a lot of them would put it?(HONESTLY IF YOU SPRINT IN HALO 5 FROM P1 TO P2 ON TRUTH(MIDSHIP) AND GO BACK TO H2 AND MOVE FROM P1 TO P2 AS FAST AS U COULD IT TAKES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IN BOTH GAMES NO MATTER WHAT, THE SPRINT DOESNT MAKE YOU GET TO P2 FASTER IN H5 BECAUSE OF HOW THE STAGES ARE PROPORTIONED, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME THERE IS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE A GUY MADE TO PROVE IT) If they did leave H5 with the "classic" movement then what could they have done to evolve Halo in the positive direction to please the old and new generation? ??
the majority you're referring to is actually quite minuscule in comparison the the halo players who have left due to 343's direction. halo hasn't offered a legitimate halo experience in almost a decade its time to return to form. NOT release halo 3 again, but return to form
As I have stated before, I am a fan of H5's enhanced movement, and the strategy of using sprint when needed like H4. If there is a reason for Chief losing the ability to sprint, fine. Don't just throw it away for no reason.
I don't think there necessarily has to be a reason to remove something other than the fact that many fans want halo to be classic again. I enjoyed halo 5 and 4 to an extent, but getting to play halo CE matchmaking through tmcc and seeing the excitement that all these halo 3 tournaments has garnered has made it more than clear to me that halo just plays better without sprint and maps are better for it too. Sprint is nothing more than a gimmick in halo. Maps are simply made larger to account for sprint, but the ability itself doesn't add anything to the game other than trying to be like other 1st person shooters, something halo has never been. The oooh wow I'm sprinting is just that, the appearance of something extra but that something doesn't make the game more complex. It just forces more abilities on the player to manage. Halo is awesome because it is simple but deep. Sprint makes halo less simple, detracting from what made the original games so awesome.
SG FeLLoN wrote:
I love Halo CE, 2, 3 and have been playing Halo since the original Xbox with Halo CE. I have played all of Halos multiplayer for CE to 5 and to tell the truth I love the old feel of Halo CE-3 but I don't see 343 getting rid of sprint here is why imo. We all know that the "old school players" want the "classic" Halo without sprint, etc. But honestly the bigger demographic that plays video games is not the "old school players" it's the young players that have grown up with COD and sprint, FORTNITE and sprint, PUBG and sprint. 343 is going to be targeting the bigger population of gamers and making a competitive game that these young players grew up playing. Sadly that has to include sprint. Honestly I played H5 at launch for about 2 months and because of the sprint and such I stopped playing but recently I came back and gave H5 a fair shake this time and I can honestly say that I actually enjoy the sprint mechanic (plz don't tear me apart I am all for "classic Halo") I just had to adjust to it just like anything new. Plus I have to admit also it gives Halo so much more possibilities in what you can do with it. You can sprint-thurst-slide-jump to get around the map faster to help a teammate in need or use it as a H5 "super jump" to get to high ground that you wouldn't be able to get to just by jumping or crouch jumping. I use this technique all the time now and others for map movement, getting to high ground, running away to stay alive, and more. Once I got use to these new mechanics I really do think that they make Halo better. We all have to come to grips that even if Bungie still made Halo they most likely would have added sprint as well because in what other ways would you evolve the gameplay? They don't want to release Halo after Halo with the same mechanics as the one before that and the 3 before that people would definitely get tired of the same recycled stuff. Also how would they appeal to the younger generation of players with such a "slow game" as a lot of them would put it?(HONESTLY IF YOU SPRINT IN HALO 5 FROM P1 TO P2 ON TRUTH(MIDSHIP) AND GO BACK TO H2 AND MOVE FROM P1 TO P2 AS FAST AS U COULD IT TAKES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IN BOTH GAMES NO MATTER WHAT, THE SPRINT DOESNT MAKE YOU GET TO P2 FASTER IN H5 BECAUSE OF HOW THE STAGES ARE PROPORTIONED, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME THERE IS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE A GUY MADE TO PROVE IT) If they did leave H5 with the "classic" movement then what could they have done to evolve Halo in the positive direction to please the old and new generation? ??
the majority you're referring to is actually quite minuscule in comparison the the halo players who have left due to 343's direction. halo hasn't offered a legitimate halo experience in almost a decade its time to return to form. NOT release halo 3 again, but return to form
Oh no! Two people making conflicting claims without any data to back them up. Who do we believe? The person with the pro-sprint agenda telling us that most players want sprint, or the person with the anti-sprint agenda telling us that most players don't want sprint?
SG FeLLoN wrote:
Honestly I played H5 at launch for about 2 months and because of the sprint and such I stopped playing but recently I came back and gave H5 a fair shake this time and I can honestly say that I actually enjoy the sprint mechanic (plz don't tear me apart I am all for "classic Halo") I just had to adjust to it just like anything new.
I'm genuinely happy for you that you enjoy the gameplay with sprint. However, do not confuse practice with preference. I had almost a decade to "adjust" to sprint in Halo and in multiplayer I generally do better in games with sprint than without. That doesn't change the fact that I still dislike it as much as I did on the very first day during the Reach Beta (possibly even more).

