Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 61
  4. 62
  5. 63
  6. 64
  7. 65
  8. ...
  9. 188
The "consistency" come from having been active in Halo forums since Halo 2 and reading and responding to the same things the same way over and over. There exists a subgroup that wants the exact old game. There exists a slightly larger group that sucks up the the other group. These are the ones that come in to a thread like this one, pound their chests and say "All Abilities Must Go for Halo to Return to Glory." When I question that logic I am told I need to provide evidence. Well, this thread is evidence. What's really annoying is people reading what I wrote and saying I said something else, specifically because they want to argue against what they would have liked me to have said rather than what I actually said. The point is not that there is an Old Guard that wants the game to return to Halo CE level play. The point is that anyone that believes such a return will make Halo as popular as it once was is not being realistic, and I don't care if you are the first person that bought a copy Halo CE or if you just bought Halo 5 and never heard of CE. If you believe Halo will be popular again if they just get rid of Abilities, any or all of them, you don't understand what's happening.
The first subgroup you are talking about, "wants the exact old game," would be the group of people that would be satisfied by Halo X Anniversary/MCC. There's already no point in directly catering to them because they already have the (on paper) perfect game they want.

I'm sure you're going to bring up "they want to play a game like Halo 2 and 3, but they don't want to play Halo 2 and 3" like you did in a different comment, but that describes an entirely different subgroup than the one previously mentioned. That describes the subgroup that wants X number of changes in Y areas.

And honestly, the most numerous in this thread that actually takes the time to explain their reasoning is that very same subgroup. The subgroup that is perfectly okay with a game not exactly like Halo 2/Halo 3, but doesn't have the exact abilities Halo 5 does. Me personally, all I have to do is remove literally two abilities from Halo 5, and that solves the majority of problems for me. Is that result exactly the same game as Halo 2/3? There are still clearly mechanics from those games that are not in this hypothetical game and mechanics from Halo 5 that are still in this hypothetical game. Not saying that my result works for everyone, but many people in this thread has done something like what I just did and came to a conclusion that is not Halo 3 or Halo 5.

I don't care about "return to form." The only thing I want to "return" to is no X mechanic, but that reason isn't driven by mere population issues. I don't care about the population. An enjoyable game handles the population so I don't have to. I believe that removing X mechanic will create a more enjoyable game for Y reason, but that doesn't mean the population will increase directly because of it. Maybe it will, but I won't claim that.

No, I don't mean that.
Okay, then what do you mean by that?

I suppose I should ask you to provide empirical evidence to support this claim? By that I don't mean "so-and-so game" added and removed abilities every fifteen minutes and it didn't matter. What about the casual fans that do care? Don't they count? Why do you insist that there are fans that are casual and fans that are not? That's certainly not a distinction that I am comfortable with. There is definitely a group of fans that wish Halo had not changed any at all. You might be surprised at how many of them characterize themselves as "casual."
I put "casual" in quotes because I could not think of a better word to describe them. "Uninformed"? "Surface-caring"? "hobbyists?" None of those sound all that accurate...or positive. Either way, I'm talking about the majority of players who play the game for the sake of playing the game, and don't care to go in-depth on player mechanics, or the extensive history of the game, or pretty much any element of game/sandbox design. Playing the game feels good, they feel good. Playing the game feels bad, they don't like it and quit. They don't have to verify a reason.

Anyone who goes even remotely in depth about an ability and claims to be "casual" by the aforementioned definition are wrong. Even having a Waypoint account and making regular posts here is more than I can ask for most players of the game.

If you're looking for statistical evidence, I guess I can't provide any because, good luck making a reasonable survey going "How much do you care about X?" when the population you're trying to get an answer from probably doesn't care about surveys either.

I guess there's the Xbox Achievement statistics? I don't know how accurate they are. According to that, only ~30% of players ever opened a Gold REQ pack. Only 26% of players played 3 games of Warzone. Only 30% of players played 5 games of Slayer.

I hear complaints about this one or that one and I just ask myself why can't these people just enjoy the game they're playing.
Because X thing bothers them for Y reason, and they feel it would be better if X was changed or removed. That's pretty much how any criticism works. It doesn't even mean they don't enjoy the game, only that they would enjoy it more with that change.

