Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 613
  4. 614
  5. 615
  6. 616
  7. 617
  8. ...
  9. 840
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
And if people have different theories, they'll bring them up. Maybe one day a huge magnum scope theory will pop up and gain traction.

So far though, this seems to be the one that has the most support and that doesn't happen for no reason.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
And if people have different theories, they'll bring them up. Maybe one day a huge magnum scope theory will pop up and gain traction.

So far though, this seems to be the one that has the most support and that doesn't happen for no reason.
Lol that'd be quite the interesting thread.

Again, I don't have any problem with people posting theories or opinions about it.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Endeziken wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Endeziken wrote:
This topic was dead before MCC back in Halo 4. Games change directions. Sprint is one where it's hard to go back on. Even though I personally would love sprint to be gone and maps to be like halo 2 and 3 it simply isn't going to happen. The pace of the game is faster with sprint and people are now used to it and if you slow the game down your random player will get bored more easily. Sprint is here to stay. At least jetpacks are gone as is armor lock so things could be much worse.
Overwatch seems to be doing fine. Considering the only character in that game that can sprint is only used 6% of the time, people don't seem to care that much about not being able to sprint. Plus, what you said about about the faster pace isn't quite correct. (Read the links in that post as well)
Overwatch isn't a sequel. If Overwatch 2 has sprint you would expect Overwatch 3 to have sprint still. No offense but Halo isn't overwatch, it's comparing apples and oranges.
You said Halo needed it because it makes the game faster paced (which it doesn't). That means you think "random" players will only like a game with sprint, which obviously isn't that case since Overwatch is more popular than Halo on the Xbox alone. If anything the "apples/oranges" comment works in favor of removing sprint since Halo isn't other shooters, so it shouldn't try to be like them, like it currently is.

If a game has a mechanic, it's because it's what's best for the gameplay. Even 343 has said that's not primarily why they included it. Considering sprint is still bad, Halo 6 should still not have it. 343 are not good developers though, so that may not happen.
I never said halo needed sprint.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
And if people have different theories, they'll bring them up. Maybe one day a huge magnum scope theory will pop up and gain traction.

So far though, this seems to be the one that has the most support and that doesn't happen for no reason.
The reason is people don't like sprint so they blame it for the downfall of Halo. It's like a doomsday prepper blaming the whales for the impending apocalypse.

I don't like sprint either. It doesn't need to exist for Halo to be immersive, a lack of sprint isn't anymore unrealistic compared to a jumping 360 turn airborn snapshot with a sniper rifle, making the pace of gameplay seem faster while traversing deadzones in a map can be done in other ways, FPS games do not require it's inclusion to function/provide engaging gameplay and it comes with additional baggage responsible for changing other aspects of the game. I'm not going to sit here and make another ridiculous "X is ruining/killed Halo" thread or statement though. Why? Simple, I don't know it to be true, it's difficult to prove and, even if it was true, odds are Halo player counts dropping isn't a result of a single issue.

Oh... that and it's another distraction. Much like pages debating whether you truly can kill other players with a plasma pistol, who hurt the feelings of who, what does and doesn't add to skill gap and various other nonsense likely comprising a good 70 % of this 600+ page thread.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
And if people have different theories, they'll bring them up. Maybe one day a huge magnum scope theory will pop up and gain traction.

So far though, this seems to be the one that has the most support and that doesn't happen for no reason.
The reason is people don't like sprint so they blame it for the downfall of Halo. It's like a doomsday prepper blaming the whales for the impending apocalypse.

I don't like sprint either. It doesn't need to exist for Halo to be immersive, a lack of sprint isn't anymore unrealistic compared to a jumping 360 turn airborn snapshot with a sniper rifle, making the pace of gameplay seem faster while traversing deadzones in a map can be done in other ways, FPS games do not require it's inclusion to function/provide engaging gameplay and it comes with additional baggage responsible for changing other aspects of the game. I'm not going to sit here and make another ridiculous "X is ruining/killed Halo" thread or statement though. Why? Simple, I don't know it to be true, it's difficult to prove and, even if it was true, odds are Halo player counts dropping isn't a result of a single issue.

