Jazzii Man

This is something I'd love to see in Halo. There's no reason it couldn't be done.

I think this would be a great innovation for Halo that everyone could agree on. The way I see it working is that the most popular community creations (maps, gametypes) are put into a playlist called "community creations!", or something along those lines. And every week or two, the least popular is taken out and a new one is put in. It would give the Forgers something to aspire to: to have their creations played by the entire Halo 5 community. I'm not sure what system would need to be put in place so that people's creations and viewed and voted for before they make it into the playlist, but if they could find a way to do it, it would be great. There are tonnes of great gametypes and maps that fans have made and loved over the years, and to see them appreciated in matchmaking would be incredible.

You've got a bit of a misunderstanding of what happens when smartscope is enganged vs when zoom is engaged in previous Halo games. Smartscope has been confirmed to tighten spread when scoping in, which means descoped players are punished with more randomness in their spread. Whereas in previous Halo games, the only benefit you gained from being scoped in was that the enemy became larger in your screen relative to your reticle. There were no benefits in terms of spread. ADS in Halo 5 literally does act how it acts in other games, the only difference being that movement isn't hindered. I don't think this response is helping anything. If people are not personally happy with the way Halo 5 is turning out, then they shouldn't have to "deal with it". They should be entitled to providing their thoughts without being told that their thoughts don't matter. As for the comparisons to Call of Duty, that's for anyone to decide. If a person wants to make comparisons between the combination of mechanics CoD is known for, and the combination of new mechanics that are being introduced to Halo, then that's up to them. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not arrogant for them to hold that particular opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is developing the game. Is it up to the OP whether or not 343 make something he doesn't like and call it Halo? No, of course not. However, that has no bearing on whether or not the OP thinks those decisions are right for Halo. We need to stop with this overly defensiveness for 343 and Halo 5. People should be allowed to like the game without being bombarded with criticism, and people should be able to dislike the game without being bombarded with criticism. You don't have to agree on whether or not the new features are good, but criticising someone for making a comparison to another game is not helpful.

Interesting answers guys! What about stuff like Flinch and other stuff that was introduced and caused controversy? Also, is there a feature that could be added which would ruin the game so much it would make you stop playing?

Putting aside whether or not we think sprint should be in the game, and putting aside whether or not we think it will be in the game, how would you guys react if Halo 5 Guardians didn't have sprint? Would you be unhappy but continue playing as normal? Would it actually worsen the experience to the point that you'd play significantly less? Would you play less campaign and more multiplayer?

That's also indirect. If by "valid" you mean direct, then it's up to whether or not it is direct. If by "valid" you mean correct, then you're mentioning something that doesn't relate to what I've just been explaining. There is sprint left to debate. That part of the debate has barely been touched upon yet in comparison to the wealth of other things that have been discussed. That indicates a bias on your part. My discussion has all been consistently direct, free of fallacious arguments and has attempted to steer things back in the direction of sprint and the things discussed in the OP. Most of the other stuff has been an attempt to steer the discussion away from sprint, instead opting for straw-man arguments and other fallacious arguments. An honest review of the posts in this thread would notice that I was in fact the most consistent person in trying to encourage 'good' discussion. There's a slight implication there that I haven't been civil. I believe I countered a similar argument earlier on in this thread. If the claim is that I haven't been civil, then quote the parts of my posts which demonstrate this and perhaps bring it to the attention of a moderator. There's also a claim there that I have 'incessantly denied' every person's opinion. If I've denied an opinion, then I've given my reasoning for doing so. And so the thing to do in a debate is to continue those lines of discussion by directly addressing the counter-arguments I offered in response to those "opinions". Simply saying that I've denied everything is meaningless if you haven't shown specific examples of where I was wrong to deny certain claims. Seeing as you guys are now leaving the discussion, I thought I'd offer those thoughts. As mentioned earlier, anyone wishing to discuss sprint itself should feel absolutely free to do so. A few words to those who do: 1) If you disagree with anything in particular that I've said in the OP, then please be direct in offering a counter-argument. This means actually demonstrating flaws in my line of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. That is exactly what I want. I'm totally aware that not everyone agrees with me on sprint, but I should at least be granted direct discussion on the subject - I did put a lot of work into this thread, and I've worked hard to keep things 100% civil. 2) Please do not argue against things that I simply haven't said, or in other words, don't engage in straw-man arguments. For example, don't say things such as 'just because you dislike sprint doesn't mean everyone should', if I haven't made such a claim. A good way to avoid this is to read everything I say very carefully, and try to see the actual points I'm making before replying. At this point you would have 3 options: option 1 would be to explain that you didn't understand the argument and would like further elaboration. Option 2 would be to understand the argument I'm trying to make, but then to actually quote and explain where I'm going wrong. Option 3 would be to understand the argument I'm trying to make, and then to agree with it and explain that you personally agree with me on that point. Option 4 would be to not put in the effort to see the point I'm making and then jump to claiming that my argument is simply 'weird', but option 4 is what I'm hoping we can all avoid here as it does nothing to further discussion. As you can see, we don't have to agree with each other in order for discussion to progress, we just simply need to be direct. 3) Don't be surprised when your own counter-arguments are met with more counter-arguments from myself. This is how debates work. If I continue to disagree with your reasoning, then I'll consistently go into detail as to why that is (which seems to be something quite unique to me in this thread), and therefore you shouldn't simply claim that I'm 'not listening' to your views, but instead find the flaws in my counter-arguments and address those. This is how civil debate works and it's the only way to keep things direct, straight to the point and on topic. 4) Don't get offended when you find that my views don't just suddenly change when reading your own arguments. If I don't seem to be changing my mind when you believe I should, then simply continue to point out the flaws in my reasoning. This continues from point number 3. Follow my own style of debating for a perfect example of this, as you'll find that if I continue to disagree with something, then I'll simply continue to point out what I consider to be holes in your reasoning while quoting important parts of what you said, as opposed ignoring the points you just made and making a post claiming that you are stuck in your ways, or some other indirect argument. 5) Remember that just because I heavily disagree with you on a subject, doesn't mean I'm your enemy. I can easily disagree with my best friends on things far more controversial than sprint and yet still get along with them perfectly fine, and I think you'll find that it is quite easy to get along with me, unless of course you get easily offended and hostile in the face of consistent, direct counter-arguments, in which case you'll probably think I'm the worst person in the world. Please, no matter how much you disagree with me, and no matter how much detail I go into to explain why I think you're wrong, just try to get along with me and know that it's all in the spirit of debate.

