Jump to content

Loch

Member
  • Content Count

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loch

  1. Idk lol, probably because it was buggy as hell just like everything else in that pile of shit.
  2. Pointless question. It's not good or bad in terms of gameplay, unless you happen to hold that opinion - but that opinion is purely based on preference. What sprint means for Halo is more or less aligning it with other shooters. It's the same reason why default controls now sport a left trigger ADS zoom (at least that's what I've heard, I switched to BJ as soon as I started the game up.) 343 wants to make it easier to pick up a controller and play Halo, even if you've never played before. My reply to "why is sprint good for Halo?" is simply that if people find the game easier to play and easier to enjoy, then they'll play it more often and might even prefer it to other AAA titles.
  3. Did you play Halo 5? If you approach it with an open mind you'd find the gameplay actually plays very well for a shooter. I'd even go as far as saying it feels more like Halo than either Reach or Halo 4. Not because it emulates classic Halo gameplay, but because the gameplay is smooth and focuses on skill. It's a different kind of skill, where being able to evade a kill is as important as being able to deal a kill. I'm undecided if this is a better path than the classic Halo gameplay style, but at least it's enjoyable.
  4. I'm a passionate fan, I just don't have a real preference regarding sprint - at least in Halo 5. I think it works fine. If they're going to insist on changing the way the game plays, at least they've proven they can do a decent job at doing that. IMO anyway.
  5. I think it started dropping of when Reach was released right? Have we not considered that Reach in and of itself was a major departure from Halo as we knew it? Sprint was the least of our concern - literally everything was different about that game.
  6. Probably not - playing a game for 5 minutes or an hour doesn't really give you enough time make an informed decision.
  7. Ah yeah, there's a franchise that hasn't changed a bit.
  8. You're being such a drama queen hahahahahha. It's not killing anything, you're delusional if you think a single feature change is going to kill a game. Your attitude is what's killing the game, at least for the core audience. People who won't shut the fuck up about the franchise being ruined by a single gameplay change, get real.
  9. Again, I don't understand how delusional you have to be to think that 1.7M people left because of sprint. smh
  10. Moved on to what? If 343 is doing their job right, they'll enjoy Halo 5 more than any alternatives. That's the goal - to be a COD killer - not some 25 year old's wet dream of a competitive shooter.
  11. Halo's population was dying before Reach came out. Call of Duty was scooping up players because there hadn't been a new Halo game in 3 years. Businesses work in different ways yes, but what seems to work in the entertainment industry - and specifically with video games - is that it's all about hype. How many copies can you sell on launch day? People buy what's popular. If Halo is the number one title, everyone is talking about Halo. If you can get more people talking about Halo, the game will be popular. The game will only be popular if people enjoy it - new comers and veterans alike. But the primary focus isn't veterans, they've proven that they'll stick it out for better or worse. Getting new players playing - and continuing to play - is the primary focus of the developer. For Halo, that means changing the gameplay so that it's easier for new players. Whether that means making weapons easier to use, or adding sprint or various ways to evade, or adding a new gametype that more resembles Call of Duty style gameplay. If it's easier for a new player to play, and it's enjoyable, you can keep them playing for longer. Long time players might get pissed by the changes, but they represent? What? At most like, 10 percent of players? I'm talking about the type of people that come to these forums. So if 90% of your players find the game difficult to play, boring or not fast paced enough ("I am a super soldier, why can't I run??") - then the game will die. We saw this with Halo 4. Black Ops II was an amazing game in comparison, and Halo's number suffered severely because of it. For a business like 343 to thrive, they need to appeal to the masses - not the whiney sub-section of players who will never be pleased with any changes.
  12. Pretty sure the developers do, or else they wouldn't be selling copies of the game. Pissing off their core audience by inconveniencing them with sprint is a no-brainer if it means your game is going to be more popular than Call of Duty - and that's the goal.
  13. If you think that statement is trolling, you need to take 5 minutes and get a basic understanding of how business works.
