Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 774
  4. 775
  5. 776
  6. 777
  7. 778
  8. ...
  9. 840
Not going to lie didn’t read the later pages of This so i didn’t see it, but I personally agree and disagree with that. I agree because I feel like it would allow the newer games to feel like the older halo games, but I feel like sprint is liked by a bit of the community. Thinking about it a little more- I think if they increased base speed and removed sprint it would feel like quake champions (I think that’s the newer one?)
Weeell.
Regarding your first post about Halo 3 feeling slow.
What about the other two? Do they feel incredibly slow? Considering they all have the same base movement speed.

Then regarding that post.
Halo 5 had a BMS increase allready.
Sprint has also been nerfed on several occasions since Halo 4. I'm questioning its future if it isn't going to be of much use but still be implemented.

This post has been hidden.

3
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
he partly explained it in his post, too many cod and quake clones, he also said that those 5 shooters are the popular ones at the moment and cod and battlefield are waning at that. There is a want for shooters that aren't cod or quake clones and the ones that don't play dumb and tank their own success (destiny, battlefront) are majorly successful.

There is still a market and a want for shooters, Mobas are less popular right now, so are RTS, fighters have been steady but not stealing players or anything. Factor in battle royale games which are also shooters and you have 5 of the 7 biggest online games right now (LoL and dota 2 being the others).

pubg and fortnite are quite different from each other and so are fortnite, siege and counterstrike. Strip away the advanced movement and the cod additions and suddenly there's a game that stands out.
-Halo is one of the few shooters with vehicles, the only i'd say with a good balance between player and vehicle, that's thrown out the window currently as that balance is either chaotic and cluttered (warzone) or has no content (btb)
- halo has a diverse set of playlists, unlike other games
- in 3 there was a lot of gametype customization as well as small objects that allowed for all these cool mechanisms like traps, doors, lifts etc. In 3 especially it was brimming with user created minigames, that minigame interest has shown to be successful via minecraft, garrys mod and the like. We have a strong forge system in 5, but not really the malleability to tap back into that.
- we had a strong single player campaign unlike the other games
- we had very unique and identifiable weapons, not helped by diluting them with clones and making them less distinct
- we have a style of map design not seen in other shooters, that has been thrown aside for advanced movement
- we have gametypes not seen in any other shooter
- games that are successful right now are competitive and streamable, halo 2 and 3 were what helped kick off that culture in the first place by tapping into a casual audience.
- we're the only big sci-fi shooter game, despite how good it is, quakes never been good at gaining a casual audience.
- halo had a decent ranked system, it was rough around the edges, but it generally worked, most of these games have a ranked mode
- most of these games have good progression and unlockables, right now we have neither.
etc etc
tl;dr halo isn't tapping into current viewrship and is following a dead trend (cod ideas, advanced movement) at the expense of its uniqueness
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
Why not ditch sprint and keep spartan charge?
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
he partly explained it in his post, too many cod and quake clones, he also said that those 5 shooters are the popular ones at the moment and cod and battlefield are waning at that. There is a want for shooters that aren't cod or quake clones and the ones that don't play dumb and tank their own success (destiny, battlefront) are majorly successful.

There is still a market and a want for shooters, Mobas are less popular right now, so are RTS, fighters have been steady but not stealing players or anything. Factor in battle royale games which are also shooters and you have 5 of the 7 biggest online games right now (LoL and dota 2 being the others).

pubg and fortnite are quite different from each other and so are fortnite, siege and counterstrike. Strip away the advanced movement and the cod additions and suddenly there's a game that stands out.
-Halo is one of the few shooters with vehicles, the only i'd say with a good balance between player and vehicle, that's thrown out the window currently as that balance is either chaotic and cluttered (warzone) or has no content (btb)
- halo has a diverse set of playlists, unlike other games
- in 3 there was a lot of gametype customization as well as small objects that allowed for all these cool mechanisms like traps, doors, lifts etc. In 3 especially it was brimming with user created minigames, that minigame interest has shown to be successful via minecraft, garrys mod and the like. We have a strong forge system in 5, but not really the malleability to tap back into that.
- we had a strong single player campaign unlike the other games
- we had very unique and identifiable weapons, not helped by diluting them with clones and making them less distinct
- we have a style of map design not seen in other shooters, that has been thrown aside for advanced movement
- we have gametypes not seen in any other shooter
- games that are successful right now are competitive and streamable, halo 2 and 3 were what helped kick off that culture in the first place by tapping into a casual audience.
- we're the only big sci-fi shooter game, despite how good it is, quakes never been good at gaining a casual audience.
- halo had a decent ranked system, it was rough around the edges, but it generally worked, most of these games have a ranked mode
- most of these games have good progression and unlockables, right now we have neither.
etc etc
tl;dr halo isn't tapping into current viewrship and is following a dead trend (cod ideas, advanced movement) at the expense of its uniqueness
But those are merely comparisons. I mean what mechanics or designs do you think the FPS market hasn't tapped into yet?
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
he partly explained it in his post, too many cod and quake clones, he also said that those 5 shooters are the popular ones at the moment and cod and battlefield are waning at that. There is a want for shooters that aren't cod or quake clones and the ones that don't play dumb and tank their own success (destiny, battlefront) are majorly successful.

