Halo |OT| She's Gone, Sir

[jem]

I'm in the same boat. I never want superficial answers like, "it feels spartan-like", "it frustrated new comers" or "most other shooters are doing this ", because I'll never understand how those sentiments are important enough to uproot balancing conventions.

I wanna know what gameplay problems or deficiencies are being addressed by the changes. And why the chosen solution is better than alternatives.

Of course, that's a lot more insight than any developer actually owes us, but I think it would amount to good communication.

Bungie used to defend their crap like duel wielding, random spread, and bloom. While I disagreed, understanding what they were trying to do from an actual gameplay perspective made the pill a little easier to swallow.

Click to shrink...

You might not like it but "it feels spartan-like" is actually a perfectly reasonable response.

Gamefeel is a very important part of a game.

For example, one of the main reasons Destiny has been so successful is that Bungie made the game feel good to play. Many people find that it's just satisfying to move around and shoot. A lot of that isn't really down to actual game mechanics but stuff like audiovisual design.

 

[Trup1aya]

For a lot of the cases I think some of their gameplay mechanics (sprint, thrusters) can't actually be defended so they give cliche answers. I don't know who makes final decision at 343 but I bet there's a sense that sprint and increased movement are a requirement even if it's not best for the game.

Click to shrink...

Well they probably aren't approaching it from a gameplay problem solving perspective and are doing it from a superficial perspective. So when they "defend" it, they use superficial metrics
I do know that Sprint in Halo 5 was a matter of contention at 343i. Ultimately, 343 decided to include sprint because they assumed FPS players would feel alienated if it wasn't included. So it wasn't a matter of fixing a problem. They actually first decided to include it, then started trying to tweak other systems in order to address the problems that they knew sprint would introduce.

I think of they took a "problem/solution" approach rather than a "wouldnt this be cool" approach, they'd find ways to add mechanics that aren't so polarizing.

 

[Proven]

Well they probably aren't approaching it from a gameplay problem solving perspective and are doing it from a superficial perspective. So when they "defend" it, they use superficial metrics
I do know that Sprint in Halo 5 was a matter of contention at 343i. Ultimately, 343 decided to include sprint because they assumed FPS players would feel alienated if it wasn't included. So it wasn't a matter of fixing a problem. They actually first decided to include it, then started trying to tweak other systems in order to address the problems that they knew sprint would introduce.

I think of they took a "problem/solution" approach rather than a "wouldnt this be cool" approach, they'd find ways to add mechanics that aren't so polarizing.

Click to shrink...

I agree and I hope for Infinite they make decisions based on if whatever mechanic is included will help the game, rather than worrying about what newcomers will think. That's a really bad way to think about game design IMO.

 

[Trup1aya]

You might not like it but "it feels spartan-like" is actually a perfectly reasonable response.

Gamefeel is a very important part of a game.

For example, one of the main reasons Destiny has been so successful is that Bungie made the game feel good to play. Many people find that it's just satisfying to move around and shoot. A lot of that isn't really down to actual game mechanics but stuff like audiovisual design.

Click to shrink...

I agree that game feel is important, but "feeling like a Spartan" isn't a metric that you can weigh against balancing convention. Also, you shouldnt go into it with the idea that there's only one way to make a game feel good- that's bias decision making.

"Feels like a Spartan" is a perfectly reasonable response if you want to use superficial metrics- which is totally up to the directors. I personally don't think it's a good way to decide upon drastic changes to an already successful formula.

I'd take a more measured approach-
Problem: audio-visuals don't provide a great sense of speed.
Goal- improve sense of speed
Solution: increase FoV? Increase Move speed? Trigger speed-suggestive A/V cues with max analog deflection? Sprint? Let's investigate.

Now we seek to addresses thre. problem with the least amount of disruption to established, successful convention. I think it wouldn't take long to find an A/V solution that does a better job keeping pre-established fundamentals intact.

When you decide upon the solutio before identifying the problem, or generate superficial problems (like "my game doesn't have sprint while others do) you create more problems.

There is a not-insignificant amount of people who don't like the way Spartan Abilities effect how the game feels. For me personally, I never feel less like a Spartan than when turning away and sprinting to cover, instead of laying down fire while running for cover- because the latter is what I've associated with Spartanism since 2001.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

I figure that an automatic sprint animation with your gun reticle ready to fire at all times would be a great compromise. You'd have the sensation of running without also having the drawbacks of having no gun out.

 

[Ragnarok Flames]

Let the pros have at it for the base gunplay (limited weapons, sandbox etc) and their one mode with maps for them specifically. Just don't make the whole MP game that fucking way. Where is the BTB team or the 4v4 ranked team leading development etc?

There needs to be customisation for each distinct segment. At a studio of what 500 staff? I expect specificity for many modes at launch, not via sustain/forge years later and not just by a pro team cutting out cornerstone modes like 4v4 light vehicles objective etc.

There's plenty of blurring of the lines but the developer and the community need to make room for many ways to play the game. The previous pros and 343 crafted some great movement and gunplay but limited the non WZ side of MP into oblivion. I hope they give the pros/esports what they want through the development cycle but not at the cost of design/development/community focus of other modes that haven't had an entire game and resources push towards esports.

Click to shrink...

because the Pros wanted the casual fest that is warzone.
dont try to blame the pro team for the ineptitude of 343 as a developer.

343 cut out cornerstone modes. not the pro team

 

[Trup1aya]

I figure that an automatic sprint animation with your gun reticle ready to fire at all times would be a great compromise. You'd have the sensation of running without also having the drawbacks of having no gun out.

Click to shrink...

I agree. I see no gameplay benefit to putting the gun down, the 1 second delay, or the delayed shield recharge. Those are bandaids to the problems introduced.