What? No. Please read very very very very carefully. I really mean that. Don't skim over this. If I make an argument and you want to disagree with it, then a direct counter would be something that demonstrates the lack of truth or logic in the argument itself. For example, if I say that a game with lowered weapons while sprinting makes it easier to escape encounters/bad situations than a lack of lowered weapons, and then go into detail as to why that is, then a direct counter-argument would be one that quotes the part of my argument which is wrong and then goes on to explain the specific flaws. An indirect argument would be one that simply states that it's 'just my opinion'. If I say that there is absolutely no logical pathway from seeing someone dislikes a certain change to assuming they're against or scared of all change, then a direct counter-argument would be one that explains why it actually is logical to draw such a conclusion. An indirect argument would be one that says 'but you are scared of change'. If I say that maps have been made larger to compensate for a lack of sprint, quoting a multiplayer designer who confirms such a thing, then a direct counter-argument would be one which demonstrates that the quote is unreliable, or the designer was lying or on drugs when making the statement. An indirect argument would be to ignore the evidence I just provided and continue saying 'but Pitsfall isn't big'. If I point out that Pitsfall is an isolated example and does not speak for the average map size in Halo 4, then a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate that Pitfall is in fact not an isolated example as it is the only map in Halo 4, or to demonstrate that Pitfall does in fact speak for the average map size (without simply asserting that is does). An indirect counter-argument would be to simply ignore the point I made and to continue to claim that Pitfall is proof that map sizes haven't been changed to accommodate sprint. If I make an argument that spartans can actually sprint and shoot accurately at the same time, pointing to examples in the canon, then a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate the lack of truth in the examples I've given, proving that they are in fact incorrect. An indirect argument would be one that states I'm 'simply not listening to what people are saying'. If I explain that there are two types of opinions - those which are truly subjective and unique to each person, and those that are necessarily right or wrong - and I use an example of where this is also true by pointing out that if the subject was the colour green, then a subjective opinion would be that green is a nice/enjoyable/horrible/disgusting colour, whereas whether or not sand is green is not a subjective opinion. It isn't based on personal taste, but rather on a reality that is either true or simply not true. And then I go on to point out that our personal enjoyment of the colour green is similar to that of our personal enjoyment of sprint in Halo - it's subjective and unique to each person, and therefore truly is opinion based. Whereas whether or not sand is green is the same as whether or not sprint impacts the game in certain objective ways - such as the question of whether or not maps have been changed to compensate for sprint - as it either is right or wrong, and even though we can have our opinions on it, we are either right or we are wrong. And therefore it is completely unnecessary to argue by saying 'well that's just your opinion'. Of course it's my opinion, but it is either right or wrong, and therefore you will need to counter my arguments directly to actually demonstrate that I'm wrong. So when I explain that, a direct counter-argument would be to demonstrate that there actually is no such thing as a subjective opinion, or even that there is no such thing as an opinion on a claim which either has to be right or wrong. An indirect counter-argument would be one that refers to my explanation as "weird" and goes on to repeat that it is all just my opinion. If someone claims I'm not here to debate, but rather have already made up my mind, and then I respond with a counter argument which explains that: 1) the two are not mutually exclusive, and 2) you can't simply say I've made up my mind and I'm not here to debate simply because I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen so far ... then a direct counter-argument would be one which demonstrates that the two are indeed mutually exclusive, and which demonstrates that there is indeed a logical connection between seeing that I'm unconvinced by people's arguments and then assuming that I'm 'not here to debate'. An indirect counter argument would be one which says: "your problem is that you act as though once you state why you disagree with something someone says to you, any statements of the same kind are invalid. You aren't God." If I am forced to repeat the fact that people aren't countering my arguments directly, pointing to specific examples each time, then a direct counter-argument would be one that demonstrates that the arguments I'm responding to are indeed direct. An indirect argument would be one which says: "if what you just said is true, your statements wouldn't be so repetitive." That is the difference between a direct and an indirect counter-argument, and I would greatly appreciate it if some effort was made towards actually using direct-counter arguments in response to the things I've been saying. This is another indirect argument. You did nothing to demonstrate any flaws in my reasoning. You did nothing to point out specific places where I went wrong and how I went wrong. You simply asserted that what I said had "proven" your point. From now on, I will no longer be responding to any non-sprint related posts or indirect arguments. This will include things such as: - You're scared of change - You need to learn to adapt - You don't know what you're talking about - That's all just your opinion - You just don't know how to use sprint properly - You're obnoxious - Nothing ever gets through to you - Your statements are so repetitive - You don't consider that your opinions are wrong - You aren't God - You aren't here to debate If anyone wishes to discuss sprint itself, and would like to raise points about the arguments that I make in the OP, explaining where I'm going wrong, then I'm happy to continue with those types of discussions. Follow Coldfreeze or Twinreaper's examples.

