Sprint may be balanced

[zRexx]

Sprint may be balanced but...

 

I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots. I don't know about anyone else here, but when it came to classic Halo, I always associated the game with being a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. I feel sprint kind of goes against Halo's nature. While I do have a preference for faster-paced games like Doom, there was never anything inherently wrong with Halo's formula (aside from weapon balance but that's another topic), the slower paced nature worked just fine with the series. It's like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd much rather have Halo maintain its unique identity instead of having a full-on identity crisis.

 

I don't have an issue with change, but I feel if a game series incorporates changes, it should at least stay true to its roots. With sprint, I feel that it doesn't fit within the original formula. When it comes to ADS, I'm actually content with it, because Halo's gunplay always had a heavy emphasis on precision, and the ADS played into that well (if it slowed down movement speed, then I'd have a problem). I didn't mind flinch either (I made another topic for that, go ahead and read it ,if you wish to debate that is). But the difference with sprint is that instead of it complementing the formula, it changes the formula. I think with how they're currently balancing it, by stripping away the shield recharge while sprint, it's actually a good mechanic in itself, I just don't think it belongs in Halo, I feel it would have much more of a place in its own game, rather than trying to cram it where it doesn't fit.

 

The problem of it being unbalanced and broken, that's solved. But as for the problem of the feature not really fitting within what was Halo's distinct formula, that's still kind of an issue.

[Caboose The Ace]

Sprint may be balanced but...

 

I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots. I don't know about anyone else here, but when it came to classic Halo, I always associated the game with being a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. I feel sprint kind of goes against Halo's nature. While I do have a preference for faster-paced games like Doom, there was never anything inherently wrong with Halo's formula (aside from weapon balance but that's another topic), the slower paced nature worked just fine with the series. It's like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd much rather have Halo maintain its unique identity instead of having a full-on identity crisis.

 

I don't have an issue with change, but I feel if a game series incorporates changes, it should at least stay true to its roots. With sprint, I feel that it doesn't fit within the original formula. When it comes to ADS, I'm actually content with it, because Halo's gunplay always had a heavy emphasis on precision, and the ADS played into that well (if it slowed down movement speed, then I'd have a problem). I didn't mind flinch either (I made another topic for that, go ahead and read it ,if you wish to debate that is). But the difference with sprint is that instead of it complementing the formula, it changes the formula. I think with how they're currently balancing it, by stripping away the shield recharge while sprint, it's actually a good mechanic in itself, I just don't think it belongs in Halo, I feel it would have much more of a place in its own game, rather than trying to cram it where it doesn't fit.

 

The problem of it being unbalanced and broken, that's solved. But as for the problem of the feature not really fitting within what was Halo's distinct formula, that's still kind of an issue.

 

This just comes off as "I don't like sprint because it was not in Halo 3"

 

I really don't see any real downside to it, it just makes you move faster while making you more vulnerable in Halo 5.

 

I mean your shields don't recharge anyway so Halo 5 sort of encourages no sprint so you can recharge your shields. Because who's going to win?

 

Two Spartans meet at opposite ends of the corridor. One ran into the corridor via sprint, the other was not using sprint.

 

Obviously the guy without sprint because the person using sprint has to stop sprinting and pull out his weapon. While the guy not using sprint can just fire away.

 

Sprinting is balanced as it makes you move faster at the cost of being far more vulnerable.

 

And you even state this at the start so that's why your posts come off as "I don't like Sprint because it was not in Halo 3" because its balanced. As long as its balanced and it works, then its fine? 

[zRexx]

This just comes off as "I don't like sprint because it was not in Halo 3"

 

I really don't see any real downside to it, it just makes you move faster while making you more vulnerable in Halo 5.

 

I mean your shields don't recharge anyway so Halo 5 sort of encourages no sprint so you can recharge your shields. Because who's going to win?

 

Two Spartans meet at opposite ends of the corridor. One ran into the corridor via sprint, the other was not using sprint.

 

Obviously the guy without sprint because the person using sprint has to stop sprinting and pull out his weapon. While the guy not using sprint can just fire away.

 

Sprinting is balanced as it makes you move faster at the cost of being far more vulnerable.

 

And you even state this at the start so that's why your posts come off as "I don't like Sprint because it was not in Halo 3" because its balanced. As long as its balanced and it works, then its fine? 

 

Again, as I've said, I don't mihd changes, but I want the game to at least stay true to its roots. Halo was always a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooter. Sprint strays away from what used to be Halo's nature and formula. I don't mind mechanics like ADS, flinch, thruster pack, even ground pound, because those changes at least fit within the realms of what was Halo's formula. As I've made clear, I'm not really asking for a re-skin of Halo 3, I want changes to the game, but at the same time I want the game to stay true to its roots. Have new features that complement the formula instead of completely altering it. Again, ADS, flinch, thruster pack, and ground pound weren't in the classic games, yet I'm fine with those. You know why? Because these change don't cause the game to stray from its roots. There's a difference.

 

I never said it wasn't balanced, In fact it's quite the opposite, I said it actually was balanced, so please do not put words in my mouth, that's rude. I simply said that it doesn't really resemble what was Halo's formula. That's my problem, I want Halo to resemble, you know, Halo. Again, as I keep saying, the game should stay true to its roots. The sprint mechanic on its own is balanced, it just doesn't really belong within Halo's formula. I'd love to see this implementation of sprint in a new arena FPS, but I want to Halo to continue resembling Halo. It's like the series is having an identity crisis that started since Reach. Halo should be Halo, it shouldn't turn into something that isn't Halo.

 

If you're going to continue putting words in my mouth, saying I want the game to be an exact re-skin of Halo 3 and saying that I claimed H5's sprint to be unbalanced, when I never actually said EITHER of those things, then I'm not really interested in talking with you about the matter. Because that's kind of rude, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion and/or debate here, When you're debating with someone, you don't just put words in their mouth and try to change what they were saying, that's a pretty shallow move and doesn't really help prove your case in the slightest, in fact, it kind of ruins the credibility of your entire argument.

[Caboose The Ace]

Again, as I've said, I don't mihd changes, but I want the game to at least stay true to its roots. Halo was always a slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooter. Sprint strays away from what used to be Halo's nature and formula. I don't mind mechanics like ADS, flinch, thruster pack, even ground pound, because those changes at least fit within the realms of what was Halo's formula. As I've made clear, I'm not really asking for a re-skin of Halo 3, I want changes to the game, but at the same time I want the game to stay true to its roots. Have new features that complement the formula instead of completely altering it. Again, ADS, flinch, thruster pack, and ground pound weren't in the classic games, yet I'm fine with those. You know why? Because these change don't cause the game to stray from its roots. There's a difference.

 

I never said it wasn't balanced, In fact it's quite the opposite, I said it actually was balanced, so please do not put words in my mouth, that's rude. I simply said that it doesn't really resemble what was Halo's formula. That's my problem, I want Halo to resemble, you know, Halo. Again, as I keep saying, the game should stay true to its roots. The sprint mechanic on its own is balanced, it just doesn't really belong within Halo's formula. I'd love to see this implementation of sprint in a new arena FPS, but I want to Halo to continue resembling Halo. It's like the series is having an identity crisis that started since Reach. Halo should be Halo, it shouldn't turn into something that isn't Halo.

 

If you're going to continue putting words in my mouth, saying I want the game to be an exact re-skin of Halo 3 and saying that I claimed H5's sprint to be unbalanced, when I never actually said EITHER of those things, then I'm not really interested in talking with you about the matter. Because that's kind of rude, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion and/or debate here, When you're debating with someone, you don't just put words in their mouth and try to change what they were saying, that's a pretty shallow move and doesn't really help prove your case in the slightest, in fact, it kind of ruins the credibility of your entire argument.

 

Strays away? ADS, flinch, thruster pack and ground pound is way more radical than sprint and strays away way more than Halo's previous mechanics. Sprint and ground pound for example do compliment the game. They make it slightly more fast pasted while still keeping that element of tactical freedom and expanding it. Using Ground Pound or Sprint is a valued risk, it may or may not be worth it.

 

"Because these change don't cause the game to stray from its roots" Well what is Halo's roots because everyone has a different interpretation of it. Because from what I can gather from you, Halo is an arena shooter, and that's a broad term. Its also about the tactical gameplay, and Halo 5 has expanded that to make Halo even more tactical with the ground pound ability or sprint.

 

"I never said it wasn't balanced, In fact it's quite the opposite" I stated this at the end and how its sort of hypocritical. So I'm not putting words into your mouth. "Halo to resemble, you know, Halo." Halo 5 looks like other Halo games, no?

Also you keep throwing words like formula out there without context, what is Halo's formula?

 

Personally I believe Halo's roots and formula are just nothing short of crap people use to push the Halo purist agenda. Because they usually use it as something to hide behind without fully explaining. (Don't worry this wasn't a personal attack on you indirectly if your wondering. That's just actually my opinion on it)

 

Besides changes can be good and I don't mind them as look as they are good. Look at Metal Gear Solid V, the game changed the game's usual formula, and made it open world, and that was a good change. It was radical, but it paid off.

 

"It's like the series is having an identity crisis that started since Reach" True, but I think Halo 5 is a return to form.

 

"If you're going to continue putting words in my mouth, saying I want the game to be an exact re-skin of Halo 3 and saying that I claimed H5's sprint to be unbalanced, when I never actually said EITHER of those things, then I'm not really interested in talking with you about the matter. Because that's kind of rude, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion and/or debate here, When you're debating with someone, you don't just put words in their mouth and try to change what they were saying, that's a pretty shallow move and doesn't really help prove your case in the slightest, in fact, it kind of ruins the credibility of your entire argument."

 

Once again you need to read. I did not put words, I said that's how your argument came off as, not what you said. And it did come off as that. You said it was balanced but then went to attack it for no reason. If you were saying "Sprint is not balanced" At the start the argument would have had more weight to it. But because you didn't it came off as also contradicting. So I'm not being shallow I'm just saying what I think and not putting words into your mouth.

