Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 628
  4. 629
  5. 630
  6. 631
  7. 632
  8. ...
  9. 829
Sprint is a much needed addition. It's a shame it wasn't there from the beginning. If you disagree, then fair enough. Opinions are likes -Yoinks!-, everybody has one.
No, it's not. Why is it a much needed addition? Could you explain? Can you imagine how terrible a mechanic like sprint would've been in a map like Wizard, Lockout or Guardian? If sprint was in Halo from the beginning, it would be something else.

Your comment clearly indicates that you've never touched any of the original older games, maybe only played in them in the MCC after Halo 5.
I've played Halo since the days of Halo CE. It's the sole reason I bought an original Xbox. Halo 3 was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. So don't give me that crap.

No wonder the community is so divided when people are unable to respect others opinions. Like all things, game franchises need to change, evolve, adapt to the changing market. As well as catering to new fans, from a business perspective (Microsoft and 343i are businesses, meaning their bottom line is money) then they also need to attract new players. if Halo didn't change, people would complain it's stagnant and every game "is the same". 343i won't be able to please everybody, as this thread clearly proves.

As to why i think it's much needed, it's because games such as Battlefield, SW Battlefront, CoD, Destiny, etc have sprint. It's become part of the FPS genre. Granted, not ever FPS has sprint, but the majority do. So, from a business perspective, it's needed to, again, potentially attract newcomers which pay them money, and thus they can fund sequels, prequels, and whatever else-quels to add to the Halo franchise, because none of us want them to stop making the games.

Not everyone will agree, and so be it. I don't expect everyone to agree. But at least stop being -Yoinks!- to people that don't agree with YOU.
How am I being a -Yoinks!- to anyone? I've said that your comment indicates that you've started with Halo 5, of course, this isn't necessarily true, however, it's safe to make such an assumption considering someone who would start with Halo 5 likely wouldn't think much about how adding sprint into to the previous titles would be a mess.

This is a discussion thread, it's fine to disagree with other people. If you're so sensitive about people disagreeing with you the don't come into a thread with 629 pages of people debating whether sprint should stay or go.

Game franchises don't need to change or evolve. This is an empty claim with no evidence. We saw what happened when Call of Duty decided to change/evolve. We saw what happened when Gears decided to change/evolve with Gears: Judgement. We saw what happened when DOOM decided to change/evolve with DOOM 3. Change and evolve are completely different terms. Change is when something becomes different, which is what's happening to Halo, meaning it's no longer Halo. Evolve is developing gradually from what something was, which Halo isn't doing as it's changing rather than developing. Adapt is a terrible buzz phrase. First off, Halo had modern elements for 7 years, adapting isn't the issue here. Secondly, there is no rule that Halo must follow market trends.

Halo is losing veterans more than it's gaining new fans. People will still play CoD over Halo. People will still play Battlefield over Halo. Imitating won't gain an audience from another franchise. Halo must be unique and different if it wants to gain an audience, making a game similar to CoD, for example, won't drive the CoD fans away from CoD.

Why do people constantly think that we want the game to be the same every time? That's not what we want. Why is fundamentally changing the game and adding sprint needed? A game that won't include sprint is the same game? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't want the same game every year, but I want Halo to be like Halo with new weapons, vehicles, maps, game modes, cool features and a couple of new gameplay elements. Halo had a perfect formula, 343i should've expanded and improved upon that formula.

So you're telling me that because other video games have sprint Halo must have it? No, it doesn't have to. DOOM and Overwatch don't have sprint. Halo must be unique, it doesn't have to be like CoD, Destiny, Battlefront or Battlefield. So sprint is the defining mechanic for attracting a new audience. Oh yeah, because people will only buy games with sprint, right? I doubt anyone really cares if sprint is in a game or not. I think making a complete, unique and awesome game has a bigger chance of attracting new audience than imitating other shooters and adding sprint.
Sprint is a much needed addition. It's a shame it wasn't there from the beginning. If you disagree, then fair enough. Opinions are likes -Yoinks!-, everybody has one.
No, it's not. Why is it a much needed addition? Could you explain? Can you imagine how terrible a mechanic like sprint would've been in a map like Wizard, Lockout or Guardian? If sprint was in Halo from the beginning, it would be something else.

Your comment clearly indicates that you've never touched any of the original older games, maybe only played in them in the MCC after Halo 5.
I've played Halo since the days of Halo CE. It's the sole reason I bought an original Xbox. Halo 3 was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. So don't give me that crap.

No wonder the community is so divided when people are unable to respect others opinions. Like all things, game franchises need to change, evolve, adapt to the changing market. As well as catering to new fans, from a business perspective (Microsoft and 343i are businesses, meaning their bottom line is money) then they also need to attract new players. if Halo didn't change, people would complain it's stagnant and every game "is the same". 343i won't be able to please everybody, as this thread clearly proves.

As to why i think it's much needed, it's because games such as Battlefield, SW Battlefront, CoD, Destiny, etc have sprint. It's become part of the FPS genre. Granted, not ever FPS has sprint, but the majority do. So, from a business perspective, it's needed to, again, potentially attract newcomers which pay them money, and thus they can fund sequels, prequels, and whatever else-quels to add to the Halo franchise, because none of us want them to stop making the games.