You mean about having to constantly ask people to be direct in countering my arguments about sprint? Doesn't it make sense that I would have to repeat such a thing when such a thing continues to be relevant in response to the things people are saying? You've done absolutely nothing here to counter the idea that: Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong You're doing nothing by calling it 'verbal gymnastics'. You're still just making assertions without quoting specific points I've made and explaining why I'm wrong. Which of my 'opinions' are being stated in an 'objective manner'? And how are they not objective? I want specifics here, please. If I'm wrong for pointing out instances where people misread what I was saying and then telling them what I was actually saying, then you should point to specific examples and counter the arguments I made to demonstrate that what I was saying wasn't read correctly. If you can actually directly tell me what's wrong with that, as opposed to just pointing out that I've been doing it, then that would be greatly appreciated. If I've ignored certain points, then you'll be able to give specific examples. If my explanation of the difference between a subjective opinion (enjoyment of something) and objective opinions (opinions on things that do indeed have a right or wrong answer) is indeed wrong, then you'll be able to dissect it directly and point out why I'm wrong. Referring to it as 'weird' does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I'm wrong. Yet more claims that side-step the responsibility of actually countering the points I made in my arguments about why it's "unfair". If I'm wrong, address those arguments specifically. I'm not going to stop requesting if it continues not to happen. I hate sprint is the subjective part; the way sprint impacts the gameplay and interacts with other features is the objective part. And here we are again, with the continued straw-man argument that has already been countered many many times. My opinion on how "bad" sprint is is my subjective opinion, and pointing that out does nothing to stay consistent with this thread, which is about objective claims made about sprint. I don't know how many times the repetition of this point will make it clear.

That's a non-statement. I counter any counter-arguments people make in response to my counters, and when they don't counter directly, I make sure to point it out. You're doing absolutely nothing by saying that I don't seem to consider the possibility of my counters being wrong. Asking people to actually respond to my counter-arguments doesn't equate to me not considering the possibility of being wrong, it equates to me wanting the discussion to actually revolve around those arguments.

If you don't want to be a part of the discussion, that's fine, but there's no point in trying to end a discussion that you don't want to be a part of. I have stated my points, but that doesn't mean that I can't counter the arguments people make. It's not necessary to say 'let's move on'. It's a thread, it's a debate, and if you personally want to move on then feel free. Nope. My point is that once I counter something someone says, and you agree with what that person said, then the way to do things is to counter the things I said in response to that person. There's no point in people quoting things I've already countered. It has nothing to do with me being "God", and everything to do with keeping all posts up to date with the latest counter-arguments that have been made. That's how things move forward and stay relevant.

