Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 803
  4. 804
  5. 805
  6. 806
  7. 807
  8. ...
  9. 810
DaekLaw wrote:
DaekLaw wrote:
DaekLaw wrote:
OxDaV wrote:
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.
Yeah, yeah - anti sprinters said the same thing before Halo 5 and yet they still played it and they’re still here...
I must say, that out all the attempts to justify the decline of Halo as a franchise, this is the most hilarious one.

"H3 was in 2007. 8 years later (H5’s release) is a lot of time."
  • 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.
"Population decline can’t solely be blamed on sprint and enhanced mobility."
  • 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.
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.
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."
  • 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?
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)

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.
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 mean honestly, all you’ve presented in this thread is conjecture, your own biases, and condescension. Get off your high horse.
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.
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.
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Yeah, it is. To me, gameplay is half about how it feels, so that’s why I have gripes with classic. It just feels like I’m on a collar midmatch, so my concentration is constantly breaking.
Alright so what it boils down to is you like the feel in general of the new games while I do not like the feel and overall changes to maps, vehicles, movement and what not. This isn’t so much of an arguement of how sprint hurts, helps Halo. It is me saying why I don’t like the changes and reasons why, and to you the reasons don’t matter since the game overall feels better. Do I have that right?
No, that’s an intentionally skewed take to try and make my argument look bad. What I am saying is that the feel of the gameplay can not be compromised because uncomfortable gameplay leads to broken concentration, which is a big no-no in a sweaty game like Halo. What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
So to you, Halo CE- ODST had uncomfortable gameplay? As in it fidn’t feel good and broke concentration? That maximum competativeness with simplicity was what made Halo the juggernaut it was.(I know I know, we can’t for sure know why... but Halo 3 was very popular) The movement options are literally, move however you want with gun up, run looking dead ahead with gun down. Don’t entirely see the restictions.

Serious or not, there were a lot of changes made to accomidate sprint that affect many aspects of the game.

So uselessness of vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, motion trackers, redesigns of maps, weapon aiming, shield system, and all that jazz is worthwhile to implement an animation that locks you out of using your weapons and looking around, and slows the base movement speed (by map traversal, I know you”technically” move faster in Halo 5), for interception and more comfortable gameplay that millions did not have issues with?
Sorry for being late everyone. I had to go to sleep and run some errands by morning.

Anyway, let’s get to why I’m here.

4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Yeah, it is. To me, gameplay is half about how it feels, so that’s why I have gripes with classic. It just feels like I’m on a collar midmatch, so my concentration is constantly breaking.
Alright so what it boils down to is you like the feel in general of the new games while I do not like the feel and overall changes to maps, vehicles, movement and what not. This isn’t so much of an arguement of how sprint hurts, helps Halo. It is me saying why I don’t like the changes and reasons why, and to you the reasons don’t matter since the game overall feels better. Do I have that right?
No, that’s an intentionally skewed take to try and make my argument look bad. What I am saying is that the feel of the gameplay can not be compromised because uncomfortable gameplay leads to broken concentration, which is a big no-no in a sweaty game like Halo. What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
So to you, Halo CE- ODST had uncomfortable gameplay? As in it fidn’t feel good and broke concentration? That maximum competativeness with simplicity was what made Halo the juggernaut it was.(I know I know, we can’t for sure know why... but Halo 3 was very popular) The movement options are literally, move however you want with gun up, run looking dead ahead with gun down. Don’t entirely see the restictions.

Serious or not, there were a lot of changes made to accomidate sprint that affect many aspects of the game.

So uselessness of vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, motion trackers, redesigns of maps, weapon aiming, shield system, and all that jazz is worthwhile to implement an animation that locks you out of using your weapons and looking around, and slows the base movement speed (by map traversal, I know you”technically” move faster in Halo 5), for interception and more comfortable gameplay that millions did not have issues with?
I’ve already stated earlier my complaints with classic. What I do disagree with in that first but is the assertion of maximizing competitiveness. I think a balance between the 2 should be struck, personally.

Now what I really object to is the assertion that things like mancannons, the radar, teleporter and all that became useless. Mancannons and teleporters still move you around a lot faster than sprint, the teleporters especially. I don’t personally see how a 20% faster second gear automatically renders the 2 useless. The radar’s uselessness stems from the fact that it’s tiny. All it needs a range bump and it’ll be fine.

Sprint isn’t outrunning a mongoose anytime soon buddy. Vehicles still hold a lot of transportation and offensive value.

I don’t really see how weapon aiming becomes useless with sprint. Do you mean it’s harder? I mean that’s pretty subjective, but hitting a sprinter with a 5 shot from a Magnum or 3 shotting him with a LightRifle isn’t all that hard with decent aim and positioning. If you’re talking about aim assist, you’ll need to elaborate a little further with the exact issue.

All in all though, I’m speaking for myself here, not the millions who played H3. Even then though, I wonder how a full switch back to classic may be received after a game like H5. It would be incredibly jarring to say the least.
Delta5931 wrote:
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Yeah, it is. To me, gameplay is half about how it feels, so that’s why I have gripes with classic. It just feels like I’m on a collar midmatch, so my concentration is constantly breaking.
Alright so what it boils down to is you like the feel in general of the new games while I do not like the feel and overall changes to maps, vehicles, movement and what not. This isn’t so much of an arguement of how sprint hurts, helps Halo. It is me saying why I don’t like the changes and reasons why, and to you the reasons don’t matter since the game overall feels better. Do I have that right?
No, that’s an intentionally skewed take to try and make my argument look bad. What I am saying is that the feel of the gameplay can not be compromised because uncomfortable gameplay leads to broken concentration, which is a big no-no in a sweaty game like Halo. What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
Okay, I'm back now.

