Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of classic movement mechanics?

OP A So So Sniper

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 89
  4. 90
  5. 91
  6. 92
  7. 93
  8. ...
  9. 155
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can't we just have the best of both worlds?
Artstyle: Maybe both
Story: Kinda both
Music: Can’t have both
Gameplay: Don’t even think about it

Basically the halo community in a nutshell
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can't we just have the best of both worlds?
Because, unfortunately, both of these worlds can't co-exist if we want gameplay/mechanics that was/were once unique to the Halo franchise.
baaask wrote:
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
For me it already has. Sometimes I underestimate the toxicity of the Halo community. Why can't we just have the best of both worlds?
Because, unfortunately, both of these worlds can't co-exist if we want gameplay/mechanics that was/were once unique to the Halo franchise.
True. And it's sad, because under all the rubble that Halo 4/5 made, I think they still had some interesting ideas. I still want them to go back to the old-style gameplay, but I personally don't think that Halo 4 or 5 was that bad gameplay-wise.
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
It's not a hard decision for them. They've been ignoring pros and veteran players like me for ten years. We've been ditched since Reach. They don't give a crap what I think because they know I'll buy the game anyway.
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
It's not a hard decision for them. They've been ignoring pros and veteran players like me for ten years. We've been ditched since Reach. They don't give a crap what I think because they know I'll buy the game anyway.
It was Bungie that started the changes with Halo Reach, not 343i. As for buying the game anyway ? That's on you not 343i, why buy a product you're knowingly not happy with ? If they don't make a game you like don't buy it.
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
Why feel bad for them? Even if we took the stance that "Bungie started it," 343 took a look at the cracks starting to form, stuck a wedge in it and started wailing on it until the crack turned into a fissure.

"How can we possibly please these diverse fanbases?" They ask, the people who firmly established these divides in the first place...
1) This matters for "what's the range of possible locations where they could be", not "where are they now". The latter is less predictable if they have a variable movement speed. You are correct that players can always just stop (and this is common in high level halo 3 for this very reason), but it is easier to predict player location without sprint than with it. Again, these aren't absolute matters, but apply on a spectrum.
No, it really isn't. It is exactly as easy to predict a player with sprint as it is with an equivalent base movement speed. The player's movement speed is equally variable in both cases. There is no difference.

as escape from bad positioning is less of a problem
Which has to do with the fact that players can't shoot and move at the maximum speed at the same time.

predicting player location is less of a problem
This is not true as shown above.

and all players are moving relative to map locations at constant speed at all times
They certainly are not. If actually look at how players move during a game, they do all kinds of 180's, stopping, strafing. In any case, unless this is related to the previous point, I don't see why you see a nonconstant speed as an issue.
WerepyreND wrote:
TECH PON3 wrote:
Man I feel bad for 343i since they have to choose one group and ditch the other. At this point this topic will be worse then any artstyle topic
Why feel bad for them? Even if we took the stance that "Bungie started it," 343 took a look at the cracks starting to form, stuck a wedge in it and started wailing on it until the crack turned into a fissure.

"How can we possibly please these diverse fanbases?" They ask, the people who firmly established these divides in the first place...
Okay so I guess screw 343i being idiots and not making halo 4/5 into pure classic halo halo games then
tsassi wrote:
1) This matters for "what's the range of possible locations where they could be", not "where are they now". The latter is less predictable if they have a variable movement speed. You are correct that players can always just stop (and this is common in high level halo 3 for this very reason), but it is easier to predict player location without sprint than with it. Again, these aren't absolute matters, but apply on a spectrum.
No, it really isn't. It is exactly as easy to predict a player with sprint as it is with an equivalent base movement speed. The player's movement speed is equally variable in both cases. There is no difference.

as escape from bad positioning is less of a problem
Which has to do with the fact that players can't shoot and move at the maximum speed at the same time.

predicting player location is less of a problem
This is not true as shown above.

