Every argument for sprint, countered

[Axilus Prime]

That's good. Simply because I liked that post didn't mean I was in favor of an enmity between you and Twin, or anyone for that matter.

 

I have no interest in typing up paragraphs upon paragraphs of text on the matter when you have made it abundantly clear that your mind is made up on the subject and cannot be changed. It would be a waste of time and effort.

[Russian Panda]

I'm aware that gameplay comes before anything that's canon. I'm also very fond of the traditional halo style, referring to halo 2 and 3 of which I've played a lot of.
( that being said, since halo 1 and 2 there has been books and various media that's been evolving the halo universe, OF WHICH the games are based on ).

Even so, I think 343 needs to strike some balance between putting in features that are canon and keeping gameplay fun balanced and fair.

Having played a lot of halo 2 and 3 I understand how the sprint feature in newer halo's has changed this rock paper scissors mentality of halo but at the same time you can't expect them to keep things out of the game for the sake of gameplay. It is possible to put sprint into halo and other features as well, in my opinion anyway I just think it'll take a lot of creative design and careful thought.

[Jazzii Man]

I'm aware that gameplay comes before anything that's canon.

... you can't expect them to keep things out of the game for the sake of gameplay.

These two seem to contradict each other.

 

(that being said, since halo 1 and 2 there has been books and various media that's been evolving the halo universe, OF WHICH the games are based on ).

You're saying that there have been things added to the games that are from outside the games themselves, and that have worked, but that doesn't mean that everything will work. Multiplayer is its own thing in Halo, and historically, it has always been fine for things from outside of multiplayer to make their way in, as long as they fit within the gameplay.

 

Even so, I think 343 needs to strike some balance between putting in features that are canon and keeping gameplay fun balanced and fair.

Exactly, and that balance involves not putting things in that don't work with the core gameplay of Halo.

 

Having played a lot of halo 2 and 3 I understand how the sprint feature in newer halo's has changed this rock paper scissors mentality of halo but at the same time you can't expect them to keep things out of the game for the sake of gameplay.

For what reason should it not be expected that game damaging features be kept out of the gameplay itself?

 

It is possible to put sprint into halo and other features as well, in my opinion anyway I just think it'll take a lot of creative design and careful thought.

As long as top speed only happens in bursts, and lowered weapons are forced, then sprint will be a problem because those are the parts of sprint which create the problems. If you take away the burst factor and you don't force lowered weapons, then you're left with a faster base speed.

[Coldfreeze]

I am going to go out on a limb here, but I think canon goes before gameplay. 

 

Ever since Halo 2 I wanted to be able to sprint, after seeing the cutscene in Halo 3 were the Chief sprints I wanted it even more. The thing in Reach that bothered me was limited sprint and it being an armor ability and Halo 4 gave me the option to make it unlimited. 

 

Now I understand that not everyone would be happy with sprint, but I think it adds to Halo, rather than redacts from it.  In some cases like in Reach it gave me just the edge to make a jump and assassinate someone mid air.

 

In Halo 4 I use it to move fast from cover to cover and in game modes such as swat to move from kill to kill. 

 

I like spint and if it were to be removed it would be a step back in my opinion.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

In all honesty I find this argument boils down to this:

 

I have to account for one more thing while playing a game and I just don't want to.

 

I understand that you personally don't enjoy sprint (though after reading a few of your posts you seemed to be on the fence for a while) but that doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be in the game. As Twin stated, all of your experiences with it are just that, your experiences. They do not apply to others. It doesn't matter if you don't like the feature or not, the game itself will be developed along the lines of vision the developers decide to go down.

 

As for the rest of your argument I have no desire to deal with it. Others can go back and forth with you over something that is purely opinion.

[Jazzii Man]

In all honesty I find this argument boils down to this:

 

I have to account for one more thing while playing a game and I just don't want to.

Well you simply haven't been able to demonstrate that. If it really is the case that it's another thing to account for that I 'just don't want to' account for, then you will be able to counter each argument I made in the OP, explaining where I'm going wrong. There are a lot of posts here doing anything but actually referring directly to points I made in the OP. If it's not that I'm scared of change, it's that I simply can't be bothered to account for sprint. But if this dicussion is to be worth anything at all, it needs to be based upon the points I made in the OP.

 

I understand that you personally don't enjoy sprint (though after reading a few of your posts you seemed to be on the fence for a while) but that doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be in the game.

Of course not. See argument 8 - what matters is whether or not it actually inhibits or simply complements the skills and options we had to utilize as players in the original Halo games. Whether or not we personally enjoy it is purely incidental, which is exactly why I do so much more than simply say 'well I dislike it, therefore it shouldn't be in the game'.

 

As Twin stated, all of your experiences with it are just that, your experiences. They do not apply to others. It doesn't matter if you don't like the feature or not, the game itself will be developed along the lines of vision the developers decide to go down.

I provided 3 posts of replies to each point Twin made. Twin doesn't personally want to continue the discussion, which is absolutely fair enough, but if you're going to refer to his arguments then all I can do is refer you to the arguments I made in response to those.

 

As for the rest of your argument I have no desire to deal with it. Others can go back and forth with you over something that is purely opinion.

Whether or not sprint is enjoyable is purely opinion. One person might enjoy it, while another might hate it.

Assertions such as 'sprint makes average travel time faster in Halo 4 than in previous Halo games' is an objective claim, and therefore have the potential to create discussion where either side can actually be right or wrong.

 

Notice that this thread is not about whether or not it's right or wrong to enjoy sprint in Halo; this thread is about offering counter-arguments to claims which actually can be right or wrong. Therefore, 'it's just your opinion' is not enough of a counter-argument to demonstrate the supposed ineffectiveness of my arguments.

One of the arguments in the OP isn't even necessarily sprint-related. This is the argument that it's logical to see that someone dislikes sprint, and then to assert that they're scared of change.

It's a fact - not an opinion - that such a thing is incorrect, as there simply is no logical connection between the two.

 

Had I made an argument such as:

Argument: "Sprint is fun"

Counter: no, it isn't.

 

Then the responses that come down to 'that's just your opinion' would be absolutely relevant, but you'll notice that I haven't actually made any such arguments.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

Jazzii Man your thread is built upon the premise of opinion. I am surprised you cant see this. Each and every one of your posts is directed towards proving your opinion of why sprint should or should not be included in the next Halo game. Evidence for both sides is, considering the subject matter, pointless as it is, in its entirety, and opinion based argument.

 

I have no issue with your counter arguments, nor with any arguments put forth to deal with them. The problem is that none of you can figure out that it boils down to personal opinion on the matter and neither side is correct or incorrect. If you can not see this basic fact behind this subject matter then that is your issue.

 

Now then I think I have had enough of this thread. Hopefully it will disappear sooner rather than later.

[Jazzii Man]

Jazzii Man your thread is built upon the premise of opinion. I am surprised you cant see this.

And you just completely ignored the points I made in support of the idea that these things I'm discussing are not opinion based. Please refer directly to those points instead of repeating the original claim you made.

 

So here it is again:

Whether or not we enjoy sprint in Halo is subjective. One person may enjoy it, one person may not.

