Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 279
  4. 280
  5. 281
  6. 282
  7. 283
  8. ...
  9. 291
QtoCool wrote:
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.
Everyone is going to have their own definitions. The lucky ones have broader strokes.
Advanced mechanics such as sprint and clamber break the flow of combat because you can't do any damage by performing the action. But so do basic mechanics such shield recharging and weapon reloading. Even map layouts and cover breaks flow of combat!

The more mechanics, the more resource management. Multiple agents multiplies the amount of resource management. How much is too much? How much is too little? Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, 4, 5, or none? I'm not fan of resource management games, so less is better for me.

I also think it has a negative affect on the AI. There's so much more for them to take into account. If it's too much for me, what about those much more simpler things? They don't even bother. It's either increased resources (bullet sponges) or forcing a specific engagement pattern (repetitive).

Anyway, my choice was between Halo 3, Reach and 4 (campaign).
343 followed trends so bad that this is still a conversation 5 years after Halo 5. I mean 2015 all developers followed trends, but to compromise the formula? Kind thought it was weird seeing a gravity hammer with ZERO brutes in the campaign but, hey, spread the sandbox out. Speaking of Sandbox, which weapons added in Halo 4 and 5 will be returning to infinite?...
tsassi wrote:
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.
Your probably right but you can’t deny that people left in droves after halo 4 and 5.
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 couldn’t have said it better myself thank you.
To any waiting for replies, I'm working through them. I haven't left, just been very busy.
To any waiting for replies, I'm working through them. I haven't left, just been very busy.
take your time lol, this thread isn't going anywhere lmao
Holy crap my brain is going to explode, you guys type longer replies than I write English essays, although I thoroughly enjoy reading them.

I might as well restate my opinion if I'm here. I think sprint can be a good feature if implemented into the game correctly. I think that Halo 4 implemented sprint perfectly, a limited sprint makes more sense, and is well balanced, so we don't look like 2-ton Usain bolts running around with guns 😂. I also think that it would be kind of awkward to scrap sprint after it was implemented as a feature in the past 2 games, it's easier to add something than it is to take it away.
tsassi wrote:
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.
Very well, so let’s delve into this. Can these few games be considered successes?

Overwatch certainly takes the cake, far above anything that even Halo 3 has ever seen. It peaked at 50 million players, but has since fallen significantly to 10 million. The big question here is what makes for that success, and subsequent freefall drop of 40 million players. Does the lack of Sprint for several classes factor into it? Or is the MOBA game type a flash-fire fad that’s burned it’s course for the general population, making way for Battle Royale?

Valorant, as best I can find, boasts a population of 3 million players in the Beta. However the current numbers aren’t released, and there’s speculation that the numbers have been fluffed.

DOOM Eternal certainly comes in least here with a peak of 84,000 players, sloping off significantly to an average of 8,000 players. I can’t tell if that is players total or only matchmaking. DOOM (2016) averages around 2,000, and peaked at 31,000.

For comparison, Halo 3 boasted 1 million players in the first 24 hours. Populations would typically peak around 200k-300k players daily. According to Halo Tracker, they’re currently tracking 360k players for Halo 5, however they only are able to track players who are registered with Halo Tracker themselves; they’re unable to monitor Xbox Live entirely.

So what makes for success? Overwatch is the only one of the examples given of sprint-less games that can boast an outstanding success, and of the games given it is the only MOBA.

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

Celestis wrote:
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.
And I wouldn’t be against adding a Tactical Perk that allows for that, and full application in Campaign. Yet the lore is brought up when people say that Sprint doesn’t belong in Halo. As though the mechanic and motion that it emulates has no place in the overall game. Which is, canonically, ridiculous.

In terms of Multiplayer, however, a balance has to be met and considered with everything. Just like we can’t dual wield assault rifles or hurl weapons around, one of the drawbacks - and at this point, a very minor one - is that you cannot shoot while sprinting. An additional downside is that your shields don’t recharge. This has been brought up before as well; everything in Halo has a downside. There is no win-all strategy, weapon, or equipment.

Quote:
The sales numbers for the H5G figures are already known to include hardware sales (bundles, controllers, etc.) and even merchandise while the Halo 3 ones did not.
Specifics for how big of a chunk that is are unknown. Halo 5 was reported as the most played of any game on Xbox One, as well as the most played on Xbox Live, during its first week, and even if $170 million in sales went toward hardware alone, Halo 5 still broke Halo 4’s record, which broke Halo 3’s record. $400 million is a very large number, and regardless of the vague inclusion of hardware sales, speaks against a perceived failure of the game.