[zRexx]

 

Strays away? ADS, flinch, thruster pack and ground pound is way more radical than sprint and strays away way more than Halo's previous mechanics. Sprint and ground pound for example do compliment the game. They make it slightly more fast pasted while still keeping that element of tactical freedom and expanding it. Using Ground Pound or Sprint is a valued risk, it may or may not be worth it.

 

"Because these change don't cause the game to stray from its roots" Well what is Halo's roots because everyone has a different interpretation of it. Because from what I can gather from you, Halo is an arena shooter, and that's a broad term. Its also about the tactical gameplay, and Halo 5 has expanded that to make Halo even more tactical with the ground pound ability or sprint.

 

"I never said it wasn't balanced, In fact it's quite the opposite" I stated this at the end and how its sort of hypocritical. So I'm not putting words into your mouth. "Halo to resemble, you know, Halo." Halo 5 looks like other Halo games, no?

Also you keep throwing words like formula out there without context, what is Halo's formula?

 

Personally I believe Halo's roots and formula are just nothing short of crap people use to push the Halo purist agenda. Because they usually use it as something to hide behind without fully explaining. (Don't worry this wasn't a personal attack on you indirectly if your wondering. That's just actually my opinion on it)

 

Besides changes can be good and I don't mind them as look as they are good. Look at Metal Gear Solid V, the game changed the game's usual formula, and made it open world, and that was a good change. It was radical, but it paid off.

 

"It's like the series is having an identity crisis that started since Reach" True, but I think Halo 5 is a return to form.

 

"If you're going to continue putting words in my mouth, saying I want the game to be an exact re-skin of Halo 3 and saying that I claimed H5's sprint to be unbalanced, when I never actually said EITHER of those things, then I'm not really interested in talking with you about the matter. Because that's kind of rude, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion and/or debate here, When you're debating with someone, you don't just put words in their mouth and try to change what they were saying, that's a pretty shallow move and doesn't really help prove your case in the slightest, in fact, it kind of ruins the credibility of your entire argument."

 

Once again you need to read. I did not put words, I said that's how your argument came off as, not what you said. And it did come off as that. You said it was balanced but then went to attack it for no reason. If you were saying "Sprint is not balanced" At the start the argument would have had more weight to it. But because you didn't it came off as also contradicting. So I'm not being shallow I'm just saying what I think and not putting words into your mouth.

 

Let's look at the other gameplay mechanics i've mentioned.

• ADS - Halo always had heavy emphasis on precision within its gunplay. ADS complements that.
• Thrusters - It's just a sidestep maneuver, that's really it.
• Flinch - So you just have to keep re-adjusting your aim? Uh... I don't see the deal here
• Ground Pound - It's prett much another melee attack, okay?

You say sprint makes the game faster paced, but that's the point here. Halo was never really a super flashy, fast paced game. It was always a slower paced style of arena shooter. With sprint, it plays like an entirely different game. Look at Halo 5 and directly compare it to Halo Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3, Halo 5 is WILDLY different, the same core isn't even there. Again, Halo was a slower paced game, not a fast paced one. So what's Halo 5? A fast paced one. Is Halo 5 staying true to Halo's roots by completely altering the pace that defined the series' gameplay? No, it isn't. The core of the game is completely different, the only thing it really shares is the arena shooter elements.

 

Just because it's an arena shooter means it shares the same exact core to its gameplay. Look at Quake, look at Doom. Those were also arena shooters, but they were vastly different games. There are many different factors and gameplay elements you need to take into account. One such element is pacing. Halo 5 is an entirely different style of game because it's pace is completely different. A slower paced game is now a hyper fast-paced one, the two gameplay styles are entirely different.

 

You say that "Well the feature is more tactical so its Halo!" You treat the term "tactical" like it's black-and-white. Many different things are tactical. Battlefield is tactical, does that mean Battlefield and Halo are one and the same? No. Quake is pretty tactical, does that mean Quake and Halo are one and the same? No. "Tactical" comes in many different forms, it isn't just one single, solid, black-and-white attribute. It isn't all one-dimensional like that. You bring up these very broad terms but treat them like they are very specific gameplay traits, when in reality, you can make anything be tactical. By your logic, they should rename Battlefield to Halo because Battlefield is tactical as well so it must be Halo. That's not how it works. Again, there are many different factors you need to take into account. Comparing Halo 5 to Halo Combat Evolved is like comparing Mortal Kombat to Street Fighter (from a gameplay standpoint). Yeah, they both are in the same kind of genre, they're both 2-dimensional, one-on-one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage. But many elements, such as the pacing, causes them to be two entirely different formulas.

 

"Personally I believe Halo's roots and formula are just nothing short of crap people use to push the Halo purist agenda. Because they usually use it as something to hide behind without fully explaining. (Don't worry this wasn't a personal attack on you indirectly if your wondering. That's just actually my opinion on it)"

Errr, no not really. Halo's roots are just that: Halo's roots. It's the gameplay elements and conventions that lead to its unique core. Now, I can see somewhat where you're coming from. I don't agree that they should just keep releasing Halo 3 over and over again with a shiner coat of paint each time. I think change is VERY necessary. However, I believe changes should be incorporated in a way that it complements the formula instead of changing it entirely. That's why I don't agree 100 percent with the purists, I'm looking for more of a middle ground here. Halo should keep its identity but it shouldn't be a rehash at the same time. That's my problem with sprint, it just doesn't fit with that classic identity.

 

Regarding Halo 5's "Return to form", again, let me go back to Mortal Kombat vs. Street Fighter. They're in the same basic sub-category of the fighting genre, that they're 2-dimensional, one on one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage, but a lot of the other elements, such as pacing, result in completely different gameplay formulas. Classic Halo is more like Mortal Kombat, it's slower paced, and has a more simple and streamlined approach. Halo 5 is more like Street Fighter, it's super flashy and fast paced, and has a lot of intricacy within its movement. Both styles are completely fine, but they belong in two different games. Mortal Kombat shouldn't ever start to resemble Street Fighter in the same way that Halo shouldn't ever start to resemble, well, Not Halo. Both games are overall balanced by nature, but at the same time, their different gameplay styles are part of their identity and what defines them, so they should stay true to those roots. Halo isn't doing this, and that's my problem. The changes they're implementing are balanced, but with Sprint, it isn't staying true to Halo's roots. Sprint itself is a mechanic I'm fine with (at least in its current implementation), but it doesn't really belong in Halo. I'd rather see a brand new arena FPS with this kind of sprint mechanic while at the same time, having Halo be Halo. There's nothing wrong with creating a new IP when you want to stray far away from a game's core.

 

"I did not put words, I said that's how your argument came off as, not what you said. And it did come off as that."

I specifically stated, "Sprint may be balanced but...I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots." In fact, that's how I started off the entire post, so there's no excuse for believing I meant otherwise. You very well know what I said. That's like reading an article but being blind to the opening sentence, the opening sentence is what everyone reads at the beginning. No one ignores the opening sentence like that, you read it and you know what I said, you WERE putting words in my mouth, so at least be honest and stop trying to deny it.

 

"but then went to attack it for no reason"

Attack it for no reason? Uh dude, I specifically stated my reason, it's that it strays away from Halo's roots. Stop saying I don't have a reason when I made my reason very well clear from the get-go.

 

Now, to elaborate, these are the things I use to define Halo's core from a gameplay standpoint. These are the things that made the gameplay unique among arena shooters and don't even try to tell me that these weren't the major defining aspects of the series' gameplay; they very well were.

• Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision, mostly due to series' utility weapons.
• Slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. (AKA, not Sprint)
• Regenerating shield encourages strategic retreats. You need smart positioning to cut off all enemy sight lines, you need to constantly be aware of enemy locations, you need area denial tactics (specifically with the grenades), and you need patience instead of rushing.
• 2-weapon system adds a nice strategic aspect in that you have to carefully pick and choose your preferred armament.

These are pretty much the major defining aspects of Halo's gameplay, prevalent throughout Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3, they were solid throughout the entire trilogy and it never diverged from these roots. Are you going to argue otherwise?

[Caboose The Ace]

Let's look at the other gameplay mechanics i've mentioned.

• ADS - Halo always had heavy emphasis on precision within its gunplay. ADS complements that.
• Thrusters - It's just a sidestep maneuver, that's really it.
• Flinch - So you just have to keep re-adjusting your aim? Uh... I don't see the deal here
• Ground Pound - It's prett much another melee attack, okay?

You say sprint makes the game faster paced, but that's the point here. Halo was never really a super flashy, fast paced game. It was always a slower paced style of arena shooter. With sprint, it plays like an entirely different game. Look at Halo 5 and directly compare it to Halo Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3, Halo 5 is WILDLY different, the same core isn't even there. Again, Halo was a slower paced game, not a fast paced one. So what's Halo 5? A fast paced one. Is Halo 5 staying true to Halo's roots by completely altering the pace that defined the series' gameplay? No, it isn't. The core of the game is completely different, the only thing it really shares is the arena shooter elements.

 

Just because it's an arena shooter means it shares the same exact core to its gameplay. Look at Quake, look at Doom. Those were also arena shooters, but they were vastly different games. There are many different factors and gameplay elements you need to take into account. One such element is pacing. Halo 5 is an entirely different style of game because it's pace is completely different. A slower paced game is now a hyper fast-paced one, the two gameplay styles are entirely different.

 

You say that "Well the feature is more tactical so its Halo!" You treat the term "tactical" like it's black-and-white. Many different things are tactical. Battlefield is tactical, does that mean Battlefield and Halo are one and the same? No. Quake is pretty tactical, does that mean Quake and Halo are one and the same? No. "Tactical" comes in many different forms, it isn't just one single, solid, black-and-white attribute. It isn't all one-dimensional like that. You bring up these very broad terms but treat them like they are very specific gameplay traits, when in reality, you can make anything be tactical. By your logic, they should rename Battlefield to Halo because Battlefield is tactical as well so it must be Halo. That's not how it works. Again, there are many different factors you need to take into account. Comparing Halo 5 to Halo Combat Evolved is like comparing Mortal Kombat to Street Fighter (from a gameplay standpoint). Yeah, they both are in the same kind of genre, they're both 2-dimensional, one-on-one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage. But many elements, such as the pacing, causes them to be two entirely different formulas.