Whether or not sprint has certain objective effects on the way the game functions is not opinion based. There is a right and a wrong to those claims, and that is why it requires more than simply saying 'well that's just your opinion' to demonstrate that what I'm saying is wrong.

 

Again, notice that the thread isn't about whether or not people should like sprint in Halo. It's about claims that are made about sprint which can either be right or wrong, and my counter-arguments in response to those claims.

 

Each and every one of your posts is directed towards proving your opinion of why sprint should or should not be included in the next Halo game. Evidence for both sides is, considering the subject matter, pointless as it is, in its entirety, and opinion based argument.

See above. All you're doing is repeating your original claim, and then forcing me to repeat my counter-arguments.

 

This thread discusses objective claims made about the impact of sprint on gameplay. That means that - regardless of our opinions on those claims - there absolutely has to be a right or wrong answer. If you think I'm wrong, and that sprint doesn't actually create a dynamic where it's now easier for a player to escape an encounter than it was without sprint, then you should counter directly the points I made with regard to that particular claim.

Again, you can't simply say 'well that's your opinion' and hope to be any closer to demonstrating that I'm in fact wrong about the argument which has a right or wrong answer.

 

I have no issue with your counter arguments, nor with any arguments put forth to deal with them. The problem is that none of you can figure out that it boils down to personal opinion on the matter and neither side is correct or incorrect.

This is just simply false. All you're doing is continuing the trend of repeating your original claim in the face of counter-arguments, as opposed to addressing those counter-arguments directly. I keep seeing that in this thread and it just isn't valuable as far as discussion about sprint goes.

 

Again, whether or not we enjoy sprint is subjective. Claims about the objective impact of sprint on the way the game functions (not about how enjoyable those functions are) are not subjective. They are open to being either correct or incorrect. It's in the nature of making an objective claim.

Therefore, discussion about the impact of sprint on gameplay (not on how much we enjoy the gameplay) require more discussion than simply 'that's your opinion'.

 

Claims that spartans cannot lower their weapons while sprinting in the Halo canon are not subjective - there is a right and wrong answer with regard to such a claim - therefore it does not come down to opinion. It comes down to discussion about the information we have available to us. See argument 3.

Claims that most people like sprint are not subjective - there is a right and wrong answer with regard to such a claim, and such a claim requires evidence - thereofre it does not come down to opinion. It comes down to discussion about the information we have available to us. See argument 5.

Claims that sprint is or isn't fun are indeed subjective - the 'fun' aspect comes down to each individual's experience - therefore it is relevant to say that it is opinion based. See that there are no arguments in the OP that make any such claims.

 

Now, just because there is a right and a wrong answer with regard to the arguments I counter in the OP does not automatically mean that my thoughts are correct, but it does mean that I am either right or wrong, and therefore valuable discussion will involve more than simply repeating that something is my opinion.

[Russian Panda]

As frog said. it's all opinion. It's starting to look like you're just here to argue with people for no real reason other than to support your opinion and we just go around and around. Sprint is a feature that's been introduced into halo and needs to be balanced. I'm quite sure it will be in halo 5. If you wish a feature is or isn't in a game that's your problem m8. 

If all players are able to sprint I don't see how it's bad.

[Jazzii Man]

As frog said. it's all opinion.

Well then you'll be able to refer to the points I made in the post I made in response to him, telling me specifically where my reasoning is wrong. Like I've said a million times now, I'm not discussing a subjective view in this thread - which would be whether or not sprint is enjoyable - I'm discussing objective claims that are made about sprint. It takes more than 'that's your opinion' to create valuable discussion around claims which do have a right or wrong answer. If you're on the side that things the claims made in the OP arguments are objectively true, that's fine, but demonstrate it with points that counter the poitns I made. I don't know why people are struggling with this.

 

It's starting to look like you're just here to argue with people for no real reason other than to support your opinion and we just go around and around. Sprint is a feature that's been introduced into halo and needs to be balanced. I'm quite sure it will be in halo 5. If you wish a feature is or isn't in a game that's your problem m8.

It's very easy to avoid the responsibility of countering my arguments directly if you can simply claim that I'm just 'here to argue'. I'm here to dicuss directly the claims that are made about sprint, and the counters I offer in the OP. Unfortunately, it looks like very few people here are aware of what's involved in doing that, and therefore I'm trying to direct people away from discussion which revolves around claiming everything is simply my opinion and that I'm scared of change, and directing it towards discussion of the points I make in the OP. That's not an argument. If you can find one example of an ad hominem attack on my part, I would love for you to point it out to me. What you'll probably find is that I've been consistently civil, so I don't think it's fair to opt for simply claiming that I'm here to argue.

 

If all players are able to sprint I don't see how it's bad.

Well then you probably haven't read the OP because I went into this in detail. If there was something in there that you disagree with, then please direct your response towards that particular reasoning; don't simply state that sprint is good because you don't see how it's bad - that doesn't make for valuable discussion. I seriously want people to quote the parts of my OP they disgaree with and then actually demonstrate why they think my reasoning is flawed.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

Ok, final attempt at reasoning with you. No more attempts after this.

 

The data you have provided, no matter how factual, is irrelevant. A person could come up with an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint to exist within a game, or an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint not to be in the game. No matter how many facts, charts, videos and other "proof" they cite however will change the fact that it is all in support of their opinion as to why sprint should or should not be included in the game.

 

This is exactly what your posts are doing. You create wonderful posts full of "facts" (yet I still see personal experiences in them only) to support YOUR argument as to why sprint should not be in Halo. It is YOUR argument, thus it is your opinion.

 

The arguing of opinions is a fruitless venture. Neither side is correct nor incorrect. And in the end the thread ends up with people being upset. Intelligent conversation is all well and good but I don't see that happening here. Instead the thread comes across as an "I'm right and you are wrong!" thread. Yes that is my opinion, you can choose to think differently. Isnt that magical? Keep in mind I am not here to argue the topic of the thread, merely pointing out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.

 

Is this clear enough? I think it should be, and if you still do not understand it then honestly its your personal problem.

[Jazzii Man]

Ok, final attempt at reasoning with you. No more attempts after this.

 

The data you have provided, no matter how factual, is irrelevant. A person could come up with an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint to exist within a game, or an infinite number of factual reasons for sprint not to be in the game.

I'm not talking about 'reasons for sprint not to exist in Halo' in this thread. You'd think the intro would make that clear. Instead, this thread is a response to the objective arguments (arguments that aren't opinion based) that are made in favour of sprint which are simply untrue.

 

No matter how many facts, charts, videos and other "proof" they cite however will change the fact that it is all in support of their opinion as to why sprint should or should not be included in the game.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's in support of an opinion. The original claim (against me) was that this is all just my opinion, referring to the original post which is specifically about objective claims about sprint. Now, suddenly, you're trying to make out as if you've been talking about my opinion with regard to whether or not sprint should be in the game (which I've never claimed is not my opinion), as opposed to talking about my opinion with regards to claims that have to be right or wrong.

That type of evasive counter-arguing is simply a moving of the goal posts and it is dishonest.

