Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 222
  4. 223
  5. 224
  6. 225
  7. 226
  8. ...
  9. 275
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
RollCats wrote:
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
Not the guy you quoted, but this was part of a post I made a few pages back:
Quote:
I know Naqser has proposed new mechanics like modular Forerunner weapons (with different component combos giving different results), alternate firing modes for weapons (similar to the Plasma Pistol and Light Rifle), exploring the potential for “zero-gravity” areas (which were hardly utilized in Reach), more dynamic maps (with map layouts/effects changing by timers, buttons/triggers, or both). Imagine playing Slayer on a space station where the artificial gravity is on the fritz or can be sabotaged by players. Imagine a match of CTF where the paths and sight lines transition as Forerunner architecture rearranges itself. These are the kinds of ideas that excite and inspire.
You don't have 5? Can't you just go into forge and try it with a friend?
Don't get me wrong , to jump at someone with melee is still something to behold. I think others percieve it as more powerful since it is very easy to practice with. I would buff its attack slightly with a bigger knockback but with a sacrificing a half of your own shields. I would replace sprint with a burts sprint like in gow, rather than a cod sprint.
For groundpound, I know what iam saying is a good argument to replace with something. Even from a lore persepective; it's not something a spartan would do without aid of equipment imo.

It just drives my nuts to see it passed off as fact that it's a super cheap mechanic when in reality it requires a luck to skill ration where luck is too big a determing factor. The only way to pull it off on a awake player is if they don't see you coming. I believe where me and others disagree is that it should be replaced not removed.
A6ENT C wrote:
RollCats wrote:
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
Not the guy you quoted, but this was part of a post I made a few pages back:
Quote:
I know Naqser has proposed new mechanics like modular Forerunner weapons (with different component combos giving different results), alternate firing modes for weapons (similar to the Plasma Pistol and Light Rifle), exploring the potential for “zero-gravity” areas (which were hardly utilized in Reach), more dynamic maps (with map layouts/effects changing by timers, buttons/triggers, or both). Imagine playing Slayer on a space station where the artificial gravity is on the fritz or can be sabotaged by players. Imagine a match of CTF where the paths and sight lines transition as Forerunner architecture rearranges itself. These are the kinds of ideas that excite and inspire.
Good points. And movement? Maybe I should have been more specific. Should movement never change? What types of ideas are considered properly Halo?
Korgoth wrote:
You don't have 5? Can't you just go into forge and try it with a friend?
Don't get me wrong , to jump at someone with melee is still something to behold. I think others percieve it as more powerful since it is very easy to practice with. I would buff its attack slightly with a bigger knockback but with a sacrificing a half of your own shields. I would replace sprint with a burts sprint like in gow, rather than a cod sprint.
For groundpound, I know what iam saying is a good argument to replace with something. Even from a lore persepective; it's not something a spartan would do without aid of equipment imo.

It just drives my nuts to see it passed off as fact that it's a super cheap mechanic when in reality it requires a luck to skill ration where luck is too big a determing factor. The only way to pull it off on a awake player is if they don't see you coming. I believe where me and others disagree is that it should be replaced not removed.
I'm just trying to state facts to ensure we are all on the same page and the community is informed. Everything I've ever experienced or read about regarding charge is that it's more powerful. I've provided a decently reliable source. It's not worth my time to address it further unless you can provide documentation otherwise.

