Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 278
  4. 279
  5. 280
  6. 281
  7. 282
  8. ...
  9. 290
Well, that was… interesting. Though our disagreement rages, thank you all for the support.

tsassi wrote:
Sometimes I find myself confused with the strands of discussion that happen in this thread. I had to go and check how it is relevant whether or not Skyrim is an FPS. Given the original context in which TheKiltdHeathen brought it up, I don't think it is relevant, and I think it's distracting us from the more important question: how does one claim that "comparing Halo to other games that operate completely different is a poor argument" but then go on to state that "Sprint as a movement mechanic has become a standard across the FPS genre" in favor of Halo having sprint? There appears to be a very clear comparison to other games that operate completely differently here.
I disagree, and hold that it is relevant. There is a clear distinction of what is being “compared”, for lack of a better word.

On the one hand, I still do and have disagreed with the practice of comparing the “Combat Ideology” of Halo as a series to other games. How a game handles their playstyle differs significantly; Halo emphasized exploration and diversity where the sandbox allows for a wide range of tactics and weapons. In general, Call of Duty and Battlefield opt for realism, conveying a real-world combat scenario with the limits of real-world soldiers. DOOM on the other hand, put you in the Hell-forged armor of a god of war, pitting you against the universe to prevail with speed and fury. Et cetera, et cetera.

To line Halo up with DOOM and suggest "this game succeeded without Sprint" is an uneven argument; the games’ playstyles are completely different. At no point in DOOM are you meant to slow down and explore, unlike Halo. You're meant to carve a swift and bloody path through your enemies, ergo a much faster BMS and an array of overpowered weapons. Comparing the two purely on grounds of "They're both FPS games" is as uneven as comparing Halo to Skyrim, which is where it entered the discussion.

On the other hand, bringing to bear what is a standard mechanic (not required or necessary-to-success, only common) across a wide range of games is not comparing games directly, but pointing out a common trend in modern gaming. It would be the same as putting forward 3D, high detail graphics as opposed to the graphic quality of 2001. Or a standardized controller layout. Pointing out that this is where modern gaming is going in general is different than putting two or three games side-by-side.

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

Nuss902928 wrote:
Running around the map and refusing to use your guns or grenades to melee people to death is neither a sound option, nor a fair comparison,
And yet it is an option. Cutting this aside, as mentioned above the whole point is that comparing games with very different playstyles makes for a poor comparison, even if they are both FPS games. Halo’s theme has always been exploration; to which the posed “solution” of a faster BMS to replace Sprint (a la DOOM) just does not work. That would greatly disrupt that theme.

And, as I know I’ve mentioned many months ago, removing Sprint entirely (though I sincerely doubt it will happen) negatively affects gameplay across the entire game, Campaign included. And if there is to be a partition in Matchmaking, then it is just as equitable to have a Modern and Classic matchmaking with Ranked and Social for both. Everyone gets what they want.

Quote:
Why are we pivoting to consoles?
I could just as easily have put in WASD movement, though the other button bindings I don’t know.

Regardless, that has become the standard for FPS games. Sprint has become a standard, and that there are only 4 FPS’s with very specific styles of play doesn’t negate this.

Quote:
And yet as Tsassi has pointed out you want to have it both ways when it comes to comparisons
No, because the distinction is what is being compared. If you’d like to compare Halo 3 to Halo 5 have at it; they have the same playstyle. Yet comparing a game based on exploration and a diverse sandbox to a game based on Rip and Tear as fast and bloody as possible is, as brushed upon, as ridiculous as comparing Halo to Skyrim. Or Cyberpunk 2077, if you’d prefer.

Neither do I appeal to the majority of modern games that have Sprint as the reason for why Halo should have Sprint, I point them out as evidence of what has become the basics for modern gaming. My reasons for why Sprint belongs in Halo has been varied over these near-300 pages; canonical support, map traversal, situational combat tactics, etc. Keeping up with modernity has been touched upon, yes, usually at contrast to Sprint being dubbed a “gimmick”. Wall running is a gimmick. Spartan Charge and Ground Pound were gimmicks. Assassinations are a gimmick. Sprint is a standard.

Quote:
Obviously you can walk around the map without sprint, but you're putting yourself at a major disadvantage by not being able to keep up with your team, or escape a bad engagement quickly, or make it to weapon/vehicle spawns and objectives as fast as everybody else.
The point here is as above; if the map layout allows for uniform traversal without Sprint, then there can reasonably be entire sub-menus that are centered around “Classic” play, omitting Sprint and Advanced Movements. It does not detract on cover, which is in abundance on 4v4 maps, nor would you be left behind by your squad (in instances where a squad actually works as a team) as everyone would be moving at max BMS.

And for those that enjoy using Sprint, those same maps can work with it. And a sub-menu for “Modern” play is where they find most enjoyment.

Quote:
The desire to remove sprint across the board is a product of the reality of map design, not personal animosity. You can't design maps to function around both movement styles,
Clearly you can. It still has yet to be shown conclusively how the maps as built cannot function in the absence of Sprint. And I’m not referring to a personal refusal to utilize it, I’m referring to a gametype where Sprint is not included.

Also by “across the board”, I am including Campaign. Movement mechanics affect that as well.

Quote:
The reason I said if is because it can and does in some games, assuming that 343 will not screw that up is somewhat optimistic in my opinion.
It’s actually improved with time.

In Halo Reach, it takes 1 second from pulling the trigger in a Sprint to begin firing. By comparison of “disadvantage”, throwing a grenade interrupts firing for 2 seconds. Strafing while Sprinting will break, but you are able to make fairly sharp turns while Sprinting. Melee is an immediate break from Sprint.

In Halo 4, the times remain the same. Strafing still breaks from Sprint, as does sharp turns of 90°. Melee remains an immediate break.

With Halo 5, firing immediately breaks you from Sprint. Grenades only interrupt firing for 1 second. I found out you can actually spin a full 180° (or even 360°) while sprinting (I must have let off the LS just enough to break), though strafing does break. Melee is enhanced with Spartan Charge.
Nuss902928 wrote:
You may not have to stop to look around but you do have to slow down which is still bad,
It’s not a semi; the slowing down to BMS is immediate whenever Sprint is broken. There is no real conceivable situation where Sprint puts you at such a disadvantage that is not present in any other risk present in Halo. There are always risks; maybe you’re reloading when you come in the room. Maybe you’re just not attentive enough and you get assassinated. Maybe you’re throwing a grenade and can’t return fire, or maybe they have an Overshield and anything you pour at them is useless.

In my opinion, the risks present with Sprint (however menial) do not outweigh the benefits in many given scenarios. BMS is all well and fine for a steady cruising speed, but sometimes that fast isn’t fast enough, and in those sometimes it’s good to have a little extra temporary push. Rushing to cut off deploying and unaware enemies, or catching them in a group before they spread out. Moving quicker to cut off a Scorpion, and maybe board and destroy it. High-tailing it from incoming artillery fire before you get hit, or sprinting away from an incoming Banshee to the safety of your base.