 

This is exactly what your posts are doing. You create wonderful posts full of "facts" (yet I still see personal experiences in them only) to support YOUR argument as to why sprint should not be in Halo. It is YOUR argument, thus it is your opinion.

Ah, this is a continuation of that new destination for those goal posts you conveniently moved.

 

What you're saying now is that my view on the arguments sprint fans make that absolutely have to be correct or incorrect is my opinion. Well, of course... What else would it be?

Telling me my opinion is just my opinion is a non-statement. It does nothing to demonstrate that the arguments in support of my opinion on a subject that has a right or wrong answer are false.

 

Please read this next part very carefully. You continue to miss the point that I'm making.

 

When it comes to objective (not opinion based) claims made about sprint - such as the claim that maps haven't been changed to compensate for sprint - there absolutey has to be a right or wrong with regard to such a claim. It's in the nature of the claim. Either the maps have been changed or they haven't, and when one argues that they haven't, they are making a claim which is either right or wrong.

Now, their opinion might be that the maps haven't been changed, but the fact that it is their personal opinion does not change the fact that they either have to be right or wrong. Are you following me so far?

 

Now, knowing that their opinion is open to being right or wrong (as are mine and everyone else's), it requires more discussion than simply saying 'well that's just your opinion' to demonstrate that the person's reasoning itself is flawed.

If I ever say 'sprint isn't fun', then go ahead and tell me that it's just my opinion.

If I ever say 'maps have been changed to accommodate sprint', then I am either right or wrong, and therefore you should be pointing out holes in my actual reasoning if you are going to disagree with that claim. Telling me that it's 'just my opinion' does nothing to further discussion in any meaningful sense when it comes to this type of argument.

 

If you don't get it after that, then I'm lost for how to put it to you.

 

The arguing of opinions is a fruitless venture. Neither side is correct nor incorrect. And in the end the thread ends up with people being upset.

Incorrect, again. When it comes to claims that have to have a right or wrong answer, either side aboslutely is right or wrong.

 

Intelligent conversation is all well and good but I don't see that happening here. Instead the thread comes across as an "I'm right and you are wrong!" thread. Yes that is my opinion, you can choose to think differently. Isnt that magical? Keep in mind I am not here to argue the topic of the thread, merely pointing out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.

If I'm making claims that I'm right, with regard to objective claims, when I am in fact wrong, then the sensible and logical thing to do is to be direct and point out the holes in my reasoning.

If I really am claiming to be right about things that are strictly subjective (no right or wrong answer) then, naturally, there will be holes in my reasoning. What I absolutely want is for people to address those arguments directly. I don't know how many times I've begged for that in this thread, yet that simple request continues to go ignored.

 

Is this clear enough? I think it should be, and if you still do not understand it then honestly its your personal problem.

From now on, I ask politely that you refer to each point directly that I make in this post. Don't continue to claim that it's all my opinion if you aren't going to address that points I've made in response. No really, I mean it. Please please please quote the parts of my post where my reasoning is wrong, and then tell me where my line of reasoning goes wrong.

[SilentGamer64]

The main gist of my post is in yellow.

 

Most people who are pro-sprint seem to be side-stepping the actual content of the OP. Yes, it has already been established that the OP's opinion is that sprint doesnt fit with Halo's gameplay. People should have caught on to that just by reading the title before even clicking on it.

 

Its the content of the OP that people are avoiding discussion about. Only a small handful of people have actually attempted to debate with the OP in favor of sprint. Everyone else is just running around in circles using the "its just your opinion" strawman.

 

The OP doesnt state opinions on why sprint doesnt fit in with Halo's gameplay, it talks about the purpose of sprint in Halo, and counters those reasons with rational examples of why Halo can just as easily be well off without sprint.

 

If you personally enjoy sprint and feel like the OP is wrong, dont get all emotional and resort to strawmen arguments. Fight for it. Hell, the OP did all the initial work for you by bringing up practically every argument you would use in favor of sprint. If you feel strongly enough about sprint, want to see it in Halo again, and are willing to fight for it, reinforce these arguments for sprint provided in the OP, or bring your own to the table, and counter the OP's counterarguments with facts and rational evidence.

 

This is how people debate, they defend what they believe is right and attack what they believe is wrong using facts and supporting evidence. If your argument holds more water, the opposition will concede (or if they're less mature they'll strawman you as they retreat out the door). This is how political debates work, and how groups of people such as ourselves get things put into motion.

 

Consider this. If your country's leader announced that they believe all citizens not related to a political position should be forced into the military regardless of wether or not they want to, are you just going to say "I disagree but its just your opinion" and walk away? No? Then fight for what you believe is right. Fight for sprint.

 

I also want to point out that Jazzi is probably as polite as they come in regards to fans who are against sprint in Halo. He's respectful and wont belittle anyone based on their opinions, but judging by the length, its clear that he worked hard on the OP and is just seeking out pro-sprinters to humor him with evidence that sprint can work in Halo. Sure he'll counter you, but in the end, if you can put up a better argument, I'm sure he'll graciously concede.

[Russian Panda]

In reply to SilentGamer64. 

 

You can't really agree or disagree with the OP, it's simply facts and if people are ignoring them then that's... well stupid. Sprint when implemented in halo reach and 4 wasn't done as well as it should of been (as shown in OP ) . But just because it wasn't implemented well doesn't mean it shouldn't be in halo.  I don't think it should be in halo because it's in other games, but for the reason that it's canon, by canon I mean if I see something books and media representing Spartans doing things it should apply to the games .

Can it be in halo and not break the gameplay? sure I think so. Op's point was regarding that it hasn't worked yet and from the sounds of things it shouldn't be in future halo's ( that's what my impression is ?). I think that's perfectly reasonable but at the same time, and this is of course opinion. 343 should put it into the game in a way that makes the player experience better and make you feel like you're a spartan not for the sake of LOOK YOU CAN RUN LIKE IN THIS OTHER GAME.

I think the main issue is that the core build of halo is based of something old. Halo 2 multiplayer and halo 3 are built on foundations of games where things were simple. eg, counterstrike, quake, UT and all these great games. All these games share similarities in a way that they are 1. competitive and 2. simple. So the main issue is trying to add new features to a game that is based in "old school" ideas. 

Props to Jazzi btw for creating the Topic and being civil about it. (:

[Deathab0ve1]

This is how I see it. Halo 3 was a good game and looked good and had no sprint but, also didn't increase field of view. Halo Reach added sprint and i felt the game was even better. I want sprint as plain as simple as it is, I don't want a huge 150 degree view to make me feel fast I want to run fast. If you dont want sprint I feel you shouldn't be playing halo for that's how it has evolved so a real fan would keep it. If you don't want sprint in the game then don eliminate it try to make a compromise like a civil human being an work something out. For example how about sprint being an ability that can be disabled on certain game mode for possibly the beta  as a test to see what people prefer.

1. what a game would be like if it was built for sprint

2. exact same thing but, without sprint

3. gamemode built to play without sprint

4. same but, with sprint

5. or just 1 and 3

 

                              My biggest issue is would 343i do this it is a lot of work for a test that seems so stupid but, they can easily test it in their office and find out alone what is the best for their game.

[Is not JL]

I like sprint.

