Jazzii Man

It wasn't a confirmed in a Halo 5 trailer, it was confirmed by Frank O'connor on neogaf, and Bonnie Ross on twitter. You're right though, there will be no armour abilities in Halo 5.

Then you'll have no trouble giving specific examples of where my reasoning is wrong, and explaining why I'm wrong. Refer to the counter to argument number 8 in the OP. If I don't like it, then I wont play it, but in what way does that conflict with the idea of also talking about it and giving reasons for disliking it? Discussing sprint and not playing Halo 4 are not mutually exclusive. And why does this negate discussion about sprint? Drastic oversimplification at best. You're telling me that there are not other factors that "make" a game? Firstly, how does Bungie and 343i stating that one of the purposes of sprint was immersion do anything to counter the arguments I've made against sprint directly? Tell me directly where my actual argument about immersion went wrong. By reducing your argument to a simple reference to something Bungie and 343i might have said, you're engaging in a logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority'. Secondly, in asserting that sprint does allow you to reach areas of the map quicker in Halo 4 than no sprint does in previous titles, you are not addressing the argument I offered in which I show that a 343i designer himself stated that the maps were indeed made larger to compensate for sprint. Thirdly, how exactly does the fact that something doesn't risk death make it more "immersive"? And perhaps more importantly, why is "immersion" a priority above balance and fair gameplay? If you read the OP in its entirety, then you will in fact find the answer to that question. The change in mechanics and the change in the maps each come with their own sets of problems. If you wish to debate on this subject, then the thing to do is to address the actual arguments I've made about those specific problems, telling me where I'm going wrong. I believe you mean the travel time, as opposed to "battle time"? Again, you're pointing to specific maps as opposed to looking at the way the map design philosophy has impacted the average map size. I wasn't aware that there was a version of Coagulation in Halo 4, but can you demonstrate to me that it was in fact built with the same design philosophy (larger average map size to compensate for sprint) that the developers built the official maps with? Logical fallacy: I dislike sprint, therefore I must be bad at using it. Also, if they out-play me in the sense of running away, then they have done so with an advantage. That's the whole point. You'll have to address the argument in which I explain why that disadvantage is there, pointing out where exactly I went wrong, if you are going to effectively demonstrate a hole in my reasoning. And I really encourage you to address it directly; simply saying 'they are smarter than you, plain and simple' is indirect and is akin to saying 'you're wrong because you're wrong'. Firstly, you'll need to refer to specific claims I've made when asking for proof. Please give me examples and then I'll address them. Secondly, I created no poll, so I can't help but wonder why you claim that there is a "lame" poll? Thirdly, the FOV videos demonstrate that when a wider field of view is engaged, the sorroundings are stretched forward in relation to the player and therefore move beyond the player at a faster rate. That is exactly what the perception of speed is based upon in real life - when we move faster, our sorroundings move past us faster. All you're doing is denying it without giving any valuable explanation. Tell me where my reasoning there goes wrong, and do so with more than a simple 'well it doesn't for me'. "Where is your actual halo 4 and Reach gameplay and map BSP images to compare sizes, actual gameplay and actual proof of sprint abuse here? You keep bashing everyone that disagrees with you, claiming to show proof or argue back properly, when your not even adhering to your own standards for what you call "argumentative" standpoints." Firstly, the proof is in the fact that the lead multiplayer designer himself (Kynan Pearson) stated that Halo 4 average map sizes have indeed been increased to compensate for sprint. This is an objective statement, unlike the notion that sprint is "immersive" which is subjective based on the definition of immersive, and how the player is being immersed. Secondly, please provide specific examples of where and how I have been "bashing everyone". This is not rhetorical, examples will be appreciated. "Here is two examples of map sizes....first, Valhalla and Ragnarok or whatever the Halo 4 one is called. their the same exact size. The only thing that changes is rock or scenery placements." Once again, you're comparing two individual maps as opposed to the average map size, which is what has been increased. Please provide for me the evidence that 343i didn't think Ragnarok would need to be increased in size, based on already being suitable in map design and size to accommodate sprint? Again, this is not rhetorical - a direct answer will be appreciated. "Bungie and 343i have both stated many many times in interviews and VidOC's that sprint speeds up gameplay and gets players into the action quicker." Examples please. "... some lame *** butt hurt players that can only show proof from their own personal experiences." Please can we avoid ad hominem attacks. They're not only logical fallacies, but they simply don't help to keep the nature of discussion and debate civil. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the 2 videos it seems that sprint DID NOT break any of the fundamentals of the original Halo 2 used tactics and gameplay. Which is usually the first argument someone makes when arguing against sprint." Firstly, you're giving me isolated examples and then assuming that those examples can be extrapolated to demonstrate what would happen in every game of Halo. This is a logical fallacy, referred to as a 'faulty generalization'. Also, you've done nothing to demonstrate that 'getting to action quicker' is a worthy reason to implement a feature into a game. Demonstrate to me that Halo was originally broken in this sense. "fake attention grabbing "look at me" argument just to feed your ego or whatever end game you really have." Ad hominem - a fallacious argument in which a person attacks an individual as opposed to their individual arguments. Seriously, these kinds of attacks are simply unneeded, unfounded and unhelpful.