 

[Deleted member 20284]

because the Pros wanted the casual fest that is warzone.
dont try to blame the pro team for the ineptitude of 343 as a developer.

343 cut out cornerstone modes. not the pro team

Click to shrink...

I think you're projecting there mate. Never blamed the pros at all, welcome that mode. 343 need to invest in the other modes just as much as they did with the esports focus away from WZ, at launch.

EDIT: I reread that and yep I wrote that very poorly. I should have said the studio focus cut out the modes.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

Click to shrink...

What an asshole.

 

[Calvarok]

I figure that an automatic sprint animation with your gun reticle ready to fire at all times would be a great compromise. You'd have the sensation of running without also having the drawbacks of having no gun out.

Click to shrink...

The fact that Spartans can move more quickly while keeping their gun at the ready than a normal human could doesn't change the fact that they could move much faster if they didn't have it at the ready. And no matter how shielded or agile you are, there's always going to be a time where moving even just a little bit faster at the cost of offensive capability would be tactically advantageous. They're not gods, they still need to actually try if they want to win fights.

What I'm saying is there's no way to give the impression that your spartan is putting their absolute all into running if you're also trying to give the impression that they're holding back enough in order to keep their gun steady. It's a contradiction, and at worst it would cause the game to look goofy. At best the effect would hardly be noticable to the point it might as well not be there.

If you think of first person shooters as attempts to emulate actual projectile weapon combat but make it more accessible and less punishing, I feel like the very concept of running for cover is too intrinsic to that experience to not be represented in the mechanics. Drawing a distinction between that mode of movement and the actual shooting seems to me like a logical solution, not some arbitrary fad that came from literally nothing. I'm not saying you can't move to cover in classic halo games, but that it inevitably feels like you have to get there at a leisurely pace.

You can't stop players from thinking about games within the contexts the game is presenting to them. If a player thinks "why is my character so unhurried about something that could literally mean the difference between life and death" and your response is that it's just a game and those are the rules, you aren't wrong, but also they aren't wrong to then wonder why the game even bothers to present itself as a rendering of actual combat between living creatures with senses of self preservation.

EDIT: please don't jump down my throat because I used the word "accessible", btw. Even the ideal perfect most competitive shooter video game is more accessible than real world combat, because you don't have to actually risk your life in order to get the full experience. And Real Life is fucking full of RNG.

In addition, the larger point I'm trying to make is that yes, fixes to make sprint more competitive are "Band-Aids" on the problem, if you presume that the problem is that the game is not a perfectly fair competitive sport. You know what is the root cause of every such Band-Aid in the game? The fact that it's emulating an experience, instead of just trying to be a sport. The rules of the game would need to be MORE arbitrary, not less, to even come close to this hypothetical ideal. The very idea that the things players are using to hit each other are guns would need to be erased. The idea that the things the guns shoot are bullets would need to be erased. The idea that movement is achieved through the manipulation of two human legs would need to be erased. This is the only way for a first person shooter to exist without band-aids.

The band-aids are the entire point of the game. They're literally what we're all here for.

 

[JaegerDeus]

I haven't played Halo 5 in a long while, but I felt like the 'feel' of the game and the balance of the weapons was top notch.

Spartan Charge and Ground Pound (or whatever it was called) was kind cheesy and annoying, but it seemed like the higher up the rankings you went, the less people bothered to use them, simply because they were so easy to counter with basic awareness. Sprint never bothered me too much to be honest. I could take it or leave it, but I understand why it feels so intuitive for so many shooter players. There's an inherent logic to moving faster with your gun down, a natural balance, the same way the guy with the puck is always slower than the guys without the puck in hockey. The 'I'm not focusing on shooting, so Im going to put aside my defenses for a second for extra speed to reposition' just feels... natural.

My biggest issues with the game were a lack of great maps, and a lack of the maps/modes I loved to play. I was a BTB fiend, loved 1-flag, neutral bomb, 4v4 ctf with and without vehicles, etc. And none of that was there.

Arena FELT great as far as moment-to-moment combat, but the maps all blurred together. They felt so samey and mediocre, I honestly can't think of any that stood out.

 

[SlightlyLive]

The Halo 5 Midship remake convinced me of something that bugged me playing the game. Mechanically, the game is amongst the best. But it's not Halo to me.

One of the most beloved maps in the franchise and they couldn't make it work without changing the map itself. The same way that Halo 5's gameplay wouldn't work on Midship (I'm including both H2 and H3), Halo 5 doesn't feel or play like Halo to me.

 

[Trup1aya]

The fact that Spartans can move more quickly while keeping their gun at the ready than a normal human could doesn't change the fact that they could move much faster if they didn't have it at the ready. And no matter how shielded or agile you are, there's always going to be a time where moving even just a little bit faster at the cost of offensive capability would be tactically advantageous. They're not gods, they still need to actually try if they want to win fights.

What I'm saying is there's no way to give the impression that your spartan is putting their absolute all into running if you're also trying to give the impression that they're holding back enough in order to keep their gun steady. It's a contradiction, and at worst it would cause the game to look goofy. At best the effect would hardly be noticable to the point it might as well not be there.

Click to shrink...

This doesn't matter. The game's balancing is more important than giving the impression a Spartan is "putting their all into running" in an anatomically correct fashion.

I don't think it would make the game look goofy, But you are right, it might as well not be there. The purpose would be to relay a sense of speed that people feel is lacking without a sprint animation. If sense of speed is that important, it's worth experimenting with (though I think we can increase sense of speed without a sprint animation whatsoever)

If you think of first person shooters as attempts to emulate actual projectile weapon combat but make it more accessible and less punishing, I feel like the very concept of running for cover is too intrinsic to that experience to not be represented in the mechanics. Drawing a distinction between that mode of movement and the actual shooting seems to me like a logical solution, not some arbitrary fad that came from literally nothing. I'm not saying you can't move to cover in classic halo games, but that it inevitably feels like you have to get there at a leisurely pace.