Either way, it doesn't seem to be a base mechanic in Infinite.
shawnk9512 wrote:
You said lack of supply equals lack of demand
I did no such thing.
On the contrary, I said "lack of supply is not the same as lack of demand".
shawnk9512 wrote:
But I thought there was a lack of demand because no companies are supplying?
Well, you thought wrong.
shawnk9512 wrote:
It IS true unless you've been living under a rock. Type Halo Infinite into google, the first thing you'll see is Halo Infinite Graphics. Its a big topic of conversation right now you could say.
I never said it wasn't. I corrected you on your statement that "No one on twitter or facebook or anywhere else are hating on Infinte’s reveal due to sprint, clamber, or slide."
shawnk9512 wrote:
And clearly what ever they are learning internally is pushing them to keep sprint and advanced mobility for a 3rd time in row (4th including Reach).
That's a circular argument. "People are liking advanced mobility because otherwise 343 wouldn't make a game with advanced mobility."
Besides, do I really need to bring up all the other times where 343 doubled down on bad decisions?
  • Halo 4 art style was heavily criticised. H5G changes even more designs, like Covenant verhicles, the rocket launcher, various Covenant weapons like the plasma pistol or the needler, etc.
  • People hated the Microtransactions and loot boxes in H5G. 343 claims they are "well liked" and puts them in Halo Wars 2.
  • Fans didn't like Spartan-IVs, claiming they don't seem as professional and capable as S-II's. 343 forces you to play as them for 12 out of 15 missions in the campaign and makes them even less likeable in multiplayer by including dudebro behaviour after every match.
  • And so on, and so forth...
"343 does X" is a very bad argument in favor of X, based on past experience.
shawnk9512 wrote:
If Infinite doesn't fail, then does it mean they did advanced mobility correct? That people like it?
Probably yes. Unless there's an overwhelming amount of other content that is worth swallowing the bitter pill for, so to speak. But in first assessment, I would assume so.
shawnk9512 wrote:
You say the last 3 Halo games failed due to sprint
No, I didn't.
I said, the last 3 Halo games failed and they all had sprint.
I said we know for a fact there is a demand for classic Halo that isn't met.
Correlation != Causation. But Occam's Razor tells us to look at the simplest explanation first.
Personally, yes, I do think that AM is the main reason that the last few games failed to catch/sustain an audience. But I never claimed it as fact.
The truth is, we will never know until they finally release a classic game to gauge the reception. Because - and I am sick of repeating myself - the last classic Halo was 3 and to this day is still the best-selling title of the series, and not only was there no Halo game in this style ever since, not even a different studio tried to tap into that market gap in over a decade.
shawnk9512 wrote:
If Infinite is successful then you might have to admit to yourself that there was a lot more going on in the last 3 games (4 and 5 specifically) that led to the decline in sales and population.
I already admit that right now. Again, I never said that sprint was the sole reason. I said it is stupid to exclude it as a possible reason, given that it was literally present in all games that failed and none that succeded.
shawnk9512 wrote:
At the end of the day, this debate was started because of your strange sense of economics and changing how supply and demand works back and forth when ever its more convenient for your current argument.
No, it began because you started arguing against things nobody ever said...
RollCats wrote:
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
RollCats wrote:
Korgoth wrote:
You don't have 5? Can't you just go into forge and try it with a friend?
Don't get me wrong , to jump at someone with melee is still something to behold. I think others percieve it as more powerful since it is very easy to practice with. I would buff its attack slightly with a bigger knockback but with a sacrificing a half of your own shields. I would replace sprint with a burts sprint like in gow, rather than a cod sprint.
For groundpound, I know what iam saying is a good argument to replace with something. Even from a lore persepective; it's not something a spartan would do without aid of equipment imo.

It just drives my nuts to see it passed off as fact that it's a super cheap mechanic when in reality it requires a luck to skill ration where luck is too big a determing factor. The only way to pull it off on a awake player is if they don't see you coming. I believe where me and others disagree is that it should be replaced not removed.
I'm just trying to state facts to ensure we are all on the same page and the community is informed. Everything I've ever experienced or read about regarding charge is that it's more powerful. I've provided a decently reliable source. It's not worth my time to address it further unless you can provide documentation otherwise.

Either way, it doesn't seem to be a base mechanic in Infinite.
Playing halo 5 itself is not reliable? What documentation are you looking for. Anyone can try it. How can you be informed if you are not willing to even test it in a controlled setting yourself?
Korgoth wrote:
RollCats wrote:
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
RollCats wrote:
Korgoth wrote:
You don't have 5? Can't you just go into forge and try it with a friend?
Don't get me wrong , to jump at someone with melee is still something to behold. I think others percieve it as more powerful since it is very easy to practice with. I would buff its attack slightly with a bigger knockback but with a sacrificing a half of your own shields. I would replace sprint with a burts sprint like in gow, rather than a cod sprint.
For groundpound, I know what iam saying is a good argument to replace with something. Even from a lore persepective; it's not something a spartan would do without aid of equipment imo.