You can "find" something not to be serious as it is. That doesn't mean that it isn't serious, it's just that you've either elected not to address it because you know that your arguement hinges solely on immersion, which is an arguement that's incredibly weak and can barely be considered an arguement in the first place, or that you don't understand the issue, which after this long in this thread is a wee bit sad.

The "restrictions" you claim are also largely based on your "immersion", and how the game "feels" to you. These "restrictions" lead to a game that plays better. You claim that the game is "sweaty". Wouldn't it then be better to have a game that plays better as opposed to "feels good"?

Again. I reiterate what I said earlier:
Give me a game that plays well with poor graphics and no immersion, and I'll play it for years.

Give me a game that has the best graphics in the world, and is so immersive I may as well be in the game itself, but plays poorly, I'll drop it after a week.
And that’s where we fundamentally differ. You really only care about gameplay judging by your little slogan there.

Immersion, like it or not, is a huge part of how someone experiences a game and plays a big part in how they perform online. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem. If someone can’t get immersed and get into a rhythm, the online experience is compromised, especially in a game that requires as much “in the moment” thinking as Halo. That’s just the facts. If you're in the middle of a match and you keep nagging back to reality because of uncomfortable mechanics, the experience is a lot worse.

That’s why I want a balance to be struck. Your extreme bias towards gameplay doesn’t apply for everyone, and claiming it does is intellectually dishonest projection of your own biases.

Now I’m only speaking for myself here, as I should. Claiming that I speak for everyone is intellectually dishonest. I personally believe a game is 2/3 gameplay, 1/3 immersion. Like you, I don’t really care about graphics, and have been immersed in games with some pretty bad graphics.

And it’s my personal belief that immersion is necessary for a good online experience, and that’s backed by my experience. To sum it up, I dislike classic for the following reasons:

  • Uncomfortable mechanics breaking immersion
  • Incessant grenade spamming on the resulting tight maps
  • Classic utilizes textbook “play-counterplay” patterns and doesn’t sufficiently cater to live reactions
Guiscardus wrote:
IRaliugaI wrote:
I hate this idea, but what about a "sprint button" that makes you go into a sprint, BUT, your gun stays up. Much like the gung-ho perk in Call Of Duty. I'm sorry for referencing COD guys but it's the only one I know that's done it. Seems pretty good?? You can still aim and shoot while in it...
I think just increasing the game speed and using the analog stick half way or all the way would accomplish this.
if your gun stays up while sprinting what's the point in sniping or not running?
Well I mean if you can move faster, then what’s the point in adding in sprint?
to allow players to move faster without the use of weapons to keep balance.
Guiscardus wrote:
Guiscardus wrote:
IRaliugaI wrote:
I hate this idea, but what about a "sprint button" that makes you go into a sprint, BUT, your gun stays up. Much like the gung-ho perk in Call Of Duty. I'm sorry for referencing COD guys but it's the only one I know that's done it. Seems pretty good?? You can still aim and shoot while in it...
I think just increasing the game speed and using the analog stick half way or all the way would accomplish this.
if your gun stays up while sprinting what's the point in sniping or not running?
Well I mean if you can move faster, then what’s the point in adding in sprint?
to allow players to move faster without the use of weapons to keep balance.
How / Why is full speed and weapons up unbalanced?
Sorry for being late everyone. I had to go to sleep and run some errands by morning.

Anyway, let’s get to why I’m here.

4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Yeah, it is. To me, gameplay is half about how it feels, so that’s why I have gripes with classic. It just feels like I’m on a collar midmatch, so my concentration is constantly breaking.
Alright so what it boils down to is you like the feel in general of the new games while I do not like the feel and overall changes to maps, vehicles, movement and what not. This isn’t so much of an arguement of how sprint hurts, helps Halo. It is me saying why I don’t like the changes and reasons why, and to you the reasons don’t matter since the game overall feels better. Do I have that right?
No, that’s an intentionally skewed take to try and make my argument look bad. What I am saying is that the feel of the gameplay can not be compromised because uncomfortable gameplay leads to broken concentration, which is a big no-no in a sweaty game like Halo. What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
So to you, Halo CE- ODST had uncomfortable gameplay? As in it fidn’t feel good and broke concentration? That maximum competativeness with simplicity was what made Halo the juggernaut it was.(I know I know, we can’t for sure know why... but Halo 3 was very popular) The movement options are literally, move however you want with gun up, run looking dead ahead with gun down. Don’t entirely see the restictions.

Serious or not, there were a lot of changes made to accomidate sprint that affect many aspects of the game.

So uselessness of vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, motion trackers, redesigns of maps, weapon aiming, shield system, and all that jazz is worthwhile to implement an animation that locks you out of using your weapons and looking around, and slows the base movement speed (by map traversal, I know you”technically” move faster in Halo 5), for interception and more comfortable gameplay that millions did not have issues with?
I’ve already stated earlier my complaints with classic. What I do disagree with in that first but is the assertion of maximizing competitiveness. I think a balance between the 2 should be struck, personally.

Now what I really object to is the assertion that things like mancannons, the radar, teleporter and all that became useless. Mancannons and teleporters still move you around a lot faster than sprint, the teleporters especially. I don’t personally see how a 20% faster second gear automatically renders the 2 useless. The radar’s uselessness stems from the fact that it’s tiny. All it needs a range bump and it’ll be fine.

Sprint isn’t outrunning a mongoose anytime soon buddy. Vehicles still hold a lot of transportation and offensive value.