 

That is my reason as to why sprint should be in Halo.

 

Sometimes though, I also don't like Sprint.

 

That is my reason as to why sprint should not be in Halo.

 

In all honesty, while I can happily debate with you why Sprint should/shouldn't be in Halo, it high depends on the game itself. I would argue heavily against sprint in Halo 1, 2, and 3, but I would argue happily for Sprint in Halo 4; not just that, but I don't see how sprint is the cause for people not liking Halo 4. It could be A reason, but it's a reason I don't understand.

 

The only reason to not like sprint as a mechanic, and not as to how it fits in with the metagame, is probably due to pride by the players.

[Jazzii Man]

This is how I see it. Halo 3 was a good game and looked good and had no sprint but, also didn't increase field of view. Halo Reach added sprint and i felt the game was even better. I want sprint as plain as simple as it is, I don't want a huge 150 degree view to make me feel fast I want to run fast.

The thing is, if it isn't the feeling of running fast that you like, and it isn't moving around faster relative to your sorroundings (which we know it can't be - see the OP), then the only thing left is that it makes you move faster relative to other players.

 

Now, we know that it doesn't make you faster relative to players who are also sprinting; it only makes you faster relative to players who happen not to be sprinting - that's the actual tangible speed difference that sprint gives in Halo 4 compared with previous games. So it would seem that what you like about sprint (if it isn't the feeling of speed or your speed relative to your sorroundings) is that it allows you to run faster than players who can't sprint because they are attempting to shoot.

 

If this is not the case, then please do divulge the actual difference sprint makes to Halo that you do like, and we'll go from there.

 

If you dont want sprint I feel you shouldn't be playing halo for that's how it has evolved so a real fan would keep it.

I shouldn't be playing Halo 4 if I don't like sprint, no. But that doesn't do anything to actually defend the inclusion of sprint in Halo.

 

Also, shall we look at the actual definition of fan? A fan is a person who supports or is enthusiastically devoted to something.

Now, with this in mind, a "real" fan is simply someone who fits that description. I am enthusiastically devoted to Halo, therefore I am a fan. No ifs, no buts. End of story.

What is it in this particular case that I am not a fan of? Sprint, of course. Are you doing anything to actually argue for sprint's existense in Halo gameplay by poiting out that I'm personally not a fan of it? No, of course not.

 

If you don't want sprint in the game then don eliminate it try to make a compromise like a civil human being an work something out.

Shall we look at the actual definition of the word 'civil'? We shall.

 

Civil: courteous and polite.

 

Now, do tell me the logical connection between the inability to not want a certain feature to return in a game, and the ability to remain civil. The truth is, there is no logical connection between the two, and therefore your statement here is a non-statement. It does nothing to argue for sprint in Halo.

 

Also, and more importantly, there is no compromise for making sprint work in Halo, and that's because it is not the details of the implementation, but the implementation of the feature itself which is bad. As soon as you take away the things that make sprint bad for Halo, it ceases to be sprint.

Also, there needs to be sufficient reason for it to be kept in the game for compromises to even be considered, and there simply hasn't been one. It doesn't actually bring anything to gameplay which works towards the values that Halo gameplay is known for while improving and complementing things.

 

For example how about sprint being an ability that can be disabled on certain game mode for possibly the beta  as a test to see what people prefer.

1. what a game would be like if it was built for sprint

Halo 4 was built for sprint. The problem has never been that Halo 4 wasn't built around sprint; the problem is that sprint and Halo 4 weren't built around Halo.

 

2. exact same thing but, without sprint

3. gamemode built to play without sprint

4. same but, with sprint

5. or just 1 and 3

This just demonstrates to me that you grossly underestimate just how much the core gameplay features impact the rest of the game. One you change one of those things, it has an outreaching impact on the rest of the game, and other things have to be changed too. You can't just have half the game have no sprint, and the other half have sprint, because other features would have to be changed, and then other features would have to be changed as a result of that. You don't just change a feature in and of itself; there is a domino effect that takes place.

 

In short, this just isn't a realistic way of doing things.

 

My biggest issue is would 343i do this it is a lot of work for a test that seems so stupid but, they can easily test it in their office and find out alone what is the best for their game.

There's no such thing as 'what's best for their game' in this context. Their game would work with whatever they had built to support it. If they made a game with sprint in mind and then tested it without sprint, they would inevitably choose sprint. If they made a game without sprint in mind and then tested it with sprint, they would inevitably prefer it without sprint. So this is just not realistic.

 

Also, it shouldn't be about what the individuals prefer, but rather about building a game that works to maintain the values of the franchise that the game is a part of. Building the game with the goal of refining, building upon and improving upon the gameplay values that the franchsie started gives them a singular goal, which makes more sense and is more realistic. Building the game on the opinions of individuals within the team without having a clear vision would just lead to disagreements and a lack of knowledge of where they want the game to go.

I like sprint.

 

That is my reason as to why sprint should be in Halo.

See counter to argument 8 in the OP.

 

In all honesty, while I can happily debate with you why Sprint should/shouldn't be in Halo, it high depends on the game itself. I would argue heavily against sprint in Halo 1, 2, and 3, but I would argue happily for Sprint in Halo 4

What you're doing here is bringing attention to the fact that games are designed around the features that make up the core gameplay of the game. What people who dislike sprint in Halo are saying is that Halo should be designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games.

 

In hindsight, of course you're going to argue that sprint should be in Halo 4, because the game has already been designed and made, so to take sprint out now would impact the game in a negative way. Imagine playing on Haven or Adrift without sprint?

On the other hand, future Halo games are yet to be designed and made, and therefore the desire for those games not to have sprint would mean that they would be designed without sprint in mind, and therefore would not suffer in the way that a game like Halo 4 would without sprint. So I don't see why it is relevant to point out that Halo 4 in particular would suffer in certain ways if sprint was taken out in hindsight.

 

... not just that, but I don't see how sprint is the cause for people not liking Halo 4. It could be A reason, but it's a reason I don't understand.

If you don't understand, perhaps you somehow haven't heard the reasons? I'd be happy to explain.

 

The only reason to not like sprint as a mechanic, and not as to how it fits in with the metagame, is probably due to pride by the players.

So basically, you wouldn't understand a person who dislikes sprint in and of itself (which is a bizarre thing to mention as it doesn't relate to this discussion), but you would understand why someone would dislike it as a feature in Halo?

[Coldfreeze]

 

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.

 

Counter: Before I counter I would like to refer you to this  http://halomatchmakingupdates.com/2013/06/03/halo-4-matchmaking-update-june-3rd-2013/   This is the matchmaking update on june 3rd 2013 which as stated in the article of the link, increased halo 4 movement speed to 110 %.

 

Now As you said that  sprinting across the average map on Halo 4 is no faster than moving at top speed in Halo 1, 2 ,3. 

Now here is the little part about the link, increasing Halo 4's base movement speed to 110% actually brings it to a constant sprinting speed while walking, whil your argument is correct before the the patch, it isn't now, sprinting increases movement speed to 120 %, which is 10 % faster compared to the movement speed in Halo 3. I do know maps have been adjusted on some parts for sprtint, but do not forget that the key element is not sprint at all, because not everyone uses infinite sprint.