It just drives my nuts to see it passed off as fact that it's a super cheap mechanic when in reality it requires a luck to skill ration where luck is too big a determing factor. The only way to pull it off on a awake player is if they don't see you coming. I believe where me and others disagree is that it should be replaced not removed.
I'm just trying to state facts to ensure we are all on the same page and the community is informed. Everything I've ever experienced or read about regarding charge is that it's more powerful. I've provided a decently reliable source. It's not worth my time to address it further unless you can provide documentation otherwise.

Either way, it doesn't seem to be a base mechanic in Infinite.
Playing halo 5 itself is not reliable? What documentation are you looking for. Anyone can try it. How can you be informed if you are not willing to even test it in a controlled setting yourself?
Documentation ExampleThis youtube video shows I am correct. Melee is full shields, charge is full shields and half health damage, exactly as I remember. Again, unless a patch nerfed it, which I ask you provide evidence of. Can we be done and move onto things that are actually debatable?
Next: I get into a pointless argument with someone who thinks it takes 3 BR shots to kill a spartan with full shields. 'Boom! 4-shotted!' 'Wait why they call it 4-shotting if it only takes 3 shots?'

'Um, what?'
Celestis wrote:
shawnk9512 wrote:
You said lack of supply equals lack of demand
I did no such thing.
On the contrary, I said "lack of supply is not the same as lack of demand".
shawnk9512 wrote:
But I thought there was a lack of demand because no companies are supplying?
Well, you thought wrong.
shawnk9512 wrote:
But here you are saying demand is increasing with a lack of supply.
I did not say that either.
Where do you get this stuff from? It's certainly not from my posts.
shawnk9512 wrote:
It IS true unless you've been living under a rock. Type Halo Infinite into google, the first thing you'll see is Halo Infinite Graphics. Its a big topic of conversation right now you could say.
I never said it wasn't. I corrected you on your statement that "No one on twitter or facebook or anywhere else are hating on Infinte’s reveal due to sprint, clamber, or slide."
shawnk9512 wrote:
And clearly what ever they are learning internally is pushing them to keep sprint and advanced mobility for a 3rd time in row (4th including Reach).
That's a circular argument. "People are liking advanced mobility because otherwise 343 wouldn't make a game with advanced mobility."
Besides, do I really need to bring up all the other times where 343 doubled down on bad decisions?
Halo 4 art style was heavily criticised. H5G changes even more designs, like Covenant verhicles, the rocket launcher, various Covenant weapons like the plasma pistol or the needler, etc.
People hated the Microtransactions and loot boxes in H5G. 343 claims they are "well liked" and puts them in Halo Wars 2.
Fans didn't like Spartan-IVs, claiming they don't seem as professional and capable as S-II's. 343 forces you to play as them for 12 out of 15 missions in the campaign and makes them even less likeable in multiplayer by including dudebro behaviour after every match.
"343 does X" is a very bad argument in favor of X, based on past experience.
shawnk9512 wrote:
If Infinite doesn't fail, then does it mean they did advanced mobility correct? That people like it?
Probably yes. Unless there's an overwhelming amount of other content that is worth swallowing the bitter pill for, so to speak. But in first assessment, I would assume so.
shawnk9512 wrote:
You say the last 3 Halo games failed due to sprint
No, I didn't.
I said, the last 3 Halo games failed and they all had sprint.
I said we know for a fact there is a demand for classic Halo that isn't met.
Correlation != Causation. But Occam's Razor tells us to look at the simplest explanation first.
Personally, yes, I do think that AM is the main reason that the last few games failed to catch/sustain an audience. But I never claimed it as fact.
The truth is, we will never know until they finally release a classic game to gauge the reception. Because - and I am sick of repeating myself - the last classic Halo was 3 and to this day is still the best-selling title of the series, and not only was there no Halo game in this style ever since, not even a different studio tried to tap into that market gap in over a decade.
shawnk9512 wrote:
If Infinite is successful then you might have to admit to yourself that there was a lot more going on in the last 3 games (4 and 5 specifically) that led to the decline in sales and population.
I already admit that right now. Again, I never said that sprint was the sole reason. I said it is stupid to exclude it as a possible reason, given that it was literally present in all games that failed and none that succeded.
shawnk9512 wrote:
At the end of the day, this debate was started because of your strange sense of economics and changing how supply and demand works back and forth when ever its more convenient for your current argument.
No, it began because you started arguing against things nobody ever said...
You’re quoting me VERY carefully to ignore key things I’m saying and to perpetuate the debate. The Fact is we agree on a lot more than we disagree. I never said sprint wasn’t a factor like you’re implying, it definitely is. I just feel like it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle than you are insisting on. It’s definitely a combination of the bad, weird, and simply different decisions 343 has made since they took things over.