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)You have no way of knowing that, if the digital sales don’t have an exact figure. You’re estimating. But going off this theme, does the increase in scale from weeks for Halo 2 to months for Halo 3 suggest Halo 3 was a failure? Odd, as it’s gone on to be the best selling game ever, apparently.

Quote:
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.
If Halo 5 sold fewer consoles than any other game, then I guess not a whole lot of that $400 million can be hardware, huh? The article also goes on to note that Halo’s “decline” coincides with the departure of Bungie, and the prior poor release of the Master Chief Collection. This could mean a myriad of things, all of which are pure speculation.

Quote:
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?
Areas still exist in the game where stealth is atmospherically suggested, and taking things slow does give you an advantage of not being noticed by the patrols. This objection also omits the still-valid point of moving slowly in Multiplayer to stay off motion tracker.

Quote:
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.
I disagree. Giving the models a defaulted animation for walking indicates that 17 mph - max BMS - isn’t supposed to be the only speed you travel at. Functionally, this aids in suggesting to the players to explore their surroundings. The Vista has been a common theme in Halo games, where the landscape and environment is the focal point. First emerging onto Alpha Halo. The lakes of Delta Halo. Seeing the Galaxy from Installation 00. Leaving the Dawn’s wreckage to see Requiem. The canyons and oceans of Sanghelios, and emerging into the gardens of Genesis.

While speeding through the game is an option, and has made its own sub-community, Halo has always been story-driven, emphasizing environmental and thematic exploration as well as analyzing the battlefield and applying a wide range of tactics. Contrary to what Celtic Dragon suggested, the central theme of Halo has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Subtle themes aside, this is plainly disproven with the various territory defense areas (e.g. cargo bay of the Truth and Reconciliation) and rail-segments (gondolas on Delta Halo and the Library of Delta Halo).
Nuss902928 wrote:
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.
Halo 2 was full of exploration, as was Halo 3. Particularly on the Ark. A theme of a game also does not mean map exploration alone, but a general theme. Halo 4 literally has us exploring a new world and finding out more about the Forerunners.

Quote:
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.
There already have been increases to BMS. But this is absolutely not the point of Sprint. Again - as has been stated multiple times - the purpose of Sprint as a movement mechanic and tool is to have situational temporary increases to movement. BMS is just that; the Base Movement Speed. Cruising speed. The optimal rate of movement for general traversal and combat movement. Sometimes the situation will call for that to be less, and other times perhaps more.

DOOM does not present these types of situations. There is never a moment in DOOM where you need to move slowly, and the game always pushes you to be moving as fast as possible. Cover is nearly non-existent, you don’t really have shields to mitigate damage, and your only option is to keep moving to avoid damage.

Quote:
Still waiting for some convincing arguments about how negative it would be but I digress
If you’re expecting End of the World predictions, I’m not one for that. However, correct me if I’m wrong but most of the concern surrounding Sprint is in relation to Multiplayer, particularly Matchmaking. And yet the stances seem to come to the solution to remove Sprint entirely.

First negative is that this removes a movement option from players in a gamemode that’s not regarded in the complaints. Secondly, as Halo is vehicular based, but a vehicle is not always a guarantee, the removal of Sprint would see a return of areas where movement becomes stale, drawn out, and a chore. This disrupts the flow of the game.

Quote:
what I want to talk about here is campaign since it actually leads into yet another problem with sprint which is AI targeting.
I’m sorry, am I to actually consider the challenges presented to the AI?

There are several problems with this notion. Firstly, it is assuming still and yet again that the utilization of Sprint is to be sprinting all the time. Secondly, even with a player sprinting all the time, this has never been an issue for the AI. In Reach and Halo 4, Sprint is limited and timed. You physically cannot Sprint constantly. In Halo 5 you can, yet your shields do not recharge and you will take enough damage to where it is not a sound tactic. Thirdly, if - and that’s a pretty big if - a player is able to speed past every encounter and foil taking damage from the AI, so what?
Quote:
Many have complained about the insane speed and accuracy of sniper Jackals in Halo 5
The biggest complaints that I see common for Halo 5 Jackal snipers is the ridiculous damage that they do to vehicles. Not to mention Jackal snipers have always been insanely fast and accurate; Sprint has nothing to do with this, and it has everything to do with them using Beam Rifles. Outskirts and Delta Halo in Halo 2 remain some of the most nightmare encounters with Jackal snipers because of this accuracy and speed, as you even bring up.

The “effects” of Sprint on AI targeting is a non-issue.