 

I keep my personal opinion out of this btw.

 

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.

As twin showed you before, the map sizes haven't been increased, another counter would be that Halo 4 has realtively smaller maps, this due to the game being graphically heavier than for instance Halo 3.

Now the pit is a fine example, this map hasn't actually been changed in size, but with sprint in there, it feels like the map is relatively small, due to my speed being at 120% and not 110%, I can travel faster.

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. 

See my article link in my first argument, Halo 4 has the same base speed as Halo 3 since June 3rd 2013.

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:

This is a fun one, field of view has a different effect on most people, most pc games have a slider to adjust on this. This actually increases the feeling of speed, now Halo 4 has one thing why the field of view does not change, if you look down, you can see that your legs don't become longer. Increasing vield of view also increases the lengths and visible parts of a first person body. Another example for this (believe me) Duke Nukem Forever, this game had a first person model, on the PC increasing FoV increases the visibillity of Duke's body. Now Duke Nukem actually runs on an older version of the unreal engine even at time ofr release namely 2.5. Why do I mention this, well engines nowadays actually decrease the bubble effect it gives off. Halo 4 runs on a heavily modified version of the Reach, which due to contrary believe is actually the havok engine.

 

The havok engine also has a bubble effect due to the engine being modified to be used for the xbox 360, any difference in field of view, is visible on the Havok engine.

 

Now here comes my conclusion: FoV being changed, suddenly being changed, can make a person incredibly disorientated, to give off the illusion of speed most games use motion blur, not changing field of vision. because as we increase movement speed, we get motion blur due to our brain actually predicting the parts of our vision we skip as we turn our head. Motion blur makes for a way more believable way to give the illusion of speed.

 

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.

This a rather personal argument and I agree with you here, but my love of t he vehicles does not increase hate to sprint. but I can't argue with you on this one.

 

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.

 

For me lore is way more important than gameplay, I fell in love with the lore and the gameplay, but my multiplayer experience comes from Halo 3, not Halo 2. 

Now you said and I qoute: "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."  In Halo spartans run all the time and walking is pushing the stick slowly forward, now if you look at your self, if you run normal, you have the ability to keep up a watergun, your not moving at top speed while running normaly, we as humans actually compensate our balance while sprinting by waving our arms as a maniac, to link this back to Halo; in Halo 3 the chief puts his gun on his back while sprinting, in Halo: reach so does Noble six in the spire when he runs towards the falcon. in gameplay we put either our gun to our chest to compensate for balance and well the pistol shows a great representation for real life as we wave our arms as idiots. Spartan maybe super soldiers, but they are still human.

 

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.

I completely agree with you here

 

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

 

While looking up sprint statistics, I cam across hudnreds of threads, some are in favor of sprint others are against, this poll doesn't show the whole player base, and the fun thing is we can actually see that not all people know Halo waypoint since we are mistaken every time for 343I, give me evidence which counts for "most" and I will continue discussing this argument.

 

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.

I think there are games out there without sprint that easily compete without sprint, so I agree here.

 

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.

Again you are right here, this whole thread suggests otherwise.

 

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.

 

This is a personal view, I think sprint was stupid as armor ability, but in Halo 4 it was implemented well, I like it and as you can see I am not the only one. The argument I enjoy sprint, and that's all that matters is really personal and not a valid point to argue about.

 

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.

 

Halo has fast chaotic gameplay, now it also takes a while to start sprinting and while in a firefight,  turning around and running away is not even giving a chance of survival. Now I know you counter anecdotes as personal experience and not a viable argument, but everytime I tried to turn around and sprint I died, same counts for the other guy/girl. <--- disregard this I waned to voice my personal opinion a small bit here.

 

Now to chase someone with sprinting is your own choice, it lowers your weapon, but it gives you speed, which to me is a fair exchange if the other one sprints away you have two choices: shoot or chase.

 

In the case of sprinting, shootign someone actually slows them down, so either they have to hope you have bad aim or no ammo, both a game of chance. 

 

Using sprint during a fight is a game of chance, you put yourself in a disadvantage to gain speed or keep walking for the ability to respond faster I can only see balance here.

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.

See my other argument against this in the argument about being a super soldier.

 

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.

I countered this one.

 

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.

Countered.

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.

This once again personal opinion, the last halos are full excitement, but so is halo 4.

 

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.

I agree with you here.

 

... 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.

Gives speed, does not give an illusion, sprinting increases movement speed by 10 %, 

2) It's slightly more convenient to move between shooters that all have the same or similar mechanics.

Disagree, sprinting in Halo is feels different than in Cod and sprinting in CoD  feels different thant sprinting in Battlefield. I can not see sprint as an argument for making it easier to switch to different games.

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.

Sprint does not affect skill and does not make the game easier. for all it does not even affect core gameplay, Halo still has its core gameplay, known as the gold triangle one button for shooting, one for hitting, one for throwing. Halo still has his core, to me the game improved over the years. Sprinting is a feature, just as highjacking, dual-wielding, assasinations.

 

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.

 

 

[Twinreaper]

Correction is needed. Havok is only the modified code base integrated into the main engine. Hakov is only used for collision and physics, and unconfirmed, may also be used for the cloth simulations. It's one of 5 main code bases that make the completed Blam! Engine.

[Emile A129]

 I  LOVE Sprint

[Jazzii Man]

Before I counter I would like to refer you to this

 http://halomatchmakingupdates.com/2013/06/03/halo-4-matchmaking-update-june-3rd-2013/   This is the matchmaking update on june 3rd 2013 which as stated in the article of the link, increased halo 4 movement speed to 110 %. 

Now As you said that  sprinting across the average map on Halo 4 is no faster than moving at top speed in Halo 1, 2 ,3.

Now here is the little part about the link, increasing Halo 4's base movement speed to 110% actually brings it to a constant sprinting speed while walking, whil your argument is correct before the the patch, it isn't now, sprinting increases movement speed to 120 %, which is 10 % faster compared to the movement speed in Halo 3. I do know maps have been adjusted on some parts for sprtint, but do not forget that the key element is not sprint at all, because not everyone uses infinite sprint.

So you're pointing out that the base movement increase has made average travel time faster, as opposed to sprint itself. That still doesn't do anything to say that sprint makes travel times in Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous Halo games; it's just the impact of base movement speed.

As mentioned already, the game will be as fast as the developers intend for it to be, sprint or no sprint. Previous Halo games were not broken in this sense.

 

As twin showed you before, the map sizes haven't been increased, another counter would be that Halo 4 has realtively smaller maps, this due to the game being graphically heavier than for instance Halo 3.

Now the pit is a fine example, this map hasn't actually been changed in size, but with sprint in there, it feels like the map is relatively small, due to my speed being at 120% and not 110%, I can travel faster.

Firstly, you seem to have contradicted yourself with the very first sentence here, as in the first quote I responded to, you seemed to suggest that you agree with the fact that maps have been increased to compensate for sprint.

Secondly, all you're doing is referencing Twins posts, when I have already responded in detail to all the points he made. If you disagree with a counter I offered, then please address those counters specfiically.

