Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 650
  4. 651
  5. 652
  6. 653
  7. 654
  8. ...
  9. 830
It is not only in Halo, other games like Call of Duty and Destiny have sprint as well. Sprint has become an essential mechanic for not just multiplayer, but for the campaign as well. But if you don't want to sprint, for the fear of running into the enemy, or just plain lame, then simply just walk. You don't have to complain of a mechanic that is in the way of you playing the game or a mechanic that is not really useful or beneficial for a few people.
It is not only in Halo, other games like Call of Duty and Destiny have sprint as well. Sprint has become an essential mechanic for not just multiplayer, but for the campaign as well. But if you don't want to sprint, for the fear of running into the enemy, or just plain lame, then simply just walk. You don't have to complain of a mechanic that is in the way of you playing the game or a mechanic that is not really useful or beneficial for a few people.
Urghhhh, I'm sorry but this kind of argument grinds my gears.....

Call of Duty and Destiny are both twitch shooters, with low TTK's, fast movement and quick reaction times....
Halo is an arena shooter with high TTK's (for FPS's), slower movement and map control.....

It is in no way shape or form ESSENTIAL.....it adds nothing that a higher BMS couldn't do, and has hugely negative impacts on gameplay and map design.
tsassi wrote:
U haven't even played 5
Fantastic detective work. You are the first person to point that out in the year that Halo 5 has been around, have a trophy.

Actually, it's not entirely true that I haven't played Halo 5. When it came out I tried playing the campaign to gauge whether the game was worth paying a bunch of money every year to buy XBL Gold. It wasn't, hence I never played a match of Halo 5 multiplayer until Halo 5 Forge came out. Either way, I gave Halo 5 a chance, and deemed it not worth spending any more money on.
So everything you have been speaking of is complete hypothetical.
You've wasted my time, and that of anyone reading.
People like you are the sole reason the game is in a poor state.
Why are you defending mechanics of a game you have not played, let alone competitively...?

What a damn joke.
Don't remember seeing this thread, or remember if I commented. Saw the first first comments.. why remove Sprint, when you have the option to use it. It worked fine in Reach, and it works fine now.
I agree with that, but there's more pressing issues about sprint than just being an option for players.
The most important issue is the map design. What used to be semi-open, circular maps, are now replaced by maps that rely on lanes and have way too many places to break the line of sights. Because of this, there's less interaction between players than there should be, causing dull "where is everyone" moments in gameplay, if you're not communicating with the team. Sprint gives the perception of faster movement, and it does (only in the short term), but the map design changed the game so that the pace is practically the same, if not slower, than Halo previously was. The default Slayer settings, for both Custom Games and matchmaking, are still the same as it was pre-Reach.

tsassi can the OP be updated with points and counter-points for both sides so this, and circular arguments, doesn't happen any more than it should?
Why are you defending mechanics of a game you have not played, let alone competitively...?
I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm not defending anything. What made you think I want Halo to have sprint, other than the fact that I don't arbitrarily consider all arguments that support my agenda to be the best thing ever?

I don't have much to say regarding sprint specifically because every argument that can be made against sprint has been made a million times. I've been doing this for six years, and there's not an argument for sprint that I haven't heard. As a result, these days I'm much less likely to respond to any of those arguments unless they're represented well. It's much more interesting to play Devil's advocate because, believe it or not, there are also some silly claims on the pro-sprint side.

I've played Halo Reach, I've played Halo 4, and I've played Halo 5 enough to know what I'm talking about, and perhaps more importantly, surprisingly little has actually changed. This is also confirmed by the fact that the arguments for and against sprint are still pretty much the same ones they were three years ago.

