No. No that is not a good explanation. There are much more coherent ways to present info to peeps. The parts with clear examples and ones with logical reasons connected to conclusions were helpful. I'm trying to figure out what's functionally different about jumping with clamber or moving with sprint. Without clamber you can reach a higher level up to a certain height. With clamber you can reach a higher level up to a certain height, but have a short period that slows you down as a cost. Either way the designer can control which areas are accessible by using the height based on which mode is used. Sprint is similar. It's well known that H5 maps have to be scaled up to account for sprint. Either way, the player will reach cover in the same amount of time from the same position. Yes, from the same distance, in H5 you reach cover quicker, but play is determined by position not play. This time the cost is delayed recharge, sprint cancelled by damage, etc. Basically, if we don't account for the speed difference and try to kill a player that's a distance away from cover they couldn't reach in time before sprint and we think we'll be able to kill them, we get pissed we think we should have gotten the kill. There is a difference when battling though. We're moving slower comparatively between positions because of the scale. For a range we can't fight and reach cover. Either way, there's a range in which players can reach spots or areas when we don't have enough time to get a kill and we have to account for it. I think the trade-offs are interesting. When we account for the difference in speed, the big difference is that now there are things that can slow us down and make it harder to get away. So far I haven't seen any arguments that actually explain the things that cause sprint and clamber to function differently in a way that breaks things. H5 definitely doesn't play as well as previous Halos, but I think we haven't figured it out yet and thinking we do know and bitching about it only stops us from finding the real culprit.
Incoming nuanced sprint compromise opinion: Making the map too large (Midship -> Truth) to accommodate Sprint breaks the map design AND makes the addition of Sprint pointless. Always scale to the speed at which you can strafe to cover during gunfights, not Sonic speed. I don't even think we need a distinct "walk" mode, because side-to-side strafing should be encouraged even without thrust's charge ready. Maybe have us sprint automatically and smoothly. This idea came up during early Halo 2 development, and it would free up a button. I'd love it if we could keep our gun ready, so movement is not compromised for combat readiness. In classic Halo, you run AND gun, which feels awesome (and far better than Battlefield or CoD IMO). I'm neutral on clamber, but we should definitely be able to shoot while sliding. It's dumb that our trigger fingers don't work for that split second.
The big thing for me with both is that it takes away your ability to shoot which has never been a thing in Halo and depending on the map you can abuse these factors. A player can get punished for moving vertically because instead of it being a normal jump or crouch jump the player has to climb up a ledge and in this time period the player can be completely helpless. The strength of most abilities give players too much ability to stall a fight out which in general is not appealing to most players in any game. This ability to stall never existed in the earlier Halo's and bad positioning often meant you were going to die in those games as well. This was part of what made Halo standout from other games and why it was MLG's Flagship title for so long because the game highlighted both mechanical skill and game sense to a greater degree than most games. By adding features that extend a players ability to move it allows for riskier position but if you are playing to win a player will play it more closely to if they didn'tt have the abilities and then use their cooldowns more so as an escape/defensive mechanism. Which will slow the game down. So, it isn't necessarily that they break anything but that they take away what made Halo a great game and add the type of functionality that is typically hated across most games. Typos probably are abundant as I did not read it at all.
The ability to talk and know who your talking to b4 the game starts in matchmaking lobbies , also to be able show off your spartan in these lobbies like halo 4 but better. Like if u scroll on someone's name then a 3D projection of there spartan will appear....also it would be extra dope if u could make the 3D projections have unlockable perks ,, so they could start dances or pose in some freakish way lol..
I mean I do a lot of programming in my spare time, and the scripting options available are as simple as the most basic commands in a language like python. I don't do a lot of scripting anymore because I hate not being in control, but I recall seeing very basic things like: -Movement translations sending blocks to different locations each game (off by 1 or 2 feet sometimes) -Movement rotations not completing the same number of degrees of rotation each time -Welded groups becoming dislodged when told to move -Spawn commands not spawning objects -Scripting updates suddenly breaking maps There are also some weird game mechanics that can make things confusing. For example, if two objects are welded together, and all destructible objects in that group are destroyed, then the entire group is destroyed. For example, welding a fusion coil to a golf ball, then blowing up the fusion coil will also destroy the golf ball. Instances like these are not logical, unless you know the arbitrary logic.
I don't see any convincing argument that explains why sprint and clamber break Halo (what does it even mean to "break" Halo?). It's really just a matter of preference. These abilities definitely impact the way that the game is played, and they definitely do so in a way that is different from previous Halos. You might like it. You might not like it. That's okay. Just because the experience is different, it doesn't mean that the experience is broken. A lot of people are saying, "The abilities change the game in way X. I don't like X (or, "We don't like X"). Therefore, the abilities break Halo." This is actually not a logical argument. I feel like I'm being overly obvious here. Halo never promised that it wouldn't change. It changes a lot every game. Get over it.
