The return of classic movement mechanics?

tsassi wrote:

It's just that a single data point becomes less and less useful as you try to extrapolate from it further and further into the future. This is just a general thing about data in any kind of system where the time evolution of the data isn't known beforehand. You can go look at stock market data 13 years ago and observe that it's a very poor predictor of stock market data today. You can look at what web pages were popular in 2007 and observe the same thing.

What you're essentially trying to do is take the popularity numbers of Halo 3 (and possibly Halo CE and 2), try to fit some family of curves on them, and argue that the curves that bend upwards or stay constant after Halo 3 are somehow more likely than ones that bend downwards.But that kind of assumption without justification is very easy to dismiss, because it's just an assumption.

In order to use the Halo 3 data as evidence, you're implicitly proposing a model of how the popularity of classic Halo evolves over time. But because you're not putting any evidence forward to support that model (because you probably didn't even know you need/have a model), we can dismiss the model out of hand. And because we can dismiss the model, we can dismiss the data.

I have a feeling you are somewhat misunderstanding what WerepyreND is trying to conveigh.

Your counterargument solely focuses on the fact that it's not possible to extrapolate onto todays success from a 13-year-old data point, which - at least as far as I see it - was something he never said. The closest that comes to this was the sentence: "Uncertainty isn't the issue, its the idea that Halo 3 somehow doesn't count as evidence that "modern" gamers might enjoy a game like Halo 3 despite said game finding continued success alongside what was essentially the poster child for "modern" shooters."

The problem WerepyreND has is that Halo 3 is outright ignored in discussions because of its age, despite having relevancy within the appropriate historical context. Judging something in a relative context and dismissing it entirely are two completely different things.

I must also say, you have a very weird stance on evidence in general. A piece of evidence does not have to prove or disprove something on its own in order to be valid, that's not how arguments work. You slowly add multiple pieces of evidence that complement one another to build a case. The combined sum of all evicence is then used as proof for a claim. Halo 3 doesn't need to project any curves into the future, it just needs to relate to another statement used in the argument that furthers the discussion. Preemptively killing even a single piece of evidence (if it isn't wrong in the first place) breaks this chain and prevents lines of thought from taking shape that do have merit once they are finished.

tsassi wrote:

WerepyreND wrote:

What is the statute of limitations on a data point like franchise record sales and population where they can "easily" be dismissed wholesale?

There is no "statute of limitations" obviously. It's not a binary thing. It's just that a single data point becomes less and less useful as you try to extrapolate from it further and further into the future. This is just a general thing about data in any kind of system where the time evolution of the data isn't known beforehand. You can go look at stock market data 13 years ago and observe that it's a very poor predictor of stock market data today. You can look at what web pages were popular in 2007 and observe the same thing.

What you're essentially trying to do is take the popularity numbers of Halo 3 (and possibly Halo CE and 2), try to fit some family of curves on them, and argue that the curves that bend upwards or stay constant after Halo 3 are somehow more likely than ones that bend downwards.But that kind of assumption without justification is very easy to dismiss, because it's just an assumption.

In order to use the Halo 3 data as evidence, you're implicitly proposing a model of how the popularity of classic Halo evolves over time. But because you're not putting any evidence forward to support that model (because you probably didn't even know you need/have a model), we can dismiss the model out of hand. And because we can dismiss the model, we can dismiss the data.

The problem with using the age of the data point as a detractor is that it is also the last data point we can actually have before they actually stopped making classic Halo games. No one can demonstrate they still enjoy a particular "webpage" if they stop updating said webpage, but that is beside the point.

I am not using Halo 3 as evidence that the curve will stay the same or curve upward, but to point out that there isn't any evidence that it has plummeted into irrelevance. Mainly because the data doesn't more or less trail off for Halo 3 until Reach released in September 2010 with Halo 3 still going strong well into the CoD era. Again, its not irrefutable proof of classic Halo's potential, but it is more worthy of discussion than some the alternatives that other's have tried to point to.

Could things have changed in the following 10 years? Sure, of course its possible, but the possibility of change is not itself evidence there will be meaningful change.

Quote:

WerepyreND wrote:

If we get to ignore one of the few solid data points we actually do have access to what on Earth are we actually supposed discuss in a supposed "evidence" based discussion?

As I said before (more or less): the strongest evidence for classic Halo is that there is no evidence against it. There is no reason to expect classic Halo would perform substantially better than modern Halo, but there is also no reason to expect it to perform worse.