Not everyone will agree, and so be it. I don't expect everyone to agree. But at least stop being -Yoinks!- to people that don't agree with YOU.
If money is the issue why did they back off a formula that takes in 12 million copies sold with h3 only to now sell 5 million with h5? Halo has regressed every way possible and you think they're doing it cause of money? A smart business perspective would've been to stick to the roots that never even had a chance to get stale or outdated, not -Yoink- over your franchise that has had nothing going for it for 6+years and counting. I'm waiting for this "evolution!" To show itself cuz I don't see it.
A6ENT C wrote:
.
I've played Halo since the days of Halo CE. It's the sole reason I bought an original Xbox. Halo 3 was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. So don't give me that crap.

No wonder the community is so divided when people are unable to respect others opinions. Like all things, game franchises need to change, evolve, adapt to the changing market. As well as catering to new fans, from a business perspective (Microsoft and 343i are businesses, meaning their bottom line is money) then they also need to attract new players. if Halo didn't change, people would complain it's stagnant and every game "is the same". 343i won't be able to please everybody, as this thread clearly proves.

As to why i think it's much needed, it's because games such as Battlefield, SW Battlefront, CoD, Destiny, etc have sprint. It's become part of the FPS genre. Granted, not ever FPS has sprint, but the majority do. So, from a business perspective, it's needed to, again, potentially attract newcomers which pay them money, and thus they can fund sequels, prequels, and whatever else-quels to add to the Halo franchise, because none of us want them to stop making the games.

Not everyone will agree, and so be it. I don't expect everyone to agree. But at least stop being -Yoinks!- to people that don't agree with YOU.
I didn't play Halo until H2 in '04, didn't play online MP until 2012. Halo 4's approaching release was what convinced me to get Gold. I haven't been around since the beginning, yet I think Halo's had some serious missteps since the original (with sprint being one of the largest).

You say that everyone's opinions are valid and are to be respected (a notion that I can at least partially agree with), so I'd like to give you my opinion and get a response other than "Its fine that you think that". I'd genuinely like to hear what you have to say.

Earlier, you said that sprint was "a much needed addition" and should've been there since CE, later reinforcing that claim by stating that all things have to change/evolve/adapt. I have two thoughts on that line of thinking:
  1. If sprint should've been in CE and the franchise must change over time, wouldn't its removal be justified in one of its sequels? Would you honestly oppose its removal or welcome it?
  2. Why do you think adding a sprint mechanic was necessary/beneficial? Acknowledging that the gameplay needed to be changed in some regards to justify further entries in the franchise, why would a sprint mechanic be one of the better concepts to add/alter? Why not try to give players more novel/memorable experiences instead of making their Halo experiences more similar to what they can experience elsewhere?
In the above quote, you say that the addition is justified because [insert FPS title] has it. You claim that having a mechanic that other games in the same broad genre already have will attract newcomers, but does it ring true? I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't buy a game because of its similarities to other games. On the contrary, I'd only see a reason to purchase a game that appeals to my tastes and offers something that I cannot get from a game I already own. On the flip side, if I liked a game because it offered something I couldn't experience elsewhere... I'd be pretty ticked that its sequel was going to drop/teak that experience to be more in-line with those of other games'.

For me, the problem isn't solely that sprint was added to Halo. I take issue with why it was added: shameless mimicry of other popular games despite the differences between those games and Halo. Couple that with how the mechanic doesn't play well with a tenet of Halo's established and loved gameplay. In the original trilogy, independent movement and combat options never opposed one another before sprint's inclusion. Players were not only able to make full use of both simultaneously, but were able to make the most of those freedoms. Sprint (and other changes made for the same/wrong reasons) tarnishes that... and makes the game less enjoyable for me.
To answer 1. Removal of sprint would be representive of degression; a game going backwards to potentially please hardcore/classic fans wouldn't do 343i any good, as it would lead, potentially to yet another decrease in players, or at the very least possibly stop attracting newcomers. Casual gamers are usually a bit more shallow and less picky. People prefer games to be similar, as they don't necessarily need to learn new things to play the game. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but the last thing a company wants to do is put customers off if they feel a game is inaccessable.

As for 2., sprint alone isn't necessarily enough of a change. It's needed, as I said, foir them to remain competitive in the market, but it also gives the players that want that "real soldier" experience (I know it's a sci-fi game in the far future, but at it's core it's military based, all set during a war, or series of wars) and there are people that want that. A soldier that can't sprint tends to get themselves killed pretty quickly on the battlefield.

From a personal perspective, I find sprint very useful. I use it to avoid enemy fire, to get to the objective quicker, to move to cover as soon as possible, and to get the drop on enemies.

I can see why people don't like it, I played Halo 3 multiplayer a hell of a lot on the 360, so I have played Halo without a sprint function. I find going back and playing the older games does now feel slower. Halo does need innovation, it does need features, weapons, characters, etc that make it different from other games, but at the same time, it needs to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
A6ENT C wrote:
.
I've played Halo since the days of Halo CE. It's the sole reason I bought an original Xbox. Halo 3 was the reason I bought an Xbox 360. So don't give me that crap.

