Every argument for sprint, countered

[Azaxx]

You pointed out that you don't count people's opinions for claims when they provide no evidence.
But reading through your OP shows no evidence at all, it's only opinion based.

 

I personally like sprint, it does make you faster, 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.

That being said, I can live with Halo not having sprint, but to evolve the game and keep it fresh, sprint is needed.

[Jazzii Man]

If any member is being hostile towards you please report them(which can be found in the bottom right of the persons post) it sucks that people have been so hostile towards you its just that a good portion of the Halo community is tired of the sprint argument. Not to mention a lot of people confuse us for 343industries(which we can't really blame them) which puts people in a sour mood. I know you mean no harm and it is nice of you to encourage discussion. It sucks that some of it got a little carried away.

Thanks for this, I appreciate it.

 

Anyways moving right along why not just make a sprint a toggable option in custom game settings? That way you can play gametypes where sprint is disabled completely and others where they have it. It makes both parties happy!

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.

You pointed out that you don't count people's opinions for claims when they provide no evidence.

But reading through your OP shows no evidence at all, it's only opinion based.

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?

[Azaxx]

It does, compare Halo 3 Valhalla or The Pit to the Halo 4 remakes, big difference in time that it takes to cross a map.

 

Bungie stated that Halo Reach is how they wanted Halo to be in the beginning, including Sprint and other changes to 'fundamental' features of Halo. So in the eyes of the original developer, sprint was a fundamental component that couldn't be added for a variety of reasons.

 

Halo has kept the main defining factors of what it is to this day; gun/melee/grenade combo, super human strengths and shields. But some other elements are needed to evolve it and stop it from being stale. Sprint was a factor wanted from the beginning, that's why it was added. Since it worked well in Reach, it was kept.

[Jazzii Man]

It does, compare Halo 3 Valhalla or The Pit to the Halo 4 remakes, big difference in time that it takes to cross a map.

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.

 

 

Bungie stated that Halo Reach is how they wanted Halo to be in the beginning, including Sprint and other changes to 'fundamental' features of Halo. So in the eyes of the original developer, sprint was a fundamental component that couldn't be added for a variety of reasons.

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?

 

Halo has kept the main defining factors of what it is to this day; gun/melee/grenade combo, super human strengths and shields. But some other elements are needed to evolve it and stop it from being stale. Sprint was a factor wanted from the beginning, that's why it was added.

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.

 

Since it worked well in Reach, it was kept.

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

Edited June 17, 2014 by Jazzii Man
Edited to fix your colours

[Azaxx]

Yes I'm comparing specific maps, because they're remakes. It would be completely illogical to not compare Valhalla and Ragnarok, since the latter is the remake of the Halo 3 map. Same applies with The Pit and its remake, the name slips my mind though.

When talking about an average, that always comes second to map remake stats compare to the original. Always.

 

 

Actually it shows that Sprint was a fundamental feature they couldn't add in for their own reasons, when adding it to Reach it was a fundamental feature of the loadout system. And then carrying on to Halo 4's overall system.

 

 

You can't expect Halo, or any game for that matter to be exactly the same with mechanics for each successive title. If that were the case, pretty much every series would've died off. Even games like Call of Duty, Mario Kart or even Fable change their mechanics to the modern era, because the gaming industry demands it. If it were kept the same for all these years, Halo would've died, even if it is Microsoft's seller.

 

 

 

The average map size from Halo 4 and the other titles hasn't exactly changed much. You have small maps; Haven, Skyline, Monolith. Medium maps; Vertigo, Landfall, Settler. Then you have large maps; Ragnarok, Exile, Daybreak. These maps aren't that much different to some maps of previous titles; Small; Midship, Snowbound, Wizard. Medium; The Pit, Highgrounds, Ascension. And Large; Bloodgulch, Sandtrap, Boneyard.
Comparing these maps, which were at random shows that there isn't a big difference at all like you claimed with map size. Sprint therefore doesn't have a null affect regarding map size, instead it has the effect that it was intended to do which is to speed things up.

