Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP SuperSniper871

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 55
  4. 56
  5. 57
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. ...
  9. 63
Chimera30 wrote:
I'm aware that those games I mentioned are different types of FPS then Halo (though there are some similarities but I digress there because I don't wish to get into that and that's besides the point) but that wasn't my point when it came to the sprint animation. Maybe I didn't make my point clear. If that's the case I apologize for that, but my point mainly was many people say FPS today (no matter the style) need to have the sprint animation because people expect it to be in or say the game won't do well if it doesn't have it. As I've said many times, have you ever in your right mind heard someone say "OMG that game looks AMAZING!! Oh the sprint animation isn't in it... Ok nevermind then, I don't want to play it" lolol sounds pretty dumb right? Well, that's because it is lol it's such a ridiculous way of thinking.

Those two games clearly show that a FPS (doesn't matter the type or the style or if it's multiplayer or single-player we are talking about, that's not what I'm talking about remember) doesn't need the sprint animation to be successful. It comes down too does the game play well and is it fun. Overwatch meets that criteria (when 95% + of the characters don't have it I say we can include it and it still is a FPS) and Doom does also. Yes the multiplayer portion of Doom wasn't received as well but again, I'm not talking about a specific part of the game. I'm making the point that you don't need the sprint animation for game to be successful and accepted by people and I would say Doom certainly was successful. Anyone who thinks Doom wasn't successful, should go look up how many awards it won too along with sales. That is/was my point there. If you don't see that, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree and move on. That's all I was saying in that previous post (when it comes to the sprint animation of course :) )
I don't remember reading the part where someone said that people buy games because of the sprint animation specifically. I get that's what you're talking about, but is that really the topic of concern? I thought the topic was on advanced movement as a whole. Who was saying that games need the sprint animation to sell? I recall tsassi linking an article saying that 343 feels that sprint is an expectation in modern shooters, but I don't recall seeing that point in the person you originally replied to.
The reason I brought up Doom and OW being different types of FPS is that not every shooter player buys every shooter. Some do, I'm sure, but I'd be willing to bet that's not the norm. For instance, I've played every FPS Halo thus far, but never played a CoD or a Battlefield. That's not to say I'm only loyal to one FPS franchise, but it's not like I'll play anything that's an FPS. So for players who do focus more on one particular FPS franchise, the differences between franchises probably do play a factor in why they have their favorites. I don't know when sprint first showed up in CoD, but CoDWWII still has it (and apparently it was updated to be unlimited when at launch it was limited sprint). So does CoD need sprint to be successful? If the next CoD got rid of it, would it bomb? I'd like to think not, but I do think it's fair to say that mechanics like sprint at least play a role in the crowd they attract. At the same time, I don't think that just because something works/doesn't work in CoD doesn't mean it will work/not work in Halo. It's a tricky issue. But I do think that no one mechanic can be the make-or-break for a game's success; it ends up being a collection of mechanics and other things. Hence why I think the conversation is bigger than just the sprint animation.
In the case of Overwatch, even if 95% of the characters don't have a sprint animation, the fact that one character does means sprint is in the game, and any person who buys games specifically because they possess a sprint animation (crazy a notion as that is) would have that condition satisfied by Overwatch. Hypothetically. But then, I've never met a person who only buys games for the sprint animation, so I've no idea whether such a person would truly be satisfied with only one character showing a sprint animation. If you ever encounter such a person, please ask them for me.
tsassi wrote:
In case of a mechanic like sprint, I don't see the relevance of the single player focus of DOOM. After all, the reasons people give for liking sprint are speed and immersion. The former is completely independent of game mode while the latter almost seems more important in single player (or at least is independent of game mode). Therefore if the lack of sprint was truly an issue, one would also expect it to be an issue in the single player of DOOM.
The relevance would be in the case of balancing. With sprint in Halo, I feel like the majority of complaints for it come from the multiplayer side; I see a lot of "that guy can just sprint away from engagements" or "I have to lower my weapon to get to a firefight faster". I don't think I've ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven't seen them). So with DOOM's most popular mode being the single player campaign, I don't think balanced abilities was the main focus when designing Doom Slayer. And since Doom's multiplayer isn't as popular as it's single player, I wonder if Halo 5 had multiplayer more like Doom, if it would have been better or worse received. I'm just doing thought exercises, because I don't think any other FPS franchise can be compared 1:1 with another, and because I don't have a horse in this race and like to play devil's advocate.
I completely agree.
A success for game it's not only by a mechanic. It's lore, gameplay, modes, coop experience, immersion, level design, and the fire power of an engine.
Each of these games is unique. I see fanboys around internet trying to comparing between Battlefield and Call Of Duty. Call of Duty works completely different than BF. Where 64 players on BF, only 16 players they can support. COD had more arcade style than Battlefield. Each one with their purposes. Overwatch get the idea from League Of Legends or Dota to make an FPS Style.
In my opinion, i don't mind it so much about will have sprint or not. I think they could remove the Spartan Thursters and evade because the opponent can flee so much away from a direct combat. If they can bring I'm playing as a super soldier and fluid gameplay, I could accept.
Chimera30 wrote:
I don't remember reading the part where someone said that people buy games because of the sprint animation specifically. I get that's what you're talking about, but is that really the topic of concern? I thought the topic was on advanced movement as a whole. Who was saying that games need the sprint animation to sell? I recall tsassi linking an article saying that 343 feels that sprint is an expectation in modern shooters, but I don't recall seeing that point in the person you originally replied to.
The reason I brought up Doom and OW being different types of FPS is that not every shooter player buys every shooter. Some do, I'm sure, but I'd be willing to bet that's not the norm. For instance, I've played every FPS Halo thus far, but never played a CoD or a Battlefield. That's not to say I'm only loyal to one FPS franchise, but it's not like I'll play anything that's an FPS. So for players who do focus more on one particular FPS franchise, the differences between franchises probably do play a factor in why they have their favorites. I don't know when sprint first showed up in CoD, but CoDWWII still has it (and apparently it was updated to be unlimited when at launch it was limited sprint). So does CoD need sprint to be successful? If the next CoD got rid of it, would it bomb? I'd like to think not, but I do think it's fair to say that mechanics like sprint at least play a role in the crowd they attract. At the same time, I don't think that just because something works/doesn't work in CoD doesn't mean it will work/not work in Halo. It's a tricky issue. But I do think that no one mechanic can be the make-or-break for a game's success; it ends up being a collection of mechanics and other things. Hence why I think the conversation is bigger than just the sprint animation.
In the case of Overwatch, even if 95% of the characters don't have a sprint animation, the fact that one character does means sprint is in the game, and any person who buys games specifically because they possess a sprint animation (crazy a notion as that is) would have that condition satisfied by Overwatch. Hypothetically. But then, I've never met a person who only buys games for the sprint animation, so I've no idea whether such a person would truly be satisfied with only one character showing a sprint animation. If you ever encounter such a person, please ask them for me.
tsassi wrote:
In case of a mechanic like sprint, I don't see the relevance of the single player focus of DOOM. After all, the reasons people give for liking sprint are speed and immersion. The former is completely independent of game mode while the latter almost seems more important in single player (or at least is independent of game mode). Therefore if the lack of sprint was truly an issue, one would also expect it to be an issue in the single player of DOOM.
The relevance would be in the case of balancing. With sprint in Halo, I feel like the majority of complaints for it come from the multiplayer side; I see a lot of "that guy can just sprint away from engagements" or "I have to lower my weapon to get to a firefight faster". I don't think I've ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven't seen them). So with DOOM's most popular mode being the single player campaign, I don't think balanced abilities was the main focus when designing Doom Slayer. And since Doom's multiplayer isn't as popular as it's single player, I wonder if Halo 5 had multiplayer more like Doom, if it would have been better or worse received. I'm just doing thought exercises, because I don't think any other FPS franchise can be compared 1:1 with another, and because I don't have a horse in this race and like to play devil's advocate.
Lots and lots of people have said things along the lines or actually have said they wouldn't buy Halo 6 if it didn't have the Sprint animation or any other FPS for that matter. Are you actually telling me you've never heard anyone on here say that?? I find that hard to believe seeing as how you're a monitor. I know the person I quoted didn't say that I was merely saying that because that's what other people have said in the past many many times. Maybe you should go visit the sprint discussion thread sometime lol you'll see people there say stuff like that and things like a new Halo game without Sprint wouldn't do well and so on.

