Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 210
  4. 211
  5. 212
  6. 213
  7. 214
  8. ...
  9. 829
Id rather keep sprint because it will make warzone easier
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
WOP1796 wrote:
WOP1796 wrote:
The introduction of playing Halo on the same couch with your friend will make Halo Halo gain.
Along with a better movement system, which complements Halo's Arena Shooter gameplay by allowing you to move fast, shoot, throw grenades, and melee without ever lowering your weapon.
What is so wrong with a risk-reward option?
How is there a risk reward option with sprint, and not one without sprint? Please explain that to me.
Risk: The golden triangle is suppressed, which leaves you vulnerable to attack.
Reward: You get to your places faster, can surprise the enemy team, and get to a tactical position before the enemy team.
1. The Golden Triangle is exactly what the gameplay was built around. The fact that you were always able to shoot, melee, or nade ensured that you always had the ability to be offensive. As far as player mechanics go, you do not put the Golden Triangle on hold because more than anything else in the franchise, the ability to always remain offensive puts more importance on faster pacing and using your skill and smarts all at once. Nothing in this franchise, past or present, does that better than the concept of the Golden Triangle.
2. Why does any of what you said need to require your weapon being down? You can surprise people without sprint and you can get to tactical positions without sprint, the only difference is you need to actually fight for it.
This thread provides good arguments against the golden triangle. There's wifi at the restaurant I'm at so I'm able to post this.
You're gonna have to point out which arguments you're talking about specifically, because I see arguments which stem from a misunderstanding of what the purpose/intention of the Golden Triangle is.
The ones against the OP.
I assumed that's what you meant, but it's largely people saying you can't shoot or melee at the same time and stuff like that, which isn't the point of the GT. That's the misunderstanding I was referring to.
Then look at the ones who don't say that. They make some good points (and yes, one of them is me).
Then I'll respond to yours. Tell me others if they said something different. I'm not gonna go looking for the opposed argument, you present it.

The point of the GT is to encourage offensive play by always letting you be offensive and to encourage the use of all the players offensive capabilities. Halo 2 screwed with that because you spawned with only a dual wieldable weapon which affected the way you played the entire match and indirectly lead to people much more often not using their full offensive capabilities. That was a huge problem.

In Halo 3, you didn't start out with just a dual wieldable weapon, so dual wielding wasn't nearly as common and the game was hardly affected by whether or not a player dual wielded, unlike sprint which has a much bigger effect on how people go about the game and how a match plays out. If you dual wielded, it was entirely by choice and not any feeling of, "this necessary or the best way to do this or that".

Sprint - as well as most Spartan Abilities - is very important to how good or bad you do and it restricts your offensive capabilities entirely. It encourages and borderline forces the abandonment of the concept of the GT throughout the game.
Sprint, yes. ... now can we stop talking about this already it's going to stay it's not going anywhere and at this point watching or playing with a futuristic soldier that can't run would just be dumb.... not to mention make they game feel so much slower and sluggish!
The only way going without sprint might work would be if 343i somehow converted maps in halo6 and called them CQC maps where the game would automatically take away sprint when playing these smaller maps at random and if u played regular size maps u could sprint maybe i say maybe something like that kinda would work and make both side's happy. idk
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
No way. Sprint and the new movement system captured the lore of Spartans being agile and deadly. It captures the lore from the books too. Now we just need dual wielding and old vehicles back and we'll repair the lore and make Halo great again.
I don't feel agile/deadly when I can move to a place facing in one direction while loosing the ability to play defensive or offensive. I can't shoot or nade while running towards an objective or a teammate. I feel weak and unarmed. This also creates areas on the map you are not meant to battle. What this does is it forces me to use sprint if I want to play efficiently and reach an area meant for battle.