No wonder the community is so divided when people are unable to respect others opinions. Like all things, game franchises need to change, evolve, adapt to the changing market. As well as catering to new fans, from a business perspective (Microsoft and 343i are businesses, meaning their bottom line is money) then they also need to attract new players. if Halo didn't change, people would complain it's stagnant and every game "is the same". 343i won't be able to please everybody, as this thread clearly proves.

As to why i think it's much needed, it's because games such as Battlefield, SW Battlefront, CoD, Destiny, etc have sprint. It's become part of the FPS genre. Granted, not ever FPS has sprint, but the majority do. So, from a business perspective, it's needed to, again, potentially attract newcomers which pay them money, and thus they can fund sequels, prequels, and whatever else-quels to add to the Halo franchise, because none of us want them to stop making the games.

Not everyone will agree, and so be it. I don't expect everyone to agree. But at least stop being -Yoinks!- to people that don't agree with YOU.
I didn't play Halo until H2 in '04, didn't play online MP until 2012. Halo 4's approaching release was what convinced me to get Gold. I haven't been around since the beginning, yet I think Halo's had some serious missteps since the original (with sprint being one of the largest).

You say that everyone's opinions are valid and are to be respected (a notion that I can at least partially agree with), so I'd like to give you my opinion and get a response other than "Its fine that you think that". I'd genuinely like to hear what you have to say.

Earlier, you said that sprint was "a much needed addition" and should've been there since CE, later reinforcing that claim by stating that all things have to change/evolve/adapt. I have two thoughts on that line of thinking:
  1. If sprint should've been in CE and the franchise must change over time, wouldn't its removal be justified in one of its sequels? Would you honestly oppose its removal or welcome it?
  2. Why do you think adding a sprint mechanic was necessary/beneficial? Acknowledging that the gameplay needed to be changed in some regards to justify further entries in the franchise, why would a sprint mechanic be one of the better concepts to add/alter? Why not try to give players more novel/memorable experiences instead of making their Halo experiences more similar to what they can experience elsewhere?
In the above quote, you say that the addition is justified because [insert FPS title] has it. You claim that having a mechanic that other games in the same broad genre already have will attract newcomers, but does it ring true? I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't buy a game because of its similarities to other games. On the contrary, I'd only see a reason to purchase a game that appeals to my tastes and offers something that I cannot get from a game I already own. On the flip side, if I liked a game because it offered something I couldn't experience elsewhere... I'd be pretty ticked that its sequel was going to drop/teak that experience to be more in-line with those of other games'.

For me, the problem isn't solely that sprint was added to Halo. I take issue with why it was added: shameless mimicry of other popular games despite the differences between those games and Halo. Couple that with how the mechanic doesn't play well with a tenet of Halo's established and loved gameplay. In the original trilogy, independent movement and combat options never opposed one another before sprint's inclusion. Players were not only able to make full use of both simultaneously, but were able to make the most of those freedoms. Sprint (and other changes made for the same/wrong reasons) tarnishes that... and makes the game less enjoyable for me.
To answer 1. Removal of sprint would be representive of degression; a game going backwards to potentially please hardcore/classic fans wouldn't do 343i any good, as it would lead, potentially to yet another decrease in players, or at the very least possibly stop attracting newcomers. Casual gamers are usually a bit more shallow and less picky. People prefer games to be similar, as they don't necessarily need to learn new things to play the game. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but the last thing a company wants to do is put customers off if they feel a game is inaccessable.

As for 2., sprint alone isn't necessarily enough of a change. It's needed, as I said, foir them to remain competitive in the market, but it also gives the players that want that "real soldier" experience (I know it's a sci-fi game in the far future, but at it's core it's military based, all set during a war, or series of wars) and there are people that want that. A soldier that can't sprint tends to get themselves killed pretty quickly on the battlefield.

From a personal perspective, I find sprint very useful. I use it to avoid enemy fire, to get to the objective quicker, to move to cover as soon as possible, and to get the drop on enemies.

I can see why people don't like it, I played Halo 3 multiplayer a hell of a lot on the 360, so I have played Halo without a sprint function. I find going back and playing the older games does now feel slower. Halo does need innovation, it does need features, weapons, characters, etc that make it different from other games, but at the same time, it needs to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
I don't think it needs to be accessible, overwatch had no problem bringing people in and it has no sprint. It doesn't matter why you find sprint useful it doesn't fit the game. You should have to put your head down and strafe to get away, show map knowledge that you can navigate with your head down. You should have to learn skill based crouch jumps and chained jumps with high learning curves to get to objectives. This game was not for little wieners lol. Halo 5 is a bland bore fest with none of the things I liked about 1-3. Literally none, you don't have to strafe just hit the thrust button when you are are bout to go to one shot. Or you jump one way and thrust the other way.... wow it's not like that doesn't happen every single br battle. Where are the left left right left strafe mix ups and ghandi hopping movement that made halo good? I know let's make it son fully autos are overpowered beyond belief, so you get instant killed by an smg.
A6ENT C wrote:
.
To answer 1. Removal of sprint would be representive of degression; a game going backwards to potentially please hardcore/classic fans wouldn't do 343i any good, as it would lead, potentially to yet another decrease in players, or at the very least possibly stop attracting newcomers. Casual gamers are usually a bit more shallow and less picky. People prefer games to be similar, as they don't necessarily need to learn new things to play the game. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but the last thing a company wants to do is put customers off if they feel a game is inaccessable.
Objectively, how would it be a regression in terms of game design? What about having to lower your weapon and restricting movement to the forward direction to go at full speed is "progressive"? You say that removing sprint at this point wouldn't do any good, but what good has introducing sprint done for Halo? Despite all the changes made to make Halo more like other FPS games, none of the "new" Halo games have sold as well or maintained as healthy a population as H3.

