And what about questions for clarification too? We can't discuss anything if we keep spewing out vague words and phrases without precisely defining them.xBalancedForcex wrote:Maybe if you’d actually present your arguments in a reasonable manner you’d get responses in kind; but what’s even more annoying is that you go on the offensive as if you’re points are validated by lack of response. Make no mistake, you’re being avoided (at least in part) because you’re being condescending; not because you’re right. Have you actually read and considered our points for keeping sprint in Halo? It seems to me that you’re glossing over them and choosing to attack what’s easiest for you to debate.Your reply makes me feel a lot less like I’m cornered and makes me feel a lot more like you’re copping out.I must say, that out all the attempts to justify the decline of Halo as a franchise, this is the most hilarious one.OxDaV wrote:xBalancedForcex wrote:Yeah, yeah - anti sprinters said the same thing before Halo 5 and yet they still played it and they’re still here...OxDaV wrote:When they reveil sprint or abilities in halo infinite in a couple of months.
Everybody who is a classic fan are done , taking there briefcase and leaving halo.
"H3 was in 2007. 8 years later (H5’s release) is a lot of time."
"Population decline can’t solely be blamed on sprint and enhanced mobility."
- Bob was born in 2003. It's 2018 now. 15 years have passed. What has this to do with sprint debate? Nothing, exactly like your argument.
So when it comes to the FPS Genre, you have certain expectations. Obviously the gameplay, new maps, gamemodes, campaign (depends on the franchise) etc. etc.
- You're right, but it plays a huge role in it. A reason to buy a videogame depands on the genre. Take sports game as an example. You usually buy the newest version for the updated squads, likely upgraded graphics and eventually a new gamemode. Then there are games like god of war, where you buy the games for another campaign experience. There are ton of things, but you get what I'm trying to say.
But of all these things, the gameplay is the most important one. Because the gameplay influences every other aspect of the game. And you really can't judge the whole campaign experience as a selling point, because you have only have access to the things you've been shown (Like the ad campaign) So I was hyped for H5's campaign (because of the marketing) and I was disappointed, after the purchase.
"The teenage audience would likely be in college or working jobs and would be busy, the adult audience would’ve probably grown out of Halo by now, and the child audience (read: squeakers) would’ve moved on with gaming fads."
What about the other franchises? So, let's say your statement is truth. I guess on this whole planet called earth only the Halo Fans are aging? Please explain the success of other franchises, which managed to grow within the same life cycle? (I'm not just talking about FPS Shooter)
- Ok, now this is what I was refering to in my first sentence. I mean what is this supposed to mean? I was in school 2007 and now I'm in University and I have a part time job, so what exactly should stop me to play Halo in particular?
This modern gaming argument fascinates me everytime I see it. What is this supposed to mean? Sometimes I feel like people throw in some words and don't even know what it means. Be specific? Is it fast gameplay, what you consider as modern gaming? Is it enhanched mobility? If you're refering to this, your point makes even less sense, because the enhanched mobility trend is almost dead.
Overwatch, which leans more towards Run'Gun, came out of nowhere and surpassed every other game. And correft me if I'm wrong, but the most characters can't sprint, right? (I haven't played it yet) I know that there are certain ways to move faster around the map, exactly like Halo back in the days. Battle Royale Games came and surpassed even Overwatch and both games are still the on the top. You can sprint in these games, but both of them play very slow. (That's the point of this gamemode - this proves, that you don't have to run across the map over and over again to have fun)
Battlefield is currenlty more popular now and yup, you can sprint - the maps are huge, so sometimes you won't find one single enemy to engage. Is this a bad thing? No, in fact I like battlefield for what it is. And there is no E.M. (Again, it can't be anyway in a Worldwar game - this is not my point)
Even COD tries to slow down the gameplay.
All these games do offer a different experience. This is why they are currently on the top. Non of this games sold their own identity. Surely you can get inspired by certain things from other franchises, but sacrificing your own, unique gameplay experience is not an option. If you do this, you'll turn into one of many, generic games on the market and become irrelevant.
This is why I respect the decision to delay Infinite. It seems like 343 finally understands, that this can't go on like this forever. I'd rather wait a few more years to have something new and unique, than just another ripoff.
I mean honestly, all you’ve presented in this thread is conjecture, your own biases, and condescension. Get off your high horse.
The sprint discussion thread