and all players are moving relative to map locations at constant speed at all times
They certainly are not. If actually look at how players move during a game, they do all kinds of 180's, stopping, strafing. In any case, unless this is related to the previous point, I don't see why you see a nonconstant speed as an issue.
Yeah, I think this looks like the agree to disagree point. We're starting to repeat ourselves. I think you underestimate sprint's impact on all these things. You think I overestimate it. Fair enough.
Yeah, I think this looks like the agree to disagree point. We're starting to repeat ourselves. I think you underestimate sprint's impact on all these things. You think I overestimate it. Fair enough.
It's not that I think you underestimate anything, but that I don't find your arguments on the map control point convincing, and that the claim that sprint has a different effect on player predictability than an equivalent base movement speed is plain false. I'm critical of these arguments because I want the arguments against sprint to be well-founded, not to mention consistent. When you advertise your arguments as objective, you open yourself up to a lot of scrutiny that you may not be able to handle. Of the things I can say about sprint, very few I'd dare to claim to be objectively true. And any time someone claims to be objective, I'll be there, because I'm as skeptical about everyone else's opinions as I'm about my own.
tsassi wrote:
Yeah, I think this looks like the agree to disagree point. We're starting to repeat ourselves. I think you underestimate sprint's impact on all these things. You think I overestimate it. Fair enough.
It's not that I think you underestimate anything, but that I don't find your arguments on the map control point convincing, and that the claim that sprint has a different effect on player predictability than an equivalent base movement speed is plain false. I'm critical of these arguments because I want the arguments against sprint to be well-founded, not to mention consistent. When you advertise your arguments as objective, you open yourself up to a lot of scrutiny that you may not be able to handle. Of the things I can say about sprint, very few I'd dare to claim to be objectively true. And any time someone claims to be objective, I'll be there, because I'm as skeptical about everyone else's opinions as I'm about my own.
I see you're not ready to be done. OK then. I tried.

Quote:
I don't find your arguments on the map control point convincing
I'm not sure which arguments you are referencing here. The two central arguments about map control I have made are:
1) Halo is designed around controlling specific locations on the map (pickups etc)
2) Sprint devalues player positioning on the map relative to those locations and therefore works against the above design goal, therefore sprint is objectively bad in Halo

Those things are true rather you are convinced of them or not.

Quote:
the claim that sprint has a different effect on player predictability than an equivalent base movement speed is plain false
You are dead wrong here. The effect is different. The magnitude of that difference is debatable, but sprint is a qualitatively different movement mechanic than increased base speed, rather you can shoot while sprinting or not. That difference produces a different dynamic for predicting the location of players on the map. You can scream "this is false" until you are blue in the face, and you would still be wrong.

--edit-- .
Here's the options for player velocity in a game without sprint:

0------------------------------>x .
where x is maximum movement speed and the player can move any speed between zero and x .
.
Here's what that looks like with sprint:
0------------------------------>x/////////////y .
where x is maximum normal movement speed and y is sprint speed... here, the player can still move any speed between zero and x, but y is its own independent variable separated from the rest of the movement

Sprint is a qualitative change to the movement system, which necessarily lessens the predictability of player location on the map, precisely because it adds an additional variable into the equation. The degree to which it does this is dependent on a lot of factors, such as the actual values of x and y, but the additional variable always makes predicting player location and movement less predictable than if it were not present.
--end edit--
Quote:
you open yourself up to a lot of scrutiny that you may not be able to handle.
I see you are running out of arguments and are moving towards ad hominem. Classic.

Quote:
I'm as skeptical about everyone else's opinions as I'm about my own.
For someone claiming to be skeptical of their own opinions, you sure like to repeat your opinions forcefully.
Here's the options for player velocity in a game without sprint:

0------------------------------>x .
where x is maximum movement speed and the player can move any speed between zero and x .
.
Here's what that looks like with sprint:
0------------------------------>x/////////////y .
where x is maximum normal movement speed and y is sprint speed... here, the player can still move any speed between zero and x, but y is its own independent variable separated from the rest of the movement

Sprint is a qualitative change to the movement system, which necessarily lessens the predictability of player location on the map, precisely because it adds an additional variable into the equation. The degree to which it does this is dependent on a lot of factors, such as the actual values of x and y, but the additional variable always makes predicting player location and movement less predictable than if it were not present.
I'm pretty sure tsassi said a base speed equivalent to sprint speed. So it would look like this:

0--------------------------->x
0-------------------->y///////x

If we're talking about the unpredictability of H5, that has more to do with bad map design than it does sprint. H5's maps are designed in such a way where sprint, thrust, and clamber can be chained together and abused to get around the maps way too quickly for my taste. Because of the nature of those mechanics, the only way to avoid that abuse is to stretch the maps out even more (vertically and horizontally). I honestly feel bad for H5's map designers.
I'm not sure which arguments you are referencing here. The two central arguments about map control I have made are:
1) Halo is designed around controlling specific locations on the map (pickups etc)
2) Sprint devalues player positioning on the map relative to those locations and therefore works against the design goal, therefore sprint is objectively bad in Halo

Those things are true rather you are convinced of them or not.
Simply insisting that something is true without explaining why neither makes it any more true, nor helps me to understand why you believe it to be true. I can agree with your 1) since that much is evident, but your 2) here is what I'm doubtful of.

You are dead wrong here. The effect is different. The magnitude of that difference is debatable, but sprint is a qualitatively different movement mechanic than increased base speed, rather you can shoot while sprinting or not. That difference produces a different dynamic for predicting the location of players on the map. You can scream "this is false" until you are blue in the face, and you would still be wrong.
EDIT: after seeing the edits, what TeeJaY ChArMs said is totally what I was talking about all the time: sprint compared to equivalent base movement speed.

You're absolutely correct that sprint is functionally different from base movement. However, that differences has no effect on the specific issue of the predictability of player movement. You see, how the predictability works is that after a given amount of time has passed after a player was last seen, they can be anywhere within the maximum distance they could have covered in that time from their previous position. The size of this area within which the player can be found is independent of the means by which the maximum distance can be obtained; that is, whether one needs to lower their weapon or not. This should be clear, since the maximum distance only depends on the player's maximal movement speed and on nothing else. The only other mechanism at play here is the individual player's movement tactics, but since that is entirely dependent on the individual, there are no effects from the game mechanics.

To be more precise, the only sense in which we can approach the issue of "predictability" is to consider it in terms of the probability distribution of where the player may be found within the area to which they can move in the given amount of time. If we think of the probability density of finding a player at any given point, the closer this density is to constant, the less predictable the player movement is. This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint. However, for this to be the case, there should be a mechanism that prevents from doing this when there is no sprint. However, I simply do not see a mechanism that would prevent the player from, say, stopping for a second, or doing anything else that would allow them to maximally randomize their movement when all they have is their base movement speed.

You see, this is the courtesy that I'd like from you: to try to explain your reasoning in detail. After all, you can claim that I'm wrong as much as you want, but that claim will ultimately carry no weight if the reasoning behind it is not explained. In fact, I find the statement about screaming "this is false" until one is blue in their face mildly ironic in this context.

Quote:
you open yourself up to a lot of scrutiny that you may not be able to handle.
I see you are running out of arguments and are moving towards ad hominem. Classic.
Name dropping informal fallacies in an internet argument is such a cliche. Of course, you would be right that I was making an ad hominem had I deflected a point you made by attacking your character. However, as I thought you had left the discussion and so thought there was no discussion left, and was only trying to explain why I'm being such a harsh critic, I don't think it's justified. But I'll let everyone else be the judge of that.

For someone claiming to be skeptical of their own opinions, you sure like to repeat your opinions forcefully.
Of course I do, how else would I get other people to engage with them? It's awesome when people come up with counterpoints to my claims and I have to defend them. I only said I'm skeptical of my own opinions, not that I'm the best person to challenge them. I need help from people who disagree with me, and I love it.
tsassi wrote:
*snip*
Simply insisting that something is true without explaining why neither makes it any more true, nor helps me to understand why you believe it to be true. I can agree with your 1) since that much is evident, but your 2) here is what I'm doubtful of.