When a person says "bring back competitive Halo", they are talking specifically about having a game which allows for a higher skill-gap, and for a game which gives players equal tools and opportunities to win the game, without enforcing random factors upon players. You're talking about "competitve" in the sense of someone's approach to playing a game. Two different things. 'Pro' is a shortened version of 'professional', and sport is not the only way in which people can earn money. One does not have to be a 'pro' in order to enjoy a game which is built on competitive foundations. Halos 1, 2 and 3 are perfect examples of this. OP is asking that Halo goes back to its competitive roots, which is different than asking for a game which casual players can't enjoy. Why do you feel this way? The human factor is not part of the game itself. The game should be set up so that only human factors make the difference. Some perform better on certain maps? Well that's the whole point. The individual human input is what makes the difference. When two teams go against each other on any particular map, they both know exactly what they're up against in terms of the game itself. It's not random. If one particular team (or player) happens not to be good on that particular map, then that's part of what should make the difference. It shouldn't come down to a random factor which the players themselves couldn't possibly predict or control. Strawman argument. When did the OP state that the human element should be non-random? Direct quotes will be appreciated. This is just unneeded and doesn't help anything, least of all your argument. To tell people that they're stuck in the past is to imply that whatever they prefer is only preferred because it was in the past, as opposed to because they have particular reasons pertaining to the changes themselves. This particular argument is called 'appeal to novelty'. It's an argument in which one implies that when something is new, therefore it is better; or when something is older, therefore it is worse. If people dislike new features, then either agree to diagree, or discuss with them their reasons and debate with them your reasons for disagreeing. Don't simply assume that the person is 'stuck in the past' when you have insufficient evidence to support such an assertion.

Without a doubt, Halo will be better off by finding its way back to its competitive roots. Thankfully, the information we have been offered so far would suggest that Halo 5: Guardians will have a competitive focus, as opposed to a casual focus.

Quote the part of my argument where I say that sprinting and vehicle use are exactly the same. That if a player thinks that 'it makes me travel around faster' is an argument in favour of sprint, then they should consider other options that could be given to players to the same effect. Options such as those listed in that part of the OP. Nope, quite simply incorrect. Base speed allows for raised weapons, sprint does not. As soon as canon dictates gameplay, the gameplay falls apart. Gameplay shouldn't change fundamentally just so that people who prefer canon can have a 100% consistent game. Why? Because then people who appreciated Halo's gameplay for what it was would be losing out. It's the same reason that Spartans shouldn't be made unable to go prone and cook grenades as far as canon goes, just because it's not in the gameplay. "What I will say is that when fans were polled on Halowaypoint about their views on sprint and flinch, more people said that they don't like sprint in Halo. Now this doesn't prove anything as far as whether or not most Halo fans like sprint, but it certainly doesn't sit well with the assertion that most people do like sprint."

Please give specific examples of where I was being disrespectful, and I really do want examples here. I feel I have been 100% respectful. Also, please point me to any parts of any posts I've made which are any more disrespectful than saying: "I don't take that kind of **** lightly from newbies of this site". Again, specific examples will be appreciated. Please point me to the part of my argument which is based upon speculation that Halo 5 will have sprint? Also, why would such speculation be a bad thing? You're talking about sprint making traversing maps faster in Halo 4 specifically, that's a misunderstanding of what I've been saying. I'm saying that sprint doesn't make traversing maps in Halo 4 faster than no-sprint does in previous titles where the maps were smaller. As with above, you're talking about sprint making traversing maps in Halo 4 faster than no-sprint does in Halo 4, whereas I'm talking about whether or not sprint makes traversing maps in Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint does in previous titles. I don't know why people are struggling with this one. With sprint, you don't traverse maps any faster in Halo 4 than you would do in previous Halo titles without sprint. You're missing two things here: 1) While you do control where your own spartan goes, you don't control where other people are, therefore you don't have complete control over the distance that average encounters play at. 2) You're not accounting for the impact on spawn points that difference in map sizes have. When players spawn at stretched out distances due to being on larger maps, the average encounter (not all of them) will take place at a longer distance. Sprint is not responsible for what a player decides to do, but not everything that happens in a game is decided upon by the player. A player's environment and spawn location has an impact on it as well. What is this supposed to be conflicting with when it comes to my own argument? First of all can I ask that we keep this thread free of ad hominem attacks? I'm only interested in discussing sprint, not being insulted or insulting others. Secondly, that's that whole point of what I've been saying. May I ask politely that you read the thread in its entirety to gain some context? I've been saying that sprint makes you feel faster regardless of distance traveled. That's exactly the argument I was making. This is simply incorrect. An increased field of view absolutely does create the illusion that you are moving faster, as demonstrated in the videos shared in the OP. I don't need to dig through threads to find examples. If you think such an argument would be "idiotic", then we are simply in agreement. Please keep an eye out for the rest of my response. I can't post it all one one go.

