Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 373
  4. 374
  5. 375
  6. 376
  7. 377
  8. ...
  9. 840
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
They made the Warzone maps stretched out so you would have to use sprint. Not having sprint would basically make Warzone a broken gamemode since the maps were built for it. You nostalgic Halo fans need to suck it up.
...

They could just not stretch the maps. Then you know, they wouldn't be plagued by people sitting a mile away with rifles and snipers picking you off as you try to cross the mile of no man's land between every part of the map.
If you want smaller maps play Arena. Problem solved.
But arena has sprint...
So take it out, no bad maps, skillful gameplay, everybody wins!
You don't HAVE to sprint. Just because you don't want sprint doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want it.
I know I don't have to sprint. I don't want my enemies sprinting, because it effects me. Oh, and the vocal majority doesn't want sprint.
Vocal majority? You mean the majority of those voicing an opinion?

I don't think that means much at all, unless you can show that this opinion is actually representative of the whole.
Neither side can show what the major "likes" and either way it doesn't matter.

"If I would have asked people what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse"".
-Henry Ford
yeah, people are dumb. Which is why this is such a funny conversation.

I get the distinct feeling a lot of hardcore halo fans are looking to explain why the franchise they so love isnt as popular as before. The answer is undoubtedly more complicated than Sprint or Golden Triangle, but those are the easiest to point to.
Poor map design, yo. That is the single most glaring problem with Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5.
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides, The Bacchae
Map design is not the problem. if you don't like a map... MAKE ONE! all the games you said have great maps by themselves but also have Forge! Halo used to have great story and a competitive multiplayer and used to be at the front of innovation. If you want to see what's wrong you have to look back so you cant blame people for believing that's what is wrong and to those people that could be what's wrong. Its also simply the change in companies bungie mad many games 343 has actually only made 2 so give some slack
bungie made Operation: Desert Storm , Pathways into Darkness, Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete, Marathon, Oni, Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, Halo: Reach, Myth II: Soulblighter, Myth: The Fallen Lords, and 6 others that I could find. about 11 before Halo CE
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
Sierra3141 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
They made the Warzone maps stretched out so you would have to use sprint. Not having sprint would basically make Warzone a broken gamemode since the maps were built for it. You nostalgic Halo fans need to suck it up.
...

They could just not stretch the maps. Then you know, they wouldn't be plagued by people sitting a mile away with rifles and snipers picking you off as you try to cross the mile of no man's land between every part of the map.
If you want smaller maps play Arena. Problem solved.
But arena has sprint...
So take it out, no bad maps, skillful gameplay, everybody wins!
You don't HAVE to sprint. Just because you don't want sprint doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want it.
I know I don't have to sprint. I don't want my enemies sprinting, because it effects me. Oh, and the vocal majority doesn't want sprint.
Vocal majority? You mean the majority of those voicing an opinion?

I don't think that means much at all, unless you can show that this opinion is actually representative of the whole.
Neither side can show what the major "likes" and either way it doesn't matter.

"If I would have asked people what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse"".
-Henry Ford
yeah, people are dumb. Which is why this is such a funny conversation.

I get the distinct feeling a lot of hardcore halo fans are looking to explain why the franchise they so love isnt as popular as before. The answer is undoubtedly more complicated than Sprint or Golden Triangle, but those are the easiest to point to.
Poor map design, yo. That is the single most glaring problem with Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5.
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides, The Bacchae
Map design is not the problem. if you don't like a map... MAKE ONE! all the games you said have great maps by themselves but also have Forge! Halo used to have great story and a competitive multiplayer and used to be at the front of innovation
agreeed.
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
I agree with you that Halo needs to be able to compete with other FPS's, but how does sprint increase the competitivness of Halo in relation to others in the FPS genre? Genuinely curious.
Halo needs to start going against trends again. Not with them.

That's what made Halo so popular to begin with.
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
They made the Warzone maps stretched out so you would have to use sprint. Not having sprint would basically make Warzone a broken gamemode since the maps were built for it. You nostalgic Halo fans need to suck it up.
...