I'll give you an example. In Halo 2/3 midship/heretic map you can run from top red, climb pink street, go through pink 2 and reach top blue all the while throwing nades, maybe even kill an enemy or two off of pink street or top mid. All of this before they cap the flag or hold the skull any longer. Remember that you are moving at full speed on a map designed for that speed. Now in Halo 5, if I decide to move sideways so I can shoot and nade top mid on truth I'm moving at a speed that was not meant for that map, making it so that it takes a while longer to get to top blue from top red. If I then decide to move faster or at the speed the map is build for, I play as an unarmed soldier on a large scale map facing only one direction. This is why gameplay slows down two notches because of sprint.
This is why they made larger maps though. The only thing that they could do is make the system better. When playing I definitely felt agile and deadly as a spartan, but the system could be improved. Other than that it should not be removed. There have already been too many good features removed because of complaints. It just needs to be made better.
V0LTEDGE wrote:
Sprint, yes. ... now can we stop talking about this already it's going to stay it's not going anywhere and at this point watching or playing with a futuristic soldier that can't run would just be dumb.... not to mention make they game feel so much slower and sluggish!
It will only stay if we give into the idea that we have no voice. That idea is a lie and we should never even give a thought to whether or not 343 hears us. They do hear us, loud and clear.
Like I've said before, bringing in lore into a conversation about a game mechanic is only viable to a point. Once your argument becomes solely one of, "Well it's consistent with the lore," then your argument becomes invalid. However, I will appease your argument, and counter. If we are playing as these incredible futuristic super soldiers, why then, if they can sprint, could they not shoot while sprinting?
To address your second point, it is not correct to say that a sprintless Halo is slower and sluggish. Maps are made around movement. Look at classic map like midship, ascension, warlord, they all were built around a single movement speed and provided constant action.
WOP1796 wrote:
The introduction of playing Halo on the same couch with your friend will make Halo Halo gain.
Along with a better movement system, which complements Halo's Arena Shooter gameplay by allowing you to move fast, shoot, throw grenades, and melee without ever lowering your weapon.
What is so wrong with a risk-reward option?
Nothing! The anti-sprinters want all the reward without any of the risk!
Until the risk-reward exchange involves nullifying one of the biggest parts of Halo's gameplay. Suppressing as he put it the golden triangle just stomps on what made Halo so huge back during Halo 2 and 3. It was simple system, easy to pick-up difficult to master. Sprint throws way too many variables and inconsistencies due to the differences in design philosophy. Also, the original trilogy had risk vs reward so idk what you're talking about with your fallacies.
Id rather keep sprint because it will make warzone easier
Maps are created around the players movement. If sprint were removed, the maps would be tailored to whatever to the base movement speed was. Hopefully we could see the return of teleporters and man cannons as well to further increase map flow. Your point is invalid though. Keeping sprint will not make Warzone "easier."
I like sprint.
if sprinting is removed from halo the same people who didn't like it would miss it
I like sprint.
if sprinting is removed from halo the same people who didn't like it would miss it
No, we wouldn't.
I like sprint.
if sprinting is removed from halo the same people who didn't like it would miss it
But what if you could shoot, throw grenades, and melee while sprinting? Wouldn't that be a great innovation for Halo 6?
I like sprint.
if sprinting is removed from halo the same people who didn't like it would miss it
Not sure how that logic works...?

Would you like to explain why its good for the halo brand?
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
Sealsninja wrote:
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
Sales, the population, the brand itself. You know the answer, millions left, for various reasons sure but when you change a fundamental way the game is played its going to have a significant impact on the community at large. The intention to cater to a younger fan base was their call, it was at the expense of their most loyal fans.
Sealsninja wrote:
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
I don't think so, but it's hard for me to say because each entry with sprint has many glaring issues and dumb decisions. It's just that sprint causes a lot of those issues (which makes it worse that the game is built around it) and since they're present because Halo is trying to be like other games, I instead end up playing other shooters that aren't plagued by gameplay issues that don't make sense for the game.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Sealsninja wrote:
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
I don't think so, but it's hard for me to say because each entry with sprint has many glaring issues and dumb decisions. It's just that sprint causes a lot of those issues (which makes it worse that the game is built around it) and since they're present because Halo is trying to be like other games, I instead end up playing other shooters that aren't plagued by gameplay issues that don't make sense for the game.
Spartan charge. They can definitely get rid of that.
disclaimer: I am pro-sprint.
but I do understand what you are saying Zr0Fear v2 thanks for the feed back
Sealsninja wrote:
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
At first it was a no but it's honestly coming close, that's why I really want a h3a so if they don't remove it I have something I can acually enjoy playing
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
SepheusIX wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
I'm aware of that survey, but I'm not gonna assume they take all feedback to heart when appropriate. A balance needs to be struck between giving people what they want and what benefits the game. Rather than being creative or just thinking for themselves, 343 included sprint because of the year (a perfect example amateur game development) instead of how it effects the game (which would be a perfect example of competent/normal game development).

My point was though, that forum feedback is a normal place for devs to look. It's also more reassuring because it's out there for all to see. Considering 343 has a history of wordplay, misrepresentation and lying, I'm not gonna trust every private survey they have, particularly when it's the one poll that says the opposite of what we've seen on every other poll before it (and after it, according to now often linked Reddit thread). It certainly didn't help when they told us of the 11% and what seemed like every anti-sprinter said, "Wait, what survey?" and some even claiming that they had signed up, but never got the survey (though I'm a little more skeptical of those claims).
In regards to why there was an inclusion of sprint - perhaps this GDC talk may help you can use the left panel to skip to the relevant mobility section. I think the main thrust of it is that sprint also adds a new level of control context which is really useful when you're running out of buttons on the pad. Having two different contexts allows them to experiment with adding new abilities - whether you find these new abilities (Spartan Charge?!) all that great is another matter.
I believe I've seen that panel. They basically explain that most of their ideas were based around immersion and realism, citing The Dark Knight trilogy as an influence. It's also where they said they included sprint because of the year, which, again, is not the proper way to make decisions on what's in the game.

