Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 83
  4. 84
  5. 85
  6. 86
  7. 87
  8. ...
  9. 147
TECH PON3 wrote:
If the game plays like classic halo, modern fans will leave

if the game plays like modern halo, classic fans will leave and probably much worse outcome

if the game plays like classic and modern halo then the game will be meh
The fact that there's much more interest in classic Halo tournaments says a lot. A large portion of the long-time Halo fans want it to return. So much so, that people are actively making their own Halo games to get the gameplay they've longed for for too long (for NO money may I add). 343 would be stupid not to try to capitalize on all of these hardcore fans who would spread the word like wildfire if classic gameplay returned, especially after their mediocre releases as of late.
If Spartan charge and ground pound aren't in the game I'll be happy.
baaask wrote:
TECH PON3 wrote:
If the game plays like classic halo, modern fans will leave

if the game plays like modern halo, classic fans will leave and probably much worse outcome

if the game plays like classic and modern halo then the game will be meh
The fact that there's much more interest in classic Halo tournaments says a lot. A large portion of the long-time Halo fans want it to return. So much so, that people are actively making their own Halo games to get the gameplay they've longed for for too long (for NO money may I add). 343 would be stupid not to try to capitalize on all of these hardcore fans who would spread the word like wildfire if classic gameplay returned, especially after their mediocre releases as of late.
At this point I just think 343i should make Infinite and up be only classic halo and never do modern halo gameplay/movement again. Why? Because it’s tiring to hear people always say how classic halo is so much better the modern halo and etc. personally I like both (besides halo 3 gameplay). So if Infinite plays like classic halo the people who don’t like classic halo they can leave or shut up.
This will be the first Halo since Halo 2: Vista that I can play on PC, if it isn't the classic Halo I have no interest. That was the Halo that was decent, that Halo brought the huge community in. I fell in love with that Halo, I played thousands of hours on that Halo. This Halo is not Halo, Halo isn't sprint or ADS, it isn't being able to groundpound or jetpack. It was a fair and balanced game that was enjoyed by all.

This isn't Halo rn
This will be the first Halo since Halo 2: Vista that I can play on PC, if it isn't the classic Halo I have no interest. That was the Halo that was decent, that Halo brought the huge community in. I fell in love with that Halo, I played thousands of hours on that Halo. This Halo is not Halo, Halo isn't sprint or ADS, it isn't being able to groundpound or jetpack. It was a fair and balanced game that was enjoyed by all.

This isn't Halo rn
So what exactly is the empirical formula that determines whether something "is Halo"? I hope you won't take it personally, but I really dislike that rhetoric because it implies there's some measurable aspect of the game that isn't its name or theme that makes a Halo game a "true" Halo game. It also surely means you can dismiss people who like the new games as not being fans of the "true Halo games" and thus not being "true fans of Halo". Is Minecraft not real Minecraft now? At which point did it stop being Minecraft and start being something else? There have probably been more gameplay changes to that game than there have been to Halo. Same with almost video game franchise with pedigree. Yet when a game like Forza Horizon 4 comes out we don't see fans of Forza Motorsport come out of the woodwork and proclaim that the inclusion of Horizon Stories (arguably a near-genre-shifting move) made it #NotMyForza. It just doesn't make sense as an argument.

Please, if you want to say "I don't like the new Halo games", say that, instead of No True Scotsman(ing) the Halo games. Please argue what exactly about something makes it distinct from similar things so that you dislike it, or even refer to other people's arguments or present your feelings. Saying "X is not real superclass(X)" is, at the very least, a very weak reason for holding any view, especially to people that don't already hold your views.

Surely "I haven't liked Halo since they added x,y and z new things, and I want to like Halo again" is the same argumentative strength. It just displays the emotions at the forefront, while "Halo 4 is not a real Halo game" disguises as an argument with more depth than that.