I know this conversation is bigger than just a sprint animation, I'm not saying it is just a boat Sprint, nor have I ever. You were the one who quoted one part of my statement in that one post of mine to do with sprint. So I was replying to it. I hope you're not trying to accuse me of hijacking this thread because you were the one that asked me lol ...I was merely replying to what you said lol I did talk about other things other than sprint in that post (go back and read it if you like) and in other posts on this thread actually.

I feel you took a simple thing I was saying and just blew it up, turned it over, put it back together in some weird messed up way and somehow came to the conclusion that I was just talking about sprint LOL ....when you were the one that pointed out just that one part of my post, which as I said I was just replying too.

Yeah I think we're done with this conversation man. I don't know what it is when it comes to me and you but, maybe we should talk in person (not possible i know, too bad really) or in voice conversations or something because I think when we talk (text) it loses something... or we're speaking two different languages.... or something, I dont know lol I think you and I should stick to replying to each other when it comes to basic yes and no questions lol ;) So let's move on shall we :)
Lots and lots of people have said things along the lines or actually have said they wouldn't buy Halo 6 if it didn't have the Sprint animation or any other FPS for that matter. Are you actually telling me you've never heard anyone on here say that?? I find that hard to believe seeing as how you're a monitor. I know the person I quoted didn't say that I was merely saying that because that's what other people have said in the past many many times. Maybe you should go visit the sprint discussion thread sometime lol you'll see people there say stuff like that and things like a new Halo game without Sprint wouldn't do well and so on.
I've actually never seen people say that. Or if I have, I immediately forgot because of how ludicrous a statement it is. I mostly stay out of the sprint thread because it's ridiculous with mostly the same people saying the same things over and over. A bunch of people with irreconcilable differences. If people have actually said that the sprint animation is their make-or-break, then that's too bad that such ridiculousness is a reality.
I know this conversation is bigger than just a sprint animation, I'm not saying it is just a boat Sprint. You were the one who quoted one part of my statement in that one post of mine to do with sprint. So I was replying to it. I hope you're not trying to accuse me of hijacking this thread because you were the one that asked lol I was merely replying to what you said. I did talk about other things other than sprint and in that post and on this thread I posted many things, not just about sprint at all. Far from it actually.
Your original statement to that other user did indeed talk about advanced movement in general but had a particular focus on sprint. So I followed suit.
I feel you took a simple thing I was saying and just blew it up, turned it over, put it back together in some weird messed up way and somehow came to the conclusion that I was just talking about Sprint LOL ....when you were the one that pointed out just that one part of my post.
I pointed out the parts of your post I disagreed with; mainly using OW as an example of a game that did well with a lack of sprint. I even mentioned that OW contains a variety of advanced movement beyond sprint. I did this because I don't think all FPS titles are created equal, and I don't think making comparisons between different games based on one quality is very fair or useful to either game. There are alot of reasons that OW was successful beyond its movement. You even touched on that when you said that a game doesn't need x, y, or z to do well, but just needs to be fun. I mentioned DOOM specifically because of how its sequel seems to be adding even more advanced movement mechanics, deviating further from the classic movement formula of Doom, so it simply seemed like an interesting thought exercise to consider given the controversy of advanced movement in Halo. It seems like you only keyed in on the parts where I disagreed with you. But it's not like disagreements are personal. Not sure why you are making it seem that way.
Yeah I think we're done with this conversation man. I don't know what it is when it comes to me and you but, maybe we should talk in person (not possible i know) or in voice conversations or something because I think when we talk and text it loses something or we're speaking two different languages.... or something, I dont know. I think you and I should stick to replying to each other when it comes to basic yes and no questions lol ;) So let's move on shall we :)
You're welcome to stop replying whenever you like. I see no reason to try and strike up any conversation outside of the forums, though. When I see something I disagree with or find confusing I'm going to pursue it to get clarification. That's going to be independent of whose post I'm replying to. I'm certainly not going to alter my posting habits just for you. If you no longer wish to engage with me, you can exercise your power to ignore me. I won't take it personally.
Chimera30 wrote:
Lots and lots of people have said things along the lines or actually have said they wouldn't buy Halo 6 if it didn't have the Sprint animation or any other FPS for that matter. Are you actually telling me you've never heard anyone on here say that?? I find that hard to believe seeing as how you're a monitor. I know the person I quoted didn't say that I was merely saying that because that's what other people have said in the past many many times. Maybe you should go visit the sprint discussion thread sometime lol you'll see people there say stuff like that and things like a new Halo game without Sprint wouldn't do well and so on.
I've actually never seen people say that. Or if I have, I immediately forgot because of how ludicrous a statement it is. I mostly stay out of the sprint thread because it's ridiculous with mostly the same people saying the same things over and over. A bunch of people with irreconcilable differences. If people have actually said that the sprint animation is their make-or-break, then that's too bad that such ridiculousness is a reality.
I know this conversation is bigger than just a sprint animation, I'm not saying it is just a boat Sprint. You were the one who quoted one part of my statement in that one post of mine to do with sprint. So I was replying to it. I hope you're not trying to accuse me of hijacking this thread because you were the one that asked lol I was merely replying to what you said. I did talk about other things other than sprint and in that post and on this thread I posted many things, not just about sprint at all. Far from it actually.
Your original statement to that other user did indeed talk about advanced movement in general but had a particular focus on sprint. So I followed suit.
I feel you took a simple thing I was saying and just blew it up, turned it over, put it back together in some weird messed up way and somehow came to the conclusion that I was just talking about Sprint LOL ....when you were the one that pointed out just that one part of my post.
I pointed out the parts of your post I disagreed with; mainly using OW as an example of a game that did well with a lack of sprint. I even mentioned that OW contains a variety of advanced movement beyond sprint. I did this because I don't think all FPS titles are created equal, and I don't think making comparisons between different games based on one quality is very fair or useful to either game. There are alot of reasons that OW was successful beyond its movement. You even touched on that when you said that a game doesn't need x, y, or z to do well, but just needs to be fun. I mentioned DOOM specifically because of how its sequel seems to be adding even more advanced movement mechanics, deviating further from the classic movement formula of Doom, so it simply seemed like an interesting thought exercise to consider given the controversy of advanced movement in Halo. It sounds like you only keyed in on the parts where I disagreed with you. But it's not like disagreements are personal. Not sure why you are making it seem that way.
Yeah I think we're done with this conversation man. I don't know what it is when it comes to me and you but, maybe we should talk in person (not possible i know) or in voice conversations or something because I think when we talk and text it loses something or we're speaking two different languages.... or something, I dont know. I think you and I should stick to replying to each other when it comes to basic yes and no questions lol ;) So let's move on shall we :)
You're welcome to stop replying whenever you like. I see no reason to try and strike up any conversation outside of the forums, though. When I see something I disagree with or find confusing I'm going to pursue it to get clarification. That's going to be independent of whose post I'm replying to. I'm certainly not going to alter my posting habits just for you. If you no longer wish to engage with me, you can exercise your power to ignore me. I won't take it personally.
I'm not taking it personal at all bud, I promise you lol. I just feel like I can't ever seem to get my point across to you... like ever!! lol so it can be a little frustrating sometimes. So that's either my fault for not explaining it well enough (which is highly possible because I'm a much better talker than I am writer) or we just interpreting each other's messages differently than how we read them hence my statement of I feel like we speaking two different languages lol