First of all, no 'none' option renders the poll as biased, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Secondly, it has been confirmed that armour abilities will simply not be returning in Halo 5.

I mean this in the best way, but I really wish people would stop simply posting saying: "it's not game breaking". Simply stating such a thing doesn't move discussion in any interesting way. I really do want people to discuss with me their reasons for disagreeing, but it takes more than simply stating that something isn't game breaking. What are your reasons for thinking that? What of the things I have talked about are actually wrong? And why are they wrong? < this is not rhetorical. These are the things I want to hear. Also, a 'feature' and a 'game breaking mechanic' are in no way mutually exclusive. I don't see how something being a 'feature' automatically renders it non-game breaking. Again, please let me know exactly where and why I'm going wrong. On those individual maps... Please refer to my previous comments on the notion that we can simply compare selected maps as opposed to average map size. Everything previously said applies. Map remakes come first, because again, they're the prime examples of how gameplay works over different titles. Being the same size and roughly the same in geological structuring, gameplay is properly tested under controlled environments, rather than an average. See my previous post. OK? Any number of things could have been added to the game if Bungie wanted to, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of making bad decisions. It doesn't mean that sprint = automatically a good thing. That's my point. It literally was a straw-man argument based on the fact that you were arguing against the idea that every Halo should be exactly the same, which is never something I stated. Guns being taken out of Halo would completely ruin the lore, the key branding of what Halo is; a shooter, and practically everything else about it. Right.. exactly... What point do you think it is I'm trying to make here? I'm saying that you wouldn't like those things to be changed simply on the basis that 'change is good'. You would want to know that there were tangible benefits to the game through the implementation of those changes. Yet you use 'change is good' as an argument in favour of sprint. So sprint doesn't have the particular negative impact that another feature might, therefore sprint can't possibly have any negative effects on the game? How does this serve to go against the logic in my argument? An invincibility perk would be new, but it wouldn't be good. Therefore new doesn't automatically equate to 'good'. That's the point you were supposed to glean from that particular argument.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195069/deathmatch_map_design_the_.php?page=1 "Again, game mechanics have a direct bearing. In Halo 3, sprinting was impossible. In Halo: Reach, sprinting was a selectable armor ability. In Halo 4, everyone's at it, and the maps have grown to compensate." - Kynan Pearson Please provide evidence to support the bolded claim. Based on the words of Kynan Pearson which I pointed out above, it would seem that your claim is incorrect. Again, it's not about not being able to strafe. It's about no longer being able to combine full movement speed, strafing and shooting simultaneously, resulting in a loss a skill gap that once was present when players were able to combine the 3 in skilled ways. I've gone to effort to explain why it does. If you believe it doesn't, then don't simply claim that it doesn't - actually respond to my reasoning and explain why it's wrong. That's what I'm after. Strafing is still possible, but again, the argument is not that strafing is no longer possible. The argument is that strafing AND full movement AND shooting are no longer possible to do simultaneously. False. Due to the average encounter happening further away as a result of increased map sizes, the amount of time it takes to reach a person would also be no faster in Halo 4 with sprint than it is in previous Halo games without sprint. Everything is stretched, including encounters. Players spawn further away from each other to compensate for sprint. Sight lines are elongated to compensate for sprint. All you're doing is continuing to claim that sprint makes traversing maps faster in Halo 4 than no-sprint does in previous Halo games where maps were smaller, even though I've addressed this many times. See above. The average encounter takes places at a longer distance to compensate for sprint. It's an intentional design decision that keeps breathing time between encounters, and breathing time between players during the average encounter, the same as before.

And why would it be completely illogical to not compare individual maps when we're talking about the maps overall? First of all, I'm not entirely convinced that Ragnarok and Pit Stop were not increased in size. It could be that 343 did not feel those maps in particular needed increasing in size, due to them not being tiny to begin with, I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that the developers themselves confirmed that maps in Halo 4 are larger on average to compensate for default sprint. And why is that? It's the average map size that I'm discussing here. All you're doing is pointing out again that Bungie personally wanted it in the game, but that doesn't do anything to counter the reasons I offer for why it is bad for Halo. It could be that Bungie wanted to use it as a gimmick, without really caring about whether or not it would work. After all, look at Destiny. It's not exactly trying to be a balanced and competitive game before it is trying to include all the popular features that seem to make games sell these days. Straw-man argument. Please provide specific examples of where I have said that every Halo game needs to be exactly the same with each title. No seriously, I'd like some examples so that we can actually go about discussing them. You're confusing the argument that certain features don't work with Halo, with the argument that Halo should never evolve. I'm guessing that you wouldn't be OK with guns being taken out of Halo? Or for an invincibility perk? And I'm guessing you could provide reasons? Well what if in response I said: "what? But we've already had Halo games with guns. It's time to move on". Or... "What? But we've already had 4 main titles now without an invincibility perk. Halo can't continue being stale like that forever". Clearly, it wouldn't be a very convincing argument on my behalf. Individual features need more justification than simply saying: "Halo can't stay the same forever". Edit: Azaxx, I'm trying to post the rest of my response to you, but when I click 'post', nothing happens? I'll try again in a bit.

