-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Halo |OT| She's Gone, Sir
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
They are. It is the only Halo where you can't end up without transportation unless you lose your vehicle to a pit, which isn't really possible outside the second mission.
You know what, Halo Infinity avatars seem popular right now, I think I'll give this a shot.
D:
Jesus dude take a chill pill. I wasn't being serious.
is it a fact that ADS was created to solve this "problem" of glitchy zoom? do you have a source?
personally, since 2001 I've never felt like my arms were "blinking out of existence". thanks to the sound effects and HUD effects, I've always felt that zooming in snaps to a camera feed.
As far as i can tell, ADS is just a progression of "iron sights" a cosmetic tweak on "precision aim" used as far back as golden eye to give precision aiming a realistic feel.... which was inspired by Virtua Cop mechanics.
i can't find anything to suggest ADS was created to fix a glitch, it was created as an appeal to realism.
i don't think there is an 'ADS-hating' community. just a community that thinks a that the mechanics that make it into a game should be determined by how it impacts that individual game's gameplay, not its popularity within the industry. i like ADS... just not it Halo.
Last edited:
there's no realistic reason why sprint is neccisary, even in an open world. a good open world is just a carefully arranged collection of smaller environments.
if they create spaces that make players feel a need to move faster than BMS, then they can provide vehicles, speed boosting items, or boost BMS such that players don't feel that way.
how is old school halo "not viable" for a flagship when new school halo is the reason the franchises mindshare is at an all time low? in your mind, what's the correlation between Sprint and Flagship FPS? meanwhile the two biggest FPS on the planet lack sprint as a base mechanic.
That will be a great day for the people who just like Halo.
Let's be honest, there's only one Halo game. The rest are just spin-offs.
ggnore
Well, I wont say you're wrong, but you are not right either. Personally I would love an expansive Halo game. I do not want a survival game, but I would love a big world. But think about if the Silent Cartographer and Halo levels were combined. That would make for a hell of a map!
Halo 3 ODST messed with a hub world and it was fantastic. If they could do the same for Halo Infinite, except larger, that would be the Halo game of all time. Personally, I don't think that people should get hung up on the little things. If it's a great game, you will know it, adding mechanics wont change that. If you want the classic Halo gameplay, you know where to find it. But if they make a Halo great enough, you won't care that the new mechanics are there.
I know they've said that this isn't built for Xbox, but it'd be neat to see it as an XBLA title that just matches you with 3 other people. Shame that there are experiences in the universe that are just plain inaccessible through the main media format.
Believe it or not a majority of Halo players don't put this much thought into the specifics of gameplay mechanics in Halo games, they just like what they find to be fun. I remember when I first joined HaloGaf like 4 years back the amount of ether towards Halo: Reach was astounding and really helped turn me off from the game. Basically all my friends dropped Halo after Halo 4, so no one talked about it anymore. I got used to thinking that the multiplayer was pretty bad because that's all I'd here online among the vocal minority. However, out of literally everyone around my age (I'm 21), I've heard nothing but love for Reach. I know this is partially a generational thing, you know with "Reach kids" and all (although everyone I know started with and loved Halo 3), but nevertheless people still really like that game. Hell, some people in the more hardcore Halo communities don't even like Halo 3 all that much, which is literally insane to me as that's many Halo players' absolute favorite. Now consider the jump to from Reach to 4: why weren't fans as willing to accept the changes made to Halo's gameplay as they were with Reach, enough so that the population floundered before its one year anniversary? That has to deal with the identity of Halo and what fans have come to expect out of a Halo game from the Bungie era.