Since we started debating you have told me there is a lack of supply for arena type games and so demand has gone up and you pointed to fan made Halo games as your proof, which is fine. Except you have also told me that demand has gone down because developers aren’t supplying the market with classic Halo/Arena shooters so that’s where my confusion comes in. And I’ve quoted you saying these things in my past responses. Maybe you didn’t mean to or you got mixed up but go back and look at your previous posts. I’m on my phone now and it’s tiresome trying to do the “professional quoting” (lol) that you’ve been doing quite well and I was able to do on my computer this morning.

But it’s neither here nor there because like I said I think there’s plenty of middle ground between us. The difference seems to be that I’ve enjoyed advanced mobility in Halo almost as much classic play. You seem to not hold that same sentiment and were definitely put off by seeing Chief sprint, clamber, etc. in the Demo. I’m excited to see where it goes as we get more information, especially with a multiplayer reveal soon.

At the end of the day these are all just theories backed up by varying degrees of evidence, assumptions, and personal observations so we’ll have to wait and see. I really hope that what ever 343 does go with it ends up being fun and feeling like Halo more so than the previous few entries. And that’s something I KNOW we can agree on.

I’m tired of this debate because we keep going in circles. I honestly hope you get some enjoyment out of Halo Infinite regardless of the movement Mechanics.
RollCats wrote:
A6ENT C wrote:
RollCats wrote:
AppuserSad wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Can someone explain to me why adding anything new to the game is considered 'NOT HALO'?

This only applies to 343i games apparently, and selectively with Reach.
Let me explain. In reach, armor abilities could be disabled.

The only other feature that the community hated was bloom and that was patched out of the game (reduced in social game modes because casuals love bloom) and it became classic halo again.

In 343 games you have a full call of duty experience. Hit markers, call of duty zoom ads, insane movement mechanics that holster your gun and force maps to be massive. Satisfied?
What changes would you like to see to advance the franchise while still keeping it HALO?

I ask because I never seem to see any suggestions. Thus, the 'I mean, Halo1-3 in 4k60fps already, play that if you want that exact gameplay' argument tends to be valid. Not helpful, but it's certainly valid if no one can say what a next gen Halo game that feels like Halo is.
Not the guy you quoted, but this was part of a post I made a few pages back:
Quote:
I know Naqser has proposed new mechanics like modular Forerunner weapons (with different component combos giving different results), alternate firing modes for weapons (similar to the Plasma Pistol and Light Rifle), exploring the potential for “zero-gravity” areas (which were hardly utilized in Reach), more dynamic maps (with map layouts/effects changing by timers, buttons/triggers, or both). Imagine playing Slayer on a space station where the artificial gravity is on the fritz or can be sabotaged by players. Imagine a match of CTF where the paths and sight lines transition as Forerunner architecture rearranges itself. These are the kinds of ideas that excite and inspire.
Good points. And movement? Maybe I should have been more specific. Should movement never change? What types of ideas are considered properly Halo?
Besides reintroducing thrusters (and maybe jetpacks) as limited-use pick-ups, rather than making them something everyone has (or can have) equipped at all times?