Oh... that and it's another distraction. Much like pages debating whether you truly can kill other players with a plasma pistol, who hurt the feelings of who, what does and doesn't add to skill gap and various other nonsense likely comprising a good 70 % of this 600+ page thread.
This. This is all so true. I joined the forums to talk about something I love. Halo. But most of the threads are these ridiculous arguments
This. This is all so true. I joined the forums to talk about something I love. Halo. But most of the threads are these ridiculous arguments
Then again, these forums would be pretty boring to me without these ridiculous arguments. Not that I endorse the dismissive attitude many people bring with them, but the idea of debating over the merits of different game design choices has always been quite appealing to me, but to each their own. The great thing about forums though is the fact that you can completely ignore the threads you're not interested in, and affect your experience that way.
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
What a great post. I always told people that sprint can not be blamed alone...
I'm sure the bad story and microtransactions did a lot more to hurt populations. Btw are you pro-sprint? Just wondering.
1/2

So after reading a bunch of comments here, these are the most common arguments that defend sprint. Here, I am not gonna explain why sprint sucks, I will simply counter the most common arguments. I wanted to post this as a separate post, but I'm not sure it's allowed considering this is the official sprint thread.

1. It speeds up the gameplay:

No, it doesn't. Gameplay is as fast as developers intend for it to be, and the average map size in Halo 4 is increased to accommodate sprint. It doesn't take any longer to traverse the average map in Halos 1, 2 or 3 than it does in Halo 4 or 5.

Also, with regard to the amount of time it takes to travel across maps in Halo, there is nothing that needs to be fixed. If you don't like taking the time to move across maps in Halo, to the point that you think a fundamental part of the way Halo plays needs to be changed just so you can travel a bit faster, then Halo might simply not be the game for you.

Inevitable response: "Um, no. I'm pretty sure that sprinting across Mercy is faster than walking across Mercy"

Ah, but you've already misunderstood the argument. The argument is not that sprinting across Haven is no faster than walking across Haven, the argument is that sprinting across the average map on Halo 4 is no faster than moving (at top speed) across the average map in Halo 1, 2 and 3 where the maps are smaller to accommodate a lack of sprint.

2. Halo feels slow without it:

Firstly, as pointed out above, if you don't like the way Halo feels without sprint, then Halo simply wasn't the game for you. Other people were absolutely fine with it, and not only were they fine with it, they actually appreciated it.

Secondly, the only reason you think Halo feels slow without sprint is because there is an illusion of speed that is created when running in bursts, even though you aren't necessarily getting anywhere faster. A person who sprints at 20 miles an hour from one side to the other in a 30-meter room will almost certainly feel like they're going faster than if they were to run at 10 miles an hour from one side to the other in a room that is half the size. There is no decrease in travel time, yet an illusion of speed is created because you are moving past your surroundings faster.

The human brain is more sensitive to immediate differences in speed than it is to differences in time that happen over longer periods; periods of time such as those experienced when traversing maps in Halo. Putting aside for a moment that it isn't actually necessary to make traversing maps faster in future titles, as that is not something that ever needed "fixing", I should mention that there is a much more appropriate way to increase the feeling of speed that you experience when moving around, and that is by doing any combination of these 4 things:

1) Decrease the average map size. This would mean less travel time, which is the effect that most sprint fans claim are a desirable impact of sprint on the game.

2) Increase base speed. This would mean less travel time AND it would mean that you were moving faster relative to your surroundings - one of the main reasons sprints gives an illusion of speed.

3) Increase field of view. An increased field of view gives the illusion of speed as it gives the impression that you are moving past your surroundings faster than if you had a lower field of view.