You can't stop players from thinking about games within the contexts the game is presenting to them. If a player thinks "why is my character so unhurried about something that could literally mean the difference between life and death" and your response is that it's just a game and those are the rules, you aren't wrong, but also they aren't wrong to then wonder why the game even bothers to present itself as a rendering of actual combat between living creatures with senses of self preservation.

EDIT: please don't jump down my throat because I used the word "accessible", btw. Even the ideal perfect most competitive shooter video game is more accessible than real world combat, because you don't have to actually risk your life in order to get the full experience. And Real Life is fucking full of RNG.

In addition, the larger point I'm trying to make is that yes, fixes to make sprint more competitive are "Band-Aids" on the problem, if you presume that the problem is that the game is not a perfectly fair competitive sport. You know what is the root cause of every such Band-Aid in the game? The fact that it's emulating an experience, instead of just trying to be a sport. The rules of the game would need to be MORE arbitrary, not less, to even come close to this hypothetical ideal. The very idea that the things players are using to hit each other are guns would need to be erased. The idea that the things the guns shoot are bullets would need to be erased. The idea that movement is achieved through the manipulation of two human legs would need to be erased. This is the only way for a first person shooter to exist without band-aids.

The band-aids are the entire point of the game. They're literally what we're all here for.

Click to shrink...

Wow, That was an effective speech. (I'm Not even being sarcastic) You paint a very emotional case for the inclusion of sprint, but unfortunately I think it was pure fallacy. You basically argue that without it, there is little presentation value in rendering a human conflict at all. That's obvious circular reasoning based around the pre-assumption that Sprint is a requirement for successfully presenting a human conflict.

Anyway, the goal isn't, and has never has been to recreate the emotions of real life combat. Like any game, the ultimate goal is to create a player v player activity were parties compete within a preestablished set of rules for their own amusement (and/or the amusement of others). Everything else is window dressing.

This becomes more obvious, when you realize other breaks in the Halo simulation. Why is their no cover or Lean and Peak system? Hell, their HUD displays their weapons viewfinder, why Move from cover at all? This is a matter of life and death- why would a soldier expose his/her whole body to take a shot? Why can't Spartans go prone? Why can't we dive? Why do we magically get more ammo by stepping on guns? Why do magazines reload themselves when we swap them out half-empty? Why can we only carry two weapons? Why isn't our max speed impacted by the weight of the weapons we carry? Why doesn't our Jump height change impacted by the weight of our weapons? Why does a shot to the foot do the same damage as a shot to the heart? (If we aren't going to accurately portray the variance in vitality between different body parts, why even have bodies at all? /circular reasoning). You havent presented a compelling argument for why the "sprint contradiction" must be avoided while so many others persist.

The answer to all of these questions is the same- because the designers are to create a set of rules that they believe will be most amusing for their particular game- appeals to realism come second to that, if at all.

Sometimes, these rules will end up being realistic. Others will be retroactively supported in the lore. Others will reject realism and lore entirely. They COULD change these rules to better covey that we are playing as creatures with a sense of self-preservation, in a universe governed by accurate body physics, but really, none of that matters more than having a good set of rules that are for fun PvP.

when it comes to the "rules of locomotion", sprinting with the gun down isn't inherently more amusing than having a single base movement speed. The question that matters is whether or not the change has made the game more amusing overall. Some will argue it has, others will argue that its inclusion has removed aspects of the game that were previously amusing- a net loss of amusement. This leads us to where we are now: was turning away from fans who enjoyed always having their gun up in favor of fans who enjoy "the impression that your Spartan is putting their absolute all into running" a fruitful trade? A neccisary one? is it possible to simultaneously capture the amusement sprint brings to some players AND the amusement other players have when they are empowered to fight at top speed at all time?

Answer: no, no, yes (IMO of course). That last question is the most important one going forward.

 

[JaegerDeus]

I'm not sure whether to blame COD, or if it's just some self-evident, naturally intuitive mechanic that would have come to pass regardless, but I find it impossible to argue that the ability to sprint doesn't feel.... right.

Obviously, implementation is everything, but I'm trying to imagine a game played at sprint speed where I wouldn't find myself wanting the ability to go just that little bit faster in moments of urgency. Like, the common argument that 'oh, instead of letting people sprint, just make the base speed faster.... I'd want another 20-30% of that base speed in a risk/reward or temporary sprint. It just feels natural to be able to essentially drop your defenses, limit your awareness, narrow your agility, all to maximize your speed in times of urgency.

I try to imagine myself playing a game, where my character is locked into one speed at all times, and it just feels..... old.

I loved it back from 2001 to 2007....it was over 10 freaking years ago. There's a lot of things I loved in 2007 that wouldn't fly in 2019.

If Halo 3, my favorite Halo, was released in 2019....it would rightfully be considered retrograde shit. Its too slow, it's too limited, it's too stifling. The people who remember it when it was new and cutting edge obviously still love it, the people who put hundreds of hours into it still love it. Put Halo 3 in 2019, in front of somebody that didn't play it before, and they'd be like 'what is this old, clunky ass shit you are making me play?'

Truth be told, I don't think it should be or is particularly difficult to design around the player's ability to increase speed for short times in order to escape an engagement or cut down on the time to re-engage after respawn or whatever.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm not sure whether to blame COD, or if it's just some self-evident, naturally intuitive mechanic that would have come to pass regardless, but I find it impossible to argue that the ability to sprint doesn't feel.... right.