You're now onto comparing specific maps as opposed to the average map size. It's a logical fallacy. As I pointed out on another site to a person who made a similar comment, we could just as easily say 'well sprinting across Haven takes less time than running across Sandtrap'. But that's a selective comparison between specific maps. We are talking about averages here - the average map size has been increased. That's very different than claiming that all the maps are huge. I'm not concerned with what Bungie have said. I'm concerned with what actually made Halo great. What does saying 'Bungie wanted it' do actually counter any reasons I've given for why sprint is bad in Halo? It's kept some of them, not all of them. Movement mechanics are a huge part of what makes any game play like it does, and Halo's have been changed quite drastically with a single change. But you're simply repeating the claim that it worked well without going into detail as to why you think I'm wrong about specific reasons I have provided. This discussion can only be interesting if you directly counter the arguments I've made against sprint. Tell me specifically why I'm wrong about the impact of lowered weapons on the way encounters can play out? Tell me specifically why I'm wrong about the impact of sprint on the increase in map size and therefore the effectiveness of strafing, and the decrease in shooting skill gap due to the increased average range of encounters? These are things I'm genuinely interested in hearing direct responses to. Edit: thanks for fixing the colours Azaxx

Thanks for this, I appreciate it. I'm all for this, but are you talking about a situation where sprint would be default in multiplayer, but toggle-able in custom games? Or a situation where it would be no sprint in multiplayer? I'd still be unhappy with it being default in multiplayer due to the impact on the on-disc maps and the gameplay, but having an option in custom games is something I'd never be against. It's the same with the ability to throw the odd ball - I don't think it's idea for the Oddball gametype itself, but without the ability being there we wouldn't Ricochet and that's one of my favourite things about Halo 4. I'm totally fine with that, but please give specific examples so that we can actually discuss them. I'm not aware of anything in my post which makes claims that I haven't be able to give reasons for. It makes you faster in Halo 4 than without sprint in Halo 4, however it does not make you faster than without sprint in previous Halo titles due to the stretched maps. I personally like sprint, it does make you faster, That's fair enough but I think that Halo continuing to play the way Halo played fundamentally should be a priority over changing important parts of the way the game plays just because some out there might like it. In this case I think that a feature shouldn't be included just because it makes the game easier for some by giving them a defensive capability which offers one-sided advantages. I'm aware you wont agree with that in particular though I do like the option of being able to outrun someone and being able to attack them when I'm ready, and I like the feel of being a super soldier who can sprint. Why is this? Can Halo not keep certain things about its multiplayer intact as it evolves? Namely things that are fundamental to the way Halo actually plays? Why does it have to be sprint in particular?

I just asked you nicely to provide examples of the claims you were making about the nature of my posts, and you were unable to. Please, from now on, don't make such claims about my posts. I've gone to a lot of effort to keep things civil while allowing the debate to move forward, and I believe that should be respected. As soon as I start name calling and insulting people, then you can claim that I have been 'arguing'. But I would never do anything of the sort. I assume you mean to ask why I've used the word more than once? Well, because that word applied to the particular posts I put them in. I've only been on this site for a couple of hours in an effort to encourage polite debate and discussion about a subject which I find to be important and interesting, and I've already had someone tell me that there is a certain user that would 'kick my crap to Mars'. You tell me how relevant that is to this particular discussion? Also, and perhaps more importantly, how does saying such a thing align itself with 'civil discussion', and how does such a thing avoid provoking a person? These are things which in the very same post you claimed to be in support of. Again, please can we not make this hostile. I don't understand the necessity for such things. I'm here to dicsuss sprint and its impact on gameplay.

Please provide specific examples of where I have been doing anything other than ecourageing civil discussion. Also, arguing implies hostility and an insistence on using ad hominem attacks. Rather then get angry, I'll ask you poslitely to point to examples of these things in my posts. I don't know who that is or why it is relevant.