 

For smaller maps where strafing actually matters, you can still do that, even with sprint available. Just because you have it in your arsenal, doesn't mean you have to use it. Many playstyles avoid using sprint infact, though I don't personally use them. Strafing is really a factor that doesn't get affected by the inclusion of sprint.

Regarding the ranged encounters, sprinting allows players to get closer a lot quicker than previous Halo titles allowed, or getting away quicker depending on the situation. Say you have a shotgun and assault rifle, and someone was picking you off with a Carbine. The logical thing in the past games was to lob a grenade and run, because you wouldn't win that fight. Now with sprint you actually have a chance, lob the grenade, run in and hope that you judge the timing of the shotgun firing to kill the opponent.

[Jazzii Man]

Yes I'm comparing specific maps, because they're remakes. It would be completely illogical to not compare Valhalla and Ragnarok, since the latter is the remake of the Halo 3 map.

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.

  

When talking about an average, that always comes second to map remake stats compare to the original. Always.

And why is that? It's the average map size that I'm discussing here.

    

Actually it shows that Sprint was a fundamental feature they couldn't add in for their own reasons, when adding it to Reach it was a fundamental feature of the loadout system. And then carrying on to Halo 4's overall system.

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.

 

You can't expect Halo, or any game for that matter to be exactly the same with mechanics for each successive title.

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.

 

If that were the case, pretty much every series would've died off. Even games like Call of Duty, Mario Kart or even Fable change their mechanics to the modern era, because the gaming industry demands it. If it were kept the same for all these years, Halo would've died, even if it is Microsoft's seller.

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.

[Azaxx]

Valhalla and The Pit remakes were kept as proper remakes, they're the same size. So they're perfect examples or how Sprint impacts the game in a good way, because the lack of size adjustments prove that sprint allows people to get to places faster than in previous game maps. I have no recollection of 343i ever saying that the maps are bigger to suit sprint, ever.

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.

 

 

The fact that Bungie intended to add it in, is not meant to counter many arguments. It's simply to state that in their mind, it was going to be a core feature, and if they could've added it in at Halo CE, it very well would've been a core feature that people would complain if it were taken away.

 

 

Straw-man argument? It's called an exaggeration, and you're being too literal on words.

 

 

No, I'm positive right now that I'm not confusing anything up.

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. The inclusion of sprint doesn't do that, what it does is create another element to the game which people have to adjust to/with.

Invincibility perk was in Halo 3, you could use it as an equipment. Also was in Halo 2, but only for Tarturus in the final boss battle. So I don't even need to make much of a statement on that point.

[Jazzii Man]

The average map size from Halo 4 and the other titles hasn't exactly changed much. You have small maps; Haven, Skyline, Monolith. Medium maps; Vertigo, Landfall, Settler. Then you have large maps; Ragnarok, Exile, Daybreak. These maps aren't that much different to some maps of previous titles; Small; Midship, Snowbound, Wizard. Medium; The Pit, Highgrounds, Ascension. And Large; Bloodgulch, Sandtrap, Boneyard.

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

 

Comparing these maps, which were at random shows that there isn't a big difference at all like you claimed with map size. Sprint therefore doesn't have a null affect regarding map size, instead it has the effect that it was intended to do which is to speed things up.

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.

 

For smaller maps where strafing actually matters, you can still do that, even with sprint available. Just because you have it in your arsenal, doesn't mean you have to use it.

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.

 

Many playstyles avoid using sprint infact, though I don't personally use them. Strafing is really a factor that doesn't get affected by the inclusion of sprint.

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.

 

Regarding the ranged encounters, sprinting allows players to get closer a lot quicker than previous Halo titles allowed,

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.