Despite caring so much about the little gameplay mechanics that make a big difference for us with Halo, a majority of Halo fans really don't give that much of a shit. For example, I rarely hear people outside of this forum talk about or even know about bloom in Reach, even though that was such a hot topic among the vocal minority. Same goes for armor abilities, no one really cared that sprint was added to Halo at the time, and some even welcomed it along with the rest of them because it's fun to sprint around with an energy sword when others can't, or use a jet pack with a rocket launcher, etc. They weren't universally liked obviously, but a lot of people at least didn't mind them. Why people dropped Halo with 4 is because they felt Halo's identity had been compromised. The campaign had a story that was very serious, dark in tone, and complicated when considering a lot of important information was either locked behind terminals or in the EU, along with Prometheans not being super compelling enemies to fight; a lot of the charm people came to expect out of mainline Halo had completely vanished, and fans felt that this made 4 a boring, bland, and confusing experience. On the multiplayer end, the additions of loadouts and ordinance drops, aka create-a-class and killstreaks, were more associated with games like Call of Duty, whereas Halo was all about equal starts (people at the time viewed AAs as an expansion of Equipment) and map control via power weapon. All in all, this contributed to the game really not feeling like a Halo to most. The same can be said about how Halo 5 shined the spotlight on Locke, made Cortana into an enemy, still had a different art style, and locked cosmetics behind the REQ Pack system, as well as launched fairly barebones. Halo Infinite had such a warm response because it actually looks like Halo, and is clearly trying to regain an identity fans felt had been lost over the past two installments. It's also soft-rebooting the series, taking Halo into a new direction to try to revitalize it as Xbox's flagship title.
Halo Infinite is most likely going to be a 2020 game, maybe even 2021. By that time Halo will be a 19-20 year old franchise, which is crazy to think about. The FPS and shooter market is very competitive; I mean just look at all the ones dropped during E3, they basically dominated those conferences. With the exception of DOOM 2's tease, a game that was definitely not renowned for its multiplayer, but instead its tight, fast-paced modernization of its singleplayer formula, every single last one of those games has sprint in them at some capacity. What I'm trying to say here is that normal gamers who play shooters expect this as a standard for these big titles. When you said two of the biggest multiplayers on the market have no sprint, I assume you were referring to Overwatch and CS:GO. These aren't great comparisons to the game Halo Infinite is trying to be, considering they're both multiplayer-only, with CS:GO being a very fast-paced shooter with a low time to kill (one shot headshots) and Overwatch is a hero shooter that does have sprint in it as well as a variety of other ways to boost the player's BMS on a hero-to hero basis; it wouldn't make sense to give other heroes that for balancement, teamwork, and map design reasons. Infinite is going to have a campaign, and a big one at that, one so large they're making a whole new engine for it. When considering where this is going to be taking Halo as a franchise, many are thinking that it will be more in line with games like The Division, Destiny, or Anthem, which are games as a service. If you thought classic Halo was dead with 343i's older games, this one is probably going to bury it even deeper in some aspects. While Infinite's multiplayer will hopefully still be based in what fans consider to be its identity, it will still be tethered to whatever else is packaged with it. And when games start getting this big, normal fans start wanting sprint.
Whenever I talk about this it always reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend years back before Fallout 4 was released, maybe before it was even announced. I brought up the argument that Fallout 4 did not need sprint, as it was not necessary to the gameplay, movement speed was already fast enough, and the style of sprint as present in Skyrim would kill the immersion of the game due to how distracting it was because of its audio and visual queue. His argument against mine was more or less "the game doesn't need sprint, but I want sprint." Then the game comes out and lo-and-behold, sprint is right there. Bethesda RPGs are actually a great way of tracking what gamers care about when it comes to a game, and the effect that gaming becoming more mainstream has on their design. Morrowind was the first they had to hit it big, but even that game had to make concessions to appeal to a wider audience, that being the need to record dialogue for NPCs restricting the sheer amount of quests the player can partake in. Like sprint, this was just a feature people began to expect, because the casual fan does not want to read through all that dialogue, they want to be immersed in a world. Oblivion followed this, then Fallout 3, Skyrim, and currently Fallout 4. Despite the more hardcore, invested fans complaining about the concessions these games have made to appeal to bigger crowds - those mainly being ways of "dumbing them down" - they've only grown more and more popular. Hell, look at how widely loved Skyrim is; before that game, Todd Howard was afraid that a fantasy game would not draw that large of an audience, believe it or not. Now, Skyrim is absolutely huge still to this day.