Quote:
Citation definitely needed.
The Launch Sales of every Halo game have increased upon the previous installation. Halo 3 was $170m, with 2.5 million copies sold, and 3.3 million 12 days in. Halo Reach was $200mil. Halo 4 was $220mil, with 300mil in its first week. And Halo 5 was at $400 million in its first week, reported by Forbes and Wire as the largest Halo release ever, and pushing the franchise to $5 billion. For both Halo 4 and Halo 5, reviews were majority positive: Metacritic gave Halo 4 an 87%, and GamesTM gave Halo 5 a 6/10.

I fail to see how Halo 4 and 5 were failures in light of such marked success. Opinion-based fan reception has always been divided down the line, as it really has since Halo 2 (yes, the fanbase has always been split 50:50 on one issue to the next). We often hear “population” as the hearkening doom, yet the numbers as fact are at best guesses and assumptions based on isolated communities. Stats of users on websites that you have to register to be counted, not XBL in its entirety. Somehow, despite this scarcity of players, people always manage to find a well-populated game, and quicker than the days of Halo 3.

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

The flow of map movement can be broken because of how Halo 5 handles movement.
How is the flow broken?

So far as Halo 5 “movement tech”, Sprint is prerequisite to only two; Spartan Charge and Slide. Thrusters require nothing before hand - Sprint certainly adds to them, but it’s not the pillar for them. Jumping and height is required for Ground Pound.

Quote:
So how is the sprintless comparison different from the 'need' sprint argument?
As stated before:

DOOM’s ideology is intensely fast-paced combat and ground coverage. Your BMS is always set to High, so much so that slow movement is awkward and jerky. The game literally pushes you to move faster.

Overwatch and Valorant are Class-Based combat games whose ideology is centered on tactical team building based on set roles. The entire layout of these games is asymmetrical and uneven; they don’t operate like Halo where every player starts off with the same tools made available. They also do have Sprint mechanics and options, despite them being sectioned to a given Character Class or button layout.

To compare these games and their movement mechanics as evidence against Sprint in Halo is not a good comparison. Halo is neither a class-based arena game, nor does it insist upon fast movement. Rather, Halo’s ideology is focused on giving a broad and diverse sandbox of tools to combat with, and knowing when and how to apply them. Sprint falls into this battlefield knowledge, as neither a requirement nor an exclusive, but a tool given to all to use at their discretion.

Quote:
The choice but not the power exchange. Since you cannot shoot while sprinting those that sprint are choosing to run, those that shoot have to not sprint. There is a power imbalance that sprint creates that favours those running away. It is an escape mechanic.
Yes, it can be an escape mechanic yet as has also been pointed out, your shields do not recharge while you are Sprinting, nor while you are under fire. This only puts the person sprinting at an advantage if the team they’re trying to escape from is uncoordinated and unskilled.

But a better question to this common complaint; if the pursuing team is so unskilled as to let them escape, why do they not deserve to get away? Because it draws the game out? There’s always a time limit to Slayer games. If a team is able to get a lead, and then draw that out to Time, then that’s just as valid a tactic as any other.

Quote:
Yes you do, 'modern games' isn't a void answer with no examples, you chose not to name them. Battlefield, CoD, titanfall and Destiny are likely the big 'modern' game examples, possibly fortnite. Your re-entry to the thread is that it is expected and standard to have sprint. Which standard? what games set that standard?
No, I don’t. I use situations as present in Halo itself. My inclusion of Sprint as a standard mechanic - set by quite literally a myriad of games from almost all genres - is nothing more than a statement to its permanence in modern gaming. Games that succeed without it do so either because it is omi-present and unnecessary (like DOOM), or limited based on gimmick and style (like Overwatch). Halo is neither of those, and presents many situations both in Multiplayer and Campaign that Sprint is greatly beneficial.

Quote:
What is Halo's gameplay ideology? seems rather vague. Given you loathe comparisons to past Halo games, is your ideology of Halo gameplay even Halo? Going as fast as possible all the time was Halo, Halo 101.
As stated: Exploration and tactics. This has applied to every single Halo game, even Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2. No, going as fast as possible all the time was never Halo. Remember that one bit in Assault on the Control Room where all the Grunts are asleep, and if you creep around real slow you could knock them all out stealthily? Or in Multiplayer, how about moving slow so that you didn’t show up on motion tracker to get the jump on some enemies guarding the flag? Hell, Halo 2 onward even gave an animation for walking, rather than jogging.

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

firing your weapon is always possible and brings you to normal speed instantaneously. Sharp turns also bring speed back down
This is already the case in Halo 5. Can’t say just yet for Infinite, but it looks as though thrusters are out. The only Advanced Movements that we have remaining are slide and clamber.
I disagree, and hold that it is relevant. There is a clear distinction of what is being “compared”, for lack of a better word.

On the one hand, I still do and have disagreed with the practice of comparing the “Combat Ideology” of Halo as a series to other games. How a game handles their playstyle differs significantly; Halo emphasized exploration and diversity where the sandbox allows for a wide range of tactics and weapons. In general, Call of Duty and Battlefield opt for realism, conveying a real-world combat scenario with the limits of real-world soldiers. DOOM on the other hand, put you in the Hell-forged armor of a god of war, pitting you against the universe to prevail with speed and fury. Et cetera, et cetera.To line Halo up with DOOM and suggest "this game succeeded without Sprint" is an uneven argument; the games’ playstyles are completely different. At no point in DOOM are you meant to slow down and explore, unlike Halo. You're meant to carve a swift and bloody path through your enemies, ergo a much faster BMS and an array of overpowered weapons. Comparing the two purely on grounds of "They're both FPS games" is as uneven as comparing Halo to Skyrim, which is where it entered the discussion.

On the other hand, bringing to bear what is a standard mechanic (not required or necessary-to-success, only common) across a wide range of games is not comparing games directly, but pointing out a common trend in modern gaming. It would be the same as putting forward 3D, high detail graphics as opposed to the graphic quality of 2001. Or a standardized controller layout. Pointing out that this is where modern gaming is going in general is different than putting two or three games side-by-side.
You're misunderstanding the argument why other games without sprint matter. The argument from the pro-sprint side, whether you subscrive to it or not, has been that Halo needs sprint to succeed, because sprint is such a common mechanic in shooters that players expect it and will be driven away if it's not present. In this context, it is completely appropriate to point out as a counter argument that there are popular shooters that do not have sprint, and that therefore sprint is not a requirement for a game, in the abstract, to succeed.

This is the argument shooters without sprint are relevant for. The claim isn't "Halo shouldn't have sprint", but that "Sprint isn't necessary for the success of a modern shooter". It just establishes that sprint being a common mechanic doesn't imply anything for Halo. It is just a counter point, not a point against sprint, per se.

If someone is explicitly saying that Halo should not have sprint because Doom, then fine, you're right. But if they're not, you need to acknowledge the fact that Doom not having sprint is relevant to the extent that gamers obviously have no reservations about playing a well designed game that doesn't have sprint. Now, this might be obvious to you, but it unfortunately isn't obvious to everyone who likes sprint.