Also I would strongly challenge the assertion that Halo CE was balanced given the spawns in that game.
No, i like the Halo 5's mechanics!
Also I would strongly challenge the assertion that Halo CE was balanced given the spawns in that game.
In what way? CE's spawn system admittedly is not too great for 4v4, but it shines in a 2v2 format. This is because 2v2 allows the player to have complete control/influence over where his partner spawns (therefore deepening the game greatly), as opposed to 4v4 in which you'd only have about a 33% chance of influencing your teammate's spawn. So I wouldn't say it's unbalanced, but definitely unintuitive to the average Halo player.
343 please, please, PLEASE bring back the simplistic base mechanics of the original trilogy! They are really what define Halo: you never put your gun down, you need to actually think about your strategy and HOW you are moving instead of just zooming around everywhere. The old mechanics allow the game to be very easy to pick up and understand how to play, modular for many different things you can do, and creative in how you use the sandbox around you to get around and make interesting and unique experiences. With classic Halo, anyone can pick up a controller and quickly understand everything there is to know about how to play. You are never restricted, everything is simply fun. Now imagine trying to explain Halo 5 to someone who has never played before. There are about 10 different things that concern simply moving around the map - something that should never be this complicated in the first place! It is not accessible or fun, it is an unnecessary restriction, an illusion of moving faster when really it just disrupts exactly what Halo is known for. Halo was never intended to be an enhanced-mobility shooter, you are meant to be creative in how you play, use the space around you instead of depending on your base mechanics. Currently, when designing a map for example, instead of accounting for how YOU want a map to play and feel, you have to think about sprint and clamber first and foremost, make everything unnaturally bigger just to accommodate the movement mechanics. With Halo 1-3, movement is just movement, no cooldowns on strafing, no bullcrap that makes getting around feel like a chore. You can look around for a vehicle, a gravity lift, a man-cannon, etc. Halo was never meant to get to a point where it doesn't feel like Halo anymore. The only way it can ever keep any of these mechanics is as a toggle to turn on for custom games if someone wants it, or as a power-up, tied to the sandbox, not the player, never mandatory. Halo needs to go back, for it's own good, for it to survive, it needs to return to what made it unique and simple in the first place. Please 343, this is your last chance. Don't screw yourselves over.
EnderGummy wrote:
343 please, please, PLEASE bring back the simplistic base mechanics of the original trilogy! They are really what define Halo: you never put your gun down, you need to actually think about your strategy and HOW you are moving instead of just zooming around everywhere. The old mechanics allow the game to be very easy to pick up and understand how to play, modular for many different things you can do, and creative in how you use the sandbox around you to get around and make interesting and unique experiences. With classic Halo, anyone can pick up a controller and quickly understand everything there is to know about how to play. You are never restricted, everything is simply fun. Now imagine trying to explain Halo 5 to someone who has never played before. There are about 10 different things that concern simply moving around the map - something that should never be this complicated in the first place! It is not accessible or fun, it is an unnecessary restriction, an illusion of moving faster when really it just disrupts exactly what Halo is known for. Halo was never intended to be an enhanced-mobility shooter, you are meant to be creative in how you play, use the space around you instead of depending on your base mechanics. Currently, when designing a map for example, instead of accounting for how YOU want a map to play and feel, you have to think about sprint and clamber first and foremost, make everything unnaturally bigger just to accommodate the movement mechanics. With Halo 1-3, movement is just movement, no cooldowns on strafing, no bullcrap that makes getting around feel like a chore. You can look around for a vehicle, a gravity lift, a man-cannon, etc. Halo was never meant to get to a point where it doesn't feel like Halo anymore. The only way it can ever keep any of these mechanics is as a toggle to turn on for custom games if someone wants it, or as a power-up, tied to the sandbox, not the player, never mandatory. Halo needs to go back, for it's own good, for it to survive, it needs to return to what made it unique and simple in the first place. Please 343, this is your last chance. Don't screw yourselves over.
We'll see if their pride gets in the way again. Hopefully not. I'm hoping we get a gameplay trailer eventually so that I can know for sure whether I need to turn my attention to other Halo games or get hyped for 6.
I've been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can't go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that's the case good bye halo I loved u so much
If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
As in we all have to walk around really slowly and such?
My guess is that if they really did change the game back to one movement speed (which they won’t) they have the standard speed be faster than it used to be in general and offer sprint as maybe a map pickup, load out option or playlist specific feature.

But again, I’m almost 100% positive that sprint will remain.