I love classic Halo, I would love nothing more than a simple follow-up to what we came to expect with Halo 3. I love the simple gameplay, I love the old school feel, and I would throw my money as fast as possible to a game like that. I'm sure many fans have also regained an interest in Halo Infinite after seeing that trailer show off elements of classic Halo. But the reality of this is that times have changed, and audiences new and old have gotten used to the current language of a shooter like Halo, and that language includes sprint now. It's not realistic to expect that a game of Infinite's scale will limit itself to a formula of a game that came out two decades ago, just like how DOOM didn't either. Xbox is targeting new and old audiences with this game, the old fanbase getting a game that actually looks like a Halo, and the newer audiences are probably going to be getting a game that can be a viable, attractive alternative to other popular games that exist now, whether that be Fortnite, Destiny, or whatever else may be influencing the design of Infinite. I mean think of the changes we'll be seeing to Halo beyond this. Weapon upgrades, armor upgrades, vehicle upgrades; concepts introduced with the REQ System will probably be reimplemented as a form of progression in the shared world game-space, with only cosmetics transferring to Arena. These are only some of the possibilities that Infinite could pursue, and that's going off of what little we know and can assume about it now.
The point of this long-winded argument is pretty much this: Expect change. Expect concessions to be made to make this game fit in with the big boys. This Halo game if definitely make-it-or-break-it for the franchise as a whole; 343i is going to take at least 5 years to get this right, so that Halo may have a base to survive another 10. Modeling a game so closely to a formula introduced in 2001 may not be the best approach for doing that. And sure, like I've said before, if 343i has the balls to launch this game without sprint, then props to them. If they can get this game to not only work but also be successfully marketable and retain the consumer base of 2020 and beyond, then even more props to them for being able to make Halo's basic, classic gameplay work. But as we've seen with Halo over the past three mainline titles, that's a very unlikely choice for them to make. Going back to old art styles and locations make sense, but playing by the same exact rules as a couple decades ago doesn't.
I'm gonna be honest man. The biggest takeaway I got from your post is that we agree that people don't put much thought into mechanics and they just play what's fun.
But people don't have to THINK about mechanics to realize that they aren't having fun. They just play it, realize they don't like it and move on. THAT'S what happened to Halo since the shift in movement mechanics and discontent for HOW IT PLAYS is a large part of the reason for why the franchise is in the positions its in.
This notion that new audiences instantly reject a FPS that doesn't feature sprint as a base mechanic is demonstrably false. Doom was a huge success story. Overwatch and CS:Go are currently the biggest FPS on the planet.
It's completely illogical to invalidate CSGo and Overwatch comparisons. They aren't any more removed from Halo's direction than any of the games that you claim Halo should be drawing inspiration from. The point is, FPS don't NEED to have sprint as a base mechanic to resonate with today's gamers or be successful. Yes Overwatch does have a character that sprints, but sprint isn't a base mechanic and the majority of players are favoring characters that don't sprint. Yes there are alternate means of getting extra speed via character traits- and Halo has historical provided means To increase mobility - in its own way (vehicles, speed boosts, belts, lifts) - and there's room for other methods that are better fits for the sandbox.
Yes, a lot of games have sprint now. But there's no evidence that gamers won't play a game that doesn't have sprint.
Sprint hasn't helped Halo fit in with the big boys since it's inclusion. It never will, because the all of its systems work better When there is a single BMS. Halo, like CounterStrike did just fine against the big boys up until Sprints inclusion. And CS continues to do fine without it, 20 years later.
Lastly, can we please put a nail in the coffin of the straw man argument that continues to prop up in these conversations. No one is arguing that there can be NO CHANGES. the argument is that Sprint, ADS, SAs etc havent been good changes.
Last edited:
Huh. Fun weird amalgam of Reach and CEA in there. I love how they drop into Forge World at one point :P
Looks very good, it's a shame tho it could have served as a console/PC spin off like Halo 3 ODST did, a small but good campaign add firefight and boom a game to hold us until Halo Infinite
Yes, people could pick up classic Halo and have fun with it still if it clicks with them of course, but would seeing that type of gameplay as a complete newcomer be compelling enough to actually get someone to spend $60 on a game? DOOM didn't have sprint, yes, but it's also a very different game than Halo Infinite will be. If 343i was going the traditional route, I would be more supportive of BMS only because level design will be restricted to arena stages tied together. If Infinite is open world, you have to think about it as a part of that market. A big part of open world games are roaming, which is why I keep plugging in my comparisons to Bethesda RPGs; people didn't need sprint to roam, but they sure wanted it. It's an actual demand turned into an expectation for these types of games, which is the point I've been trying to make.