I discuss what I feel qualified to discuss. I discuss sprint because I know exactly how sprint functions in Halo 5, I know exactly how all other Spartan Abilities function in Halo 5. However, to my regret, I haven't played enough Halo 5 to be well acquainted with the weapon sandbox, which is why you don't see me taking part in that discussion. I'm really not the type of person to comment on things I don't understand.

tsassi can the OP be updated with points and counter-points for both sides so this, and circular arguments, doesn't happen any more than it should?
I'd really want this too, and I've really tried doing it, even considered going through this thread to pick up all the sensible arguments. The idea I had was take all the arguments for an against sprint, and an explanation and a counter argument for each. The reason that I wanted to do it like this is that if the OP just had a list of bullet points, these would get misinterpreted, and responded to with the same old counters we've already been through. But it's not a trivial task, and it's not something I want to do unless I can ensure that it's not biased towards either side. So, I never got anything satisfactory out of it.

I'm still sort of up for it if you have suggestions, but it's probably not going to happen unless I can crowdsource a list of all the relevant points. It's not something I have time to do completely by myself.
tsassi wrote:
tsassi can the OP be updated with points and counter-points for both sides so this, and circular arguments, doesn't happen any more than it should?
I'd really want this too, and I've really tried doing it, even considered going through this thread to pick up all the sensible arguments. The idea I had was take all the arguments for an against sprint, and an explanation and a counter argument for each. The reason that I wanted to do it like this is that if the OP just had a list of bullet points, these would get misinterpreted, and responded to with the same old counters we've already been through. But it's not a trivial task, and it's not something I want to do unless I can ensure that it's not biased towards either side. So, I never got anything satisfactory out of it.

I'm still sort of up for it if you have suggestions, but it's probably not going to happen unless I can crowdsource a list of all the relevant points. It's not something I have time to do completely by myself.
I don't think there're many arguments both sides can (legitimately) have, to be honest.

Map design is (mostly) independent of sprint, but the way 343 handled maps make it seem like sprint is the cause of lane-based (aka bad) Arena Shooter maps. Player skill is, theoretically, increased because of sprint increasing unpredictability. Game pace is slowed down, most likely due to sprint increasing map sizes. Game flow is changed as a result as well, with more players opting to run away from battles instead of fighting it out.
tsassi wrote:
tsassi can the OP be updated with points and counter-points for both sides so this, and circular arguments, doesn't happen any more than it should?
I'd really want this too, and I've really tried doing it, even considered going through this thread to pick up all the sensible arguments. The idea I had was take all the arguments for an against sprint, and an explanation and a counter argument for each. The reason that I wanted to do it like this is that if the OP just had a list of bullet points, these would get misinterpreted, and responded to with the same old counters we've already been through. But it's not a trivial task, and it's not something I want to do unless I can ensure that it's not biased towards either side. So, I never got anything satisfactory out of it.

I'm still sort of up for it if you have suggestions, but it's probably not going to happen unless I can crowdsource a list of all the relevant points. It's not something I have time to do completely by myself.
I don't think there're many arguments both sides can (legitimately) have, to be honest.

Map design is (mostly) independent of sprint, but the way 343 handled maps make it seem like sprint is the cause of lane-based (aka bad) Arena Shooter maps. Player skill is, theoretically, increased because of sprint increasing unpredictability. Game pace is slowed down, most likely due to sprint increasing map sizes. Game flow is changed as a result as well, with more players opting to run away from battles instead of fighting it out.
How do you really judge the legitimacy of an argument? Based on what you said here, you seem to more or less adopt the prespective that Halo should strive to be a competitive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects gameplay depth. And it's a perspective I adopt too, because it's an easy one to discuss. But the problem is: what if someone doesn't give a crap about competition? If they just see Halo as a place to mess around with friends? You can't really call their arguments illegitimate per se, because you both start from different premises regarding what Halo should be.

I find immersion related arguments easy to dismiss because I know what I am immersed by, and I don't really play the multiplayer to be immersed to begin with. But when you start trying to think about all the arguments at the grand level, you can't simply dismiss certain arguments on the basis that you don't care about the point of view they represent.