There is still a market and a want for shooters, Mobas are less popular right now, so are RTS, fighters have been steady but not stealing players or anything. Factor in battle royale games which are also shooters and you have 5 of the 7 biggest online games right now (LoL and dota 2 being the others).

pubg and fortnite are quite different from each other and so are fortnite, siege and counterstrike. Strip away the advanced movement and the cod additions and suddenly there's a game that stands out.
-Halo is one of the few shooters with vehicles, the only i'd say with a good balance between player and vehicle, that's thrown out the window currently as that balance is either chaotic and cluttered (warzone) or has no content (btb)
- halo has a diverse set of playlists, unlike other games
- in 3 there was a lot of gametype customization as well as small objects that allowed for all these cool mechanisms like traps, doors, lifts etc. In 3 especially it was brimming with user created minigames, that minigame interest has shown to be successful via minecraft, garrys mod and the like. We have a strong forge system in 5, but not really the malleability to tap back into that.
- we had a strong single player campaign unlike the other games
- we had very unique and identifiable weapons, not helped by diluting them with clones and making them less distinct
- we have a style of map design not seen in other shooters, that has been thrown aside for advanced movement
- we have gametypes not seen in any other shooter
- games that are successful right now are competitive and streamable, halo 2 and 3 were what helped kick off that culture in the first place by tapping into a casual audience.
- we're the only big sci-fi shooter game, despite how good it is, quakes never been good at gaining a casual audience.
- halo had a decent ranked system, it was rough around the edges, but it generally worked, most of these games have a ranked mode
- most of these games have good progression and unlockables, right now we have neither.
etc etc
tl;dr halo isn't tapping into current viewrship and is following a dead trend (cod ideas, advanced movement) at the expense of its uniqueness
But those are merely comparisons. I mean what mechanics or designs do you think the FPS market hasn't tapped into yet?
How is it not tapping into something if that something isn't up to par? Even if it is just a comparison?
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
As someone right before you asked:

Why not just remove it and increase the base movement speed?
Not going to lie didn’t read the later pages of This so i didn’t see it, but I personally agree and disagree with that. I agree because I feel like it would allow the newer games to feel like the older halo games, but I feel like sprint is liked by a bit of the community. Thinking about it a little more- I think if they increased base speed and removed sprint it would feel like quake champions (I think that’s the newer one?)
You do realize that no-sprint is liked a "bit of the community" as well, right? Why is it OK to ignore their wishes but not the ones liking sprint. We cannot say how many people would actually be upset about sprint beeing removed (if done in a proper game...) because there hasn't been a (technically up-to-date) Halo game in the last 10 years, so maybe people wouldn't mind so much at all...
And how is it that removing sprint will make Halo feel like Quake, which seems to be not OK with you but keeping sprint won't make Halo feel like CoD/BF which, despite you realizing that it doesn't feel like Halo anymore, you're OK with? Many pro-sprint people throw around phrases like "just be open to something new", well after 10 years of gimmick-filled Halo, having a new but classic Halo experience (read: remasters like H3A does not count) would be something new ;)
I do understand that a bit of the community favors no sprint over having sprint. I've played halo since CE (although i was young.)- But i still do enjoy going back and playing the older games without sprint just because its the way that i remember playing it with my father who has since moved away from halo after 3. I didn't play much of 4 however because i didn't enjoy the load out(or class system) system. I never did say that it was okay to ignore the people who would rather have sprint removed- and i'm not saying to be open to something new. I do believe that if done correctly that the move back to no sprint would be liked by more of the community that has been with halo for a longer time, but now that it has been put into the game and the people that have come to it and playing it like cod/bf (which i do agree with the addition to sprint it moved halo away from the arena style fps and more into that genre of fps like cod/bf) wouldn't be as open arms to the change as those that have been with halo for a while. I realize now that i'm going back and re reading what i posted that i seem kinda biased towards keeping sprint, which in a case i am simply because I've become used to it, but i do enjoy not having sprint and being able to play halo like i could several years back. Eldewrito had a system to where some game types (At least on servers) you could enable or disable sprint and it worked fairly well and it was still easily played with or without, not saying the community would take it as well as the eldewrito community did, but it would be interesting. I also agree that if halo 6 was a classic experience it would be a super fun experience for those that are used to older halo games and i'm sure it would bring a lot of members that have left the community back. But at the end of the day none of us know if 343 will remove it or not, but personally i'm okay with either route they go.