It's all good man, but to me (and be honest with you a lot of other people I know on here think the same) a lot of your statements, I guess it's your "tone"?? (again how a person reads it) just seems so... Cold... Or something... Stuff like this,
Quote:
If you no longer wish to engage with me, you can exercise your power to ignore me.
That just sounds cold dude lolol I'm sure you're not and again I'm sure it's how myself and many others interpret your statements but I'm just saying man. I know my friends say sometimes it's my tone in how I say things, so I'm trying to be moremore self-conscious about that. Regardless, it's all good bro but it's too bad because I know you've started since CE and so have I and there's not too many of us left anymore.... on forms that is. Anyways, maybe I'll see you on the battlefield sometime ;) later!
Chimera30 wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven't seen them).
For the record: I do.
I don't care about multiplayer. I really don't. 343 could reduce the entire multiplayer to one map, one weapon, have blue team walk on the ceiling and the only method of movement being backwards and I wouldn'g give a -Yoink-.
But campaign is the absolut last place I want sprint to interfere with gameplay, AI and map design.
Linked post is over three years ago, and I've already made several before. My stance hasn't changed since.
Chimera30 wrote:
Games like the new Doom and especially Overwatch have shown if the game is good and fun people will buy it, they don't care if it doesn't have x, y and z or not.
I agree that a game being good doesn't necessarily depend of individual mechanics like sprint. However, again, I think using OW is not a good example on why Halo should not have sprint, given that OW is a different kind of shooter and does in fact have sprint. And even DOOM isn't a great example, as that game's star was the single-player experience, not the multiplayer, and I agree with the idea that just because a certain movement system works in single-player doesn't necessarily mean it will work in competitive multiplayer. And it's worth noting that DOOM Eternal looks to be adding additional advanced movement mechanics to the game, which may or may not end up being controversial. We'll have to wait and see.
I agree that we will have to see, but what was shown in DOOM Eternal play seemed like a natural progression to the formula. The gun and equipment are still available at all times, with the exception of wall climbing additions, it is still "Run and Gun". The added movements have also added a whole lot more play space to the Campaign, as you noted it's main selling point, and something fans have been asking for. There is still the hectic strafing combat that Doom is known for, and with the ability to adjust the FoV, it can be even more hectic. Will they be a benefit to the popularity of MP, is left to be seen, but if they continue with the SnapMap features, it's also possible to keep the longevity going with community creations.

Edit: Game also doesn't have a release date yet, so who knows what might change.