 

or getting away quicker depending on the situation. Say you have a shotgun and assault rifle, and someone was picking you off with a Carbine. The logical thing in the past games was to lob a grenade and run, because you wouldn't win that fight. Now with sprint you actually have a chance, lob the grenade, run in and hope that you judge the timing of the shotgun firing to kill the opponent.

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.

[D-38 Boss]

Personally, I like Sprint because it feels satisfying to be able to "shift into high gear" as it were. Truthfully, I don't see any reason to not have it in the game, even with the one's you've provided. It's not a game breaking mechanic, it's just a feature.

 

Spartans wanna run?

 

Let 'em run. :3

[Jazzii Man]

Personally, I like Sprint because it feels satisfying to be able to "shift into high gear" as it were. Truthfully, I don't see any reason to not have it in the game, even with the one's you've provided. It's not a game breaking mechanic, it's just a feature.

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.

Valhalla and The Pit remakes were kept as proper remakes, they're the same size. So they're perfect examples or how Sprint impacts the game in a good way, because the lack of size adjustments prove that sprint allows people to get to places faster than in previous game maps.

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.

 

I have no recollection of 343i ever saying that the maps are bigger to suit sprint, ever.

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.

 

The fact that Bungie intended to add it in, is not meant to counter many arguments. It's simply to state that in their mind, it was going to be a core feature, and if they could've added it in at Halo CE, it very well would've been a core feature that people would complain if it were taken away.

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.

 

Straw-man argument? It's called an exaggeration, and you're being too literal on words.

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.

 

No, I'm positive right now that I'm not confusing anything up.

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.

 

The inclusion of sprint doesn't do that, what it does is create another element to the game which people have to adjust to/with.

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?

 

Invincibility perk was in Halo 3, you could use it as an equipment. Also was in Halo 2, but only for Tarturus in the final boss battle. So I don't even need to make much of a statement on that point.

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.

[Twinreaper]

Before I get started, this is going to be a fairly quick and small response on my part.  I'm only getting involved because I feel as if the OP is now disrespecting a member of the Mod staff, and I don't take that kind of **** lightly from newbies of the site.  So here is a water downed quicky version response from me...

For the life of me I can't see how you can even put a thread like this up in a section for a game that hasn't even been revealed yet.  YOU have no idea what mechanics will be involved in halo 5, and your whole argument is based on rabid speculation that halo 5 will have sprint or something like it.
 

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.

Sprint does indeed speed up gameplay.  Because certain maps are larger or smaller depending on the map, sprint allows the player to get to the area in which players may be grouped or where battles are taking place a lot faster, and start engaging in combat.  Haven is a good example in this case.  Sprinting to the opposite side of the lower level of the map offers you quicker access to engage in a battle, than simply walking.  Stating that battles take place at a longer range than previous Halo's is both an isolated incident and a choice based on an individuals playstyle.  When I play on a Halo 4 map, most or all my encounters
take place at a medium to close proximity, except for when being sniped or engaged by a long range weapon.  For example....In

Halo 2, most engagements take place at mid to long range on the map Waterworks, Colossus, District, Coagulation, or any other map that is severely large than the smaller BTB maps.  Any weapon with scope will be used to engage an enemy at a distance whenever possible.  Sprint does not force or encourage the player to use the scoped weapons to engage an enemy at a longer range.  Again, Halo 2 and 3 both had the Battle Rifle, just like in Halo 4, and the range of engagement hasn't changed.  Again,sprint is not responsible for a player choosing when to engage an enemy.

As for comparison to other titles, Haven is smaller than Waterworks.  Waterworks would have greatly benefited from sprint to allow players to quicker access opposite ends of the map.  You could literally go on foot, walking around half the map before you would encounter an enemy.  Sprint would allow for those encounters to happen much faster.

 

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.
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.