Yeah exactly, and that's partly why I'm all for a fast base speed. I'm not against an increase in the feeling of speed - whether it's through increasing base speed or by increasing FOV - I'm against the change in the actual gameplay that sprint causes due to Halo no longer being fully about movement and shooting all at the same time, but instead being about a trade-off. You say that you could see it being implemented in a different way where instead of weapons being lowered, accuracy is lowered, but I'm still against this because it creates the same problem - full movement and shooting ability are traded as opposed to combined. Out of curiosity, why is it that you think there needs to even be a minor difference when a player moves at top speed? I can't help but wonder what was "broken" and needed to be fixed about the ability to move and shoot fully without one of them being hindered in order to allow for the full use of the other. I responded to everything said in that post. It was completely unfounded.

You're confusing two different things here: 1) The argument that sprint is enjoyable 2) The argument that that is enough of an argument in itself to demonstrate that a feature should be in a game. My argument goes against number 2. I don't argue that a person is lying if they say they enjoy sprint in Halo, I argue that that in itself isn't a very good argument for keeping a feature in a game, and I go into detail as to why that is. In the end you actually agree with me, because the very first thing you say is that it may not be a very convincing argument, which is exactly the thing I've been saying. But the second half of that sentence is irrelevant because I'm not arguing against a person's personal enjoyment of sprint. I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. I'm not entirely convinced that you do either. I'll go over it again: My argument: an individual's personal enjoyment of a feature isn't enough in itself to argue in favour of the feature being in a game. The straw-man that you replaced that argument with: we should look at an individual's opinion and then cater to the exact opposite. If you don't see how those are two entirely different things being said, then once again, I'm lost for how else to explain it. Why do we need to keep every single important aspect of the game intact? Well, because they're important? If they didn't absolutely need to be kept intact then they wouldn't be important. This is semantics revolving around the word 'important'. I should have remembered what site I'm on, and I mean no disrespect by saying that. But you aren't aware of what core gameplay is if you think that core gameplay refers to the contents of an entire game. See above. You're confusing core gameplay with secondary gameplay. Core gamepaly was kept entirely intact from Halo CE to Halo 2 to Halo 3. The gameplay changed, by the changes were aligned with the fundamental ways in which the original game played.s Once again I'm struggling to grasp what it is you're trying to say. Halo 4 is 'clearly a Halo game' because it shares certain things with the older games and it has Halo in the title, but that does nothing to say that everything that should be consistent has been kept consistent. I have already gone through this. Straw-man argument, yet again. Sigh. Read that part over again please... slowly and carefully. Enjoying sprint and thinking that Halo should have sprint is the equidistant of liking the colour green. Claiming that sprint does or doesn't have a certain objective impact on the game is the equivalent of claiming that a particular object (that does indeed have a colour) is green. You're either right or wrong in this regard. I knew that we'd get to this point eventually. People always make this confusion. If a situation is uneven -meaning one player has better height advantage, better weapons, shields are higher etc. - that is a situation that occurred (in traditional Halo) due to the combined actions of the players themselves. Once again you're confusing two different things: 1) The unevenness that occurs due to the actions of the players. 2) The unevenness that occurs due to the mechanics the game imposes on the players that promote inequality and randomness. Sprint is one-sided in its benefits. You're still ignoring the dynamic I talked about where sprint is one-sided in its benefits. It doesn't matter that the chasing player has the option to chase, what matters is that the fleeing player is given a free button which replaces the skill and decision making he would otherwise have had to exert in order to gain the rightful place of being back on top. You continue to ignore this, but I'd like you to address this point directly. We could argue for any feature in the same manner. Armour Lock is good and balanced because the attacking player still has the option to kill the Armour Lock player when he comes out of it. SO WHAT! That's not the point! The point is the Armour Lock player was given a free defensive ability which takes away from the necessity to exert a similar amount of skill and decision making to put themselves back on top in that situation. Where in older Halo's that person would have to fight their way out in the face of being at a disadvantage by using similar skills that their opponent had to use to put them in a disadvantageous position. It doesn't revolve around the combination of top movement speed and shooting. Top movement speed now comes with the draw-back of having to lower weapons and choosing travel over combat. By claiming this isn't true, you're claiming sand is green. "And yes, the inevitable response is that this is your opinion - and it is." I actually wrote down your inevitable response for you so that I could cut right to my counter-argument in the hopes taht your counter would be in response to that counter. Instead you've opted for repeating the original argument which has already been countered. All I can do here is ask politely that you read and respond to the counter-argument. "Sprint has changed up the gameplay, in a unique way that has changed the way Halo 4/Reach plays with non-sprint Halo. Whether or not you find enjoyment in this new playstyle is completely subjective." I don't see why that's relevant. It should be obvious by now that whether or not sprint is enjoyable is subjective - I mean, I've gone to enough detail to make it clear that I think that. "Your argument entirely is that you want Halo 1, 2 and 3 styled gameplay being the style of gameplay in future Halo games and for that reason sprint shouldn't be in the game. However, it's clear that you can build sprint into the game even if you build off your so called 'core' of Halo games, as evidenced by Halo 4." All you've done here is asserted that it is clear, but that does nothing in itself to demonstrate that it is. Tell me directly how sprint actually does fit with the fundamental ways that the original games played, and in doing so, counter the things I've said ind defense of the idea that sprint does not. "Any further feelings you have that implies sprint goes against said core gameplay has been subjective opinion, and most of them based off of/referencing situations where a player isn't skilled enough to win an encounter and places the blame on a game mechanic that he, too, can utilize." Again, whether or not sprint impacts the game in a certain objective way does not relate to feelings or subjectivity. What's subjective is whether or not that impact is actually enjoyable. I'm here to debunk the objective claims about the way sprint impacts gameplay. Simple as that. "This thread is still going?" It's a thread. It doesn't have a deadline. "Buddy, it's pretty clear that you aren't here to debate, but rather have already made up your own mind." Firstly, the two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, if by having made up my own mind you mean that I've countered people's arguments and continue to be unconvinced by them, then yes. But why is that worth mentioning? It should be self-evident in my posts that I'm yet to be convinced of my opposition's views. "You're claiming your opinion is absolute fact, being generally obnoxious, and" No, and good job on contributing yet another straw-man argument which puts words in my mouth rather unfairly. I'm claiming that: 1) Whether or not I or anyone else personally enjoys sprint is subjective. Not fact based. 2) Whether or not sprint has a certain objective impact on gameplay is not subjective. There is a right or wrong and therefore more discussion is needed. It could be that I'm wrong and it could be that I'm right, but the actual answer is not opinion based.