Even Bungie/343i knows because they change/remove things based on that very feedback.

I don't think 343i is willing to remove what they have put in. That's my other point.
There's already precedent for that not being true. 343i removed things from vanilla Halo 4 into late game/MCC Halo 4 (random example: Instant Respawn), they've changed/removed things from Halo 4 when making Halo 5 (Loadouts), and they've changed/removed things from vanilla Halo 5 to current Halo 5 (Spartan Charge/Ground Pound in HCS).
tsassi wrote:
I think people need to except that Halo and gaming as a whole as moved past this style of gameplay. If Halo Infinite came out and it played like Halo 2 or 3 it wouldn't survive in the modern gaming climate. Every time I go back and play Halo 2 and 3, although I still enjoy them I definitely feel how archaic their gameplay has become.
Doom (2016) says hi.

Anyway, about the topic. I wouldn’t mind sprint at all. Just make it have a stamina limit and remove spartan abilities/jet boosters and I’m all good. I would also really like it if they added back Armor abilities and powerups from the previous games.
Clearly people like moobleshmib haven't played any shooters other than Halo, CoD, Titanfall, Destiny, or Fortnite. That'd explain their lack of knowing of DOOM's success. 343i could takes notes, tho... classic gameplay comebacks DO sell. A lot.
To be honest, I would not classify DOOM 2016 as a "classic gameplay comeback" since its gameplay is manifestly not classic DOOM, including the ability to jump and climb up ledges. It's a comeback of a classic game franchise, but its gameplay has undoubtedly been updated with mechanics that are modern by DOOM standards.
They couldn't have 3d environments in DOOM og due to computer limitations at the time. It simulated 3d as much as it could, however. Brutal DOOM is an example of what DOOM og would've been without such limitations. And don't tell me Halo CE couldn't have Spartan abilities due to technical limitations. Battlefront 2 og had similar abilities with its heroes and it came out on PS2. 2nd, DOOM 2016 didn't contradict DOOM og's philosophy of fast-paced, open environment fighting without interruption hence no reloading and your walking speed--there was no sprint--being faster than Halo 5's sprinting. DOOM 2016 added grenades that didn't slow you down, glory kills that didn't slow you down--on paper they do but they're so fast and give you health and encourage you to go out to the field as such and as you're immortal during these and instantly regain speed when done it works--it added clamber which SPED you up in this case. But you wanna know what it didn't add? Reloading which slows combat down, sprint which slows you down when not doing it and your combat, and regenning health to keep the need to search your environment that the first game had as well as to allow glory kills to be more fluent by letting them give you more health! VS Halo 5 which undebatably contradicts Halo 1-3's mechanics' philosophies. However, although Halo 5 has many differences between it and its grandpap, only two small mechanics made DOOM 3 and DOOM 2016's gameplay COMPLETELY different: reloading and slower speed. Although those two things complimented its horror aspects, DOOM 3's gameplay was henceforth COMPLETELY different from its predecessors. Its not about specific mechanics, its about how they affect the gameplay's philosophies. Which is why I see Halo 2's dual wielding and 3's equipment as a-ok. Do you at least agree on this? That its not about specific mechanics as long as they don't change the philosophies. If not why?
I made some points, and you only want to talk about (attack) comments I made about why you seem to misinterpret my points.

For the umpteenth time:
  • Movement Mechanics Are Not the Problem. Returning to Classic Movement Mechanics Will Not Change Halo's Popularity.
  • 343i has invested a lot in Abilities, for better or worse. Abilities, especially as we know them in Halo 5, are 343i's contribution to the franchise. Therefore, they are not likely to disappear. At best, they will be modified.
I made some points, and you only want to talk about (attack) comments I made about why you seem to misinterpret my points.

For the umpteenth time:
  • Movement Mechanics Are Not the Problem. Returning to Classic Movement Mechanics Will Not Change Halo's Popularity.
  • 343i has invested a lot in Abilities, for better or worse. Abilities, especially as we know them in Halo 5, are 343i's contribution to the franchise. Therefore, they are not likely to disappear. At best, they will be modified.
And to follow up with that.