Overwatch and CS:GO don't fit into that unless you think about Halo purely as 4v4 Arena. Both games don't have campaigns, they sure don't have open worlds, exploration, and roaming, and they focus on fast, tight gameplay. They don't need to worry about being tethered to a larger experience, unlike Infinite. Games like Destiny, whose composition may be similar to how Infinite is set up giving its hub world, its various, smaller open-worlds, and the crucible on the side, didn't need sprint either. I can imagine playing Destiny easily without sprint, but Bungie included it because people wanted it to appeal to a broader audience. Halo's going to find itself in a similar position if they enter that market and want to be successful; if Halo doesn't feel as good to play as Destiny, with sprint actually being a pretty big feature for casual players, they won't switch over. That's the chief concern, getting people to buy the game off of the shelf and stick with it.
Also, Counter-Strike has barely changed over it's time because it's goal is to be tight, fast, and precise, limiting itself to a popular niche where this system works very well. Another thing to keep in mind is that CS:GO is a successful PC game, but a failed console game; this is because of the precision a mouse and keyboard allows, which makes aiming a lot easier, essential, and sprint would only get in the way of that. There's no reason for the devs to feel like they need to switch to that because they've already perfected it.
Halo differs from this because its peak was over a decade ago, where on OG Xbox it reined king because it was the most functional and accessible title in terms of matchmaking and social. Halo 3 remained popular because everyone was looking forward to the final installment of the trilogy and enjoyed it. But in 2007, that's when CoD 4 hit and sprint really became a part of the discussion; it was also the first Call of Duty game to have the feature. Halo never really competed in a sprint driven multiplayer market, since those titles didn't start to become prominent until 2007 really. Halo: Reach was the first one that actually had to stand up to such a changed market, which is why they felt pressured enough to include it as an AA. We're in a much different time than we were in the 2000s, and seeing how Halo Infinite will be aiming to be successful in the 2020s, sprint is a likely feature to pop up. While I would not prefer sprint, I'm just saying we should all expect it and try to minimize its influence on whatever Arena aspects remain in the game.
Sorry, on laptop so it doesn't look as bad for me. However, I'd also like people to understand my rational instead of responding to a paragraph of hot takes.
it comes down to some people want halo to chase trends. and some people want to play halo. no amount of gesticulation is going to change that argument.
Was Far Cry 2's map generator as good as everyone said it was?
idk about Far Cry 2 but Far Cry Instincts on OG Xbox had an amazing map editor for the time.
there are several argumentative flaws in your argument that are typical to the "sprint is neccisary modern appeal" argument.
1) you suggest that people who dislike sprint in Halo are arguing for a game that plays exactly like the old games. The actual argument is that Sprint is a bad addition too the sandbox.
2) you suggest that Sprint is neccisary to attract a modern FPS audience. in reality there's no evidence that the modern audience is opposed to games that don't feature Sprint as a base mechanic. The biggest FPS on the planet don't have it as a base mechanic. Having Sprint has done nothing to stop Halo from bleeding longtime fans nor has it helped attract new ones.
3) you invalidate comparisons to successful, sprint-free FPS because those games are too different from Halo... but use the proliferation of Sprint in games that are equally different, as justification for its inclusion in Halo
4) you continuously insist that casual gamers won't play a game that doesn't lacks sprint as a base mechanic, despite recent success stories proving otherwise.
Halo, like CS, was in a popular niche that worked very well and only started to decline when it tried to leave its niche, implementing mechanics that DON'T naturally work very well within the established sandbox.
now your revising H3s history to suggest it was successful just because it was the finale in a trilogy... despite the fact that it was the single most played xbl game for 3 years, despite much of its competition adopting sprint during those 3 years. Halo Reach alienated core fans, and "enhanced mobility" has failed to replace them with fans who are as dedicated to the franchise. this has been true since 2010 this and won't change in 2020.
Last edited:
Sprint is as much as a trend in the current shooter market as having voice actors or being able to look up and down, or at least that's how it feels to a lot of shooter players. I'd prefer is Halo Infinite keeps sprint out, but all I'm trying to do is bring in a perspective that many, many people hold out of the 10 people who frequent this OT.
