[Locked] The sprint discussion thread

Cristina5783 wrote:

Kell of Salt wrote:

Cristina5783 wrote:

Without running it would take too long to get across maps ☹️

Not if maps were built around not having sprint

You know, like in Halo 1-3?

What about the halo master chief collection? Does this not give you classic halo without sprint?
Does having sprint make it harder for you to aim accurately ?

If anything it makes it easier, because BMS is lowered, which means you move slower during actual combat. Which makes movement and combat separate, which slows down overall gameplay. And the mcc isn't a new game, nor does it work.

Fairhades35 wrote:

eems69 wrote:

It's funny how people think sprint will make Halo itself again. If you really think a game mechanic is what makes a game, you're wrong. It's the story, the multiplayer as a whole, not sprint.

Story/canon multiplayer hasn't done anything except remove features, so I don't think that works at all in this situation. And game mechanics are quite literally what makes a game itself, multiplayer is its mechanics, the game is its mechanics, without those mechanics your looking at a diffrent game, what's the difference between cod and halo? the story is diffrent but change the mechanics to be the same and it would be the exact game

Story lmao. Oh man, that's a good one. You shoulda just replied with laughing Jordan.

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

so then you prefer a pay to win Halo without sprint, you really care more about sprint than that Halo is almost becoming a pay to win???

I want both, sprint and Reqs/MTs, removed from future iterations.
But if somebody were to put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two of them, I'd rather have sprint gone and Reqs/MTs stay than the other way around.
Reqs/MTs don't affect me in campaign. Sprint does.

how does sprint affects in campaign??? is not like someone is forcing you to use it or anything.

Justima wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

so then you prefer a pay to win Halo without sprint, you really care more about sprint than that Halo is almost becoming a pay to win???

I want both, sprint and Reqs/MTs, removed from future iterations.
But if somebody were to put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two of them, I'd rather have sprint gone and Reqs/MTs stay than the other way around.
Reqs/MTs don't affect me in campaign. Sprint does.

how does sprint affects in campaign??? is not like someone is forcing you to use it or anything.

People's mind towards campaign's gameplay could be anything is wrong. Sure, you could design a game differently, but it becomes a different game with same skin like what Halo 5 is. If Assassin's Creed loses stealth mechanic, is it still Assassin's Creed? If Alan Wake gets reticle instead of flashlight aiming, is it still Alan Wake? If Quantum Break loses time power mechanics, is it still Quantum Break? Dying Light without park-our? Doom with enhanced mobility? You can call these games with their name even though it plays differently. Game mechanics imply to single player like multiplayer.

I think that is caused more by the lack of creativity of 343i they just don't know how to keep the unique Halo feeling, they just do what they want. (also that applies too for the "artsyle")

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

so then you prefer a pay to win Halo without sprint, you really care more about sprint than that Halo is almost becoming a pay to win???

I want both, sprint and Reqs/MTs, removed from future iterations.
But if somebody were to put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two of them, I'd rather have sprint gone and Reqs/MTs stay than the other way around.
Reqs/MTs don't affect me in campaign. Sprint does.

how does sprint affects in campaign??? is not like someone is forcing you to use it or anything.

Sprint affects level design, enemy AI and weapon balance. All of them are relevant in campaign. You can't avoid them just by not spriting.

Levels need to be more wide and stretched, so sprinting players don't get stuck on objects. That makes a lot of campaign levels dull, being either a long corridor or a vast and empty plane. AI needs to be programmed with a player's peak performance in mind, so they usually are just as fast as sprint speed, while still being able to shoot. It also doesn't help that 343 introduced teleporting enemies who can bum-rush you at a moments notice. Meanwhile, when on the offense, you have to decide whether to approach enemies at a slower speed while shooting, missing shots and losing ammo because of the distance (which the infinite-ammo-wielding enemies don't have to worry about) or sprint towards them so you get into range before growing a beard, while constantly getting bombarded by their barrage fire. All this while suffering from the reduced average TTK that was implemented because of sprint.

I actually don't really care what happens in multiplayer. 343 could reduce the multiplayer to one weapon, one map, have blue team stand on the ceiling and moonwalking be the only method of moving. But campaign is the last place I want to see sprint in.

Duh =3 Your right

Moltened wrote:

ZAHIRITEiKA wrote:

Gameplay wise, Halo 6 should stay like Halo 5. Sprinting, guns all zoom in, Spartan charge, ground pound. All of those should stay. I feel like Halo 5, gameplay wise, is the direction a first-person super solider shooter game should take.

Story wise is completely different, but that's neither here nor there.