...the spartan charge on the other hand... they can take that ability out back and shoot it. Shoot it dead.
I've been playing halo since the OG xbox but if sprint gone so am I. I can't go back to the slow movement of halo 3. If that's the case good bye halo I loved u so much
If you actually loved Halo you wouldn’t leave over the possible return of classic movement, quite a childish act if I have to say
It's not like they'd go back to the slow movement of 3 anyway. Most likely it would be faster than that (similar to MLG H3 or even faster) with a wider fov as well. Movement like that actually sounds really fun to me.
I do have to say that in the beginning I was struggling to keep up with the mechanics of the new game. But there are certain things about the new mechanics I like and certain things I don't like.
Sprinting IMO is a great feature. Makes me feel more like an agile supersoldier than not being able to.
The climbing feature is really great IMO and saved me a lot of times from not making jumps or falling down.
I personally never liked the groundpound, especially the way they implemented it with starting it in first person, going into third person, back into first person. It was always confusing to me.
Same with the charge. Why the heck would you go into 3rd person for 1.5 seconds. I never understood. If I have such a power I want to experience first hand what it feels like to break though a wall. Isn't that what it is about?
I have a mixed feeling about the thrusters as it's annoying to hit people but great to change your jump direction or when your launched because of an explosion to save yourself.
A good chunk of people are praising reach as one of the best halo games and that one had sprint.
When I directly compare the games I do have to say in terms of gameplay and how fluid it runs and the feel of playing halo 5 is the most responsive and most interactive in terms of movement. I've never felt like a more capable super soldier than in halo 5. In the other games it felt like you were just slightly faster than any other marine.
But that's my opinion and I don't want to offend anybody with that.
I feel like it would already change a lot if you'd get rid of a lot of 3rd person stuff because that would make me feel less disconnected to the actual character that I'm playing rather reminding me that I'm just playing a game - which it is. But you guys probably get what I'm saying.
I do have to say that in the beginning I was struggling to keep up with the mechanics of the new game. But there are certain things about the new mechanics I like and certain things I don't like.
Sprinting IMO is a great feature. Makes me feel more like an agile supersoldier than not being able to.
The climbing feature is really great IMO and saved me a lot of times from not making jumps or falling down.
I personally never liked the groundpound, especially the way they implemented it with starting it in first person, going into third person, back into first person. It was always confusing to me.
Same with the charge. Why the heck would you go into 3rd person for 1.5 seconds. I never understood. If I have such a power I want to experience first hand what it feels like to break though a wall. Isn't that what it is about?
I have a mixed feeling about the thrusters as it's annoying to hit people but great to change your jump direction or when your launched because of an explosion to save yourself.
A good chunk of people are praising reach as one of the best halo games and that one had sprint.
When I directly compare the games I do have to say in terms of gameplay and how fluid it runs and the feel of playing halo 5 is the most responsive and most interactive in terms of movement. I've never felt like a more capable super soldier than in halo 5. In the other games it felt like you were just slightly faster than any other marine.
But that's my opinion and I don't want to offend anybody with that.
I feel like it would already change a lot if you'd get rid of a lot of 3rd person stuff because that would make me feel less disconnected to the actual character that I'm playing rather reminding me that I'm just playing a game - which it is. But you guys probably get what I'm saying.
Not hating, but I just can't understand how a mechanic that forces you to put your gun down and run in a straight line makes anybody feel more like a super soldier than simply moving at the top speed in every direction with your weapon at the ready. As for spartan charge, I know 343 talked about being inspired by shoulder charge in Destiny, but the main reason for it's existence is to stop the double melee problem from Reach and 4. Not a fan of clamber either but I don't mind thrusters.
My opinion is that games should evolve. Even as a hardcore halo fan I can't expect in 2019 to have a game with almost 20 years old mechanics. On the other hand, I loved halo 5 multiplayer and still is my favourite game on Xbox one. After alI the major problem of halo 5 was the story. Personally i dont have a problem with the mechanisms but if I made a change I would remove the Spartan abilities and keep only sprint. To sum up, what I want to see in halo infinite in terms of mechanisms, is something between classic halo games and halo 5. I don't want to see any Spartan abilities but I think sprint is necessary. Maybe they can put an energy bar for sprint (like halo reach) to not have infinite sprint.
Pankar94 wrote:
My opinion is that games should evolve. Even as a hardcore halo fan I can't expect in 2019 to have a game with almost 20 years old mechanics.
Few are arguing for this.
Just that the current evolutionary path isn't their sack of potatoes.
I'd rather see other mechanics and ideas tested than what we have now.
Pankar94 wrote:
My opinion is that games should evolve. Even as a hardcore halo fan I can't expect in 2019 to have a game with almost 20 years old mechanics. On the other hand, I loved halo 5 multiplayer and still is my favourite game on Xbox one. After alI the major problem of halo 5 was the story. Personally i dont have a problem with the mechanisms but if I made a change I would remove the Spartan abilities and keep only sprint. To sum up, what I want to see in halo infinite in terms of mechanisms, is something between classic halo games and halo 5. I don't want to see any Spartan abilities but I think sprint is necessary. Maybe they can put an energy bar for sprint (like halo reach) to not have infinite sprint.
What does "evolve" mean in this case? What makes the difference between evolving and not evolving? Is it just any change? Clearly not because you're willing to remove every other Spartan Ability and still call it evolving.