SG FeLLoN wrote:
Plus I have to admit also it gives Halo so much more possibilities in what you can do with it. You can sprint-thurst-slide-jump to get around the map faster to help a teammate in need or use it as a H5 "super jump" to get to high ground that you wouldn't be able to get to just by jumping or crouch jumping.
Some very situational applications that require the map to be designed a certain way, all the while gimping what the player can do overall while moving at max speed.
A pretty bad tradeoff if you ask me.

SG FeLLoN wrote:
We all have to come to grips that even if Bungie still made Halo they most likely would have added sprint as well because in what other ways would you evolve the gameplay?
Why would you even change the gameplay at all? I have never seen the need for that.
On the contrary, in economic terms, you're jeopardizing your brand recognition doing that.
Furthermore, in what way is sprint "evolving" the gameplay? The mechanic is literally more than three decades old. Older than Halo.
Even putting all of that aside, there are ways of "evolving" Halo's gameplay without butchering Run'n'Gun. Thrusters were actually not a bad idea. Double jump or wallkicks have been suggested. And, of course, new weapons and map features (i.e. gravity shifts, interactive elements, etc.)

SG FeLLoN wrote:
They don't want to release Halo after Halo with the same mechanics as the one before that and the 3 before that people would definitely get tired of the same recycled stuff.
Gameplay-wise, there was hardly any change between Halo 2 and 3, and the latter to this day is still the best-selling title of the series. And before dropping Reach on us (which was a trial run for Destiny anyways), they even went backwards first: ODST was pretty much identical to Halo CE. Health system came back, dual wielding was gone, they even tried to recreate the weapon sandbox by empowering the pistol and adding the brute plasma rifle (that feels more like the CE plasma rifle in terms of fire rate and damage output than its actual successors).

SG FeLLoN wrote:
Also how would they appeal to the younger generation of players with such a "slow game" as a lot of them would put it?
Putting aside the fact that this question is based on the wild assumption that the younger generation would not like "slow" games, the solution is pretty simple: Increase the base movement speed.

SG FeLLoN wrote:
(HONESTLY IF YOU SPRINT IN HALO 5 FROM P1 TO P2 ON TRUTH(MIDSHIP) AND GO BACK TO H2 AND MOVE FROM P1 TO P2 AS FAST AS U COULD IT TAKES THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IN BOTH GAMES NO MATTER WHAT, THE SPRINT DOESNT MAKE YOU GET TO P2 FASTER IN H5 BECAUSE OF HOW THE STAGES ARE PROPORTIONED, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME THERE IS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE A GUY MADE TO PROVE IT)
Yes. That's actually the problem. The one thing sprint is supposed to do - get you places faster - it doesn't, because the maps have grown to compensate. What it does instead is actually slow down the gameplay, because you can't shoot while going at the speed the maps are intended for and have to slow down so you can fight. Between fights you're usually running through giant wastelands devoid of players. Matches between pro players have been timed and during the original trilogy, more kills were done in a shorter time than in tournaments using the 343 games.

EDIT: Almost didn't see this one...
SG FeLLoN wrote:
But honestly the bigger demographic that plays video games is not the "old school players" it's the young players that have grown up with COD and sprint, FORTNITE and sprint, PUBG and sprint.
You know that the average age of video gamers is 35 and 70% of players are 18 and above?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 150
  4. 151
  5. 152
  6. 153
  7. 154
  8. ...
  9. 156