Consider some of the topics this sprint discussion contains: map design, pace of gameplay, immersion, realism, Halo's identity, popularity, trends. Some of these may seem completely silly. But when you want to objectively review the discussion, you have to entertain the idea that the points you think are silly are not completely silly. If you're going present an argument, you can't present it like someone who doesn't believe in it, even if you don't. You have to try to give it the most convincing presentation you can.
tsassi wrote:
tsassi wrote:
tsassi can the OP be updated with points and counter-points for both sides so this, and circular arguments, doesn't happen any more than it should?
I'd really want this too, and I've really tried doing it, even considered going through this thread to pick up all the sensible arguments. The idea I had was take all the arguments for an against sprint, and an explanation and a counter argument for each. The reason that I wanted to do it like this is that if the OP just had a list of bullet points, these would get misinterpreted, and responded to with the same old counters we've already been through. But it's not a trivial task, and it's not something I want to do unless I can ensure that it's not biased towards either side. So, I never got anything satisfactory out of it.

I'm still sort of up for it if you have suggestions, but it's probably not going to happen unless I can crowdsource a list of all the relevant points. It's not something I have time to do completely by myself.
I don't think there're many arguments both sides can (legitimately) have, to be honest.

Map design is (mostly) independent of sprint, but the way 343 handled maps make it seem like sprint is the cause of lane-based (aka bad) Arena Shooter maps. Player skill is, theoretically, increased because of sprint increasing unpredictability. Game pace is slowed down, most likely due to sprint increasing map sizes. Game flow is changed as a result as well, with more players opting to run away from battles instead of fighting it out.
How do you really judge the legitimacy of an argument? Based on what you said here, you seem to more or less adopt the prespective that Halo should strive to be a competitive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects gameplay depth. And it's a perspective I adopt too, because it's an easy one to discuss. But the problem is: what if someone doesn't give a crap about competition? If they just see Halo as a place to mess around with friends? You can't really call their arguments illegitimate per se, because you both start from different premises regarding what Halo should be.

I find immersion related arguments easy to dismiss because I know what I am immersed by, and I don't really play the multiplayer to be immersed to begin with. But when you start trying to think about all the arguments at the grand level, you can't simply dismiss certain arguments on the basis that you don't care about the point of view they represent.

Consider some of the topics this sprint discussion contains: map design, pace of gameplay, immersion, realism, Halo's identity, popularity, trends. Some of these may seem completely silly. But when you want to objectively review the discussion, you have to entertain the idea that the points you think are silly are not completely silly. If you're going present an argument, you can't present it like someone who doesn't believe in it, even if you don't. You have to try to give it the most convincing presentation you can.
Some "arguments" aren't legitimate because they're just opinions. I mean, if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be an immersive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects immersion, the Anti-sprint side would say: "Sprint breaks immersion, spartans should be able to go full speed while holding their gun up" and the Pro-sprint side would say: "No sprint breaks immersion, because spartans should be able to sprint".
Nobody is right or wrong, it is subjective. And how you or I feel about immersion is irrelevant.
Some "arguments" aren't legitimate because they're just opinions. I mean, if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be an immersive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects immersion, the Anti-sprint side would say: "Sprint breaks immersion, spartans should be able to go full speed while holding their gun up" and the Pro-sprint side would say: "No sprint breaks immersion, because spartans should be able to sprint".
Nobody is right or wrong, it is subjective. And how you or I feel about immersion is irrelevant.
Yes, but you see, it is also nothing but an opinion that Halo should strive to be a challenging game. Does that make all gameplay related arguments illegitimate? Of course not.

There is no such thing as objective argument for or against sprint. The universe doesn't care whether Halo has sprint or not, it's the people who do, and ultimately, those people base their arguments on their preferences. I think Halo should be a challenging game, so I'm going to make arguments as if everybody else also believed that. But if someone disagrees with that premise---that Halo should be a challenging game---there is no argument in the world to prove them wrong in any objective sense, because the question of what Halo should be is fundamentally a subjective one.

