Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 482
  4. 483
  5. 484
  6. 485
  7. 486
  8. ...
  9. 830
Zeezke99 wrote:
didn't even bother reading it because it is the dumbest topic out there right now. Just because it has sprint doesn't mean its not Halo. It's one whole mechanic, that's it. If you don't like sprint, don't sprint. Problem solved.
Except the maps are purposefully stretched out to accompany sprint, so that stretched maps will have the same sprint travel time as a non stretched map with just walking. So
not sprinting is punishing because the game had to be made around it.
Campaign maps aren't. God I wish I could have had sprint on some old campaign misions(Looking at you Two Betrayals)
Jeez, id have given anything for sprint in two betrayals.
And no- increasing base speed is not some magical formula that will eradicate sprint or "fix," anything- it would only make Halo worse by making it more BORING like the lack of sprint always has done in much older, dated Halo titles...

The ability to choose between moving fast OR slow is both necessary and beneficial to a fast-paced FPS game like Halo.
So, what was so non-boring about pressing a thumbstick / button and hold the stick forward compared to only holding the stick forward?

I was unaware that previous Halo games had a binary movement setting, full speed and stand still.
No i disagree, i like sprint. I think it's good and i don't see an issue with it. And as for spartan charge, all I'd suggest is increasing the motion tracker range to at least 25m. It's there for you to use, not my fault other people adapt and use these tools more often. They have the same tools and abilities as you, there's nothing unfair about it. Adapt and survive.
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
No, no one can prove that sprint changed anything until 343 makes another sprintless halo. And even then there are too many variables. But it would be ignorant to say that sprint didn't affect anything, or heavily add to the pile of reasons why people don't like the new games. Using git gud won't work here. We've all adapted to the new game, we play it, and find it much less enjoyable. Try out the halo 5 evolved settings if you think a no sprint halo wouldn't work.
l Jinxed I wrote:
I always make sure to recommend to KEEP sprint in Halo any chance that I get... It's been such a positive change to Halo since it first arrived with Reach and most of us are glad it's permanent now and more than just an armor mod. I see the same couple of guys ensuring this thread keeps on going and going it's a sad and selfish way to "kick a can around," over and over to try and inflate this issue to make it appear way bigger than it actually is or ever was... And no- increasing base speed is not some magical formula that will eradicate sprint or "fix," anything- it would only make Halo worse by making it more BORING like the lack of sprint always has done in much older, dated Halo titles...

The ability to choose between moving fast OR slow is both necessary and beneficial to a fast-paced FPS game like Halo. This thread is like an attention-seeking thing that has gotten way too much exposure thanks to a vocal minority that has chosen to make this one small facet of gameplay in Halo a focal point simply because it isn't their preference. You made your point already so eventually you'll have to let it go... Sprint is in Halo, has been for the past 3 triple-A Halo titles, it's DEFINITELY here to stay.

I sure wouldn't play Halo if sprint was taken out... The sheer boredom of that type of gameplay would be too much for me to put up with. As such I say just the opposite of the title of this thread- removing sprint would actually make Halo no longer feel like Halo.
I'm honestly surprised hearing this come from you.

But seeing as how you have no base for this statement, you opinion is pointless. CSGO is the top FPS game, and it doesn't have sprint. Halo formerly did not have sprint, and it was also at the top. Guess what happened. Not saying sprint is the sole reason.