An evidence based discussion doesn't have to be about confirming a claim. Sometimes all you can do is observe that the evidence doesn't contradict the claim.

The point isn't that the data we have regarding Halo 3 is perfect predictor of future success, but it is an actual data point related to this franchise specifically relevant historical context. Simply pointing to the number of games with sprint says nothing about Halo or its potential success. All it tells us is that in 2020 sprint was a common mechanic, in many but not all continuously played games.

Quote:

WerepyreND wrote:

That is in fact not my default belief(really?), my issue is with specific behaviors such as trying to tell us to deny both the objective reality of Halo 3's commercial success and our own lived experiences playing and enjoying classic Halo and telling us that "well actually you didn't really enjoy Halo that much there just wasn't any 'competition'" or some other garbage to that effect.

Personally I don't expect a "serious" discussion to any meaningful degree, not even to the degree that anyone could expect a "serious" discussion on a gaming forum. I just don't care to entertain bad faith or otherwise just ignorant behavior cosplaying as a discussion.

I don't know. When somebody says "Halo needs sprint because all games have it" or "Halo 3 didn't have competition", do you assume they're saying it in bad faith? Because that's kind of what I got out of your post. Like, I see people being ignorant or unable to entertain ideas that conflict with their beliefs and agendas. But that's just part of being a human. It's usually not malice.

I don't know what your idea of "serious" is, but I've had plenty of discussions here I'd describe as "serious". And when I reflect back on my past discussions, the thing that always comes up is "yeah, I should've been more empathetic". Even if the other person was being a jerk, I don't gain anything from just blaming them on everything and moving on, because that's not actionable insight.

Whether its ignorance or malice is irrelevant seeing as I can't read their minds, but the end result is the same as both those arguments rely on us denying lived experience and the little data we do have when you boil it down. Empathy is a two way street, I don't gain anything by "being the bigger person" for entertaining arguments that ask me to deny my own lived reality. I've always accepted the fact that fans of sprint genuinely enjoy sprint, they are not alone, and that at the end of the day they just want to play a Halo game that matches their taste and that's valid. All I'm asking is that they extend the same courtesy.

P.S Yes, I do believe that the data around Halo 3 is a much stronger(relatively speaking) case for classic Halo potential success(though not necessarily record breaking success mind you), than simply pointing to the number of popular games with sprint in 2020 because 1.) There are already obvious successful exceptions regarding sprint and arguably even more basic abilities like the ability to jump. 2.) The success of other games with sprint does not actually say anything about Halo's ability to succeed without sprint.

Again, I'm not saying its 100% ironclad proof that a classic Halo will succeed in 202X, but that the actual data we have regarding Halo 3's success next to "modern" shooters is fundamentally more solid ground to stand on speculating based on common sprint is alone.

If you want to think of it as little more than a tiny island in the middle of the ocean that's fine, but I maintain that it is still fundamentally more solid ground to stand on than the alternatives I've been given.

tsassi wrote:

WerepyreND wrote:

I am not using Halo 3 as evidence that the curve will stay the same or curve upward, but to point out that there isn't any evidence that it has plummeted into irrelevance.

Okay. so would you say that Halo 3 only shows that no-sprint has never been unpopular?

I suppose, I would frame it as "Based on the information we do have there isn't a compelling reason to expect classic Halo would have taken any sort of drastic decline had Halo 3 continued to receive sequels in the same way CoD did. Could I reasonably expect later classic Halo sequels to continue trending upward forever or necessarily maintain that exact level of success? No, only corporations have unrealistic expectations of endless growth, but when faced with the reality of Halo's upward trajectory up until that point I don't see a compelling reason to believe that Halo would have suffered such a significant decline that it would have endangered the franchise.

The absence of classic Halo games in later years is itself not evidence that hypothetical new classic Halo would have seen a significant decline. As you say we can't know for certain how that would have turned out. But if we are trying to guess where something might end up, a good place to start is probably where the clues stopped regardless of how old they might be.

Quote:

WerepyreND wrote:

but the end result is the same as both those arguments rely on us denying lived experience

I assume we're talking about the "Halo had no competition" argument? I've never felt it that way. Certainly, I've never been told that I would've been playing something else if Halo had had competition. But, you know, I don't really even reject that idea, because my preferences are shaped by my experiences. Imagining an alternate universe where I had different experiences doesn't make my actual experiences any less real. It doesn't frighten or offend me.