Just brainstorming here but what about a deployable man cannon (again, as a pick-up) that is placed in front of you upon use, has a grenade-like object that you throw to determine where the man cannon will send anyone who goes through it? Same idea but with teleporters instead of man cannons?

A “stim” pick-up that basically acts like the Speed Boost power-up (with limited duration or recharges like Reach’s AAs), but either is only active when holding the “Use Equipment” button or can be toggled on/off with it to use more strategically?

I’m weary of players’ newfound base abilities having unforeseen consequences. Having things that change players’ capabilities placed on the map to be picked up/entered is a tried and true method, and one that has always been used in Halo. It’s an expectation, part of Halo’s identity.

It’s also easier to phase out sandbox elements than it is to phase out base abilities, because maps are designed around assumptions of what players are capable of.

With sprint, clamber, and slide (mechanics that we’ve had for at least one Halo/5 years already, not to mention all the other games with them) returning for Infinite (which 343i apparently plan to support for 10 years), do you want movement to change again? If so, what other movement-based mechanics would you like to see? How would you like to see them implemented?
shawnk9512 wrote:
You’re quoting me VERY carefully to ignore key things I’m saying and to perpetuate the debate.
I am quoting those things that I take issue with and that I want to comment on. You can basically assume that whatever I'm not quoting, I either agree with or I already address it and removed the quote for the sake of brevity and readability.
shawnk9512 wrote:
I never said sprint wasn’t a factor like you’re implying, it definitely is. I just feel like it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle than you are insisting on.
Well, your exact words were: "What hurt Halo 4 and 5 wasn’t sprint or advanced mobility, at least not in a hugely impactful way."
The first part of the sentences is blatantly false and the second part is severely downplaying the issue, given the fact that sprint is the most consistently disliked mechanic in Halo for a decade.
shawnk9512 wrote:
Except you have also told me that demand has gone down because developers aren’t supplying the market with classic Halo/Arena shooters so that’s where my confusion comes in.
I have never said anything even remotely similar.
shawnk9512 wrote:
And I’ve quoted you saying these things in my past responses.
The first part, yes. As for the second part, I would really like to see a quote for that...
shawnk9512 wrote:
Maybe you didn’t mean to or you got mixed up but go back and look at your previous posts.
I used the word "demand" exactly three times (technically four times, as I used it twice in the first post) :
  1. "I am also curious how you conclude that Arena games aren't in demand, if nobody has made an arena game in a decade. Not even Doom's multiplayer was a true Arena experience.
    Lack of supply != lack of demand
    "
  2. "However, there was no lack of demand when they stopped making them."
  3. "I already know how supply and demand is supposed to work, but in this case, we know for a fact that there is a demand, because the Halo community has literally been screaming for a decade for this type of game, yet nobody is willing to supply it, least of all Microsoft/343."
Not one of these sentences comes even close to "demand has gone down".
So, again, I would really like to see a quote where I supposedly said that...
shawnk9512 wrote:
At the end of the day these are all just theories backed up by varying degrees of evidence, assumptions, and personal observations so we’ll have to wait and see. I really hope that what ever 343 does go with it ends up being fun and feeling like Halo more so than the previous few entries. And that’s something I KNOW we can agree on.
I will most definitely be monitoring the game's release and long-term reception. I actually hope that it launches without a hitch, because that would at least give a clear indication on the reception of advanced movement. If the game is a dumpster fire, everything else will be blamed yet again and we'll all meet up back here in five years for the same spiel when 343 tries for their fifth time.
Celestis wrote:
shawnk9512 wrote:
You’re quoting me VERY carefully to ignore key things I’m saying and to perpetuate the debate.
I am quoting those things that I take issue with and that I want to comment on. You can basically assume that whatever I'm not quoting, I either agree with or I already address it and removed the quote for the sake of brevity and readability.
shawnk9512 wrote:
I never said sprint wasn’t a factor like you’re implying, it definitely is. I just feel like it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle than you are insisting on.
Well, your exact words were: "What hurt Halo 4 and 5 wasn’t sprint or advanced mobility, at least not in a hugely impactful way."
The first part of the sentences is blatantly false and the second part is severely downplaying the issue, given the fact that sprint is the most consistently disliked mechanic in Halo for a decade.
shawnk9512 wrote:
Except you have also told me that demand has gone down because developers aren’t supplying the market with classic Halo/Arena shooters so that’s where my confusion comes in.
I have never said anything even remotely similar.
shawnk9512 wrote:
And I’ve quoted you saying these things in my past responses.
The first part, yes. As for the second part, I would really like to see a quote for that...
shawnk9512 wrote:
Maybe you didn’t mean to or you got mixed up but go back and look at your previous posts.
I used the word "demand" exactly three times (technically four times, as I used it twice in the first post) :
  1. "I am also curious how you conclude that Arena games aren't in demand, if nobody has made an arena game in a decade. Not even Doom's multiplayer was a true Arena experience.
    Lack of supply != lack of demand"
  2. "However, there was no lack of demand when they stopped making them."
  3. "I already know how supply and demand is supposed to work, but in this case, we know for a fact that there is a demand, because the Halo community has literally been screaming for a decade for this type of game, yet nobody is willing to supply it, least of all Microsoft/343."
Not one of these sentences comes even close to "demand has gone down".
So, again, I would really like to see a quote where I supposedly said that...
shawnk9512 wrote:
At the end of the day these are all just theories backed up by varying degrees of evidence, assumptions, and personal observations so we’ll have to wait and see. I really hope that what ever 343 does go with it ends up being fun and feeling like Halo more so than the previous few entries. And that’s something I KNOW we can agree on.
I will most definitely be monitoring the game's release and long-term reception. I actually hope that it launches without a hitch, because that would at least give a clear indication on the reception of advanced movement. If the game is a dumpster fire, everything else will be blamed yet again and we'll all meet up back here in five years for the same spiel when 343 tries for their fifth time.
Ugh I feel very dumb because I just realized why I was so -Yoinking!- confused this whole time and it’s literally (for the most part) a HUGE misunderstanding. Get ready for this... you ready..? You sure?...

