Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 40
  4. 41
  5. 42
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. ...
  9. 156
I have never understood the "classic movement mechanics" debate.

I LOVE the old games, when they came out and even now. I love the new games just as much. But with each game, each aspect of it evolves and improves, including the movement mechanics.
The faster and more agile the movement mechanics, the more I personally feel immersed in both the gameplay and the story. I mean, we are playing as supersoldiers after all, should they be able to sprint, roll, dive, climb or anything that a normal person can do but better/faster?
i agree i feel like when they introduce the new style in halo 4 that it looked and felt more... real like how halo wars 1 cutscnes were... i felt like a super soilder was actually playing instead a stiff person i really dont understand why everyone loves the old mechanics... games need to freaking evolve...

make it halo wars 2 art style, have the ability to sprint and climb stuff, assasinate,dodge left and right like any normal human can do instead of jumpiing 20 feet high and slowly come back down.
what is there to halo? jumping 20 feet high and slowly coming back down wtf is that be real. im a halo fan straight up but going completely back is ridiculous find a middle ground.
..?

You do realize, that we're talking about a video game and not a documentary, right? If you really wan't to drag this into a debate about realism, please answer me following questions: Why do we respawn, when we die? I mean, it has to be realistic, right? I don't think that people respawn in real life, when they die. Why can't you just simply leave maps in open environments? Why can't you swim, why can't you do flips, why can't you crawl, dance, sleep? It's a game - every game has it's own "rules" and people accept them (or not) for gameplay reasons.
By your logic, Battlefield hasn't evolved at all - I mean, you don't have fancy abilities in BF (It can't be anyway in a WW Game, but that's not my point, it's about the principle). Or look at Overwatch, this game is heavily focussed on Run & Gun and there is just one character who's able to sprint. Ui, what an outdated, classic game, right? *sarcasm*

To the other points - I don't get them. What do you mean by coming back slowly down? What has it to do with realism? I don't get this argument..
The only point I can agree on is the art style, I personally liked most of it (HW2), but this is not really the right topic to discuss that, because this topic is about the movement.

What people do forget is that movement is not just about your spartan. When you talk about movement, you have to judge every map on it's own. A lot of maps had ways to compensate the Run & Gun Gameplay. It's all about Layout and the things you place into your maps. (Like the elephant on Sandtrap, wheel on Zanzibar, conveyors on Elongation, The train on Terminal, elevators, gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters in a lot of maps, vehicles, grenade jumps and tons of other stuff)
So don't just judge the player. Most of these things were taken out entirely (or became useless / less desirable) mainly because of these abilities.

Every map had it's own unique way to play, this is variety. If you have like 5-10 abilities right from the start, you have to design every map around them, which leads to repetitive gameplay.
i really dont understand why everyone loves the old mechanics... games need to freaking evolve...
What is "evolve" in this case? Going back to old mechanics doesn't sound like a problem, otherwise you'd have a problem with Halo 5 returning to equal starts.