4) Through the use of vehicles, teleporters and man cannons on larger maps. By giving players more vehicles that are only effective for traveling, such as the Mongoose, you give them the means to travel across larger maps if they don't feel like traveling on foot.

Inevitable response: "but I can't shoot while I'm on a Mongoose. I want to be able to move and shoot at the same time!"

Isn't it funny then that you are arguing for sprint - a feature that completely takes away from your ability to shoot, melee and grenade while moving at top speed - by saying that vehicles aren't good enough because you can't shoot while using them?

Inevitable response: "but I can't stop and shoot right away if I'm in a Mongoose. I would have to stop and get out of it"

That's the trade-off that you experience when using vehicles. If you could simply drive a vehicle and then instantly get out and start shooting with only a slight delay, then you would not really be experiencing any drawbacks to using something that puts you at such an easy advantage. The Mongoose gets you across the maps in much less time than if you were simply to travel on foot, which means possibly (and likely) getting to advantageous spots/weapons/power-ups than those who didn't travel by vehicle. Not being able to shoot straight away after getting out is a tiny price to pay for having such a decrease in travel time.

3. I'm a super soldier in a sci-fi future - I should be able to sprint:

Firstly, as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important than canon. I mean, it sounds real obvious when I say it like that, but there are still many who use the 'I'm supposed to be a super soldier' argument.

Why are we not able to go prone? Why are we not able to aim down sights (yes, it would be possible even though there is a smart link system)?

Why are we not able to put our enemies in a rear naked choke? Why are we not able to cook grenades? Why are we not able to throw our knives? Why are we not able to kick? Why are we not able to wrestle?

There are any number of things that Spartans "should" be able to do as far as canon goes, but we can't do them as far as gameplay goes because many of them just simply wouldn't fit with what Halo is about. Sprint is no different.

If people were genuinely concerned about gameplay not completely reflecting canon, then they would all be complaining about all of the things that we can't do in-game, but they simply don't.

Secondly, if we were actually to go by canon, then we would be able to sprint at much faster speeds without having to stop after 5 seconds. Also, we would be able to do this while aiming and shooting accurately. The smart-link system doesn't simply shut down once a spartan decides to sprint, nor do a Spartans arms decide to suddenly lose the ability to raise.

For examples of Spartans sprinting and shooting, see Forward unto Dawn, Halo Legends: The Package, The Thursday War (Naomi), and any other examples that may I have forgotten.

4. Every game has sprint nowadays:

This doesn't come close to being a valid argument. There is no requirement that every game needs to be the same. Variety and uniqueness are far more valuable than monotony and lack of variety.

If you simply can't stand the idea of ever playing a game that doesn't include sprint, then the answer is simply to only play those games that do. It certainly doesn't mean that every game should sacrifice its own way of doing things simply so that you don't personally have to worry about there being games that don't cater 100% to your tastes.

Also, the 'every game has sprint these days' argument falls into two categories. One is the 'appeal to novelty', which is the false assertion that when something is new or modern, it is automatically good. This, of course, is untrue.

The other is the 'argument by consensus', which is the false assertion that when something is popular or common, therefore it is good. This, of course, is also untrue.

Whether or not every other game today has sprint has no bearing on whether or not sprint works for Halo. It is completely unrelated.
2/2

5. Games can't compete today without sprint:

As with the previous argument, when making such a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim. We haven't had a modern Halo game without sprint in recent years, so therefore we cannot draw any conclusions as to whether or not Halo would survive today without sprint.

What we can see is that Halo hasn't done so well with sprint, and one of the most common reasons that are suggested in feedback by fans who dislike Halo 4 and 5 is that they don't like sprint in Halo.
This would indicate a strong likelihood that Halo 4 and 5 would have done better to some degree (perhaps only slightly better) if it did not base itself around default sprint. It certainly doesn't prove such a thing, but it is an indication.

But then we also have DOOM, no sprint, guess what? Successful.