Obviously, implementation is everything, but I'm trying to imagine a game played at sprint speed where I wouldn't find myself wanting the ability to go just that little bit faster in moments of urgency. Like, the common argument that 'oh, instead of letting people sprint, just make the base speed faster.... I'd want another 20-30% of that base speed in a risk/reward or temporary sprint. It just feels natural to be able to essentially drop your defenses, limit your awareness, narrow your agility, all to maximize your speed in times of urgency.

I try to imagine myself playing a game, where my character is locked into one speed at all times, and it just feels..... old.

I loved it back from 2001 to 2007....it was over 10 freaking years ago. There's a lot of things I loved in 2007 that wouldn't fly in 2019.

If Halo 3, my favorite Halo, was released in 2019....it would rightfully be considered retrograde shit. Its too slow, it's too limited, it's too stifling. The people who remember it when it was new and cutting edge obviously still love it, the people who put hundreds of hours into it still love it. Put Halo 3 in 2019, in front of somebody that didn't play it before, and they'd be like 'what is this old, clunky ass shit you are making me play?'

Truth be told, I don't think it should be or is particularly difficult to design around the player's ability to increase speed for short times in order to escape an engagement or cut down on the time to re-engage after respawn or whatever.

Click to shrink...

It's impossible to argue because it's subjective.

But age has nothing to do with it.
The two most popular FPS shooters in the world today lack sprint as a base mechanic. One has been around since 2001. The other since 2016.

It's not particularly hard to design around sprint. Halo 5 is designed around sprint. The issue is the contentious concessions that result from such balance. Losing the ability to shoot while moving at top speed will always be a concession. And many will always take issue with it There's no way around that.

Lastly, sprint doesn't allow you to re-engage any faster than having a single base movement speed, the Speed increase delivered by sprint is nullified by the distance increase required to design around sprint. I think its hard to argue that Truth in H5 plays at all faster than this https://www.twitch.tv/videos/363474796?t=29839s

Also, if sprint is used speed up dis-engage and re-engage, then isn't it a wash anyway?

 

[Arx]

Including or excluding sprint will not make or break the game except for a few 1000(0) people. Just saying.
Those people are very loud (that includes me btw, i am not a fan of sprinting in Halo), but i doubt that the vast, vast majority of potential players care.

Its a discussion that the hardcore community likes to latch onto because its emotionally charged and often a for/against issue. But removing sprint (or really, all of the "advanced movement options") would not have "fixed" Halo 5 or increased its popularity.

I will quote myself from another recent Halo thread:

While the moment to moment gameplay sure is very important, i don´t think that Halo 5 was lacking that. The whole package was flawed, from the campaign structure to the multiplayers focus on e-sports. I especially agree with the quoted posters regarding physics. Make this shit fun to use, the harpoon/tether idea sounds really great.

The Halo of 2001 has been gone for nearly 20 years now. Its a fantastic game still, but Halo back in it´s day was not popular because it played like Wolfenstein 3d but rather because it did new and interesting things for it´s time. I believe that Halo Infinite needs more than one interesting and "spicy" element to make it popular, and not sprint/no sprint. Shooters are gigantic on consoles now, and the competition has long surpassed Halo in popularity.

Halo needs to be put back on the map AGAIN (because it´s simply not important anymore when it comes to player numbers), and that can only be achieved by doing unexpected and new things, not by heating up old ideas while resisting to change them.

 

[The Real Napsta]

Has there been any more news on Halo Custom Edition maps coming to MCC?

CE needs more 4v4 maps bad.

 

[Dokkaebi G0SU]

watch we get wall running next with the ability to zip line across the map with an ability "choice"
spartans always evolve :P

im jk.. or ami?

 

[jem]

People often bring up Overwatch as an example of a modern successful game without sprint but I don't think it counts.

Whilst it's true that only one character can literally sprint, the majority of the other characters include some form of ability which allows them to move more quickly than the base speed.

It's not just the audiovisual aspect which makes people like sprint. It's also about being able to increase your speed in certain situations.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Has there been any more news on Halo Custom Edition maps coming to MCC?

CE needs more 4v4 maps bad.

Click to shrink...

They had it working awhile ago, well kinda working, they were talking about working on a pipeline to import them in.

I got $5 on it coming with the custom game browser.

 

[Gundam]

I really just want ODST firefight in 60 FPS. It's far and away the best version of the mode to ever exist, despite the lack of matchmaking.

 

[Calvarok]

That was an effective speech. (I'm Not even being sarcastic) You paint a very emotional case for the inclusion of sprint, but unfortunately I think it was pure fallacy. You basically argue that without it, there is little presentation value in rendering a human conflict at all. That's obvious circular reasoning based around the pre-assumption that Sprint is a requirement for successfully presenting a human conflict.

Anyway, the goal isn't, and has never has been to recreate the emotions of real life combat. Like any game, the ultimate goal is to create a player v player activity were parties compete within a preestablished set of rules for their own amusement (and/or the amusement of others). Everything else is window dressing.

This becomes more obvious, when you realize other breaks in the Halo simulation. Why is their no cover or Lean and Peak system? Hell, their HUD displays their weapons viewfinder, why Move from cover at all? This is a matter of life and death- why would a soldier expose his/her whole body to take a shot? Why can't Spartans go prone? Why can't we dive? Why do we magically get more ammo by stepping on guns? Why do magazines reload themselves when we swap them out half-empty? Why can we only carry two weapons? Why isn't our max speed impacted by the weight of the weapons we carry? Why doesn't our Jump height change impacted by the weight of our weapons? Why does a shot to the foot do the same damage as a shot to the heart? (If we aren't going to accurately portray the variance in vitality between different body parts, why even have bodies at all? /circular reasoning). You havent presented a compelling argument for why the "sprint contradiction" must be avoided while so many others persist.