It's still the increase in base speed that made the difference then, not the inclusion of sprint. Ah that's where the confusion is coming in. I was never suggesting that there should be a sudden change in FOV at the push of a button, but rather an appropriate increase in FOV that is permanent. Also, you're still claiming that sprint increases speed in response to the arguments I've given as to why sprint does not make Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous games. Of course sprint makes you faster than if you were not to sprint, but sprinting in a game that compensates for sprint with larger maps is not faster than moving at top speed in a game that has smaller maps to compensate for a lack of sprint. The combination of top movement speed and shooting is not there. Balances what? I don't know what you're saying is being balanced here. Exactly! Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly. BAM. Right there ^ It's not an increase in travel speed when it comes to traversing maps. It's not an increase in travel speed when it comes to getting into battle faster. It's not immersion. It's not believability. It's not lore. It's not canon. It's the fact that you can't shoot that makes sprint "worthwhile". If sprint is "useless" without lowered weapons, then that simply means it's the lowered weapons that give it the "purpose" of being in the game. That's exactly my point. Those who like sprint enjoy the impact that lowered weapons at top speed has on gameplay - the impact being that it is easier to get out of a bad situation when your enemy can't match your speed and shoot you at the same time. Travel times aren't impacted by whether or not you can shoot. It slows them down momentarily, not nearly enough to negate the effect of the fleeing player having an easier time getting out of a bad situation than the pursuing player has when it comes to keeping them in the bad situation. Please can you elaborate on this. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by the bolded part. I prefer not to call it an argument because that word has negative connotations that really don't apply to what we've been doing here. But I totally agree, it's enjoyable when it happens like this. It proves that there's no reason two people can't discuss a subject that they heavily disagree on without resorting to hostility. Feel free to chip in. Demonstrate how I don't know what I'm talking about - I invite you to do so. If literally every person who cared about Halo had the same opinion on it, then there would be no reason not to put it in the game. Same case for any feature. If literally every person in the world demonstrated that they will not play the game unless: 1) Rockets, Swords and Incineration Cannons are loadouts options 2) There is a perk that grants all your weapons to kill all enemies within a 10 meter radius 3) Armour Lock is a default ability that lasts as long as the player holds the button and has no cool-down time 4) Going prone, aim-down-sights and grenade cooking are put in there ... then by all means they may as well be in the game. But then why put Halo in the title? In a world where not everyone shares the same opinion, and where Halo's original gameplay obviously already has its fans, then there is no reason to focus on any individual's opinion as if it is an authority - which is why I point out that simply saying 'I like it and that's all that matters' is not a very convincing argument when it comes to demonstrating that sprint should indeed be in Halo - and every reason instead to focus on building the game around the principles of the original games themselves. "If a developer had that thought process, this is how they'd go: "Oh, I think sprint isn't good when added to Halo. But my opinion is irrelevant as to whether or not it should actually be in the game though - therefore that's why I should add it." *Add's sprint to Halo*" This just simply doesn't relate in any shape or form to what I've been saying. What you're claiming here is not only something that I haven't been saying, but it is in fact the polar opposite of what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that an individual's personal enjoyment of a feature is not enough in itself to argue in favour of the feature. That's very different than suggesting that we should look at an individual's opinion and then for some reason cater to the exact opposite. "Just because it is designed from the ground up around core gameplay doesn't stop something from featuring sprint. Halo 4 is certainly designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games; it has, y'know. Guns, Melee, Grenades - a la golden triangle. It has radar. It has shields. It has many core features; it has many new features." Logical fallacy: some things are consistent, therefore all things must be consistent. All you've done here is pointed out that there are some aspects that are consistent from Halo 4 with the original Halo games, but that does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that every important aspect of the game has been kept intact. "I think the reason why it's relevant to point how how Halo 4 could suffer due to lack of sprint is because, y'know, this is an argument FOR sprint." You've demonstrated to me that you either didn't read over that part properly, you didn't understand it, or you are being dishonest in your response. That's an argument for keeping sprint in Halo 4 post-release (due to the game having been designed, made and shipped already), not an argument for keeping sprint in the franchise from now on. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm lost for where to go from here because any attempt to clarify would just be saying what I already said in the post you were responding to. I guess I'll ask you to read it over for clarification and hope for the best. "Tell me the FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion, that sprint is plain bad and that it should never be in a Halo game ever again." Tell me the "FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion" that sprint is good and should be kept in future games. What I can tell you are the reasons that it is not consistent with the things that made Halo play the way Halo used to play at a core level. Whether or not you think games should be consistent from a core gameplay perspective from game to game is up to you, but whether or not the games actually are consistent from that perspective is not a subjective matter. I mean, we can have our opinions on those things, but we are still either right or wrong about it. We can think that green is a nice colour, and we wont have to worry about being right or wrong because that is a genuinely subjective point of view. We can think that green is the colour of sand, but we are either right or wrong about that. If you want the reasons that sprint is not consistent with the way previous games played on a fundamental level, then I'll go into a small amount of detail here: 1) Halo used to put advantages and disadvantages in the hands of the players alone. If a player was put in a disadvantageous position, it happened in the face of equal opportunity - the game wasn't set up so that one player had it easier than the other - and more importantly, if that player was to take themselves out of that bad situation, they had to exert a similar skill level to put themselves back on top. That push and pull factor happened due to the skills and decisions of the players alone, and NOT due to any advantages that the game granted them. Sprint changes this because, well... here's the part from the OP: The real problem is that the game grants an unfair and unearned advantage to players who decide to run away from encounters. This advantage comes in the form of lowered weapons. The objective of a player who runs away is to get to safety and allow their shields to recharge. The objective of a chasing player is to keep up with the escapee and to continue to shoot them so that the escapee's shields don't recharge. In Halos 1, 2 and 3, the chaser could simply run at the same speed as the escapee and continue shooting at the same time. However, this abiltiy is not granted in Halo 4 as the chaser has to sacrifice his/her ability to shoot in order to simply keep up with the escapee. This nullifies the chase to begin with, because the point of chasing a player who you were in the middle of killing is to kill them before their shields recharge, thus finishing the encounter. 2) Halo used to grant the ability to all players to be able to move and shoot all at the same time and at any speed. This meant that gameplay revolved around the skills that were present when players effectively combined movement (strafing and running) and shooting (handling descope, aiming) simultaneously. None of this ever got in the way of map movement, as players didn't have to trade-off between traveling and shooting - it all happened at the same time. With sprint, all of this changes. In order just to travel from one place to another at top speed, I have to completely sacrifice my ability to shoot, and thus movement is traded with combat. It's the complete opposite of what we had originally, which was a necessity for the effective combination of the two. Trade-off vs combination - it changes the way Halo plays out at a fundamental level, and whether we personally like it or not, it simply isn't consistent with the way Halo played originally. Your inevitable response will be to tell me that it's only my opinion that these things are bad for Halo, but again, that brings the argument down to whether or not game sequels should be consistent at their core with the gameplay of their predecessors. The argument at that point actually ceases to be about sprint and its impact on gameplay.