Edit 2: Dooms MP was more hurt by a full acceptance of a loadout based MP system that was linked to progression, less for the movement, although the thrust boots got quite a bit of hate.
It's all good man, but to me (and be honest with you a lot of other people I know on here think the same) a lot of your statements, I guess it's your "tone"?? (again how a person reads it) just seems so... Cold... Or something...
Yeah, I don't really care about that. I post bluntly and directly and I like picking apart arguments and thoroughly investigating opinions. I don't post to make other people "feel good". It's not like I insult people. If people don't like my way of responding then they don't have to read it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If people aren't prepared for others to look for holes in or disagree with their arguments, I don't know why they post on a forum in the first place. Forums have never been places where people just go "Good post!" to everything. I see tsassi poke holes in my posts all the time and it doesn't rustle my jimmies.
Celestis wrote:
For the record: I do.
I don't care about multiplayer. I really don't. 343 could reduce the entire multiplayer to one map, one weapon, have blue team walk on the ceiling and the only method of movement being backwards and I wouldn'g give a -Yoink-.
But campaign is the absolut last place I want sprint to interfere with gameplay, AI and map design.
Linked post is over three years ago, and I've already made several before. My stance hasn't changed since.
So looking at that post I have a couple questions:
  1. How did you feel about the Halo CE level "Halo"? Because that level was very much elongated and built for vehicle travel, yet there was an achievement for doing it all on foot. Do all levels in sprint-positive campaigns feel to you like going for that achievement? I think back to Halo 5's Meridian level and remember something similar about doing it with no vehicles, and that was annoying, even with sprint. But I didn't feel that way about the level design for other levels. In the "Halo" level, I remember lots of long drops and high chasms that acted as map boundaries. In other classic levels, I remember many locked doors keeping you on linear paths (looking at Covenant ship levels). What's the best Halo level ever designed to you? Did it completely lack those boundaries you mentioned that were anti-explorative?
  2. It seems to me that, physically speaking, no person (super-human or otherwise) would be able to move at top speed while aiming and shooting. The swinging of arms in the running posture actually does make one move faster; have you ever tried running as fast as you can with your arms motionless at your sides or held out in front of you? Like, I never considered max BMS in Halo 5 to be "walking", because it looks more like jogging. So to me, you could always shoot and run (or jog) in Halo. Then sprint adds an extra speed that actually requires you to swing your arms for proper running form to maintain that speed (like real life sprinting). I see validity in the immersion argument for sprint because of that. I don't think real life soldiers can move at their top speeds while aiming and shooting, and while Spartans may be super soldiers, they are still human and have limits. Maybe they could further elevate max BMS and top sprint speed to make each feel more superhuman, so that BMS feels like running and shooting and sprint feels like break-neck absolute top speed.
Also I saw you mentioned Elites in Reach and their ability to shoot while moving as fast as you (the player). But where Spartans can't sprint and shoot, Elites couldn't evade and shoot (evade being the Elites default armor ability, as I recall). Actually, I think Elites have been evading since long before armor abilities. What I mean is, I'm not sure what you were trying to get across when you were talking about Elites in Reach.
Chimera30 wrote:
I see tsassi poke holes in my posts all the time and it doesn't rustle my jimmies.
Disappointed that no one has ever complimented me for my cold, lifeless tone.

Chimera30 wrote:
Like, I never considered max BMS in Halo 5 to be "walking", because it looks more like jogging.
Would be interesting to know how you define "jogging" Because anything I could personally reasonably consider to be jogging falls way below the Halo 5 BMS. For some context on how fast the Halo 5 BMS is: can you run 100 meters in 13 seconds? If you can, the Halo 5 BMS still beats you by 0.4 seconds.

Chimera30 wrote:
I don't think real life soldiers can move at their top speeds while aiming and shooting, and while Spartans may be super soldiers, they are still human and have limits.
Which is kind of strange to care about since there's a laundry list of big and minute things in the Halo universe that are physically completely unreasonable. If we order everything that happens in the universe from the most unreasonable to the least unreasoable, aiming accurately while running at maximum speed is pretty low on that list. If I can suspend my disbelief to the idea that Cairo Station doesn't launch itself towards the Earth at 60 km/s and obliterate a small island every time it fires, I can surely suspend my disbelief to the idea that modified humans with superhuman reflexes, strength, and coordination, aided by an advanced power armor that would surely have some stabilizing features do not need to make compromises between agility and accuracy. One of these things at least doesn't break a fundamental law of physics.
tsassi wrote:
Celestis wrote:
Like, I never considered max BMS in Halo 5 to be "walking", because it looks more like jogging.
Would be interesting to know how you define "jogging" Because anything I could personally reasonably consider to be jogging falls way below the Halo 5 BMS. For some context on how fast the Halo 5 BMS is: can you run 100 meters in 13 seconds? If you can, the Halo 5 BMS still beats you by 0.4 seconds.
Messed up your quote block trimming, there. ;) (edit: inb4 your edit)
I say jogging as a qualitative description of the amount of intensity a Spartan moving at max BMS looks like they're exerting. It doesn't look that intense; looks like they could literally move that fast all day if they wanted. But hey, to a Spartan supersoldier, maybe a 13-sec 100 meter dash is jogging to them.
tsassi wrote:
One of these things at least doesn't break a fundamental law of physics.
I disagree. I think both break the laws of physics, though one is just much more noticeable. Arm swingings reduces angular momentum and adds to the linear momentum of the motion, making higher acceleration possible. So to me, it breaks the laws physics to be able to achieve the same top speed with much worse stability and energy efficiency.
tsassi wrote:
If we order everything that happens in the universe from the most unreasonable to the least unreasoable, aiming accurately while running at maximum speed is pretty low on that list.
Sounds like a subjective laundry list. I've seen plenty of people make huge cases and cause massive uproar in Halo (and other fiction) over something that I find minor and not work thinking that hard about. Maybe to you the running and aiming thing is low on the list of inexcusable breaks from reality, but that doesn't hold true for all. That is to say, "we" probably don't order everything on the list the same, so it'd be fairer to say "If I order everything that happens...".
Chimera30 wrote:
Messed up your quote block trimming, there. ;)
Thanks for pointing out.

Chimera30 wrote:
I disagree. I think both break the laws of physics, though one is just much more noticeable. Arm swingings reduces angular momentum and adds to the linear momentum of the motion, making higher acceleration possible. So to me, it breaks the laws physics to be able to achieve the same top speed with much worse stability and energy efficiency.
Not really. The dynamics of running are too complicated to make such blanket statement. I mean, it's a fundamental law in physics that if you shoot a projectile in space at some momentum, you start moving in the opposite direction at momentum of same magnitude. It's pretty easy to compute what would actually happen to a super MAC (or what kind of counter thrust it would need) when it shot. However, the relevance of arm swing is much more subtle. The statement "running at maxmium speed without swinging your arms is not possible" is highly nontrivial. If you have a slick way of formalizing it (which in itself seems pretty nontrivial), not to mention a proof, then by all means feel free to share it. I know that to me it's not at all obvious that the human physiology couldn't allow running at maximum speed without arm swing.