The answer to all of these questions is the same- because the designers are to create a set of rules that they believe will be most amusing for their particular game- appeals to realism come second to that, if at all.

Sometimes, these rules will end up being realistic. Others will be retroactively supported in the lore. Others will reject realism and lore entirely. They COULD change these rules to better covey that we are playing as creatures with a sense of self-preservation, in a universe governed by accurate body physics, but really, none of that matters more than having a good set of rules that are for fun PvP.

when it comes to the "rules of locomotion", sprinting with the gun down isn't inherently more amusing than having a single base movement speed. The question that matters is whether or not the change has made the game more amusing overall. Some will argue it has, others will argue that its inclusion has removed aspects of the game that were previously amusing- a net loss of amusement. This leads us to where we are now: was turning away from fans who enjoyed always having their gun up in favor of fans who enjoy "the impression that your Spartan is putting their absolute all into running" a fruitful trade? A neccisary one? is it possible to simultaneously capture the amusement sprint brings to some players AND the amusement other players have when they are empowered to fight at top speed at all time?

Answer: no, no, yes (IMO of course). That last question is the most important one going forward.

Click to shrink...

I was definitely getting towards a logical extreme there, and I just want to make it clear I don't actually think games need to be all or nothing. That's unreasonable, and I was trying to highlight how unreasonable some of the logic I was seeing here can be seen as. (Though I think I might also have just lost the plot somewhere in there, I apologize for that)

Game creators have to pick and choose which inconsistencies are too obvious to ignore without it being an intentional move. Having a game in this genre without sprint is not a neutral decision, it's a statement. It requires extra consideration in order to forestall confusion about "why can't I run?", or perhaps acceptance of alienating more folks than it pleases. (though I will admit as Arx says it won't make or break the game, it's hardly the hottest new feature anymore)

The kind of person I am, I don't want the game to be a perfect realistic sim, but I do want there to be a feeling of authenticity to it. That matters equally to me in relation to balance: I don't want either one to be fucked up, and I find attempts to harmonize the two concepts to be more admirable and interesting as a game design ideal: taking the problems that come with addressing dissonance and turning that into interesting gameplay.

And personally, the implementation of sprint in halo 5 feels interesting to me. It could definitely be tweaked (the split between multiplayer and campaign feels strange to me, and seems like evidence of an imperfect system philosophically) but the concept of it is fascinating and something I've never really seen in another game before. I don't think it just emulates the old style but less effectively, I feel like it creates new gameplay and considerations, extra little wrinkles for your brain to latch onto.

I want more stuff like that, which reconsiders the assumptions about what the rules have to be for these things, and what type of gameplay they have to encourage. If there's a better way to implement concepts of spartan mobility and basic humanoid functionality, I want to see those ideas played out, and if those concepts require their own creative rules to limit and balance them, I want to see iterations on those.

It's not about being married to sprint as it exists, it's more about wanting what I'm told I am as a character to (generally, loosely) match what I feel like as a player, and for that to still feed into the framework of a fair and challenging game.

 

[Trup1aya]

I was definitely getting towards a logical extreme there, and I just want to make it clear I don't actually think games need to be all or nothing. That's unreasonable, and I was trying to highlight how unreasonable some of the logic I was seeing here can be seen as. (Though I think I might also have just lost the plot somewhere in there, I apologize for that)

Game creators have to pick and choose which inconsistencies are too obvious to ignore without it being an intentional move. Having a game in this genre without sprint is not a neutral decision, it's a statement. It requires extra consideration in order to forestall confusion about "why can't I run?", or perhaps acceptance of alienating more folks than it pleases. (though I will admit as Arx says it won't make or break the game, it's hardly the hottest new feature anymore)

The kind of person I am, I don't want the game to be a perfect realistic sim, but I do want there to be a feeling of authenticity to it. That matters equally to me in relation to balance: I don't want either one to be fucked up, and I find attempts to harmonize the two concepts to be more admirable and interesting as a game design ideal: taking the problems that come with addressing dissonance and turning that into interesting gameplay.

And personally, the implementation of sprint in halo 5 feels interesting to me. It could definitely be tweaked (the split between multiplayer and campaign feels strange to me, and seems like evidence of an imperfect system philosophically) but the concept of it is fascinating and something I've never really seen in another game before. I don't think it just emulates the old style but less effectively, I feel like it creates new gameplay and considerations, extra little wrinkles for your brain to latch onto.

I want more stuff like that, which reconsiders the assumptions about what the rules have to be for these things, and what type of gameplay they have to encourage. If there's a better way to implement concepts of spartan mobility and basic humanoid functionality, I want to see those ideas played out, and if those concepts require their own creative rules to limit and balance them, I want to see iterations on those.

It's not about being married to sprint as it exists, it's more about wanting what I'm told I am as a character to (generally, loosely) match what I feel like as a player, and for that to still feed into the framework of a fair and challenging game.

Click to shrink...

That's the thing, the question "why can't I run, doesn't "require" any more of an explanation than any of the other basic humanoid functions that amount to inconsistencies in this game. "Because in this game, you're always running" still suffices. People who enjoy the mechanic may feel that it more explanation is needed but history as well as modern FPS success stories tells us that this suffices.

I think you are giving the "intrigue" of Halo sprint more credit that it deserves. It wasn't implemented to reconsider assumptions, or to make gameplay more interesting. It was decided upon first because other games were doing it. Then the attempts to balance it came after. And the ultimate effect is it removes the long-standing dynamic of players being empowered to be offensive/and defensive simultaneously.

That's why I find it ironic to here terms like "alienation" being used in defense of the mechanic. people who liked that dynamic now have nowhere to turn.

I really don't think it creates more interesting wrinkles. The decision to move out of cover is now a lot more one dimensional.