Quote:
Halo also has its own style of play, and sprint isn't equally applied in the games that it appears in.
Neither has weapon balancing been equally applied. Look at the constant evolution of the magnum. Or various vehicle changes. That something is changed to find a more optimal method of application doesn’t mean that it needs to be scrapped entirely.

Quote:
Halo may not be as intense as DOOM but it is closer to DOOM than it is to an open world RPG.
Not really. For example, minus fodder enemies like the Damned, DOOM’s combat encounters are always in an arena. You can step into a room and know that there’s going to be a battle. In contrast, with Halo - and several open world RPG games like Skyrim or Cyberpunk - combat can be encountered in any area, with degrees of intensity. We’ve all likely memorized Halo, so it’s not a surprise anymore, but there are a number of varied battle scenarios. Arena-styled defenses like the courtyard on Outskirts. Random Hunters in a closed space on Assault on the Control Room. Long corridors filled with enemies like on Cortana.

The only closeness that Halo and DOOM really share is power armor and guns.

Quote:
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.
And in like form, it hasn’t really been shown or proven that Sprint does not work with Halo’s “formula”. The “formula” hasn’t even been agreed upon or solidified as factual.

Pointing out the common basic is just that; the basics. From there, does a game add or remove to that to fit a given theme or playstyle? DOOM, for common example, omits Sprint because there is no need for it. (Yet it does have a Dash function). It also removes reloading, which is another basic mechanic. Because again, that fits with DOOM’s theme; you are supposed to be in constant, rapid combat. No downtime for taking cover, letting shields recharge, or reloading. Run and gun until there’s nothing left, that’s the DOOM way.

But that’s not the Halo way. Halo gives you a limited magazine, where you are forced to reload. Sometimes, like with SPNKr’s, that reload is costly. Halo also gives you shields to manage. And now, when you are in a potentially compromising situation, Halo offers Sprint to potentially find safer ground and regain the advantage.

Quote:
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.
Cool, so let’s add hipfire to Sprint for Campaign, and perhaps as a Tactical Perk for Multiplayer to keep a level playing field. Because again, I’m not only talking about Multiplayer. Raising the BMS is not a viable option.

The point is that Spartans can move faster than 15 mph. Much faster. Yet they don’t move at top speed all the time. And while a Spartan can do amazing things, sometimes they do slow down to fire accurately; look at snipers like Linda.

Quote:
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.
Sprinting toward a fight does not reward players for “running away”, neither really does Sprinting from a fight. Again, your shields do not recharge, so each hit taken is costly. And if they do manage to get away, then perhaps the pursuers should either be better shots or coordinate for better map control. Sometimes people get away; this has happened long before Sprint.
Quote:
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.
A gimmick is something meant to attract attention. To stand out. That Sprint is a standard movement mechanic (it is; four games that omit it do not negate this) means quite plainly that it cannot be a gimmick. When a vast majority of FPS (and other) games have the mechanic, it doesn’t stand out.

And y’know, I think wall running could work in Halo. But that’s hardly relevant right now, and it’s still a gimmick.

Nuss902928 wrote:
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.
I think you need to provide some examples for this “spaced-out” cover compensating for Sprint. 4v4 maps, designed with Sprint in mind, have ample cover for BMS as well. Plenty of corners, props, and doorways. Long hallways existed in Halo 2 and Halo 3, and quickly gained reputations as sniper traps and kill zones. Areas like the ramps on Lockout and Blackout, several hallways on the Pit, and sidepaths of Construct.

Quote:
343 have already introduced remakes of older maps that are larger than the originals
And they’ve released maps that are exactly the same size as maps from Halo 3 (Pitfall, Ragnarok) that function very well with Sprint and without. That map size has increased to accommodate Sprint - potentially - does not mean that it requires it, or ruins sticking to BMS.

I asked before for examples of areas where Sprint was a necessity, and all that was given were Trick Jumps and shortcuts; only one trick jump required Sprint, and it also required a thruster and clamber. So, can you provide some examples for where Sprint is an absolute necessity, and the map cannot reasonably be traversed with BMS?

Quote:
When I said slow down I was referring to the players speed not the time it takes to stop sprinting.
Then that’s a problem on the player’s side, and not the mechanic itself. Especially that you can fully turn while sprinting in Halo 5, if a player is so inattentive, they would be equally so even without Sprint.