They could just not stretch the maps. Then you know, they wouldn't be plagued by people sitting a mile away with rifles and snipers picking you off as you try to cross the mile of no man's land between every part of the map.
If you want smaller maps play Arena. Problem solved.
But arena has sprint...
So take it out, no bad maps, skillful gameplay, everybody wins!
You don't HAVE to sprint. Just because you don't want sprint doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want it.
I know I don't have to sprint. I don't want my enemies sprinting, because it effects me. Oh, and the vocal majority doesn't want sprint.
Vocal majority? You mean the majority of those voicing an opinion?

I don't think that means much at all, unless you can show that this opinion is actually representative of the whole.
Neither side can show what the major "likes" and either way it doesn't matter.

"If I would have asked people what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse"".
-Henry Ford
yeah, people are dumb. Which is why this is such a funny conversation.

I get the distinct feeling a lot of hardcore halo fans are looking to explain why the franchise they so love isnt as popular as before. The answer is undoubtedly more complicated than Sprint or Golden Triangle, but those are the easiest to point to.
Poor map design, yo. That is the single most glaring problem with Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5.
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides, The Bacchae
Map design is not the problem. if you don't like a map... MAKE ONE! all the games you said have great maps by themselves but also have Forge! Halo used to have great story and a competitive multiplayer and used to be at the front of innovation. If you want to see what's wrong you have to look back so you cant blame people for believing that's what is wrong and to those people that could be what's wrong. Its also simply the change in companies bungie mad many games 343 has actually only made 2 so give some slack
bungie made Operation: Desert Storm , Pathways into Darkness, Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete, Marathon, Oni, Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, Halo: Reach, Myth II: Soulblighter, Myth: The Fallen Lords, and 6 others that I could find. about 11 before Halo CE
Sierra3141 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
ZuuluuZ wrote:
They made the Warzone maps stretched out so you would have to use sprint. Not having sprint would basically make Warzone a broken gamemode since the maps were built for it. You nostalgic Halo fans need to suck it up.
...

They could just not stretch the maps. Then you know, they wouldn't be plagued by people sitting a mile away with rifles and snipers picking you off as you try to cross the mile of no man's land between every part of the map.
If you want smaller maps play Arena. Problem solved.
But arena has sprint...
So take it out, no bad maps, skillful gameplay, everybody wins!
You don't HAVE to sprint. Just because you don't want sprint doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want it.
I know I don't have to sprint. I don't want my enemies sprinting, because it effects me. Oh, and the vocal majority doesn't want sprint.
Vocal majority? You mean the majority of those voicing an opinion?

I don't think that means much at all, unless you can show that this opinion is actually representative of the whole.
Neither side can show what the major "likes" and either way it doesn't matter.

"If I would have asked people what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse"".
-Henry Ford
yeah, people are dumb. Which is why this is such a funny conversation.

I get the distinct feeling a lot of hardcore halo fans are looking to explain why the franchise they so love isnt as popular as before. The answer is undoubtedly more complicated than Sprint or Golden Triangle, but those are the easiest to point to.
Poor map design, yo. That is the single most glaring problem with Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo 5.
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides, The Bacchae
Map design is not the problem. if you don't like a map... MAKE ONE! all the games you said have great maps by themselves but also have Forge! Halo used to have great story and a competitive multiplayer and used to be at the front of innovation
This entire thread exists because the core Halo fanbase shouldn't have to make maps and game variants in order to play classic Halo in a Halo title.

Like I said, map design is the most glaring problem with Halo multiplayer these days. This poor map design began when the first real changes to core gameplay were made. I mean, I could be biased, but doesn't there seem to be some kind of correlation there? When I'm talking about map design, I mean weapon placement, vertical movement, and general flow. Armor Abilities changed that flow, because they changed how maps were designed. Larger maps means needing certain abilities to clear gaps that used to be crossed by knowing how to use jump and crouch in the right succession. I'll give you that there were some decent maps in some of those titles, but I honestly believe that the classic Halo formula got a lot of things right. I miss jump tactics, and most of the modern maps aren't set up very well for vertical movement.