Whether or not sprint is fit for Halo's gameplay is an entirely different discussion. But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Comparison of different games is a useful tool for discussing gameplay design, even if those games aren't complete clones of each other. It's generally good to be open minded and not shoot down every comparison with the same blanket argument. I don't actually see any issue with comparing Skyrim to Halo, as long as the aspect being compared is relevant and applicable.
TheKiltdHeathen, I have to say I am thoroughly impressed by your quality of argument. I myself am on the side of anti-sprint (though I really am fine with it). I appreciate a well thought out response. tsassi, I am impressed with your dedication to this thread, though admittedly you are a monitor so... Anyways I agree with all those who have stated, and will state that this community will always be divided particularly on the topic of movement mechanics. I've been gone for a long time and this thread is still going.
My reasons for why Sprint belongs in Halo has been varied over these near-300 pages; canonical support,
We've already had this talk in the past, and this is objectively wrong. Spartans in Halo lore have always been portrayed as being able to shoot while sprinting. Forcing weapons down ingame goes directly against canon.
Now, I don't mind people preferring sprint. I strongly disagree, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion, which is why I have refrained from replying until now, as it was pretty much clear that what is being discussed is personal preference:

No, here we are with justifications for the desire to be able to use Sprint. I even stated that it’s a matter of preference and perspective. I want it to trim tedious sections. Those areas of past games where I think ”boy, this’d be useful” do not require Sprint in the same way areas of the game don’t require a bubbleshield.
However, at this point you're once again just twisting canon to justify your opinion. If you actually wanted canonical consistency, you would be against sprint as a mechanic.

The Launch Sales of every Halo game have increased upon the previous installation. Halo 3 was $170m, with 2.5 million copies sold, and 3.3 million 12 days in. Halo Reach was $200mil. Halo 4 was $220mil, with 300mil in its first week. And Halo 5 was at $400 million in its first week, reported by Forbes and Wire as the largest Halo release ever, and pushing the franchise to $5 billion.
I fail to see how Halo 4 and 5 were failures in light of such marked success.
The sales numbers for the H5G figures are already known to include hardware sales (bundles, controllers, etc.) and even merchandise while (at least) the Halo 3 ones did not.
Looking further down the line, H5G shipped 5 Million units in its first three months (it was later confirmed that this number refers to "sold in to stores", not "sold through to the end consumer", but even if it didn't, it would be lower than its predecessors) compared to Halo 2's 5+ Million within its first three weeks, 8.1 Million within three months for Halo 3, more than 6.58 Million copies in three months for Reach (as we know it sold more than New Super Mario Bros Wii, and that was the total number of NSMBWii sales in 2010) and some 7-Million-ish Halo 4 sales within two months (although this is a VGChartz figure and should be taken with a grain of salt).

Then there's also these news here:
Halo 5 Is the Least Selling Main Halo Game in UK History.
Halo 5 Sold Fewer Xbox Consoles Than Any Other Game in the Main Halo Series.

Now the usual rebuttal at this point is that H5G's sales tanked because it launched on an unpopular console, which is only correct when compared to the Playstation 4, but not in absolute numbers: Halo 2 launched to an install base of 15 Million Xbox's, Halo 3 launched to 13 Million 360's and H5G lauched to 15 Million XBones. At least these three titles have comparable sales figures based on their platform's install base.

Whether or not you considure H5G a sales "failure" depends what your expectations were, but the fact is that it had the least sales of any mainline Halo game since the original, only surpassing spinoffs such as ODST and Wars and re-releases like CEA and the MCC.

Remember that one bit in Assault on the Control Room where all the Grunts are asleep, and if you creep around real slow you could knock them all out stealthily?
Remember how running at max speed in that section actually doesn't wake them up, nor does it make the enemies more aware of you? I've managed to clear that entire room countless times stealthily without ever slowing down. Same goes for similar sections in later games, like the urinating-Brute-room in Halo 3, etc.

Hell, Halo 2 onward even gave an animation for walking, rather than jogging.
Halo 2 also allowed you to completely lower the gun using a button combo, to make machinimas easier. That's not necessarily a gameplay-motivated addition.
Celestis, another well argued rebuttal. Never cease to impress.

I will add my two cents due to my recent experience.

I recently started playing MCC again and noticed that I by far had the most fun with Halo 3. I was certainly not the best at it and for practically my entire Halo experience only held on to reach, 4, and 5 when playing multiplayer. I noticed that when I played Halo 3, 2, and CE, things felt more chill and you actually had to think! I can't just go running in guns blazing in Halo 3 whereas in Halo 5 I most certainly can. When I would die in Halo 3 I didn't get upset at all. When I would die in Halo 5, I did. For me I guess the no sprint games have a more chill and relaxing feeling. Something you can sit down to after work or school and feel good about it. Halo 4 and 5 along with Call of Duty and others rile me up and I don't feel good about playing those games nearly as much as I do the older Halos. This is entirely personal experience. I am simply making an observation of myself and my habits when playing these games.
Quote:
Nuss902928 wrote:
Running around the map and refusing to use your guns or grenades to melee people to death is neither a sound option, nor a fair comparison,
And yet it is an option. Cutting this aside, as mentioned above the whole point is that comparing games with very different playstyles makes for a poor comparison, even if they are both FPS games. Halo’s theme has always been exploration; to which the posed “solution” of a faster BMS to replace Sprint (a la DOOM) just does not work. That would greatly disrupt that theme.
"Halo’s theme has always been exploration"

Has it? Halo CE had lots of exploration, especially in the earlier missions, but since then we haven't had many wide open campaign missions, Halo 4 was particularly linear. And when it comes to multiplayer combat is most certainly the focus.

"to which the posed “solution” of a faster BMS to replace Sprint (a la DOOM) just does not work. That would greatly disrupt that theme"

I fail to see how that would disrupt anything, perhaps ramping BMS up to DOOM levels would be excessive, but a smaller increase would be more than reasonable without sprint.
Quote:
And, as I know I’ve mentioned many months ago, removing Sprint entirely (though I sincerely doubt it will happen) negatively affects gameplay across the entire game, Campaign included.
Still waiting for some convincing arguments about how negative it would be but I digress, what I want to talk about here is campaign since it actually leads into yet another problem with sprint which is AI targeting. You see in the sprintless games the AI never needed to compensate for a sudden burst of speed from the player on foot, but in the games with sprint they do. Many have complained about the insane speed and accuracy of sniper Jackals in Halo 5, this is most likely a result of the Jackals having to be fast and accurate enough to hit a sprinting player, which is fine if the player is always sprinting but when the player stops to shoot and thus slows down they become very easy picking for Jackal snipers. In this way sprint brings the need for a distinctly different level of targeting and reaction time against sprinting and non-sprinting players, which does not seem to have been implemented in Halo 5. Of course Halo 2 has the most infamous sniper Jackals, but this was a result of Halo 2 being rushed which meant that Bungie did not have enough time to properly play test the campaign which is why many other things in Halo 2's campaign are over tuned. Admittedly, I'm not sure how difficult this problem is to deal with, but it is a concern that I have heard before so I thought it was worth repeating.
Quote:
Quote:
Why are we pivoting to consoles?
I could just as easily have put in WASD movement, though the other button bindings I don’t know.