*snip*
You're absolutely correct that sprint is functionally different from base movement. However, that differences has no effect on the specific issue of the predictability of player movement. You see, how the predictability works is that after a given amount of time has passed after a player was last seen, they can be anywhere within the maximum distance they could have covered in that time from their previous position. The size of this area within which the player can be found is independent of the means by which the maximum distance can be obtained; that is, whether one needs to lower their weapon or not. This should be clear, since the maximum distance only depends on the player's maximal movement speed and on nothing else. The only other mechanism at play here is the individual player's movement tactics, but since that is entirely dependent on the individual, there are no effects from the game mechanics.

To be more precise, the only sense in which we can approach the issue of "predictability" is to consider it in terms of the probability distribution of where the player may be found within the area to which they can move in the given amount of time. If we think of the probability density of finding a player at any given point, the closer this density is to constant, the less predictable the player movement is. This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint. However, for this to be the case, there should be a mechanism that prevents from doing this when there is no sprint. However, I simply do not see a mechanism that would prevent the player from, say, stopping for a second, or doing anything else that would allow them to maximally randomize their movement when all they have is their base movement speed.

You see, this is the courtesy that I'd like from you: to try to explain your reasoning in detail. After all, you can claim that I'm wrong as much as you want, but that claim will ultimately carry no weight if the reasoning behind it is not explained. In fact, I find the statement about screaming "this is false" until one is blue in their face mildly ironic in this context.

*snip*
Quote:
your 2) here is what I'm doubtful of.
The following are more or less straight facts about how the game mechanics work:
A) Sprint allows you to escape bad map positioning more easily than if there is no sprint
B) Because of A, players are less punished for bad map positioning, and correspondingly less rewarded for good map positioning

The combined effect of these two things is that sprint provides a game mechanic that actively disincentivises players from focusing on their map location. This is bad design in a game which holds control of specific map locations as one of its fundamental design principles.

Note that the degree of the effects resulting from A and B apply is irrelevant to the conclusion. For example, you could lessen the degree of the effect of A by allowing players to shoot while sprinting, but it would still be true.

I'll note here as well that the whole debate, following, about predictability of player position, is simply a further substantiation of my #2 above, which I would argue holds on A & B alone even if what follows happened not to be valid.

Quote:
However, that differences has no effect on the specific issue of the predictability of player movement. You see, how the predictability works is that after a given amount of time has passed after a player was last seen, they can be anywhere within the maximum distance they could have covered in that time from their previous position
You either missed or dismissed the distinction I first made about this. There is a difference between "what is the range of possibilities for where a player could be now?" and "where is a player likely to be right now?". With respect to the former, you are correct. But that's not what I'm talking about, because that's not what matters in game. I'm talking about the latter. And with respect to the latter, you are incorrect. You simply cannot (and in game, in fact do not) assume that the player has been moving at sprint speed the entire time. The problem, as I wrote above, is that sprint adds a variable to the player movement equation which fundamentally makes it harder to predict where they are than in a corresponding system without that variable. As with other matters in this post, the degree to which this effect applies doesn't matter to my point.

Quote:
This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint
This is not my claim. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite regarding high level Halo 3 play. To use the terminology here, my point is more that a game with sprint provides a system with two randomized movement variables instead of one, and thus it is harder to predict a player's location.

Quote:
EDIT: after seeing the edits, what TeeJaY ChArMs said is totally what I was talking about all the time: sprint compared to equivalent base movement speed.
The point of my illustration is that for any given x, if you add y, the system gets worse on all the points I am arguing about (importance of map location, player predictability, etc).

In other words, I believe I understood your point, and that was my response. I am comparing a single system against itself, considered both with and without sprint. I think you are comparing two different systems and showing that you can make a system with sprint that theoretically could be better than a different system without it. In other words, you observe that there are particular values for x, in a system without y, which would be worse than other values chosen in a different system that has both x and y. I do not disagree with this observation, but that isn't and hasn't been my point.