Can I say that every Halo after 3 was devolving because Chief can't dual wield anymore? I mean, that's something a "normal human" can do.
Again, like my initial response in the quotes, not per se disagreeing.
But what do numbering games have to do with that? What do the characters or even plots of those games have to do with that? Isn't that up to the devs regarding their creative -and thus functional- vision?
I wholeheartedly agree regarding more involved DLC though. But I must think of the devs at work doing this and wonder if that would detract from their next full title in either quality, content, or production time.
Making the point about playlist separation (for me) always takes this discussion to a different place than what seems to be the average. The average seems to argue for or against it for this or that reason. (I see every for and against reason as valid - despite what the to and froing says - Because for that person it is valid and they are just as much a fan or consumer as anyone else, gosh the community needs to learn to respect one another more)
But I always wonder then, is this kind of discussion ever about the movement in the campaign gameplay or just multiplayer? I play multiplayer, but when I call myself a Halo fan I think of the campaign's story and the characters connected to it within the gameplay.
Isn't saying "I DO think they should listen to the fans if there's enough of them wanting something and plan a game for them accordingly." picking a side of the debate (presumably the side you agree with) and inferring something along the lines of, "because it's my side it's the majority/right side." That's more or less saying exactly (or attempting to) that the fans - but specific ones - should control 343i's creative direction.
Or at the very least, that's how that reads and translates. As far as I can see anyway, if I've misinterpreted you then my apologies. That's certainly not my intent.
The amount of Halo consumers on the forums at any time of any of their games release must represent only a small sliver of the entire consumer base. Of course, I don't have analytics of this, but this is judging by the smorgasbord of what I see active on the forums.
Just judging by that I'll roughly split the community online into three percentage based groups on this topic. 10% are relatively indifferent to this topic. 45% give-or-take are against modern movements and 45% give-or-take some are for it.
I can't help but wonder what percentage of the overall consumers' everyone on these forums makes up?
I'm not saying that disallows us a voice in potentially directing creative or practical input for Halo to any extent, but it should humble us as fans.
Numbered games having nothing to do with it necessarily, it's just beforehand for spinoffs you'd have to do something like "Halo Wars" or "Halo Reach" but now that they're gone you can essentially do whatever. And yes, you're right it's up 343i to do these things artistically, and at this point I WON'T mind if they make a classic game that's not about Chief, it's just something I and a lot of fans would prefer, but obviously at the end of the day I do agree 343i should decide where they go with the story. As long as said story is actually GOOD unlike Halo 5's. If Infinite returns to Halo 4's style of writing OR 3's, I'll be pleased. But what I'd prefer is actually Halo 4's, since that story was just SO GOOD compared to the other ones (note by story I don't mean campaign, the campaign was only slightly better than Halo 5's I think, I mean the written story alone).
A way they could keep up good DLC for Halo 5 is to perhaps have the team working on MCC do it when they're done (and hopefully after Reach and a PC port come).
YES the community needs more respect. I think we've gotten better but we're still not the best when it comes human decency. The reason why I don't want playlist separation is because I and other classic fans don't JUST want a FEW multiplayer playlists... we want a LOT of classic playlists with as much quality as Halo 3's, and a full classic-style campaign.
Yes, the characters connecte with the gameplay in Halo 5, but that's because 343i first and foremost designed the campaign with enhanced mobility THEN added in lore to support it. I actually LIKE their overly complicated explanations for EVERYTHING, but not when it prevents me from playing a new classic style Halo. But yes, although less, there have been discussions about the campagin in Halo 5 and most people (even modern fans) agree the Prometheans are too hard with their warping and long-rangedness and homing-in pojectiles and are such to compensate for your newly found speed.
Doing what your fans want every once in a while isn't letting them control you. I'd always rather a company do what their fans want than not. Classic fans (who you're right, I am one, although I simultaneously love the modern gameplay I just don't want to see the classic style die out) just want ONE thing. A classic style game every once in a while. There's no complaints about the story (moving forward from Halo 5), none NOW about the artstyle (which is an exmaple of us "controlling" 343i but they still were the ones who made that decision to go back to the old artstyle in Halo Wars 2), and not even for the most part anything about the modern gameplay so long as there's classic gameplay. And you know what? I think the classic halo formula ISN'T something 343i should have that much control over. It's technically not JUST their series, it's their INHERITED series. They SHOULD live up to what the classic games started (not Reach, which was a spinoff), because that was where all these classic fans are coming from. The series that they loved was torn apart formula and artstyle-wise by 343i after Halo 4, and whilst the artstyle's back in shape, the formula's still not what millions of people loved a decade ago.
As for misinterpretation, you're good.
Yes, that's true, so I think someone should make a GAMING wide social media poll asking if people who've played it before would like Halo to return to its roots.
10-45-45% sounds about right.
We probably make up about 30% of the current fanbase, but that's just a guess. Nonetheless, ever since the mess with Destiny 2 (I'm a Destiny player, too, but NO I am NOT a Bungo fanboy I DO believe 343i can make a great game, as shown with Halo Wars 2) last year, I've wanted to KEEP fanbases from being humbled. Otherwise, things like that as well as the SW Battlefront II controversy or the CoD BO4 controversy would just go by untouched, and I most definitely DON'T want that to happen.
DaekLaw wrote:
I have never understood the "classic movement mechanics" debate.

I LOVE the old games, when they came out and even now. I love the new games just as much. But with each game, each aspect of it evolves and improves, including the movement mechanics.
The faster and more agile the movement mechanics, the more I personally feel immersed in both the gameplay and the story. I mean, we are playing as supersoldiers after all, should they be able to sprint, roll, dive, climb or anything that a normal person can do but better/faster?
i agree i feel like when they introduce the new style in halo 4 that it looked and felt more... real like how halo wars 1 cutscnes were... i felt like a super soilder was actually playing instead a stiff person i really dont understand why everyone loves the old mechanics... games need to freaking evolve...

make it halo wars 2 art style, have the ability to sprint and climb stuff, assasinate,dodge left and right like any normal human can do instead of jumpiing 20 feet high and slowly come back down.
what is there to halo? jumping 20 feet high and slowly coming back down wtf is that be real. im a halo fan straight up but going completely back is ridiculous find a middle ground.
..?