You could argue that the downward trend would've happened regardless, but you have nothing to back that claim. How many newcomers do you think were sold on Halo due to the changes introduced since the original trilogy? How many do you think left Halo due in part to those changes? To clarify, I'm not saying sprint alone caused the decline in sales/player retention, but that its likely one of the bigger factors at play.

As for your impression of gamers in general, I don't agree but feel that going into detail will be off-topic and long-winded, so I'll leave it at that.
Quote:
As for 2., sprint alone isn't necessarily enough of a change. It's needed, as I said, foir them to remain competitive in the market, but it also gives the players that want that "real soldier" experience (I know it's a sci-fi game in the far future, but at it's core it's military based, all set during a war, or series of wars) and there are people that want that. A soldier that can't sprint tends to get themselves killed pretty quickly on the battlefield.
There have been a few FPS games this year that achieved critical acclaim without sprint. Given examples like DOOM and Overwatch, how can you say a mechanic neither have is needed?

So having war-scale conflict in terms of story/setting means that it has to use many of the same gameplay mechanics as a "modern soldier" FPS? Why?

As for "a soldier that can't sprint tends to get themselves killed", a soldier that can move at max speed and maintain full combat efficiency tends to outperform one that has to compromise that efficiency to keep up. If the argument is that players moved too slowly in the original trilogy, why isn't a faster movement speed a better solution than sprint?
Quote:
From a personal perspective, I find sprint very useful. I use it to avoid enemy fire, to get to the objective quicker, to move to cover as soon as possible, and to get the drop on enemies.
Using sprint, you can avoid enemy fire in situations where the devs allow that to be possible. Likewise, you get to the objective only as quickly as the devs make possible. The cover on the map has been placed by the devs considering how fast you can move between them. You aren't able to do these things any better/more quickly because of sprint than you would be if sprint were absent and the distances between cover/objectives were shortened.

You don't gain anything from having sprint in the game; you just gain the advantages you mentioned from using it in a game that has it as an option (as in, when the map layouts, kill-times, etc. have taken its inclusion and effects into account).
As for all the claims that sprint's inclusion makes the game more accessible, I can't help but wonder how it does so and why so much stock is put in "accessibility".

If making the game accessible is more important than making it fun or unique and the best way to make a game accessible is to mimic other games that are more relevant in today's market... why not remove shields, make melee a one-hit kill, and force players to slow down when zoomed?

Rather than making a game accessible by making it more like other games, why not just incorporate intuitive controls and perhaps a solid tutorial?
GED2208 wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
MCCesus 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.
None of those things fundementally changed gameplay and map design.
Either way. Its still speculation. There's no hard evidence of sprint being the cause of Halo's decline
There's no evidence saying it isn't.
If you look at the sales for halo reach they are the second highest in the franchise, and someone posted the stats for how long reachs population lasted which was the 2nd or 3rd longest in the series. Reach had sprint and i could argue that it was successful as a halo game. There are many reasons why halo is no longer selling 9 million plus copies one being that the FPS genre has shifted, the gaming market has changed by being more competitive, the xbox one not selling as many copies and sprint may play a factor in their sale numbers. Sprint is part of the sales problem but is not the main reason for low sales.
Reach dropped to 7th place on the xbl charts a couple months after release. It took a nose dive. Being 3rd means little when HCE had no online and h3/3 are miles ahead of everything else. Reach sold well off the coattails of h3.

Competition has hardly raised. The xb1 is outselling the 360. The xb1 does have RROD. The attach rate to xbl is higher than ever.

You're are factually incorrect on practically every point you made.
So you made no reference to how your numbers affected sprint which was the premise of my point. Here are a couple of facts, reach's population had 400,000 minimum playing until 2012. Thats two years after its release date. You mentioned that reach dropped to 7th place on xbl. I would argue that that doesnt mean much considering the population was still high and if you compare reach's numbers to halo 3 numbers of june a year after their release the population was very similar. I would also add that 7th place on the xbl doesnt mean much because in 2011 COD modern warfare 3 released selling over 14 million copies. This is would explain that drop to 7th place.