I don’t really see how weapon aiming becomes useless with sprint. Do you mean it’s harder? I mean that’s pretty subjective, but hitting a sprinter with a 5 shot from a Magnum or 3 shotting him with a LightRifle isn’t all that hard with decent aim and positioning. If you’re talking about aim assist, you’ll need to elaborate a little further with the exact issue.

All in all though, I’m speaking for myself here, not the millions who played H3. Even then though, I wonder how a full switch back to classic may be received after a game like H5. It would be incredibly jarring to say the least.
Have to have a life am I right?

That extra amount of speed plus other abilities and what not has let to a severe lack of them on maps. All radar needs is a bump, but it hasn't so that's why I've listed it.

Vehicles hold offensive value, but since the implementation of sprint, the transportation use has seen a lot less use.

The aiming was part of the redesign area of my quote, I'll dig for it, but you can snipe someone as they run behind a wall and still get the headshot.

As I said in this post or another, if you bake chocolate cakes and do well, then decide to change the frosting or make it red velvet and start to lose sales, you may not be able to determine if that change caused the drop in sales, but you'll probably try to sell chocolate cakes again. There is no reason to think going back to classic movement would be jarring, not to mention games that have been "going back to their roots" have been seeing more success.
What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness.
There is no disregard. Most opponents of sprint probably feel like gameplay is more comfortable without sprint. I certainly do.

But comfort is such a nebulous and subjective concept that it's difficult to talk about. If I had to say something about it, I'd say that comfort to me, in the context of games, is at least partially about spending the minimal effort to accomplish a goal. Worrying about an extra button and which mode of transportation I'm in is ever so slightly more effort to accomplish the same task, and therefore I consider sprint to be the less comfortable option. However, clearly comfort means something entirely different to you.

Even then though, I wonder how a full switch back to classic may be received after a game like H5. It would be incredibly jarring to say the least.
We don't really know. It depends entirely on how much interest there is in classic Halo in comparison to Halo 5. It could be a lot more, it could be that most players don't care significantly one way or the other, or it could be a lot less. At least based on reactions to the Halo Infinite trailer, as well as interest in various community projects related to classic Halo, it seems like in the online community there is quite a bit of interest in classic Halo. Of course, one can never know how feelings of the people who have actively played Halo at some point but do not participate in online communities distribute.

When it comes to being jarring, can't be more jarring than the move from Halo 4 to 5. After all, we went from an essentially class-based shooter with very basic movement to one with equal starts and a significantly complex movement system. Of course, whether Halo 5 is more successful than Halo 4, we don't know, but it can't significantly less successful. So it seems like the how jarring the transition is is not a significant factor, and players are capable of transitioning over.
Sorry for being late everyone. I had to go to sleep and run some errands by morning.

Anyway, let’s get to why I’m here.

4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Yeah, it is. To me, gameplay is half about how it feels, so that’s why I have gripes with classic. It just feels like I’m on a collar midmatch, so my concentration is constantly breaking.
Alright so what it boils down to is you like the feel in general of the new games while I do not like the feel and overall changes to maps, vehicles, movement and what not. This isn’t so much of an arguement of how sprint hurts, helps Halo. It is me saying why I don’t like the changes and reasons why, and to you the reasons don’t matter since the game overall feels better. Do I have that right?
No, that’s an intentionally skewed take to try and make my argument look bad. What I am saying is that the feel of the gameplay can not be compromised because uncomfortable gameplay leads to broken concentration, which is a big no-no in a sweaty game like Halo. What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
So to you, Halo CE- ODST had uncomfortable gameplay? As in it fidn’t feel good and broke concentration? That maximum competativeness with simplicity was what made Halo the juggernaut it was.(I know I know, we can’t for sure know why... but Halo 3 was very popular) The movement options are literally, move however you want with gun up, run looking dead ahead with gun down. Don’t entirely see the restictions.

Serious or not, there were a lot of changes made to accomidate sprint that affect many aspects of the game.

So uselessness of vehicles, teleporters, man cannons, motion trackers, redesigns of maps, weapon aiming, shield system, and all that jazz is worthwhile to implement an animation that locks you out of using your weapons and looking around, and slows the base movement speed (by map traversal, I know you”technically” move faster in Halo 5), for interception and more comfortable gameplay that millions did not have issues with?
I’ve already stated earlier my complaints with classic. What I do disagree with in that first but is the assertion of maximizing competitiveness. I think a balance between the 2 should be struck, personally.

Now what I really object to is the assertion that things like mancannons, the radar, teleporter and all that became useless. Mancannons and teleporters still move you around a lot faster than sprint, the teleporters especially. I don’t personally see how a 20% faster second gear automatically renders the 2 useless. The radar’s uselessness stems from the fact that it’s tiny. All it needs a range bump and it’ll be fine.

Sprint isn’t outrunning a mongoose anytime soon buddy. Vehicles still hold a lot of transportation and offensive value.

I don’t really see how weapon aiming becomes useless with sprint. Do you mean it’s harder? I mean that’s pretty subjective, but hitting a sprinter with a 5 shot from a Magnum or 3 shotting him with a LightRifle isn’t all that hard with decent aim and positioning. If you’re talking about aim assist, you’ll need to elaborate a little further with the exact issue.

All in all though, I’m speaking for myself here, not the millions who played H3. Even then though, I wonder how a full switch back to classic may be received after a game like H5. It would be incredibly jarring to say the least.
Have to have a life am I right?

That extra amount of speed plus other abilities and what not has let to a severe lack of them on maps. All radar needs is a bump, but it hasn't so that's why I've listed it.

Vehicles hold offensive value, but since the implementation of sprint, the transportation use has seen a lot less use.

The aiming was part of the redesign area of my quote, I'll dig for it, but you can snipe someone as they run behind a wall and still get the headshot.