Awesome! I just love discussing anything Halo related. I will probably post on this site more often

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why those arguments for sprint at the end are indeed arguments in favour of sprint, and more importantly, why they out-weigh that of the negatives of sprint. It probably comes across that way because I make an effort to see things from both sides of the argument, and because this thread in particular isn't necessarily about why sprint is bad in Halo. Huh? Genuinely unsure about what this is in response to. I posted my counter-arguments to the arguments you made. I'm totally fine with you disagreeing with my counter-arguments, but what I'm generally going for here is a situation where you would then respond with your thoughts to the counter-arguments I made. I don't see any reason to make this about saying: "that doesn't make my points irrelevant". If your points are not irrelevant, I'm totally open to that, but the dicsussion can only move forward if you counter what I say directly. I'm not one to make things hostile. Think of this simply as a discussion between people that have very strong views and a lot to say in defense of those views. It's all in good fun!

On-disc multiplayer maps are first and foremost designed to work with gameplay. Whether or not they'll Forge well is at best an after-thought. That is why maps are provided that are specifically made for Forging on. Any number of bad features can also bring good things to the game. For example, infinite jetpack would give us the ability to travel around maps more easily and readily, but would also add its own tactical disadvantage in that you would be more exposed if you were to use it. The problem is, as with jetpack, it takes more than a tactical disadvantage to justify something being in the game when the negatives far out-weigh the positives. Enjoying the illusion of speed is not necessarily a conscious effort, of course, but it is there. None of that does anything to negate the negatives that come with sprint. Elaborate, please? How so? Again, please elaborate. I'm not seeing it but thanks anyway. I'll just have to be careful. I don't personally even believe that sprint will be taken out of Halo. This thread is purely for the sake of encouraging civil discussion about a topic I find interesting.

I feel that the question of whether or not sprint is right for Halo is 100% relevant to the future of Halo 5. Oh absolutely, but will you at least try directly responding to my opinions? Or will you just rely on pointing out that they're only opinions? After all, opinions have the potential to be right. Nope, it's simply fact that all opinions share in the possibility of being right or wrong. Some opinions do not share this possibility, such as whether or not green is a nice colour. However, other opinions, such as whether or not grass is green, definitely have a right or wrong answer, whether or not that answer is yet to be discovered. My opinions on sprint are indeed opinions, but in order to demonstrate that they're wrong, you'll need to do more than simply say: "well that's just your opinon". Again, I enjoy discussing things that are related to Halo multiplayer, and I invite you to share with me your specific reasons for disagreeing with me. I don't know how you interpreted my post in such a way, but I'm doing the exact opposite. I have no interest in things getting heated. I am very much straight to the point, meaning no sugar coating, but no ad hominems either. Also, total mayh3m, is there any way to edit posts after they've been posted? I have made the mistake of posting without deleting the irrelevant parts.

Please, no ad hominem attacks. I'm not at all interested in turning this into a hostile war of insults. Also, why do you say I'm arrogant? You've probaby interpreted something wrongly. And this hasn't been a rant, it's been a list of my responses to arguments in favour of sprint. Then do so, I'm inviting that type of dynamic in this thread... OK, if you don't want to "challenge" me, then that's absolutely your choice. Keep in mind that you've still been using up the time - which you could be using do the other "better" things you have to do - responding to me here, yet there still haven't been any direct counter arguments. This leads me to believe that you aren't as short of time as you seem to suggest.

Any of my "opinions" are open to the possibility of being right, and in the process of demonstrating that my "opinions" are wrong, you need to do more than simply refer to them as "not-often-found instances". In order to demonstrate that they're "not found", you will need to directly counter any arguments I make, explaining exactly why I'm wrong. Again, you'll have to give specific examples that are only my own "interpretation" if you're going to demonstrate that they're anything of the sort. I invite you to discuss different parts of what I say that are not right; pick one thing to talk about if you will, but at least do more than simply claim that all of this is simply my own "interpretation". I don't see the relevance. Any "posts and opinions" I share will need to be directly countered if they're to be demonstrated as garbage. If you have anything direct to respond to, I'm glad to listen and discuss.