Call me a fool, call me nostalgic, but the simple gameplay and well thought-out map design of classic Halo was what made it great. When I play Halo 5, I don't feel like I'm playing Halo.
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
I agree with you that Halo needs to be able to compete with other FPS's, but how does sprint increase the competitivness of Halo in relation to others in the FPS genre? Genuinely curious.
its how the consumer market works. many of these games target the same demographic. as one game changes and gets "new" features other have to adapt or die. its sad but the ppl who enjoyed halo 1 the way it was is a small demographic, while the fps fans are a much larger and more demanding demographic. thats the audience 343 and bungie had to cater to while also trying to hold try to who they are as designers. Since a majority of majorly successful FPS games have sprint, halo had to adapt or die basically.
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
I agree with you that Halo needs to be able to compete with other FPS's, but how does sprint increase the competitivness of Halo in relation to others in the FPS genre? Genuinely curious.
its how the consumer market works. many of these games target the same demographic. as one game changes and gets "new" features other have to adapt or die. its sad but the ppl who enjoyed halo 1 the way it was is a small demographic, while the fps fans are a much larger and more demanding demographic. thats the audience 343 and bungie had to cater to while also trying to hold try to who they are as designers. Since a majority of majorly successful FPS games have sprint, halo had to adapt or die basically.
This is a fallacy and just straight up bad business.

You shouldn't target the exact same market that numerous competitors already have a strangle hold of. That's just stupid. There's only so many pieces of the pie to go around.

The spint/ADS "modern" FPS market is one of, if not the most competitive and over saturated market in all of gaming. Why the hell would you take an IP that has a built in fanbase of millions and throw away heaps of its brand equity so you can jump out of a largely untapped market ( that has proven lucrative) to jump into that oversaturated one?