So, all arguments are rooted in subjectivity. Now, how do you determine which one of those subjective arguments are legitimate and which ones aren't? Any criteria will either be subjective, include all arguments, or include none of the arguments.
tsassi wrote:
Some "arguments" aren't legitimate because they're just opinions. I mean, if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be an immersive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects immersion, the Anti-sprint side would say: "Sprint breaks immersion, spartans should be able to go full speed while holding their gun up" and the Pro-sprint side would say: "No sprint breaks immersion, because spartans should be able to sprint".
Nobody is right or wrong, it is subjective. And how you or I feel about immersion is irrelevant.
Yes, but you see, it is also nothing but an opinion that Halo should strive to be a challenging game. Does that make all gameplay related arguments illegitimate? Of course not.

There is no such thing as objective argument for or against sprint. The universe doesn't care whether Halo has sprint or not, it's the people who do, and ultimately, those people base their arguments on their preferences. I think Halo should be a challenging game, so I'm going to make arguments as if everybody else also believed that. But if someone disagrees with that premise---that Halo should be a challenging game---there is no argument in the world to prove them wrong in any objective sense, because the question of what Halo should be is fundamentally a subjective one.

So, all arguments are rooted in subjectivity. Now, how do you determine which one of those subjective arguments are legitimate and which ones aren't? Any criteria will either be subjective, include all arguments, or include none of the arguments.
No, you don't understand. I was saying that if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be a competitive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects gameplay depth, there would be an argument to be had where both sides can argue and counter argue, because whether or not sprint adds gameplay depth is not subjective. Someone would be right and someone wrong in that argument. But the immersion argument ends with: "Sorry I disagree".
tsassi wrote:
Some "arguments" aren't legitimate because they're just opinions. I mean, if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be an immersive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects immersion, the Anti-sprint side would say: "Sprint breaks immersion, spartans should be able to go full speed while holding their gun up" and the Pro-sprint side would say: "No sprint breaks immersion, because spartans should be able to sprint".
Nobody is right or wrong, it is subjective. And how you or I feel about immersion is irrelevant.
Yes, but you see, it is also nothing but an opinion that Halo should strive to be a challenging game. Does that make all gameplay related arguments illegitimate? Of course not.

There is no such thing as objective argument for or against sprint. The universe doesn't care whether Halo has sprint or not, it's the people who do, and ultimately, those people base their arguments on their preferences. I think Halo should be a challenging game, so I'm going to make arguments as if everybody else also believed that. But if someone disagrees with that premise---that Halo should be a challenging game---there is no argument in the world to prove them wrong in any objective sense, because the question of what Halo should be is fundamentally a subjective one.

So, all arguments are rooted in subjectivity. Now, how do you determine which one of those subjective arguments are legitimate and which ones aren't? Any criteria will either be subjective, include all arguments, or include none of the arguments.
No, you don't understand. I was saying that if we all were to agree that Halo should strive to be a competitive game, and every design decision should be judged on the basis of how it affects gameplay depth, there would be an argument to be had where both sides can argue and counter argue, because whether or not sprint adds gameplay depth is not subjective. Someone would be right and someone wrong in that argument. But the immersion argument ends with: "Sorry I disagree".
Ah, I see. However, that still doesn't really make the immersion argument illegitimate in any way. It's just that immersion is more difficult to find common ground on.

The point here is that arguments where it's easy to find a common premise which gives us a notion of objectivity in that particular context aren't really inherently better in any objective sense, as soon as you step out of that context. If somebody disregards the premise that Halo should be competitive, it doesn't make their point of view illegitimate.

Look, I'd like everyone to share this perspective that gameplay depth should come above all else as much as you would. If everyone agreed on that, then we'd have some sort of "universal" perspective in relation to which everything is objective, and everything would be great. But if somebody comes to me and says "No, tsassi, I don't give a crap about depth", there's nothing in my power I can do to honestly claim their point of view to be less valuable than mine. I can try to convince everyone why depth is great and why they should adopt that framework. But ultimately, if my goal is an honest review of all the arguments for and against sprint (which is what I was discussing in the quoted post), then I have to accept the possibility that there might exist a sizeable group of people who agree with that one guy, and give room for his arguments. It doesn't matter what I think about his arguments, all sides must be represent equally, within reason. After all, the point of a review of all the arguments is not to influence people, but to let them decide which side they are on.
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
652x pages of discussion certainly points to it being a hugely contentious issue for Halo.....