Chimera30 wrote:
Sounds like a subjective laundry list. I've seen plenty of people make huge cases and cause massive uproar in Halo (and other fiction) over something that I find minor an not work thinking that hard about. Maybe to you the running and aiming thing is low on the list of inexcusable breaks from reality, but that doesn't hold true for all. That is to say, "we" probably don't order everything on the list the same, so it'd be fairer to say "If I order everything that happens...".
It naturally is, but still, I can't imagine a world where faster than light travel, wirelessly powered guns shooting 600 ton projectiles at 20th the speed of light every five seconds without the sligtest nudge, anti-gravity, or ships floating in a planet's gravity field with no rocket engines to be seen would seem more reasonable than a human running at maximum speed without swinging their arms.
Celestis wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a complaint about sprint as it pertains to the campaign (they could be out there, I just haven't seen them).
For the record: I do.
I don't care about multiplayer. I really don't. 343 could reduce the entire multiplayer to one map, one weapon, have blue team walk on the ceiling and the only method of movement being backwards and I wouldn'g give a -Yoink-.
But campaign is the absolut last place I want sprint to interfere with gameplay, AI and map design.
Linked post is over three years ago, and I've already made several before. My stance hasn't changed since.
Add me to Celestis' list. I actually care about both, but if I had to choose between which I place more emphasis on caring about, it'd be SP. My thing is, I despise inconsistency in a game. If sprint is in MP, then it should be in SP and vice versa. Otherwise the gameplay (or more accurately I suppose, the change in gameplay between modes) feels broken to me. Separated into 2 very different styles of play. No thanks. I'm not really a fan of sprint and therefor I don't want it in either mode because it ruins the consistency for me. I believe I've touched on this in a few posts, but that would be in a thread you obviously don't bother with. In any case, that's two you haven't seen.
tsassi wrote:
It naturally is, but still, I can't imagine a world where faster than light travel, wirelessly powered guns shooting 600 ton projectiles at 20th the speed of light every five seconds without the sligtest nudge, anti-gravity, or ships floating in a planet's gravity field with no rocket engines to be seen would seem more reasonable than a human running at maximum speed without swinging their arms.
I think of it like this: human locomotion, while complex with regards to its subtleties, is a more approachable subject because every person, regardless of education, understands some aspect of swinging arms opposite to legs when walking/running. On the other hand, not everyone is thinking of things in terms of Newton's laws or conservation of momentum. Everyone has experience with walking; not everyone has experience with rocket science. I think with science fiction, it's easier to suspend in disbelief things that aren't so relatable to the general consumer of fiction.

On the mechanistic side of things, for running and arm swings, like I said before, try going out and sprinting 100m with your arms clamped to your sides (or if you want to be more relatable to Halo, hold something in front of you like you would a gun and then do the sprinting, and try "aiming" at different things while you do) vs running while pumping your arms. I've done this before. I know what it feels like. Most people probably haven't tried this exercise because why would you ever think to run like that, except maybe to get a laugh out of others for looking silly? Swinging one's arms while walking is something you learn intrinsically as a baby. It's so natural we don't think about it, until we actively try to change it.
For the MAC guns on space stations, you said that calculating the necessary thrust to oppose a firing would be relatively simply, and to that I agree, so long as you've been through a calc-based physics course and recall your equations. I know some people, like my sister, who have forgotten physics and couldn't calculate their way out of a paper bag. But you said you can suspend your disbelief that Cairo station doesn't launch itself towards the Earth everytime it fires. I say, why do you need to? Is it a fact that the stations do not reverse thrust upon MAC firing? I know coilguns aren't recoilless so it seems fundamental to me that a space station or even a ship would have stabilizers to prevent displacement when firing. I've only ever watched a MAC fire when outside Cairo Station on Halo 2, but from the Chief's viewpoint you can tell if any reverse thrust is occurring. I guess you could look out at the other stations before they get destroyed to see if there is any compensentary force; if there isn't I wouldn't be surprised if that was just an artistic oversight and not a canon fact.

For anti-grav, that's all fiction, but it's so mainstream at this point in sci-fi that it doesn't surprise me that people find it reasonable to exist in fictional settings.

For spaceships floating in a planet's gravitational field without rocket engines: well, early satellites could maintain orbit around Earth with no propulsion. Who's to say those ships aren't just in a temporary orbit?
Add me to Celestis' list. I actually care about both, but if I had to choose between which I place more emphasis on caring about, it'd be SP. My thing is, I despise inconsistency in a game. If sprint is in MP, then it should be in SP and vice versa. Otherwise the gameplay (or more accurately I suppose, the change in gameplay between modes) feels broken to me. Separated into 2 very different styles of play. No thanks. I'm not really a fan of sprint and therefor I don't want it in either mode because it ruins the consistency for me. I believe I've touched on this in a few posts, but that would be in a thread you obviously don't bother with. In any case, that's two you haven't seen.
I get not liking sprint in the campaign. I don't get how it feels inconsistent to you when it's present in both campaign and multiplayer. You said you despise inconsistency and wouldn't want mechanics to be present in one mode but not the other. Sprint doesn't meet that condition; it's in both modes. So I fail to see how sprint is inconsistent in the way you described. Unless you have a different definition of "consistency" in mind when you say sprint ruins consistency.
Chimera30 wrote:
I think of it like this: human locomotion, while complex with regards to its subtleties, is a more approachable subject because every person, regardless of education, understands some aspect of swinging arms opposite to legs when walking/running. On the other hand, not everyone is thinking of things in terms of Newton's laws or conservation of momentum. Everyone has experience with walking; not everyone has experience with rocket science. I think with science fiction, it's easier to suspend in disbelief things that aren't so relatable to the general consumer of fiction.
Sure, if you go to what people are used to, it's entirely understandable that they feel like sprint is a natural part of gameplay. However, that isn't really the issue here. The issue is that as soon as you start to try to articulate it as some form of justification for why Halo needs sprint, you have to address all the other absurdities we get thrown at us in the games at regular basis, and why they're somehow less relevant.

If you look at it historically, the arm swing argument is not a natural argument in support of sprint. Rather, it's a counter argument constructed against the "super soldiers should be able to shoot at maximum speed" (which incidentally is a counter argument to the "super soliders should be able to run"). That's why, to me, it has always felt kind of disingenuous. The argument it's meant to counter is already kind of disingenuous, because I don't believe most of us who've used it care that much about the "feeling like a super soldier" factor. Likewise, people who debate arm swing don't truly care about the physical accuracy of movement, they're just making a counter argument for sake of a counter argument. That's why bringing what people are used to to the arm swing debate kind of misses the point, because if that's all you care about, then you would already have been completely happy with the "super soliders should be able to run", and not care about engaging in a discussion about the mechanics of running.

That's why, as I see it, as soon as you engage in the arm swing discussion, you've entered the domain of purely scientific discussion, and you have to deal with all the baggage that comes with it.