And we dropped Halo 4's Loadouts in order to have equal starts in Halo 5, where everyone is fighting for pick up weapons on the map and forced to watch a respawn screen when they die. We explicitly went back to "20 year old mechanics" and yet everyone seems to be okay with that.
Pankar94 wrote:
My opinion is that games should evolve. Even as a hardcore halo fan I can't expect in 2019 to have a game with almost 20 years old mechanics. On the other hand, I loved halo 5 multiplayer and still is my favourite game on Xbox one. After alI the major problem of halo 5 was the story. Personally i dont have a problem with the mechanisms but if I made a change I would remove the Spartan abilities and keep only sprint. To sum up, what I want to see in halo infinite in terms of mechanisms, is something between classic halo games and halo 5. I don't want to see any Spartan abilities but I think sprint is necessary. Maybe they can put an energy bar for sprint (like halo reach) to not have infinite sprint.
There is some slight irony in this post, since Sprint is at least a 19 year old mechanic (seen in GTA 3, not counting speed boosts from even eariler games), Clamber is at least 22 years old (seen in the original Tomb Raider), Ground Pound is at least 30 years old (Super Mario Bros. 3). Most mechanics in modern games have been around for years, and for most part their design is not about new mechanics as much as it is about taking well tested mechanics and mixing them in a new way. However, if we're talking about the particular mix of Halo 5, it's a three years old game following five years old trends. If we care about novelty for the sake of novelty, it would be very stagnant and old fashioned for Halo Infinite to adopt the style of Halo 5. To stay with the times, Halo Infinite should be a battle royale game with fairly basic movement mechanics.
Seems relevant to make a comparison to Counter-Strike on PC. Only because I love to watch that game (never had a gaming pc, don't like the keyboard mouse combo). That game never used sprint as far as I know, and is accepted to never have it included. I long back to classic Halo because you always have your weapon aimed and ready. If they keep sprint in Halo, then they should experiment with shooting while sprinting. But that sounds awful.
So what exactly is the empirical formula that determines whether something "is Halo"? I hope you won't take it personally, but I really dislike that rhetoric because it implies there's some measurable aspect of the game that isn't its name or theme that makes a Halo game a "true" Halo game. It also surely means you can dismiss people who like the new games as not being fans of the "true Halo games" and thus not being "true fans of Halo". Is Minecraft not real Minecraft now? At which point did it stop being Minecraft and start being something else? There have probably been more gameplay changes to that game than there have been to Halo.
You (as in, both of you) are basically arguing "Ship of Theseus" here. The fact is that recent Halo games had most if not all of their mechanics either changed or completely replaced from how the franchise started. The question is: Does that make it "non-Halo" or not? Specifically if this was done slowly over time instead of instantaneously?

I'm always trying to look at this from the point of view of "It this had been released as an immediate follow-up (in this case to CE), would I have recognized it as such?". Because if something claims to be X, it better have some similarity to the thing that defined X in the first place. That's not the definitive correct way to the problem (otherwise there would be one correct answer to the Ship of Theseus as well) but it is the way I approach the problem.
This can make for some very controverse debates, specifically in the realm of video games: Is GTA5 a GTA game? Is Zelda II even a Zelda game?
Is H5G a Halo game? Me, personally, for the first time in the franchise, I'm saying no. With both run'n'gun and weapon consistency removed, it's the first game in the main series (not counting spinoffs such as Wars) that it has more dissimilarities from the original than similarities. While prior games already changed the movement mechanics, at least the shooting was (somewhat) faithful to the franchise's roots so I could recognize the overall game as part thereof. With H5G that is no longer the case and as such I refuse to call it by its full name to validate its claim of affiliation.

So in the end, both of you are right, depending on which philosophy you follow. Are the 343 games Halo games? Sure: They were released under the official brand name by the legal IP owner. Their content gradually grew from each consecutive title in the series. And nope: They do not follow the design principles the franchise was based upon and look, sound and play nothing like the original. And plenty of in-between-answers are correct as well, depending on how and where you draw the line. It doesn't help that different people already have different perceptions of what "Halo" is, even if they started at the same time with the same game, it only gets worse if you factor in those who came in later and are basing their opinion on a different baseline entirely.

Also I would strongly challenge the assertion that Halo CE was balanced given the spawns in that game.
CE is objectively more balanced than H5G.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 83
  4. 84
  5. 85
  6. 86
  7. 87
  8. ...
  9. 147