Like, what in the world is going on over at 343 industries?
Why does this forum keep popping-up on popular topics? Sprint is staying. Whether people like it or not.
Then Halo will truly be dead to the core Halo fanbase.
Not true.
How many Halo vets do you know that have only good things to say about Halo 5: Guardians?
Luke The Notable, Proximitty, Ubernick, Pretty much all the guys from chaotix. LNG criticizes halo 5 but he has some nice things to say about it. So plenty of halo youtubers. And dont come back saying "Oh! Well they could be recieving money from 343!" People who say that, just can't accept that Some people like halo 5.
No matter if you like sprint or not, it is a modern gaming mechanic, and many players refuse to play a game without it. Even if 343i wanted to remove sprint, they wouldn't, cause it would drive away new players. Really, sprint can be done well and balanced like in H5, and works well with the spartan abilities. (but lets all agree that spartan charging sucks and would be better off out of the game.) Removing sprint may make halo great again for the small minority of old fans who dislike sprint, but the large majority of new and old players either prefer sprint or don't really care. 343i can't babysit all the old halo players, and why would they bother, when half of them hate halo no matter what 343i does. so i guess my answer is no.
There is no evidence that a Halo game will sale less if it didn't have sprint, or that the group of people that dislike sprint are the "small minority" and the people that like sprint are the "large majority". Also if the "old halo players" hate Halo no matter what 343 does, then why would they spend their time on a Halo forum talking about how they would improve the game?
Try telling that to mircosoft. My point is is that sprint is not going.
Microsoft seems to be fine with letting the Coalition make Gears like fans want it. When it comes to game mechanics in Halo things are never set in stone, plenty of things that people thought were "here to stay" are now gone. What makes sprint immune to the same fate as duel wielding, random/personal ordnance, customizable loadouts, and armor mods?
What they should bring back is reach customization system with the same style UI and scheme because it made every armor personal
Sprint makes Halo better. Period.
lol how?
Can anyone please explain how sprint makes Halo combat better?
Halo is just fine with sprint tbh
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
I agree with you that Halo needs to be able to compete with other FPS's, but how does sprint increase the competitivness of Halo in relation to others in the FPS genre? Genuinely curious.
its how the consumer market works. many of these games target the same demographic. as one game changes and gets "new" features other have to adapt or die. its sad but the ppl who enjoyed halo 1 the way it was is a small demographic, while the fps fans are a much larger and more demanding demographic. thats the audience 343 and bungie had to cater to while also trying to hold try to who they are as designers. Since a majority of majorly successful FPS games have sprint, halo had to adapt or die basically.
Gamers look to buy different games that offer them different experiences. If they want to play a game with sprint, they will play COD which implements and punishes sprint far more effectively than Halo, with its long kill times and gameplay depending heavily on map design and flow, ever will. Trying to appeal to the COD fanbase and other twitch shooter franchises by copying their mechanics will never work as COD does it better. And both counterstrike and overwatch do not have sprint and have populations that rival Call of duty and battlefield
i think sprint makes it more intense. trying to run for cover, more satisfying head shots from the sniper, plus it makes the game more competitive with other FPS games. not many don't have a sprint function, and it would feel wonky without it now.
I respect your opinion, but I personally feel being in the thick of combat is more intense and skill deciding the victor than having someone running away to his teammates but its an entirely subjective experience and I can see where you're coming from.
Your statement that sprint enhances the competitiveness of Halo on the other hand is extremely hollow and has no basis in fact given that sprint only serves as an escape tool for the loser in a fight.
And to those who say "don't like sprint, don't use it"
its the equivalent of saying "don't like armor lock, don't use it", "don't like dual wielding don't use it," and etc.
I can totally respect that. I mean i did always like the saying if its not broken don't fix it, and Halo 1 was absolutely amazing with no sprint. I think in some instances its adds a deeper element to the gameplay and in others it can really kill it.
I think you may have miss interpreted my statement about its competitiveness. I was instead comparing Halo to the competitive market for games. In the FPS genre it more common now to have a sprint function than to not example being Call of Duty and Battlefield (2 major FPS games dominating the market). While Halo is far from a broken game it does still have to try to compete with the market of FPS games, while still holding try to what made Halo stand out in the first place, guns, grenades, melee. Halo paved the way with that and still holds it strong in the gameplay.
I agree with you that Halo needs to be able to compete with other FPS's, but how does sprint increase the competitivness of Halo in relation to others in the FPS genre? Genuinely curious.
its how the consumer market works. many of these games target the same demographic. as one game changes and gets "new" features other have to adapt or die. its sad but the ppl who enjoyed halo 1 the way it was is a small demographic, while the fps fans are a much larger and more demanding demographic. thats the audience 343 and bungie had to cater to while also trying to hold try to who they are as designers. Since a majority of majorly successful FPS games have sprint, halo had to adapt or die basically.
What are the most played FPS titles this year, and how many of them have sprint?
SlicedWood wrote:
I Jimmie I wrote:
I'm honestly a big fan of sprint. It's a change that I think should have been made a long time ago.
But why?
For me it was just a matter of opinion in that it was hard to think that I was playing as a super soldier...who somehow couldn't run.
Halo is just fine with sprint or even any spartan abilities, I've played since Halo CE (except for Halo Reach and ODST), and that really doesn't bother me, is just innovation, why is it that bad?? and why the -Yoink- do the people complain about something soooo stupid like removing sprint?? instead of that focus on something that really matters, like that Halo 5 had the worst campaign in the franchise, the play-doh like graphics, the terrible ranking system, the multiple glitches and issues (specially in theater mode) the lack of a sell many reqs option, and it never had splitscreen etc. that stuff matters, we need to focus in fixing that, if 343i just removes sprint the games won't change if they still have a terrible story telling, terrible rank system, lack of content at launch, bad and werid graphics, and no splitscreen, then think, does sprint really matters NOW?? I know it may be immportant, but there are other priorities that need to be fixed first, I LOOOOVE Halo, but have to admit that Halo 5 was a bad game (at least at launch) and I can make a HUGE list about what things make Halo 5 bad, but sprint isn't one of them.
Why does this forum keep popping-up on popular topics? Sprint is staying. Whether people like it or not.
Then Halo will truly be dead to the core Halo fanbase.
Not true.
How many Halo vets do you know that have only good things to say about Halo 5: Guardians?
Luke The Notable, Proximitty, Ubernick, Pretty much all the guys from chaotix. LNG criticizes halo 5 but he has some nice things to say about it. So plenty of halo youtubers. And dont come back saying "Oh! Well they could be recieving money from 343!" People who say that, just can't accept that Some people like halo 5.
Everyone has different tastes, there's a reason why I chose to play classic Halo more than any other shooter. Even though I play it, I don't really like Halo 5 (I started playing when the Firefight Beta came out), and I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. There's Act Man, Favyn, Wpns Grade, Bring Halo Back, and probably others who have plenty of bad things to say about how Halo 5 was handled. All of this backlash started way back during the days of Reach. There were some things that were done well, sure, but there were also so many other things that weren't.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 373
  4. 374
  5. 375
  6. 376
  7. 377
  8. ...
  9. 840