Regardless, that has become the standard for FPS games. Sprint has become a standard, and that there are only 4 FPS’s with very specific styles of play doesn’t negate this.
I assure you that key bindings are far less standard than console buttons, for example, to sprint in Halo 4 you use the c key, while in Halo Reach you use the shift key which is in my opinion much easier.

I don't know why you're once again bringing up the prevalence of sprint in modern games as if that means something. Halo also has its own style of play, and sprint isn't equally applied in the games that it appears in. I repeat what I said in my last response, I have no interest in this appeal to novelty.
Quote:
Quote:
And yet as Tsassi has pointed out you want to have it both ways when it comes to comparisons
No, because the distinction is what is being compared. If you’d like to compare Halo 3 to Halo 5 have at it; they have the same playstyle. Yet comparing a game based on exploration and a diverse sandbox to a game based on Rip and Tear as fast and bloody as possible is, as brushed upon, as ridiculous as comparing Halo to Skyrim. Or Cyberpunk 2077, if you’d prefer.
I once again take issue with the idea that Halo is based on exploration, there is exploration, but I don't see how you could consider it something that the game is based on, Halo may not be as intense as DOOM but it is closer to DOOM than it is to an open world RPG. DOOM isn't meant to be some kind of template for Halo, it's simply an example which shows how combat and movement can be fast without sprint.
Quote:
Neither do I appeal to the majority of modern games that have Sprint as the reason for why Halo should have Sprint, I point them out as evidence of what has become the basics for modern gaming. My reasons for why Sprint belongs in Halo has been varied over these near-300 pages; canonical support, map traversal, situational combat tactics
What you haven't backed up however is what the point of presenting what is and is not basic even does for the conversation. Who cares if sprint or any other mechanic has become a basic mechanic in so many other games, we should only care if they work with Halo's formula.

"canonical support"

This is probably the weakest argument for sprint of them all, a real Spartan is more than capable of moving at full speed without swinging their arms back and forth, their muscle strength, response time, and advanced power armor allow them to easily fire accurately on the move. The idea that they need to slow down to fire accurately is what is uncanonical. Furthermore, even if it did make more sense canonically, it still wouldn't be a good reason for its inclusion because tons of other things in multiplayer make no sense canonically, for example, Mjolnir armor provides a great deal of protection even without shields, but in multiplayer you can be killed with just a few or even one shot once your shields drop.

"map traversal"

The older games had wonderful map traversal options even without sprint, there were vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, grav lifts, and elevators that helped you move around the map faster, a faster BMS would also speed up map traversal, in addition to smaller maps.

"situational combat tactics"

Which mostly involve either running away or running to a fight or objective which both reward players for running away and do not punish players as badly for poor positioning.

Quote:
Keeping up with modernity has been touched upon, yes, usually at contrast to Sprint being dubbed a “gimmick”. Wall running is a gimmick. Spartan Charge and Ground Pound were gimmicks. Assassinations are a gimmick. Sprint is a standard.
How exactly do you determine whether or not something is a gimmick? Wall running works in some other modern FPS games, why doesn't it in Halo? And once again sprint being a standard is both wrong (not every FPS has it) and meaningless, what matters is whether this "standard" is good for Halo.

1/2
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously you can walk around the map without sprint, but you're putting yourself at a major disadvantage by not being able to keep up with your team, or escape a bad engagement quickly, or make it to weapon/vehicle spawns and objectives as fast as everybody else.
The point here is as above; if the map layout allows for uniform traversal without Sprint, then there can reasonably be entire sub-menus that are centered around “Classic” play, omitting Sprint and Advanced Movements. It does not detract on cover, which is in abundance on 4v4 maps, nor would you be left behind by your squad (in instances where a squad actually works as a team) as everyone would be moving at max BMS.

And for those that enjoy using Sprint, those same maps can work with it. And a sub-menu for “Modern” play is where they find most enjoyment.
When it comes to cover, the problem doesn't emerge from a lack of it on the map, but rather its spacing. On maps designed for sprint, cover has to be spaced farther apart which means that unless the BMS is significantly increased beyond reason the cover will be too far apart to use as easily. Hallways will similarly be made longer which will generally slow down the pace of the game. Map traversal is simply different with sprint when compared to a faster BMS, meaning that these two playlists could not function on a single map.
Quote:
Quote:
The desire to remove sprint across the board is a product of the reality of map design, not personal animosity. You can't design maps to function around both movement styles,
Clearly you can.
343 have already introduced remakes of older maps that are larger than the originals, clearly they didn't think that the older version worked with sprint. Earlier in this thread people made measurements of many other maps which showed that the general size of maps has gone up in Halo 5.
Quote:
Quote:
The reason I said if is because it can and does in some games, assuming that 343 will not screw that up is somewhat optimistic in my opinion.
It’s actually improved with time.

In Halo Reach, it takes 1 second from pulling the trigger in a Sprint to begin firing. By comparison of “disadvantage”, throwing a grenade interrupts firing for 2 seconds. Strafing while Sprinting will break, but you are able to make fairly sharp turns while Sprinting. Melee is an immediate break from Sprint.

In Halo 4, the times remain the same. Strafing still breaks from Sprint, as does sharp turns of 90°. Melee remains an immediate break.

With Halo 5, firing immediately breaks you from Sprint. Grenades only interrupt firing for 1 second. I found out you can actually spin a full 180° (or even 360°) while sprinting (I must have let off the LS just enough to break), though strafing does break. Melee is enhanced with Spartan Charge.
The removal of the 1 second delay is good but it has existed before and it could potentially return, even if that is unlikely.
Quote:
Nuss902928 wrote:
You may not have to stop to look around but you do have to slow down which is still bad,
It’s not a semi; the slowing down to BMS is immediate whenever Sprint is broken.
When I said slow down I was referring to the players speed not the time it takes to stop sprinting.