  • I don't care about popularity. I have never once said that I want to change/remove/return to X mechanics for popularity reasons.
  • Yes, and 343i has also removed abilities that did not work, or made a huge overhaul on the structure of abilities. I did not say they need to remove the whole concept of abilities.
And to follow up with that.

  • I don't care about popularity. I have never once said that I want to change/remove/return to X mechanics for popularity reasons.
  • Yes, and 343i has also removed abilities that did not work, or made a huge overhaul on the structure of abilities. I did not say they need to remove the whole concept of abilities.
  • Who said you did? Wasn't me
  • I don't know why I keep using the word likely when obviously no one knows it doesn't mean always or certainly, and I did not say you said anything. I say "players say" or "this group said" when talking about Abilities. If I say you said something, you better believe I won't hesitate to scroll back to where you said it and quote you. Many times I use the generic "you", as when I said if you believe classic movement mechanics will save Halo, you don't understand what's happening. If you don't believe that, then I don't mean You.
Honestly, I thought this thread was dead.

This post has been hidden.

3
I have been playing a lot of MCC lately and have come to the conclusion that I’m fine with classic or modern movement. If Halo Infinite has classic movement but has slightly faster bms, it could work. Imo, H2A has classic movement but feels fine. A more Reach/4 style game with loadouts would be fun too. My least favorite option is if it plays like H5G. Groundpound and thrusters need to go. I could handle some “enhanced mobility” such as stabilizers and sprint but I’m not attached to them either.

I would prefer a hybrid classic gameplay with AA pickups and/or equipment. Hardcore playlists could ditch them but casual playlist could make use of AA and loadouts. Sprint could even be added as an ability (like Reach), allowing flexibility in gameplay, maps, and playlists.

In short, I’ll probably enjoy Halo Infinite regardless but if it will become a stale game or a perfect game, depends on how they go about it. It should play uniquely: not exactly like previous games but recognized as a Halo game.
There's a quote that I am familiar with that goes something like, "New concepts don't come to pass because people get convinced the new concept is better, but because the older generation dies and the newer generations accepts it as normal." Therefore, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything concerning the presence or absence of Abilities. They are not going away. They may change. Some will be replaced. The game is about augmented humans. They would have Abilities. They are wearing fusion-powered intelligent armor. That armor would have Abilities. These things are always showcased in the campaign, yet somehow in multiplayer they are supposed to disappear?

What I have been trying to do is to understand the logic behind statements like, "Removing Abilities will cause the online population numbers to return to pre-Reach levels." The reason appears to be because population numbers were highest before Reach, so Reach is the culprit, and the thing Reach did was to introduce Armor Abilities, thus changing the classic movement philosophy.

Although seen as a bad move on Bungie's part, they still get a get-out-of-jail-free card because Reach was a spinoff. 343i would set things right with the next installment of the main game. Except... they didn't. They not only ignored the classic movement philosophy, they buried it. This was the sole cause of Halo 4's inability to return online population to pre-Reach levels. Abilities. Nothing else, as in if they had stuck to the classic movement philosophy, none of the other stuff they did or failed to do properly would have mattered. The numbers would have returned. Halo 5 does not adhere to the old philosophy, thus it also fails to draw the numbers, and for no other reason.

Now I'm not saying everyone that does not agree with me mouthed all those exact words. What I wrote there is my summation of what I have read in this thread by people that will elaborate on their assertions that this return to the old philosophy will work. I don't want anyone to think that I believe straying from the old philosophy was a good idea any more than I believe returning to it is a good idea. I believe that straying from the old philosophy provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to protest by not playing, but I don't believe it's the real reason they stopped playing, and why they haven't returned. I'll say this much, Halo 3's popularity had little to do with the movement mechanic philosophy.
There's a quote that I am familiar with that goes something like, "New concepts don't come to pass because people get convinced the new concept is better, but because the older generation dies and the newer generations accepts it as normal." Therefore, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything concerning the presence or absence of Abilities. They are not going away. They may change. Some will be replaced. The game is about augmented humans. They would have Abilities. They are wearing fusion-powered intelligent armor. That armor would have Abilities. These things are always showcased in the campaign, yet somehow in multiplayer they are supposed to disappear?