Chimera30 wrote:
On the mechanistic side of things, for running and arm swings, like I said before, try going out and sprinting 100m with your arms clamped to your sides (or if you want to be more relatable to Halo, hold something in front of you like you would a gun and then do the sprinting, and try "aiming" at different things while you do) vs running while pumping your arms. I've done this before. I know what it feels like. Most people probably haven't tried this exercise because why would you ever think to run like that, except maybe to get a laugh out of others for looking silly? Swinging one's arms while walking is something you learn intrinsically as a baby. It's so natural we don't think about it, until we actively try to change it.
It's natural, sure, but that doesn't mean its function is to allow you to run faster. The usual factors discussed in the literature seem to be countering of angular momentum for balance and metabolic efficiency, neither of which has an obvious connection to maximum speed. It's also not immediately obvious whether the balance part is necessary, or just the natural mode of running for a biped with arms (say, for example, because other modes would require finer motor control). It's not clear that if the need came for a human with sufficiently good motor control to learn to run fast while holding their arms stationary that they couldn't reach similar speeds as with normal running with some loss of efficiency.

Chimera30 wrote:
But you said you can suspend your disbelief that Cairo station doesn't launch itself towards the Earth everytime it fires. I say, why do you need to? Is it a fact that the stations do not reverse thrust upon MAC firing?
Generally speaking, every, single part of how super MACs function is plagued by issues with the energies involved. The short story is that everything that happens happens at such energy and time scales that there either is no clever engineering solution to address it, or the clever engineering solution just relays the problem to the absurdity of said solution. For example, if you assume counter thrust, you still have to cope with the acceleration. Apart from detonating a gigaton scale nuke or firing another round in the opposite direction at the exact moment the gun fires, the crew would just be splattered right against the ceiling the moment the gun is fired. Matching the momentum just means the station stops eventually. You also need to match the force at the right time to not cause catastrophic displacement.

Chimera30 wrote:
For anti-grav, that's all fiction, but it's so mainstream at this point in sci-fi that it doesn't surprise me that people find it reasonable to exist in fictional settings.
So, why would people have issues suspending disbelief regarding how characters move, especially when those characters are clearly portrayed with superhuman abilities? Why do we accept some fiction, but not other?

Chimera30 wrote:
For spaceships floating in a planet's gravitational field without rocket engines: well, early satellites could maintain orbit around Earth with no propulsion. Who's to say those ships aren't just in a temporary orbit?
The speed doesn't match. Namely, I'm remembering all the cutscenes in Halo 2 and 3 with frigates just casually floating around near the surface of the Earth or the Ark.
Alot to unpack so I'm only keying on on one point that I think, for the sake of the immersion argument, can be used to provide an overaching justification.
tsassi wrote:
So, why would people have issues suspending disbelief regarding how characters move, especially when those characters are clearly portrayed with superhuman abilities? Why do we accept some fiction, but not other?
I said this before. I think it's easier to accept fiction that is farther removed from normality than it is to accept fictionalization of aspects of life that everyone is familiar with. Space stations and soldiering aren't things that a typical person has in depth experience with. Such things are extraordinary, in a way, because your average Joe Shmoe probably doesn't have a life involved with either. But everyone knows walking and running (not including some obvious exceptions that I think aren't relevant to the discussion). Superhuman takes things that humans do an elevates them. Run faster, hit harder, be smarter. I'm purposefully staying out of the realm of comics where superhumans are in a whole nother class of powerful; in the context of Halo, superhumans do everything regular humans do, just better. Does that mean that a Spartan should be able to run faster than a regular human while aiming/firing a gun. Yes, and they do, by even your accounts. But they still follow the same "rules" as human, in how their bodies function and how they move. So I submit that while it's possible for a Spartan to move really fast while keeping their gun up and ready, even if you add external stabilizers to further increase that speed, the moment the Spartan starts pumping their arms, their top speed increases.

Maybe the immersion argument was invented simply to justify sprint; I don't know. Seems potentially dismissive to those who may truly care about the look of motion in a game, but then I don't know anyone who actually has expressed that sentiment. I do however see the merit in it. I'm not trying to assert that sprint is necessary gameplay, though. I'm just saying for those who say they like sprint for immersion, natural human locomotion supports the idea that lowering your gun to swing your arms makes sense if you want to run faster. We're getting into the nitty gritty that most people probably don't think of with locomotion, but for the layman, the idea that if you want to run fast your arms better be swinging is natural. If the feeling of speed was all that mattered, then you sould be able to get the same effect by just having Spartans hover around using thrusters to move instead of walking/running. But I feel like people wouldn't like that, no matter how fast you were able to move. I think people want to see realistic movement in a game, even when they are playing as supersoldiers, and even if you don't agree with swinging arms being a physical requirement for top speed, at the very least I think you can agree it has a natural, human, realistic look. You could very well probably just put more detail in the base movement to make it also look even more natural, human, and realistic, and I think they have; walking looks better in Halo 5 than it did in CE. But I think there is something to the sprint animation when it comes to wanting to feel like you are moving "faster than normal", even when normal is already superhumanly fast.
Chimera30 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Add me to Celestis' list. I actually care about both, but if I had to choose between which I place more emphasis on caring about, it'd be SP. My thing is, I despise inconsistency in a game. If sprint is in MP, then it should be in SP and vice versa. Otherwise the gameplay (or more accurately I suppose, the change in gameplay between modes) feels broken to me. Separated into 2 very different styles of play. No thanks. I'm not really a fan of sprint and therefor I don't want it in either mode because it ruins the consistency for me. I believe I've touched on this in a few posts, but that would be in a thread you obviously don't bother with. In any case, that's two you haven't seen.
I get not liking sprint in the campaign. I don't get how it feels inconsistent to you when it's present in both campaign and multiplayer. You said you despise inconsistency and wouldn't want mechanics to be present in one mode but not the other. Sprint doesn't meet that condition; it's in both modes. So I fail to see how sprint is inconsistent in the way you described. Unless you have a different definition of "consistency" in mind when you say sprint ruins consistency.
It's not that it does feel inconsistent... it's that it would feel inconsistent. I have played CE through 5. I know how it feels to not have sprint and I know how it feels to have sprint. I have played a few games without using sprint [in games where it was available] just to see what would happen as well. I know that its presence, or absence each causes an adjustment to my play style. I despise the thought of having sprint in one and not the other as it would change gameplay between the two, which would make the game feel inconsistent to me. Sprint doesn't have to meet the condition (of feeling inconsistent) in order for me to know that it would if it were present in one but absent in the other.
Chimera30 wrote:
But they still follow the same "rules" as human, in how their bodies function and how they move.
But why this particular inconsequential animation and not all the others? Like, for the most apples to apples comparison, you know what happens to my arms when I try to jump high? I swing them. No sign of this in the game. You know what I also do when I jump? I crouch a bit, you know, so that I can spring up to gain the necessary speed. The Spartans? They just pop straight into the air. No preload, no use of muscles, no lowering gun, they just launch right up. Is anybody taking issue with this? No, of course not. Jumping is as basic as running, but for some reason people are completely fine with the Spartans just launching into the air without any downwards movement whatsoever. But when it comes to shooting at maximum speed: no, can't do that, that's impossible.