Wow.
Just like the rest of the vocal minority against sprint- just write off anyone's opinion as "pointless," if it doesn't coincide with your own opinion. Halo is not CSGO. I don't think CSGO is any good anyway, but the comparison is bleak and vague at best. I wish I could say that I was surprised to hear you discounting others' opinions the way these pro sprinters have been... But coming from you I'm honestly not surprised at all. (Though telling someone to "smash [their] monitor," was actually a bit over-the-top... Even for you- the guy just doesn't agree with you about sprint so get over it already)
You don't like csgo, did we ask? I'm pretty sure he just stated its the top FPS, which it is if you check out its sales and viewership on twitch. And your claims are just as baseless as his, there's quite a bit of evidence pointing to anti sprint being a large part of the population around halo 4 that voted for no sprint in polls. suddenly they're gone and pro sprint is winning 50% of the polls and halo 5 has a very low player count. That dosn't seem like a vocal minority to me. That seems quite a bit like a main fanbase that was alienated by the devs.
343 is most likely just going to keep it the way it is.
343 is most likely just going to keep it the way it is.
Why? there's obviously a problem with the way it is right now. It should be their goal to bring up sales and player counts
I like de sprint.
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
343 is most likely just going to keep it the way it is.
Why? there's obviously a problem with the way it is right now. It should be their goal to bring up sales and player counts
343 cares not for petty things like "problems".
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
I would like to see someone anti sprint even try to beat this post. This shuts down every pro sprint argument in this thread.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
I've given up eh
for every single post laid out detailing point by point why sprint is bad and then breaking down that point into fine tiny details
the response we get as to why sprint is "good for halo"
is:
"I like sprint"
"A super solider should be able to sprint"
"immersion"
"so you can move faster"

To date I don't believe I've seen an actual
mechanic gameplay based argument for the inclusion of sprint
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
I've given up eh
for every single post laid out detailing point by point why sprint is bad and then breaking down that point into fine tiny details
the response we get as to why sprint is "good for halo"
is:
"I like sprint"
"A super solider should be able to sprint"
"immersion"
"so you can move faster"

To date I don't believe I've seen an actual
mechanic gameplay based argument for the inclusion of sprint
They drive you insane dont they? I've given up trying to argue with these guys its like communicating with a brick wall most of the time. I'm in the same boat as you, I've never seen any valid explanation as to why sprint should stay throughout the 4 years its been with halo. It's sad really
Zeezke99 wrote:
didn't even bother reading it because it is the dumbest topic out there right now. Just because it has sprint doesn't mean its not Halo. It's one whole mechanic, that's it. If you don't like sprint, don't sprint. Problem solved.
Except the maps are purposefully stretched out to accompany sprint, so that stretched maps will have the same sprint travel time as a non stretched map with just walking. So
not sprinting is punishing because the game had to be made around it.
Campaign maps aren't. God I wish I could have had sprint on some old campaign misions(Looking at you Two Betrayals)
Why would you need sprint for two betrayals? Are there not an abundance of vehicles to get around the map, or did you just neglect them and walk your way to the end? Not once in any previous Halo's did I say to myself "Man I wish I had sprint right about now"
Can I get a COMBAT EVOLVED. It is the natural evolution of the game. Change is good. CHTULUL 2016
Can I get a COMBAT EVOLVED. It is the natural evolution of the game. Change is good. CHTULUL 2016
Change is indeed good. Im like the only one who likes sprint lmao. Also, did you mean Cthulhu?
Chipmmunk wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
I've given up eh
for every single post laid out detailing point by point why sprint is bad and then breaking down that point into fine tiny details
the response we get as to why sprint is "good for halo"
is:
"I like sprint"
"A super solider should be able to sprint"
"immersion"
"so you can move faster"