 

"Personally I believe Halo's roots and formula are just nothing short of crap people use to push the Halo purist agenda. Because they usually use it as something to hide behind without fully explaining. (Don't worry this wasn't a personal attack on you indirectly if your wondering. That's just actually my opinion on it)"

Errr, no not really. Halo's roots are just that: Halo's roots. It's the gameplay elements and conventions that lead to its unique core. Now, I can see somewhat where you're coming from. I don't agree that they should just keep releasing Halo 3 over and over again with a shiner coat of paint each time. I think change is VERY necessary. However, I believe changes should be incorporated in a way that it complements the formula instead of changing it entirely. That's why I don't agree 100 percent with the purists, I'm looking for more of a middle ground here. Halo should keep its identity but it shouldn't be a rehash at the same time. That's my problem with sprint, it just doesn't fit with that classic identity.

 

Regarding Halo 5's "Return to form", again, let me go back to Mortal Kombat vs. Street Fighter. They're in the same basic sub-category of the fighting genre, that they're 2-dimensional, one on one tournament fighters with a lot of projectile usage, but a lot of the other elements, such as pacing, result in completely different gameplay formulas. Classic Halo is more like Mortal Kombat, it's slower paced, and has a more simple and streamlined approach. Halo 5 is more like Street Fighter, it's super flashy and fast paced, and has a lot of intricacy within its movement. Both styles are completely fine, but they belong in two different games. Mortal Kombat shouldn't ever start to resemble Street Fighter in the same way that Halo shouldn't ever start to resemble, well, Not Halo. Both games are overall balanced by nature, but at the same time, their different gameplay styles are part of their identity and what defines them, so they should stay true to those roots. Halo isn't doing this, and that's my problem. The changes they're implementing are balanced, but with Sprint, it isn't staying true to Halo's roots. Sprint itself is a mechanic I'm fine with (at least in its current implementation), but it doesn't really belong in Halo. I'd rather see a brand new arena FPS with this kind of sprint mechanic while at the same time, having Halo be Halo. There's nothing wrong with creating a new IP when you want to stray far away from a game's core.

 

"I did not put words, I said that's how your argument came off as, not what you said. And it did come off as that."

I specifically stated, "Sprint may be balanced but...I still feel like the feature really strays away from Halo's roots." In fact, that's how I started off the entire post, so there's no excuse for believing I meant otherwise. You very well know what I said. That's like reading an article but being blind to the opening sentence, the opening sentence is what everyone reads at the beginning. No one ignores the opening sentence like that, you read it and you know what I said, you WERE putting words in my mouth, so at least be honest and stop trying to deny it.

 

"but then went to attack it for no reason"

Attack it for no reason? Uh dude, I specifically stated my reason, it's that it strays away from Halo's roots. Stop saying I don't have a reason when I made my reason very well clear from the get-go.

 

Now, to elaborate, these are the things I use to define Halo's core from a gameplay standpoint. These are the things that made the gameplay unique among arena shooters and don't even try to tell me that these weren't the major defining aspects of the series' gameplay; they very well were.

• Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision, mostly due to series' utility weapons.
• Slower-paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters. (AKA, not Sprint)
• Regenerating shield encourages strategic retreats. You need smart positioning to cut off all enemy sight lines, you need to constantly be aware of enemy locations, you need area denial tactics (specifically with the grenades), and you need patience instead of rushing.
• 2-weapon system adds a nice strategic aspect in that you have to carefully pick and choose your preferred armament.

These are pretty much the major defining aspects of Halo's gameplay, prevalent throughout Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3, they were solid throughout the entire trilogy and it never diverged from these roots. Are you going to argue otherwise?

 

Lets fix that list.....

ADS - Halo always had heavy emphasis on precision within its gunplay. ADS complements that.

Thrusters - It's just a sidestep maneuver, that's really it.

Flinch - So you just have to keep re-adjusting your aim? Uh... I don't see the deal here

Ground Pound - It's prett much another melee attack, okay?

Sprint-just a faster way of moving.

 

That was a good counter post I will admit, but I still have a little fight in me.

 

"You say sprint makes the game faster paced, but that's the point here. Halo was never really a super flashy, fast paced game" But Halo 5 is not super fast paced. Sprint makes you move faster at the cost of your shields (If they are down) and your ability to actually win a firefight. So much so that I saw a lot of players in the beta simply not using sprint. Besides even with Sprint not in the equation Halo 5 is still much faster paced than Halo 3.

 

The reason sprint is there is to appease those who actually liked Halo Reach and Halo 4. Its sort of a middleground. There are enough downsides to appease to those who like Halo 2/3. But enough benefits to appease those who like Halo 4 and 5. That's why its in there. You even admitted yourself sprint is balanced. It may not be to your liking but its going to stay in Halo, maybe forever. Its not like its Halo 4 sprint or anything, Halo 5 is balanced so its best to get used to it. Even if its not in Halo's roots. Its not like its the biggest change to the core Halo formula in Halo 5 is it?

 

By the way what I meant by tactical is.

 

You have my options to be tactical because of the ground pound. Will you ground pound? Will you sidestep? It allows more options and so more tactical opportunities. "By your logic, they should rename Battlefield to Halo because Battlefield is tactical as well so it must be Halo" Not really, your taking my words out of context.

 

"I'd rather see a brand new arena FPS with this kind of sprint mechanic while at the same time, having Halo be Halo" Its just sprint, I feel like your making this a bigger thing that it actually is. As I said before, even if Sprint went. Halo 5 will still be much faster paced than Halo 3.

 

"WERE putting words in my mouth, so at least be honest and stop trying to deny it" Because your first post was slightly contradicting. Or at least it came off that way. It just did not feel in the first post you really had any decent counterpoints apart from it strays from the roots and you did not define what the roots were.

 

Besides that was the first post, the post I'm replying to now actually has made some good points, so well done on that.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Caboose The Ace

[zRexx]

Lets fix that list.....

ADS - Halo always had heavy emphasis on precision within its gunplay. ADS complements that.

Thrusters - It's just a sidestep maneuver, that's really it.

Flinch - So you just have to keep re-adjusting your aim? Uh... I don't see the deal here

Ground Pound - It's prett much another melee attack, okay?

Sprint-just a faster way of moving.

 

That was a good counter post I will admit, but I still have a little fight in me.

 

"You say sprint makes the game faster paced, but that's the point here. Halo was never really a super flashy, fast paced game" But Halo 5 is not super fast paced. Sprint makes you move faster at the cost of your shields (If they are down) and your ability to actually win a firefight. So much so that I saw a lot of players in the beta simply not using sprint. Besides even with Sprint not in the equation Halo 5 is still much faster paced than Halo 3.

 

The reason sprint is there is to appease those who actually liked Halo Reach and Halo 4. Its sort of a middleground. There are enough downsides to appease to those who like Halo 2/3. But enough benefits to appease those who like Halo 4 and 5. That's why its in there. You even admitted yourself sprint is balanced. It may not be to your liking but its going to stay in Halo, maybe forever. Its not like its Halo 4 sprint or anything, Halo 5 is balanced so its best to get used to it. Even if its not in Halo's roots. Its not like its the biggest change to the core Halo formula in Halo 5 is it?

 

By the way what I meant by tactical is.

 

You have my options to be tactical because of the ground pound. Will you ground pound? Will you sidestep? It allows more options and so more tactical opportunities. "By your logic, they should rename Battlefield to Halo because Battlefield is tactical as well so it must be Halo" Not really, your taking my words out of context.

 

"I'd rather see a brand new arena FPS with this kind of sprint mechanic while at the same time, having Halo be Halo" Its just sprint, I feel like your making this a bigger thing that it actually is. As I said before, even if Sprint went. Halo 5 will still be much faster paced than Halo 3.

 

"WERE putting words in my mouth, so at least be honest and stop trying to deny it" Because your first post was slightly contradicting. Or at least it came off that way. It just did not feel in the first post you really had any decent counterpoints apart from it strays from the roots and you did not define what the roots were.

 

Besides that was the first post, the post I'm replying to now actually has made some good points, so well done on that.

 

You're right, Sprint IS a faster way of moving, and what does that result in exactly? It strays away from Halo's roots as a slower paced arena shooter, what it always was throughout the entire trilogy, that was a defining distinction upon the genre that made it unique. ADS complements an aspect the formula, sprint doesn't, because sprint goes AGAINST the formula instead, that's the problem I have with sprint. You're purposely leaving out the fact that Halo was always slower paced and that sprint completely abandons that core aspect.

 

"But Halo 5 is not super fast paced. Sprint makes you move faster at the cost of your shields (If they are down) and your ability to actually win a firefight. So much so that I saw a lot of players in the beta simply not using sprint. Besides even with Sprint not in the equation Halo 5 is still much faster paced than Halo 3."

Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots. Are you telling me that when I play a series of 20 slayer matches straight, no one's going to be using sprint to close distances faster? Of course not, people are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place.

 

"The reason sprint is there is to appease those who actually liked Halo Reach and Halo 4."

Okay? And that's why they could've just made a new, standalone IP and introduce the gameplay style there with sprinting intact, instead of having to stray from Halo's roots. There's no reason why they couldn't just make a completely different game instead. And although it may not stray away from the roots as much as other features do (such as classes, ordnance), the fact of the matter is that it still strays away from the roots to the point where it plays like a totally different game. Regardless of specifically how different it is, it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games.

 

"By the way what I meant by tactical is. You have my options to be tactical because of the ground pound. Will you ground pound? Will you sidestep? It allows more options and so more tactical opportunities."