You said that competition has hardly changed, this couldn't be more wrong. Any COD game sold before 2006 sold less than 3 million copies, while after this period it sold upwards of 5 million and as high as 14 million. Coincidentally 2006 is the same time COD brought in regenerative health which they got from halo. Combine those sell numbers with battlefield with it's last two game 3, 4 which sold over 7 million in 2011 before this time they only sold around 2 million. This increase in sales of other games could mean that population for other games dont last as long. So my point is that competition has certainly changed for halo, other games have become successful.

And to say i was factually incorrect about reach being the 2nd best selling and 2nd best at holding the population was WRONG.

My point in the previous thread was that some people are saying that sprint is the cause of sell numbers, while i dont disagree with this (because obviously people dont like sprint which is apparent in the thread) it cannot be said that sell numbers are entirely due to sprint.
Where is your proof of these claims? I know that they are pretty much all incorrect so you're going to have to prove it.

Franchises that have existed just as long or longer than halo growing is not increased competition. That is just halo starting to lose vs the same competition.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69vf4Yf74CqUE1UemxVdGFfWDg/view
and the game sales was from Vgcharts.
Did you even read it lol?

It clearly states h2 had the best player retention, followed by 3.
Correct and i was never arguing that point. If i can paraphrase you from before "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". Thats what you said, and that is what im replying to. I am arguing that sprint didnt kill halo and that there is a fundemental change in consumers for the console. And H2 did have the best player retention then H3 then reach thanks for making my point.
Look at my link provided above. Just before reach's launch h3 was still holding million+ daily populations, 200,000 concurrent, and 2nd place on xbl charts. According to major Nelson h3 was xbl's most played game in 07, 08 AND 09. This game faced off against MW2, BF, Fallout, etc, etc. All the same franchises reach did. Reach launched and within a matter of MONTHS halo's population had halfed.

You're going to sit here and tell me that's because of a "market shift"? The entire market shifted in a matter of months even though no new franchises were introduced?

Riiiiiiiight
Okay first off... Millions of people are not playing Halo 5. It's #20 on "most played" xbox games list in the store.
It's right behind Borderlands 2 (2012)...
And don't you get it? Look at this thread! Look how big it is! 630 PAGES!
People are literally complaining ALL THE TIME. There are new threads daily about this. And have been since 2010 when Reach launched.

If you like sprint, too bad! Halo does not need it, and If you think it's unfair to remove it, think about the original fan-base who have been forced with it!
I can't believe this is still a topic.
Higher BMS is perfect. I don't care how fast I'm going, I just don't want to have to click a button and stop shooting to do it!
Never said millions of people were playing halo 5, never stated that halo 5 had a high population on xbox live. And ive been on this thread since almost the start and i see a few of the same people commenting me included (FairHades35, Obi wan, and others). This hardly shows there a lot of people complaining. So i am from the original fan base buddy since CE system linking with my friends who by the way dont play halo anymore and not because of sprint.
And clearly you havent read the previous comments of mine, i was not against sprint, in fact having a higher BMS or FOV would be good to see, do i like sprint in halo 5 yes, do i like the maps from a gameplay and replay ability yes. Do i think thrust is good in halo yes and i think it would work well with a BMS or FOV.
The point im making is that halos popularity cannot be completely pointed towards sprint, there are other factors. I am just curious to know what you wouldve added to make a new halo?
What are you?
You said "millions" of people would be complaining, so you're wrong.
You said "hundreds of thousands" of people would be complaining about sprint, so again, you're wrong.
I noted the population because you said those two statements, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.
You played Halo since CE? GOOD FOR YOU! SO HAVE I!
How many times can I present the negative aspects of sprint or these mechanics, only to be ignored by ignorant people like you who just
end up saying "I LIKE IT"
I couldn't care less if you do or not, that doesn't mean it's good for the game. Not because I don't like it, but because
it introduces REAL complications in the gameplay. Stop dismissing those things just cause you like it. You can have Halo 5. I want a REAL Halo game.
GED2208 wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
MCCesus 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.
None of those things fundementally changed gameplay and map design.
Either way. Its still speculation. There's no hard evidence of sprint being the cause of Halo's decline
There's no evidence saying it isn't.
If you look at the sales for halo reach they are the second highest in the franchise, and someone posted the stats for how long reachs population lasted which was the 2nd or 3rd longest in the series. Reach had sprint and i could argue that it was successful as a halo game. There are many reasons why halo is no longer selling 9 million plus copies one being that the FPS genre has shifted, the gaming market has changed by being more competitive, the xbox one not selling as many copies and sprint may play a factor in their sale numbers. Sprint is part of the sales problem but is not the main reason for low sales.
Reach dropped to 7th place on the xbl charts a couple months after release. It took a nose dive. Being 3rd means little when HCE had no online and h3/3 are miles ahead of everything else. Reach sold well off the coattails of h3.

Competition has hardly raised. The xb1 is outselling the 360. The xb1 does have RROD. The attach rate to xbl is higher than ever.

You're are factually incorrect on practically every point you made.
So you made no reference to how your numbers affected sprint which was the premise of my point. Here are a couple of facts, reach's population had 400,000 minimum playing until 2012. Thats two years after its release date. You mentioned that reach dropped to 7th place on xbl. I would argue that that doesnt mean much considering the population was still high and if you compare reach's numbers to halo 3 numbers of june a year after their release the population was very similar. I would also add that 7th place on the xbl doesnt mean much because in 2011 COD modern warfare 3 released selling over 14 million copies. This is would explain that drop to 7th place.