I didn’t realize you put “!=“ I thought it was just “=“ So I thought you were saying lack of supply equals lack of demand. Plus I’ve never seen “unequal to” expressed as “!=“ before so that’s a big part of it. My bad I suck I know.

But hey I have to clarify one other thing. Me saying “What hurt Halo 4 and 5 wasn’t sprint or advanced mobility, at least not in a hugely impactful way.” And me saying “I just feel like it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle than you are insisting on.” are the same thing so I didn’t blatantly lie because I literally listed it as a factor the first time. Definitely had to call you out on that because I’m not a liar. I make mistakes, but I don’t lie. You also keep saying that sprint and AM is a consistent feature for Halo games that have under performed, and I agree. But there are other consistent factors too that span multiple games so that’s my argument.

Yes advanced mobility and sprint have contributed to some issues, especially with the way it’s been implemented (which is why I’m excited to see what Infinite is like outside of a rough 8 minute campaign demo). But there’s so many other issues that have spanned all the underperforming games, and we both have listed them. To what degree each factor has made its impact is where we disagree. And what’s frustrating is whenever 343 seams to correct a few mistakes, they add newer disappointments. But infinite seems to have a more classic art style which is good, and they brought back equipment rather than armor abilities which is nice. And I’ve been dreaming of an open world Halo game for so many years now, especially after ODST, and it’s happening which is exciting to me. So I’m now just hoping they don’t add bad mechanics or ideas to offset these (in my eyes) good decisions.

We didn’t see any ground pound or should charge, and thrusters are gone. So maybe they want to move toward a classic play style to appease pure arena combat fans like yourself a little while retaining the newer fans.

What is your opinion on the grapple shot?
Korgoth wrote:
The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing.
The point of Halo's combat, is to think ahead and predict what the battlefield will be like in 5-15 seconds. Being able to Sprint out of situations you put yourself in, more or less ruins that. Older Halo combat was about prediction, and committing yourself to an action. Newer Halo trashes that by letting you run away when you screw up.