6. You want every Halo game to be the same:

This particular argument finds itself guilty of being a 'straw-man' argument.

There is no logical pathway from seeing a person say they dislike sprint (or any other feature) to assuming they are scared of or against all possible change.

The only way you can possibly claim that a person is scared of change is if they literally utter the words: 'I'm scared of change'.

For example, if you were to ask me to make you a pizza, but to put some different toppings on from the last time you ate pizza, and then I went and made a pizza with slugs, grass, moldy apples and hair from the bathroom sink, you would likely reject the pizza. It's highly likely that you would tell me I had done a horrible job of deciding on what kind of pizza to make you.

Now, would it make sense for me to then say: "wow, so you hate pizza toppings? I can only assume that you are scared of change. You just can't move on from the days when Margherita was your favorite pizza. You'll never be pleased"?

Most people would know that such an assumption would be a logical fallacy, however, people are very selective with when they apply everyday logic, and if you're scared of change' argument happens to help their own argument, then they'll gladly abandon any semblance of logic. That's where this whole argument stems from, and it is quite simply ineffective when it comes to demonstrating that sprint is a good thing for Halo.

7. I enjoy sprint, and that's all that matters:

Simply untrue. Any possible feature that you can imagine, no matter how terrible, has the potential to be "enjoyed" by someone out there.
I think most people would agree that having Rockets and Incineration cannons as loadout options would simply be bad for Halo gameplay, yet those additions would likely be enjoyable to someone somewhere.
Following the 'I enjoy it, so it's right' logic, Rockets and Incineration cannons absolutely SHOULD be loadout options. Why? Because they have the potential to be liked.

How about a perk that grants invincibility and a second perk that allows all your weapons to shoot Rockets that kill anyone within 10 meters? There could be people out there who would enjoy such things, but I don't think many people would disagree that these things shouldn't be added simply on the basis that some might find the additions enjoyable.

Sprint is no different. Whether or not we like sprint as individuals is actually incidental and is irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the game. What matters is whether or not it fits with what Halo is fundamentally about when it comes to gameplay - sprint does not.

8. Sprint makes the game more immersive:

Let's first make sure we're clear on the definition of immersive. When something is immersive, that means it provides information or stimulation for a number of senses. In this particular case, the sense we are talking about is sight.

The claim is that sprint makes you feel more like you're in the game due to running in bursts (as the average human would do in real life) and therefore should be in the game.

Firstly, immersion is not actually a top priority as far as gameplay goes. It is something that should be sought after so long as more important factors, such as balance, are not disrupted in the process. Sprint is an example of "immersion" that does have several harmful effects on the gameplay itself and therefore is not an appropriate addition simply for the sake of "immersing" the player.

Secondly, if immersion means making you, a normal human being, feel more like you're moving around in the world itself in the same way that you would be capable of, then immersion is not appropriate in that sense.

You are playing as a spartan who, as pointed out earlier, have been shown in the canon to be able to sprint at speeds far faster than you or I am capable of while aiming and shooting accurately and without having to stop after 5 seconds.

A true immersion in the sense of making us feel like Spartans from the Halo universe would mean making us move around the world in the way that they would be capable of, and in the process, sprint and lowered weapons would simply be abandoned.

As with the canon argument, if you really truly believe that "immersion" is a priority in a game, then you'll actually be against sprint and lowered weapons.

9. Helps me get into battle faster:

As we discussed earlier, maps have been stretched to accommodate sprint. That means that on the maps in Halo 4, the average time between you and "battle" at spawn is no different than the average time between you and "battle" at spawn in Halo 1, 2 or 3.

Also, there was no fault in how fast you were able to get into a battle in Halos 1, 2 and 3. The time it took was the time that was intended, and there was nothing broken about that. If you didn't like that, then Halo might not have been for you.