I think you need some really good meds bro.  You cannot argue physics and try to logically apply them to a similutaed computer environment.  If someone moves faster, they feel it, plain in simple.  Your argument about travel time is completely idiotic.  When an actual person moves faster, they can see and feel themselves moving faster, regardless of actual distances being traveled.  Thats like saying that going 80mph in a car, is the same as going 40mph in a car but only having to go half the disrance.  The only variable that has changed, is the amount of time based on the distance.  Again, yes maps are larger for Halo 4 for that reason.  FOV does nothing to speed up the game, and it does not MAKE you "think" that things are sped up.  This is again, something that happens on an individual basis and DOES NOT apply to everyone.  It's all about individual perception in this case, and you quite simply cannot compensate or cater a specific feature to everyone and the multitude of individual expereinces.

Show me one example of where some idiot player has complained about not being able to shoot while being the driver of a vehicle.  You have NEVER been able to shoot and in some cases DRIVE a vehicle in any Halo depending on the gametype and or custom settings of a match you join.  Only passangers were ever able to shoot, so I have no idea why your bringing that up.  Driving a vehicle is vastly different than sprinting.  You could argue that it is the same because of the traversal effect, but a vehicle when stopped doesn't allow you to shoot, and dismounting a vehicle, to the ready pose for weapon use, is longer than de-sprinting and beign able to fire.  But what are you trying to say here really?  By my interpretation, we shouldn't have vehicles then either since it presents the same challenge and or drawbacks as Sprint.  Your quite ok with having to wait to shoot when getting out of a vehicle, but your not happy with waiting after sprinting?!?  It's the same logistical factor.  Your moving fast either by design or vehicle, and there is a slight wait period to ready and use your weapon.

Increasing your base speed is no different than basically toggling sprint to be automatic.  Think Juggernaut gametypes from Halo 1 and 2.  The juggernaut had 2x speed, which is exactly the same speed sprint enables the player.  Imagine playing a map like Haven with Juggernaut/perma Sprint.  Chances are, other than using melee's, your not gonna hit your target very often, especially not with a precision weapon. For that matter, every Halo game has kept the same exact base player speed throughout it's history.
 

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.

This is completely opinion and there is no right or wrong.  Whether or not cannon is more important than actual gameplay is COMPLETELY up to the person playing the game.  I can just as easily say that winning is more important than a k/d spread.  Does that mean I'm right?  Or does that mean I am simply just more concerned about the winning factor overall?  See, opinion... My opinion only has the potential to be right, because it may apply to another gamer of the same mindset.  it has equally the implications and possibility to be wrong if another player has a different mindset.
 

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.

Basic argument for this...Bungie wanted Sprint but was unable to add the feature before the Blam! engine underwent it's massive overhaul for Halo Reach.  It's a fact, that halo should have had sprint and in a fundamental way, is the FIRST game to have it, not the latter, where people think Halo is just using Sprint to be like other games.  But again, that's an opinion and there is no fact or proof to be had to support a right or wrong answer.  So in my opinion yes, Sprint does work for Halo, but it also depends on the map, it's layout and the people which whom you are playing against.  map sizes alone do not dictate if Sprint
works or not.  You also have to factor in playstyles or possible ones to a good degree, the layout of objects, scenery and machines, and also the weapon placement.
 

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:

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. From what I see, it is the weapons that sped up the gameplay the most, not sprint.  That being said sprint did allow the players to reach vantage points quicker and engage certain combat situations quicker.  But again, it all depends on the players.  Certain players will use sprint all the time, some won't.  This match did not show as much sprinting being used because of the CQC of the map.  Had it been a larger map, we would have seen sprint used more often, or at least that is a logical conclusion.

Another example real quick...

Halo 3 The Pit vs Halo 4 Pit Remake

I couldn't find any videos of a Coagulation remake for Halo 4, and could only find Hemmorage ones.  After viewing the Hemmorage ones, I still see that sprint added the ability to reach the map sections quicker and engage and or tactically engage the enemy quicker than in the Halo 2 and Halo 3 versions.  So again though, it's up to the player to use sprint, and individual instances of gameplay.  There is no right or wrong for if sprint breaks Halo and doesn't belong there.