But that's besides the point, because the argument isn't about you or me. It's about the population of Xbox users as a whole. Maybe we played Halo exactly because it was Halo, but my experiences and preferences don't need apply to all other people. I take no issue with that. If anything, I champion the idea that I'm not necessarily representative of any population that I'm part of. I cherish my experiences, but they don't have to have anything to do with why Halo was popular.

"imagining an alternate universe" seems pretty irrelevant when the discussion at hand is about evidence or the lack thereof. We can "imagine" all sorts of things, but we still have to get back to reality eventually. The problem is that you can't really escape the implications of the "competition" argument whether they were intended or not. For the "no competition" theory to have any legs, you have to assume that not just me or you or any number of individuals were not really 'that' into Halo 3, but a significant portion of the population was effectively just killing time until something they actually liked came along. You have to assume a lack of agency on the part of millions of people who bought the game and/or continued to come back to a game over the course of 3 years. Why exactly should I entertain that notion given the lack of actual evidence but the awful(to put it mildly) implications that go with it regardless of intent?

Quote:

WerepyreND wrote:

Empathy is a two way street, I don't gain anything by "being the bigger person"

Sad you feel that way. But I mean, I just got this crazy idea from somewhere that being nice to others and de-escalating conflicts might lead to better social interactions and make people feel better in general. I'm probably just being silly.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with any of that, but it doesn't necessarily meant that it will lead to a healthier discussion when at best ignorant positions are given the same benefit as another. How are we supposed to get anywhere if some people are not even willing to accept that the people who continued to play a particular game probably enjoy it and were not somehow deluded or ignorant of other possibilities? Like I said, I'm more than willing to get along provided they give me the same basic courtesy I provide to them, IE believing them when they say they like something.

Would I deserve the benefit of the doubt if my main "argument" was essentially just questioning whether fans of sprint really like sprint? That actually they just support it because its trendy or something to that effect? Because I don't think I would deserve the benefit of the doubt in such a situation. No one is owed empathy.

Quote:

WerepyreND wrote:

1.) There are already obvious successful exceptions regarding sprint and arguably even more basic abilities like the ability to jump.

Which is probably the strongest argument for no-sprint since it's actually about games in the present, and doesn't make people look at you weirdly for talking about a 13 year old game.

The exact same arguments were made when it was a 3 year old game, a 5 year old game and so on. And more importantly it isn't just a random 13 year old game it is one with a history that is relevant to the discussion at hand. The age of Halo 3 doesn't really hold much weight as a criticism to me given that many of the supposed "modern" shooters are just as old. The age or lack of change within a particular franchise doesn't seem to matter provided they started out with a particular set of mechanics that make it "modern."

If they want to dismiss the facts surrounding Halo 3's success based on age alone then fine, then just shouldn't be surprised when I don't bother taking them seriously at that point because I am not going to waste my time trying to convince people who don't want to listen.

WerepyreND wrote:

"imagining an alternate universe" seems pretty irrelevant when the discussion at hand is about evidence or the lack thereof. We can "imagine" all sorts of things, but we still have to get back to reality eventually. The problem is that you can't really escape the implications of the "competition" argument whether they were intended or not. For the "no competition" theory to have any legs, you have to assume that not just me or you or any number of individuals were not really 'that' into Halo 3, but a significant portion of the population was effectively just killing time until something they actually liked came along. You have to assume a lack of agency on the part of millions of people who bought the game and/or continued to come back to a game over the course of 3 years. Why exactly should I entertain that notion given the lack of actual evidence but the awful(to put it mildly) implications that go with it regardless of intent?

You're assuming a lot of things. LIke, where do these begrudging players come from? The fact that you would behave differently under different circumstances doesn't mean you're not enjoying the circumstances. Back before Xbox, I had an N64. I spent a lot of time playing Mario games. But what if in a different timeline I had a PS1 before an N64 and I really got into Crash Bandicoot before Super Mario 64. Would I have played less Mario and more Crash? Probably. Did I not have fun playing Mario? Were I not really that into Mario? No, of course I loved Mario. But under different influences, I would've grown differently as a person. The idea that I could have become a different happy person with different preferences doesn't make the person I am not-happy, or my preferences less real.