Now that proves my point even more. Halo was never tactical in that specific regard, its movement mechanics were fairly basic. So yes, it is straying away from the roots. Thanks for making it more clear.

 

"As I said before, even if Sprint went. Halo 5 will still be much faster paced than Halo 3."

Maybe, maybe not, but we'd really have to see that in action first before judging (perhaps if we can disable Spartan Abilities in Halo 5). If that's the case though, then we should take more steps so the game doesn't stray from its roots like that. It's really that easy. Although your argument doesn't really seem credible here, because you're not really giving any examples to show me what you mean. What else about the movement, aside from the sprint, causes the pace to be so wildly different? Just throw some things out there.

 

I honestly would've rather seen sprint as a pickup, functioning as an armor ability. Not starting with armor abilities like you normally see, I mean MLG's approach where they were treated as recharging powerups. At least with that, sprint only applies to the one or two players who picks it up, not everyone in the game is going to have it at all times so it wouldn't wildly affect the pacing of the game like it does here. They probably just plopped Reach's Sprint in, have it appear on the map instead of players starting with it, and essentially treat it as a powerup. Hell, I wouldn't even mind it if Reach's Armor Lock and Jetpack came back and was treated like a powerup.

[Caboose The Ace]

You're right, Sprint IS a faster way of moving, and what does that result in exactly? It strays away from Halo's roots as a slower paced arena shooter, what it always was throughout the entire trilogy, that was a defining distinction upon the genre that made it unique. ADS complements an aspect the formula, sprint doesn't, because sprint goes AGAINST the formula instead, that's the problem I have with sprint. You're purposely leaving out the fact that Halo was always slower paced and that sprint completely abandons that core aspect.

 

"But Halo 5 is not super fast paced. Sprint makes you move faster at the cost of your shields (If they are down) and your ability to actually win a firefight. So much so that I saw a lot of players in the beta simply not using sprint. Besides even with Sprint not in the equation Halo 5 is still much faster paced than Halo 3."

Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots. Are you telling me that when I play a series of 20 slayer matches straight, no one's going to be using sprint to close distances faster? Of course not, people are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place.

 

"The reason sprint is there is to appease those who actually liked Halo Reach and Halo 4."

Okay? And that's why they could've just made a new, standalone IP and introduce the gameplay style there with sprinting intact, instead of having to stray from Halo's roots. There's no reason why they couldn't just make a completely different game instead. And although it may not stray away from the roots as much as other features do (such as classes, ordnance), the fact of the matter is that it still strays away from the roots to the point where it plays like a totally different game. Regardless of specifically how different it is, it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games.

 

"By the way what I meant by tactical is. You have my options to be tactical because of the ground pound. Will you ground pound? Will you sidestep? It allows more options and so more tactical opportunities."

Now that proves my point even more. Halo was never tactical in that specific regard, its movement mechanics were fairly basic. So yes, it is straying away from the roots. Thanks for making it more clear.

 

"As I said before, even if Sprint went. Halo 5 will still be much faster paced than Halo 3."

Maybe, maybe not, but we'd really have to see that in action first before judging (perhaps if we can disable Spartan Abilities in Halo 5). If that's the case though, then we should take more steps so the game doesn't stray from its roots like that. It's really that easy. Although your argument doesn't really seem credible here, because you're not really giving any examples to show me what you mean. What else about the movement, aside from the sprint, causes the pace to be so wildly different? Just throw some things out there.

 

I honestly would've rather seen sprint as a pickup, functioning as an armor ability. Not starting with armor abilities like you normally see, I mean MLG's approach where they were treated as recharging powerups. At least with that, sprint only applies to the one or two players who picks it up, not everyone in the game is going to have it at all times so it wouldn't wildly affect the pacing of the game like it does here. They probably just plopped Reach's Sprint in, have it appear on the map instead of players starting with it, and essentially treat it as a powerup. Hell, I wouldn't even mind it if Reach's Armor Lock and Jetpack came back and was treated like a powerup.

"Are you telling me that when I play a series of 20 slayer matches straight, no one's going to be using sprint to close distances faster?" I am telling you that. I used the Spartan example a few posts back and its still valid. The guy not using sprint has got a higher chance of winning. So especially in games like FFA when you can get attacked from every angle you might not want to use sprint at all.

 

"Okay? And that's why they could've just made a new, standalone IP and introduce the gameplay style there with sprinting intact, instead of having to stray from Halo's roots" A whole IP just to add sprint in? That is simply put a waste of money. How pointless would it be to reskin Halo 5 and not add sprint? Very pointless. What you are suggesting is a complete waste of time. Sprint is not even that radical compared to something like the ground pound.....

 

You have to understand some people actually like Halo Reach/H4 so 343 has to come to a middleground, sprint in Halo 5 is that middleground, and its a brilliant one at that. "it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games" Neither does Halo 5.

 

"Maybe, maybe not, but we'd really have to see that in action first before judging (perhaps if we can disable Spartan Abilities in Halo 5). If that's the case though, then we should take more steps so the game doesn't stray from its roots like that"

 

Well the Ground pound thing makes everything more fast paced, and its not like making things slightly more fast paced is a bad thing. Series need to evolve, not just change, but evolve. Look at Assassins Creed. Has the series changed in the last few entries? Yes, has it evolved? No. That's why I the recent game in the series Assassins Creed Syndicate sucks. Because it has not evolved.

 

Halo needs to evolve and Halo 5 is a brilliant evolution.

 

[zRexx]

"Are you telling me that when I play a series of 20 slayer matches straight, no one's going to be using sprint to close distances faster?" I am telling you that. I used the Spartan example a few posts back and its still valid. The guy not using sprint has got a higher chance of winning. So especially in games like FFA when you can get attacked from every angle you might not want to use sprint at all.

 

"Okay? And that's why they could've just made a new, standalone IP and introduce the gameplay style there with sprinting intact, instead of having to stray from Halo's roots" A whole IP just to add sprint in? That is simply put a waste of money. How pointless would it be to reskin Halo 5 and not add sprint? Very pointless. What you are suggesting is a complete waste of time. Sprint is not even that radical compared to something like the ground pound.....

 

You have to understand some people actually like Halo Reach/H4 so 343 has to come to a middleground, sprint in Halo 5 is that middleground, and its a brilliant one at that. "it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games" Neither does Halo 5.

 

"Maybe, maybe not, but we'd really have to see that in action first before judging (perhaps if we can disable Spartan Abilities in Halo 5). If that's the case though, then we should take more steps so the game doesn't stray from its roots like that"

 

Well the Ground pound thing makes everything more fast paced, and its not like making things slightly more fast paced is a bad thing. Series need to evolve, not just change, but evolve. Look at Assassins Creed. Has the series changed in the last few entries? Yes, has it evolved? No. That's why I the recent game in the series Assassins Creed Syndicate sucks. Because it has not evolved.

 

Halo needs to evolve and Halo 5 is a brilliant evolution.

 

"I am telling you that. I used the Spartan example a few posts back and its still valid. The guy not using sprint has got a higher chance of winning. So especially in games like FFA when you can get attacked from every angle you might not want to use sprint at all."

So? Your point is? Sprint is still going to be used very often so it's still going to have an overall impact on the pacing of the game. And you know what further invalidates your point? That example you're using only applies to when you're in the middle of a combat engagement. Again sprint is still going to be a major part of map navigation, getting from Point A to Point B, that's pretty much half of the game right there dude. I love how you specifically chose not to answer that part of my argument because you have nothing really to say on the contrary.

 

"A whole IP just to add sprint in? That is simply put a waste of money. How pointless would it be to reskin Halo 5 and not add sprint? Very pointless."

Not necessary, it's a whole new IP to make a game that isn't Halo. If they don't want to follow the core Halo formula and they want to make a game that doesn't play like Halo, why not make a new game instead? Instead of cramming elements into Halo that don't belong in the formula, they can make a new formula altogether with a new franchise. If you're going to continue Halo, you should have it resemble Halo.

 

When I watch Halo 5 gameplay footage, I see people sprint all the time. It doesn't matter if there's some kind of disadvantage, because at the end of the day, it's still being used very often so it's dramatically changing the pacing of the game which causes Halo 5 to stray from the series' roots. I'm not talking about "balance' here, I'm talking about Halo's formula and how a major aspect of it is being abandoned.

 

"You have to understand some people actually like Halo Reach/H4 so 343 has to come to a middleground, sprint in Halo 5 is that middleground, and its a brilliant one at that. "it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games" Neither does Halo 5."

It shouldn't BE a middle ground, it should resemble Halo. Halo shouldn't be something that it isn't. If people don't enjoy Halo's slower pace, they should just play a different game that ISN'T slower paced, there are options out there. Halo shouldn't have to sacrifice it's unique identity. The slower pace is part of what made Halo, Halo, this "middle ground" only causes the series to stray from its roots as a slower paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter.

 

"Well the Ground pound thing makes everything more fast paced, and its not like making things slightly more fast paced is a bad thing."

How is it fast paced? You have to charge it up, target your enemies, and then to boost to the ground in a slam. It's a somewhat slow move, it's not like you can just do it instantly at a whim. If it was an instantaneous move, you'd probably have something to go by, but this is kinda slow due to its charge-up. That's like calling a Spartan Laser a fast weapon.

 

"Series need to evolve, not just change, but evolve."

And why does it need to evolve exactly? People like you say "it needs evolve", but you have no solid reasoning to support that claim, you just say something without any backing behind it, it's really nothing more than an empty claim. What was wrong about Halo's original formula that a major aspect of it needs to be completely abandoned? And besides, you bluntly say "evolve" as if this gameplay style is automatically better than how it used to be. There's nothing "evolved" about this, it's not improved, it's just different than how it used to be. The term evolution refers to a factual improvement, something getting better. When you get down to it, there's nothing wrong with either gameplay style, neither is superior or inferior. It's simply the matter of Halo should resemble Halo. What reason is there for the formula to get abandoned? There is none, the formula was fine as it was.