Quote:
Name dropping informal fallacies in an internet argument is such a cliche.
No more cliche than treating any and all claims about objectivity as spurious and pretending to be a philosophical skeptic.
The following are more or less straight facts about how the game mechanics work:
A) Sprint allows you to escape bad map positioning more easily than if there is no sprint
B) Because of A, players are less punished for bad map positioning, and correspondingly less rewarded for good map positioning
The first statement in B is a straightforward conclusion from A, but the mistake you make is thinking that the second is equally straightforward. The first is straightforward because the punishment for positioning oneself poorly is death. Or to be more precise a bad position in this context is a position where the player is vulnerable and more likely to die if they are attacked, and the ability to sprint away decreases that likelihood. However, a good position correspondingly is one where the player is less vulnerable, or has better visibility and access across the map. These are the "rewards", and sprint doesn't affect them in any obvious way.

The combined effect of these two things is that sprint provides a game mechanic that actively disincentivises players from focusing on their map location. This is bad design in a game which holds control of specific map locations as one of its fundamental design principles.
This is partially true. Sprint makes it so that players need to be less concerned about ending up in a position that in previous games would've been considered "bad". However, it does not lessen the importance of things such as getting power weapons or obtaining the high ground, because these still give the same advantages to players they have always given.

You either missed or dismissed the distinction I first made about this. There is a difference between "what is the range of possibilities for where a player could be now?" and "where is a player likely to be right now?".
I made this distinction myself. However, I concluded that the latter is only dependent of the player's movement tactics, not of the gameplay mechanics.

You simply cannot (and in game, in fact do not) assume that the player has been moving at sprint speed the entire time.
Why not? Halo 5 has infinite sprint. The player is completely capable of sprinting the whole time if they want to. In fact, since the know that players sometimes sprint for some amount of time, there absolutely exist some scenarios where the player has moved at maximum speed the whole time (since we are discussing of more or less an arbitrary time interval). Of course, whether they do this often enough to lead to the optimal randomness I was talking about is another matter. But in any case, unless there is some mechanical barrier to doing this, it doesn't really matter.

The problem, as I wrote above, is that sprint adds a variable to the player movement equation which fundamentally makes it harder to predict where they are than in a corresponding system without that variable. As with other matters in this post, the degree to which this effect applies doesn't matter to my point.
But your variable has nothing to do with predictability is the issue. You acknowledged that where the player can be is independent of whether the maximum speed is at sprint or at base speed, as long as it is the same. However, what you are failing to understand is that where the player is likely to be found only depends on the decisions of the player, not on whether the maximum speed is sprint or base speed. The player can sprint at any time for as long as they want to, regardless of whether they choose not to.

Quote:
This issue is essentially whether a clever player can optimally randomize their movement in this sense. Your claim is essentially that they can't, at least unless the game has sprint
This is not my claim. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite regarding high level Halo 3 play. To use the terminology here, my point is more that a game with sprint provides a system with two randomized movement variables instead of one, and thus it is harder to predict a player's location.
This discussion precisely boils down to how randomly a player can move given the mechanics of the game. My claim is that given a maximum movement speed, it only depends on the player's choice, and whether the player needs to lower their weapon or not does not place any restrictions on it. Your claim is that the player can be more random with sprint, i.e., there are some restrictions when there is no sprint.

The way you're trying to formulate your point does not make sense. How you use the term "randomized [...] variable" is too informal, and doesn't lend itself to discussing the probability of player movement. The only random variable here is the player's position on the map, given an initial position and an amount of time that has passed. We've fixed the maximum movement speed, and therefore the space of possibilities, and we are left discussing the probability distribution and how flat the player can make it.

In other words, I believe I understood your point, and that was my response. I am comparing a single system against itself, considered both with and without sprint. I think you are comparing two different systems and showing that you can make a system with sprint that theoretically could be better than a different system without it. In other words, you observe that there are particular values for x, in a system without y, which would be worse than other values chosen in a different system that has both x and y. I do not disagree with this observation, but that isn't and hasn't been my point.
I don't understand the point of this paragraph.