I'd respect 343 immensely if they simply came out and said we tried implementing sprint in Halo and it hasn't worked more than constant attempts to "evolve"...
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
652x pages of discussion certainly points to it being a hugely contentious issue for Halo.....

I'd respect 343 immensely if they simply came out and said we tried implementing sprint in Halo and it hasn't worked more than constant attempts to "evolve"...
I agree it takes a very strong, very secure person to admit they were wrong.

It must not have been easy to admit that flinch, loadouts (even though they survived in Warzone) Ordnance (even though that again survived in Warzone) Perks (even though they survived in Warzone), didn't work.

Sprint however is a different beast. Sprint has been a staple of 343i's Halo. In two games, 6 years and their entire identity with Halo. I think the fact that they see Halo as a franchise with sprint, and the fact that despite removing unworkable mechanics, they found another way of putting them in to their new game anyway, 343i don't see Halo as anything other than COD with a higher TTK.

I think 343i themselves would need to change plenty of lead figures to change their view and openly shun their own direction. (Not impossible, Josh Holmes has gone and he was a big force in Modern Halo)
Richnj wrote:
Sprint however is a different beast. Sprint has been a staple of 343i's Halo. In two games, 6 years and their entire identity with Halo. I think the fact that they see Halo as a franchise with sprint, and the fact that despite removing unworkable mechanics, they found another way of putting them in to their new game anyway, 343i don't see Halo as anything other than COD with a higher TTK.
I feel like there are many ways in which people overestimate sprint's significance in Halo, one way or the other, and this is one of them. I would not call sprint a "staple" of 343i's Halo any more than I would call Thruster Pack a staple of 343i's Halo. Both these mechanics have been in all (two) of 343i's Halo games. But I see no evidence of 343i ever raising them (or sprint in particular) on a pedestal above all other Spartan Abilities/Armor Abilities. As far as I can tell, they're just standard mechanics that 343i thinks fit their vision, and so these are kept aboard.

Sprint hasn't been a novel feature in years. It wasn't a novel addition when Bungie added it in Reach, and I doubt the people at 343i are thinking that what they're doing with it is something revolutionary either. Rather, they probably subscribe to the view that sprint is just an essential part of any modern shooter, and don't see it as something much more special than the ability to jump.