No, I can't believe that human physiology is the driving force here.
It's not that it does feel inconsistent... it's that it would feel inconsistent. I have played CE through 5. I know how it feels to not have sprint and I know how it feels to have sprint. I have played a few games without using sprint [in games where it was available] just to see what would happen as well. I know that its presence, or absence each causes an adjustment to my play style. I despise the thought of having sprint in one and not the other as it would change gameplay between the two, which would make the game feel inconsistent to me. Sprint doesn't have to meet the condition (of feeling inconsistent) in order for me to know that it would if it were present in one but absent in the other.
But since sprint is present in both single and multiplayer for every Halo game it's been in, I don't see why this is a concern. Halo has given no suggestion that sprint will become a mode-specific mechanic. I see no reason to fear that sprint could potentially be exclusive to either single player or multiplayer. Is there an example of a game that had sprint in either multiplayer or single player but not the other, where you concern was generated? Cause if the only concern is consistency across modes, I don't see how having no sprint at all is better than guaranteeing that all modes have sprint, aside from personal preference.

Unless you are talking about sprint not being consistent across games (i.e. not in CE-3 but is in Reach-5). If that's the case, then I would ask you opinion on other mechanics that weren't in CE but added in subsequent games, like dual-wielding, equipment, vehicle hijacking, etc.
tsassi wrote:
But why this particular inconsequential animation and not all the others? Like, for the most apples to apples comparison, you know what happens to my arms when I try to jump high? I swing them. No sign of this in the game. You know what I also do when I jump? I crouch a bit, you know, so that I can spring up to gain the necessary speed. The Spartans? They just pop straight into the air. No preload, no use of muscles, no lowering gun, they just launch right up. Is anybody taking issue with this? No, of course not. Jumping is as basic as running, but for some reason people are completely fine with the Spartans just launching into the air without any downwards movement whatsoever. But when it comes to shooting at maximum speed: no, can't do that, that's impossible.
Jumping is a good example of the counter. True enough, jumping doesn't look realistic in pretty much any Halo game; no person jumps like that.
To that I would say, what would happen if a new mechanic was introduced where you could jump higher than a standard jump by crouching first, then jumping? Or, perhaps, holding the jump button instead of pressing would make your Spartan assume a "ready to jump" pose that would allow for a higher vertical and/or longer horizontal, and would also involve lower of the gun and inability to shoot? Essentially, a second tier of jumping, like how sprint is a second tier running. I wonder if people who say they enjoy sprint because of immersion would similarly enjoy this new mechanic because of its realism/natural look. I wonder how controversial it would be as a mechanic, too. And after its introduction, would calls for its removal spark people to respond with similar arguments of immersion as sprint? Since we haven't had a second tier jump mechanic introduced yet, we can only speculate on how the introduction of one would be received. Perhaps that people don't complain about jumping or try to justify it with the human physiology argument is simply because no one has considered changing jump. Personally I can't recall people complaining about Halo 2 or 3 lacking sprint when those games came out; I only recall discussions around sprint during and after Reach.
I already apologize in advance, because the reply got too long to contain in one post. I'll actually have to split it up into multiple posts...

Chimera30 wrote:
  • How did you feel about the Halo CE level "Halo"? Because that level was very much elongated and built for vehicle travel, yet there was an achievement for doing it all on foot. Do all levels in sprint-positive campaigns feel to you like going for that achievement? I think back to Halo 5's Meridian level and remember something similar about doing it with no vehicles, and that was annoying, even with sprint. But I didn't feel that way about the level design for other levels. In the "Halo" level, I remember lots of long drops and high chasms that acted as map boundaries. In other classic levels, I remember many locked doors keeping you on linear paths (looking at Covenant ship levels). What's the best Halo level ever designed to you? Did it completely lack those boundaries you mentioned that were anti-explorative?
Well, first of all, I did that achievement with a second controller. As long as your main account doesn't enter a vehicle, your guest can do whatever he wants and you'll still pop that cheevo.
I've been rewriting this text several times now because I'm having some issues putting my feelings into words (doubly so as a non-native speaker).
I think what bothers me more is not that the levels are bigger per se but the way they are elongated. It's not just the length of your distance from A to B, but also the width in between objects on the maps, specifically walls. Compare the narrow hallways of the Pillar of Autumn to the wide corridors of the Forward Unto Dawn or Argent Moon. They need to have a certain minimum width in order to compensate for the reduced turning radius of sprint. It has a purpose, I get it. And it might be fine if those parts of the level are always empty and solely traversed with sprint. But a lot of these locations are also fighting arenas, so while they are widened to accomodate sprint, fighting at the lower movement speeds is problematic because cover is generally too far apart.
"Halo" was streched in a different way. The distances were generally larger since (as you already mentioned) it was designed with vehicular combat in mind. That being said, it still had its narrow passages, the tunnels below the signal tower or the space in between the rocks at the rockslide, that were ment to be explored on foot. There were close quarters, mid spaces and wide areas in the same level. It's a diversity in its design that I generally miss recently.
For the second part; yes, of course you're right: There will never be a level without its boundaries. It has to end somewhere. But those boundaries kinda seemed more natural back in the day. The Silent Cartographer was an Island. The Control Room was in a huge chasm of which you couldn't even see the top, not just some vertical rock wall that happens to be juuuuuust high enough so you cannot climb it (I'm thinking of Requiem and Genesis here). That being said, both Halo and the plateau from the Truth and Reconceiliation also had these same cliffs and "just high enough walls", and I fully admit that. In hindsight, that part of the post was poorly thought out as the criticism is not linked to movement at all, and I hereby retract it. (The "boundaries" part, not the "stretched" part.)
For the record, my favorite level might be the Silent Cartographer, because it's possibly the only truly "open" level of the franchise. Yes, it also has those walls, but since they are in the middle of the map, they never truly stop you from going somewhere, but rather redirect you to take another path. The surrounding killbarrier also seems to make more sense because, you know, it's an island...