What I have been trying to do is to understand the logic behind statements like, "Removing Abilities will cause the online population numbers to return to pre-Reach levels." The reason appears to be because population numbers were highest before Reach, so Reach is the culprit, and the thing Reach did was to introduce Armor Abilities, thus changing the classic movement philosophy.

Although seen as a bad move on Bungie's part, they still get a get-out-of-jail-free card because Reach was a spinoff. 343i would set things right with the next installment of the main game. Except... they didn't. They not only ignored the classic movement philosophy, they buried it. This was the sole cause of Halo 4's inability to return online population to pre-Reach levels. Abilities. Nothing else, as in if they had stuck to the classic movement philosophy, none of the other stuff they did or failed to do properly would have mattered. The numbers would have returned. Halo 5 does not adhere to the old philosophy, thus it also fails to draw the numbers, and for no other reason.

Now I'm not saying everyone that does not agree with me mouthed all those exact words. What I wrote there is my summation of what I have read in this thread by people that will elaborate on their assertions that this return to the old philosophy will work. I don't want anyone to think that I believe straying from the old philosophy was a good idea any more than I believe returning to it is a good idea. I believe that straying from the old philosophy provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to protest by not playing, but I don't believe it's the real reason they stopped playing, and why they haven't returned. I'll say this much, Halo 3's popularity had little to do with the movement mechanic philosophy.
I don’t think people are against abilities in general just sprint. Sprint changes the style of halo. Being that sprint being there insinuates a lower base movement speed means there is less aggression in the game and you will stand back and pick off enemies at a distance. You used to Be able to run in shooting, run out shooting. Now that you need to run in, shoot, run out therefore cutting down on aggression as you have removed “aggression in retreat” and “aggression in approach. Gameplay is more stationary and not halo. You may run around more in halo 4/5 but the actual combat, when your shooting someone else is more stationary than ever before. Halo had its own audience. The spring change made it compete more directly with other modern shooters and alienated its old audience. Therefore removing sprint could bring back in its old audience which historically has been larger than the sprint halo games.
I personally hope its H3 movement system. No sprint, no abilities...just gun play. At least for Ranked, I don't care what they do with Social.
MandalsTV wrote:
I personally hope its H3 movement system. No sprint, no abilities...just gun play. At least for Ranked, I don't care what they do with Social.
I wouldn’t mind the spartan thruster dash thing.
I don’t think people are against abilities in general just sprint.
No, it's not just Sprint. Getting rid of Sprint will not return Halo's population numbers to pre-Reach levels. Sprint is not why the levels dropped. Sprint is not what made people stop playing Reach. In fact, forum surveys taken when Reach was the current game suggested that Sprint was the most well-liked feature of Reach, if not at least the one Ability least wanted removed. Armor Lock was most hated, followed closely by Jet Pack. All the rest were tolerable. Jet Pack broke maps and Armor Lock just pissed people off. Sprint's acceptance during Reach ensured it's continued existence in Halo 4.

Some people had, and have, issues with Sprint. If those people stopped playing because of Sprint, just how hard should 343i try to get them back? It does not appear that either 343i or Microsoft believes Sprint is the issue. More likely, they may change the way Sprint works rather than remove it entirely.
I don’t think people are against abilities in general just sprint.
No, it's not just Sprint. Getting rid of Sprint will not return Halo's population numbers to pre-Reach levels. Sprint is not why the levels dropped. Sprint is not what made people stop playing Reach. In fact, forum surveys taken when Reach was the current game suggested that Sprint was the most well-liked feature of Reach, if not at least the one Ability least wanted removed. Armor Lock was most hated, followed closely by Jet Pack. All the rest were tolerable. Jet Pack broke maps and Armor Lock just pissed people off. Sprint's acceptance during Reach ensured it's continued existence in Halo 4.