The "implications" you're talking about aren't implications at all. If the Xbox 360 had had some hypothetical strong launch title (let's give it a silly name like "Future BattleWar" for fun), some of the people whose first Halo was Halo 3 might have picked up Future BattleWar first, fell in love with it, and maybe played less Halo 3 when that came out. Not because they "weren't really that into Halo 3", but because they just happened to play another really cool game first. Then you have some people who were really into Halo 2, but while passing time waiting for Halo 3 they notice "you know, this Future BattleWar is actually pretty cool". They're still going to play a lot of Halo 3 when it comes around, because they love Halo, but because they have these two games they really like, and only a finite amount of time, they're inevitably going to play less Halo 3 than they would've if Future BattleWar didn't exist. Not because they aren't madly in love with Halo 3, but because Halo 3 isn't the only game they're madly in love with.

WerepyreND wrote:

Would I deserve the benefit of the doubt if my main "argument" was essentially just questioning whether fans of sprint really like sprint?

I really hope so. Consider the fact that describing sprint as an "illusion" is a popular thing to say in the anti-sprint crowd. I mean, a very popular anti-sprint argument is literally "the reasons you like sprint aren't actually the reasons you think they are". I can so imagine some sprint fan feeling the exact same way about this argument as you feel about the competition argument. And I really do hope they would have the patience and forgiveness to not view this argument as cynically as you view the competition argument.

WerepyreND wrote:

No one is owed empathy.

It's not money. You can just give it anyway and see what happens.

I love Halo. Every single one of them. A return to Classic Halo mechanics would be a mistake. Halo 5 for me had the best MP for me simply because it felt fast, it added depth with verticality, created new player interactions (eg. side dashing a rushing enemy then deciding to clamber and take the high ground and pop them or quickly ground pound them to oblivion or jumping over head then back dashing then popping them in the face plus many more), and it was more immersive.

Fast forward to Doom Eternal which I think is the best FPS of this generation...and I just don't understand the desire to go back to early 2000s FPS movement. Doom Eternal mixes so much speed, verticality, level interaction, different ways to kill enemies by applying some of the best parts of past FPS games (Metroid, Halo, Unreal, Quake, etc), I just can't go backward.

In fact I refuse!

I used to be a fan of sprint, now I would just prefer faster movement speed with no sprint. After all that is the only coherent argument from anti-sprinters "you're already running". When I'm playing a spartan my run better be an f'n run, not a jog not a jalk, a RUN. If I can still shoot because I'm a spartan, so be it. As for the "depth" argument. Adding sprint absolutely adds depth, it also causes problems, some would say its not worth the trade off but it absolutely opens an avenue for skill-gap in how and when to implement sprint and I found Favyns video rather poor in addressing that point. (Specifically in H5, the fact it also pauses shield regen and cancels upon taking fire make it far more balanced than Reach and H4).

That said, I just want faster Spartans and no sprint. Its not in your head either, you can go in forge and measure the speed with common blocks. H4 was insanely fast (but had a recharge limit like reach) Halo 5 sprint is probably closer as a reasonable top speed (non-sprint) in an ideal "classic" feel IMHO. Perhaps they could map the thumb stick more progressively to offer better resolution in controlling spartan walk/sprint speed all while never entering a sprint mechanic.

As a side note, one of the things I like with H5's sprint is how it disincentives use when you have taken damage. Perhaps there could be a way to peg health regen (just health not shields in this case) to movement speed. So if you take heavy damage your top speed is similarly taxed, or your health cant regen until you reduce to a walking speed. Not only is it realistic (not that important) it keeps one of the more redeemable aspects of H5 sprint with regards to implementation and skill gap.

Yep my hyped for the game dropped down a notch after yesterday's blog

Ryan lfc 92 wrote:

CrazeTurk wrote:

Slvrgun wrote:

I love Halo. Every single on of them. A return to Classic Halo mechanics would be a mistake. Halo 5 for me had the best MP for me simply because it felt fast, it added depth with verticality, created new player interactions (eg. side dashing an rushing enemy then deciding to clamber and take the high ground and pop them or quickly ground pound them to oblivion or jumping over head then back dashing then popping them in the face plus many more), and it was more immersive.

Fast forward to Doom Eternal which I think is the best FPG of this generation...and I just don't understand the desire to go back to early 2000s FPS movement. Doom Eternal mixes so much speed, verticality, level interaction, different ways to kill enemies by applying some of the best parts of past games (Metroid, Halo, Unreal, Quake, etc), I just can't go backward.

In fact I refuse!