Quote:
"There is no real conceivable situation where Sprint puts you at such a disadvantage that is not present in any other risk present in Halo. There are always risks"
So you admit that there is a disadvantage, but don't see the problem of taking away the player's ability to minimize risks even if they are always present.
Quote:
maybe you’re reloading when you come in the room.
Which you never should be unless you absolutely have to or know for certain that the room is safe.
Quote:
Maybe you’re just not attentive enough and you get assassinated.
Well then that's on you, but you would have had a better chance of not being snuck up on if you could look around and move at max speed at the same time.
Quote:
Maybe you’re throwing a grenade and can’t return fire,
If you throw a grenade, it should be because its the better option than shooting, and if sprint is in the game your opponent can more easily avoid the grenade.
Quote:
or maybe they have an Overshield and anything you pour at them is useless.
Useless? what are you talking about? Its not impossible to kill somebody with overshield, you can beat them if you kite them into some grenades, land an assassination, or have a power weapon. Even if you do fail to kill them you will still help your team if you can at least drop their overshields.
Quote:
BMS is all well and fine for a steady cruising speed, but sometimes that fast isn’t fast enough, and in those sometimes it’s good to have a little extra temporary push.
That's only the case if the maps are too big, otherwise the BMS is fine and will suit the needs of the player, any extra burst of speed will either ruin the traversal times of the map or necessitate a bigger map.
Quote:
Rushing to cut off deploying and unaware enemies
Unaware enemies will always be easy pickings, as for "deploying" enemies this just sounds like increased opportunities for spawn camping.
Quote:
or catching them in a group before they spread out
Well if sprint is in the game then they can split up much faster, effectively nerfing the value of catching a group of bunched up enemies.
Quote:
Moving quicker to cut off a Scorpion, and maybe board and destroy it
Meaning that vehicles have been effectively nerfed and Scorpions will camp at one end of the map even harder than usual.
Quote:
High-tailing it from incoming artillery fire before you get hit
A well timed and placed artillery barrage should hit before the target knows its coming, otherwise its just a dispersal weapon, which I admit does have value.
Quote:
or sprinting away from an incoming Banshee to the safety of your base.
If you're out in the open and an enemy Banshee sees you, you're probably already done for
Quote:
In my opinion, the risks present with Sprint (however menial) do not outweigh the benefits in many given scenarios
Overall, it seems that you aren't considering all of the risks that sprint presents and are downplaying the ones you have considered. Sprint indirectly nerfs other parts of the game and only gives the illusion of advantages in most scenarios because you think you're reaching a point or doing something faster, but in reality the maps are almost always bigger to the point where the actual time to travel to a point is equal or even longer.
Quote:
Quote:
Citation definitely needed.
The Launch Sales of every Halo game have increased upon the previous installation. Halo 3 was $170m, with 2.5 million copies sold, and 3.3 million 12 days in. Halo Reach was $200mil. Halo 4 was $220mil, with 300mil in its first week. And Halo 5 was at $400 million in its first week, reported by Forbes and Wire as the largest Halo release ever, and pushing the franchise to $5 billion. For both Halo 4 and Halo 5, reviews were majority positive: Metacritic gave Halo 4 an 87%, and GamesTM gave Halo 5 a 6/10.
Celestis already provided an excellent rebuttal to this, I'll just add that you should have actually included your citations instead of referencing Forbes and Wire without linking anything, and that launch sales are not the same as total sales.

2/2
Quote:
What is Halo's gameplay ideology? seems rather vague. Given you loathe comparisons to past Halo games, is your ideology of Halo gameplay even Halo? Going as fast as possible all the time was Halo, Halo 101.
As stated: Exploration and tactics. This has applied to every single Halo game, even Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2. No, going as fast as possible all the time was never Halo. Remember that one bit in Assault on the Control Room where all the Grunts are asleep, and if you creep around real slow you could knock them all out stealthily? Or in Multiplayer, how about moving slow so that you didn’t show up on motion tracker to get the jump on some enemies guarding the flag? Hell, Halo 2 onward even gave an animation for walking, rather than jogging.
I should point out that this notion of "gameplay ideology" is completely subjective. It's easy to interpret design decisions as fitting to some wider principle—I do so all the time—but that doesn't mean the original designer thought of it that way.

From my personal point of view, exploration and tactics in no way implies slow movement. In fact, "exploration and tactics" is so generic that it easily applies to Doom. After all, "tactics" is a generic concept that applies to basically any game with even tiniest amount of depth, and "exploration" is a principle I could without hesitation apply to Doom with its long history secrets hidden in levels. The fact that the player flies through rooms at mach 3 in no way discourages exploration or diminishes the importance of tactical thinking.

It's actually very easy to see Halo as a highly movement oriented game that encourages constant motion and fast action. The primary reason is that Halo is very light on mechanics to penalize fast movement. There are no accuracy penalties: you can just as well be running and gunning with a sniper rifle as you could patiently stop to line your shots. There are no movement penalties on heavy weapons: you run just as fast with a rocket launcher as you do with a pistol. In classic Halo, anything you can do, you can do running as fast as possible. Prior to the introduction of sprint, showing up on radar was the only movement based penalty.


Quote:
(cut, so i have characters left)

- exploration: sprint locks one into a single forard speed. this is far more damaging to exploration than heightened bms. The modern doom games rely on exploration (key cards and easter eggs) too, so that is a moot point.
- the negative effects of removing sprint are artificial, as they stem from sprint adapted map design. classic halo worked well without. a higher bms and larger FOV increase the felt speed more than enough. map traversal can be achived by a heightened top max forward speed at lower acceleration to it. of course, removing a feature that was accounted for in a map destroys gameplay, no matter how good or bad the gameplay was with the feature.
- having sprint and no sprint side by side as gameplay optioins is not viable, as it would double the needed maps, for campaign too. half way maps work with neither. Halo 5 mythic was semifunctional, as it had to deal with the autoaim and did not work to well on non-forge maps.
- no matter the risks to balance sprint, if the map is requiring sprinting for fluid movement, you will have to sprint. this is then just annoying main gameplay.
- the sales statistics are not equivalent, as they don't distiguish between total sales, first quarter sales, bundle sales, etc.
- the flow is the readiness to shoot and the long time to kill, creating a "dance", which is a staple of halo. if players should be shot while sprinting, the killtimes must be lowered and/or aim assist increased. if the normal fights then happen at base speed, the aim assist and kill times don't match the maneuverability, harming "the dance". faster bms simply increases the dance area. thrusters are a bandaid, as they have preset ranges.
- nobody argues for doom like speeds. thats a strawman. people argue for halo 3 mlg playlist like speeds. thats it. and thats proven to work.
- sprint can be achived by other methodes than the generic "button to put away weapon and go faster" methode. i have proposed such solutions before. halo can benefit from omnipresent running (spartan stamina is basicly infinite in canon), and width of adoption is not a sure sign of actual quality. look at microtransactions. doing something outside of a standard shooter gives halo a distinguishing factor (by not playing alike to other games). this means itr does not have to fight on foreign ground, but has its own home turf. searching to gain aproval from other fanbases is less effective than building ones own.

bruh
-------------------------------------------------

firing your weapon is always possible and brings you to normal speed instantaneously. Sharp turns also bring speed back down
This is already the case in Halo 5. Can’t say just yet for Infinite, but it looks as though thrusters are out. The only Advanced Movements that we have remaining are slide and clamber.
In halo 5 there is a delay between ending sprint and shooting: the lenght of the animation to bring your weapon back up after the wide swaying of sprint.
In my proposal the animation of swaying and bobing is minimal and the barrel stays pointed forward, so firing from any sway position is not janky and no animation that delays the beginning of firing is necessary.
in halo infinite a quick thrust in mid air can be seen in the banished camp after the elevator ride and before the graplehook cliff traversal.
I am in favour of this minimal kind of thrust (/slide when you are on the ground. simply different animation i guess).

clamber, in my opinion, should be replaced by a more height effective crouch jump and jump height increase (a small weapon bob when a crouch jump is landing suggest a climbing motion and signals a successful landing). this reduces the amount of needed button presses (less sweaty), increases omniderectionality, removes the time consuming animation for a necessary action (prevents regular flow) and removes the automatic success of clamber, increasing the skill cealing.
To line Halo up with DOOM and suggest "this game succeeded without Sprint" is an uneven argument; the games’ playstyles are completely different. At no point in DOOM are you meant to slow down and explore, unlike Halo. You're meant to carve a swift and bloody path through your enemies, ergo a much faster BMS and an array of overpowered weapons. Comparing the two purely on grounds of "They're both FPS games" is as uneven as comparing Halo to Skyrim, which is where it entered the discussion.
I'd expect them to be different, they are different game in different franchises with different design philosophies. DOOM 2016 almost had sprint, so it's not like "different ideologies" are set in stone.