The otherwise terrible and weirdly incomprehensible Pariah also had a great map editor on OG Xbox too.
including voice actors doesn't force stark changes in sandbox design.
looking up and down is an inarguable control improvement to the primary goal of a shooter - letting people shoot at things.
i just want to see the data that says people are so insistent on having sprint that they won't play shooters that dont have it... because sales data doesnt tell that story.
1.) You may be arguing that sprint is problematic for the sandbox of your preferred Halo game, but I'm saying Infinite is not going to be like your preferred Halo game, it's not going to be classic Halo. New gameplay design is going to bring new opportunities for mechanics like sprint, and its an opportunity 343i will likely capitalize on. We should consider this when giving feedback, so if sprint is something we don't want to see, we should think of ways Infinite can rely on BMS while still being a successful service-based game that competes with other games of the like.
2.) Overwatch has sprint, it has ways to increase your BMS, and it is not an apt comparison to Infinite. The same goes for CS:GO, these are smaller, competitive multiplayer based games that do not need to worry about the size and scale of open world environments. Both games have tight maps and strict rules. People don't ask for sprint in CS:GO because there's no point in it being there. Overwatch has characters who can sprint, but then again a hero shooter is as far away from Halo as you can get multiplayer-wise because every character is unique and presents a different play-style. If you just want to make the point that people will play shooter games without sprint, then you're correct, and those two games make good examples. But Infinite doesn't play by those rules, and will be a much bigger game that goes well beyond the scope of multiplayer-only titles.
3.) Battlefield and Call of Duty were direct competitors of Halo at the time that made a big impact on console shooters. CS has never been a competitor with Halo because it's a PC-first game, with one bad Xbox 360 port. Halo Infinite, like I've been saying, will likely compete with games like Destiny, The Division, and Anthem, and move in that direction when crafting its game design and sandbox. It makes sense to invalidate Overwatch and CS:GO because they are not comparable and not direct competitors to what Infinite is going after presumably.
4.) I'm saying that within the competitive market Halo will be entering, Infinite will need to contend with the features that it's direct competitors will have, which may influence how 343i designs. DOOM, Overwatch, and CS:GO are not good examples of competitors, because it's not as likely for someone to be choosing between Overwatch and Halo Infinite, versus Infinite and Destiny. They are completely different kinds of games within the same general genre.
Top 10 Best-Selling Games Of 2017 (All Platforms):
- Call of Duty: WWII*
- NBA 2K18
- Destiny 2^
- Madden NFL 18
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild*
- Grand Theft Auto V*
- Ghost Recon: Wildlands*
- Star Wars: Battlefront II^
- Super Mario Odyssey
- Mario Kart 8
2016 Top 10 Games
- Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare*
- Battlefield 1*
- The Division*
- NBA 2K17
- Madden NFL 17
- Grand Theft Auto V*
- Overwatch (no Battle.net sales) [some sprint included]
- Call of Duty: Black Ops III*
- FIFA 17
- Final Fantasy XV*
Best-Selling Physical Games in US for All of 2015:
- Call of Duty: Black Ops III (Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, PC)*
- Madden NFL 16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
- Fallout 4 (PS4, Xbox One, PC)*
- Star Wars: Battlefront (Xbox One, PS4, PC)*
- Grand Theft Auto V (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3, PC)*
- NBA 2K16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
- Minecraft (360, Xbox One, PS3, PS4)*
- Mortal Kombat X (PS4, Xbox One)
- FIFA 16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
- Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, PC)*
2014:
- Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (360, XBO, PS4, PS3, PC)*
- Madden NFL 15 (360, PS4, XBO, PS3)
- Destiny (XBO, PS4, 360, PS3)*
- Grand Theft Auto V (PS4, XBO, 360, PS3)*
- Minecraft (360, PS3, XBO, PS4)*
- Super Smash Bros. (3DS, NWU)
- NBA 2K15 (PS4, XBO, 360, PS3, PC)
- Watch Dogs (PS4, XBO, 360, PS3, PC, NWU)*
- FIFA 15 (360, PS4, XBO, PS3, Wii, 3DS, PSV)
- Call Of Duty: Ghosts (360, PS3, XBO, PS4, NWU, PC)*
I've market all the shooter/adventure games that use sprint here, and these are only the top selling ones. It's not a trend, and 343i may continue to feel its inclusion would do more good than harm like they have for the past two games. Sprint is not why 4 and 5 failed, keep in mind. It's never a complaint I hear outside of the forums.