As for replies to what I stated, go right ahead.  Argue till your head explodes and you are no longer able to come onto the site.  I only got involved because I felt it was needed.  I will not respond or buy into your fake attention grabbing "look at me" argument just to feed your ego or whatever end game you really have.  If someone from the mod staff wants me to get involved again at a certain point I will.  Enjoy your short friendless stay pal!

 

P.S. If your going to argue sprint in Halo, the only two titles you can use for reference properly as to map size average yadda yadda is Reach and Halo 4.  Reach used campaign maps for their MM maps, so you can't really even compare Halo Reach to Halo 4.  Best advice to you dude, drop the issue and wait till Halo 5 comes out.  Then you can argue and complain all you want.

[Jazzii Man]

Before I get started, this is going to be a fairly quick and small response on my part.  I'm only getting involved because I feel as if the OP is now disrespecting a member of the Mod staff, and I don't take that kind of **** lightly from newbies of the site.

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.

 

For the life of me I can't see how you can even put a thread like this up in a section for a game that hasn't even been revealed yet.  YOU have no idea what mechanics will be involved in halo 5, and your whole argument is based on rabid speculation that halo 5 will have sprint or something like it.

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?

 

Sprint does indeed speed up gameplay.  Because certain maps are larger or smaller depending on the map, sprint allows the player to get to the area in which players may be grouped or where battles are taking place a lot faster, and start engaging in combat.

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.

 

Haven is a good example in this case.  Sprinting to the opposite side of the lower level of the map offers you quicker access to engage in a battle, than simply walking.

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.

 

Stating that battles take place at a longer range than previous Halo's is both an isolated incident and a choice based on an individuals playstyle.  When I play on a Halo 4 map, most or all my encounters take place at a medium to close proximity, except for when being sniped or engaged by a long range weapon.

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.

 

Any weapon with scope will be used to engage an enemy at a distance whenever possible.  Sprint does not force or encourage the player to use the scoped weapons to engage an enemy at a longer range.  Again, Halo 2 and 3 both had the Battle Rifle, just like in Halo 4, and the range of engagement hasn't changed.  Again,sprint is not responsible for a player choosing when to engage an enemy.

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.

 

I think you need some really good meds bro.  You cannot argue physics and try to logically apply them to a similutaed computer environment. If someone moves faster, they feel it, plain in simple.

What is this supposed to be conflicting with when it comes to my own argument?

 

Your argument about travel time is completely idiotic.  When an actual person moves faster, they can see and feel themselves moving faster, regardless of actual distances being traveled.  Thats like saying that going 80mph in a car, is the same as going 40mph in a car but only having to go half the disrance.

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.

 

The only variable that has changed, is the amount of time based on the distance.  Again, yes maps are larger for Halo 4 for that reason.  FOV does nothing to speed up the game, and it does not MAKE you "think" that things are sped up.

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. 

 

Show me one example of where some idiot player has complained about not being able to shoot while being the driver of a vehicle.

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.

[Jazzii Man]

You have NEVER been able to shoot and in some cases DRIVE a vehicle in any Halo depending on the gametype and or custom settings of a match you join.  Only passangers were ever able to shoot, so I have no idea why your bringing that up.  Driving a vehicle is vastly different than sprinting.  You could argue that it is the same because of the traversal effect, but a vehicle when stopped doesn't allow you to shoot, and dismounting a vehicle, to the ready pose for weapon use, is longer than de-sprinting and beign able to fire.

Quote the part of my argument where I say that sprinting and vehicle use are exactly the same.

  

But what are you trying to say here really?  By my interpretation, we shouldn't have vehicles then either since it presents the same challenge and or drawbacks as Sprint.  Your quite ok with having to wait to shoot when getting out of a vehicle, but your not happy with waiting after sprinting?!?  It's the same logistical factor.  Your moving fast either by design or vehicle, and there is a slight wait period to ready and use your weapon.