 

This is like Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter and Mario becoming Sonic, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity that deserves to be respected as long as there's nothing really wrong with it. Nothing was really "broken" about Halo's formula aside from how power weapons functioned (but that's a different argument, if you wish to debate on that, there exists a different topic).

[Caboose The Ace]

"I am telling you that. I used the Spartan example a few posts back and its still valid. The guy not using sprint has got a higher chance of winning. So especially in games like FFA when you can get attacked from every angle you might not want to use sprint at all."

So? Your point is? Sprint is still going to be used very often so it's still going to have an overall impact on the pacing of the game. And you know what further invalidates your point? That example you're using only applies to when you're in the middle of a combat engagement. Again sprint is still going to be a major part of map navigation, getting from Point A to Point B, that's pretty much half of the game right there dude. I love how you specifically chose not to answer that part of my argument because you have nothing really to say on the contrary.

 

"A whole IP just to add sprint in? That is simply put a waste of money. How pointless would it be to reskin Halo 5 and not add sprint? Very pointless."

Not necessary, it's a whole new IP to make a game that isn't Halo.  Instead of cramming elements into Halo that don't belong in the formula, they can make a new formula altogether with a new franchise. If you're going to continue Halo, you should have it resemble Halo.

 

When I watch Halo 5 gameplay footage, I see people sprint all the time. It doesn't matter if there's some kind of disadvantage, because at the end of the day, it's still being used very often so it's dramatically changing the pacing of the game which causes Halo 5 to stray from the series' roots. I'm not talking about "balance' here, I'm talking about Halo's formula and how a major aspect of it is being abandoned.

 

"You have to understand some people actually like Halo Reach/H4 so 343 has to come to a middleground, sprint in Halo 5 is that middleground, and its a brilliant one at that. "it still doesn't play like any of the first three Halo games" Neither does Halo 5."

It shouldn't BE a middle ground, it should resemble Halo. Halo shouldn't be something that it isn't. If people don't enjoy Halo's slower pace, they should just play a different game that ISN'T slower paced, there are options out there. Halo shouldn't have to sacrifice it's unique identity. The slower pace is part of what made Halo, Halo, this "middle ground" only causes the series to stray from its roots as a slower paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter.

 

"Well the Ground pound thing makes everything more fast paced, and its not like making things slightly more fast paced is a bad thing."

How is it fast paced? You have to charge it up, target your enemies, and then to boost to the ground in a slam. It's a somewhat slow move, it's not like you can just do it instantly at a whim. If it was an instantaneous move, you'd probably have something to go by, but this is kinda slow due to its charge-up. That's like calling a Spartan Laser a fast weapon.

 

"Series need to evolve, not just change, but evolve."

And why does it need to evolve exactly? People like you say "it needs evolve", but you have no solid reasoning to support that claim, you just say something without any backing behind it, it's really nothing more than an empty claim. What was wrong about Halo's original formula that a major aspect of it needs to be completely abandoned? And besides, you bluntly say "evolve" as if this gameplay style is automatically better than how it used to be. There's nothing "evolved" about this, it's not improved, it's just different than how it used to be. The term evolution refers to a factual improvement, something getting better. When you get down to it, there's nothing wrong with either gameplay style, neither is superior or inferior. It's simply the matter of Halo should resemble Halo. What reason is there for the formula to get abandoned? There is none, the formula was fine as it was.

 

This is like Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter and Mario becoming Sonic, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity that deserves to be respected as long as there's nothing really wrong with it. Nothing was really "broken" about Halo's formula aside from how power weapons functioned (but that's a different argument, if you wish to debate on that, there exists a different topic).

 

Is it really that bad that you move around the map slightly faster? Not really. Sprint is far from radical and really only changes how fast you move between engagements. That's it? Its not the most radical change coming at all and your making this a much bigger deal than it is.

 

" I love how you specifically chose not to answer that part of my argument because you have nothing really to say on the contrary" You know what I love? When people make bad assumptions about me.

 

"If they don't want to follow the core Halo formula and they want to make a game that doesn't play like Halo, why not make a new game instead?" A whole new IP just to make Halo purists happy? No thanks. You claim your not one but your coming off as one occasionally. I mean, its just sprint, it makes you move, slightly faster. Sprint is not this radical change than completely screws up the Halo formula like you are making it to be.

 

"It shouldn't BE a middle ground, it should resemble Halo" But it does. It looks like Halo, sounds like Halo and plays like Halo with a few new additions. Firstly there should be a middeground because you have to understand people like Halo 4. You get rid of stuff like sprint and your almost alienating part of the fanbase. Secondly its also about money, 343 and Ms need to get paid you know? "Halo shouldn't have to sacrifice it's unique identity" Its not, that is a Halo purist thing right there! Its just sprint, its not that radical, it makes you move faster, I know I've said that a lot but that's all it is!

 

By Ground pound I mean all the moves, like the ground pound or the side step for example. It makes it more tactical and oh so slightly fasterpaced. "no solid reasoning to support that claim" I do, Assassins Creed and Call of Duty.

 

What makes those games so similar? Because they have stayed the same for a very long time and are both annualised releases. Sure they may change a few things here and there but that's not evolution. Something like Ac4 was an evolution. But of course now Ubisoft has scrapped boats..... Those series are stagnant, and I don't want Halo to become stagnant. So that's why game series need to evolve so they don't stagnant. Luckily Halo 5 is evolving in many ways.

 

"was really "broken" about Halo's formula" How about the ranking system?

 

Halo 2/3 were plenty bad but that is another topic....

 

My point is: Sprint is not radical at all and you better get used because its staying. That's it. That's the blunt truth.

 

Also if moving from engagement to engagement is as important as you say it is. Then I'm happy sprint is around, I don't want to spend half the match looking around for fights.

[zRexx]

 

Is it really that bad that you move around the map slightly faster? Not really. Sprint is far from radical and really only changes how fast you move between engagements. That's it? Its not the most radical change coming at all and your making this a much bigger deal than it is.

 

" I love how you specifically chose not to answer that part of my argument because you have nothing really to say on the contrary" You know what I love? When people make bad assumptions about me.

 

"If they don't want to follow the core Halo formula and they want to make a game that doesn't play like Halo, why not make a new game instead?" A whole new IP just to make Halo purists happy? No thanks. You claim your not one but your coming off as one occasionally. I mean, its just sprint, it makes you move, slightly faster. Sprint is not this radical change than completely screws up the Halo formula like you are making it to be.

 

"It shouldn't BE a middle ground, it should resemble Halo" But it does. It looks like Halo, sounds like Halo and plays like Halo with a few new additions. Firstly there should be a middeground because you have to understand people like Halo 4. You get rid of stuff like sprint and your almost alienating part of the fanbase. Secondly its also about money, 343 and Ms need to get paid you know? "Halo shouldn't have to sacrifice it's unique identity" Its not, that is a Halo purist thing right there! Its just sprint, its not that radical, it makes you move faster, I know I've said that a lot but that's all it is!

 

By Ground pound I mean all the moves, like the ground pound or the side step for example. It makes it more tactical and oh so slightly fasterpaced. "no solid reasoning to support that claim" I do, Assassins Creed and Call of Duty.

 

What makes those games so similar? Because they have stayed the same for a very long time and are both annualised releases. Sure they may change a few things here and there but that's not evolution. Something like Ac4 was an evolution. But of course now Ubisoft has scrapped boats..... Those series are stagnant, and I don't want Halo to become stagnant. So that's why game series need to evolve so they don't stagnant. Luckily Halo 5 is evolving in many ways.

 

"was really "broken" about Halo's formula" How about the ranking system?

 

Halo 2/3 were plenty bad but that is another topic....

 

My point is: Sprint is not radical at all and you better get used because its staying. That's it. That's the blunt truth.

 

Also if moving from engagement to engagement is as important as you say it is. Then I'm happy sprint is around, I don't want to spend half the match looking around for fights.

Slightly faster? You're implying is an extremely minor, slight difference. This isn't like a 5% difference in movement speed dude, the pace of movement is changed DRASTICALLY when sprint is involved.

 

You did purposefully ignore that part of my argument. I said:

"Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots."

"People are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place."

 

What did you do? You repeated yourself by bringing up how sprint penalizes players in the middle of combat engagement, completely ignoring me when I brought up the aspect of map navigation which is essentially half of the entire game. Either attempt to argue the point I made or accept it. You don't just completely ignore a major part of the opposing side's argument, that's another shallow debating tactic.

 

"A whole new IP just to make Halo purists happy? No thanks."

Not just to make Halo purists happy, it's to appeal to both sides. This way Halo maintain its unique identity while the other side still gets the type of game they want. Why should Halo have to sacrifice it's unique identity for people who don't like Halo's identity? If don't like how Halo, they can simply play something else, there's no actual REASON to abandon the Halo formula. Why should Halo accommodate itself for the people who aren't into the style of game that Halo is, especially when there's nothing wrong with it?

 

In addition, you keep calling me a purist, when in all honesty, Halo's not even my favorite shooter franchise, I prefer Quake 3 Arena and classic Doom way over Halo, but again, nothing was really wrong with Halo's formula (aside from maybe power weapons), it's just a matter of what kind of gameplay style you prefer. There's a difference between being a "purist" and wanting Halo to be itself. You keep trying to use all these terms in an immature, derogatory fashion, even when they don't even apply to the situation.

 

"You get rid of stuff like sprint and your almost alienating part of the fanbase."

It's not really alienating part of the fanbase, if there exists a brand new franchise that serves mainly to accommodate those people and offer the different gameplay style that they enjoy.

 

"Its just sprint, its not that radical, it makes you move faster,"

Again, Halo was never a fast-paced game, it was a slower-paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter. By making the game faster, you're straying away from the core formula that defined its gameplay and gave it a unique identity. You are once again ignoring my points, I see.

 

"By Ground pound I mean all the moves, like the ground pound or the side step for example. It makes it more tactical and oh so slightly fasterpaced."