From the latest Bungie TWAB
https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/46965
made a thread for more awareness because there's only a week long grace period
https://www.resetera.com/threads/bungie-removing-old-halo-stats-videos-and-forums-in-a-week.50733/
https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/46965
made a thread for more awareness because there's only a week long grace period
https://www.resetera.com/threads/bungie-removing-old-halo-stats-videos-and-forums-in-a-week.50733/
Last edited:
sprint is and will always be problematic for Halo. the compromises it requires don't go away because the map is larger. and including Sprint doesn't inherently allow it to offer a competitive service.
the effect of Sprint isn't that it allows movement over larger areas- it's that it requires to design areas that are too big for BMS, just to justify the mechanics inclusion.
we know next to nothing about Halo Infinite, so I'm not going to assume the map will be designed to arbitrarily justify such a mechanic
it doesn't make sense to invalidate any shooters as they are all courting a modern audience. to your point though, Halo was kicking ass against BF and COD without sprint... and only stopped being able to when it left it's own niche to try to fight its way into theirs.
let's say Overwatch can't be considered a Halo competitor (which is nonsense), Trying to emulate Destiny is the exact wrong way to attempt to standout against the Destiny.
sure, there's a lot of successful shooters with Sprint in these lists. what I'm asking for, however, is proof that not having sprint limits sales. Where is the consumer rejection of games that lack sprint?
Last edited:
Player counts on all past halo games, past and present quake, doom, and unreal games, and every other game that has tried to be those games on steam has to count for something.
lol so the player count on a 10+ year old 360 and an OG xbl game w/ dead servers game is supposed to have comparable player count to games that are being marketed and dev supported currently.
the quake and unreal plight is supposed to discount the success of Cs:GO and overwatch? mind you the latest Unreal had Sprint in it...
we just gonna pretend Doom wasn't quite successful, with its biggest criticsm being the MP which suffered because of changes meant to appeal to a modern audience?
Last edited:
If people wanted to play those games they'd be playing them. Counter strike is a perfect example. They made changes and everyone stayed on the old game until they reverted the changes. Everyone moved on with halo because halo has been quite different every game and people have different preferences on each game. No Halo game ever caught and held on like counterstrike did.
I think that more has to do with Halo be a franchise with expected sequels. Although with TMCC being given new life, I hope more people consistently play the older games instead of dropping Halo altogether if the newer games aren't their preference.
Nah. Console gamers especially, move on to sequels for new campaigns + visual bells and whistles + performance enhancements, then, rarely look back. Here,we jump into new titles when they launch, hoping to catch the wave MP wave before it dies down and slows MM.
PC gaming habits are completely different and longevity is bolstered by the custom servers, mods, and performance that can be customized to the hardware.
I didn't stick with H2 over H3 because I didn't want to have two consoles. Reach and 4 just made me not want to play Halo. I wanted (and still want) a game that was BETTER than Halo3, not to be stuck with the shitty FoV and BR indefinitely.
Halo didn't need a single entry to carry it for a decade. It needed a sequel that didn't shed more old fans than it added new ones.
Last edited:
Overwatch works as a competitor for Halo in its current form, which is much more traditional multiplayer-forward. Infinite is not that, it's going to be something newer and bigger, as well as a game as a service like Destiny. My comparison to it comes from that aspect, not the idea of it trying to emulate everything Destiny has to offer. This makes it a competitor, meaning it will need to move closer to Destiny in some ways to get some of their prospective players over to Halo. Sprint is a very standard mechanic that people look for and is satisfying to them, as well as being a safe feature to include so that the game feels right in the hands of new players. The game doesn't need sprint to work, but it will help it resonate well with wider audiences for this reason. It needs to build a foundation that satisfies basic expectations before branching away into its own direction.
Also, the consumer rejection of a lack of sprint is the lack of sprint; that's how markets work. If they were that popular, they never would have left after 2007. Yet here we are, with barely any games that are truly sprintless being popular. Overwatch can't even be properly shoehorned into that category because characters like Soldier: 76, Sombra, D.Va, Genji, Moira, Lucio, and more all have ways to significantly cater to players who want a sprint-like mechanic, where as the heroes who lack enhanced mobility to any capacity, like Zenyatta, Ana, or Roadhog are there for people who don't mind its absence. It's kind of like how Reach's abilities worked where there was tradeoff between them to gain alternative abilities.