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.

 

Increasing your base speed is no different than basically toggling sprint to be automatic.  Think Juggernaut gametypes from Halo 1 and 2.  The juggernaut had 2x speed, which is exactly the same speed sprint enables the player.  Imagine playing a map like Haven with Juggernaut/perma Sprint.  Chances are, other than using melee's, your not gonna hit your target very often, especially not with a precision weapon. For that matter, every Halo game has kept the same exact base player speed throughout it's history.

Nope, quite simply incorrect. Base speed allows for raised weapons, sprint does not.

 

 

This is completely opinion and there is no right or wrong.  Whether or not cannon is more important than actual gameplay is COMPLETELY up to the person playing the game.

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.

 

You just shot yourself in the foot with this one bud.  You CANNOT take a single poll from one site and try to pass it off as proof that majority of people dislike sprint.

"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."

[SomeCreepinaVan]

How about instead of a sprint button, they make walking twice as fast?

[D-38 Boss]

See, I just think this discussion is going in circles. One of you is providing clear examples, then the other requests more.

 

I'm just gonna conclude with: "I like to sprint." It's not game breaking, because I've never had the thought "Damn it. If only there was no sprinting." I don't believe I need specific examples, because how would I provide examples on what something ISN'T doing? List the times I wasn't thinking about sprint breaking the game? We'd be here forever. Bottom line, don't like it? Don't play it. Either way, the decision of having it in or not is out of our hands. Me? I'm just gonna enjoy the ride,

 

>Abandon Thread

 

[Jazzii Man]

See, I just think this discussion is going in circles. One of you is providing clear examples, then the other requests more.

Then you'll have no trouble giving specific examples of where my reasoning is wrong, and explaining why I'm wrong.

 

I'm just gonna conclude with: "I like to sprint." It's not game breaking, because I've never had the thought "Damn it. If only there was no sprinting."

Refer to the counter to argument number 8 in the OP.

 

Bottom line, don't like it? Don't play it.

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.

 

Either way, the decision of having it in or not is out of our hands. Me? I'm just gonna enjoy the ride,

And why does this negate discussion about sprint?

Immersion is what MAKES a game.

Drastic oversimplification at best. You're telling me that there are not other factors that "make" a game?

 

Bungie and 343i have both clearly stated in interviews and VidOC's that they wanted to immerse the player into the game by adding these features like sprint and AA's.  Your absolutely kidding yourself if you think Doom 1 for DOS was just as immersive as say, Halo 1.  Sprint does allow a player to go and or reach areas of a map quicker, or completely compared to previous Halo's. Grenade jumping, genade launching and double jumping off of players heads really results in the same effects of having AA's and other base abilities like sprint.  The reason it's more immersive, is because we don't have to risk death to perform them, asnd those same abilities offer us opportunities for movement that we wouldn't normally have.

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?

 

I'm sorry...what?  So...your saying sprint shouldn't be in a map like Rattler because it takes the same time to sprint the map Haven in Halo 4, that is does to walk Beavercreek in Halo 2?  How is that even relevant?  2 completely different games, with 2 completely different map design basics and core mechanics.

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. 

 

When a map size is increased, you need to speed up the players ability to reach parts of a map quickly.  Do me a favor...go play a round of Team slayer on Coagulation in Halo 2.  Even with teleporters, the battle time is looong.  Then go play it on Halo 4's version adn tell me which map has quicker encounters and faster gameplay.  Yes their are vehicles, but a limited supply.  Not everyone can get to one or wants to use one.

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?

 

Your sprinting away during a fight and living is not an often occurrence from MY experience.  Inf act, I have had more people duck behind walls or corners, more than having them sprint away.  And even if they do sprint away, on my playing, only 1-5 actually get away before I put them down with steady shots.  Maybe you just really suck at the game bro?  I mean why even bother arguing sprint unless you yourself have some problems against sprint, or your losing battles because you think sprint makes it so that people can out play you.  If they out play you, it's because tactically, they are smarter than you.  Plain and simple.