Every Argument for Sprint, Countered The purpose of this thread is not to explain why sprint is bad in Halo, but to counter all of the arguments that are put forward in favour of sprint. I understand this is a long read, but I don't expect anyone to read it all. Instead, treat this like a list of arguments and counters that you can visit at any time if for any reason you struggle to put them into your own words... Argument 1: "it speeds up gameplay" Counter: no, it doesn't. Gameplay is as fast as developers intend for it to be, and the average map size in Halo 4 is increased to accommodate sprint. It doesn't take any longer to traverse the average map in Halos 1, 2 or 3 than it does in Halo 4. Also, with regard to the amount of time it takes to travel across maps in Halo, there is nothing that needs to be fixed. If you don't like taking the time to move across maps in Halo, to the point that you think a fundamental part of the way Halo plays needs to be changed just so you can travel a bit faster, then Halo might simply not be the game for you. Inevitable response: "Um, no. I'm pretty sure that sprinting across Haven is faster than walking across Haven" Counter: ah, but you've already misunderstood the argument. The argument is not that sprinting across Haven is no faster than walking across Haven, the argument is that sprinting across the average map on Halo 4 is no faster than moving (at top speed) across the average map in Halo 1, 2 and 3 where the maps are smaller to accommodate a lack of sprint. Argument 2: "but Halo feels slow without it" Counter: firstly, as pointed out above, if you don't like the way Halo feels without sprint, then Halo simply wasn't the game for you. Other people were absolutely fine with it, and not only were they fine with it, they actually appreciated it. Secondly, the only reason you think Halo feels slow without sprint is because there is an illusion of speed that is created when running in bursts, even though you aren't necessarily getting anywhere faster. A person who sprints at 20 miles an hour from one side to the other in a 30 meter room will almost certainly feel like they're going faster than if they were to run at 10 miles an hour from one side to the other in a room that is half the size. There is no decrease in travel time, yet an illusion of speed is created because you are moving past your sorroundings faster. The human brain is more sensitive to immediate differences in speed than it is to differences in time that happen over longer periods; periods of time such as those experienced when traversing maps in Halo. Putting aside for a moment that it isn't actually necessary to make traversing maps faster in future titles, as that is not something that ever needed "fixing", I should mention that there is a much more appropriate way to increase the feeling of speed that you experience when moving around, and that is by doing any combination of these 4 things: 1) Decrease the average map size. This would mean less travel time, which is the effect that most sprint fans claim is a desirable impact of sprint on the game. 2) Increase base speed. This would mean less travel time AND it would mean that you were moving faster relative to your sorroundings - one of the main reasons sprint gives an illusion of speed. 3) Increase field of view. An increased field of view gives the illusion of speed as it gives the impression that you are moving past your sorroundings faster than if you had a lower field of view. Keeping in mind that these demonstrations often show both sides of the extreme in order to magnify the effect, see any one of these videos for demonstration: 4) Through the use of vehicles, teleporters and man cannons on larger maps. By giving players more vehicles that are only effective for travelling, such as the Mongoose, you give them the means to travel across larger maps if they don't feel like travelling on foot. Inevitable response: "but I can't shoot while I'm on a Mongoose. I want to be able to move and shoot at the same time!" Counter: isn't it funny then that you are arguing for sprint - a feature that completely takes away from your ability to shoot while moving at top speed - by saying that vehicles aren't good enough because you can't shoot while using them? Inevitable response: "but I can't stop and shoot right away if I'm in a Mongoose. I would have to stop and get out of it" Counter: that's the trade-off that you experience when using vehicles. If you could simply drive a vehicle and then instantly get out and start shooting with only a slight delay, then you would not really be experiencing any draw-backs to using something that puts you at such an easy advantage. The Mongoose gets you across the maps in much less time than if you were simply to travel on foot, which means possibly (and likely) getting to advantageous spots/weapons/power-ups than those who didn't travel by vehicle. Not being able to shoot straight away after getting out is a tiny price to pay for having such a decrease in travel time. Argument 3: "I'm a super soldier in a sci-fi future - I should be able to sprint" Counter: firstly, as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important than canon. I mean, it sounds real obvious when I say it like that, but there are still many who use the 'I'm supposed to be a super soldier' argument. Why are we not able to go prone? Why are we not able to aim down sights (yes, it would be possible even though there is a smart link system)? Why are we not able to put our enemies in a rear naked choke? Why are we not able to cook grenades? Why are we not able to throw our knives? Why are we not able to kick? Why are we not able to wrestle? There are any number of things that spartans "should" be able to do as far as canon goes, but we can't do them as far as gameplay goes because many of them just simply wouldn't fit with what Halo is about. Sprint is no different. If people were genuinely concerned about gameplay not completely reflecting canon, then they would all be complaining about all of the things that we can't do in-game, but they simply don't. Secondly, if we were actually to go by canon, then we would be able to sprint at much faster speeds without having to stop after 5 seconds. Also, we would be able to do this while aiming and shooting accurately. The smart-link system doesn't simply shut down once a spartan decides to sprint, nor do a spartans arms decide to suddenly lose the ability to raise. For examples of spartans sprinting and shooting, see Forward unto Dawn, Halo Legends: The Package, The Thursday War (Naomi), and any other examples that may I have forgotten. Argument 4: "every game has sprint these days" Counter: this doesn't come close to being a valid argument. There is no requirement that every game needs to be the same. Variety and uniqueness are far more valuable than monotony and lack of variety. If you simply can't