Quote:
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.
I have always acknowledged that Sprint has disadvantages. How many times have I pointed out that your shields don’t recharge? This isn’t new, Nuss. No, I don’t see a problem in removing the ability to fire while sprinting because 1. A pull of the trigger immediately ends sprinting and begins firing, 2. Sprint is a tool to be used tactfully, not all the time (also stated many times), and 3. There will always be something to present risks, and something that removes a players ability to “minimize” this. Everytime you reload, everytime you jump, everytime you leave cover. It’s combat, and there are always going to be risks.

That Sprint presents risks to its usage is a non-argument. All your counter-points here that amount to “well, that’s on you” or “you should be...” can be just as easily applied to Sprint. They’re not rebuttals when it boils down to “get good”.

Quote:
That's only the case if the maps are too big, otherwise the BMS is fine and will suit the needs of the player,
How do you know? As an example that I’ve given before, my friend and I were just playing some ODST Firefight. Several times Sprint would have been absolutely useful for us to rush to meet enemies dropping in before they got the chance to spread out. But, because the BMS was all we had, they were able to lead us on goose chases mopping them up. Sprint has application, even in the older games where the maps weren’t “built” for it, and you don’t need a wide-open field to use it. Even a brief stint of speed in a small hallway can sometimes be the difference between setting an ambush and being ambushed.

And again, with your other examples you’re assuming that only Matchmaking is being considered. Enemies deploying and spreading out applies to Firefight and Campaign, where Sprint has just as much application.

Quote:
Meaning that vehicles have been effectively nerfed and Scorpions will camp at one end of the map even harder than usual.
Vehicles were nerfed the moment boarding became a mechanic. Regardless, I’ve been saved many times by attentive and skilled teammates who killed the boarding Spartan before they could do damage. If they managed to board me, because Sprint alone rarely allows a player to catch up to a vehicle. Rather, with an application of map control, it can aid in cutting off a vehicle. What was more detrimental to vehicles was removing the ability to flee a vehicle once you’ve been boarded.

Quote:
Overall, it seems that you aren't considering all of the risks that sprint presents and are downplaying the ones you have considered.
Then by all means, bring up some of these unforeseen risks, more than arguments of “get good”.

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

tsassi wrote:
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.
Largely covered above, but it’s not so much a matter of implying or impressing slow movement, but rather not pushing ”Go Fast all the time”. DOOM does this, both in a very high movement speed and removing break-obstacles like reloading. Pausing to evaluate the arena often results in a swift death, as even enemies move ridiculously fast.

Quote:
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.
If you are skilled enough. More often than not such shots rely on luck, both from a smaller reticle and weapon bloom, which did introduce accuracy penalties. And there are mechanical penalties to Sprint, both in that it was limited (I honestly prefer Halo 4’s iteration of Sprint), and that you are vulnerable to fire while sprinting without the ability to return fire, unless sprinting is abandoned which often leaves you with stripped shields.

Quote:
There are no movement penalties on heavy weapons: you run just as fast with a rocket launcher as you do with a pistol.
Not so with a turret, however. And while there may not be movement penalties on heavy weapons, there certainly are penalties for reloading.

Quote:
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.
Only in Halo: CE and Halo 2. With Halo 3, using turrets and the flame thrower (and the Flag) introduced movement penalties.
- exploration: sprint locks one into a single forard speed. this is far more damaging to exploration than heightened bms.
No, it’s not. Because you’re not sprinting all the time.

Quote:
the negative effects of removing sprint are artificial,
Shields not recharging is far from artificial.

Quote:
having sprint and no sprint side by side as gameplay optioins is not viable, as it would double the needed maps,
No, it really wouldn’t. Not even for Campaign. Thus far it has not been conclusively shown that maps in Halo 5 cannot be played without using Sprint; you’re welcome to present examples where Sprint is necessary, rather than useful.

Quote:
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.
What’s interesting here is that I’ve seen it complained that with Sprint it takes longer to kill enemies. But here you call it a “staple”. As shields do not recharge while sprinting, and even if staggering were to be re-added, there are enough downsides to make the mechanic a trade-off. Rather, I think that players need to adapt, as they did with the introduction of vehicle boarding, dual wielding, equipment, and armor abilities. That, I would argue, is a staple of Halo as well; Combat Evolved, not Combat Stagnation.

Quote:
nobody argues for doom like speeds. thats a strawman. people argue for halo 3 mlg playlist like speeds.
Given that DOOM has been made as a comparison and nothing more specific than “increase the BMS to cover Sprint” has been given before now, no it’s not really a straw man. MLG speeds are 110% BMS, which has already been applied; Halo 3’s BMS is just under 15 mph. Halo 5’s is 18 mph. Halo 4 is 15 mph, and a 110% increase to Halo 3’s speed would put it at 16.5 mph. Furthermore, it has yet to be shown that Halo 5’s maps cannot be played at BMS alone, which is very near enough to MLG speeds. If such is proven to work, then there should be no issue.