On a side note: half of this probably doesn't even make sense and i feel like i said the same thing ~5 times. its fairly late and i should probably be in bed rather than on the forums.

Edit: i noticed that my post got quoted several times: to answer the question on if the other two feel incredibly slow, I haven't touched them in a while, i was only playing 3. I heard that there were nerfs to sprint in 4 but like i stated above i didn't really play 4 because i didn't like the class system.

On the topic of untapped potential: You're right, there is a lot of untapped potential. Not only in this genre but pretty much all others, mostly because everyone wants something new, which i understand that making halo into something like cod is driving the community down, and like i said above i wasn't attempting to sound biased towards keeping sprint- I've just accepted the fact that its in the game, which I do miss non sprint and wish halo had stuck to the feel of halo 3 (which in my original post i said it felt slow, which to me it did in the campaign- i didn't touch MP so i feel like its not a fair statement since halo is generally played in MP situations.) But coming to realization now i do want a original feeling halo, not only for nostalgic reasons but also because it would be a change of pace compared to the other fps games that are on the market at this date.
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
he partly explained it in his post, too many cod and quake clones, he also said that those 5 shooters are the popular ones at the moment and cod and battlefield are waning at that. There is a want for shooters that aren't cod or quake clones and the ones that don't play dumb and tank their own success (destiny, battlefront) are majorly successful.

There is still a market and a want for shooters, Mobas are less popular right now, so are RTS, fighters have been steady but not stealing players or anything. Factor in battle royale games which are also shooters and you have 5 of the 7 biggest online games right now (LoL and dota 2 being the others).

pubg and fortnite are quite different from each other and so are fortnite, siege and counterstrike. Strip away the advanced movement and the cod additions and suddenly there's a game that stands out.
-Halo is one of the few shooters with vehicles, the only i'd say with a good balance between player and vehicle, that's thrown out the window currently as that balance is either chaotic and cluttered (warzone) or has no content (btb)
- halo has a diverse set of playlists, unlike other games
- in 3 there was a lot of gametype customization as well as small objects that allowed for all these cool mechanisms like traps, doors, lifts etc. In 3 especially it was brimming with user created minigames, that minigame interest has shown to be successful via minecraft, garrys mod and the like. We have a strong forge system in 5, but not really the malleability to tap back into that.
- we had a strong single player campaign unlike the other games
- we had very unique and identifiable weapons, not helped by diluting them with clones and making them less distinct
- we have a style of map design not seen in other shooters, that has been thrown aside for advanced movement
- we have gametypes not seen in any other shooter
- games that are successful right now are competitive and streamable, halo 2 and 3 were what helped kick off that culture in the first place by tapping into a casual audience.
- we're the only big sci-fi shooter game, despite how good it is, quakes never been good at gaining a casual audience.
- halo had a decent ranked system, it was rough around the edges, but it generally worked, most of these games have a ranked mode
- most of these games have good progression and unlockables, right now we have neither.
etc etc
tl;dr halo isn't tapping into current viewrship and is following a dead trend (cod ideas, advanced movement) at the expense of its uniqueness
But those are merely comparisons. I mean what mechanics or designs do you think the FPS market hasn't tapped into yet?
it's not about what hasn't been done ever before but what's not being done currently
to condense and re-iterate those points

something we have the others dont
- good vehicles
- playlist diversity
- strong campaign
- many unique game-modes
- diverse custom games / minigames
- medals and the possibility of other arcade-y elements like commendations

as for what we have that most shooters don't and we could do the best if done right
- different take on sci-fi theme
- distinct weapon designs (something really only shared by overwatch)
- map design and design philosophies not shared with another game
- a visual theme distinct from other games
- audio that offers a strong atmosphere to the game