It's invalid to tell someone to go back to a previous game. That's not the point of this discussion. It's very dismissive of the discussion at hand. You're acting as if new games should only be made to your tastes, and everyone else can just play old games. That is not legitimate in this thread, or fair to anyone discussing (intrinsically innocent) things you don't personally enjoy.
Korgoth wrote:
The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing.
The point of Halo's combat, is to think ahead and predict what the battlefield will be like in 5-15 seconds. Being able to Sprint out of situations you put yourself in, more or less ruins that. Older Halo combat was about prediction, and committing yourself to an action. Newer Halo trashes that by letting you run away when you screw up.

It's invalid to tell someone to go back to a previous game. That's not the point of this discussion. It's very dismissive of the discussion at hand. You're acting as if new games should only be made to your tastes, and everyone else can just play old games. That is not legitimate in this thread, or fair to anyone discussing (intrinsically innocent) things you don't personally enjoy.
This is the best reason to remove sprint I've seen -- if a bit oversimplified. But I definitely understood and related instantly.
RollCats wrote:
Good points. And movement? Maybe I should have been more specific. Should movement never change? What types of ideas are considered properly Halo?
Since I've already acknowledged that I think movement can change, can I ask: does it have to?

Because 343i's approach to changing Halo over the past decade has been through addition and modification of base player traits, a significant portion of the community seems to have gotten the impression that this is the only way to add new ideas to gameplay. People have this impression that not constantly changing how the player moves implies stagnation. Are addition of new weapons, new weapon mechanics, new items, new vehicles, new vehicle mechanics, new level design ideas, new gametypes and gamemodes, new customization and creation options not enough to fill people's quota of innovation?
shawnk9512 wrote:
But hey I have to clarify one other thing. Me saying “What hurt Halo 4 and 5 wasn’t sprint or advanced mobility, at least not in a hugely impactful way.” And me saying “I just feel like it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle than you are insisting on.” are the same thing so I didn’t blatantly lie because I literally listed it as a factor the first time. Definitely had to call you out on that because I’m not a liar. I make mistakes, but I don’t lie. You also keep saying that sprint and AM is a consistent feature for Halo games that have under performed, and I agree. But there are other consistent factors too that span multiple games so that’s my argument.
It was not my intention to call you a liar. (And I didn't, as far as I am aware.) I just wanted to make it clear which post I was referencing, and why.

shawnk9512 wrote:
We didn’t see any ground pound or should charge, and thrusters are gone. So maybe they want to move toward a classic play style to appease pure arena combat fans like yourself a little while retaining the newer fans.
While thrusters might be gone per se, you can now slide in any direction (except, maybe not backwards, but we have seen sideways in the demo) so they effectively combined both mechanics into one. In a similar way, charge may be technically gone, but grapple-melee now serves the same function. And while this is speculation, I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility that grappling the ground from high altitude creates a shockwave, similar to ground pound. Furthermore, we know that we haven't seen all equipment yet, so there might even be more stuff like jetpacks coming.
Hopefully, the next gameplay showcase in August provides more details.

shawnk9512 wrote:
What is your opinion on the grapple shot?
Actually, I don't mind it. I am not stoked about how little sense it makes (1000 pound Chief is being pulled towards 200 pound jackals instead of the other way around) but I can write that off with suspension of disbelief and it being a gameplay mechanic first and foremost. At least I feel like it could provide some interesting gameplay opportunities, which I didn't feel about most of the other AM mechanics. All in all, I am pretty indifferent about it, and would have to test it out myself to make my final judgment.
For the record: I have not yet played Doom Eternal (although I plan to, eventually), so I don't know how the grapple hook works in that game and what it's advantages and issues are, so this didn't influence my opinion on Infinite's version thereof.
tsassi wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Good points. And movement? Maybe I should have been more specific. Should movement never change? What types of ideas are considered properly Halo?
Since I've already acknowledged that I think movement can change, can I ask: does it have to?