10. It adds an element of excitement and franticness:

First of all, there was no lack of excitement in previous Halo games for the people that liked the gameplay that they were built upon. As mentioned in an earlier part of this post, Halo doesn't need to change fundamentally - alienating many who appreciated the original core gameplay - just to please people who aren't already into the franchise.

Secondly, any number of things could add a sense of excitement, adrenaline, and franticness; things such as giving all players Rockets and perks that get rid of the need to reload. However, these things come with drawbacks and therefore are not appropriate gameplay additions. Sprint is no different.
THE ALL NEW SPACE MARINE SUPER SOLDIER. CAPABLE OF DESTROYING COVENANT FLEETS ALL BY THEMSELVES. AND ARE SMARTER FASTER AND STRONGER THEN ANY OTHER MARINE.

So ummm, whats his abilities....

Welp...he can maybe run...or maybe hit something with a charge I'm still deciding.
So you're going to use Halo Lore as the basis for why we should be able to sprint? I guess we should be able to grab missiles and toss them back since that was done in the books also.

I'm so tired of this over used argument... that and the old argument of "Well if you hate sprinting you should just not sprint".

Here JoelWelsh1998Hunterkiller040SORZUSZANEWatch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iedeG7SVPCE
Dude it's a joke...It's funny to think of a super soldier who can't even run....
When in halo are you not running? If you're holding the stick forward on the controller, you're running.
Haha exactly, you are still way faster than marines, it actually makes sense if why you move so fast in fps games. If you were wearing a vr headset then it would feel very fast.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Like I said, if the magnum scope had a huge negative effect, people would be talking about it. First you look at the common denominators and then narrow it down from there by looking into the likelihood of each and why. That's where the critical thinking part comes in (it's a very important part).

If someone wants to say sprint is the reason for Halos decline, this is an appropriate place to do so.
But again, it would only lead to your personal opinion or theory, no matter how much critical thinking you put into it. There is no way to make a factual or definitive claim, on this thread or otherwise, that sprint stands as the reason for Halo's decline. If someone wants to say they feel like sprint is the reason for Halo's decline, good for them, and this is the right place to do that. But they still shouldn't go making definitive claims that it is. Like the original poster I responded to did.
And if people have different theories, they'll bring them up. Maybe one day a huge magnum scope theory will pop up and gain traction.

So far though, this seems to be the one that has the most support and that doesn't happen for no reason.
The reason is people don't like sprint so they blame it for the downfall of Halo. It's like a doomsday prepper blaming the whales for the impending apocalypse.

I don't like sprint either. It doesn't need to exist for Halo to be immersive, a lack of sprint isn't anymore unrealistic compared to a jumping 360 turn airborn snapshot with a sniper rifle, making the pace of gameplay seem faster while traversing deadzones in a map can be done in other ways, FPS games do not require it's inclusion to function/provide engaging gameplay and it comes with additional baggage responsible for changing other aspects of the game. I'm not going to sit here and make another ridiculous "X is ruining/killed Halo" thread or statement though. Why? Simple, I don't know it to be true, it's difficult to prove and, even if it was true, odds are Halo player counts dropping isn't a result of a single issue.

Oh... that and it's another distraction. Much like pages debating whether you truly can kill other players with a plasma pistol, who hurt the feelings of who, what does and doesn't add to skill gap and various other nonsense likely comprising a good 70 % of this 600+ page thread.
This. This is all so true. I joined the forums to talk about something I love. Halo. But most of the threads are these ridiculous arguments
No, we don't like it because this one mechanic completely changes the overall experiences. We want to play Halo, a unique and special game that was different from all the other shooters on the market. It was simple, again, that's one of the reasons that made it special. There are lots of different valid arguments against sprint, but to me, this is the main reason I think sprint should go away from the game.

Of course, aside from that, I agree with everything else you say.