Quote:
sprint can be achived by other methodes than the generic "button to put away weapon and go faster" methode.
A delay before reaching max speed? No, that doesn’t work well. That’s still increasing the BMS while removing the situational application of Sprint as a tool, only introducing a delay. Managing how far you press the LS, or how long you run to avoid this delay trigger, disrupts the flow of play more so than pressing the Sprint Button or not.

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.
Literal milliseconds. Try it; if you are sprinting, and you pull the trigger, you immediately begin firing. Unlike if you let off the LS to slow from sprinting.

Quote:
clamber, in my opinion, should be replaced by a more height effective crouch jump and jump height increase
Now, what - functionally - is the difference between a crouch jump and clamber? You’re still using something to reach a height that is just out of reach, and comparatively it takes the exact same amount of time. Neither does it reduce the amount of button presses; rather than double-pressing Jump, you’re pressing Jump and then Crouch.

Clamber does not present enough of a “skill buff” that the “Pros” have lost their edge. If they are truly better players, they should be able to adapt with the tools given to all, as they did before. A failure to adapt is a failure on their end; all the tools in the world will remain useless in the hands of an unskilled player, by their very lack of skill and discipline.

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

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.
There is map “exploration”, but not thematic exploration, which is what my point is. Slowing down - as exceptionally difficult as that is - in DOOM is as odd and unintended a function as speed running through Halo. The Doom Slayer isn’t there to poke around and discover hidden mysteries (a constant and common theme of Halo), he’s there to bludgeon, carve, and shoot his way toward solving and slaying a problem.

Quote:
...So make it be fast enough.
Again, repeatedly, that completely ignores the situation application of Sprint. Sometimes going faster than normal. In Halo 5, Sprint adds 5 mph to your speed. That’s roughly a 128% increase in speed. The point isn’t to be going 128% faster all the time, as sometimes that is not needed. Every example I’ve given can be “replicated without sprint” only when you increase the BMS, which then in turn defeats and complicates situations where going 128% faster is not the best tactic.

-------------------------------------------------------------
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.
This still doesn’t quite address how the flow of a map is broken. It only illustrates ways that more skilled players can reach areas similar to the super jump locations in Halo 2. Those locations would be what breaks any flow (standard traversal of the map), not a given mechanic itself.

[quuote]movement flow is very broken in H5, what used to be fluid and consistent is very janky due to movement combos and tech.I disagree. Things only become “janky” when you’re trying to reach somewhere for a secret or unintended location. For general and majority traversal, such combos are completely unnecessary.

Quote:
So why is the 'standard' set by other games relevant to Halo?
Because Halo’s gameplay is not entirely divergent enough from that standard to warrant doing things differently. As much as people want it to be inexplicably different in terms of movement and general control mechanics, it’s really not. Yes, all online multiplayer shooters that have Sprint play like Halo. The default movement is the same, the application of Sprint is the same (temporarily disables weapon use), the weapons have limited magazines that you have to manually reload. The only thing that differs is the various gimmicks. Killstreaks, Equipment, Vehicles. Yet at their core, they are the same.

Quote:
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.
To be fair to history, Sprint has been a thought since Halo 2, and the coding for that still remains in the game. It was cut due to time and technical difficulty with application (they opted for the move forward long enough and Sprint engages). I couldn’t say why it wasn’t in Halo 3, but it certainly would have worked with the maps. Pitfall (Halo 4) is evidence of that.

As for the community push, I remember those days all too well. The biggest arguments weren’t that Sprint didn’t work, or broke the game (no more so than Jetpacks, Evade, and the more-hated Armor Lock), but that Halo was “becoming CoD”. Which is not really an argument. More a complaint.
The ideology you described does not need sprint.
The ideology I describe doesn’t need any one thing. Several things have been added, over time; vehicle mounting and hijacking, Plasma Pistol EMP, destructible vehicles, etc. Even now, with wheels popping and being blown off. Halo’s sandbox doesn’t need any of them, yet that vast diversity (while not becoming too much) has become a way of offering diversity for a range of playstyles, without expressly rewarding one style over another. It still all comes down to skill.

Quote:
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.
There has always been ample cover in 4v4 maps that breaks line of sight. Always. The solution to this has, and remains, map control. If your team has a solid handle on the map, and various footpaths, escaping via Sprint - especially with the shield recharge delay - becomes a futile effort. And still yet, for those “Tournament Plays”, the maps allow for the removal of Sprint if the MLG players wish to retain their Halo 3 feel. The tools are there for them to do so, and I still do not think it unreasonable to give them their corner, rather than expect everyone to play by MLG rules.