Again, ignoring my points I see. How is ground pound fast paced in the slightest? The move requires a charge-up time to perform in addition to targeting your opponent, it's not an instantaneous slam at the ground. That's like the Spartan Laser a fast weapon, it isn't.

 

"I do, Assassins Creed and Call of Duty."

That's not really explaining your point though. Why does the formula NEED to change? Just because you give the names of two franchises, that's not really giving the exact reason as to why the formula apparently needs to be abandoned (at least according to you). If you can't provide an actual reason, than your argument simply revolves an empty claim which has zero credibility.

 

"How about the ranking system? Halo 2/3 were plenty bad but that is another topic...."

The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. Also, if you're going say that Halo 2/3's core formula was plenty bad, then actually go in depth and explain your argument in detail. Again, an argument doesn't really have any credibility if you don't go to the lengths to explain the reasoning behind the claim. That's just debating in general, that applies to anyone and anything, it's just one of the basic rules of debates.

 

"Also if moving from engagement to engagement is as important as you say it is. Then I'm happy sprint is around, I don't want to spend half the match looking around for fights."

Uh, really? You're going to go there? Classic Halo's maps were mostly accommodated for the lack of sprint, you never really had to walk a mile to find the next target. There are a couple maps that are the exception, but again, that's the exception, not the rule. Almost all of the maps worked fine with Halo's slower pace, the maps were designed around that factor.

 

Now you're really starting to go downhill with your argument, more than ever. Firstly, I keep bringing up a lot of major points that completely debunk your claims/arguments, and instead of trying to counter-argue them, you take the lazy route and ignore them because you don't really have anything smart to say in response. Secondly, you're making a lot of these arguments and you don't even provide any solid reasoning or logic to back them, they're just empty claims with zero credibility. What's even worse is that instead of correcting your shallow debating tactics and trying to have a more fair argument, you just say "You're making assumptions about me!", when it's very clear what you're doing. This is a very common thing people do when they're on the losing side of a debate but they don't want to give in and call it a day. Unlike you, I always debate in a fair manner, even if I strongly disagree with opposing side.

 

During the entirety of this argument, you have:

• Put words in my mouth.
• Ignore several major points of my argument because you're unable to debate them.
• Used various terms in a derogatory fashion just because you disagree with someone over a video game.
• Make several claims without even going in depth and explaining them, resulting in zero credibility on your end.
• Refrain from taking responsibility and acknowledging all of these actions.

That's very low dude. This isn't a good debate on your end, because you have to resort to all of this crap. That's very shallow. The only more shallow you could possibly get in this argument is raging, threatening to DDOS me, and shouting "im gonna drop your f-----g router!"

 

Again, this is like Mario becoming Sonic and Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity and formula that deserves to be respected, unless there is something seriously wrong with said formula.

 

So now if you really want to debate with me, do so in a mature and fair manner, and quit all this desperate, childish nonsense. Do not put words in my mouth, do not ignore major points in my argument because they prove you wrong, do not use terms in a derogatory manner, and while you're at it, actually take the time to in depth and try to prove your points instead of just throwing around a bunch of empty claims that really mean nothing if you can't provide a solid foundation. I'm here to have an intellectual, logical debate with someone, not to play all these childish games. I enjoy arguments but not when someone is acting rude and lacks proper debating skills, such as how you are behaving here.

[depressant]

....

 

I don't see why sprint is a big deal, if you don't want it, don't use it. It shouldn't sffect your gameplay because as stated before, people's shields don't recharge after sprinting so you could kill them without sprinting. I would occasionally use sprint to get to a gunfight or when I'm not around anybody, but I'm not the ttpe of person that runs away in a gunfight, and I'm pretty sure you'll find more people like that in game. Halo is changing, that's what games do.

[zRexx]

....

 

I don't see why sprint is a big deal, if you don't want it, don't use it. It shouldn't sffect your gameplay because as stated before, people's shields don't recharge after sprinting so you could kill them without sprinting. I would occasionally use sprint to get to a gunfight or when I'm not around anybody, but I'm not the ttpe of person that runs away in a gunfight, and I'm pretty sure you'll find more people like that in game. Halo is changing, that's what games do.

 

Whether or not I use it, it's still a major aspect that affects the pacing of a match. That's like saying with Halo 4 "The game has loadouts, but YOU can have BR starts if you want."  It's the game as a whole.

 

In addition, I'd only be penalizing myself for not using sprint. Sure, the penalty exists, but that only really matters in the middle of combat engagement. It's still a major part of map navigation. If I'm trying to get from Point A to Point B and no one is around, and I choose NOT to sprint, that's going to hurt me in the end because (a) I'll get to map pickups slower and ( it'll take a little longer for me to find people to kill, which will make it harder to get to and maintain first place.

 

I'm content with Halo changing, but at the same time, I want Halo to maintain its unique formula. Changes should complement the formula rather than completely abandon it. It's not that hard to do, it just takes some creative thinking, and these are professional game designers so I don't expect itto be that hard. They should have new features that spice things up but not something that destroys the unique formula that was in place. ADS, Flinch, Thrusters, even Ground Pound, they actually work with the formula. Sprint? It goes against what was Halo's core nature. Again, there was nothing really wrong with Halo's formula, so what's the point of abandoning it?

[Caboose The Ace]

Slightly faster? You're implying is an extremely minor, slight difference. This isn't like a 5% difference in movement speed dude, the pace of movement is changed DRASTICALLY when sprint is involved.

 

You did purposefully ignore that part of my argument. I said:

"Sprint has a penalty and is going to be used less often, but it's still going to be a major part of map navigation and getting from point A to point B, so it is going to have a dramatic affect on the pacing of the game regardless. Not as big of an impact as Halo 4, but still an impact regardless that causes the series to stray away from its roots."

"People are still going to use sprint for map navigation, just not running away from battle. I've spent time watching Halo 5 gameplay footage, sprint wasn't ever a rare sight, it was used at least semi-often, so thus it impacted the pacing of the gameplay. Map navigation is pretty much half of the game. There's the actual engagements, then there's roaming the map in between engagements and getting from place to place."

 

What did you do? You repeated yourself by bringing up how sprint penalizes players in the middle of combat engagement, completely ignoring me when I brought up the aspect of map navigation which is essentially half of the entire game. Either attempt to argue the point I made or accept it. You don't just completely ignore a major part of the opposing side's argument, that's another shallow debating tactic.

 

"A whole new IP just to make Halo purists happy? No thanks."

Not just to make Halo purists happy, it's to appeal to both sides. This way Halo maintain its unique identity while the other side still gets the type of game they want. Why should Halo have to sacrifice it's unique identity for people who don't like Halo's identity? If don't like how Halo, they can simply play something else, there's no actual REASON to abandon the Halo formula. Why should Halo accommodate itself for the people who aren't into the style of game that Halo is, especially when there's nothing wrong with it?

 

In addition, you keep calling me a purist, when in all honesty, Halo's not even my favorite shooter franchise, I prefer Quake 3 Arena and classic Doom way over Halo, but again, nothing was really wrong with Halo's formula (aside from maybe power weapons), it's just a matter of what kind of gameplay style you prefer. There's a difference between being a "purist" and wanting Halo to be itself. You keep trying to use all these terms in an immature, derogatory fashion, even when they don't even apply to the situation.

 

"You get rid of stuff like sprint and your almost alienating part of the fanbase."

It's not really alienating part of the fanbase, if there exists a brand new franchise that serves mainly to accommodate those people and offer the different gameplay style that they enjoy.

 

"Its just sprint, its not that radical, it makes you move faster,"

Again, Halo was never a fast-paced game, it was a slower-paced alternative to the more traditional arena shooter. By making the game faster, you're straying away from the core formula that defined its gameplay and gave it a unique identity. You are once again ignoring my points, I see.

 

"By Ground pound I mean all the moves, like the ground pound or the side step for example. It makes it more tactical and oh so slightly fasterpaced."

Again, ignoring my points I see. How is ground pound fast paced in the slightest? The move requires a charge-up time to perform in addition to targeting your opponent, it's not an instantaneous slam at the ground. That's like the Spartan Laser a fast weapon, it isn't.

 

"I do, Assassins Creed and Call of Duty."

That's not really explaining your point though. Why does the formula NEED to change? Just because you give the names of two franchises, that's not really giving the exact reason as to why the formula apparently needs to be abandoned (at least according to you). If you can't provide an actual reason, than your argument simply revolves an empty claim which has zero credibility.

 

"How about the ranking system? Halo 2/3 were plenty bad but that is another topic...."

The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. Also, if you're going say that Halo 2/3's core formula was plenty bad, then actually go in depth and explain your argument in detail. Again, an argument doesn't really have any credibility if you don't go to the lengths to explain the reasoning behind the claim. That's just debating in general, that applies to anyone and anything, it's just one of the basic rules of debates.

 

"Also if moving from engagement to engagement is as important as you say it is. Then I'm happy sprint is around, I don't want to spend half the match looking around for fights."

Uh, really? You're going to go there? Classic Halo's maps were mostly accommodated for the lack of sprint, you never really had to walk a mile to find the next target. There are a couple maps that are the exception, but again, that's the exception, not the rule. Almost all of the maps worked fine with Halo's slower pace, the maps were designed around that factor.

 

Now you're really starting to go downhill with your argument, more than ever. Firstly, I keep bringing up a lot of major points that completely debunk your claims/arguments, and instead of trying to counter-argue them, you take the lazy route and ignore them because you don't really have anything smart to say in response. Secondly, you're making a lot of these arguments and you don't even provide any solid reasoning or logic to back them, they're just empty claims with zero credibility. What's even worse is that instead of correcting your shallow debating tactics and trying to have a more fair argument, you just say "You're making assumptions about me!", when it's very clear what you're doing. This is a very common thing people do when they're on the losing side of a debate but they don't want to give in and call it a day. Unlike you, I always debate in a fair manner, even if I strongly disagree with opposing side.