 

Also, with Pit Stop, all you're doing is saying 'I can travel faster', but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that Halo ever needed faster average travel times. What was broken about the travel times in previous games without sprint?

 

This is a fun one, field of view has a different effect on most people, most pc games have a slider to adjust on this. This actually increases the feeling of speed, now Halo 4 has one thing why the field of view does not change, if you look down, you can see that your legs don't become longer. Increasing vield of view also increases the lengths and visible parts of a first person body. Another example for this (believe me) Duke Nukem Forever, this game had a first person model, on the PC increasing FoV increases the visibillity of Duke's body. Now Duke Nukem actually runs on an older version of the unreal engine even at time ofr release namely 2.5. Why do I mention this, well engines nowadays actually decrease the bubble effect it gives off. Halo 4 runs on a heavily modified version of the Reach, which due to contrary believe is actually the havok engine.

The havok engine also has a bubble effect due to the engine being modified to be used for the xbox 360, any difference in field of view, is visible on the Havok engine.

Now here comes my conclusion: FoV being changed, suddenly being changed, can make a person incredibly disorientated, to give off the illusion of speed most games use motion blur, not changing field of vision. because as we increase movement speed, we get motion blur due to our brain actually predicting the parts of our vision we skip as we turn our head. Motion blur makes for a way more believable way to give the illusion of speed.

So in short, you don't personally want an increase in field of view due to other effects it can have such as disorientation. OK, fair enough, but this still doesn't mean sprint should be in the game; it just means that there's an alternative which you don't personally enjoy.

I offered things such as base speed increase and field of view increase as a healthy alternative to sprint for people who say that like sprint for the illusion of speed it gives.

 

For me lore is way more important than gameplay, I fell in love with the lore and the gameplay, but my multiplayer experience comes from Halo 3, not Halo 2.

Ah, but I didn't say that lore is less important than gameplay; I said that as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important. That means that when it comes to designing the game's mechanics, the way the mechanics interact and work together is more important than whether or not they're 100% consistent with the lore.

If we were going by lore, then cooking grenades and going prone would be options, but due to the way those mechanics would interact with the way Halo plays, it is simply better not to include them. Again, the gameplay comes first when it comes to gameplay.

 

In Halo spartans run all the time and walking is pushing the stick slowly forward, now if you look at your self, if you run normal, you have the ability to keep up a watergun, your not moving at top speed while running normaly, we as humans actually compensate our balance while sprinting by waving our arms as a maniac, to link this back to Halo; in Halo 3 the chief puts his gun on his back while sprinting, in Halo: reach so does Noble six in the spire when he runs towards the falcon. in gameplay we put either our gun to our chest to compensate for balance and well the pistol shows a great representation for real life as we wave our arms as idiots. Spartan maybe super soldiers, but they are still human.

Firstly, I don't understand why it is even remotely relevant to point to what we as humans are limited to doing when we are talking about fictional super-soldiers in a sci-fi universe.

Secondly, all you're doing is pointing to moments in the canon where spartans happen not to be sprinting and shooting. You're being selective. If we have examples of both, then how can we possibly say that one is important while the other is not?

The thing is, the examples you've given are not even examples where the spartans' weapons were needed while they were sprinting, so you can't possibly use that as an example anyway.

When we have examples of spartans needing to sprint and shoot, they can do it, which is exactly my point. If canon really did dictate gameplay (and it should not), then spartans would be able to sprint and shoot accurately at the same time. In order to claim that they can't, you need to do more than simply point to examples where they happen to be sprinting without shooting - you'll need to demonstrate that the moments when they have been shown to sprint and shoot are in fact not canon, and then you'll have to demonstrate that gameplay should be modeled around that.

 

While looking up sprint statistics, I cam across hudnreds of threads, some are in favor of sprint others are against, this poll doesn't show the whole player base, and the fun thing is we can actually see that not all people know Halo waypoint since we are mistaken every time for 343I, give me evidence which counts for "most" and I will continue discussing this argument.

As others before you have done, you have simply not read or understood that part in its entirety. I highly advise you to read it again more carefully.

 

Notice I pointed out that the poll does nothing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people dislike sprint.

 

This is a personal view, I think sprint was stupid as armor ability, but in Halo 4 it was implemented well, I like it and as you can see I am not the only one. The argument I enjoy sprint, and that's all that matters is really personal and not a valid point to argue about.

Exactly my point. If simply saying 'I like it' was enough to demonstrate that a feature works with a game, then any feature you can imagine, no matter how terrible, should indeed be in the game.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to like any feature they want to like. It doesn't mean that they can't personally want it to return. It's just that saying 'I like it' doesn't do anything to effectively demonstrate that it will work for the game. More discussion is needed of course.

 

Now to chase someone with sprinting is your own choice, it lowers your weapon, but it gives you speed, which to me is a fair exchange if the other one sprints away you have two choices: shoot or chase.

To engage with someone who has default Armour Lock would be a person's choice, but that doesn't argue in favour of Armour Lock.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's your choice to chase someone who runs away. What matters is that the other person is given such an easy advantage when they do decide to run away, which in itself changes the way Halo functions.

One of the great things about Halo was how much it put things in the hands of the player when it came to controlling the outcome of the game. If you put yourself on top in an encounter by making better decisions and playing better than the other person, then they would have to exert at least an equal amount of skill and decision making in order to put themselves back in an equal place with you. Not unlike armour lock, sprint changes this dynamic because it gives the losing player a defensive ability which requires far less skill and input to get them out of a situation which required a certain amount of skill and input from the enemy player.

 

"In the case of sprinting, shootign someone actually slows them down, so either they have to hope you have bad aim or no ammo, both a game of chance."

Doesn't matter that it slows them down. Then broken dynamic is still there because you still have to sacrifice your ability to move at the same speed as they are just in order to slow them down a little.

 

"Using sprint during a fight is a game of chance, you put yourself in a disadvantage to gain speed or keep walking for the ability to respond faster I can only see balance here."

One of my favourite members on Halowaypoint responded to a similar claim in a thread about sprint recently, and he said it as well as it could be said. Just because there is a trade-off between two things does not automatically mean there is balance, and it does not mean that the feature is good.

In order to "balance" the ability to turn and move, should there be a trade-off between using the right and left thumbstick? When one is activated, the other is disabled? Clearly, not all trade-offs work to benefit the game, and further explanation for why the trade-off is needed is necessary.

 

More importantly, the "trade-off" between movement and shooting, when combined with long kill times, is exactly what the problem is. You're claiming that the very thing that's broken about sprint is the very thing that fixes it.

Halo was about the combination of moving and shooting, not the trade-off. If anyone thinks that Halo was broken for being this way, and needed to be fixed, then Halo simply wasn't the game for them.

 

"Gives speed, does not give an illusion, sprinting increases movement speed by 10 %"

Nope. Sprint itself does not increase the speed of Halo games, it only increases the speed of Halo 4 because Halo 4 was designed with sprint in mind and therefore would naturally be slower than previous Halo games without it.

As pointed out above, what you're really doing is referring to the increase in base speed, not the inclusion of sprint.