Richnj wrote:
I think 343i themselves would need to change plenty of lead figures to change their view and openly shun their own direction. (Not impossible, Josh Holmes has gone and he was a big force in Modern Halo)
The impact of Holmes' leaving will definitely be interesting to see in the future. Though the impact depends on how influential he actually was by himself, who's taking his place, and how influential that person will be. But it's not out of the question that a single person could have significant influence on the direction of Halo.
tsassi wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Sprint however is a different beast. Sprint has been a staple of 343i's Halo. In two games, 6 years and their entire identity with Halo. I think the fact that they see Halo as a franchise with sprint, and the fact that despite removing unworkable mechanics, they found another way of putting them in to their new game anyway, 343i don't see Halo as anything other than COD with a higher TTK.
I feel like there are many ways in which people overestimate sprint's significance in Halo, one way or the other, and this is one of them. I would not call sprint a "staple" of 343i's Halo any more than I would call Thruster Pack a staple of 343i's Halo. Both these mechanics have been in all (two) of 343i's Halo games. But I see no evidence of 343i ever raising them (or sprint in particular) on a pedestal above all other Spartan Abilities/Armor Abilities. As far as I can tell, they're just standard mechanics that 343i thinks fit their vision, and so these are kept aboard. The fact that, unlike thruster, sprint has been a base trait in both games, and that the SAs are mostly attached to sprint in Halo 5 places much more importance on sprint. So while everything else has been optional or new to the games, or not in all 343i games, default sprint has been a constant. In every vision they have for Halo it always seems to include a default sprint. Even with all the backlash of Halo 4, when many mechanics were stripped out, they again chose to re-work the mechanic rather than strip it with the rest. And I think it's a mechanic that quite easily separates 343i's Halo games from the rest, and that's why I refer to it as a staple.Sprint hasn't been a novel feature in years. It wasn't a novel addition when Bungie added it in Reach, and I doubt the people at 343i are thinking that what they're doing with it is something revolutionary either. Rather, they probably subscribe to the view that sprint is just an essential part of any modern shooter, and don't see it as something much more special than the ability to jump. This I agree with. I probably worded it awkwardly, but it was what I was trying to say. I don't think 343i can see how a game looks without sprint.
Richnj wrote:
I think 343i themselves would need to change plenty of lead figures to change their view and openly shun their own direction. (Not impossible, Josh Holmes has gone and he was a big force in Modern Halo)
The impact of Holmes' leaving will definitely be interesting to see in the future. Though the impact depends on how influential he actually was by himself, who's taking his place, and how influential that person will be. But it's not out of the question that a single person could have significant influence on the direction of Halo. Well that's why I said "plenty" would have to change, but also noting that Josh Holmes wasn't a lowly employee. He held a high position and he would have had more weight that the majority of employees.
Answers in bold.
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
I'm back after like a month or two away maybe even more but I still agree. After playing Titanfall 2 with gunrunner mod smgs that let you shoot and sprint the only thing I can say is oh hey I really enjoy that game way more because it reinforced my belief that sprint should either allow you to shoot while running and Halo's ttk is too high for that or do what I talked about this entire time. Nix sprint and just bump up movement speed and design the maps well.
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
652x pages of discussion certainly points to it being a hugely contentious issue for Halo.....

I'd respect 343 immensely if they simply came out and said we tried implementing sprint in Halo and it hasn't worked more than constant attempts to "evolve"...
I would disrespect 343 a little less if they took part in the sprint discussion. Not to hate on them, but seriously, I very rarely see them interacting with the community on these forums.
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
652x pages of discussion certainly points to it being a hugely contentious issue for Halo.....

I'd respect 343 immensely if they simply came out and said we tried implementing sprint in Halo and it hasn't worked more than constant attempts to "evolve"...
I would disrespect 343 a little less if they took part in the sprint discussion. Not to hate on them, but seriously, I very rarely see them interacting with the community on these forums.
I think it's amazing if the developer gets involved with the community, like organizing stuff and such, keeping the community up to date on what's happening at the studio, and there are many things I think 343i could do better about this stuff. But one thing I've always felt completely apathetic about is community involvement in game design decisions. If the developers want to involve the community closely in the development process, that's cool, but I always have a hard time seeing any obligation for them to do so.

Like, I've never really understood the extent to which people are upset about their game design suggestions not being listened. When someone says "I don't like this game, I think it should be this way" that's okay. That's just having a different opinion. But as soon as it turns into "you need to listen to me, or else you're a not a good developer" that's a problem. You can be upset, you should be upset, if you don't like the way things are, and you should tell it to everyone. But if you think that the people making the game are in any way obliged to listen to you, and you respect them less if they don't, then there's a problem.

I'd be interested in getting to discuss sprint with someone from 343i purely from a sort of academic perspective, but beyond that I couldn't care less whether they actually do. The reality is that they are probably as strong in their conviction as we are, and getting to speak to them personally wouldn't change their mind any more than the fact which they already know, which is that there's a very vocal part of the community that intensely dislikes sprint. Moreover, I'd probably just feel bad for them because while there are many completely level-headed people like you, as far as I can tell, this thread alone is testament to the fact that there is also a substantial amount of people on the internet who can't hold up a conversation with someone they disagree with being jerks as soon as their views get some opposition. I've often thought that while the idea of having this sort of discussion with the community as a developer seems thrilling, these online jerks would quickly make the idea seem less appealing every time I opened the forum. To be fair though, this is something that's sort of part of my resposibility, so if I should be beating anyone about it, it's myself.