To date I don't believe I've seen an actual
mechanic gameplay based argument for the inclusion of sprint
They drive you insane dont they? I've given up trying to argue with these guys its like communicating with a brick wall most of the time. I'm in the same boat as you, I've never seen any valid explanation as to why sprint should stay throughout the 4 years its been with halo. It's sad really
Same here...
Justima wrote:
Chipmmunk wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Dinho239 wrote:
Dinho239 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.
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.
not at all, Reach for me was one of the games with better level design in camaign and it also has the ability to sprint if you want to, also it had one of the best AI in my opinión, what really affects level design is the -Yoinking!- lack of creativity fron 343i, just look at the infinite armor variants in Halo 5, also that they're changing the level, AI design and almost everything else to atract new players from other games, which is a -Yoinking!- terrible idea, they focus on other fans than in keeping the fans they already had, which makes Halo turning into another generic random fps, Reach is a prove that a game can have sprint, and still feel like Halo in everything else. The problema isn't sprint, the problema is that 343i doesn't know how to implement anything the right way in the game.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you believe something or something is true in your experience does not mean that you can use that to disprove someone else. Unless you can provide evidence that can be agreed on and proven true then you can't try and disprove other people with your opinion.
then do you have evidence that people stop playing just for sprint or that dislike the whole game just for that, I know sprint made some changes to the franchise, but is not the -Yoinking!- end of the games, is just sprint, anyone can tolerate it, and if who doesn't at least tolerate it is just because is bad at playing with the new mechanics and because can't get use to it so tries to change the whole game at his convenience.
Now, I haven't posted in this thread for about a week, so maybe I missed it, but have you told us why you think sprint is beneficial to the gameplay? If so, just link me to the post(s).
Otherwise your posts seem to be talking about other problems the franchise has. Concerned about playable Elites? Check out that thread. Concerned about split screen? Check out that thread. We're discussing sprints place in the game in this thread.
I'm not saying sprint is benefical, but is is neither bad, is something that doesn't even have anything to complain about.
There's actually a number of reasons why it's bad. Each of those words is a different link addressing different parts of the discussion (though there is some overlap, each contains something new) and that's just some of the ones I found after looking back 400 pages.

Whether it's polls from when the community was larger or the opinions of those that have since left the franchise, there's reason to believe people aren't happy with it and there's nothing to suggest sprint is helping the popularity of the game or peoples opinions of it in any way whatsoever.

If sprint is neither good nor bad, then time and resources shouldn't be wasted on it.
I've given up eh
for every single post laid out detailing point by point why sprint is bad and then breaking down that point into fine tiny details
the response we get as to why sprint is "good for halo"
is:
"I like sprint"
"A super solider should be able to sprint"
"immersion"
"so you can move faster"

To date I don't believe I've seen an actual
mechanic gameplay based argument for the inclusion of sprint
They drive you insane dont they? I've given up trying to argue with these guys its like communicating with a brick wall most of the time. I'm in the same boat as you, I've never seen any valid explanation as to why sprint should stay throughout the 4 years its been with halo. It's sad really
Same here...
They drive people crazy. This is what happens when something not belonging to Halo comes.
l Jinxed I wrote:
I always make sure to recommend to KEEP sprint in Halo any chance that I get... It's been such a positive change to Halo since it first arrived with Reach and most of us are glad it's permanent now and more than just an armor mod. I see the same couple of guys ensuring this thread keeps on going and going it's a sad and selfish way to "kick a can around," over and over to try and inflate this issue to make it appear way bigger than it actually is or ever was... And no- increasing base speed is not some magical formula that will eradicate sprint or "fix," anything- it would only make Halo worse by making it more BORING like the lack of sprint always has done in much older, dated Halo titles...

The ability to choose between moving fast OR slow is both necessary and beneficial to a fast-paced FPS game like Halo. This thread is like an attention-seeking thing that has gotten way too much exposure thanks to a vocal minority that has chosen to make this one small facet of gameplay in Halo a focal point simply because it isn't their preference. You made your point already so eventually you'll have to let it go... Sprint is in Halo, has been for the past 3 triple-A Halo titles, it's DEFINITELY here to stay.

I sure wouldn't play Halo if sprint was taken out... The sheer boredom of that type of gameplay would be too much for me to put up with. As such I say just the opposite of the title of this thread- removing sprint would actually make Halo no longer feel like Halo.
I'm honestly surprised hearing this come from you.

But seeing as how you have no base for this statement, you opinion is pointless. CSGO is the top FPS game, and it doesn't have sprint. Halo formerly did not have sprint, and it was also at the top. Guess what happened. Not saying sprint is the sole reason.