And for such a “cautious” game, I certainly still see plenty of reckless, daring behavior. This is also something entirely detrimental to the various “Anti-Sprint” arguments, I feel; some say it’s made the game too fast, others too slow. Which is it?

Quote:
How is this myriad relevant if they don't play like Halo if examples to the contrary aren't relevant if they don't play like Halo?
Firstly, FPS games do mechanically play “like Halo” and Halo like them. Even DOOM. My argument against comparing the two is that they differ thematically. The gimmicks make for divide.

Sprint being present in a myriad of games is relevant in that it has become a subconscious expected across Gaming experiences. Just as the RS controls camera movement and aiming, and the LS controls movement. When applicable, X is light attacks and Y is heavy attacks. A is typically jump in FPS, and sprint in TPS, and B typically crouch. In most FPS games, RT is expected to be fire, and increasingly (I would say standard by now) LT aims. RS2 has become melee, and LS2 sprint. X is reload and Y is ready/holster/swap weapons. This can be observed in Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Borderlands, Battlefront, Cyberpunk, Dishonored, Mirror’s Edge, Titanfall, GTA V, Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, DOOM, Fortnite, The Witcher III, Mass Effect Andromeda, etc.

Also y’know, I’ve been passively waiting for Prone to be added to Halo. We can spend days going over a checklist of “what if’s”, if the inclination so appealed.

Quote:
Why is permanence relevant if there is evidence to the contrary and the feature in question has not worked well in 3 separate titles?
There is not evidence to the contrary, as it has remained in the games for 10 years. And 3 games. Is your argument pretending that those games and years don’t exist? On the contrary, I’ve stated that the previous games could have well benefited from Sprint, so am I really pretending they don’t exist? But I digress, back to evidence for the contrary.

So sprint has been tweaked and refined over ten years. So what? That’s not evidence against permanence, as it has stuck around. Everything in Halo has changed over the years, from weapon tuning to vehicle use and function. Change does not equal impermanence.

Quote:
Not to say that sprint is the lone cause but if it is so beneficial why has there been no growth?
I don’t know why you’re suggesting that Sprint is being propped up as a “savior” to the franchise. Are you asking my opinion as to a perceived “lack of growth”? The answer (<y Opinion) to that would be that there is no lack of growth, and the Franchise has been growing significantly and exponentially. Under 343i, we’ve seen a vast boom of Lore that is, compared to other Sci-Fi franchises, remarkably consistent. Literature and film, art and full conventions. Merchandise from Halloween costumes to NERF guns and Mega Blox set.

Yet all of this gets sidelined, because to the people that stick to echo-chambers of various forums focus no further than Matchmaking. They point to vague numbers pulled from narrow population pools (which are factually not accurate) and flagging Competitions that are a direct result of Bungie not investing and establishing a presence in those circuits. Forcing Halo to now play catch up against other franchises that did invest. In my Opinion, Competitive “Pro” Matchmaking needs to be left behind for Halo to truly move forward, as it - and those who care about nothing but - are the anchor holding Halo back. And to be clear, this isn’t to say a removal of competitive play. Yet this was able to be had, and was truly fun, way back when all that mattered was the next match, more than a digital number to measure one’s worth.

Quote:
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?
Good gods. Okay, working backwards; Firstly we can do without the projection. Secondly, when I say This has applied to every single Halo game, do you think this applies to Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3? Thirdly, skipping over, Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2 are relevant to the theme of Halo, which is and always has been exploration and tactics.

Lastly, Sprint is only so relevant as a counterpoint to the posed “solution” of increasing the BMS to compensate. The point, and overall theme, is that Halo’s gameplay - in regards to the FPS - has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Quite often you are slowing down, either through narrative or presented curiosities.

Quote:
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".
You mean mentioning hiding from motion tracker provides a counterpoint to your posited claim. Even isolating to combat, “Halo 101” has never been going as fast as possible all the time. Quite often you are urged to slow down and take cover, to let shields recharge or reload weapons. Wait in ambush. Remain in a choke-point and hold ground.