You do realize, that we're talking about a video game and not a documentary, right? If you really wan't to drag this into a debate about realism, please answer me following questions: Why do we respawn, when we die? I mean, it has to be realistic, right? I don't think that people respawn in real life, when they die. Why can't you just simply leave maps in open environments? Why can't you swim, why can't you do flips, why can't you crawl, dance, sleep? It's a game - every game has it's own "rules" and people accept them (or not) for gameplay reasons.
By your logic, Battlefield hasn't evolved at all - I mean, you don't have fancy abilities in BF (It can't be anyway in a WW Game, but that's not my point, it's about the principle). Or look at Overwatch, this game is heavily focussed on Run & Gun and there is just one character who's able to sprint. Ui, what an outdated, classic game, right? *sarcasm*

To the other points - I don't get them. What do you mean by coming back slowly down? What has it to do with realism? I don't get this argument..
The only point I can agree on is the art style, I personally liked most of it, but that's not really the right topic to discuss this, because this topic is about the movement.

What people do forget is that movement is not just about your spartan. When you talk about movement, you have to judge every map on it's own. A lot of maps had ways to compensate the Run & Gun Gameplay. It's all about Layout and the things you place into your maps. (Like the elephant on Sandtrap, wheel on Zanzibar, conveyors on Elongation, The train on Terminal, elevators, gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters in a lot of maps, vehicles, grenade jumps and tons of other stuff)
So don't just judge the player. Most of these things were taken out entirely (or became useless / less desirable) mainly because of these abilities.

Every map had it's own unique way to play, this is variety. If you have like 5-10 abilities right from the start, you have to design every map around them, which leads to repetitive gameplay.
Agreed. #Spartanscanscrambleeggstoo.
DaekLaw wrote:
I have never understood the "classic movement mechanics" debate.

I LOVE the old games, when they came out and even now. I love the new games just as much. But with each game, each aspect of it evolves and improves, including the movement mechanics.
The faster and more agile the movement mechanics, the more I personally feel immersed in both the gameplay and the story. I mean, we are playing as supersoldiers after all, should they be able to sprint, roll, dive, climb or anything that a normal person can do but better/faster?
i agree i feel like when they introduce the new style in halo 4 that it looked and felt more... real like how halo wars 1 cutscnes were... i felt like a super soilder was actually playing instead a stiff person i really dont understand why everyone loves the old mechanics... games need to freaking evolve...

make it halo wars 2 art style, have the ability to sprint and climb stuff, assasinate,dodge left and right like any normal human can do instead of jumpiing 20 feet high and slowly come back down.
what is there to halo? jumping 20 feet high and slowly coming back down wtf is that be real. im a halo fan straight up but going completely back is ridiculous find a middle ground.
..?

You do realize, that we're talking about a video game and not a documentary, right? If you really wan't to drag this into a debate about realism, please answer me following questions: Why do we respawn, when we die? I mean, it has to be realistic, right? I don't think that people respawn in real life, when they die. Why can't you just simply leave maps in open environments? Why can't you swim, why can't you do flips, why can't you crawl, dance, sleep? It's a game - every game has it's own "rules" and people accept them (or not) for gameplay reasons.
By your logic, Battlefield hasn't evolved at all - I mean, you don't have fancy abilities in BF (It can't be anyway in a WW Game, but that's not my point, it's about the principle). Or look at Overwatch, this game is heavily focussed on Run & Gun and there is just one character who's able to sprint. Ui, what an outdated, classic game, right? *sarcasm*

To the other points - I don't get them. What do you mean by coming back slowly down? What has it to do with realism? I don't get this argument..
The only point I can agree on is the art style, I personally liked most of it, but that's not really the right topic to discuss this, because this topic is about the movement.

What people do forget is that movement is not just about your spartan. When you talk about movement, you have to judge every map on it's own. A lot of maps had ways to compensate the Run & Gun Gameplay. It's all about Layout and the things you place into your maps. (Like the elephant on Sandtrap, wheel on Zanzibar, conveyors on Elongation, The train on Terminal, elevators, gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters in a lot of maps, vehicles, grenade jumps and tons of other stuff)
So don't just judge the player. Most of these things were taken out entirely (or became useless / less desirable) mainly because of these abilities.