stand the idea of ever playing a game that doesn't include sprint, then the answer is simply to only play those games that do. It certainly doesn't mean that every game should sacrifice its own way of doing things simply so that you don't personally have to worry about there being games that don't cater 100% to your tastes. Also, the 'every game has sprint these days' argument falls into two categories. One is the 'appeal to novelty', which is the false assertion that when something is new or modern, it is automatically good. This of course is untrue. The other is the 'argument by consensus', which is the false assertion that when something is popular or common, therefore it is good. This of course is also untrue. Whether or not every other game today has sprint has no bearing on whether or not sprint works for Halo. It is completely unrelated. Argument 5: "most people like sprint, therefore it should be in the game" Counter: firstly, once you make such a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence, yet based on the information we have available to us that might give us a clue as to how fans might feel about sprint, there is no logical pathway that would lead to a belief that most Halo fans do like sprint. The information we do have available to us is the fan feedback on various websites such as Halowaypoint, unofficial Halo sites, game websites and YouTube videos and comments. Unless you are going to go through a very large amount of the feedback in all of these different sites, and then put it together in a way which is shown to be non-biased, then you will struggle to find sufficient evidence to suggest that sprint is favoured by most fans. What I will say is that when fans were polled on Halowaypoint about their views on sprint and flinch, more people said that they don't like sprint in Halo. Now this doesn't prove anything as far as whether or not most Halo fans like sprint, but it certainly doesn't sit well with the assertion that most people do like sprint. To see the poll, click this link: https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst211131_Should-Sprint-Flinch-stay-in-the-Halo-series.aspx Argument 6: "games can't compete today without sprint" Counter: as with the previous argument, when making such a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim. We haven't had a modern Halo game without sprint in recent years, so therefore we cannot draw any conclusions as to whether or not Halo would survive today without sprint. What we can see is that Halo hasn't done so well with sprint, and one of the most common reasons that is suggested in feedback by fans who dislike Halo 4 is that they don't like sprint in Halo. This would indicate a strong likelihood that Halo 4 would have done better to some degree (perhaps only slightly better) if it did not base itself around default sprint. It certainly doesn't prove such a thing, but it is an indication. Argument 7: "you're just scared of change. You want every Halo game to be exactly the same" Counter: this particular argument finds itself guilty of being a 'straw-man' argument. There is no logical pathway from seeing a person say they dislike sprint (or any other feature) to assuming they are scared of or against all possible change. There is no logical pathway from seeing a person say they dislike sprint (or any other feature) to assuming that they want every Halo game to be exactly the same. The only way you can possibly claim that a person is scared of change is if they literally utter the words: 'I'm scared of change'. For example, if you were to ask me to make you a pizza, but to put some different toppings on from the last time you ate pizza, and then I went and made a pizza with slugs, grass, mouldy apples and hair from the bathroom sink, you would likely reject the pizza. It's highly likely that you would tell me I had done a horrible job of deciding on what kind of pizza to make you. Now, would it make sense for me to then say: "wow, so you hate pizza toppings? I can only assume that you are scared of change. You just can't move on from the days when margherita was your favourite pizza. You'll never be pleased"? Most people would know that such an assumption would be a logical fallacy, however, people are very selective with when they apply every day logic, and if the 'you're scared of change' argument happens to help their own argument, then they'll gladly abandon any semblance of logic. That's where this whole argument stems from, and it is quite simply ineffective when it comes to demonstrating that sprint is a good thing for Halo. Argument 8: "I enjoy sprint, and that's all that matters" Counter: simply untrue. Any possible feature that you can imagine, no matter how terrible, has the potential to be "enjoyed" by someone out there. I think most people would agree that having Rockets and Incineration cannons as loadout options would simply be bad for Halo gameplay, yet those additions would likely be enjoyable to someone somewhere. Following the 'I enjoy it, so it's right' logic, Rockets and Incineration cannons absolutely SHOULD be loadouts options. Why? Because they have the potential to be liked. How about a perk that grants invincibility, and a second perk that allows all your weapons to shoot Rockets that kill anyone within 10 meters? There could be people out there who would enjoy such things, but I don't think many people would disagree that these things shouldn't be added simply on the basis that some might find the additions enjoyable. Sprint is no different. Whether or not we like sprint as individuals is actually incidental and is irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the game. What matters is whether or not it fits with what Halo is fundamentally about when it comes to gameplay - sprint does not. Argument 9: "if someone runs away from you, you have sprint too, so you can just chase them" Counter: there are two things here which you are assuming are part of the problem for people who don't like sprint, which are actually not part of the problem at all. 1) The assumption that non-sprint fans think players running away is bad. This is a false assumption. Players running away from encounters they're losing is completely understandable and completely viable. 2) The assumption that non-sprint fans somehow don't realise that they can chase the player that is running away. This is false; non-sprint fans haven't suddenly forgotten that they have the ability to move in Halo. 