Because 343i's approach to changing Halo over the past decade has been through addition and modification of base player traits, a significant portion of the community seems to have gotten the impression that this is the only way to add new ideas to gameplay. People have this impression that not constantly changing how the player moves implies stagnation. Are addition of new weapons, new weapon mechanics, new items, new vehicles, new vehicle mechanics, new level design ideas, new gametypes and gamemodes, new customization and creation options not enough to fill people's quota of innovation?
^this

the only valid point in the realm of base player mechanics i could see would be a slight increase in the base movement speed. the rest is technicaly unnecessary.
a low powered thruster pack and singular wall kick ability as a base player mechanic could be added, but is not needed. the kick should not be strong enough to climb a bloodgulch base height wall.
Korgoth wrote:
The point of sprint is to create an option to get out of danger; not to add a feel for pacing.
The point of Halo's combat, is to think ahead and predict what the battlefield will be like in 5-15 seconds. Being able to Sprint out of situations you put yourself in, more or less ruins that. Older Halo combat was about prediction, and committing yourself to an action. Newer Halo trashes that by letting you run away when you screw up.

It's invalid to tell someone to go back to a previous game. That's not the point of this discussion. It's very dismissive of the discussion at hand. You're acting as if new games should only be made to your tastes, and everyone else can just play old games. That is not legitimate in this thread, or fair to anyone discussing (intrinsically innocent) things you don't personally enjoy.
That is not true: I did not command nor tell anyone to go back previous games. I simply asked what it is they expect from new title when there is an existing title with literally everything they asked for; worrying about anything new be added. It is very confusing; to want a new game with nothing new. It is a non sarcastic question, not an expectation; nothing dismissive there. Even with my love for 5 , I see plenty of room for improvement and new additions. Like sprint; I would hate that they would take it but would be overjoyed if it were replaced with something that achieved the same purposes as sprint ( escaping danger temporarily and not something to where you hold down le for 3/4this of the match) deciding to remove hood mechanics without a good replacement is what is dismissive. Trying to get an honest understanding of what some of you whom were displeased with 5, that is an inquiry, not being dismissive. I agree with some of the complaints about it but disagree with your assessment about halo being about prediction. Sure, it is a huge element but it would not suffer by adding an option to escape.
tsassi wrote:
RollCats wrote:
Good points. And movement? Maybe I should have been more specific. Should movement never change? What types of ideas are considered properly Halo?
Since I've already acknowledged that I think movement can change, can I ask: does it have to?

Because 343i's approach to changing Halo over the past decade has been through addition and modification of base player traits, a significant portion of the community seems to have gotten the impression that this is the only way to add new ideas to gameplay. People have this impression that not constantly changing how the player moves implies stagnation. Are addition of new weapons, new weapon mechanics, new items, new vehicles, new vehicle mechanics, new level design ideas, new gametypes and gamemodes, new customization and creation options not enough to fill people's quota of innovation?
I am not saying that's the only way. Obviously Halo 4 tried *alot* of different ways to innovate. It had most of the things you mentioned: addition of new weapons, new weapon mechanics, new items, new vehicles (not this one? not sure), new vehicle mechanics, new level design ideas, new gametypes (yep, and it was hated) and gamemode (Spartan Ops).

Actually, the only advanced mechanic added to that game in base mechanics was sprint unless I'm forgetting something else. I've already stated before that I think H4 was too different. I enjoyed it, but it's kind of an objective statement that Infinity Slayer was extremely different, and it may have been the thing that 'put the nail in the coffin' for 343i (MCC launch didn't help) for a lot of the base.

Halo 5 then went all in on Arena style gameplay, with a fresh take by adding 'advanced movement'. This was still not acceptable.

So, we've seen two different approaches, a vocal group of the community hated both. One focused on all the things you mentioned, but to many it was too much at once, and change for the sake of change. The other tried to create a genuinely unique 'modern' Halo experience that I happened to have a blast playing. But people didn't want 'modern'.

So, I certainly understand. But it sounds like to me that 'acceptable innovation window' is much narrower than what you made it seem. Or, it's never acceptable if sprint is included (some have stated this clearly, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.)
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 222
  4. 223
  5. 224
  6. 225
  7. 226
  8. ...
  9. 275