Every map had it's own unique way to play, this is variety. If you have like 5-10 abilities right from the start, you have to design every map around them, which leads to repetitive gameplay.
Agreed. #Spartanscanscrambleeggstoo.
https://youtu.be/ea1lN5p3fl4

Have you seen Favyn's latest video on this? He brings up a lot of great points. While I would love returning to classic gameplay, I do not think 343 can deliver on the maps and environments required to make it great.
DaekLaw wrote:
I have never understood the "classic movement mechanics" debate.

I LOVE the old games, when they came out and even now. I love the new games just as much. But with each game, each aspect of it evolves and improves, including the movement mechanics.
The faster and more agile the movement mechanics, the more I personally feel immersed in both the gameplay and the story. I mean, we are playing as supersoldiers after all, should they be able to sprint, roll, dive, climb or anything that a normal person can do but better/faster?
i agree i feel like when they introduce the new style in halo 4 that it looked and felt more... real like how halo wars 1 cutscnes were... i felt like a super soilder was actually playing instead a stiff person i really dont understand why everyone loves the old mechanics... games need to freaking evolve...

make it halo wars 2 art style, have the ability to sprint and climb stuff, assasinate,dodge left and right like any normal human can do instead of jumpiing 20 feet high and slowly come back down.
what is there to halo? jumping 20 feet high and slowly coming back down wtf is that be real. im a halo fan straight up but going completely back is ridiculous find a middle ground.
..?

You do realize, that we're talking about a video game and not a documentary, right? If you really wan't to drag this into a debate about realism, please answer me following questions: Why do we respawn, when we die? I mean, it has to be realistic, right? I don't think that people respawn in real life, when they die. Why can't you just simply leave maps in open environments? Why can't you swim, why can't you do flips, why can't you crawl, dance, sleep? It's a game - every game has it's own "rules" and people accept them (or not) for gameplay reasons.
By your logic, Battlefield hasn't evolved at all - I mean, you don't have fancy abilities in BF (It can't be anyway in a WW Game, but that's not my point, it's about the principle). Or look at Overwatch, this game is heavily focussed on Run & Gun and there is just one character who's able to sprint. Ui, what an outdated, classic game, right? *sarcasm*

To the other points - I don't get them. What do you mean by coming back slowly down? What has it to do with realism? I don't get this argument..
The only point I can agree on is the art style, I personally liked most of it, but that's not really the right topic to discuss this, because this topic is about the movement.

What people do forget is that movement is not just about your spartan. When you talk about movement, you have to judge every map on it's own. A lot of maps had ways to compensate the Run & Gun Gameplay. It's all about Layout and the things you place into your maps. (Like the elephant on Sandtrap, wheel on Zanzibar, conveyors on Elongation, The train on Terminal, elevators, gravity lifts, man cannons, teleporters in a lot of maps, vehicles, grenade jumps and tons of other stuff)
So don't just judge the player. Most of these things were taken out entirely (or became useless / less desirable) mainly because of these abilities.

Every map had it's own unique way to play, this is variety. If you have like 5-10 abilities right from the start, you have to design every map around them, which leads to repetitive gameplay.
Agreed. #Spartanscanscrambleeggstoo.
https://youtu.be/ea1lN5p3fl4

Have you seen Favyn's latest video on this? He brings up a lot of great points. While I would love returning to classic gameplay, I do not think 343 can deliver on the maps and environments required to make it great.
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I can get the art style return, having halo resemble the sci-fi military shooter it supposed to be and not a gimmick like that annual shooter franchise I am down for. However if the game play mechanics change dramatically from halo 5 and aren't refined I will not be impressed.
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I would in fact argue that one of the things 343i is lacking is a clear, consistent design philosophy. To me it always seemed that Halo 4—despite 343i trying really hard to make it their own—was quite hastily thrown together of either existing or otherwise disconnected ideas without much thought to what Halo is about. (And not in the sense of what I think Halo is about, but that the studio didn't have an internally consistent idea of it.) Halo 5 with its emphasis on movement at least has a clear idea of what Halo is about, on which the game is built, but it ditched practically every gameplay mechanic introduced in Halo Reach and 4 and took Halo into a drastically different direction. 343i has not made two games in a row with a consistent philosophy.

Now with some key people leaving who guided Halo 4 and 5, and seemed to be very influential (mainly I'm thinking of Josh Holmes), I can't help but feel like there's another drastic shift in philosophy coming. Whether that's the philosophy we need is out in the open, but I have a suspiction that even if Halo Infinite retains some core ideas from Halo 5, and regardless of whether it brings back a more classic style or not, it will feel like it was made by different people with a different philosophy.