You’re contradicting yourself here. Doom Eternal was widely praised in part due to its succesful modernization of the classic 90s fps formula. It has no sprint for example, yet it feels fast and fluid. Much of what makes Doom Eternal’s gameplay so fun, wouldn’t have been possible if it had sprint. The same goes for Halo. The “depth” argument for Halo 5’s advanced movement mechanics has been debunked several times in this thread, and by Youtubers such as Favyn.

The thing is, we’re not talking about going backwards, we’re talking about going forwards with the fundamentals that made the original trilogy games so good. “Anti-sprinters” want Halo’s gameplay to be more like Doom Eternals’, not Halo 3’s.

gears of war has sprint and the best sliding movement ive played in pvp.

How would you feel about being able to shoot while sliding in Infinite? Seems like an innovation while maintaining Halo's traditional gun-always-up gameplay.

Ryan lfc 92 wrote:

shirtssss wrote:

Ryan lfc 92 wrote:

CrazeTurk wrote:

Slvrgun wrote:

I love Halo. Every single on of them. A return to Classic Halo mechanics would be a mistake. Halo 5 for me had the best MP for me simply because it felt fast, it added depth with verticality, created new player interactions (eg. side dashing an rushing enemy then deciding to clamber and take the high ground and pop them or quickly ground pound them to oblivion or jumping over head then back dashing then popping them in the face plus many more), and it was more immersive.

Fast forward to Doom Eternal which I think is the best FPG of this generation...and I just don't understand the desire to go back to early 2000s FPS movement. Doom Eternal mixes so much speed, verticality, level interaction, different ways to kill enemies by applying some of the best parts of past games (Metroid, Halo, Unreal, Quake, etc), I just can't go backward.

In fact I refuse!

You’re contradicting yourself here. Doom Eternal was widely praised in part due to its succesful modernization of the classic 90s fps formula. It has no sprint for example, yet it feels fast and fluid. Much of what makes Doom Eternal’s gameplay so fun, wouldn’t have been possible if it had sprint. The same goes for Halo. The “depth” argument for Halo 5’s advanced movement mechanics has been debunked several times in this thread, and by Youtubers such as Favyn.

The thing is, we’re not talking about going backwards, we’re talking about going forwards with the fundamentals that made the original trilogy games so good. “Anti-sprinters” want Halo’s gameplay to be more like Doom Eternals’, not Halo 3’s.

gears of war has sprint and the best sliding movement ive played in pvp.

How would you feel about being able to shoot while sliding in Infinite? Seems like an innovation while maintaining Halo's traditional gun-always-up gameplay.

you can shoot while sliding in infinite, its shown in the demo.

Really? I didn't catch that

TEOCALI ELITE wrote:

As for the "depth" argument. Adding sprint absolutely adds depth,

Such as? I mean, you can't just make that claim and leave it at that.

I believe I've heard every depth related argument in favor of sprint under the sun, and they all either raise some negligible amount of depth on a pedestal (which really isn't how you should evaluate the value of a gameplay mechanic), or flatout have nothing to do with sprint itself.

TEOCALI ELITE wrote:

As a side note, one of the things I like with H5's sprint is how it disincentives use when you have taken damage. Perhaps there could be a way to peg health regen (just health not shields in this case) to movement speed. So if you take heavy damage your top speed is similarly taxed, or your health cant regen until you reduce to a walking speed. Not only is it realistic (not that important) it keeps one of the more redeemable aspects of H5 sprint with regards to implementation and skill gap.

Slowing players down when they get hit seems entirely antithetical to Halo's gameplay philosophy of encouraging movement and confrontation. In an typical encounter between two equally skilled players, the winning player will be leaving the encounter with no or very little shields. Punishing the victor by forcing them to wait or move slower seems extremely counterintuitive, and puts a damper on their ability to continue their winning streak effectively. It leads to slower and more monotonous gameplay with less really good plays.

You might say that it would make players more mindful of when they engage an opponent, but making a it more difficult to get a favorable encounter opportunity doesn't imply more tactical depth, because the current system already incentivizes players to look for the most favorable encounters for the prospect of losing less health. An additional deterrent doesn't raise the ceiling of how astute one should me. It just makes players inclined to engage less often.

The only reason Halo 5 needs to hamper sprinting at all is the escapability problem that comes from the asymmetry of a player running away being able to move faster than the player shooting at them—the escapability problem that is solely caused by sprint. When everyone is able to move at maximum speed at all times, you don't need to artificially implement mechanics to slow them down.