As I said in this post or another, if you bake chocolate cakes and do well, then decide to change the frosting or make it red velvet and start to lose sales, you may not be able to determine if that change caused the drop in sales, but you'll probably try to sell chocolate cakes again. There is no reason to think going back to classic movement would be jarring, not to mention games that have been "going back to their roots" have been seeing more success.
The extra amount of speed isn’t really a good excuse of keeping them out of maps. I wouldn’t mind increasing their numbers, and I don’t think sprint really does all that much to negate their usefulness. I’d be 100% for having more mancannons and teleporters.

Even with sprint, vehicles still have a lot of transportation value. Sprint still isn’t outrunning a mongoose. Whenever I play BTB or WZFF, I still do see a lot of vehicles like the mongoose. They!re often used not only for the awesome splatter value, but to save time in getting to the boss.

The aiming thing? I guess I can see the negatives, but I’ve personally never seen it happen (rarely ever use snipers, that might be why). I guess it can go, sprint isn’t as fast as to warrant a violation of physics. Reducing sniper aim assist is never something I’m particularly against.

Ok, good point. That “jarring” bit was a bit of a side remark and some speculation (because going from H5 straight to H2-style is still a massive jump), but you are right that going to classic alone might not cause a big shakeup.
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often 1) the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and 2) can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of 3) interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
1) I played a lot of shooters during the 360 days, and a whole lot of them had sprint. My left thumb actually hurt from having to click the stick down every time I wanted to move. How is that more comfortable than just pushing the stick? Doom provides one of the most comfortable FPS experiences I have felt in a decade. It's fast, responsive and doesn't require extra inputs for zero extra outcomes.

2) Such as?

3) If both players can sprint, how can you intercept?. If player A takes off sprinting, and player B sprints to intercept, both players end up playing follow the leader. Without combat capabilities while "intercepting" you can not force the other player to fight. You could end up chasing player A forever if they chose. The only way to intercept in a game designed with sprint would be to predict their path and cut them off. Where as a game without sprint allows you to both cut player A off, and shoot/grenade them, while giving chase, in order to force them to fight. Again, it's what I said about Classic Halo having more depth (and giving the player more choice in the way they play) while Halo 5 offers an illusion of depth through more complexity, while ultimately reducing the freedom and choice (i.e. depth) of the game and the players.
Richnj wrote:
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
What I find to be flawed in the argument on the antisprint side is that often 1) the arguments disregard comfortable gameplay for maximum competitiveness. Sure, Classic may give you some more competitive maps, but the restrictions on movement options aren’t as easy of a barter as you make it seem and 2) can even be seen as a net detriment.

In short, I find that the detriments of Sprint aren’t as serious as they’re often made out to be and the apparent benefits of 3) interception and comfort, even if said comfort is illusory, far outweigh the resulting map elongation and other detriments. But, that’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
1) I played a lot of shooters during the 360 days, and a whole lot of them had sprint. My left thumb actually hurt from having to click the stick down every time I wanted to move. How is that more comfortable than just pushing the stick? Doom provides one of the most comfortable FPS experiences I have felt in a decade. It's fast, responsive and doesn't require extra inputs for zero extra outcomes.

2) Such as?

3) If both players can sprint, how can you intercept?. If player A takes off sprinting, and player B sprints to intercept, both players end up playing follow the leader. Without combat capabilities while "intercepting" you can not force the other player to fight. You could end up chasing player A forever if they chose. The only way to intercept in a game designed with sprint would be to predict their path and cut them off. Where as a game without sprint allows you to both cut player A off, and shoot/grenade them, while giving chase, in order to force them to fight. Again, it's what I said about Classic Halo having more depth (and giving the player more choice in the way they play) while Halo 5 offers an illusion of depth through more complexity, while ultimately reducing the freedom and choice (i.e. depth) of the game and the players.
1. That’s dependent on your control scheme. I use Helljumper and other Bumper Jumper setups on games whenever I can, so I can’t really relate to the thumb issue. Also, “comfort” in this situation is in the context of not being locked down behind restrictions, so in that sense Classic is very uncomfortable to me. It’s more fitting to call it “appreciation of freedom”, but in a sense the availability of the extra option of sprint can be interpreted as “comfort”.

2. Locking down movement to the point that classic does is a lessening of freedom, which in my case is defined as the sheer availability of options. Even disregarding the aspect of freedom, going back to classic will likely require a tightening of the maps, worsening the consequences of nade spam (which is already terrible enough in H5’s elongated maps). If you elongate the maps sans sprint, then you suffer from bad travel times and slower gameplay. All in all, these 2 factors are what I see as pretty big detriments to gameplay.

Also, the lessening of immersion by the movement lockdown and the effects that has on my concentration in online games are also pretty big reasons why I’m pro-sprint.

3. That’s assuming both players are running at the same time. Interception by sprint is best used in unexpected flanks and for catching paranoid walking roamers off-guard. On a lot of H5 symmetrical maps, the teams typically patrol the outer edges in my experience (going to the middle is often suicide by Magnum jockey). What makes sprint so wonderfully useful here is it can be used to catch enemies from behind after a big gunfight, very useful for cleanups (as a guy freshly hurt from a gunfight would be an idiot to sprint and take the hit to the recharge time), and is extremely effective for pinches. It caters to my playstyle a lot, which often lurks in the element of surprise. In that sense, I see sprint and the inequality of speeds a 2 geared system provides to have great tactical advantages, and it’s wonderful for clutch plays.
Delta5931 wrote:
And that’s where we fundamentally differ. You really only care about gameplay judging by your little slogan there.