 

During the entirety of this argument, you have:

• Put words in my mouth.
• Ignore several major points of my argument because you're unable to debate them.
• Used various terms in a derogatory fashion just because you disagree with someone over a video game.
• Make several claims without even going in depth and explaining them, resulting in zero credibility on your end.
• Refrain from taking responsibility and acknowledging all of these actions.

That's very low dude. This isn't a good debate on your end, because you have to resort to all of this crap. That's very shallow. The only more shallow you could possibly get in this argument is raging, threatening to DDOS me, and shouting "im gonna drop your f-----g router!"

 

Again, this is like Mario becoming Sonic and Mortal Kombat becoming Street Fighter, you just don't do that. Every series has its own unique identity and formula that deserves to be respected, unless there is something seriously wrong with said formula.

 

So now if you really want to debate with me, do so in a mature and fair manner, and quit all this desperate, childish nonsense. Do not put words in my mouth, do not ignore major points in my argument because they prove you wrong, do not use terms in a derogatory manner, and while you're at it, actually take the time to in depth and try to prove your points instead of just throwing around a bunch of empty claims that really mean nothing if you can't provide a solid foundation. I'm here to have an intellectual, logical debate with someone, not to play all these childish games. I enjoy arguments but not when someone is acting rude and lacks proper debating skills, such as how you are behaving here.

 

 

"did you do? You repeated yourself by bringing up how sprint penalizes players in the middle of combat engagement" Actually I responded to your first point at the end. So go read the end again. "Not just to make Halo purists happy, it's to appeal to both sides. This way Halo maintain its unique identity while the other side still gets the type of game they want" But they also want to play Halo too. You have to cater for both sides!

 

"There's no actual REASON to abandon the Halo formula" I hardly see how sprint abandons it? I have said this a lot but I'm saying this again, your making this bigger than it actually is. Sprint makes you move, faster and make the game a bit more faster paced, speeding up the rate you find engagement's. That's it? Flinch, Thruster, clamber, visible power weapons? You have nothing negative to say about that? But something that makes you move faster? That breaks the Halo formula?! Not really.

 

"In addition, you keep calling me a purist, when in all honesty, Halo's not even my favorite shooter franchise" Yes because you cannot seem to accept that some people might like Halo 4 and Reach and the series needs to have a middeground. Maybe that term does not entirely fit you because you accept other changes, but since you accepted all those I really don't think this is worth arguing about.

 

"offer the different gameplay style that they enjoy." But they enjoy Halo games! "Again, Halo was never a fast-paced game, it was a slower-paced alternative" Sprint hardly makes the whole game entirely fast paced. "Also, if you're going say that Halo 2/3's core formula was plenty bad, then actually go in depth and explain your argument in detail. Again, an argument doesn't really have any credibility if you don't go to the lengths to explain the reasoning behind the claim. That's just debating in general, that applies to anyone and anything, it's just one of the basic rules of debates." I did not go into detail because it wasn't necessary. You even did a similar thing a few posts back. You said the game was perfect and I briefly objected. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/41650-343-just-doesnt-get-it-1-50-ranking-made-halo/ Go read the first post by Azaxx, he puts it into words far better than I ever could or care to.

 

"once again ignoring my points, I see." How about you stop making assumptions?! "Classic Halo's maps were mostly accommodated for the lack of sprint, you never really had to walk a mile to find the next target" See that's hypocritical. You said that map navigation was a big thing and was half the game but then its almost brushed off sarcastically.

 

I'm not going to comment on the rest of the stuff because its not relevant.

[zRexx]

 

"did you do? You repeated yourself by bringing up how sprint penalizes players in the middle of combat engagement" Actually I responded to your first point at the end. So go read the end again. "Not just to make Halo purists happy, it's to appeal to both sides. This way Halo maintain its unique identity while the other side still gets the type of game they want" But they also want to play Halo too. You have to cater for both sides!

 

"There's no actual REASON to abandon the Halo formula" I hardly see how sprint abandons it? I have said this a lot but I'm saying this again, your making this bigger than it actually is. Sprint makes you move, faster and make the game a bit more faster paced, speeding up the rate you find engagement's. That's it? Flinch, Thruster, clamber, visible power weapons? You have nothing negative to say about that? But something that makes you move faster? That breaks the Halo formula?! Not really.

 

"In addition, you keep calling me a purist, when in all honesty, Halo's not even my favorite shooter franchise" Yes because you cannot seem to accept that some people might like Halo 4 and Reach and the series needs to have a middeground. Maybe that term does not entirely fit you because you accept other changes, but since you accepted all those I really don't think this is worth arguing about.

 

"offer the different gameplay style that they enjoy." But they enjoy Halo games! "Again, Halo was never a fast-paced game, it was a slower-paced alternative" Sprint hardly makes the whole game entirely fast paced. "Also, if you're going say that Halo 2/3's core formula was plenty bad, then actually go in depth and explain your argument in detail. Again, an argument doesn't really have any credibility if you don't go to the lengths to explain the reasoning behind the claim. That's just debating in general, that applies to anyone and anything, it's just one of the basic rules of debates." I did not go into detail because it wasn't necessary. You even did a similar thing a few posts back. You said the game was perfect and I briefly objected. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/41650-343-just-doesnt-get-it-1-50-ranking-made-halo/ Go read the first post by Azaxx, he puts it into words far better than I ever could or care to.

 

"once again ignoring my points, I see." How about you stop making assumptions?! "Classic Halo's maps were mostly accommodated for the lack of sprint, you never really had to walk a mile to find the next target" See that's hypocritical. You said that map navigation was a big thing and was half the game but then its almost brushed off sarcastically.

 

I'm not going to comment on the rest of the stuff because its not relevant.

 

 

"But they also want to play Halo too."

They clearly don't enjoy Halo TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned.

 

"You have to cater for both sides!"

You can cater to both sides by giving each side their own game.

 

"I hardly see how sprint abandons it? I have said this a lot but I'm saying this again, your making this bigger than it actually is. Sprint makes you move, faster and make the game a bit more faster paced, speeding up the rate you find engagement's."

How about you stop ignoring me every single time I answer your point? A major aspect that made Halo's gameplay unique was that it was a slower paced alternative to the traditional arena shooter. By make the game fast paced, you completely abandon one of the major aspects that defined Halo from a gameplay standpoint. In addition, sprint is not really required to speed up the rate you find engagements, you also have to take into account the map design. If the maps are scaled accordingly in order to compensate for the slower pace and make it so you can navigate the map well enough, then there's really no need to have sprint in the game

 

As for the other mechanics I listed, I showcase that they don't really stray away much from Halo's formula. Sprint dramatically changes the entire pacing of the game, an aspect that made it very unique. How do the other elements stray from Halo's formula? Thrusting is simply a sidestep (works if the distance is just right), flinch merely makes it so you have to continually re-adjust your aim, and clamber I'll have to see in action (but as of yet it doesn't appear to violate Halo's core gameplay principles). Visible power weapons (I'm guessing you mean the spawn timers and waypoints), well yeah, that right there is lame because is lowers the skill ceiling and holds players hands, because instead of having to memorize weapon spawn times, the game does it for you.

 

For reference, let's look at the major aspects that set Halo apart in terms of gameplay and defined the core of the series:

• Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision.
• Slower paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters.
• Regenerating shields emphasize strategic retreats, which requires a dimension of skill all its own
• 2-weapon limit adds an element of strategy in that you have to carefully select your preferred armament
• Arena shooter gameplay

How does flinch violate those core principles? How does thrusting violate those core principles? How does clamber violate those core principles? Only problem I see with clamber is if it lowers the skill ceiling. But unlike all these things, sprint violates one very major aspect of the gameplay, the slower pace. That is major element what made Halo different from all the other shooters, its pacing was more unique. I keep bringing this up but you keep ignoring it time and time again, simply because you apparently unable to argue with it.

 

"Yes because you cannot seem to accept that some people might like Halo 4 and Reach and the series needs to have a middeground." Just because I think a game is a pile of ----, that doesn't mean I'm a purist, all it means is that I think it's a pile of ----, nothing less, nothing more. (I had to censor the expletives)

 

"But they enjoy Halo games!" Again, they clearly don't enjoy it TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned.

 

"You said the game was perfect and I briefly objected. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/41650-343-just-doesnt-get-it-1-50-ranking-made-halo/ Go read the first post by Azaxx, he puts it into words far better than I ever could or care to."

The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. ****ty ranking system or not, the game still plays the same at its core.

Again, I'm talking about of the major, core aspects of the gameplay. I never said Halo was "perfect", but in terms of the actual core that's there, nothing is really wrong with it (aside from maybe power weapons, but that's another subject). There's difference between a game's core, and all the side elements that surround the core. The core consists the big things, the major gameplay elements that make the series unique. An insignia that decorates your nametag is not the core of the game, it's just an aesthetic or title on your profile, and it also helps you match up with similar skilled players. It affect the actual gmaeplay.

 

"See that's hypocritical. You said that map navigation was a big thing and was half the game but then its almost brushed off sarcastically."

It's always half of the game with anything, it doesn't matter the type of shooter. Every second you're fighting someone, there's always another second you're looking around the map for your next opponent. That's with ANY game. It's not like you stand in a single corridor the entire time and endless targets just pour out with no break in between, you're ALWAYS going to search for targets at least half the game, there's always a short break in between engagements where you're finding your next target. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the game is, there's always a point where you're trying to find someone, unless you overcrowd the maps. The only real exception may be TitanFall, and that's only because the maps are littered with enemy AI in addition to the human players. Are you implying that Halo 5's just going to be spraying ammo all over the place at endless targets? No, half the game is still going to be map navigation. Again, every second you're fighting an enemy, there's always another second where you're navigating the map for the next target.