For the second guy I quoted, forums have always been a place where people argue. I'm thinking Halo's subreddit might be a better place, but also that have a bunch of people arguing.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation, as statistics-wise, the argument has no factual basis.
Dno the hundred odd people I used to play with going back to og Xbox live were pretty much all in agreenent , when reach came out it was an Exodus. The thing that came up when -Yoinking!- about it was AA. With halo 4 same thing l, we don't just hate sprint we hate any stupid gimmick. Get rid of thruster charge ground pound and sprint please
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
Sprint killed Halo. Absolutely killed it. Game cannot hold a population at all ever since sprint was introduced. It just doesn't fit and it fundamentally alters the game.
Game absolutely cannot hold a population since the elites changed design, since the DMR was introduced, since the magnum had a scope reintroduced, so are those reason's for Halo's fall as well?

Just saying sprint is the reason is pure speculation.
Just curious, how do the elites design, the DMR, and a magnum scope fundamentally alter the game?
We could argue the magnum scope does as you spawn with it in nearly every mode and always have. But in reality they don't. And nearly this whole thread is about whether or not sprint does.
My reply was intended to convey that sprint being the only or main reason for halos decline is speculation
Seems weird that having the scope reintroduced would all of a sudden be a bad thing after previous games with it had performed well. Regardless, if those things did have detrimental effects on the game then people would be discussing it. They don't, so they aren't. Sprint does, so they are.
*previous game. Before reintroduction only Halo 1 had it.
But again, point stands that there is no factual evidence that Sprint is the sole or main reason for Halo's decline
You go on and believe otherwise then. We'll be here looking at the common denominators throughout the games and determine the reason ourselves as it pertains to this topic.
Hey the two halos without a scoped magnum had the best player retention and one was the best selling Halo. Sure seems like a good common denominator to look at. Maybe they should bring back the Halo 2 magnum. :)
And this thread is the sprint discussion thread, so it'd be off topic to look at all the reasons the newer halos haven't been as successful. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. :)
But for this one, lets stick to the effects that sprint has on the game and not make any completely speculative claims that sprint is the main or sole reason for Halo's decline.
Bro your like a climate change deniar. You would rather defend it because you like it, rather than concede the truth. The community will never be big until it goes back. Do you think fans of any hardcore mp game would accept changes this big? Nope they would boycott it, which is what what we are doing. The game isn't halo anymore why don't you understand that, NOT HALO. I know I'm going to add roller skates and jetpacks to basketball, its only another movement option, its still basketball! Cue everybody stopping watching. Then people like you will say, people also stopped watching x y and z happened, so you have no proof its the skates or jetpacks ignoring the obvious truth.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
If I'm not mistaken, you are the first person in these 600 pages of this thread to properly systematically address some of the common arguments from the pro sprint side in a non-half-baked way. Kudos for making a meaningful contribution to this thread.
tsassi wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, you are the first person in these 600 pages of this thread to properly systematically address some of the common arguments from the pro sprint side in a non-half-baked way. Kudos for making a meaningful contribution to this thread.
Is it possible if I could copy and paste into its own thread, or are any sprint threads posted outside of here not allowed considering this is where we're supposed to talk about it? I just want to make sure that more people could get to see it and hopefully understand where I and many other people are coming from.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show

Err you miss the point entirely. It changes the map design and whole feel of the game. Games work without it, halo did. It's not halo anymore. No more tight small maps with intricate skill jumps. No more hard punish if you get caught in the open, no more skill based shortcuts, like narrows where players found jumps to get from top mid to man cannon. Now we have huuuuuge maps with a million corridors and escape routes. Its all been changed to accommodate sprint, to the point where it only looks like halo, a cheap plastic one at that. In terms of feel its nothing like halo. All you will do is post a response that does'nt answer what I brought up, if you bother at all. There was no need to change the game it was FINE. 343 tried to make it like other games no one wanted that so we all quit. Now it has sprint and 30,000 players woohoo its down to 10 percent of the players who would be on regular in 3.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 613
  4. 614
  5. 615
  6. 616
  7. 617
  8. ...
  9. 840