These are the same (opposite ends of the spectrum) as Sprint, in that all are temporary. Sprint “robs” the ability to run-and-gun as does reloading, or throwing a grenade, or meleeing. Yet still, it is temporary. As I’ve said many times there is a time to use Sprint, and a time not to. Skill lies in knowing when that is, rather than Sprinting all the time as seems to be the constant assumption.
Naqser wrote:
So, Halo gameplay has changed, but it has remained Halo?
Yes, because the changes have never radically altered the game to where it loses its identity, or plays completely different. It has stayed the same and recognizable thematically, aesthetically, and ideologically. Even Halo’s gimmicks have remained a constant; can you think of another FPS game that applies vehicle use and combat like Halo does?

Quote:
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?
No, “Hyper Lethal Vector” is yet another example of something offhand that was said, and then the fanbase ran with it. At the time “hyper lethal” applied to Spartan-B312 and John-117 because that’s the player character, nothing more. In Halo: Ground Command, every single Spartan is described as a hyper-lethal special forces operative. Wordier than “vector” but far less vague. Ergo, every single player in a Multiplayer match.

Quote:
NASCAR to NFL?
Sure, if you'd like to stretch it that thin, while you at the same time talk "standards".
Sport to Sport. Played in a stadium. Teams and sponsors, points and leaderboards. The similarities are many, though the two are very distinct sports. But if you’d like to keep it to ball-based games… Well, the stark differences remain. Why judge baseball by standards of football?

Quote:
I'm reminding you what you came back to discuss,
You don’t dictate my arguments, Naqser. You do not set what arguments I can or cannot bring to the table, nor do you determine when and if I change my mind, view, or perspective with fresh or altered arguments to bear. If you find it a topic not worth discussing, then simply don’t.

Quote:
Did you have single player / PvE in mind earlier in the post too? Or did you only consider multiplayer?
Even months ago, I have viewed and argued for the application of Sprint in both Multiplayer and Campaign.

Quote:
But I'm not simplyfing.
Yes, you are. Because you relegated it to the emotion of going fast. Despite factual increases in speed, which has tactical application.
  • Map design - even “around Sprint” (still hasn’t been proven) - accommodates for a wide range of things. You get to places not as fast as the map designer intends, but on your application of foot movement, skill-jump shortcuts, vehicle use, etc. Player Agency remains at the forefront.
  • Limiting sprint to forward movement is sensible because that’s how sprint works. That’s like trying to argue why you can’t jump down. Assumedly, as it is a tool to be applied with tact, you’ve surveyed your surroundings before sprinting to where you want to go.
  • ”Optimal movement” is vague and subjective. If combat is not an optimal time to use Sprint, then don’t use it. Even on maps “for sprint” this applies. It’s like knowing that a tight corridor isn’t the best place to fire a rocket.
  • Tying shield recharge delay to Sprint levels it, as there is such a delay when you’re under fire. If you’ve successfully gotten away from a firefight where you’re outmatched, why would you run right back in half-prepared? That’s just a poor argument.
So what remains. Well, certainly not just the feeling of going faster. I’ve made situational examples for beneficial applications of Sprint in recent posts, Naqser; feel free to review them.

Quote:
Method of input != gameplay mechanic.
Gameplay doesn't change moving between keyboard and mouse, controller or joystick.
Yes, it does. Mouse input is drastically more responsive and accurate. Keyboard input for movement is far less fluid. Even where buttons are on a controller can change how the game plays, and how mechanics are applied. For example, with the introduction of the paddles on the Xbox Elite controllers, players are now able to jump, turn, and reload all at the same time; a feat which is physically impossible with a standard controller.

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

I remember playing Doom 2016 and thinking 'This plays more like Halo than Halo'.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see how. You don’t reload (which is not a “Modern Element”), you move insanely fast, your enemies move insanely fast and have a slew of powerful attacks. The maps have more verticality than any map in Halo, the weapons have powerful additional attacks and modifications and, as you mention, you carry your entire arsenal with you. You had to modify and consciously alter your gameplay style to emulate Halo. Grenades are more of an afterthought, combat is pushed to be fast and brutal, rather than tactical and thought out. Vehicles are non-existent. How, exactly, does it play more like Halo than Halo?

Quote:
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.
Thematically, this would not work with Halo as a default. Especially not in Campaign, where canon is far more relevant. MJOLNIR power shielding doesn’t work on batteries, certainly not any that the Covenant or Banished would hold; it works off the fusion reactor built into the suit. Yet if one wishes to have this sort of challenge, the Black Eye skull exists.
Very well, so let’s delve into this. Can these few games be considered successes?
I was going to write something about the population numbers. Then I realized that I don't actually want to. Interpretation of population numbers is the most bias prone activity Halo fans engage in. One looks for numbers that support their view. If they don't, the validity of the numbers is questioned. The process is then repeated until a desired conclusion is reached. Yes, this applies to you too. And yes, it applies to me too. That's why I stopped.