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'.

 

As for all your other little arguments...WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?!?  All I see is big words, one lame SINGLE SITE POLL. and a couple FOV videos that do nothing.

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.

[Warlord0520]

I don't get it.. Why is this in Halo 5 Guardians section? Game isn't even out yet, why post stuff about sprint in a section for a game that you have no idea how that aspect is going to be implemented?

Also, pretty much everything anyone says about anything in games is opinion based.. Sure, many people might share the opinion, but others still don't agree with it..

So saying your opinions "have the possibility of being right" is kind of self centered..

 

I'm pret sure I recall seing a halo5 trailer mentioning that halo5 will have no armor abilities, but then again it could have just been a dream

[Jazzii Man]

I'm pret sure I recall seing a halo5 trailer mentioning that halo5 will have no armor abilities, but then again it could have just been a dream

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.

[BaconShelf]

I like having sprint as an option.

 

 

Counter that, *****.

[Mr Biggles]

I like having sprint as an option.

 

 

Counter that, *****.

I think Sprint should be something that should be in-game (From my personal experience because i'm so used to it now) but there should also be playlists where it can be turned off and not be used for all of the players who clearly don't enjoy it.

 

That way, everyone wins.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Mr.Biggles

[Twinreaper]

Ok Baconshelf, while I know it is unlike me to say this, but was that even necessary? Jazzii hasn't used any name calling towards you.  Just leave the thread alone if you don't like it.

[II Havvoc]

Thank you for this post. Hopefully 343 sees the logic behind this and acts accordingly in the halo 5 competitive play. Sprint is fine in casual

[Russian Panda]

Seems a bit silly that as a spartan I can jump 2 meters high, eat bullets like salad and one punch kill people yet for some reason shouldn't be able to sprint?

 

I think sprint is a natural progression of gameplay.

 

IMO. If they put sprint in halo 5 it should be more similar to reach (more clunky ) my reasoning for this is say...

 

When you initiate sprint you holster your weapon, like masterchief did in the halo 3 trailer? And that way when you stop sprinting there would be a delay and you would not be able to shoot instantly like halo 4 ( ugh ). This would stop people from sprinting around small maps because it would handicap your ability to be ready in combat

[Axilus Prime]

Wow. Twin just slamming the OP like that. That was cool.

 

Jaw actually dropped when I saw the map data in the actual post.

[Jazzii Man]

Seems a bit silly that as a spartan I can jump 2 meters high, eat bullets like salad and one punch kill people yet for some reason shouldn't be able to sprint?

 

I think sprint is a natural progression of gameplay.

 

IMO. If they put sprint in halo 5 it should be more similar to reach (more clunky ) my reasoning for this is say...

 

When you initiate sprint you holster your weapon, like masterchief did in the halo 3 trailer? And that way when you stop sprinting there would be a delay and you would not be able to shoot instantly like halo 4 ( ugh ). This would stop people from sprinting around small maps because it would handicap your ability to be ready in combat

See counter to argument 3 in the OP. 1, gameplay is more important than what any one of us might believe a spartan should be able to do, and 2, if the movement of a spartan really should be decided by canon, then sprint and lowered weapons simply wouldn't be a thing. You would actually be against sprint as it is in Halo Reach and Halo 4 if you believed in the canon argument.

 

Wow. Twin just slamming the OP like that. That was cool.

 

Jaw actually dropped when I saw the map data in the actual post.

As much as Twin and I disagree on this subject, we have actually been getting along just fine since this thread has been made. However, I did provide 3 full posts of counter-arguments to the things he said, so If you believe I was slammed, then address the counter-arguments I made. And I don't mean that in a defensive/hostile way, I just mean that the sprint discussion can only move forward if the things each side says are actually addressed directly.