[Emile A129]

So you're pointing out that the base movement increase has made average travel time faster, as opposed to sprint itself. That still doesn't do anything to say that sprint makes travel times in Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous Halo games; it's just the impact of base movement speed.

As mentioned already, the game will be as fast as the developers intend for it to be, sprint or no sprint. Previous Halo games were not broken in this sense.

 

Firstly, you seem to have contradicted yourself with the very first sentence here, as in the first quote I responded to, you seemed to suggest that you agree with the fact that maps have been increased to compensate for sprint.

Secondly, all you're doing is referencing Twins posts, when I have already responded in detail to all the points he made. If you disagree with a counter I offered, then please address those counters specfiically.

 

Also, with Pit Stop, all you're doing is saying 'I can travel faster', but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that Halo ever needed faster average travel times. What was broken about the travel times in previous games without sprint?

 

So in short, you don't personally want an increase in field of view due to other effects it can have such as disorientation. OK, fair enough, but this still doesn't mean sprint should be in the game; it just means that there's an alternative which you don't personally enjoy.

I offered things such as base speed increase and field of view increase as a healthy alternative to sprint for people who say that like sprint for the illusion of speed it gives.

 

Ah, but I didn't say that lore is less important than gameplay; I said that as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important. That means that when it comes to designing the game's mechanics, the way the mechanics interact and work together is more important than whether or not they're 100% consistent with the lore.

If we were going by lore, then cooking grenades and going prone would be options, but due to the way those mechanics would interact with the way Halo plays, it is simply better not to include them. Again, the gameplay comes first when it comes to gameplay.

 

Firstly, I don't understand why it is even remotely relevant to point to what we as humans are limited to doing when we are talking about fictional super-soldiers in a sci-fi universe.

Secondly, all you're doing is pointing to moments in the canon where spartans happen not to be sprinting and shooting. You're being selective. If we have examples of both, then how can we possibly say that one is important while the other is not?

The thing is, the examples you've given are not even examples where the spartans' weapons were needed while they were sprinting, so you can't possibly use that as an example anyway.

When we have examples of spartans needing to sprint and shoot, they can do it, which is exactly my point. If canon really did dictate gameplay (and it should not), then spartans would be able to sprint and shoot accurately at the same time. In order to claim that they can't, you need to do more than simply point to examples where they happen to be sprinting without shooting - you'll need to demonstrate that the moments when they have been shown to sprint and shoot are in fact not canon, and then you'll have to demonstrate that gameplay should be modeled around that.

 

As others before you have done, you have simply not read or understood that part in its entirety. I highly advise you to read it again more carefully.

 

Notice I pointed out that the poll does nothing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people dislike sprint.

 

Exactly my point. If simply saying 'I like it' was enough to demonstrate that a feature works with a game, then any feature you can imagine, no matter how terrible, should indeed be in the game.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to like any feature they want to like. It doesn't mean that they can't personally want it to return. It's just that saying 'I like it' doesn't do anything to effectively demonstrate that it will work for the game. More discussion is needed of course.

 

To engage with someone who has default Armour Lock would be a person's choice, but that doesn't argue in favour of Armour Lock.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's your choice to chase someone who runs away. What matters is that the other person is given such an easy advantage when they do decide to run away, which in itself changes the way Halo functions.

One of the great things about Halo was how much it put things in the hands of the player when it came to controlling the outcome of the game. If you put yourself on top in an encounter by making better decisions and playing better than the other person, then they would have to exert at least an equal amount of skill and decision making in order to put themselves back in an equal place with you. Not unlike armour lock, sprint changes this dynamic because it gives the losing player a defensive ability which requires far less skill and input to get them out of a situation which required a certain amount of skill and input from the enemy player.

 

"In the case of sprinting, shootign someone actually slows them down, so either they have to hope you have bad aim or no ammo, both a game of chance."

Doesn't matter that it slows them down. Then broken dynamic is still there because you still have to sacrifice your ability to move at the same speed as they are just in order to slow them down a little.

 

"Using sprint during a fight is a game of chance, you put yourself in a disadvantage to gain speed or keep walking for the ability to respond faster I can only see balance here."

One of my favourite members on Halowaypoint responded to a similar claim in a thread about sprint recently, and he said it as well as it could be said. Just because there is a trade-off between two things does not automatically mean there is balance, and it does not mean that the feature is good.

In order to "balance" the ability to turn and move, should there be a trade-off between using the right and left thumbstick? When one is activated, the other is disabled? Clearly, not all trade-offs work to benefit the game, and further explanation for why the trade-off is needed is necessary.

 

More importantly, the "trade-off" between movement and shooting, when combined with long kill times, is exactly what the problem is. You're claiming that the very thing that's broken about sprint is the very thing that fixes it.

Halo was about the combination of moving and shooting, not the trade-off. If anyone thinks that Halo was broken for being this way, and needed to be fixed, then Halo simply wasn't the game for them.

 

"Gives speed, does not give an illusion, sprinting increases movement speed by 10 %"

Nope. Sprint itself does not increase the speed of Halo games, it only increases the speed of Halo 4 because Halo 4 was designed with sprint in mind and therefore would naturally be slower than previous Halo games without it.

As pointed out above, what you're really doing is referring to the increase in base speed, not the inclusion of sprint.

lol thanks for doing something no one else wanted to do and for helping this guy see the errors of his ways.

[Coldfreeze]

So you're pointing out that the base movement increase has made average travel time faster, as opposed to sprint itself. That still doesn't do anything to say that sprint makes travel times in Halo 4 faster than a lack of sprint in previous Halo games; it's just the impact of base movement speed.

As mentioned already, the game will be as fast as the developers intend for it to be, sprint or no sprint. Previous Halo games were not broken in this sense.

 

I should aexplained that before the patch Halo 4's base movement speed was 10 % slower than in Halo 3, after the patch they were equal, making sprint at least 10 % faster.

 

Firstly, you seem to have contradicted yourself with the very first sentence here, as in the first quote I responded to, you seemed to suggest that you agree with the fact that maps have been increased to compensate for sprint.

Secondly, all you're doing is referencing Twins posts, when I have already responded in detail to all the points he made. If you disagree with a counter I offered, then please address those counters specfiically.

I did not say they were increased, I stated that some parts of the map were more attuned to sprint. But when  have more time I shall counter or not counter this on my own and not on the basis of Twins arguments.

 

Also, with Pit Stop, all you're doing is saying 'I can travel faster', but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that Halo ever needed faster average travel times. What was broken about the travel times in previous games without sprint?

Did I say that it needed faster travel times? I only reffered to the part were I a 10 % increase actually made the map feel smaller relatively, because of the higher speed you travel.

 

So in short, you don't personally want an increase in field of view due to other effects it can have such as disorientation. OK, fair enough, but this still doesn't mean sprint should be in the game; it just means that there's an alternative which you don't personally enjoy.

I offered things such as base speed increase and field of view increase as a healthy alternative to sprint for people who say that like sprint for the illusion of speed it gives.

You misread, field of vision is not used, a change in field of view all of sudden with the press of a button is disorientating this is not personal, this is biology. to give any feel of moving faster, instead of just only increasing speed they add motion blur to make it more in terms of real life view. Again sprint does not give an illusion, it increases speed.