things we aren't currently doing that are seen as a staple of other games, things i'd say are crucial for popularity
- a functional ranked system
- good theater and other viewership implementations which make for better streaming / viewing / content
- a solid in-game progression and/or marketplace, one that feels rewarding, it doesn't have to mean random microtransactions.. directly purchasable content, unlockable items, some based off merit or goals etc
- a leaderboard
- a group / clan / team creation system in-game could be nice
- more events
-more in-game investment into community activities, we have that with the comp community, but back in h3 even just with bungie favourites, community endeavours felt more publicised, felt more involving

just quality of life improvements that helps for content / involvement
the untapped potential at the moment simply comes from there being a large audience invested in shooters (been the case since 1993) and most games aren't being creative, just clones. the popular games are distinct and the ones failing are being homogenous, with more than just the gameplay mechanics too..it's like movie trailers these days, they're all using the same cookie cutter template, except the good ones.
Unknown wrote:
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
There's so much untapped potential in the FPS market right now, making Halo feel like other games is pretty much franchise suicide. Remember all the Call of Duty clones around 2008-2010? How many of those franchises are still actively being developed? We haven't had a medium-paced Arena Shooter in such a long time I wouldn't be surprised if an indie game became "the new Halo". We have so many Quake clones on Steam that none of them get more than 100 players at a given time. The only shooters that seem to have any vision now are Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, and Call of Duty. The latter two are questionable, but they did have a vision and succeeded early on during the last generation of consoles.

I'm just saying that Halo doesn't have to feel like Call of Duty or Quake if it includes sprint or not. There is still so much potential in the FPS genre that developers can explore, but none of them have any real, innovative vision. They're all throwbacks to older shooters or copying what is popular. Right now, there's a huge void for classic Halo waiting to be filled as shown by a PC mod. I'd argue Halo would survive more on PC if the classic formula was used, and built off of that for future games rather than building off a "Call of Duty remake"
I've not read all these pages in this humongus thread, so bear with me. Im genuinely curious: what untapped potential do you see FPSs having that they don't have right now?
he partly explained it in his post, too many cod and quake clones, he also said that those 5 shooters are the popular ones at the moment and cod and battlefield are waning at that. There is a want for shooters that aren't cod or quake clones and the ones that don't play dumb and tank their own success (destiny, battlefront) are majorly successful.

There is still a market and a want for shooters, Mobas are less popular right now, so are RTS, fighters have been steady but not stealing players or anything. Factor in battle royale games which are also shooters and you have 5 of the 7 biggest online games right now (LoL and dota 2 being the others).

pubg and fortnite are quite different from each other and so are fortnite, siege and counterstrike. Strip away the advanced movement and the cod additions and suddenly there's a game that stands out.
-Halo is one of the few shooters with vehicles, the only i'd say with a good balance between player and vehicle, that's thrown out the window currently as that balance is either chaotic and cluttered (warzone) or has no content (btb)
- halo has a diverse set of playlists, unlike other games
- in 3 there was a lot of gametype customization as well as small objects that allowed for all these cool mechanisms like traps, doors, lifts etc. In 3 especially it was brimming with user created minigames, that minigame interest has shown to be successful via minecraft, garrys mod and the like. We have a strong forge system in 5, but not really the malleability to tap back into that.
- we had a strong single player campaign unlike the other games
- we had very unique and identifiable weapons, not helped by diluting them with clones and making them less distinct
- we have a style of map design not seen in other shooters, that has been thrown aside for advanced movement
- we have gametypes not seen in any other shooter
- games that are successful right now are competitive and streamable, halo 2 and 3 were what helped kick off that culture in the first place by tapping into a casual audience.
- we're the only big sci-fi shooter game, despite how good it is, quakes never been good at gaining a casual audience.
- halo had a decent ranked system, it was rough around the edges, but it generally worked, most of these games have a ranked mode
- most of these games have good progression and unlockables, right now we have neither.
etc etc
tl;dr halo isn't tapping into current viewrship and is following a dead trend (cod ideas, advanced movement) at the expense of its uniqueness
But those are merely comparisons. I mean what mechanics or designs do you think the FPS market hasn't tapped into yet?
it's not about what hasn't been done ever before but what's not being done currently
to condense and re-iterate those points

something we have the others dont
- good vehicles
- playlist diversity
- strong campaign
- many unique game-modes
- diverse custom games / minigames
- medals and the possibility of other arcade-y elements like commendations

as for what we have that most shooters don't and we could do the best if done right
- different take on sci-fi theme
- distinct weapon designs (something really only shared by overwatch)
- map design and design philosophies not shared with another game
- a visual theme distinct from other games
- audio that offers a strong atmosphere to the game