  14. I highly doubt they quit because of armour abilities and other gimmicks, and you have no way of proving that this is the case. I'd like to propose that millions quit Halo because Halo's fanbase is old. We're all growing up, getting jobs, having a life. That's because Halo isn't mainstream enough anymore, because it isn't the only console shooter out there anymore. And for people who are just getting into console shooters Call of Duty is a much better option because it's easier to play. As I've said before, Halo's success is not determined by what a core audience likes. It's success is determined by how much better or worse it is than the current/next Call of Duty. 343 knows that, and anything they do to please the core audience is just damage control so they can focus on the main goal of getting more people playing.
  15. I thought Halo 4 was pretty bad the first day I played it. I figured it was just going to take some getting used to - whatever it was that was causing me to dislike it, but I never did. Same sort of thing happened with Reach. Again, Xbox Live activity has nothing to do with how good a Halo game compares to another Halo game. Halo is no longer the leading title, not because of sprint, but because COD is more fun for most people because it's easier to play as a beginner. Before COD sort of got it's footing, it was still behind Halo in terms of popularity, but it's ahead now and the only thing that will bring Halo back to the lime light is making it easier for new players. Again, this has nothing to do with how good the game is compared to previous Halo games. If COD 15 or whatever is better than Halo, that'll be why the population falls off. Aside from that, to me, Halo 5 seemed to get the movement right. Halo Reach and Halo 4 seemed to "tack on" sprint to the gameplay, which made it feel really weird and bad IMO. Halo 5 has improved the movement capabilities so much, that sprint feels much more natural and balanced now. Sprint no longer feels like an armour ability. But that's just me.
  16. I dunno, for people like me - and I think for a lot of people here, because I'm sure most of us play at a higher level - sprint is lame feature. If the survey asked strictly "yes or no?" I might have said "no, I don't want sprint" but the reality is that I don't actually mind sprint at all - I'm just not going to argue in favour of it. So you would have gotten the answer you were looking for from me, but it wouldn't be any more correct or true. At least with a multiple option survey, 343 has a much better understanding of where people stand with sprint - not just whether or not they like it. This is why almost no polls ask you "yes or no?" but rather have a range.
  17. The difference is that I don't think sprint has a major effect in determining if Halo is a good game. Halo 5 played great. Didn't play like classic Halo - but it is still a great game. Sprint makes the game faster pace, adding more dimensions to the gameplay. That doesn't make it worse, it just makes Halo a more complicated game. Like I've said before, the addition of sprint probably isn't needed - but it has benefits for people who are new to the game. Having more options makes the game more exciting, and affords more opportunities for improvement.
  18. This is a good case to make, but if I were actually against sprint I would have chosen that. I'm not against sprint, and I'm not for it - I simply don't care and I don't think it's worsening the game - at least from a Halo 5 gameplay standpoint. This poll also apparently allowed for more than one option for people who didn't want sprint, so you have to have been in favour of sprint in order to fall into the "yes" category.
  19. You speak as though Halo is the most popular title out there and people are leaving because of sprint. If people leave it's because there's a better game to play (likely COD for most people.) If Halo wants to succeed (and for you to not see a "77% population drop") - Halo needs to be a better mainstream title than COD.
  20. https://twitter.com/JoshingtonState/status/563721112492580865 This means that 11% of people who strongly don't want sprint are among the 23% of players who more or less don't want sprint. So, sprint stays, and most people are happy about that. You guys can claim your 23% if you like, but 77% are in favour of sprint.
  21. I think that's what we all want (at least here) but the reality is 343 can probably sell more copies of whatever else they want to produce. Fine by me I guess, at least it's fun this time.
  22. Remove whatever you want, just means when you play with "regular" setting that you'll be way less effective.
  23. I'm all for that if everyone follows, but I think HCS will be a major factor in determining what the top players are playing. HCS will likely have sprint. Halo pros are older, need to make money - they'll play what they're given.
  24. They won't keep playing it though if they don't change it, because it wouldn't feel like the typical FPS these days, which is unfortunately what people want to play.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.