If you see Overwatch going from 50 million to 10 million, and your first thought is that this is bad and whether it might be because lack of sprint, but you happily to take Halotracker's numbers and your first thought is they might be an underestimate, I'm not going to be able to communicate any useful information to you.

If you think Overwatch and Valorant are but fads or failures, Doom is nothing special, and Halo 5 is a very successful game, then good for you. I'm not going to try to tell you otherwise, because that would not be good use of our times.

If you are skilled enough. More often than not such shots rely on luck, both from a smaller reticle and weapon bloom, which did introduce accuracy penalties. And there are mechanical penalties to Sprint, both in that it was limited (I honestly prefer Halo 4’s iteration of Sprint), and that you are vulnerable to fire while sprinting without the ability to return fire, unless sprinting is abandoned which often leaves you with stripped shields.
I'm sorry it wasn't obvious enough, but when I said "The primary reason is that Halo is very light on mechanics to penalize fast movement. There are no accuracy penalties", I meant that "accuracy penalties" was to be interpreted as "accuracy penalties from fast movement". But of course, It's not like adjacent sentences ever carry any contextual relation.

Quote:
There are no movement penalties on heavy weapons: you run just as fast with a rocket launcher as you do with a pistol.
Not so with a turret, however. And while there may not be movement penalties on heavy weapons, there certainly are penalties for reloading.

Quote:
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.
Only in Halo: CE and Halo 2. With Halo 3, using turrets and the flame thrower (and the Flag) introduced movement penalties.
Ok. I made mistakes in my hasty generalizations. I hope you can understand why my considerations of the broader base gameplay failed to recall a couple of rarely used weapons, and some gametype specific objects. I'm also sure you understand why this isn't a cause to re-evaluate my whole perception of Halo's gameplay style.
Although it's too late now, 343 should've just gone back to the classic style of gameplay. They've already tried what they wanted to do twice, and it has been debatable as to whether or not they've met any success in either attempts (talking about halo 4 and 5 here). It is a risk worth taking as most of the fans that still play halo are 343 fans and will buy the game simply out of excitement for a new halo title. Sure they would lose the small minority of people that are both 343 fans AND modern halo fans, but they would also have the "respect" of the older community as well as the og tryhards for competitive. Bringing in new fans is the tricky part, but would happen if they saw a thriving community within halo (which hasn't been the case in years).
It's always dicey to try and categorize things as "Older Community" versus "343/Modern Halo fans".
It's always dicey to try and categorize things as "Older Community" versus "343/Modern Halo fans".
May not be black & white but older dudes are different than younger dudes. Period.
Sprint has had 3 games in this franchise and each game has been extremely controversial. I say give classic Halo movement a chance. I know I'm not adding anything to this topic, but I'm putting my own two cents out here. We should get maps built around classic mechanics with a playlist to boot.
May not be black & white but older dudes are different than younger dudes. Period.
Well aware. It's still a very poor division, as the two are not mutually exclusive.

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

tsassi wrote:
I was going to write something about the population numbers. Then I realized that I don't actually want to. Interpretation of population numbers is the most bias prone activity Halo fans engage in.
Knowing that I pulled population numbers, I agree. I don't enjoy doing it, namely because it limits games only to Matchmaking populations. And with sources I've noted like Halo Tracker, those can be quite incomplete. (More than an assumption, Halo Tracker themselves recognize this representative shortcoming.) Also as I am big to represent, Halo is much more than Matchmaking.

Though I will say that I don't think Overwatch's decline of popularity is due to a lack of Sprint. For every and all games I don't think so much hinges on one mechanic like that. I think I said it, but I think Overwatch's decline is more the MOBA gametype fizzling out. Not a failure, per se simply not as broadly popular in the long run as intended.

Also for the record I quite enjoy DOOM. That I don't view it as a viable comparison to Halo shouldn't be taken as a dislike of the games, or disdain for their playstyle.

Quote:
I'm sorry it wasn't obvious enough, but when I said "The primary reason is that Halo is very light on mechanics to penalize fast movement. There are no accuracy penalties", I meant that "accuracy penalties" was to be interpreted as "accuracy penalties from fast movement".
Well, in that vein, there still is no accuracy penalty. There may be, if the posited "shoot while sprinting" compromise were to be adopted. There is only one game I can think of that does this, so it'd certainly be a risky move.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 279
  4. 280
  5. 281
  6. 282
  7. 283
  8. ...
  9. 291