Again there is NO evidence that game's that don't have sprint don't "feel right" to new players.
There is evidence, however, that Sprint doesn't feel right to Halo players. Building a foundation around a mechanic that doesn't suit the sandbox is no way to build a foundation.
That's not consumer rejection, that's the industry leaving a void in order to chase a trend. Consumers can't reject what they aren't being offered. The consumer wasn't given a chance to reject sprint-free halo. Without sprint the franchise grew to its highest heights. with sprint it declined to its lowest low.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with including Overwatch in the discussion. The majority of players choose not to sprint in that game. Having alternate means to boost speed that don't require the player to sacrifice the ability to fire and commit to a single direction would fit just fine in the halo sandbox.
Last edited:
I dunno about all that. When I play Halo 5 I don't care if sprint is there and I just use it when I want, if I'm shootin' then no sprintin', if I spawn way off then sprint. When I play say Halo 2 I never say to myself I wish I had sprint right now, I move just how I want to in Halo 2, fast, good strafe, solid jumps etc. Halo 3 movement feels like concrete shoes, it wouldn't be improved with sprint though.
Overall I don't give a shit about the mechanics themselves. I just want responsive solid gameplay. Halo 2 movements, jumps, map design etc all sum to a brilliant experience. Who gives a fuck if it has sprint or not. Compare Halo 5 to Halo 2 movements and map design as well as required buttons presses for little net effect and I'm still fucking happy with H2 in the modern era. H2A feels a little sluggish by comparison to H2. H5 has some chaining of movements for some nice plays but it's nothing I couldn't leave behind. The movement, strafe, gunplay etc of H5 is a great iteration but I can't help but feel H2 hit the nail on the head. Throw in H5 netcode/servers, keep thrusters, weapons are good but drop ADS already and just make killer clean maps.
Honestly great map design, good matchmaking and a playerbase that supports what I want to play with close game outcomes are far more important to me. You can still go back to Halo 2 these days in MCC and pull game after game of 45 v 50 outcomes. H5 is close to that as well. H4 & Reach weren't. H3 moved into territory of less close game outcomes the longer it lived, especially as the playlists went to shit.
All that has little to do with sprint/no sprint, FOV etc. To me it's all about the net result of the maps, movement, gunplay/weapons and player/team outcomes. Do what you want with the mechanics as far as I'm concerned, just make it a solid experience anyone can pickup and play, do somewhat well but spent 2-5 years to master it.
Overall I don't give a shit about the mechanics themselves. I just want responsive solid gameplay. Halo 2 movements, jumps, map design etc all sum to a brilliant experience. Who gives a fuck if it has sprint or not. Compare Halo 5 to Halo 2 movements and map design as well as required buttons presses for little net effect and I'm still fucking happy with H2 in the modern era. H2A feels a little sluggish by comparison to H2. H5 has some chaining of movements for some nice plays but it's nothing I couldn't leave behind. The movement, strafe, gunplay etc of H5 is a great iteration but I can't help but feel H2 hit the nail on the head. Throw in H5 netcode/servers, keep thrusters, weapons are good but drop ADS already and just make killer clean maps.
Honestly great map design, good matchmaking and a playerbase that supports what I want to play with close game outcomes are far more important to me. You can still go back to Halo 2 these days in MCC and pull game after game of 45 v 50 outcomes. H5 is close to that as well. H4 & Reach weren't. H3 moved into territory of less close game outcomes the longer it lived, especially as the playlists went to shit.
All that has little to do with sprint/no sprint, FOV etc. To me it's all about the net result of the maps, movement, gunplay/weapons and player/team outcomes. Do what you want with the mechanics as far as I'm concerned, just make it a solid experience anyone can pickup and play, do somewhat well but spent 2-5 years to master it.
Doom isn't successful in the way that Microsoft really cares, which is active users. Like it or not, H5 retains them fairly well for a game of its age, but not as well as BO3.