The only thing DOOM's existence does in this thread is prove that a recent, popular game in an established franchise with a niche community can still be successful without the existence of sprint. That's it.

On the topic of exploration, I do have a lot of room to say that DOOM offers more exploration than Halo simply because there's more collectables and intel in 2016, and upgrades, puzzles, and the slayer gate stuff in Eternal (to the point where it even has fast travel). So you kinda are meant to slow down and explore, just not during combat.

In my opinion, the risks present with Sprint (however menial) do not outweigh the benefits in many given scenarios. BMS is all well and fine for a steady cruising speed, but sometimes that fast isn’t fast enough, and in those sometimes it’s good to have a little extra temporary push.
...So make it be fast enough. You acknowledged that DOOM has a BMS that is fast enough (if not too fast), so there exists a speed where you're content. At that point, control of speed would happen through map elements, since you can control your own speed and limit the speed of other people. Every example you gave here could be replicated without sprint.
How is the flow broken?
So far as Halo 5 “movement tech”
-*comments were cut to help word count, not ideal but I just replied to each paragraph so it should still be easy to connect my reply to your point*-
Halo 5 movement combos are movement tech unique to Halo 5. Clamber and thrust become egregious because of the sprint / slide then jump combo.
Sprint -> slide -> jump -> thrust -> stabilise -> clamber. Without sprint (and slide) the movement tech and combos that can occur due to preservation of momentum would be nothing. Clambering to power positions or thrust launching is only possible due to sprint. Sprint is the pillar of movement tech in Halo 5. If sprint didn't exist the capability and usage of both clamber and thrust would be far less.

To loop this part back to the prior post and reply, bringing advanced movement into the discussion of sprint isn't worthwhile we know Infinite won't function like 5 and that Reach and 4 didn't prior. 'advanced movement' as a trend in relation to Halo is an outlier, a trait unique to H5. movement flow is very broken in H5, what used to be fluid and consistent is very janky due to movement combos and tech. This is unique to 5 however, 4 and Reach also had a problem with flow when sprint was the only issue. It's not difficult to see how, 2 movement speeds, 1 allows for fast movement and the slower one allows the player to shoot. You can only be active and engaged when not sprinting and the added effect of now having to shoot fast moving opponents at a slower speed.
As stated before:

DOOM’s ideology is intensely fast-paced combat and ground coverage. Your BMS is always set to High, so much so that slow movement is awkward and jerky. The game literally pushes you to move faster.
So why is the 'standard' set by other games relevant to Halo? As Tsassi said, the other examples are only brought up because it proves a shooter doesn't need sprint to exist. All online multiplayer shooters that use sprint play nothing like Halo, so why do we care about this 'standard' if it has no analog? For 3 main games and a spin-off sprint didn't exist and for the first game that used it the most controversial feature and community push was to remove sprint.

A broad and diverse sandbox of tools isn't a pre-requisite for sprint, I would argue Halo CE multiplayer still has the most broad and diverse sandbox when it comes to adding dimensions to combat (nearly every weapon functional, plasma rifle slow, effective power-ups, item nading, complex map design etc) and that has the clunkiest movement. The ideology you described does not need sprint. Just like the anti-sprint argument suggests to raise the BMS to slightly faster than H2 levels with fluid strafing (not icy) and to place movement tech as map design or map pick-ups not giving 90% of the power on spawn. The ideology of a broad and diverse sandbox still applies.
Yes, it can be an escape mechanic yet as has also been pointed out, your shields do not recharge while you are Sprinting, nor while you are under fire. This only puts the person sprinting at an advantage if the team they’re trying to escape from is uncoordinated and unskilled.
This wasn't the case in Reach and 4 and now that sprint received the escape nerf in 5 you can do the movement combo tech I described earlier. Without sprint on spawn it is more safe to collapse on a location regardless of movespeed. Because there is a 2-speed system with a high kill-time on enclosed maps with ample cover to break LoS once LoS is broken the aggression the player who put pressure on isn't awarded more control. Sprint has made the game more cautious, doubly so with H5 movement tech, even with the nerf. Once LoS is broken you (the aggressor) need to be not sprinting to be ready to shoot, yet the other team can sprint and rush in to finish or push back a weakened player (you). With a uniform move speed you know the opposition can only travel to assist as fast as you can so the nature of the engagement changes. Halo is a very positional game and with a uniform move speed you are more able to rotate and pressure. With sprint (doubly with H5 tech) the game is more cat and mouse because you need to be ready to detach, run and rotate back to teammates, so a large portion of the game is spent inactive just moving. Simply pull up tournament level play of each game and you can see it yourself.
No, I don’t. I use situations as present in Halo itself. My inclusion of Sprint as a standard mechanic - set by quite literally a myriad of games from almost all genres - is nothing more than a statement to its permanence in modern gaming. Games that succeed without it do so either because it is omi-present and unnecessary (like DOOM), or limited based on gimmick and style (like Overwatch). Halo is neither of those, and presents many situations both in Multiplayer and Campaign that Sprint is greatly beneficial.
How is this myriad relevant if they don't play like Halo when examples to the contrary aren't relevant if they don't play like Halo? Prone is a very common feature in shooters and in canon chief can prone, one of the first moments of chief in the CE trailer has him prone, so why no prone in Halo? Why is permanence relevant if there is evidence to the contrary and the feature in question has not worked well in 3 separate titles? Your argument pretends that 3 games and ~10 years of Halo didn't exist. So greatly beneficial that no game with it has come close to the peak numbers, that it has divided the community and that every thread whether here, youtube, reddit etc talks of how to revive the franchise? Not to say that sprint is the lone cause but if it is so beneficial why has there been no growth? Why is the anti-sprint suggestion of movement tech on map not spawn possible or worthwhile?
As stated: Exploration and tactics. This has applied to every single Halo game, even Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2. No, going as fast as possible all the time was never Halo.
How is rts relevant to fps? how is exploration and tactics relevant to sprint? was CE-H3 not relevant to this Halo ideology? is the anti-sprint argument not true to this ideology also? full speed while in combat was Halo for 3 games and 9 years and the change is the most divisive aspect since its inclusion. As Celestis said you could move full speed and not wake the grunts. Yet again i said something with a hidden parenthesis as it was the basis for what we were talking about, mentioning crouch walking / hiding from radar obscures this point so lets re-iterate it to be crystal clear. "Going as fast as possible all the time (while in combat/shooting) was Halo, Halo 101". Temporarily slowing yourself down is not the same as a new mechanic which robs the ability to move as fast as possible 'while shooting'.