So you're pointing out that the base movement increase has made average travel time faster, as opposed to sprint itself. That still doesn't do anything to say that sprint makes travel times in Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous Halo games; it's just the impact of base movement speed. As mentioned already, the game will be as fast as the developers intend for it to be, sprint or no sprint. Previous Halo games were not broken in this sense. Firstly, you seem to have contradicted yourself with the very first sentence here, as in the first quote I responded to, you seemed to suggest that you agree with the fact that maps have been increased to compensate for sprint. Secondly, all you're doing is referencing Twins posts, when I have already responded in detail to all the points he made. If you disagree with a counter I offered, then please address those counters specfiically. Also, with Pit Stop, all you're doing is saying 'I can travel faster', but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that Halo ever needed faster average travel times. What was broken about the travel times in previous games without sprint? So in short, you don't personally want an increase in field of view due to other effects it can have such as disorientation. OK, fair enough, but this still doesn't mean sprint should be in the game; it just means that there's an alternative which you don't personally enjoy. I offered things such as base speed increase and field of view increase as a healthy alternative to sprint for people who say that like sprint for the illusion of speed it gives. Ah, but I didn't say that lore is less important than gameplay; I said that as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important. That means that when it comes to designing the game's mechanics, the way the mechanics interact and work together is more important than whether or not they're 100% consistent with the lore. If we were going by lore, then cooking grenades and going prone would be options, but due to the way those mechanics would interact with the way Halo plays, it is simply better not to include them. Again, the gameplay comes first when it comes to gameplay. Firstly, I don't understand why it is even remotely relevant to point to what we as humans are limited to doing when we are talking about fictional super-soldiers in a sci-fi universe. Secondly, all you're doing is pointing to moments in the canon where spartans happen not to be sprinting and shooting. You're being selective. If we have examples of both, then how can we possibly say that one is important while the other is not? The thing is, the examples you've given are not even examples where the spartans' weapons were needed while they were sprinting, so you can't possibly use that as an example anyway. When we have examples of spartans needing to sprint and shoot, they can do it, which is exactly my point. If canon really did dictate gameplay (and it should not), then spartans would be able to sprint and shoot accurately at the same time. In order to claim that they can't, you need to do more than simply point to examples where they happen to be sprinting without shooting - you'll need to demonstrate that the moments when they have been shown to sprint and shoot are in fact not canon, and then you'll have to demonstrate that gameplay should be modeled around that. As others before you have done, you have simply not read or understood that part in its entirety. I highly advise you to read it again more carefully. Notice I pointed out that the poll does nothing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people dislike sprint. Exactly my point. If simply saying 'I like it' was enough to demonstrate that a feature works with a game, then any feature you can imagine, no matter how terrible, should indeed be in the game. Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to like any feature they want to like. It doesn't mean that they can't personally want it to return. It's just that saying 'I like it' doesn't do anything to effectively demonstrate that it will work for the game. More discussion is needed of course. To engage with someone who has default Armour Lock would be a person's choice, but that doesn't argue in favour of Armour Lock. It doesn't matter whether or not it's your choice to chase someone who runs away. What matters is that the other person is given such an easy advantage when they do decide to run away, which in itself changes the way Halo functions. One of the great things about Halo was how much it put things in the hands of the player when it came to controlling the outcome of the game. If you put yourself on top in an encounter by making better decisions and playing better than the other person, then they would have to exert at least an equal amount of skill and decision making in order to put themselves back in an equal place with you. Not unlike armour lock, sprint changes this dynamic because it gives the losing player a defensive ability which requires far less skill and input to get them out of a situation which required a certain amount of skill and input from the enemy player. "In the case of sprinting, shootign someone actually slows them down, so either they have to hope you have bad aim or no ammo, both a game of chance." Doesn't matter that it slows them down. Then broken dynamic is still there because you still have to sacrifice your ability to move at the same speed as they are just in order to slow them down a little. "Using sprint during a fight is a game of chance, you put yourself in a disadvantage to gain speed or keep walking for the ability to respond faster I can only see balance here." One of my favourite members on Halowaypoint responded to a similar claim in a thread about sprint recently, and he said it as well as it could be said. Just because there is a trade-off between two things does not automatically mean there is balance, and it does not mean that the feature is good. In order to "balance" the ability to turn and move, should there be a trade-off between using the right and left thumbstick? When one is activated, the other is disabled? Clearly, not all trade-offs work to benefit the game, and further explanation for why the trade-off is needed is necessary. More importantly, the "trade-off" between movement and shooting, when combined with long kill times, is exactly what the problem is. You're claiming that the very thing that's broken about sprint is the very thing that fixes it. Halo was about the combination of moving and shooting, not the trade-off. If anyone thinks that Halo was broken for being this way, and needed to be fixed, then Halo simply wasn't the game for them. "Gives speed, does not give an illusion, sprinting increases movement speed by 10 %" Nope. Sprint itself does not increase the speed of Halo games, it only increases the speed of Halo 4 because Halo 4 was designed with sprint in mind and therefore would naturally be slower than previous Halo games without it. As pointed out above, what you're really doing is referring to the increase in base speed, not the inclusion of sprint.