Someone hasn't played the new doom. Or overwatch. The new doom, now THAT is how you make a player feel like a super soldier. I don't think I could play that game's campaign for 15 mins without having to save a clip. It's empowering and immersive in a way h5 could only dream of being.

H5 feels dated and archaic. Held back in time to the days where COD reigned over the genre. Those days are ending and H5 is behind the curve. If h6 stays the same the game will be irrelevant

I have played Doom and Overwatch and I stand by what I say. However, I do think Overwatch is more fun than Halo 5, but not for those reasons. I like Overwatch's style and the fact that it actually makes u feel like ur a part of a team. In Halo, it just doesn't. Doom is fun, but it is arcadic. It feels like an arcade game, and it should, it's Doom! But I don't think I want Halo to go the Doom route... At least not all the way. The only thing that should feel like Doom, is Doom.

Dead End 24 wrote:

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

so then you prefer a pay to win Halo without sprint, you really care more about sprint than that Halo is almost becoming a pay to win???

I want both, sprint and Reqs/MTs, removed from future iterations.
But if somebody were to put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two of them, I'd rather have sprint gone and Reqs/MTs stay than the other way around.
Reqs/MTs don't affect me in campaign. Sprint does.

.

.

I have to admit, I never thought about sprint in campaign like that. I've always been more of a sprint in MP isnt great but not bad in campaign kind of guy...but now that I think of it, and the fact that I just went through Halo 4 again in the Master Chief collection, your 100% bang on I think. The campaign really does feel a lot different (usually not in a good way) in H4,5 compared to halo 1-3, which I like way more. I find myself so much just "running" and not doing anything else...so boring!

Not to mention, I'd argue that travel times also play a role in campaign if we look outside of encounters.

Between encounters you're going to travel, a lot, and distances also play a significant role.

First of all there's the story aspect, quite a few times somr part of the on-going story is going to happen, be added to or expanded on. Depending on what the developer want to tell the down time may be of different length meaning that in order to somewhat get the story part down, players need to be slowed down, stopped so the story can continue. This doesn't always occur but it happens, some story bits are easily skippable.

Another aspect is hidden loads.
The game isn't going to load every single asset in the mission when you start. It's segmented to be easier on the hardware. You cross different triggers that may delete previous stuff and load in the new things. This is usually a rather fast process, but it'd take the player out of the game if he/she suddenly saw enemies spawn out of thin air, in a way they're not meant to, and be in the middle of them.

Last thing I can think of is checkpoints, these too require some sort of distance, if it's not an "eliminated all"-checkpoint but a "you got here"-checkpoint, to potential enemies.

I wouldn't be surprised if these three, and more aspects, are somewhat carefully considered in the making of campaign, adding longer distances due to sprint in order to allow down times, story moments and so forth, to happen.

So if we assume that is the case, what is the difference between a non-sprint Halo and a Sprint halo in campaign downtimes? Well in a sprint versoon you have an extra button taking up a spot on the controller. You're still going to hold the thumbstick forward and look at the scenery passing by.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Do not make non-constructive posts.

Fourseer wrote:

Why is this thread still going?

I honestly wanted to know that too. I guess by us posting we are keeping it alive, but I really hope this sprint convo dies off completely and doesn't come back when Halo 6 rolls around. Pretty ridiculous at this point.

Dinho239 wrote:

Justima wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

Celestis wrote:

Dinho239 wrote:

so then you prefer a pay to win Halo without sprint, you really care more about sprint than that Halo is almost becoming a pay to win???

I want both, sprint and Reqs/MTs, removed from future iterations.
But if somebody were to put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two of them, I'd rather have sprint gone and Reqs/MTs stay than the other way around.
Reqs/MTs don't affect me in campaign. Sprint does.

how does sprint affects in campaign??? is not like someone is forcing you to use it or anything.

People's mind towards campaign's gameplay could be anything is wrong. Sure, you could design a game differently, but it becomes a different game with same skin like what Halo 5 is. If Assassin's Creed loses stealth mechanic, is it still Assassin's Creed? If Alan Wake gets reticle instead of flashlight aiming, is it still Alan Wake? If Quantum Break loses time power mechanics, is it still Quantum Break? Dying Light without park-our? Doom with enhanced mobility? You can call these games with their name even though it plays differently. Game mechanics imply to single player like multiplayer.

I think that is caused more by the lack of creativity of 343i they just don't know how to keep the unique Halo feeling, they just do what they want. (also that applies too for the "artsyle")

I think it is caused by 343's intend to appeal to new audience by adding stuffs from other games. To be honest, when I was non-Halo fan and saw Halo 5, it was not interesting at all. I was like there is another shooter coming out.