I don't think this is moving the goalposts or some other deflection accusation I know will be thrown my way as the argument is about the function of Halo fps multiplayer. Such a vague description of 'exploration and tactics' means that Fortnite and Destiny fit neatly with this description also. We were not talking about ideology as a whole but the functionality of fps gameplay. A game can have many ideologies, not all are relevant to competitive multiplayer which is at least 95% of sprint threads content and the controversy of sprint to begin with.
TheKiltdHeathen, I have to say I am thoroughly impressed by your quality of argument. I myself am on the side of anti-sprint (though I really am fine with it). I appreciate a well thought out response. tsassi, I am impressed with your dedication to this thread, though admittedly you are a monitor so... Anyways I agree with all those who have stated, and will state that this community will always be divided particularly on the topic of movement mechanics. I've been gone for a long time and this thread is still going.
Bold - I know tsassi can speak for himself, but I have friends who are monitors too (not just on Halo forms) and I'm tired of people thinking just because someone is a monitor they have to take the "company side" or reply to everything or whatever. Tsassi doesn't have to reply to this topic or any other topic. He has to "monitor" them to make sure people are following the rules. If he or she, wishes to engage in a thread, they are free to do so unless rules state otherwise for them. I'm not trying to rip you a new one Red J Phoenix so please don't take it this way. I'm just tired of people assuming stuff like this.

Also, this right here what Tsassi said, is what I've been saying (or trying to say 😆) for what seems like since the dawn of time!! 😂
Quote:
The argument from the pro-sprint side, whether you subscrive to it or not, has been that Halo needs sprint to succeed, because sprint is such a common mechanic in shooters that players expect it and will be driven away if it's not present. In this context, it is completely appropriate to point out as a counter argument that there are popular shooters that do not have sprint, and that therefore sprint is not a requirement for a game, in the abstract, to succeed.
This is the argument shooters without sprint are relevant for. The claim isn't "Halo shouldn't have sprint", but that "Sprint isn't necessary for the success of a modern shooter". It just establishes that sprint being a common mechanic doesn't imply anything for Halo. It is just a counter point, not a point against sprint, per se
If someone is explicitly saying that Halo should not have sprint because Doom, then fine, you're right. But if they're not, you need to acknowledge the fact that Doom not having sprint is relevant to the extent that gamers obviously have no reservations about playing a well designed game that doesn't have sprint.
Thank you!!! LoL
It has, and it has remained Halo. A game who’s ideology is a diverse sandbox where every player is a “Hyper Lethal Vector” able to utilize the sandbox to achieve victory. “Two men enter, the better man leaves, the lesser man is respawning. And that’s Halo.” ~Luke Smith

In terms of the FPS games, Halo is not a rapid-pace slaughter fest designed to make the player feel like a demon-slaying God on the battlefield. Halo is not a class-based MOBA with a cast of varied and diverse characters. It is not a cover-based grit-and-gore shooter. So using those games and their niche of success to try and argue how Halo has failed and can succeed again (already a tenuous argument) is a flawed comparison. It is judging NASCAR by the standards of the NFL.
So, Halo gameplay has changed, but it has remained Halo?
Whatever that vague stuff is which follows, is pretty much applicable to every single shooter game which has a sandbox of weapons and features to utilise, Luke Smith's quote narrows it down a little by limiting it to multiplayer having respawns.

Other than that, I see it applying to:
Rainbow Six, Quake Champions, CS:GO, Doom, Fortnite, Soldat, Worms, Bioshock 2, Overwatch, Paladin, Valorant, Gears, Destiny, CoD
You know, differetnt games with different styles featuring a rich sandbox for players to utilise.
Now of course seeing as how you later talk about common flaws and multiplayer ( I'll get back to that ), we can't limit this list to games featuring multiplayer, but also have single player games, like: Deus Ex, System Shock, Half Life, Bioshock 1 and Infinite, Vermintide, Far Cry, Stalker.

Now of course, these lists are limited to "shooters".
We've still got other big sandbox games where the player utilise it to achieve victory like:
The Elder Scrolls Games, WoW, Dead Rising, LoL, DotA, For Honor, Fallout, Diablo, Path of Exile, Mechwarrior series. Leaving out a bunch of strategy games, both turn based and real time, as well as beat -em ups, shoot -em ups, even trading card games like MtG.

But of course, none of these apply to that specific ideology because of a term coined to lorewise describe Noble Six in Halo Reach, and as stated then, at that time, only applied to Noble 6 and one other undisclosed Spartan as far as I remember. Despite these games filling the criterias of a diverse sandbox, which with players utilise to achieve victory.
As for the quote, Halo can be switched with quite a few other multiplayer titles.

You do realise Hyper Lethal Vector is a single player lore aspect, and hype point, and that the quote you used was used in a semi-marketing video?

NASCAR to NFL?
Sure, if you'd like to stretch it that thin, while you at the same time talk "standards".
Personally, I'd keep the Halo, Doom, Overwatch ( Moba in which definition?) in the realms of american football, rugby. soccer, handball, you know, keeping it in roughly the same ball park.

Either the use of standard is comparing it to others, and modeling after that.
Or, it's a requirement in the industry to meet a specific bare minimum.

The former is trying to "keep up" with what others are doing.
The latter is an official list of requirement, like that of safety regulations (meeting safety standards), production standard ( having a specific way to manufacture a product as optimal as possible ).

Yes, I came back. Are you pleased now? Do you need to mention it another time in another post, or are you settled now that I’ve acknowledged my sojourn? The fact remains that Advanced Movement as a whole has been brought up many times in the near 300 pages of this thread. Even recently. I am completely unconcerned with what arguments I put forward months ago - though my view has not changed - and it does not set a limit for what arguments I can and will bring forward now. Or so long as I remain in this… discussion.
I'm reminding you what you came back to discuss, and will do so when you out of the blue start derailing what you started with.
Yes, Advanced Movement has been brought up plenty of times, but as AM contains quite a few different mechanics there's a subset of different smaller discussions focused on these details, exactly what you did, focus entirely on sprint.

An all too common flaw, it seems, is thinking that discussion of this mechanic is isolated to Multiplayer alone. Mistakes are costly in matchmaking, but it’s a poor game (and thus, will lose popularity) to punish a player so much so that they have no alternative in other gamemodes. And if Multiplayer is the only thing you care for, and the only area you’d wish to see “balanced” better, then it’s been argued how Sprint doesn’t really affect the layout and overall flow of various maps. You can really play without it, if such is your preference.
Remind me again where I said multiplayer for this.
Did you have single player / PvE in mind earlier in the post too? Or did you only consider multiplayer?
As, if I recall correctly, that quote comes from a Reach Multiplayer ViDoc.

No, and it’s ridiculous that you’re simplifying it so drastically.
Yet nothing offered to explain why any of those points don't stand.
But I'm not simplyfing.
Overall, player efficiency is reduced in some areas, and negated in others.
Maps designed around sprint negate any time advantage sprint could provide.
You get to places as fast as the map designer intended you to.