Back to feeling like a Spartan- i feel less like one when I'm not empowered to move at top speed while shooting. I don't care that this doesn't make sense anatomically because it's a video game.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

People often bring up Overwatch as an example of a modern successful game without sprint but I don't think it counts.

Whilst it's true that only one character can literally sprint, the majority of the other characters include some form of ability which allows them to move more quickly than the base speed.

It's not just the audiovisual aspect which makes people like sprint. It's also about being able to increase your speed in certain situations.

Click to shrink...

I brought up Overwatch because it features projectile attacks in a popular FPS. Battlefield does it too. Just thinking that one day I might be able to lead my shot in a new Halo game fills me with hope. Maybe false hope, but hope nonetheless.

 

[Trup1aya]

People often bring up Overwatch as an example of a modern successful game without sprint but I don't think it counts.

Whilst it's true that only one character can literally sprint, the majority of the other characters include some form of ability which allows them to move more quickly than the base speed.

It's not just the audiovisual aspect which makes people like sprint. It's also about being able to increase your speed in certain situations.

Click to shrink...

I Definately think it counts, because Most of the characters are not using sprint.

people often float the idea that w/o sprint an FPS game can't feel modern or responsive, Or that Sprint is the only way to advance Halo's formula. I think overwatch and CSGo both prove there are other ways to approach demand for an avenue for speed increases.

This takes me back to my issues with their design approach. Sprint was not implemented as a solution to a problem. It was decided upon in a superficial manner, then they sought to solutions to the problems it created after the fact.

Had they approach it with: "we should to investigate options to for allowing momentary speed speed increases they may have found solutions that aren't as disruptive as sprint has been.

 

[jem]

I Definately think it counts, because it isn't sprint.

people often float the idea that w/o sprint a game can't feel modern. Or that Sprint is the only way to advance Halo's formula. I think overwatch and CSGo both prove their are other ways.

This takes me back to my problem solving approach. Sprint was not implemented as a solution to a problem. It was decided upon arbitrarily, then they sought solutions to the problems it created.

Had they approach it with: "we need to options to increase speed" they may have found solutions that aren't as disruptive as sprint.

Click to shrink...

Sprint isn't just an increase in speed, it's an increase over the base speed.

The abilities in Overwatch aren't literally sprint but they do allow for players to move more quickly than they do at the base speed.

 

[Ragnarok Flames]

meh

 

[jem]

shocker, Jem still wants "modern" lifeless halo

Click to shrink...

I don't think I've ever actually said that I'm pro-sprint. At least not that I can remember.

I'm largely playing devil's advocate - I don't hate sprint and I do think there are arguments to made in favour of it, however, overall I'm fairly neutral on the subject.

 

[Trup1aya]

Sprint isn't just an increase in speed, it's an increase over the base speed.

The abilities in Overwatch aren't literally sprint but they do allow for players to move more quickly than they do at the base speed.

Click to shrink...

But they aren't sprint.

The increase over base movement speed isn't inherently problematic, imo. The problem stems from Separating the ability to move effectively from the ability to do damage. There's already a precedent for giving players an enhancement over base characteristics based on the items they possess. Why not work within that? Perhaps by giving single handed weapons a slight boost.

This would fit more readily within the preestablished conventions:

1: Gives weapons niche characteristics
2: All Players still empowered to fight on the move
3: Still Allows for a second gear at the push of a button, but players can trade that ability for more lethal/ranged/steady weapons - balance without neutering
4: No map stretching as they'd have be designed around the BMS, not Max speed
5: Since trait would be tied to weapons on map, devs can easily move away from the concept if needed via weapon placement rather than core re-tuning

Personally, while I'm fine with having no second gear at all , I think this would work much better.

And with that, I think they should be more supportive of the idea of using weapons to enhance mobility. That art has largely be lost with the physics changes.

 

[ResilientBanana]

But they aren't sprint.

The increase over base movement speed isn't inherently problematic, imo It's that its coupled with a complete loss the ability to do damage. There's already a precedent for allowing giving players an enhancement over base characteristics based on the items they possess. Why not work within that? Perhaps by giving single handed weapons a slight boost.

This would fit more ready within the preestablished conventions:
Give weapons niche characteristics
Adds depth the decision to swap weapons
Never "guns down"
No stretching maps

Click to shrink...

I'm for keeping Sprint, but not like this.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm for keeping Sprint, but not like this.

Click to shrink...

Sprint Fundamentally changes engagements In a reductive way. This doesn't. I'd rather have neither tbh.

It's completely crazy to me that people would rather not be able to shoot in a shooter, but I guess that's the world we live in.

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

Sprint Fundamentally changes engagements In a reductive way. This doesn't. I'd rather have neither tbh.

It's completely crazy to me that people would rather not be able to shoot in a shooter, but I guess that's the world we live in.

Click to shrink...

It's probably analogous to shooters including reload animations rather than having bottomless clips like DOOM. People just like the boost in speed you get with sprint, regardless of the gameplay ramifications it may have. There are some who still argue reloading is wack and slows the pace of shooters for the worse, much like there are those who argue not being able to shoot while sprinting is worse for gameplay, etc.

Anyway, if potential kill times were more akin to CE mixed with projectile bullets, sprint would be less of an issue imo.

 

[Trup1aya]

It's probably analogous to shooters including reload animations rather than having bottomless clips like DOOM. People just like the boost in speed you get with sprint, regardless of the gameplay ramifications it may have. There are some who still argue reloading is wack and slows the pace of shooters for the worse, much like there are those who argue not being able to shoot while sprinting is worse for gameplay, etc.

Anyway, if potential kill times were more akin to CE mixed with projectile bullets, sprint would be less of an issue imo.

Click to shrink...