You said that competition has hardly changed, this couldn't be more wrong. Any COD game sold before 2006 sold less than 3 million copies, while after this period it sold upwards of 5 million and as high as 14 million. Coincidentally 2006 is the same time COD brought in regenerative health which they got from halo. Combine those sell numbers with battlefield with it's last two game 3, 4 which sold over 7 million in 2011 before this time they only sold around 2 million. This increase in sales of other games could mean that population for other games dont last as long. So my point is that competition has certainly changed for halo, other games have become successful.

And to say i was factually incorrect about reach being the 2nd best selling and 2nd best at holding the population was WRONG.

My point in the previous thread was that some people are saying that sprint is the cause of sell numbers, while i dont disagree with this (because obviously people dont like sprint which is apparent in the thread) it cannot be said that sell numbers are entirely due to sprint.
Where is your proof of these claims? I know that they are pretty much all incorrect so you're going to have to prove it.

Franchises that have existed just as long or longer than halo growing is not increased competition. That is just halo starting to lose vs the same competition.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69vf4Yf74CqUE1UemxVdGFfWDg/view
and the game sales was from Vgcharts.
Did you even read it lol?

It clearly states h2 had the best player retention, followed by 3.
Correct and i was never arguing that point. If i can paraphrase you from before "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". Thats what you said, and that is what im replying to. I am arguing that sprint didnt kill halo and that there is a fundemental change in consumers for the console. And H2 did have the best player retention then H3 then reach thanks for making my point.
Look at my link provided above. Just before reach's launch h3 was still holding million+ daily populations, 200,000 concurrent, and 2nd place on xbl charts. According to major Nelson h3 was xbl's most played game in 07, 08 AND 09. This game faced off against MW2, BF, Fallout, etc, etc. All the same franchises reach did. Reach launched and within a matter of MONTHS halo's population had halfed.

You're going to sit here and tell me that's because of a "market shift"? The entire market shifted in a matter of months even though no new franchises were introduced?

Riiiiiiiight
What are you?
You said "millions" of people would be complaining, so you're wrong.
You said "hundreds of thousands" of people would be complaining about sprint, so again, you're wrong.
I noted the population because you said those two statements, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.
You played Halo since CE? GOOD FOR YOU! SO HAVE I!
How many times can I present the negative aspects of sprint or these mechanics, only to be ignored by ignorant people like you who just
end up saying "I LIKE IT"
I couldn't care less if you do or not, that doesn't mean it's good for the game. Not because I don't like it, but because
it introduces REAL complications in the gameplay. Stop dismissing those things just cause you like it. You can have Halo 5. I want a REAL Halo game.
Show me where millions of people are complaining about Halo's sprint...and in your previous statement you said think about the original fan base i am from the original fan base. And i didnt dismiss your view, again have a look at my previous comment i would like an increase in the BMS or FOV.
You can present your view as much as you like and say how much sprint killed halo but you would be wrong, does sprinting create problems yes i never said it didnt, but does halo 5 have solid gameplay yes which means sprint is not the be all and end all. What you should be asking for is a classic playlist with forged maps that are almost unlimited because having unlimited content and a community is what keeps people playing not whether or not a game has sprint or doesnt.
GED2208 wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
GED2208 wrote:
MCCesus wrote:
MCCesus 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.
None of those things fundementally changed gameplay and map design.
Either way. Its still speculation. There's no hard evidence of sprint being the cause of Halo's decline
There's no evidence saying it isn't.
If you look at the sales for halo reach they are the second highest in the franchise, and someone posted the stats for how long reachs population lasted which was the 2nd or 3rd longest in the series. Reach had sprint and i could argue that it was successful as a halo game. There are many reasons why halo is no longer selling 9 million plus copies one being that the FPS genre has shifted, the gaming market has changed by being more competitive, the xbox one not selling as many copies and sprint may play a factor in their sale numbers. Sprint is part of the sales problem but is not the main reason for low sales.
Reach dropped to 7th place on the xbl charts a couple months after release. It took a nose dive. Being 3rd means little when HCE had no online and h3/3 are miles ahead of everything else. Reach sold well off the coattails of h3.

Competition has hardly raised. The xb1 is outselling the 360. The xb1 does have RROD. The attach rate to xbl is higher than ever.

You're are factually incorrect on practically every point you made.
So you made no reference to how your numbers affected sprint which was the premise of my point. Here are a couple of facts, reach's population had 400,000 minimum playing until 2012. Thats two years after its release date. You mentioned that reach dropped to 7th place on xbl. I would argue that that doesnt mean much considering the population was still high and if you compare reach's numbers to halo 3 numbers of june a year after their release the population was very similar. I would also add that 7th place on the xbl doesnt mean much because in 2011 COD modern warfare 3 released selling over 14 million copies. This is would explain that drop to 7th place.