Immersion, like it or not, is a huge part of how someone experiences a game and plays a big part in how they perform online. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem. If someone can’t get immersed and get into a rhythm, the online experience is compromised, especially in a game that requires as much “in the moment” thinking as Halo. That’s just the facts. If you're in the middle of a match and you keep nagging back to reality because of uncomfortable mechanics, the experience is a lot worse.

That’s why I want a balance to be struck. Your extreme bias towards gameplay doesn’t apply for everyone, and claiming it does is intellectually dishonest projection of your own biases.

Now I’m only speaking for myself here, as I should. Claiming that I speak for everyone is intellectually dishonest. I personally believe a game is 2/3 gameplay, 1/3 immersion. Like you, I don’t really care about graphics, and have been immersed in games with some pretty bad graphics.

And it’s my personal belief that immersion is necessary for a good online experience, and that’s backed by my experience. To sum it up, I dislike classic for the following reasons:

  • Uncomfortable mechanics breaking immersion
  • Incessant grenade spamming on the resulting tight maps
  • Classic utilizes textbook “play-counterplay” patterns and doesn’t sufficiently cater to live reactions
That's because gameplay trumps everything else that's on offer.
Take any of the major E-Sports games right now. DotA 2, TF2, CS:GO, Overwatch. Heck, even take Fortnite, the most popular game on the planet. I wouldn't describe any of those games as immersive, but they have more players overall than Halo 5 and a larger E-Sports following (bar Fortnite). Why? Well, from what I've seen, it's because these games play well instead of just looking good. Of course, that's based purely on what I've observed. Kinda sad that a game from 2009 has more players on a daily basis than Halo 5, a game from 2016, does.

Immersion does not matter as much as how a game flows and plays. While this may not be true of everyone, it's what keeps people coming back, not the immersion, at least based on what I've observed throughout my long time playing games.As for your three points, I could do one of two things:
  • Citation Needed
Or

  • Immersion does not matter as much as a game that plays well, no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. Immersion may be important to you but that doesn't mean it's important to the rest of us
  • Grenade spam is far worse in Halo 5 than it is in Halo 3, based solely on my experience in both games. Every single encounter on the base maps of Halo 5 starts with a grenade. You keep bringing up grenade spam pretty consistently, but from everything I've played in Halo 5, I'm lead to believe that the grenade spam is far, far worse than you make it out to be. I don't think this is a problem that will easily be fixed, regardless of the movement system in place.
  • Both styles of movement have the same issue of textbook encounters. You generally do the same thing every encounter, if that's what you're getting at.
Of course, much like you, I'm basing the above solely on my experience with the game.
Delta5931 wrote:
Delta5931 wrote:
And that’s where we fundamentally differ. You really only care about gameplay judging by your little slogan there.

Immersion, like it or not, is a huge part of how someone experiences a game and plays a big part in how they perform online. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem. If someone can’t get immersed and get into a rhythm, the online experience is compromised, especially in a game that requires as much “in the moment” thinking as Halo. That’s just the facts. If you're in the middle of a match and you keep nagging back to reality because of uncomfortable mechanics, the experience is a lot worse.

That’s why I want a balance to be struck. Your extreme bias towards gameplay doesn’t apply for everyone, and claiming it does is intellectually dishonest projection of your own biases.

Now I’m only speaking for myself here, as I should. Claiming that I speak for everyone is intellectually dishonest. I personally believe a game is 2/3 gameplay, 1/3 immersion. Like you, I don’t really care about graphics, and have been immersed in games with some pretty bad graphics.

And it’s my personal belief that immersion is necessary for a good online experience, and that’s backed by my experience. To sum it up, I dislike classic for the following reasons:

  • Uncomfortable mechanics breaking immersion
  • Incessant grenade spamming on the resulting tight maps
  • Classic utilizes textbook “play-counterplay” patterns and doesn’t sufficiently cater to live reactions
Immersion does not matter as much as how a game flows and plays. While this may not be true of everyone, it's what keeps people coming back, not the immersion, at least based on what I've observed throughout my long time playing games.As for your three points, I could do one of two things:
  • Citation Needed
Prologue: I understand immersion isn’t your priority in Halo but you sound like an intelligent person so the concept of immersion in video games should not be going straight over your head (like you’re making it appear)

1th: Here’s your “citation needed

2nd: No offense but this strikes me as a lazy and borderline condescending response... This is something you could have easily found by running a quick google search; as articles and/or YouTube clips outlining the benefits for immersion in video games can literally be found everywhere. You can argue against it all you want but don’t try to pretend like this concept isn’t common knowledge.

3rd: Just because Halo is a sci-if FPS title does not mean the entire franchise should be completely devoid of immersion and/or realism. Enjoying a certain amount of these elements can help suck you into the whole of the experience; additionally leading you to be able to relate much more to the experience and/or characters that you’re playing with. I.E. When the movement of my character that I’m controlling in Halo resembles how a real soldier should actually move then the overall experience feels more immersive and overall more genuine. There is a lot of enjoyment that comes out of playing Halos 4 and 5 when one can sprint like an actual soldier has to sprint in real life. The resulting tactics that have to be implemented by the player with this risk/reward mechanic is subsequently more real, immersive, and genuine. And for those of us pro sprinters this is a rewarding aspect of modern Halo that we greatly enjoy.
Richnj wrote:
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
1. That’s dependent on your control scheme. I use Helljumper and other Bumper Jumper setups on games whenever I can, so I can’t really relate to the thumb issue. Also, “comfort” in this situation is in the context of not being locked down behind restrictions, so in that sense Classic is very uncomfortable to me. It’s more fitting to call it “appreciation of freedom”, but in a sense the availability of the extra option of sprint can be interpreted as “comfort”.