No doubt, but when given the choice of having a boost of speed w/o losing the ability to shoot... We'll choose no shooting. I just don't get it.

With reloading, you know it's done because clip size is and reload times are a means to balance different weapons against each other. Also to encourage map movement for resources.

With sprint its done.. To have sprint.

A agree, sprint would be more tolerable with CE weapon conventions, but stretching maps would still suck, and would make dropping the magnum completely unfathomable.

 

[Deleted member 2507]

FFS, is Halo 4 OST Vol 2 not available to buy anymore?
Not interested in streaming, i want to buy downloadable version.

 

[Deleted member 2226]

FFS, is Halo 4 OST Vol 2 not available to buy anymore?
Not interested in streaming, i want to buy downloadable version.

Click to shrink...

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/halo-4-original-soundtrack-vol-2/1436805490 ?

 

[ResilientBanana]

Sprint Fundamentally changes engagements In a reductive way. This doesn't. I'd rather have neither tbh.

It's completely crazy to me that people would rather not be able to shoot in a shooter, but I guess that's the world we live in.

Click to shrink...

I understand they are super soldiers, but think about a full sprint. They're running and firing all the time, but this is a sprint. No one is shooting anyone at full sprint.

I think sprinting is an advantage to running away from a battle and should not gain you the ability to shoot.

 

[Deleted member 2507]

Does itunes allow downloading? I've never ever used it for anything (the rare cases where i've bought a soundtrack have been direct buy and download).

 

[Deleted member 2226]

Does itunes allow downloading? I've never ever used it for anything (the rare cases where i've bought a soundtrack have been direct buy and download).

Click to shrink...

The audio files are regular old AAC (m4a) files without any DRM. You can do what you want with them.

I assume the soundtrack is also on Sumthing, but when I went checking their site timed out for me.

 

[Trup1aya]

I understand they are super soldiers, but think about a full sprint. They're running and firing all the time, but this is a sprint. No one is shooting anyone at full sprint.

I think sprinting is an advantage to running away from a battle and should not gain you the ability to shoot.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I don't think it matters whether or not is actually physically possible to shoot while running at a full sprint, even without the context that we they super soldiers. I just think the game plays better when you can shoot while running at top speed. And since that's how is been, and I enjoy the ramifications of it, that's what I associate with feeling like a Spartan.

I also think it plays better when there is no clear advantage to running away from a battle, as a base mechanic. I find that pretty annoying because accurately shooting people is harder than tapping the sprint button, so there's a power deficit there. I'm partial to advantages being aquired via weapon/map control.

I also don't like that maps are designed to Incentivize you to sprint through certain areas rather to Incentivize you to scan your entire surroundings as you quickly move through , shooting people as neccisary.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Yeah I don't think it matters whether or not is actually physically possible to shoot while running at a full sprint, even without the context that we they super soldiers. I just think the game plays better when you can shoot while running at top speed.

I also think it plays better when there is no advantage to running away from a battle. I find that pretty annoying because accurately shooting people is harder than tapping the sprint button, so there's a power deficit there.

I also don't like that maps are designed to Incentivize you to sprint through certain areas rather to Incentivize you to scan your entire surroundings as you quickly move through , shooting people as neccisary.

Click to shrink...

I guess, but I could go an entire game without using sprint and still run into what you are saying. I'm not sure how you are incentivized on sprinting, there isn't a huge reward once you've sprinted from point a to point b other than the fact that you've traversed faster without being able to defend yourself once a fire fight begins. I mean you could charge someone, but it rarely works out unless your coming in from behind.

I see faster movement as a topic on here a lot, but that would just make maps the same size as they are now. Not only that, but I would love to refrain from a Quake or Unreal Tournament style of gameplay as much as possible. Couple that up with a longer TTK and you have fast super solders with 6 headshot kills or slow firing guns. I think the balance and gameplay are there with Halo 5, just give me a prettier engine and tighten up some of the gameplay and we are good.

 

[Trup1aya]

I guess, but I could go an entire game without using sprint and still run into what you are saying. I'm not sure how you are incentivized on sprinting, there isn't a huge reward once you've sprinted from point a to point b other than the fact that you've traversed faster without being able to defend yourself once a fire fight begins. I mean you could charge someone, but it rarely works out unless your coming in from behind.

Click to shrink...

If you go a while match without sprinting, you'll probably be really ineffective because the maps are to large and objectives to spread out to restrict oneself to BMS. That's the incentive... You can't really be an effective teammate without it this is a direct result of maps being stretched to accommodate sprint.

I see faster movement as a topic on here a lot, but that would just make maps the same size as they are now. Not only that, but I would love to refrain from a Quake or Unreal Tournament style of gameplay as much as possible. Couple that up with a longer TTK and you have fast super solders with 6 headshot kills or slow firing guns. I think the balance and gameplay are there with Halo 5, just give me a prettier engine and tighten up some of the gameplay and we are good.

Click to shrink...

There's never really been a problem with map size. I don't think H5s map sizes are inherently better or worse than what came before. Truth is effectively the same size as Heretic if you're sprinting. Which, again, incentivize sprint. I think it plays better with BMS=sprint.

When you Increase map size, proportionately give the weapons and attacks increased range, proportionally increase the movement speed, and proportionally bump up the aim assists to accommodate for the increased movement speeds, then relatively nothing has changed.

But, If that increase in movement speed comes via sprint, then BMS is inherently disadvantaged by all those aforementioned increases. That's the only relative difference halo 5 sprint brings to the movement table.

I don't want quake or unreal speeds either. But I also don't understand why people who say classic halo is too slow are opposed to simply speeding up classic halo, but are supportive of arbitrarily making BMS disproportionately slow in relation to the accommodations made for sprint.