The thing is, if it isn't the feeling of running fast that you like, and it isn't moving around faster relative to your sorroundings (which we know it can't be - see the OP), then the only thing left is that it makes you move faster relative to other players. Now, we know that it doesn't make you faster relative to players who are also sprinting; it only makes you faster relative to players who happen not to be sprinting - that's the actual tangible speed difference that sprint gives in Halo 4 compared with previous games. So it would seem that what you like about sprint (if it isn't the feeling of speed or your speed relative to your sorroundings) is that it allows you to run faster than players who can't sprint because they are attempting to shoot. If this is not the case, then please do divulge the actual difference sprint makes to Halo that you do like, and we'll go from there. I shouldn't be playing Halo 4 if I don't like sprint, no. But that doesn't do anything to actually defend the inclusion of sprint in Halo. Also, shall we look at the actual definition of fan? A fan is a person who supports or is enthusiastically devoted to something. Now, with this in mind, a "real" fan is simply someone who fits that description. I am enthusiastically devoted to Halo, therefore I am a fan. No ifs, no buts. End of story. What is it in this particular case that I am not a fan of? Sprint, of course. Are you doing anything to actually argue for sprint's existense in Halo gameplay by poiting out that I'm personally not a fan of it? No, of course not. Shall we look at the actual definition of the word 'civil'? We shall. Civil: courteous and polite. Now, do tell me the logical connection between the inability to not want a certain feature to return in a game, and the ability to remain civil. The truth is, there is no logical connection between the two, and therefore your statement here is a non-statement. It does nothing to argue for sprint in Halo. Also, and more importantly, there is no compromise for making sprint work in Halo, and that's because it is not the details of the implementation, but the implementation of the feature itself which is bad. As soon as you take away the things that make sprint bad for Halo, it ceases to be sprint. Also, there needs to be sufficient reason for it to be kept in the game for compromises to even be considered, and there simply hasn't been one. It doesn't actually bring anything to gameplay which works towards the values that Halo gameplay is known for while improving and complementing things. Halo 4 was built for sprint. The problem has never been that Halo 4 wasn't built around sprint; the problem is that sprint and Halo 4 weren't built around Halo. This just demonstrates to me that you grossly underestimate just how much the core gameplay features impact the rest of the game. One you change one of those things, it has an outreaching impact on the rest of the game, and other things have to be changed too. You can't just have half the game have no sprint, and the other half have sprint, because other features would have to be changed, and then other features would have to be changed as a result of that. You don't just change a feature in and of itself; there is a domino effect that takes place. In short, this just isn't a realistic way of doing things. There's no such thing as 'what's best for their game' in this context. Their game would work with whatever they had built to support it. If they made a game with sprint in mind and then tested it without sprint, they would inevitably choose sprint. If they made a game without sprint in mind and then tested it with sprint, they would inevitably prefer it without sprint. So this is just not realistic. Also, it shouldn't be about what the individuals prefer, but rather about building a game that works to maintain the values of the franchise that the game is a part of. Building the game with the goal of refining, building upon and improving upon the gameplay values that the franchsie started gives them a singular goal, which makes more sense and is more realistic. Building the game on the opinions of individuals within the team without having a clear vision would just lead to disagreements and a lack of knowledge of where they want the game to go. See counter to argument 8 in the OP. What you're doing here is bringing attention to the fact that games are designed around the features that make up the core gameplay of the game. What people who dislike sprint in Halo are saying is that Halo should be designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games. In hindsight, of course you're going to argue that sprint should be in Halo 4, because the game has already been designed and made, so to take sprint out now would impact the game in a negative way. Imagine playing on Haven or Adrift without sprint? On the other hand, future Halo games are yet to be designed and made, and therefore the desire for those games not to have sprint would mean that they would be designed without sprint in mind, and therefore would not suffer in the way that a game like Halo 4 would without sprint. So I don't see why it is relevant to point out that Halo 4 in particular would suffer in certain ways if sprint was taken out in hindsight. If you don't understand, perhaps you somehow haven't heard the reasons? I'd be happy to explain. So basically, you wouldn't understand a person who dislikes sprint in and of itself (which is a bizarre thing to mention as it doesn't relate to this discussion), but you would understand why someone would dislike it as a feature in Halo?