I've always had this nagging thought that what is lacking at 343i is a clear, strong culture and a studio-wide design philosophy that remains even if some people come and go. And what this in mind, I think the greatest fault in Favyn's video was the assumption that 343i has such a consistent philosophy, a consistent way of designing games. So, while I wouldn't expect them to hit the same points with Halo Infinite as Bungie did, I also wouldn't necessarily expect them to hit the same points they did with Halo 5.
I don't count on the supposed return of the classic art style heralding the return of classic mechanics. If that's the case, then great, but simply removing the new mechanics 343 added in isn't enough to make Halo Infinite a great game.
In my opinion, this game has a really high chance of bringing back the classic gameplay so many old Halo fans have adored! I am so pumped for this!

EDIT: Wow, I didn't expect such diverse opinions on this subject. The Halo community really is split in half. I'm sorry you have to deal with us, 343 :/

EDIT: 800 comments. What have I done?
WE ARE THE MOMUMENT, TO ALL YOUR SINSSSssssss!!
tsassi wrote:
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I would in fact argue that one of the things 343i is lacking is a clear, consistent design philosophy. To me it always seemed that Halo 4—despite 343i trying really hard to make it their own—was quite hastily thrown together of either existing or otherwise disconnected ideas without much thought to what Halo is about. (And not in the sense of what I think Halo is about, but that the studio didn't have an internally consistent idea of it.) Halo 5 with its emphasis on movement at least has a clear idea of what Halo is about, on which the game is built, but it ditched practically every gameplay mechanic introduced in Halo Reach and 4 and took Halo into a drastically different direction. 343i has not made two games in a row with a consistent philosophy.

Now with some key people leaving who guided Halo 4 and 5, and seemed to be very influential (mainly I'm thinking of Josh Holmes), I can't help but feel like there's another drastic shift in philosophy coming. Whether that's the philosophy we need is out in the open, but I have a suspiction that even if Halo Infinite retains some core ideas from Halo 5, and regardless of whether it brings back a more classic style or not, it will feel like it was made by different people with a different philosophy.

I've always had this nagging thought that what is lacking at 343i is a clear, strong culture and a studio-wide design philosophy that remains even if some people come and go. And what this in mind, I think the greatest fault in Favyn's video was the assumption that 343i has such a consistent philosophy, a consistent way of designing games. So, while I wouldn't expect them to hit the same points with Halo Infinite as Bungie did, I also wouldn't necessarily expect them to hit the same points they did with Halo 5.
Thanks for your thoughts.

To be honest my thought process was less about "343 has a consistent philosophy on things and it would suck in a classic Halo"

It was more so about the fact that making a classic Halo wouldn't be as easy as people think and that they would once again have to change a bunch of things and a lot of stuff people weren't even considering would have to change as well.

With that being said I do think some of the things I brought up have been consistent design methods that 343 has had throughout. ( Lack of scenario based maps, iterative sandbox design)

But of course you can see huge changes in their philosophy as well. Halo 4 being a loadout shooter, Halo 5 being a competitive fair starts arena-esque shooter.

Just thought I'd elaborate :)
tsassi wrote:
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I would in fact argue that one of the things 343i is lacking is a clear, consistent design philosophy. To me it always seemed that Halo 4—despite 343i trying really hard to make it their own—was quite hastily thrown together of either existing or otherwise disconnected ideas without much thought to what Halo is about. (And not in the sense of what I think Halo is about, but that the studio didn't have an internally consistent idea of it.) Halo 5 with its emphasis on movement at least has a clear idea of what Halo is about, on which the game is built, but it ditched practically every gameplay mechanic introduced in Halo Reach and 4 and took Halo into a drastically different direction. 343i has not made two games in a row with a consistent philosophy.

Now with some key people leaving who guided Halo 4 and 5, and seemed to be very influential (mainly I'm thinking of Josh Holmes), I can't help but feel like there's another drastic shift in philosophy coming. Whether that's the philosophy we need is out in the open, but I have a suspiction that even if Halo Infinite retains some core ideas from Halo 5, and regardless of whether it brings back a more classic style or not, it will feel like it was made by different people with a different philosophy.