You said that competition has hardly changed, this couldn't be more wrong. Any COD game sold before 2006 sold less than 3 million copies, while after this period it sold upwards of 5 million and as high as 14 million. Coincidentally 2006 is the same time COD brought in regenerative health which they got from halo. Combine those sell numbers with battlefield with it's last two game 3, 4 which sold over 7 million in 2011 before this time they only sold around 2 million. This increase in sales of other games could mean that population for other games dont last as long. So my point is that competition has certainly changed for halo, other games have become successful.

And to say i was factually incorrect about reach being the 2nd best selling and 2nd best at holding the population was WRONG.

My point in the previous thread was that some people are saying that sprint is the cause of sell numbers, while i dont disagree with this (because obviously people dont like sprint which is apparent in the thread) it cannot be said that sell numbers are entirely due to sprint.
Where is your proof of these claims? I know that they are pretty much all incorrect so you're going to have to prove it.

Franchises that have existed just as long or longer than halo growing is not increased competition. That is just halo starting to lose vs the same competition.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69vf4Yf74CqUE1UemxVdGFfWDg/view
and the game sales was from Vgcharts.
Did you even read it lol?

It clearly states h2 had the best player retention, followed by 3.
Correct and i was never arguing that point. If i can paraphrase you from before "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". Thats what you said, and that is what im replying to. I am arguing that sprint didnt kill halo and that there is a fundemental change in consumers for the console. And H2 did have the best player retention then H3 then reach thanks for making my point.
Look at my link provided above. Just before reach's launch h3 was still holding million+ daily populations, 200,000 concurrent, and 2nd place on xbl charts. According to major Nelson h3 was xbl's most played game in 07, 08 AND 09. This game faced off against MW2, BF, Fallout, etc, etc. All the same franchises reach did. Reach launched and within a matter of MONTHS halo's population had halfed.

You're going to sit here and tell me that's because of a "market shift"? The entire market shifted in a matter of months even though no new franchises were introduced?

Riiiiiiiight
What are you?
You said "millions" of people would be complaining, so you're wrong.
You said "hundreds of thousands" of people would be complaining about sprint, so again, you're wrong.
I noted the population because you said those two statements, so I have no idea what you're trying to say.
You played Halo since CE? GOOD FOR YOU! SO HAVE I!
How many times can I present the negative aspects of sprint or these mechanics, only to be ignored by ignorant people like you who just
end up saying "I LIKE IT"
I couldn't care less if you do or not, that doesn't mean it's good for the game. Not because I don't like it, but because
it introduces REAL complications in the gameplay. Stop dismissing those things just cause you like it. You can have Halo 5. I want a REAL Halo game.
Show me where millions of people are complaining about Halo's sprint...and in your previous statement you said think about the original fan base i am from the original fan base. And i didnt dismiss your view, again have a look at my previous comment i would like an increase in the BMS or FOV.
You can present your view as much as you like and say how much sprint killed halo but you would be wrong, does sprinting create problems yes i never said it didnt, but does halo 5 have solid gameplay yes which means sprint is not the be all and end all. What you should be asking for is a classic playlist with forged maps that are almost unlimited because having unlimited content and a community is what keeps people playing not whether or not a game has sprint or doesnt.
Sprint IS one reason out of many Halo is less popular/less played.One of many once again
Just putting this out there, it's not too factual but it's just something I noticed. I was on YouTube watching some old halo videos, various music, game plays, stuff like that, I probably watched about twenty videos. The amount of comments made within the last six months complaining about what modern halo has become is astonishing, the fan base is there, many of them don't play halo or go on this site, but they are most definitely still gaming, and they are there, wanting the classic halo games that they know and love. All it would take is one good classic game backed with a good advertising campaign to get out there to people, some commercials, posters at gamestops, let them know that what they want is coming, a classic halo game, and they will come. Most of them aren't on this website since they don't play the game anymore, so they won't be voting in polls or posting their opinions in this thread. But they are out there, build it and they will come.
Just putting this out there, it's not too factual but it's just something I noticed. I was on YouTube watching some old halo videos, various music, game plays, stuff like that, I probably watched about twenty videos. The amount of comments made within the last six months complaining about what modern halo has become is astonishing, the fan base is there, many of them don't play halo or go on this site, but they are most definitely still gaming, and they are there, wanting the classic halo games that they know and love. All it would take is one good classic game backed with a good advertising campaign to get out there to people, some commercials, posters at gamestops, let them know that what they want is coming, a classic halo game, and they will come. Most of them aren't on this website since they don't play the game anymore, so they won't be voting in polls or posting their opinions in this thread. But they are out there, build it and they will come.
true
Just putting this out there, it's not too factual but it's just something I noticed. I was on YouTube watching some old halo videos, various music, game plays, stuff like that, I probably watched about twenty videos. The amount of comments made within the last six months complaining about what modern halo has become is astonishing, the fan base is there, many of them don't play halo or go on this site, but they are most definitely still gaming, and they are there, wanting the classic halo games that they know and love. All it would take is one good classic game backed with a good advertising campaign to get out there to people, some commercials, posters at gamestops, let them know that what they want is coming, a classic halo game, and they will come. Most of them aren't on this website since they don't play the game anymore, so they won't be voting in polls or posting their opinions in this thread. But they are out there, build it and they will come.
This is why I've been saying that they should do a spinoff with full multiplayer.
Just putting this out there, it's not too factual but it's just something I noticed. I was on YouTube watching some old halo videos, various music, game plays, stuff like that, I probably watched about twenty videos. The amount of comments made within the last six months complaining about what modern halo has become is astonishing, the fan base is there, many of them don't play halo or go on this site, but they are most definitely still gaming, and they are there, wanting the classic halo games that they know and love. All it would take is one good classic game backed with a good advertising campaign to get out there to people, some commercials, posters at gamestops, let them know that what they want is coming, a classic halo game, and they will come. Most of them aren't on this website since they don't play the game anymore, so they won't be voting in polls or posting their opinions in this thread. But they are out there, build it and they will come.
This is why I pushed for a Halo 3A. Done right of course.