 

Ah, but I didn't say that lore is less important than gameplay; I said that as far as gameplay goes, gameplay is more important. That means that when it comes to designing the game's mechanics, the way the mechanics interact and work together is more important than whether or not they're 100% consistent with the lore.

If we were going by lore, then cooking grenades and going prone would be options, but due to the way those mechanics would interact with the way Halo plays, it is simply better not to include them. Again, the gameplay comes first when it comes to gameplay.

 

Firstly, I don't understand why it is even remotely relevant to point to what we as humans are limited to doing when we are talking about fictional super-soldiers in a sci-fi universe.

Secondly, all you're doing is pointing to moments in the canon where spartans happen not to be sprinting and shooting. You're being selective. If we have examples of both, then how can we possibly say that one is important while the other is not?

The thing is, the examples you've given are not even examples where the spartans' weapons were needed while they were sprinting, so you can't possibly use that as an example anyway.

When we have examples of spartans needing to sprint and shoot, they can do it, which is exactly my point. If canon really did dictate gameplay (and it should not), then spartans would be able to sprint and shoot accurately at the same time. In order to claim that they can't, you need to do more than simply point to examples where they happen to be sprinting without shooting - you'll need to demonstrate that the moments when they have been shown to sprint and shoot are in fact not canon, and then you'll have to demonstrate that gameplay should be modeled around that.

 

As others before you have done, you have simply not read or understood that part in its entirety. I highly advise you to read it again more carefully.

 

Notice I pointed out that the poll does nothing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people dislike sprint.

 

Exactly my point. If simply saying 'I like it' was enough to demonstrate that a feature works with a game, then any feature you can imagine, no matter how terrible, should indeed be in the game.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to like any feature they want to like. It doesn't mean that they can't personally want it to return. It's just that saying 'I like it' doesn't do anything to effectively demonstrate that it will work for the game. More discussion is needed of course.

 

To engage with someone who has default Armour Lock would be a person's choice, but that doesn't argue in favour of Armour Lock.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's your choice to chase someone who runs away. What matters is that the other person is given such an easy advantage when they do decide to run away, which in itself changes the way Halo functions.

One of the great things about Halo was how much it put things in the hands of the player when it came to controlling the outcome of the game. If you put yourself on top in an encounter by making better decisions and playing better than the other person, then they would have to exert at least an equal amount of skill and decision making in order to put themselves back in an equal place with you. Not unlike armour lock, sprint changes this dynamic because it gives the losing player a defensive ability which requires far less skill and input to get them out of a situation which required a certain amount of skill and input from the enemy player.

 

"In the case of sprinting, shootign someone actually slows them down, so either they have to hope you have bad aim or no ammo, both a game of chance."

Doesn't matter that it slows them down. Then broken dynamic is still there because you still have to sacrifice your ability to move at the same speed as they are just in order to slow them down a little. 

Shooting a sprinter slows them down to normal speed, making sprint useless and if they do not equipe the infinite sprint perk well they just wasted their chance , I think I should have elaborated more on this.

 

"Using sprint during a fight is a game of chance, you put yourself in a disadvantage to gain speed or keep walking for the ability to respond faster I can only see balance here."

One of my favourite members on Halowaypoint responded to a similar claim in a thread about sprint recently, and he said it as well as it could be said. Just because there is a trade-off between two things does not automatically mean there is balance, and it does not mean that the feature is good.

In order to "balance" the ability to turn and move, should there be a trade-off between using the right and left thumbstick? When one is activated, the other is disabled? Clearly, not all trade-offs work to benefit the game, and further explanation for why the trade-off is needed is necessary.

 

More importantly, the "trade-off" between movement and shooting, when combined with long kill times, is exactly what the problem is. You're claiming that the very thing that's broken about sprint is the very thing that fixes it.

Halo was about the combination of moving and shooting, not the trade-off. If anyone thinks that Halo was broken for being this way, and needed to be fixed, then Halo simply wasn't the game for them.

The combination of moving and shooting is still there, sprinting adds an extra movement option, I understand your point perfectly, because most of all sprinting cancels a fundamental part of Halo namely shooting, but I think the trade off does balance it, being able to shoot during spritn renders it useless, while 343I wants it to be part of the game.

 

"Gives speed, does not give an illusion, sprinting increases movement speed by 10 %"

Nope. Sprint itself does not increase the speed of Halo games, it only increases the speed of Halo 4 because Halo 4 was designed with sprint in mind and therefore would naturally be slower than previous Halo games without it.

As pointed out above, what you're really doing is referring to the increase in base speed, not the inclusion of sprint.

I wish you would read that part again, I didn't mean speed up the game, I was merely saying it increases yoru speed of its own.

 

Bit on a side note here, I enjoy this discussion, been a long time since I could argue with someone on this level.

[Emile A129]

Bit on a side note here, I enjoy this discussion, been a long time since I could argue with someone on this level.

lol indeed and above i meant to quote coldfreeze instead of that guy who doesnt know what hes talking about

[Is not JL]

 

See counter to argument 8 in the OP.

Whether or not we like sprint as individuals is actually incidental and is irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the game. 

So basically, it doesn't matter if everybody finds the implementation of it utterly retarded/the greatest thing ever to the metagame? That makes no sense considering games are made to cater to players. If a developer had that thought process, this is how they'd go:

 

"Oh, I think sprint isn't good when added to Halo. But my opinion is irrelevant as to whether or not it should actually be in the game though - therefore that's why I should add it."

*Add's sprint to Halo*
 

 

What you're doing here is bringing attention to the fact that games are designed around the features that make up the core gameplay of the game. What people who dislike sprint in Halo are saying is that Halo should be designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games.

Just because it is designed from the ground up around core gameplay doesn't stop something from featuring sprint. Halo 4 is certainly designed from the ground up around core gameplay that is consistent with that of the original games; it has, y'know. Guns, Melee, Grenades - a la golden triangle. It has radar. It has shields. It has many core features; it has many new features. 

 

In hindsight, of course you're going to argue that sprint should be in Halo 4, because the game has already been designed and made, so to take sprint out now would impact the game in a negative way. Imagine playing on Haven or Adrift without sprint?
On the other hand, future Halo games are yet to be designed and made, and therefore the desire for those games not to have sprint would mean that they would be designed without sprint in mind, and therefore would not suffer in the way that a game like Halo 4 would without sprint. So I don't see why it is relevant to point out that Halo 4 in particular would suffer in certain ways if sprint was taken out in hindsight.

I think the reason why it's relevant to point how how Halo 4 could suffer due to lack of sprint is because, y'know, this is an argument FOR sprint. 

 

If you don't understand, perhaps you somehow haven't heard the reasons? I'd be happy to explain.

Tell me the FACTUAL, PROVEN, 100% true reasons that have no relation whatsoever to opinion, that sprint is plain bad and that it should never be in a Halo game ever again.
 

 

So basically, you wouldn't understand a person who dislikes sprint in and of itself (which is a bizarre thing to mention as it doesn't relate to this discussion), but you would understand why someone would dislike it as a feature in Halo?

Yes.