2. Locking down movement to the point that classic does is a lessening of freedom, which in my case is defined as the sheer availability of options. Even disregarding the aspect of freedom, going back to classic will likely require a tightening of the maps, worsening the consequences of nade spam (which is already terrible enough in H5’s elongated maps). If you elongate the maps sans sprint, then you suffer from bad travel times and slower gameplay. All in all, these 2 factors are what I see as pretty big detriments to gameplay.

Also, the lessening of immersion by the movement lockdown and the effects that has on my concentration in online games are also pretty big reasons why I’m pro-sprint.

3. That’s assuming both players are running at the same time. Interception by sprint is best used in unexpected flanks and for catching paranoid walking roamers off-guard. On a lot of H5 symmetrical maps, the teams typically patrol the outer edges in my experience (going to the middle is often suicide by Magnum jockey). What makes sprint so wonderfully useful here is it can be used to catch enemies from behind after a big gunfight, very useful for cleanups (as a guy freshly hurt from a gunfight would be an idiot to sprint and take the hit to the recharge time), and is extremely effective for pinches. It caters to my playstyle a lot, which often lurks in the element of surprise. In that sense, I see sprint and the inequality of speeds a 2 geared system provides to have great tactical advantages, and it’s wonderful for clutch plays.
1) Since Default places sprint on the left stick, as does every other game out there, it's safe to assume that the vast majority of players are playing that way.

2a) Sprint in of itself IS a restriction. You are restricted to only moving forward to sprint, and it removes your ability to use weapons while moving at that speed. If you really appreciated freedom, you'd appreciate being able to jump, melee, grenade, shoot, regenerate shield, or any combination of those, whilst also moving at top speed in any direction you pleased.

2b) Grenade spam is a completely other matter that is unrelated to sprint. I mean, you already admitted it's already bad in Halo 5, with sprint, and with larger maps. Grenade spam comes down to what grenades players have on spawn, how many of them they get, how many they can carry at any given time, and what grenades spawn on map. If you want to change grenade spam, you changes these. You can see Bungie doing this between Halo 2 and 3. In Halo 2, grenade spam was very bad. You could carry 4 frags and 4 plasmas. In Halo 3 you could carry 2 frags, 2 plasmas, and 2 brute, and 2 flame grenades. The brutes weren't always available and the flame grenades were really rare. Meaning the usual grenades carried were effectively halved.

3) That's flanking, not intercepting. Intercepting is catching someone to stop them moving on towards a destination. And since Halo 5's main way of traveling to a location is sprinting, it's a far less common sight to find someone just walking to where they need to be. So we are assuming a player just had a big fight (not with you of course because otherwise you would also be wary about sprinting before your shield recharged), and you are coming up behind them to finish them off, and you want to swoop in in zero effort and pick up an easy kill from a player who apparently defended his location?.

See, this is where I start to lose interest in "modern" Halo. Classic Halo requires great team work and lots of forward thinking in order to flank the players. That's tactical to me. Where as Halo 5 caters to the lone wolf style of play, where a good player who defended himself can get flanked out in a moment's notice because players are sprinting around trying to pick up kills one at a time. If you want to flank a guy, you don't just run in a kill him, you start that journey early. You predict where that player will likely go/stay, and you start moving in on their position, and if you want to clean up a kill, you co-ordinate with your team to start the fight at the right time for you to do so.
Quote:
tactical shooters "are about caution, care, cooperation, coordination, planning, and pacing. In these games, making decisive pushes, quick moves for cover, strategic retreats, and last ditch grabs at the gold are not only important to success, but balanced in such a way that they become enjoyable activities in play
That sounds a hellva lot more like Classic Halo to me. Classic Halo was far more tactical than Halo 5.
3rd: Just because Halo is a sci-if FPS title does not mean the entire franchise should be completely devoid of immersion and/or realism. Enjoying a certain amount of these elements can help suck you into the whole of the experience; additionally leading you to be able to relate much more to the experience and/or characters that you’re playing with. I.E. When the movement of my character that I’m controlling in Halo resembles how a real soldier should actually move then the overall experience feels more immersive and overall more genuine. There is a lot of enjoyment that comes out of playing Halos 4 and 5 when one can sprint like an actual soldier has to sprint in real life. The resulting tactics that have to be implemented by the player with this risk/reward mechanic is subsequently more real, immersive, and genuine.
That does not mean elements should be added specifically because of immersion, especially if there is a chance that it harms gameplay to make it happen.

Case in point: My swimming argument. You brought up how Marine soldiers climbed something you can't in Halo 3, but the Arbiter & Elites climb up a ledge that you can't in Halo 5, even with Clamber (still waiting for a response on that). Why isn't that immersion breaking when it was such a problem in Halo 3? Now Spartans have no excuse to be unable to climb that ledge when there's a game mechanic all about climbing ledges.

And then we come to the argument that people constantly bring up: What if they are always Sprinting? Spartans are super advanced soldiers that people like to reiterate, so why are they bound to play exactly like a normal human when they aren't normal humans? Just say they can shoot and Sprint at the same time in previous games. Not fast enough for you? Increase the Base Movement Speed, now they're "sprinting" even faster.