Some people had, and have, issues with Sprint. If those people stopped playing because of Sprint, just how hard should 343i try to get them back? It does not appear that either 343i or Microsoft believes Sprint is the issue. More likely, they may change the way Sprint works rather than remove it entirely.
1. Sprint is by far the best ability in reach but this isn’t because of game design. It doesn’t make sprint a good mechanic.
2. Taking a poll from a sprint/low BMS is bias
3. My fav ability in reach was sprint too bc otherwise the game was slow.
4.armor lock was hated not bc it’s OP. But bc it slows the game down

The idea that you can say that people liking sprint in reach reflects people liking sprint in halo is absurd. Of course people would like sprint in reach. Halo 5 would suck without sprint and current movement speed. Removing sprint would suck without the accompanying change of movement speed. Your cited poll is not only bias but unrepresentative of the arguement at hand.
1. Sprint is by far the best ability in reach but this isn’t because of game design. It doesn’t make sprint a good mechanic
No, Hologram was. When used correctly it always worked.
Quote:
.2. Taking a poll from a sprint/low BMS is bias
What?
Quote:
3. My fav ability in reach was sprint too bc otherwise the game was slow.
Non Sequitur
Quote:
4.armor lock was hated not bc it’s OP. But bc it slows the game down
Except it didn't, unless you stood there waiting for someone to come out of AL so you could stick them with a grenade, and got yourself shot in the process, forcing you to sit in the respawn lobby for a bit. Yeah, I guess it did slow the game down for some people.
Quote:
The idea that you can say that people liking sprint in reach reflects people liking sprint in halo is absurd. Of course people would like sprint in reach. Halo 5 would suck without sprint and current movement speed. Removing sprint would suck without the accompanying change of movement speed. Your cited poll is not only bias but unrepresentative of the arguement at hand.
The argument at hand is whether or not Sprint's removal would restore Halo's online population numbers to pre-Reach levels. Sprint first appeared in Halo with Reach, as an Armor Ability. People didn't hate Sprint like they did AL and Jet Pack. All the other AA;s carried over to Halo 4, but were implemented differently. Halo 4 had Hologram, but it didn't work like it did in Reach. It rarely got used, so it was cut from Halo 5. If Sprint had been so universally fiercely loathed the way AL and Jet Pack were, we would have never seen it again.

I did not cite any particular poll. What I said was when Reach was the current game there were a lot of polls in the forums asking the question "What can stay and what should go." Sprint more often than not got voted "allowed to stay", which is not the same as saying "I love Sprint." This attitude, which was expressed time and time again throughout Reach's life as the current game, is what kept it from being cut from Halo 4.
The game is about augmented humans. They would have Abilities. They are wearing fusion-powered intelligent armor. That armor would have Abilities. These things are always showcased in the campaign, yet somehow in multiplayer they are supposed to disappear?

I get what you’re saying but I want to explain the other side. Many people think that what makes sense in lore and what makes sense in gameplay, are not the same. I have seen the lore argument for sprint but many anti-sprint people have said that in lore, Spartans can maintain full speed while shooting. Meaning speed can increase but why add it as an ability(increase BMS). Thrusters make sense in lore but in multiplayer it just gets stale. It feels like it’s more about using abilities than out gunning opponents. Personally I like some abilities, I just wanted to explain that a game based around realism, isn’t always as fun to play.
For the umpteenth time:
  • Movement Mechanics Are Not the Problem. Returning to Classic Movement Mechanics Will Not Change Halo's Popularity.
Still an empty statement without proof, doesn't matter how often you repeat it.
Do you at least agree on this? That its not about specific mechanics as long as they don't change the philosophies. If not why?
I mean, it's just a matter of semantics. However, a word of warning, making it a question of what the philosophy is muddies the waters. After all, if you say that a game is classic as long as it adheres to the same philosophy as the old one did, you also have to prescribe a philosophy to the old game. And there's no unique philosophy that you can prescribe to the original game. Whatever philosophy you think the original game adheres to might not be the philosophy the developers had in mind when they made the game. And if it's not the same, what value does the philosophy you prescribe to the game have over any other?

For example, if I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could make the argument that Halo 5 is not in conflict with the philosophy of the classic Halo games. I coukd either prescribe my own arbitrary philosophy, which is perhaps less convincing, or I could point out that if you look at how the people who worked on CE talk about the design, it's not in any way apparent that they would be unaccepting of Spartan Abilities or that Spartan Abilities are in conflict with their philosophy.