Explaining the benefits would be fine, if the drawbacks it has on the game as a whole were also addressed, which isn't something they'll talk about for obvious reasons. I would love for a member of 343 to get involved in a discussion on those issues at some point (though, I know that will never happen). Josh Holmes once made a long post on TeamBeyond about the decision to include sprint and why. The explanation basically amounted to "immersion and expectations", which is not smart game development.
So what is "smart game development" to you? Listening to a small subset of community members on a forum as if they're infallible saints whose every decision assures millions of sales?

Immersion and expectations of players are both highly valuable things for a game to have and should not be discounted. Regarding immersion in an FPS title, people don't want to feel like they're just a floating pair of hands. They want to feel like whatever they're playing as. The way I see it, 343i went into Halo 4 wanting to combine that feeling of being a Spartan with meeting modern gamers' expectations, and that's why we got all those armor abilities, loadouts, perks and such. That obviously didn't go over so well, so they dialed it back for Halo 5. They gave players a small universal set of abilities to make them feel like a super-soldier and designed maps and weapon layouts on those maps around said abilities. Halo 5 does a good job of making you feel like a Spartan and leveraging modern game mechanics while re-focusing the gameplay on controlling the map and the weapons that spawn on it. People are just so hung up on their nostalgia that they're staring red-eyed at one tree while everybody else is busy enjoying themselves in the forest.
Smart game development is making decisions based on how something effects the game. I don't think 343 has ever given gameplay related reasons as to why sprint benefits the gameplay in ways that can't be accomplished without the drawbacks. Maybe they have and if anyone has links, that would be nice.
If somebody actually provided you with links to such a thing you'd probably stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes, come back to this thread and ask for the hundredth time "How does it benefit the game though?!?!?!"
So, there are no links then?
No links, but let's be honest here: After over 200 pages of people offering up their arguments, would even the most thorough of write-ups or video breakdowns of the Sprint mechanic by a 343i employee convince you? Or do you just want to keep this thread alive until they send a formal written letter to your door telling them that they won't include Sprint in Halo 6?
Actually, Josh Holmes and 343i have talked about sprint. They really only want immersion. Josh said on a TB post not too long ago about how it was one of the main reasons for its inclusion.
Sealsninja wrote:
I'm sorry but Halo 4 had absolutely no legs when it came to launch. The reason it wound up 3-4 million copies short of Halo 3 was because its multiplayer was absolute trash and the campaign, which was really good in my opinion, went over people's heads. Sprint ruined it. It was unbalanced. Halo 5 didn't have great sales either. See what sprint does?
Halo 4's multiplayer was disliked because of the small maps, ordinance, and loadouts making it feel like CoD. Sure maybe some people didn't like sprint back then but it is not the reason halo 4 flunked. And halo 5 didn't have great sales because lots of people were put off by halo 4. Most people do not look at halo 5 and question if they should buy it based off of the fact the game has sprint. So sprint is not the cause of the problems you say it brings up, it's other factors that combine to bring about that problem. Let me ask the anti-sprinters (I just genuinely want to know) does sprint actually make you want to quit halo?
Not Sprint on it's own, it's the way Halo has changed since I've become a fan during HCE...(though, sprint is playing a huge role..)
It's the sandbox that -Yoink- on Halos traditional Utility-weapon-based gameplay, it's all those new fancy movement mechanics, the entire art-style and 343's mentality to chase what ever is hip rather then sticking to Halos roots...(
I've already been close to not buying H5 but after all, I picked it up 3 days before it's official release because I let myself be blinded by 343's marketing lies (biggest Halo to date, HtT, going back to the roots) and I made the decision to trust 343 that they will do what is necessary to appease the older fans, as it turned out, I've been terribly wrong...
If H6 doesn't look good out of the box, I'll wait till I get it on sale/used, I've been a huge fan for 15 years now, Halo MCC was the sole reason I bought an XBO and I'm part of the team running the last active Halo community/news-site in germany so I really don't need anyone to tell my that I wouldn't be a true fan but my time is too valuable to spent it on something that I don't really enjoy anymore....
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 210
  4. 211
  5. 212
  6. 213
  7. 214
  8. ...
  9. 829