I've always had this nagging thought that what is lacking at 343i is a clear, strong culture and a studio-wide design philosophy that remains even if some people come and go. And what this in mind, I think the greatest fault in Favyn's video was the assumption that 343i has such a consistent philosophy, a consistent way of designing games. So, while I wouldn't expect them to hit the same points with Halo Infinite as Bungie did, I also wouldn't necessarily expect them to hit the same points they did with Halo 5.
True, but if you've seen some of LateNightGaming's videos, he's seen how HECTIC Halo 5's development was. And I don't know for sure, but I'm suspicious that the CoD-esc gameplay of Halo 4 was also implemented by Microsoft to follow the trends. What I'm trying to say is, is that in the state they've been in with Halo 4 and 5, 343i can't make a good classic game. But if Microsoft gives them more freedom, I'm just saying it's not IMPOSSIBLE for them to follow Bungo's philosophy, however unlikely it may be.
Favyn wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I would in fact argue that one of the things 343i is lacking is a clear, consistent design philosophy. To me it always seemed that Halo 4—despite 343i trying really hard to make it their own—was quite hastily thrown together of either existing or otherwise disconnected ideas without much thought to what Halo is about. (And not in the sense of what I think Halo is about, but that the studio didn't have an internally consistent idea of it.) Halo 5 with its emphasis on movement at least has a clear idea of what Halo is about, on which the game is built, but it ditched practically every gameplay mechanic introduced in Halo Reach and 4 and took Halo into a drastically different direction. 343i has not made two games in a row with a consistent philosophy.

Now with some key people leaving who guided Halo 4 and 5, and seemed to be very influential (mainly I'm thinking of Josh Holmes), I can't help but feel like there's another drastic shift in philosophy coming. Whether that's the philosophy we need is out in the open, but I have a suspiction that even if Halo Infinite retains some core ideas from Halo 5, and regardless of whether it brings back a more classic style or not, it will feel like it was made by different people with a different philosophy.

I've always had this nagging thought that what is lacking at 343i is a clear, strong culture and a studio-wide design philosophy that remains even if some people come and go. And what this in mind, I think the greatest fault in Favyn's video was the assumption that 343i has such a consistent philosophy, a consistent way of designing games. So, while I wouldn't expect them to hit the same points with Halo Infinite as Bungie did, I also wouldn't necessarily expect them to hit the same points they did with Halo 5.
Thanks for your thoughts.

To be honest my thought process was less about "343 has a consistent philosophy on things and it would suck in a classic Halo"

It was more so about the fact that making a classic Halo wouldn't be as easy as people think and that they would once again have to change a bunch of things and a lot of stuff people weren't even considering would have to change as well.

With that being said I do think some of the things I brought up have been consistent design methods that 343 has had throughout. ( Lack of scenario based maps, iterative sandbox design)

But of course you can see huge changes in their philosophy as well. Halo 4 being a loadout shooter, Halo 5 being a competitive fair starts arena-esque shooter.

Just thought I'd elaborate :)
I now feel the urge to bring up sprint again.
Quote:
The advanced mobility trend has come and gone.
Even if the trend has "come and gone" as you say it has, that doesn't mean advanced mobility mechanics can't still be implemented in an amazing way and pair perfectly with the game. Look at Titanfall 2 and all the praise that game received, and its main focus is advanced mobility (and then some).

And also, did we forget that some of these mechanics were created in order to simplify and fulfill requests that were made with prior Halo games? Clamber was the direct solution to crouch-jumping, and sprint was wanted because people would feel the games got sluggish and wanted to increase the pace. As for spartan charge, ground pound, and even thrusters, there could be some sort of happy medium. With some balancing elements, they could potentially share some system to which overusing your suit's abilities could result in a cooldown period (almost like an stamina bar).

Plus, I like the feeling of being a badass that slams down on people, dashes out of the way to score the kill at the very last second, who can clear a massive gap and barely make the jump. With the removal of these mechanics, I might as well just play as a damn Marine as I no longer feel powerful.
JunkieJD wrote:
Quote:
The advanced mobility trend has come and gone.
Even if the trend has "come and gone" as you say it has, that doesn't mean advanced mobility mechanics can't still be implemented in an amazing way and pair perfectly with the game. Look at Titanfall 2 and all the praise that game received, and its main focus is advanced mobility (and then some).

And also, did we forget that some of these mechanics were created in order to simplify and fulfill requests that were made with prior Halo games? Clamber was the direct solution to crouch-jumping, and sprint was wanted because people would feel the games got sluggish and wanted to increase the pace. As for spartan charge, ground pound, and even thrusters, there could be some sort of happy medium. With some balancing elements, they could potentially share some system to which overusing your suit's abilities could result in a cooldown period (almost like an stamina bar).