Let's start with the sandbox. Halo's core fundamentals, let's call it it's design philosophy, is based around using guns-melee-grenades while moving. Bungie tried to add equipment to Halo 3, but I'd say it wasn't very important to the sandbox. What can you not do when sprinting or clambering? The guns and grenades components, but they left in melee. Obviously they changed the melee while sprinting, spartan charge, but what is changed? Here's the gist of it: melee range increases significantly and damage increases significantly. How does this effect the sandbox? Well, first, it incentivizes sprinting, a component that completely contradicts the GGM core philosophy, by allowing those who do so to have an objective advantage in at least any 1v1 engagement. Spartan charge allows a player to hit an enemy with enough damage to where a single magnum shot anywhere to the body will kill, and it is significantly easier to land than a regular melee. Obviously this is very detrimental to what Halo had built itself to be combat-wise, but this is only a recent problem with Halo 5; we need to look at what change is consistent with every iteration of sprint. Haven't you noticed that maps since Halo 3 have been significantly larger? That's because of the increased mobility Sprint enables to a player. Funnily enough regular movement speed was slowed down to make sprint feel that much faster which makes the larger and more open spaces that are created for accommodation with sprint to be near impossible to traverse with oncoming fire. You can most significantly see this with Truth. 343 Industries had to stretch Midship like a bed sheet to not have sprint 'break' the map. If you bring in all the other abilities added in Halo 5 you clearly have to design your maps with greater verticality, tight-rope-esc-ness, and special trick jumps that most forgers and clearly the whole of 343i's map team do not want to address. TBH I'm too tired to finish this, so imma just post it. Sprint doesn't belong in Halo, but if Halo 5's movement sandbox was put in a new franchise by a more competent developer with map design that considers the problems that become evident in this mismatched game, then maybe it'd be good.
I want 343 to become a studio with a single vision and to hire people with the technical skill to make a triple A title worthy of being called such. Even if they got the multiplayer mechanics right, they would still have a **** story, terrible art, mediocre lighting, an awful UI, garbage maps, boring sound design, and a redundant nothing of a sandbox. Not to mention a game that creates new bugs by the day (it's really a technical marvel that we are still running into new bugs over 2 years after the launch of Halo 5) So that's it. Multiplayer mechanics are a big one, but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
It's not even a matter of making Halo 'broken'. That's just one (probably poor) way of stating the obvious fact that Halo has evolved into something far different than what it started as. Taking Halo as it was originally and morphing it into what it is now is akin to taking Eminem's music and making it like Britney Spears' music (oh...****...). Of course there's going to be a population that's okay with both versions of that music, but it would also be perfectly understandable (even expected) that a large percentage of the people that liked the original style are going to despise what it's evolved into. There'r really no reason to get hung up on the terminology that these people are using. It's beside the point (and distracts from the point). The point being that while there may not be any single ability or characteristic within Halo that by itself makes it 'not Halo', the end result is something that looks, sounds, and plays significantly different than it used to. I feel like this is all incredibly obvious.
"Truth is different from Midship. I hate Halo." yawn Anyway, I wanted the distinction to be clear. Sometimes people shout their preferences like they are fact.
Truth is a remake of Midship that was changed - and plays absolutely terribly on its own and conpared to the original- because of the changes made to Halo. Let's not pretend it doesn't just because you have a problem with the way some people present their opinions. But you should at least acknowledge that after many years of doing so (over a decade for some), there’s a lot less incentive to be suggestive. Also agree with @a Chunk in that dissecting the way it is presented and not the content is not only missing the point, but carrying the discussion no where. Like the people who call Star Wars fans “whiny and entitled” if they even dare to criticize the direction of the new film as being “not Star Wars”. Maybe as a standalone film it can be appreciated as a popcorn flick, but you don't have to dig deep to find issues with the plot, the character motivations, or anything else, especially compared to previous Star Wars films. To quote yourself, I feel like I'm being overly obvious here. I personally dont care to discuss it anymore because the numbers speak for themselves. But that’s probably the least debatable example in this game.
"plays absolutely terribly on its own and conpared to the original- because of the changes made to Halo. Let's not pretend it doesn't just because you have a problem with the way some people present their opinions" I'm not getting hung up on word choice; I understand that you're just trying to present your preference. People just sound so ignorant when they state their preferences as though they are the only acceptable ones.
Obviously everyone is going to have different "preferences" based on what they perceive something to be. I love lightsaber battles in Star Wars, and other people think they're stupid and the movies should only be about dogfights in space. Which one is more Star Wars? But this isn't a matter of whether you like 2v2 or BTB in Halo. It's about whether something from other games should be brought into Halo to "modernize it", and whether it actually improves what was there or detracts from it. Using Star Wars again, it's a lot like how the Last Jedi was awkwardly slapsticky like a Marvel film - because that humor does well for Marvel - which could be argued to detract from the overall quality of the film because of the seriousness of the events that are unfolding.
That's more interesting. What metric would you use to measure improvement or detraction? And how could you measure, or predict, that value before the game is launched? How accurate would that measurement, or prediction, be? Should any game be "modernized" with newer iterations?
I remember back in the day when there was almost zero community involvement between games, and games were either good or not, and you either played them or you didn't.