So, attaching a game being "classic" or not to something as vague as the philosophy of the game inherently makes the question of whether a given game is "classic" equally vague.

Going back to DOOM, the issue is that if we argue that DOOM 2016 is true to the spirit of DOOM, and that it's what the original team would've done if they were making the game in 2016, we could equally well argue the same about Halo CE and 5. We could argue that just as DOOM 2016 is a sufficiently modernized version of DOOM, so Halo 5 is a sufficiently modernized version of Halo CE (speaking purely in terms of gameplay, of course).

That's why I don't believe DOOM 2016 makes as convincing example of a "classic" game as you think. Either you make it about the mechanics, which makes it hard to consider it "classic", or you make it about philosophy, which makes it vague what exactly is "classic".
The game is about augmented humans. They would have Abilities. They are wearing fusion-powered intelligent armor. That armor would have Abilities. These things are always showcased in the campaign, yet somehow in multiplayer they are supposed to disappear?

I get what your saying but I want to explain the other side. Many people think that what makes sense in lore and what makes sense in gameplay, are not the same. I have seen the lore argument for sprint but many anti-sprint people have said that in lore, Spartans can maintain full speed while shooting. Meaning speed can increase but why add it as an ability(increase BMS). Thrusters make sense in lore but in multiplayer it just gets stale. It feels like it’s more about using abilities than out gunning opponents. Personally I like some abilities, I just wanted to explain that a game based around realism, isn’t always as fun to play.
This point often gets made and I'm not saying it's not a valid point. Sometimes compromises have to be made in order to have a working multiplayer, and with a game like Halo there have always been challenges. With Halo 2 we couldn't have fuel rod cannons because apparently the network code at the time couldn't handle all the explosions it created. However, when everything went to the 360 and Xbox Live that problem was eliminated.

What we are talking about here, though, is more fundamental. A Spartan should be able to clamber, but shouldn't be able to clamber in a multiplayer match because it makes multiplayer less fun? I get that some players feel they don't need any "help" getting around the map and engaging opponents. Sure, the game story is about super humans wearing super suits, but in multiplayer you don't need that stuff. Just basic movement, one good weapon and a couple grenades is all you need for multiplayer. I can see where that would make for good multiplayer, but I would expect more than that for Halo multiplayer.

I understand the desire for a no-frills multiplayer. I don't understand why Halo, of all games, needs to be the game that provides that style of multiplayer. Bungie never wanted that. 343i certainly doesn't want that. Has there been any other game made since 2001 that's still out there that provides that kind of no-frills multiplayer? Why does the game with augmented humans wearing powered armor have to be the game with the basic multiplayer? I would think that this logic dictates that the most popular multiplayer games have basic movement, and Halo is not among them because it does not. Is this true?

This post has been hidden.

1
The game is about augmented humans. They would have Abilities. They are wearing fusion-powered intelligent armor. That armor would have Abilities. These things are always showcased in the campaign, yet somehow in multiplayer they are supposed to disappear?

I get what your saying but I want to explain the other side. Many people think that what makes sense in lore and what makes sense in gameplay, are not the same. I have seen the lore argument for sprint but many anti-sprint people have said that in lore, Spartans can maintain full speed while shooting. Meaning speed can increase but why add it as an ability(increase BMS). Thrusters make sense in lore but in multiplayer it just gets stale. It feels like it’s more about using abilities than out gunning opponents. Personally I like some abilities, I just wanted to explain that a game based around realism, isn’t always as fun to play.
This point often gets made and I'm not saying it's not a valid point. Sometimes compromises have to be made in order to have a working multiplayer, and with a game like Halo there have always been challenges. With Halo 2 we couldn't have fuel rod cannons because apparently the network code at the time couldn't handle all the explosions it created. However, when everything went to the 360 and Xbox Live that problem was eliminated.
I'm seriously going to need a source on that.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 61
  4. 62
  5. 63
  6. 64
  7. 65
  8. ...
  9. 188