 

So once again, enough with ignoring my points. You didn't even acknowledge my argument where I detailed the core elements of Halo's gameplay and showed that sprint is clearly violation of one of those major aspects. It seems whenever I prove you wrong, you act like you're oblivious to it and blindly walk past it, like the argument of mine never even existed at all. You also ignored my argument in response to what you said about the ranking system, where I expressed the fact that it's merely a title/aesthetic that may or may not help with matchmaking, rather than being an element that actually alters the gameplay at its core. It's funny, because instead of actuallty hearing out every major point in my argument, you intentionally choose to completely ignore it and spew the same things over and over again. When you're debating with someone, you can at least be fair, and answer every major thing the opposition has to say. Ignoring the other side is a very shallow debating tactic. The more you ignore my arguments, the more I'm going to make your shallow methods apparent to those reading. Either learn to debunk my arguments or accept them, if you can prove me wrong, prove me wrong, but don't just full-on ignore what someone has to say, that's very, very low. You simply don't do that in a debate dude.

 

"I'm not going to comment on the rest of the stuff because its not relevant."

I don't know, there's a lot of relevant things I've said that you've completely ignored, without even acknowledging it. Probably because when someone may possibly show you're in the wrong, you're way too egotistical and arrogant to bring it up during the debate. Instead of directly answering everything the opposing side has to say, you intentionally leave out very important details within their argument just to make it easier on yourself. At least when I debate with someone, I actually pay attention to what they have to say and answer them instead of rudely pushing it aside and pretending they never said those things to begin with. It's called having a fair, two-sided debate, you ever heard of such a thing? But instead you prefer to sabotage the opposition's argument by purposely leaving out key details in your response, because that's how terrible you apparently are at debating. When the opposition has to repeat the same exact portion of their argument 3-4 times because you don't even answer what they have to say, that simply shows how faulty you are at this whole thing. You aren't proving anything with such shallow tactics.

[Caboose The Ace]

"But they also want to play Halo too."

They clearly don't enjoy Halo TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned.

 

"You have to cater for both sides!"

You can cater to both sides by giving each side their own game.

 

"I hardly see how sprint abandons it? I have said this a lot but I'm saying this again, your making this bigger than it actually is. Sprint makes you move, faster and make the game a bit more faster paced, speeding up the rate you find engagement's."

How about you stop ignoring me every single time I answer your point? A major aspect that made Halo's gameplay unique was that it was a slower paced alternative to the traditional arena shooter. By make the game fast paced, you completely abandon one of the major aspects that defined Halo from a gameplay standpoint. In addition, sprint is not really required to speed up the rate you find engagements, you also have to take into account the map design. If the maps are scaled accordingly in order to compensate for the slower pace and make it so you can navigate the map well enough, then there's really no need to have sprint in the game

 

As for the other mechanics I listed, I showcase that they don't really stray away much from Halo's formula. Sprint dramatically changes the entire pacing of the game, an aspect that made it very unique. How do the other elements stray from Halo's formula? Thrusting is simply a sidestep (works if the distance is just right), flinch merely makes it so you have to continually re-adjust your aim, and clamber I'll have to see in action (but as of yet it doesn't appear to violate Halo's core gameplay principles). Visible power weapons (I'm guessing you mean the spawn timers and waypoints), well yeah, that right there is lame because is lowers the skill ceiling and holds players hands, because instead of having to memorize weapon spawn times, the game does it for you.

 

For reference, let's look at the major aspects that set Halo apart in terms of gameplay and defined the core of the series:

• Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision.
• Slower paced alternative to more traditional arena shooters.
• Regenerating shields emphasize strategic retreats, which requires a dimension of skill all its own
• 2-weapon limit adds an element of strategy in that you have to carefully select your preferred armament
• Arena shooter gameplay

How does flinch violate those core principles? How does thrusting violate those core principles? How does clamber violate those core principles? Only problem I see with clamber is if it lowers the skill ceiling. But unlike all these things, sprint violates one very major aspect of the gameplay, the slower pace. That is major element what made Halo different from all the other shooters, its pacing was more unique. I keep bringing this up but you keep ignoring it time and time again, simply because you apparently unable to argue with it.

 

"Yes because you cannot seem to accept that some people might like Halo 4 and Reach and the series needs to have a middeground." Just because I think a game is a pile of ----, that doesn't mean I'm a purist, all it means is that I think it's a pile of ----, nothing less, nothing more. (I had to censor the expletives)

 

"But they enjoy Halo games!" Again, they clearly don't enjoy it TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned. If they really enjoyed Halo so much, they'd be fine with the formula as it was. But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned.

 

"You said the game was perfect and I briefly objected. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/41650-343-just-doesnt-get-it-1-50-ranking-made-halo/ Go read the first post by Azaxx, he puts it into words far better than I ever could or care to."

The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself, it doesn't affect the gameplay elements that give the series its unique identity. The ranking system is simply an insignia that serves as a mere aesthetic reward for players that displays on their nametag, and also takes part in matching players up for battle. ****ty ranking system or not, the game still plays the same at its core.

Again, I'm talking about of the major, core aspects of the gameplay. I never said Halo was "perfect", but in terms of the actual core that's there, nothing is really wrong with it (aside from maybe power weapons, but that's another subject). There's difference between a game's core, and all the side elements that surround the core. The core consists the big things, the major gameplay elements that make the series unique. An insignia that decorates your nametag is not the core of the game, it's just an aesthetic or title on your profile, and it also helps you match up with similar skilled players. It affect the actual gmaeplay.

 

"See that's hypocritical. You said that map navigation was a big thing and was half the game but then its almost brushed off sarcastically."

It's always half of the game with anything, it doesn't matter the type of shooter. Every second you're fighting someone, there's always another second you're looking around the map for your next opponent. That's with ANY game. It's not like you stand in a single corridor the entire time and endless targets just pour out with no break in between, you're ALWAYS going to search for targets at least half the game, there's always a short break in between engagements where you're finding your next target. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the game is, there's always a point where you're trying to find someone, unless you overcrowd the maps. The only real exception may be TitanFall, and that's only because the maps are littered with enemy AI in addition to the human players. Are you implying that Halo 5's just going to be spraying ammo all over the place at endless targets? No, half the game is still going to be map navigation. Again, every second you're fighting an enemy, there's always another second where you're navigating the map for the next target.

 

So once again, enough with ignoring my points. You didn't even acknowledge my argument where I detailed the core elements of Halo's gameplay and showed that sprint is clearly violation of one of those major aspects. It seems whenever I prove you wrong, you act like you're oblivious to it and blindly walk past it, like the argument of mine never even existed at all. You also ignored my argument in response to what you said about the ranking system, where I expressed the fact that it's merely a title/aesthetic that may or may not help with matchmaking, rather than being an element that actually alters the gameplay at its core. It's funny, because instead of actuallty hearing out every major point in my argument, you intentionally choose to completely ignore it and spew the same things over and over again. When you're debating with someone, you can at least be fair, and answer every major thing the opposition has to say. Ignoring the other side is a very shallow debating tactic. The more you ignore my arguments, the more I'm going to make your shallow methods apparent to those reading. Either learn to debunk my arguments or accept them, if you can prove me wrong, prove me wrong, but don't just full-on ignore what someone has to say, that's very, very low. You simply don't do that in a debate dude.

 

"I'm not going to comment on the rest of the stuff because its not relevant."

I don't know, there's a lot of relevant things I've said that you've completely ignored, without even acknowledging it. Probably because when someone may possibly show you're in the wrong, you're way too egotistical and arrogant to bring it up during the debate. Instead of directly answering everything the opposing side has to say, you intentionally leave out very important details within their argument just to make it easier on yourself. At least when I debate with someone, I actually pay attention to what they have to say and answer them instead of rudely pushing it aside and pretending they never said those things to begin with. It's called having a fair, two-sided debate, you ever heard of such a thing? But instead you prefer to sabotage the opposition's argument by purposely leaving out key details in your response, because that's how terrible you apparently are at debating. When the opposition has to repeat the same exact portion of their argument 3-4 times because you don't even answer what they have to say, that simply shows how faulty you are at this whole thing. You aren't proving anything with such shallow tactics.

 

"They clearly don't enjoy Halo TOO much if they're not a fan of the core formula that defined Halo to begin with, and want major aspects of the formula to be completely abandoned" How about you firstly stop making assumptions about people and accept that some people like Halo Reach and Halo 4 because to be honest, they are not that bad. Okay the Forge in Halo 4 was pretty bad and the weapons were a bit hit and miss but it still played well after they had that massive weapons update and the Boltshot was nerfed.

 

"But no, they're clearly not happy with it because they want a major aspect of the formula to be completely abandoned" You claim your not a purist but that seals it! You make the assumption that since people actually like Sprint they must not be, "true Halo fans" but that's just bs. We had the same stuff with Star Wars "If you don't like the prequels your now a true fan" Well you know what? People can have opinions and some people might actually like sprint and think it makes Halo better? People are allowed to have other opinions, and its not as if making you move faster changes a whole lot when it comes down to it.

 

By the way there is no need for an IP just to appease those who like Halo 4/Reach. Because there is no place for it in the current market! It would be a waste of money and manpower. "By making the game fast paced you completely abandon one of the major aspects of Halo" Its speeds up the rate you find engagements, I don't care what you say, that's all it does and that is hardly a bad thing. It also hardly makes the game faster paced. Its not like their making guns fire faster or lowering how much shields you have or making maps much small, something that would actually make the game more fast paced.

 

"•Gunplay has heavy emphasis on tight precision"

 

Well lets think here, flinch violate this principle. If you got shot with enough skill and the right weapon you could still win the firefight. But with flinch, your screwed even more and it takes even more skill to compensate and considering how fast firefights can go, your probably dead because of flinch unless you ran. By the way one of your core principles "arena shooter" its a broad term that does not even mean anything because everyone has their own interpretation. Which leads into my next point. Everyone has their own interpretation of Halo's core principles, your opinion is not law.

The ranking system isn't a core aspect of the gameplay itself" No, but its a huge driving force for some people (self included) to keep playing.

 

And once again I'm not replying to the rest because its not relevant. Because were supposed to be discussing sprint, not personally attacking one another at the ends of posts about how our debating skills suck or out arguments suck, etc.