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. Inevitable response: "but they aren't going to not run away are they? That would be dumb"Counter: again, >> running away isn't the problem, << the problem is that the person who runs away after performing worse than their enemy is granted a free advantage in the form of lowered weapons. They simply do not need raised weapons to accomplish the goal of running away, whereas the chaser needs raised weapons in order to chase at the same speed AND have the ability to shoot. Inevitable response: "but why should the chaser have the ability to shoot? Who says they deserve it?" Counter: firstly, because that's a large part of what made Halo play the way it did ona fundamental level historically. Secondly, because they put themselves in the situation of being on top by actually playing better than their opponent; they out-played that person, and therefore have earned the position of being in the likely place of winning the encounter. The person who is losing the encounter should now have to put himself back on top in the face of being in a disadvantageous position. This means that while they are fighting to get back on top (whether it's by running or fighting), they should have to do it by putting themselves there through work, as opposed to pressing a button which gives them an automatic advantage. After all, the player who out-played them to begin with didn't get there by being granted an automatic advantage. They got there in the face of equal opportunity through various skills such as good positioning, fast reactions, good strafing, good shooting etc. Argument 10: "sprint makes the game more immersive" Counter: let's first make sure we're clear on the definition of immersive. When something is immersive, that means it provides information or stimulation for a number of senses. In this particular case, the sense we are talking about is sight. The claim is that sprint makes you feel more like you're in the game due to running in bursts (as the average human would do in real life), and therefore should be in the game. Firstly, immersion is not actually a top priority as far as gameplay goes. It is something that should be sought after so long as more important factors, such as balance, are not disrupted in the process. Sprint is an example of "immersion" that does have several harmful effects on the gameplay itself, and therefore is not an appropriate addition simply for the sake of "immersing" the player. Secondly, if immersion means making you, a normal human being, feel more like you're moving around in the world itself in the same way that you would be capable of, then immersion is not appropriate in that sense. You are playing as a spartan who, as pointed out earlier, have been shown in the canon to be able to sprint at speeds far faster than you or I are capable of, while aiming and shooting accurately and without having to stop after 5 seconds. True immersion in the sense of making us feel like spartans from the Halo universe would mean making us move around the world in the way that they would be capable of, and in the process, sprint and lowered weapons would simply be abandoned. As with the canon argument, if you really truly believe that "immersion" is a priority in a game, then you'll actually be against sprint and lowered weapons. Argument 11: "it helps me get into battle faster" Counter: as we discussed earlier, maps have been stretched to accommodate sprint. That means that on the maps in Halo 4, the average time between you and "battle" at spawn is no different than the average time between you and "battle" at spawn in Halo 1, 2 or 3. Also, there was no fault in how fast you were able to get into battle in Halos 1, 2 and 3. The time it took was the time that was intended, and there was nothing broken about that. If you didn't like that, then Halo might not have been for you. Argument 12: "it helps me get to my teammates faster so I can help them out" Counter: as above, maps have been stretched to accommodate sprint. That means that on the maps in Halo 4, the average time you spawn from your teammates is no different than the average time you spawn from your teammates in Halos 1, 2 or 3. Therefore, you simply do not get to your teammates any faster. Argument 13: "it adds an element of excitement and franticness" Counter: First of all, there was no lack of excitement in previous Halo games for the people that liked the gameplay that they were built upon. As mentioned in an earlier part of this post, Halo doesn't need to change fundamentally - alienating many who appreciated the original core gameplay - just to please people who aren't already into the franchise. Secondly, any number of things could add a sense of excitement, adrenaline and franticness; things such as giving all players Rockets and perks that get rid of the need to reload. However, these things come with draw-backs, and therefore are not appropriate gameplay additions. Sprint is no different. Argument 14: "it's annoying to switch from one shooter to another and having to get used to no sprint" Counter: any number of differences in gameplay and button layouts between games could be annoying, but variety and gameplay are far more important than consistency between different game franchises. The slight inconvenience of having to get used to different gameplay for different games is nothing compared to the inconvenience of all games in each genre being the same in every way, and at the expense of quality gameplay, just so that some people don't have to learn to get used to the differences when they switch between games. Many games have the ability to go prone and aim down sights, but we don't say that Halo absolutely has to have those in order to be consistent with other games. Halo playing like Halo and working as a whole from a gameplay perspective is far more important than Halo not being inconvenient to switch to will ever be. ... The Big Question You might be thinking: "so why on Earth do people like sprint?" Well, there are 3 legitimate reasons that people like sprint in Halo: 1) As we discussed earlier on, it gives the illusion of speed. Some people genuinely enjoy the illusion, and it's completely understandable. However, the negative impact on gameplay is far more important than the intangible illusion of traversing maps slower without sprint. 2) It's slightly more convenient to move between shooters that all have the same or similar mechanics. 3) It's another defensive ability which makes the game easier. We've all heard this referred to as the 'get out of jail free card'. And as we discussed earlier, it allows players to run away more easily from encounters they are losing, which means they don't have to stay and fight it out as often. Some people find these types of defensive capabilities - which make playing the game require less skill and thought - to be enjoyable. That's not something I would personally criticize, but it is something that is objectively bad for deciding on how the core gameplay of Halo is built, as those are not the principles Halo's core gameplay was originally built around or known for. Please feel free to let me know if you disagree with anything, and please feel free to share with people the arguments you find in this thread if you can't seem to put them into words. Thanks for reading.