Wow.
Just like the rest of the vocal minority against sprint- just write off anyone's opinion as "pointless," if it doesn't coincide with your own opinion. Halo is not CSGO. I don't think CSGO is any good anyway, but the comparison is bleak and vague at best. I wish I could say that I was surprised to hear you discounting others' opinions the way these pro sprinters have been... But coming from you I'm honestly not surprised at all. (Though telling someone to "smash [their] monitor," was actually a bit over-the-top... Even for you- the guy just doesn't agree with you about sprint so get over it already)
Your opinion for the bolded statement was pointless. Did you show proof? No. Did you explain your reasoning? No. Halo 3 was the most successful game in the franchise, and Halo 5 is the no where close to that. H3 did not need sprint, just a speed increase. ZBNS Reach was amazing, and it did not feature sprint. CE, the game with the most depth in the franchise, did not feature sprint, and people still organize LAN parties. Shadowrun was a very competitive FPS, it did not feature sprint. Quake is faster than every game I just listed, it did not feature sprint. Sprint is not a necessity. Until you can think of a gameplay reason to justify having sprint, people will still complain about it. The problem is, you can't. 343i can't even, a post from Quinn Del Hoyo on TB proves this.

You mean the guy who thinks that we don't want a speed increase after removing sprint? If someone legitimately thinks that, then yes, they should smash their monitor. This is a textbook example of ignorance. If I need to explain why he's wrong to him, I doubt he's old enough to be on the internet.
l Jinxed I wrote:
l Jinxed I wrote:
I always make sure to recommend to KEEP sprint in Halo any chance that I get... It's been such a positive change to Halo since it first arrived with Reach and most of us are glad it's permanent now and more than just an armor mod. I see the same couple of guys ensuring this thread keeps on going and going it's a sad and selfish way to "kick a can around," over and over to try and inflate this issue to make it appear way bigger than it actually is or ever was... And no- increasing base speed is not some magical formula that will eradicate sprint or "fix," anything- it would only make Halo worse by making it more BORING like the lack of sprint always has done in much older, dated Halo titles...

The ability to choose between moving fast OR slow is both necessary and beneficial to a fast-paced FPS game like Halo. This thread is like an attention-seeking thing that has gotten way too much exposure thanks to a vocal minority that has chosen to make this one small facet of gameplay in Halo a focal point simply because it isn't their preference. You made your point already so eventually you'll have to let it go... Sprint is in Halo, has been for the past 3 triple-A Halo titles, it's DEFINITELY here to stay.

I sure wouldn't play Halo if sprint was taken out... The sheer boredom of that type of gameplay would be too much for me to put up with. As such I say just the opposite of the title of this thread- removing sprint would actually make Halo no longer feel like Halo.
I'm honestly surprised hearing this come from you.

But seeing as how you have no base for this statement, you opinion is pointless. CSGO is the top FPS game, and it doesn't have sprint. Halo formerly did not have sprint, and it was also at the top. Guess what happened. Not saying sprint is the sole reason.

Wow.
Just like the rest of the vocal minority against sprint- just write off anyone's opinion as "pointless," if it doesn't coincide with your own opinion. Halo is not CSGO. I don't think CSGO is any good anyway, but the comparison is bleak and vague at best. I wish I could say that I was surprised to hear you discounting others' opinions the way these pro sprinters have been... But coming from you I'm honestly not surprised at all. (Though telling someone to "smash [their] monitor," was actually a bit over-the-top... Even for you- the guy just doesn't agree with you about sprint so get over it already)
Your opinion for the bolded statement was pointless. Did you show proof? No. Did you explain your reasoning? No. Halo 3 was the most successful game in the franchise, and Halo 5 is the no where close to that. H3 did not need sprint, just a speed increase. ZBNS Reach was amazing, and it did not feature sprint. CE, the game with the most depth in the franchise, did not feature sprint, and people still organize LAN parties. Shadowrun was a very competitive FPS, it did not feature sprint. Quake is faster than every game I just listed, it did not feature sprint. Sprint is not a necessity. Until you can think of a gameplay reason to justify having sprint, people will still complain about it. The problem is, you can't. 343i can't even, a post from Quinn Del Hoyo on TB proves this.

You mean the guy who thinks that we don't want a speed increase after removing sprint? If someone legitimately thinks that, then yes, they should smash their monitor. This is a textbook example of ignorance. If I need to explain why he's wrong to him, I doubt he's old enough to be on the internet.
Reach did have sprint, but it was armor ability.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 482
  4. 483
  5. 484
  6. 485
  7. 486
  8. ...
  9. 830