The 343i fans, and maybe 343i themselves, have convinced themselves beyond all doubt that modern Halo is the only way Halo can survive. I don't think they've really experienced or been open to the amount of players that actually enjoyed Classic Halo and would jump at the chance to play a new game that follows that design.

You know it's funny, because Halo 4, MCC and Halo 5 were all advertised with pretty much the tagline of "a return to Halo's roots", and then the games were bought and abandoned when it turned out that wasn't the case. Even Halo Online got huge attention because it used the Halo 3 engine. Yet we are still under the delusion that the Classic fanbase isn't there anymore.

Something I've talked about before though is my concern that with 343i constantly playing on our hopes for a Classic Halo that by the time they decide to do it right, either through a new game or a fully working remaster of Halo 3, that the fanbase will be so sceptical that they won't buy it at launch, if at all. I think 343i are aware of what they've done too, which is why we are still on the fence on whether they are going to do a Halo 3A.

They kept pushing away the classic players and constantly doing polls about sprint until the old players were gone and all that was left were those who enjoyed sprint.

343i are literally creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where a Classic Halo wont have a community and wont be a viable direction for the franchise.
H3a would be a good start, but remasters don't bring in nearly as much attention or sales as a new game.
The inclusion of sprint has hands down increased the play ability of this game, and broke open a stale game-play in just the right way. Didn't add to much in one shot.
Quote:
The inclusion of sprint has hands down increased the play ability of this game, and broke open a stale game-play in just the right way. Didn't add to much in one shot.
"Increased the playability"? Is that why 343i's population claims say that it's got the healthiest population since Halo 3? Y'know... the last Halo game with multiplayer that didn't have sprint.
Quote:
The inclusion of sprint has hands down increased the play ability of this game, and broke open a stale game-play in just the right way. Didn't add to much in one shot.
Of course it's just my opinion but Halo was much better knowing that everyone is moving at the same speed. I thought this "stale" game-play brought some of the most intense matches in my gaming memory.
Quote:
The inclusion of sprint has hands down increased the play ability of this game, and broke open a stale game-play in just the right way. Didn't add to much in one shot.
When did halo ever get stale? It was at its PEAK in every category imaginable and bungie pulled a 180 out of no where changing stuff that wasn't stale, wasn't complained about, the list goes on. What's even better is you act like the inclusion of abilities to these newer games helped the franchise when it has actually regressed game by game by game.......so what the hell was "broke open"?!?! I've said it to others, if halo were actually growing along with these changes, you'd have more merit to what you're saying, but when it's declining in every way possible there is no justification to it and that shows halo really never had to "change" or that it was getting "stale".

seriously, why do you people say it had to change? Or that it was for the better? When clearly it wasn't for the better as halo is regressing instead of PROGRESSING!

This post has been hidden.

0
Quote:
Quote:
The inclusion of sprint has hands down increased the play ability of this game, and broke open a stale game-play in just the right way. Didn't add to much in one shot.
When did halo ever get stale? It was at its PEAK in every category imaginable and bungie pulled a 180 out of no where changing stuff that wasn't stale, wasn't complained about, the list goes on. What's even better is you act like the inclusion of abilities to these newer games helped the franchise when it has actually regressed game by game by game.......so what the hell was "broke open"?!?! I've said it to others, if halo were actually growing along with these changes, you'd have more merit to what you're saying, but when it's declining in every way possible there is no justification to it and that shows halo really never had to "change" or that it was getting "stale".

seriously, why do you people say it had to change? Or that it was for the better? When clearly it wasn't for the better as halo is regressing instead of PROGRESSING!
I played all the Halos and can say that CE through even Reach, I felt each title change and evolve in some way and good or bad, the changes at least felt like a natural attempt to move forward. Nothing felt "stale" to me and it didn't feel like sprint broke open anything other than a can of worms, which it certainly did not do in the right way unless it was intended to have each side of the fence at each others' throats like few other additions. IMO it was little more than just a lateral movement (see what I did there)... added 'cuz everyone else does it'. It's not about adding too much in one shot, it's about how what's added changes game play. Not saying that you can't add too much in one shot, or that game play can't change too much as a result... IMO H5 is proof of that.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 628
  4. 629
  5. 630
  6. 631
  7. 632
  8. ...
  9. 829