Plus, I like the feeling of being a badass that slams down on people, dashes out of the way to score the kill at the very last second, who can clear a massive gap and barely make the jump. With the removal of these mechanics, I might as well just play as a damn Marine as I no longer feel powerful.
That's not really HALO tho.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
JunkieJD wrote:
Quote:
The advanced mobility trend has come and gone.
Even if the trend has "come and gone" as you say it has, that doesn't mean advanced mobility mechanics can't still be implemented in an amazing way and pair perfectly with the game. Look at Titanfall 2 and all the praise that game received, and its main focus is advanced mobility (and then some).

And also, did we forget that some of these mechanics were created in order to simplify and fulfill requests that were made with prior Halo games? Clamber was the direct solution to crouch-jumping, and sprint was wanted because people would feel the games got sluggish and wanted to increase the pace. As for spartan charge, ground pound, and even thrusters, there could be some sort of happy medium. With some balancing elements, they could potentially share some system to which overusing your suit's abilities could result in a cooldown period (almost like an stamina bar).

Plus, I like the feeling of being a badass that slams down on people, dashes out of the way to score the kill at the very last second, who can clear a massive gap and barely make the jump. With the removal of these mechanics, I might as well just play as a damn Marine as I no longer feel powerful.
That's not really HALO tho.
My point is that games that have advanced movement done correctly make the game much more smooth and exhilarating. Plus, look at the other points made besides the one using Titanfall. It was used for comparison.

Thanks for the "constructive criticism"
Favyn wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Yes I saw the whole video. Under their current philosophy, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for 343i to ditch their philosophy for this game.
I would in fact argue that one of the things 343i is lacking is a clear, consistent design philosophy. To me it always seemed that Halo 4—despite 343i trying really hard to make it their own—was quite hastily thrown together of either existing or otherwise disconnected ideas without much thought to what Halo is about. (And not in the sense of what I think Halo is about, but that the studio didn't have an internally consistent idea of it.) Halo 5 with its emphasis on movement at least has a clear idea of what Halo is about, on which the game is built, but it ditched practically every gameplay mechanic introduced in Halo Reach and 4 and took Halo into a drastically different direction. 343i has not made two games in a row with a consistent philosophy.

Now with some key people leaving who guided Halo 4 and 5, and seemed to be very influential (mainly I'm thinking of Josh Holmes), I can't help but feel like there's another drastic shift in philosophy coming. Whether that's the philosophy we need is out in the open, but I have a suspiction that even if Halo Infinite retains some core ideas from Halo 5, and regardless of whether it brings back a more classic style or not, it will feel like it was made by different people with a different philosophy.

I've always had this nagging thought that what is lacking at 343i is a clear, strong culture and a studio-wide design philosophy that remains even if some people come and go. And what this in mind, I think the greatest fault in Favyn's video was the assumption that 343i has such a consistent philosophy, a consistent way of designing games. So, while I wouldn't expect them to hit the same points with Halo Infinite as Bungie did, I also wouldn't necessarily expect them to hit the same points they did with Halo 5.
Thanks for your thoughts.

To be honest my thought process was less about "343 has a consistent philosophy on things and it would suck in a classic Halo"

It was more so about the fact that making a classic Halo wouldn't be as easy as people think and that they would once again have to change a bunch of things and a lot of stuff people weren't even considering would have to change as well.

With that being said I do think some of the things I brought up have been consistent design methods that 343 has had throughout. ( Lack of scenario based maps, iterative sandbox design)

But of course you can see huge changes in their philosophy as well. Halo 4 being a loadout shooter, Halo 5 being a competitive fair starts arena-esque shooter.

Just thought I'd elaborate :)
Personally I greatly appreciated @Favyn’s most recent video where he truly plays devil’s advocate (in an open, honest, and detailed approach) with regards to 343i’s ability to generate a quality version of a classic Halo experience (TBH - It’s the first video from him that I’ve ever liked, and if nothing else this more realistic approach definitely made me want to understand his arguments in this clip a lot more). Albeit, even though he clearly understands and articulates the bigger picture behind such complications, (in that it would take an extraordinary effort to deliver such a Halo title beyond just changing the game mechanics)- I’ll take it one step beyond his reasoning to suggest that I can never see a modern Halo game where 343i tries to pitch the classic Halo mechanics ever working- for many of the reasons listed out in the video. I am really glad that Favyn’s willing to highlight to his followers what I’ve been trying to say here for months- in that you can’t just shuffle around the game mechanics and shrink the maps and expect a quality product. Granted I’m in the crowd hoping to see game mechanics similar to Halo 5 in the next game, I agree with Favyn that this issue is more complex than the binary issue some people portray it as. His clip highlighted (in an excellent manner) a lot of serious, deep rooted complications that would arise from 343i attempting to revert back to classic movement mechanics. Bottom line IMO- Instead of undertaking such an extraordinary effort to force classic movement mechanics to work, 343i should focus on improving and enhancing the things that actually worked well in Halo 5, such as the advanced movement mechanics.
JunkieJD wrote:
JunkieJD wrote:
Quote:
The advanced mobility trend has come and gone.
Even if the trend has "come and gone" as you say it has, that doesn't mean advanced mobility mechanics can't still be implemented in an amazing way and pair perfectly with the game. Look at Titanfall 2 and all the praise that game received, and its main focus is advanced mobility (and then some).