From a certain perspective, you didn't add Sprint to Halo, you just added walking. In Halo Reach and Halo 4, you gave Spartans the ability to get tired from running short distances, which is funny enough, very unlike an "advanced super soldier."
Richnj wrote:
Richnj wrote:
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Quote:
tactical shooters "are about caution, care, cooperation, coordination, planning, and pacing. In these games, making decisive pushes, quick moves for cover, strategic retreats, and last ditch grabs at the gold are not only important to success, but balanced in such a way that they become enjoyable activities in play
That sounds a hellva lot more like Classic Halo to me. Classic Halo was far more tactical than Halo 5.
I can understand where you’re coming from here... I still prefer Halo with sprint and do feel that Halo 5 is overall one of the most (if not the most) competitive entries in the franchise, but I get where you’re coming from on this point in terms of “tactical balance.” I’d personally agree with you that not having sprint is indeed overall more balanced in this sense, it’s just not my cup of tea.

While I don’t fully agree with your other points- I’ll let Ben reply to them as that’s who you were intending this post for anyway; but I’ll leave this reply with this: In the same sense that modern Halo is boring to you, classic Halo is equally (if not more) boring to me because it lacks sprint.
Delta5931 wrote:
Delta5931 wrote:
Prologue: I understand immersion isn’t your priority in Halo but you sound like an intelligent person so the concept of immersion in video games should not be going straight over your head (like you’re making it appear)

1th: Here’s your “citation needed

2nd: No offense but this strikes me as a lazy and borderline condescending response... This is something you could have easily found by running a quick google search; as articles and/or YouTube clips outlining the benefits for immersion in video games can literally be found everywhere. You can argue against it all you want but don’t try to pretend like this concept isn’t common knowledge.

3rd: Just because Halo is a sci-if FPS title does not mean the entire franchise should be completely devoid of immersion and/or realism. Enjoying a certain amount of these elements can help suck you into the whole of the experience; additionally leading you to be able to relate much more to the experience and/or characters that you’re playing with. I.E. When the movement of my character that I’m controlling in Halo resembles how a real soldier should actually move then the overall experience feels more immersive and overall more genuine. There is a lot of enjoyment that comes out of playing Halos 4 and 5 when one can sprint like an actual soldier has to sprint in real life. The resulting tactics that have to be implemented by the player with this risk/reward mechanic is subsequently more real, immersive, and genuine.
1) Yeah, that article talks about two types of immersion. 'Impersonal' and 'personal'.

Quote:
With 'impersonal immersion', you're identifying with a particular existing character in a game (or novel, TV show, et cetera), a character with a cohesive personality, context and appearance differing from that of the observer. You're Mario, or Kratos, or whoever. You're observing their story-related behavior in cutscenes, and possibly you're reacting to events as they do, but the appearance and behavior of the characters is more or less hard-wired and you're there for the vicariously immersive ride.
In short it means that we'll accept the notion of a non-sprinting Spartan, and still be fully immersed, as long as it was established that he doesn't sprint. Which is how MC was established.
Quote:
With 'personal immersion', you're literally putting yourself into the game; i.e. your thoughts, appearance (however you'd like to project it as in-game), emotional and behavioral responses to story events, etc, all within a fictional context. This can apply to avatar characters, by the way, in which the player-character doesn't resemble the player themselves but rather a character the player chooses to identify with.
So just like Halo Reach then. You had no story on Six, he had barely any reaction to the events, but we made him our own and he let us immerse ourselves in to that story. Again, completely unrelated to mechanics of the game.

The irony here of course being that you posted a link to prove how important immersion is, but that very same article talks about how on screen characters are important to immersion, not certain game mechanics.

3) Doom. Doomguy is a super BA. He jumps clambers, runs and guns, rips demons apart, and the game is very immersive. It got a better score than Halo 5 did. It definitely has a better user score than Halo 5. Sometimes the fantasy is better than reality. When every game is trying to 'realism', a game like Doom stands out. People love Doom more than Halo 5 and that wouldn't be the case without an immersive experience. Sprint isn't required for immersion on a Sci-fi shooter.
3rd: Just because Halo is a sci-if FPS title does not mean the entire franchise should be completely devoid of immersion and/or realism. Enjoying a certain amount of these elements can help suck you into the whole of the experience; additionally leading you to be able to relate much more to the experience and/or characters that you’re playing with. I.E. When the movement of my character that I’m controlling in Halo resembles how a real soldier should actually move then the overall experience feels more immersive and overall more genuine. There is a lot of enjoyment that comes out of playing Halos 4 and 5 when one can sprint like an actual soldier has to sprint in real life. The resulting tactics that have to be implemented by the player with this risk/reward mechanic is subsequently more real, immersive, and genuine.
  • That does not mean elements should be added specifically because of immersion, especially if there is a chance that it harms gameplay to make it happen.
Understand the concept and agree, I would just argue that the immersion sprint has brought to Halo is indeed something that benefits the overall experience.
  • Case in point: My swimming argument. You brought up how Marine soldiers climbed something you can't in Halo 3, but the Arbiter & Elites climb up a ledge that you can't in Halo 5, even with Clamber (still waiting for a response on that).
No I didn’t every bring that up... Must’ve been someone else, sorry. :-/
  • Why isn't that immersion breaking when it was such a problem in Halo 3? Now Spartans have no excuse to be unable to climb that ledge when there's a game mechanic all about climbing ledges.
Interesting question. I actually quite liked clamber, but understand the gripes against it and think at the very least it would need to be tweaked to remain in future Halo titles. I do think that sprint is required to set up clamber properly, but clamber isn’t required to remain in Halo anyway... Certainly if you forced me pick one or the other I’d say “Take Clamber and leave sprint in Halo.”
  • And then we come to the argument that people constantly bring up: What if they are always Sprinting? Spartans are super advanced soldiers that people like to reiterate, so why are they bound to play exactly like a normal human when they aren't normal humans? Just say they can shoot and Sprint at the same time in previous games. Not fast enough for you? Increase the Base Movement Speed, now they're "sprinting" even faster.
Doesn't make any sense that a Spartan should always be sprinting... One BMS would be akin to making them one dimensional to me, in terms of movement. There’s literally zero range to their movement with one BMS and no controllability to implement speed boosts as the situation dictates. Just like Spartans in Halo lore, Halos 4 and 5 have proven (to me anyways) that certain situations simply require you to move faster (if you have any sense about it, anyway)- for instance hauling your tail to snatch a power weapon from your spawn, or trying to close the distance on an unsuspecting opponent that is moving away from you and turning corners. It just feels right that I should be able to sprint. And while I do still play the MCC, I feel so constricted and stripped down without sprint- I hate moving with one BMS- even on CE and 2 where one BMS is “faster,” than H3. I always try to naturally hit that sprint button which is always sooo disappointing to me when it’s simply not there on classic Halo.
  • From a certain perspective, you didn't add Sprint to Halo, you just added walking. In Halo Reach and Halo 4, you gave Spartans the ability to get tired from running short distances, which is funny enough, very unlike an "advanced super soldier."
I can understand why it feels that way to you (I really can), but sprinting just feels more exciting and energetic to me... Master Chief feels like I’m playing as a 60 year old man in Halo 3 versus an athletic and elite super soldier when he sprints in Halos 4 and 5. But each their own in this regard...
Richnj wrote:
Richnj wrote:
4. Well then what’ve you accomplished? All you have then is a slightly faster Halo 2/3, which doesn’t make a good compromise.
Isn't that exactly what people wanted in the first place? To move faster than Halo 2 & Halo 3 because they felt so slow? That's basically the main complaint (both satirical and legitimate) in this thread about those two.