 

[Cranster]

 

[Masterz1337]

So something that has bothered me with 343i as of late is lack of consistency in regards to rewarding positive community members in the Halo community and shutting down negative attitudes. The MultiLockOn incident is one example. But why is it that community members who have a history of blackmail, skirting the boundaries of the law with stolen assets and a history of racist and sexist comments still get rewarded by 343 Industries?



I mean, surely this isn't the kind of comment that 343i endorses? So why is this kind of behavior still rewarded?

Click to shrink...

Honestly fuck this fool. Not naming any names, but there is a fair amount of the halo dev community who is baffled at the free passes he gets. Everyone else respects 343 and their employees, but the guy who doesn't seem to learn after blackmailing them, stealing their dev builds, dropping the n-word, urging youtubers to post videos that 343 requested they not, seems to reap the rewards.

I may sound jealous, but honestly 343's emphasis on community unity over community values tends to be pretty gross. It was great when they blacklisted Actman for his behavior, and it's unfortunate that was where it stopped. It's the reason I have no interest in working there anymore and why I feel empowered to speak my mind on twitter and other platforms. What's super dumb is their blackballing of actman and the community isolating him genuinely made him self reflect and he gave me an in person heartfelt apology for his behavior.

Yet when people rear this ugly heads and start complaining about things like the Gillette ad, PDP not being as bad as the people who complain about him, reveal themselves as pro gamer gate, you know they'll get a free pass. Most of the vocal halo community tends to be pretty conservative, so I understand they would basically be going to war with their community, but it's still pretty shitty situation. I honestly don't know what they can do.

Having actually gone to community meetups at PAX since 2014, these people are definitely in the minority and there are so so so many Halo community members who are tolerant, warm, welcoming and have a very clear moral code. And even some of the people with shitty opinions can be pretty friendly, respectful and genuinely nice to others. But most people in the community don't want to make waves. And when they do, they see the consequences of it. Both LNG and myself have been pretty heavily harassed in the past, with Late Night Gaming's girlfriend receiving rape threats and the like a number of years ago. Personally, I don't care about the harassment as being the most popular guy has never been something I particularly care about. I've got my own community built around my project where we have strict rules and moderation regarding what is acceptable and not. But there certainly is a ripple effect that happens from the few bad eggs.

Also LOL




Edit: I am sure this post will make the rounds, but I want to add for anyone reading it who has invited me to events, gotten me more involved in the community, introduced me to 343 peeps or are from 343 who have befriended me, please know that none of you are of the ones I am describing here, and I can not be thankful enough for the opportunities and expierence you have offered me.

 

[jem]

Oh Marty...

Oh no no no...

 

[Heretic]

Oh Marty...

Oh no no no...

Click to shrink...

Nothing new.

 

[Ragnarok Flames]

marty has always been like this

 

[jem]

Nothing new.

Click to shrink...

Really?

That's disappointing.

 

[Anton]

Marty was always known as the most conservative member of Bungie, still sucks to see stuff like that from him though

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

Honestly fuck this fool. Not naming any names, but there is a fair amount of the halo dev community who is baffled at the free passes he gets. Everyone else respects 343 and their employees, but the guy who doesn't seem to learn after blackmailing them, stealing their dev builds, dropping the n-word, urging youtubers to post videos that 343 requested they not, seems to reap the rewards.

I may sound jealous, but honestly 343's emphasis on community unity over community values tends to be pretty gross. It was great when they blacklisted Actman for his behavior, and it's unfortunate that was where it stopped. It's the reason I have no interest in working there anymore and why I feel empowered to speak my mind on twitter and other platforms. What's super dumb is their blackballing of actman and the community isolating him genuinely made him self reflect and he gave me an in person heartfelt apology for his behavior.

Yet when people rear this ugly heads and start complaining about things like the Gillette ad, PDP not being as bad as the people who complain about him, reveal themselves as pro gamer gate, you know they'll get a free pass. Most of the vocal halo community tends to be pretty conservative, so I understand they would basically be going to war with their community, but it's still pretty shitty situation. I honestly don't know what they can do.

Having actually gone to community meetups at PAX since 2014, these people are definitely in the minority and there are so so so many Halo community members who are tolerant, warm, welcoming and have a very clear moral code. And even some of the people with shitty opinions can be pretty friendly, respectful and genuinely nice to others. But most people in the community don't want to make waves. And when they do, they see the consequences of it. Both LNG and myself have been pretty heavily harassed in the past, with Late Night Gaming's girlfriend receiving rape threats and the like a number of years ago. Personally, I don't care about the harassment as being the most popular guy has never been something I particularly care about. I've got my own community built around my project where we have strict rules and moderation regarding what is acceptable and not. But there certainly is a ripple effect that happens from the few bad eggs.

Also LOL




Edit: I am sure this post will make the rounds, but I want to add for anyone reading it who has invited me to events, gotten me more involved in the community, introduced me to 343 peeps or are from 343 who have befriended me, please know that none of you are of the ones I am describing here, and I can not be thankful enough for the opportunities and expierence you have offered me.

Click to shrink...

I'm surprised at some of the people who follow Gamecheat on Twitter, including 343 people. I mean it's fine, they can do what they like, but as you said it's shocking to see Gamecheat get so many passes when he's constantly proven to be problematic. It's like Frankie still quoting/engaging with Ragnarok over the years lol, although to be fair to Rag, Gamecheat has done worse :b

Another shitbag who gets love from 343 is "ZachtehCeo" or whatever his name is on Twitter. I followed him for a while just to see the type of person he is and how his relationship with Halo develops, and he proves time and time again that he's just an asshole. I guess in his case it's because he throws money around for.... stuff?

 

[BizzyBum]

Oh, we're off the spotlight.

Back into obscurity for 2 more years before Infinite comes out.