things we aren't currently doing that are seen as a staple of other games, things i'd say are crucial for popularity
- a functional ranked system
- good theater and other viewership implementations which make for better streaming / viewing / content
- a solid in-game progression and/or marketplace, one that feels rewarding, it doesn't have to mean random microtransactions, directly purchasable content, unlockable items, some based off merit or goals etc
- a leaderboard
- a group / clan / team creation system in-game could be nice
- more events
-more in-game investment into community activities, we have that with the comp community, but back in h3 even just with bungie favourites, community endeavours felt more publicised, felt more involving

just quality of life improvements that helps for content / involvement
the untapped potential at the moment simply comes from there being a large audience invested in shooters (been the case since 1993) and most games aren't being creative, just clones. the popular games are distinct are the ones failing are being homogenous, and more than just gameplay mechanics too..it's like movie trailers these days, they're all using the same cookie cutter template, except the good ones.
I 100% agree with this assessment. Halo needs distinction, it needs to be known as the sci-fi shooter. What I will give Classic Halo is that it was different. As I much as I didn’t like it mechanics-wise, it was a departure from the shooters of the day.

343i’s Halos need to be different from the other games. Mechanically functional, polished, yet daring.
Naqser wrote:
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
Why not ditch sprint and keep spartan charge?
How will that even work? you need sprint for spartan charge. I think spartan charge is a cheap way on getting a kill...
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
What's your reason for wanting sprint? Just out of curiosity.
Naqser wrote:
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
Why not ditch sprint and keep spartan charge?
How will that even work? you need sprint for spartan charge. I think spartan charge is a cheap way on getting a kill...
My version:
If you move forward at full speed you can hold the melee button. When doing so you start charging ( like a Spartan Laser or Rail Gun ). Once the meter is full you perform the spartan charge.
Deviating from full foward momentum instantly drain the charge you've accumulated, or releasing the melee button.

Sprint isn't present and Spartan Charge is now more difficult to use.
I’m ok with having sprint in the game, I’ve gotten used to it now. Maps just need to be bigger now.
Naqser wrote:
Naqser wrote:
Remove spartan charge keep sprint...
Why not ditch sprint and keep spartan charge?
How will that even work? you need sprint for spartan charge. I think spartan charge is a cheap way on getting a kill...
My version:
If you move forward at full speed you can hold the melee button. When doing so you start charging ( like a Spartan Laser or Rail Gun ). Once the meter is full you perform the spartan charge.
Deviating from full foward momentum instantly drain the charge you've accumulated, or releasing the melee button.

Sprint isn't present and Spartan Charge is now more difficult to use.
Interesting...
Here is my input on this since this is what me and several of my friends have said- We understand sprint was added to make the game more fast pace and we welcomed it and enjoy it, but we also miss the no sprint. We talked about this for a while and we started to go back and play MCC and we started halo 3 co-op and we felt like we were moving so beyond slow compared to halo 5. And we missed being able to sprint.

Even though it’s not long, TL:DR- Even if you don’t like sprint, halo isn’t the same without it anymore, it would make the game feel to slow compared to how fast it is now. (although I’m fairly sure the maps are larger due to sprint being in the game.)
Remove sprint, increase movement speed. There is no reason to keep sprint. There are also other ways to make halo feel fast than just to add sprint.
Do you guys think there is a good chance 343 will scrap sprint for Halo 6? I'm hopeful but as much as I am excited for the mcc updates, I'm worried that all the attention towards mcc is an indicator that Halo 6 will be another enhanced mobility shooter.
Itz Nater wrote:
Do you guys think there is a good chance 343 will scrap sprint for Halo 6? I'm hopeful but as much as I am excited for the mcc updates, I'm worried that all the attention towards mcc is an indicator that Halo 6 will be another enhanced mobility shooter.
Realistically? I don't see what would've changed to make it any more likely than it was in 2014. If Halo 6 doesn't have sprint, it would have to be due to internal changes at 343i. That's not entirely implausible, since the studio seems to be under constant change.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if Halo 6 didn't have any kind of enhanced mobility. I think it's plausible the system could see significant changes and simplification, but I see the chances of completely classic movement as significantly slimmer than the chances of removal of sprint.
The only reason people want sprint is because they are too impatient when getting to an area on the map. If the maps were made smaller, then you remove this desire.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 774
  4. 775
  5. 776
  6. 777
  7. 778
  8. ...
  9. 840