Like there's the solution, it solved the problem that everyone was having. The game is not (as) slow anymore, and there's no Sprint animation anymore. What's the problem here?

The weapons sucked? That's a sandbox problem. Maps are too large? That's a map design problem. Sprint never made any of them better (more people argue it made them worse).
That’s the main complaint for a lot of people, but my main complaint is in that H1-3 felt restricted. A slow game can be serviced by map design, but a feeling of restriction boils down to the fundamental classic movement system itself. That’s why I’d rather keep sprint. Illusion or not, it definitely feels more free than the one geared system. I also prefer it because 2 geared caters to my flanking playstyle a lot more than a universal max speed.

Also, remark No.4 was a lot more about the increase proposed rather than the idea of increase in BMS itself. If I’m going to tolerate a classic movement system, I’d expect bigger maps to lessen nade spamming and a bigger bump than 15%. My big problems with classic movement were the terrible nade spam and the limiting feeling.
That’s a lot of use of the word feel.
Quote:
tactical shooters "are about caution, care, cooperation, coordination, planning, and pacing. In these games, making decisive pushes, quick moves for cover, strategic retreats, and last ditch grabs at the gold are not only important to success, but balanced in such a way that they become enjoyable activities in play
That sounds a hellva lot more like Classic Halo to me. Classic Halo was far more tactical than Halo 5.
I can understand where you’re coming from here... I still prefer Halo with sprint and do feel that Halo 5 is overall one of the most (if not the most) competitive entries in the franchise, but I get where you’re coming from on this point in terms of “tactical balance.” I’d personally agree with you that not having sprint is indeed overall more balanced in this sense, it’s just not my cup of tea.

While I don’t fully agree with your other points- I’ll let Ben reply to them as that’s who you were intending this post for anyway; but I’ll leave this reply with this: In the same sense that modern Halo is boring to you, classic Halo is equally (if not more) boring to me because it lacks sprint.
Well I'm not here to tell people they can't like something, or that they are wrong for liking something.

Hell, I'm not even here to dictate that all future Halo games (or even the mainline Halos) must be classic by design. I would have been happy to just have a sub-series dedicated to the style, especially after the MCC botch job. At this point I;m not buying any Halos ever again. I wouldn't even buy Halo: Infinite if it turned out it was a classic style game. I am beyond wanting Halo to 'return to its roots' (again, for the 3rd time).

The only reason I still visit this site, and this forum in particular is to argue the merits of game design, especially from the aspect of classic Halo and the simplicity of the original series. What others take away is entirely their choice.
Also, the lessening of immersion by the movement lockdown and the effects that has on my concentration in online games are also pretty big reasons why I’m pro-sprint.
This goes for everyone else as well, but immersion for the pro-sprinters, and gameplay feeling for the anti-sprint folk, are such subjective and opinionated topics that no one should ever debate or even bring them up in discussion of heated topics. Immersion for you isn't the same as immersion for me, and what gets us immersed isn't the same as the other person reading this. For example, I could be playing some military-themed VR game with giant mechs, kind of like Steel Battalion or Gundam, and be completely immersed as being a mech pilot, and someone else who's a military buff can't get into it because the science behind giant, multi-legged robots is completely infeasable. You could be completely immersed into Battlefield as a squad-based game, yet another player may say that the amount of insane jet feats done by good players ruin the "seriousness" game for them. There could be a whole clan of gamers who play ArmA 3 and get completely immersed in its military simulation, while a clan that plays another military simulator, like Squad, can't get into ArmA 3 because the control system ported over from the original ArmA, Operation Flashpoint, breaks their immersion. See what I mean?

This isn't to say your stance on immersion is wrong or invalidated, because it isn't, but it's to say that opinions like immersion and feeling can never be properly debated between only two people and will always go in circles, which is why professional debates on opinionated issues such as politics and finance are always moderated by a third party. The only thing we can do is compare the gameplay systems and game flow of each FPS Halo game, and maybe find something of a common ground to explore for future titles.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 803
  4. 804
  5. 805
  6. 806
  7. 807
  8. ...
  9. 810