Finally, I have to say that I can't disagree with Bungie's philosophy: you should find your own game fun. If you don't truly believe in a mechanic yourself, then you shouldn't implement it. If you do, then you should. All game developers probably subscribe to this idea, so ultimately, if you can't convince someone that sprint is not fun, then you can't convince them that it shouldn't be in the game. This is the reality that always hits our elaborately crafted aguments about depth in the face.

These are just some moderately coherent thoughts about things that are sometimes on my mind that your comment brought to the surface.
tsassi wrote:
The support on this thread really is great though. Sprint strongly needs to go and hopefully continuing pressure will acheive it like with loadouts
652x pages of discussion certainly points to it being a hugely contentious issue for Halo.....

I'd respect 343 immensely if they simply came out and said we tried implementing sprint in Halo and it hasn't worked more than constant attempts to "evolve"...
I would disrespect 343 a little less if they took part in the sprint discussion. Not to hate on them, but seriously, I very rarely see them interacting with the community on these forums.
I think it's amazing if the developer gets involved with the community, like organizing stuff and such, keeping the community up to date on what's happening at the studio, and there are many things I think 343i could do better about this stuff. But one thing I've always felt completely apathetic about is community involvement in game design decisions. If the developers want to involve the community closely in the development process, that's cool, but I always have a hard time seeing any obligation for them to do so.

Like, I've never really understood the extent to which people are upset about their game design suggestions not being listened. When someone says "I don't like this game, I think it should be this way" that's okay. That's just having a different opinion. But as soon as it turns into "you need to listen to me, or else you're a not a good developer" that's a problem. You can be upset, you should be upset, if you don't like the way things are, and you should tell it to everyone. But if you think that the people making the game are in any way obliged to listen to you, and you respect them less if they don't, then there's a problem.

I'd be interested in getting to discuss sprint with someone from 343i purely from a sort of academic perspective, but beyond that I couldn't care less whether they actually do. The reality is that they are probably as strong in their conviction as we are, and getting to speak to them personally wouldn't change their mind any more than the fact which they already know, which is that there's a very vocal part of the community that intensely dislikes sprint. Moreover, I'd probably just feel bad for them because while there are many completely level-headed people like you, as far as I can tell, this thread alone is testament to the fact that there is also a substantial amount of people on the internet who can't hold up a conversation with someone they disagree with being jerks as soon as their views get some opposition. I've often thought that while the idea of having this sort of discussion with the community as a developer seems thrilling, these online jerks would quickly make the idea seem less appealing every time I opened the forum. To be fair though, this is something that's sort of part of my resposibility, so if I should be beating anyone about it, it's myself.

Finally, I have to say that I can't disagree with Bungie's philosophy: you should find your own game fun. If you don't truly believe in a mechanic yourself, then you shouldn't implement it. If you do, then you should. All game developers probably subscribe to this idea, so ultimately, if you can't convince someone that sprint is not fun, then you can't convince them that it shouldn't be in the game. This is the reality that always hits our elaborately crafted aguments about depth in the face.

These are just some moderately coherent thoughts about things that are sometimes on my mind that your comment brought to the surface.
Thanks for the post.
I do not think that it is my job to tell anyone how they should make their game. This is their vision of Halo. I may disagree with their vision and I might have ideas on how that vision could be done better, but I just have to decide if I want their game or not. The reason I've kinda made an exception with Halo is that I've felt that 343I doesn't get to have a vision of their own, because I was here first. But I realize how unfair that is to anyone who disagrees with me on the direction that Halo should take.

I think it would be very interesting to talk to 343I and Bungie people about not only sprint-, but also many other design decisions even outside of gameplay. And like I've said before: I don't think that 343i can't make a competitively deep game, I think they just chose not to.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 650
  4. 651
  5. 652
  6. 653
  7. 654
  8. ...
  9. 830