As far as sprint goes, I am still a huge supporter of it. While I don't like to self-advertise, I feel people who want to argue about it at the least should check it out in SPV3. The way we implemented it within existing environments not designed for it works quite well. The implementation in the last release was not without its technical bugs, but if anyone on ERA wants to see how sprint can function in classic Halo environments I am happy to send them in progress builds.
Long as sprint is a tool available to the player, and not something essential to the multitude of systems built on top of the player movement, it can work. What most fail to realize is in a game like halo, more than most other games, is that everything is built around the player movement. It's why H5 especially in campaign, has so many problems. Every system of interaction is dependant on how fast the player moves and what their abilities are, right down to the melee animations of the enemies.
in games where you could zoom your perspective, ads was not a standard. usually it was the halo approach: floating lines to simulate looking through a scope. any amount of logical inference is enough to understand that ads exists to feel more like you're actually looking down a sight. how could you possibly argue otherwise, when its name is literally Aim Down Sight.
I did not say that ADS was created to fix a glitch. The fact that your hands and gun disappear is Intentional. It is supposed to avoid the camera zooming in really close to or clipping through the first person model, which would look bad. It is literally an inherent admission of the flaws of this system y'all are deifying.
You don't seem to understand that the fact that i'm pointing out the problems with the thing you like and the benefits of the thing you hate doesn't mean I am advocating for either of them. You can't create something new without understanding what's come before.
First of all, correlation does not equal causation; Halo didn't become popular because it didn't have sprint and then decline in popularity because it added sprint. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Halo declined because new shooters started becoming more relevant and 343i did not handle the property well overall with 4 and 5. Reach performed admirably for the market environment it entered. Second, sprint is not a trend. It may have started that way, but it has been a clear staple of the shooter genre for the last 10 years and will not be going anywhere anytime soon. That's like saying video streaming services are a trend because they've become popular relatively fast and have stuck within the market.
Also, you're wrong about Overwatch. Players don't "choose" not to sprint, some characters have it and others don't. It's about hero balance within that game's sandbox. Players who like to move fast will select a character with advanced mobility, whereas other players who prefer tank characters will typically not receive that option. It's not like the players always have an option to sprint and then reject it in protest or something. And on top of that, a majority of the heroes in that game cannot shoot while increasing BMS anyway, D.Va being the only exception that I can think of.
Doom isn't successful in terms of active users because the MP blew... the main critism? that it didn't play like the SP.
Sprint and the rest of the abilities would work better if the developer didn't compromise every other system to incorporate them. but when they compensate for these abilities (in map, weapon, assists, etc), they end up nullifying the benefits and hamstringing the player in moments when abilities aren't being used.
i don't have the means to play spv3. it would be cool if you could kick up a video that highlighted why your take on sprint works.
i was just about to say this to you!
no. but it played better without sprint. and when it played better, it sold better and retained players better.
new shooters became "more relevant" because they were making better games and playing to the strengths of their respective franchises. enhanced mobility made Halo games worse and less unique. this aided Halo's decent and the ascent of its competition. everyone wants to site Halo's rising competition for its decline... but can't explain why Halo's the only shooter that couldn't weather the storm during that time period.
Reach sold well, but was The beginning of a downward trend. The market Reach entered wasn't much different from the Market H3 entered... Reach just wasn't as strong a product. Call sprint a trend or a staple or whatever.... it doesn't need to be in every game. and it doesn't make Halo a better game. no one comes to Halo because it has sprint.
players choose who to play with. they most often choose Heroes who don't have sprint. i said nothing of "protest." my point is that Sprint as a base mechanic isn't a prerequisite for a shooters success.
umm... I'm not arguing that ADS isn't meant to feel like aiming down a sight. what are you talking about?
ADS is standard zoom with a fancy overlay and a few frames of transition animation.
my argument is that ADS in Halo isn't functionally an improvement over classic zoom. the benefit of not having arms disappear is not worth the cost of having half your screen blocked and having to contend with that when being descoped
i understand what your trying to do...but i disagree with the notion that ADS addresses a problem. and i also don't hate ADS, i like it in games where it makes sense. Halo just isn't one of those games - not from a gameplay or narrative standpoint.
You're ignoring all the dead or on life support PC arena shooters that have been around since before Halo and didn't retain their popularity. Counter Strike which isn't even an arena shooter is the only one standing besides Halo.
- Status