Limiting it to foward only pretty much eliminate you ability to survey your surroundings while traversing the map at optimal speed.
Disconnection between combat and optimal movement reduce your capabilities during combat on maps for sprint.
Tying shields to sprinting impair your re-engagements as entering new encounters with low shields isn't to your advantage, as well as hampering the benefit of escapability sprint provided.

So what exactly is left then other than what I said that you yourself provided?

No, here we are with justifications for the desire to be able to use Sprint. I even stated that it’s a matter of preference and perspective. I want it to trim tedious sections. Those areas of past games where I think ”boy, this’d be useful” do not require Sprint in the same way areas of the game don’t require a bubbleshield.
Looks the same to me.

Frankly, I doubt it. Games adopted dual analog control in 2001, popularized with Halo: CE, and even in VR games the layout is the same to where movement is on the left by default. That became a core standard and has remained, as I am certain that sprint will be for a majority of FPS and other games.
Method of input != gameplay mechanic.
Gameplay doesn't change moving between keyboard and mouse, controller or joystick.
tsassi wrote:
Now this is a topic I’ve been debating myself. Should 343 make any changes or additions to the base mechanics at all? Is the message we want to send to 343 that they shouldn’t touch core abilities?
I'm not fundamentally opposed to extensions of base movement. They just have to meet some standards I have regarding gameplay mechanics in general, and properties of Halo gameplay specifically. Things such as not having unnecessary complexity, creating new interesting movement, and not coming in the way of combat actions.

I don't actually even hate everything about Spartan Abilities. There were some conceptually workable things like Thruster Pack and combo movement, but the overall implementation suffered from bloat and lack of clear direction, and the most controversial Spartan Abilities (Sprint and Clamber) I happened to have foundational issues with.

Internet debates don't work well with nuance, and since this debate is basically 99% about sprint, 0.9% about Clamber and Thruster Pack, and 0.1% all the rest, I'm 99.6% aligned with the classic movement camp.
I'm in a similar boat. If pushed I will say I align with the classic movement camp, but that isn't fully represented of my views. I will say though that: not creating barriers between movement and combat, is a legacy design principle that I wish would carry over to the newer games.
On the one hand, I still do and have disagreed with the practice of comparing the “Combat Ideology” of Halo as a series to other games. How a game handles their playstyle differs significantly; Halo emphasized exploration and diversity where the sandbox allows for a wide range of tactics and weapons. In general, Call of Duty and Battlefield opt for realism, conveying a real-world combat scenario with the limits of real-world soldiers. DOOM on the other hand, put you in the Hell-forged armor of a god of war, pitting you against the universe to prevail with speed and fury. Et cetera, et cetera.To line Halo up with DOOM and suggest "this game succeeded without Sprint" is an uneven argument; the games’ playstyles are completely different. At no point in DOOM are you meant to slow down and explore, unlike Halo. You're meant to carve a swift and bloody path through your enemies, ergo a much faster BMS and an array of overpowered weapons. Comparing the two purely on grounds of "They're both FPS games" is as uneven as comparing Halo to Skyrim, which is where it entered the discussion.
Doom is actually a game franchise I draw many parallels to Halo. I remember playing Doom 2016 and thinking 'This plays more like Halo than Halo'. Doom Eternal is its own beast. It's great, but it definitely pushed things in a particular direction. The Doom 2016 Reboot however, I think represents an interesting case study in modernizing and translating 'classical gameplay'. Classic Doom and Classic Halo are both Sandbox pick up orientated Arena Shooters with a focus on killing AI enemies that are interesting to fight. But they differ in some key ways: Doom is a carry the entire weapon's armory on your back game, whilst halo introduced a 2 weapon system. Doom has a health and Armour pick up system, whilst Halo has Rechargable shields (and in later games rechargable health too). Halo has Reloads and Overheating mechanics. And Halo has a slower movement speed, Though I do believe this was, at least at first, due to limitations of analog aiming controls when compared to mouse and keyboard. Analog Aiming being in it's infancy during Halo CE's development. I see Halo as a branch from Classic Arena Shooters like Doom and Quake, mixing up the formula, to make something new.

When playing Doom 2016 I found the weapon wheel quite cumbersome and I actually found myself preparing 2 weapons I wanted to use in the next combat encounter and just quick swapping between them. Making it feel even more like Halo to me.

Now Doom 2016 could have introduced 'modern elements', like Sprint and Reloading, but it didn't. IT stayed true to what they thought were Doom's foundational design principles, and developed from there. And I applaud them for it.

I think Halo could do well embracing it's Arena routes and learning from Doom. I did quite a bit of experimenting with Quake style 1v1 maps in Halo Reach customs and found many old design principles worked great with Halo. Like the vertical overlapping map designs, and having lesser overshield pick ups along side full overshields, plus Health pick ups, creating a sort of resource management meta, and upping movement speed whilst removing Sprint .

I think its great that glory kills in modern Doom award health, encouraging a push forward gamestyle. And I do wonder if something similar could improve Halo's gameplay. Maybe not so on the nose as melee kills charging your shields but perhaps some enemy types could drop shield power cells upon death and walking over them will trigger your shield to start recharging... Just a thought.
Darwi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
TormentHCS wrote:
it would be very interesting (and maybe enlightening) to see which people favor faster gameplay/advanced movement agewise
i would bet there would be a clear separation between younger and older players.
Well let's see here. I'm young, grew up with the newer halos but also play lots of the older ones. But I'm a fan of older movement plus sprint. Reach did Sprint wrong, but get this, I think H4 did sprint perfectly. I wish Infinite had H4 movement. No clamber or slide, jus sprint and maybe H5's thrusters idk. But not all younger players like the newer, advanced movement.
I'm 51 (sigh). Halo player from nigh on day dot.

I love advanced movement in Halo (except Spartan charge).

There is half a dozen or so guys the same age in my Tuesday night Halo group with similar thoughts.

Engagements are much more interesting with two different speeds (at least initially), thrusters, and slide. Clamber is a much more satisfying mechanic than crouch jumping etc. And I really, really, really don't want to go back to the plodding and monotonous static map control dominated games of Haloes 2 and 3 (especially with 3's feeling of running through treacle).
Even if it isn't fundamentally Halo?
It's true to my (subjective) definition of what is Halo.
Well that’s not what my definition of halo is.
Bottom line is halo was far more successful before 343 and this can’t be argued with no matter how you try to slice it sprint drove off like 40 percent of the original player base and all that’s left is new "fans"(probably cod/battlefield/etc players) and fans that have been here since day one or two my point is the drop off in players relative to its release date(halo 4 and 5) was massive compared to halo 2 and 3 or even reach that alone goes to show which formula worked for halo.
QtoCool wrote:
Bottom line is halo was far more successful before 343
This is true.

QtoCool wrote:
sprint drove off like 40 percent of the original player base
This is unsubstantiated conjecture.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 278
  4. 279
  5. 280
  6. 281
  7. 282
  8. ...
  9. 290