Chimera30 wrote:
Also I saw you mentioned Elites in Reach and their ability to shoot while moving as fast as you (the player). But where Spartans can't sprint and shoot, Elites couldn't evade and shoot (evade being the Elites default armor ability, as I recall). Actually, I think Elites have been evading since long before armor abilities. What I mean is, I'm not sure what you were trying to get across when you were talking about Elites in Reach.
My point was that enemies are always designed according to the player's peak abilities, even though they cannot pull them off all at the same time. I brought up the Elites as an example, but I really should have mentioned the Halo-4-Knights instead: They have ridiculously hard shields with a quick recharge time because they need to be able to resist a player's constant weapons fire just like elites do, but at the same time, they have the teleport ability as they need to be able to escape or follow a sprinting player as well. Each on its own would not have been a problem, but because they were designed to account for two different types of interactions with the player simultaneously, this has led to the infuriating habit of them teleporting behind an obstacle where the player can't see them and then immediately having full shields again.
This was supposed to show that movement mechanics affect more than just level design and weapon damage but even A.I. behaviour as well, with possibly disastrous consequences...
Chimera30 wrote:
  • It seems to me that, physically speaking, no person (super-human or otherwise) would be able to move at top speed while aiming and shooting. The swinging of arms in the running posture actually does make one move faster; have you ever tried running as fast as you can with your arms motionless at your sides or held out in front of you? Like, I never considered max BMS in Halo 5 to be "walking", because it looks more like jogging. So to me, you could always shoot and run (or jog) in Halo. Then sprint adds an extra speed that actually requires you to swing your arms for proper running form to maintain that speed (like real life sprinting). I see validity in the immersion argument for sprint because of that. I don't think real life soldiers can move at their top speeds while aiming and shooting, and while Spartans may be super soldiers, they are still human and have limits. Maybe they could further elevate max BMS and top sprint speed to make each feel more superhuman, so that BMS feels like running and shooting and sprint feels like break-neck absolute top speed.
I've had that discussion multiple times before and sorry to say, but you're wrong. Not only is it possible to move at top speed while shooting, I can literally do that myself. Obviously not with a real gun, those are too heavy, and that's also the reason why real life soldiers can't and don't: The weight of the gun creates a lever that puts a strain on the arms. But if you were to reduce the (relative) weight of the object, the entire scenario looks completely different. It's basically how I always play lasertag: Sprinting. I know my top speed and I know that during matches, I'm reaching it within a ~95% margin. (Or is it "5% margin"? Again, not a native speaker, so I don't know which way around it's meant to be phrased.) That max speed just seems raised for Spartans due to their enhanced physiology, but the weight of the firearms they carry compared to their armor should be on the same ratio as a plastic gun to a human's body mass. I see absolutely no reason why Spartans should be restricted by something that even regular human's arent. If all else fails, you could even say that they armor lock their arms into place during fights. Because no, the arms are not required for fast movement. Arm swinging is just the most commonly used way of counteracting the torque created by the legs hitting the ground off-center-of-mass. However, it's not the only way - pelvis rotation or chest rotation have the same effect and require only ~13% higher metabolic power.
(Source)
Imo this seems like an acceptable tradeoff in order to be able to defend yourself at all times inside a warzone.

It also has no effect on top speed:
Quote:
Contrary to popular belief, superior arm action does not produce superior sprint performance. In fact, regardless of the quality of the sprinter, there is no significant difference in the arm action. If a sprinter could improve the horizontal velocity simply by moving the arms faster, then even old, out of shape coaches could run as fast as the elite sprinter since virtually everyone can move their arms fast enough to produce an elite level stride rate of five steps per seconds.
Dr. Ralph Mann (Ph.D. in Biomechanics, former sprinter)
Quote:
Once a runner is up to speed, the arms swing largely like passive pendulums, providing balance, minimizing center of mass energy losses and conserving the body’s momentum. While arm movements are coordinated with torso and leg movements to achieve the energy transfers that minimize center of mass energy losses, they certainly do not control leg movements and have very little effect on the all-important ground reaction forces.
Dr. Peter Weyand (Professor of Applied Physiology & Biomechanics)
Quote:
Once the runner is up to top speed, the arms mostly serve to counter-balance the legs and have minimal effect on setting the tone for stride rate or length. While I don’t have an issue with incorporating a few basic arm drive drills into the early portion of practice, I have not had success either as an athlete or coach by making arm action a big area of technical focus.
Dr. Ken Clark (Professor of Kinesiology)
(Source)
.

In fact, I'd argue that running with a gun held up should effectively increase top speed, because the pointy end separating the air ahead of the Spartan causes improved wind resistance compared to a flat human body, while at the same time eliminating energy losses from air friction caused by arm movement. (Wikipedia quotes Usain Bolt as having a drag coefficient of 1.2, while even a simple cone already has a drag coeffient of 0.5)
Chimera30 wrote:
It's not that it does feel inconsistent... it's that it would feel inconsistent. I have played CE through 5. I know how it feels to not have sprint and I know how it feels to have sprint. I have played a few games without using sprint [in games where it was available] just to see what would happen as well. I know that its presence, or absence each causes an adjustment to my play style. I despise the thought of having sprint in one and not the other as it would change gameplay between the two, which would make the game feel inconsistent to me. Sprint doesn't have to meet the condition (of feeling inconsistent) in order for me to know that it would if it were present in one but absent in the other.
But since sprint is present in both single and multiplayer for every Halo game it's been in, I don't see why this is a concern. Halo has given no suggestion that sprint will become a mode-specific mechanic. I see no reason to fear that sprint could potentially be exclusive to either single player or multiplayer. Is there an example of a game that had sprint in either multiplayer or single player but not the other, where you concern was generated? Cause if the only concern is consistency across modes, I don't see how having no sprint at all is better than guaranteeing that all modes have sprint, aside from personal preference.

Unless you are talking about sprint not being consistent across games (i.e. not in CE-3 but is in Reach-5). If that's the case, then I would ask you opinion on other mechanics that weren't in CE but added in subsequent games, like dual-wielding, equipment, vehicle hijacking, etc.
I was simply adding myself to Celestis' list. I'm not a fan of sprint. I don't find it necessary in any capacity, including across the games, SP or MP, but especially in the idea of being in one mode vs another. Many of the other added mechanics had both good and bad about them, but they didn't have as much of a pronounced impact for me as sprint did. The ability to move is necessary to any FPS. Sprint modifies this fundamental aspect in a way I don't care for in Halo. I don't want it period.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 55
  4. 56
  5. 57
  6. 58
  7. 59
  8. ...
  9. 63