No more cliche than treating any and all claims about objectivity as spurious and pretending to be a philosophical skeptic.
Don't think that's a cliche. In any case, let's not get into this "you're a..." game, because that's one only you can lose.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
I've been pointing out on various forums since 2001 that Halo is by design an Arena FPS, and that argument has never once failed to attract some Quake/UT purist tears.
Yeah, who would've thought that using a wrong definition would not agree with the people that literally started that genre in the first place and get you laughed out of the room?
But it's an Arena FPS.
Arena-inspired. Arena-style, at best. Arena shooter, as you initially claimed? Nope.
my definition would catch everything that has ever been called an arena FPS, including Q3A (quibbling over player models is a significant stretch)
There are player models that are literally 1.5 times talles than other ones (and yes, I made that measurement, one's 64% the height of the other). How on earth you can call that "equal starts" is beyond me. That's not just the difference between male and female Spartans in the games, that's a larger difference than Halo Reach Spartans and Elites and nobody ever claimed Invasion had equal starts, even if one were to take out the loadouts.

I have literally proven that your definition is wrong and incomplete, because one of the two criteria excludes the single-most popular Arena Shooter in history (thus being wrong) and removing that criteria makes the definition so vague that it would even include class-based shooters (thus being incomplete) such as Battlefront and even the Bioshock 2 Multiplayer, now that I think about it (the one that gave you new weapons and perks as you leveled up but still had map pickups).

Battlefront is a loadout and class based shooter and map pickups are not location based but rather are random; it fails both criteria
"and by power positions/weapons/pickups on the map being the key to winning".
There is no mention of "fixed placement/fixed spawns" in that criteria, therefore Battlefront would pass it. You just admitted to the definiton being incomplete.

Other definitions require fighting about which arena FPS is a true arena FPS and leaves you stuck in a permanent "no true Scotsman" situation.
Calling the sun a planet is still wrong, even when astronomers cannot agree over Pluto. Just because a definition is muddy in some very specific cases doesn't mean you can just slap that name on anything with a remote resemblance.
Celestis wrote:
You just admitted to the definiton being incomplete.
In battlefront's case, it doesn't even matter. It's a class based loadout shooter. My definition doesn't need to change to exclude battlefront.

The only real point of substance in your post is the quake player models, and I already told you I disagree with you that the different models negates a design of even player starts. It's not the same as Invasion, where elites had different abilities etc than spartans (and the entire game mode was asymmetrical objective).

The rest of your post is pure "no true scotsman" at its best... You're just asserting "halo can't be a true arena shooter because [arbitrary reason]".

This whole discussion is off topic anyway.
Celestis wrote:
You just admitted to the definiton being incomplete.
In battlefront's case, it doesn't even matter. It's a class based loadout shooter. My definition doesn't need to change to exclude battlefront.

The only real point of substance in your post is the quake player models, and I already told you I disagree with you that the different models negates a design of even player starts. It's not the same as Invasion, where elites had different abilities etc than spartans (and the entire game mode was asymmetrical objective).

The rest of your post is pure "no true scotsman" at its best... You're just asserting "halo can't be a true arena shooter because [arbitrary reason]".

This whole discussion is off topic anyway.
I applaud your patience, Primus. I would have lost mine a long time ago. Most of the arguments I've seen lately end up devolving into semantics and don't help the overall cause here, trying to get classic movement mechanics back. Whatever is being said, Halo was an arena shooter at the most basic level. I don't understand how that is even being argued.

Halo has lost popularity, it isn't fun anymore for loads of players who used to love the series, and sprint and the other mechanics added to it have devalued the importance of the arena shooter tactics and strategy Halo chose to incorporate from their inception.
baaask wrote:
Whatever is being said, Halo was an arena shooter at the most basic level. I don't understand how that is even being argued.
Because it's not that easy...
Halo is to arena shooters what a motorcycle is to cars. They share some similarieties but noone would argue that a motorcycle is a car just because they both ran on fuel and have a engine. There a differences.
IMO the most accurate categorisation would be "console-arena-FPS". It is taking some Arena principles but "dumbs" them down for console but, again, a motorcycle is a motorcycle, not a "dumbed-down-car".
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 89
  4. 90
  5. 91
  6. 92
  7. 93
  8. ...
  9. 155