And also, did we forget that some of these mechanics were created in order to simplify and fulfill requests that were made with prior Halo games? Clamber was the direct solution to crouch-jumping, and sprint was wanted because people would feel the games got sluggish and wanted to increase the pace. As for spartan charge, ground pound, and even thrusters, there could be some sort of happy medium. With some balancing elements, they could potentially share some system to which overusing your suit's abilities could result in a cooldown period (almost like an stamina bar).

Plus, I like the feeling of being a badass that slams down on people, dashes out of the way to score the kill at the very last second, who can clear a massive gap and barely make the jump. With the removal of these mechanics, I might as well just play as a damn Marine as I no longer feel powerful.
That's not really HALO tho.
My point is that games that have advanced movement done correctly make the game much more smooth and exhilarating. Plus, look at the other points made besides the one using Titanfall. It was used for comparison.

Thanks for the "constructive criticism"
Sry for the lack of constructiveness I try to sound more intelligent but at this point in this thread I've brought up the point about Halo 5's not being Halo so much that "That's not really HALO tho." is all I'm willing to say. Anyway, I agree I'd rather have enhanced mobility well done in the next game than classic gameplay done completely wrong, but I'd still prefer classic gameplay done ok than enhanced mobility done well because then all that needs to be done is slight improvements.
JunkieJD wrote:
Even if the trend has "come and gone" as you say it has, that doesn't mean advanced mobility mechanics can't still be implemented in an amazing way and pair perfectly with the game. Look at Titanfall 2 and all the praise that game received, and its main focus is advanced mobility (and then some).

And also, did we forget that some of these mechanics were created in order to simplify and fulfill requests that were made with prior Halo games? Clamber was the direct solution to crouch-jumping, and sprint was wanted because people would feel the games got sluggish and wanted to increase the pace. As for spartan charge, ground pound, and even thrusters, there could be some sort of happy medium. With some balancing elements, they could potentially share some system to which overusing your suit's abilities could result in a cooldown period (almost like an stamina bar).

Plus, I like the feeling of being a badass that slams down on people, dashes out of the way to score the kill at the very last second, who can clear a massive gap and barely make the jump. With the removal of these mechanics, I might as well just play as a damn Marine as I no longer feel powerful.
Titanfall was founded on advanced mobility with its wall-running, double jumping, and every other ability that defines its gameplay. Halo wasn't founded on that in Halo CE, so trying to shoehorn such significant movement mechanics in a game that was designed to emulate classic arena shooters like Quake or DOOM only leaves you with the worst iteration of both philosophies.

What was wrong with crouch-jumping? The fact that you were punished for poor movement? The fact that you didn't have a fail-safe option for mistiming your jumps? The only thing we've now accomplished with clamber is dull gameplay in which every player is forced to lower their weapons and face the direction of the object they're mounting over due to the horrific jump height and the map design that makes clamber the crutch it has become for movement.
As for sprint, you're telling me that an increase in the base movement speed akin to DOOM's movement, along with an FOV slider, wouldn't be enough to increase the pace of the game? We may never know because 343 has never tried those two options.
Cooldown period? If we're gonna keep any of those Spartan abilities (even though the thrust movement has the best potential of all of them), applying a band-aid like cooldown periods won't do anything to remove the issues of these mechanics. It's like reducing the ammo for a sniper with high bullet magnetism/aim-assist. Pros have complained long enough about GP causing a delay in your melees due to the game having to consider whether you're trying to hold the melee button (for GP) or press it. Spartan charge is completely pointless as a melee mechanic (as in it doesn't add anything interesting that wasn't already present in melee). Thrust is simply too powerful/versatile, which is why you see every pro player attempting to thrust-slide to maneuver the map or use it during a strafe to throw off their opponents with the heavy aim assist present in console shooters.

Oh, really? I don't know about you, but I feel like a badass when I can move at top speed, jump and aim in completely different directions while maintaining accuracy, and not be locked by a pointless animation as an elite soldier.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 40
  4. 41
  5. 42
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. ...
  9. 156