I am proving what I say. I give an explanation for why these features ruin the gameplay, and the only retort you've come up with is "BUT MLG V5 REACH".

No, that's just my retort for sprint, because it's the one single feature you've decided to discuss in depth.

1. It wasn't as good as Halo 2 or 3 MLG.

I'm talking about sprint in particular and how it flowed with the game.

2. It wasn't a 343 game.

So?

3. Sprint lasts a lot longer in Halo 4 than it did in Reach.

Point is that sprint can work.

In case you haven't noticed, we're discussing a videogame. There's no source other than the game itself, videos of gameplay (which you said are irrelevant and don't prove anything),

Considering I literally used a video to prove my point, I'm going to say that I did not imply anything of the sort.

players on the Reach forum complaining about sprint and AA's, and our experiences of the Halo games.

Value judgements and majority are not sources for discussing competitiveness.

The dimension of noobs running away and slowing down matches.

Also the dimension of adding map control.

There's no skill in running away because you suck.

Sure there is, and that's a skill of when to use the ability/proper map placement. Is it something I agree with for a Halo game? Certainly not. Is it uncompetitive? Not in the least.

There is skill in everybody having the same movement, going around a corner and fragging your opponent. But where that would be something skilled players could do, any player can do because they can sprint.

Expand.

"IRRELEVANT YOU HAVE NO PROOF. YOU GET NOTHING. GOOD DAY SIR" is what I'm sure you'll reply to that.

No, I only say that when you bring up appeals to majority or authority [of value judgement nonetheless] to somehow show that you're right in a competitive atmosphere.

I love how I give you verifiable statistics of people not playing Halo 4 and you just say it's irrelevant. How is it irrelevant when people stopped playing Halo 4 stopped playing because of these mechanics which ruined gameplay? It's extremely relevant. You saying it isn't just makes you look like a dumbass. Your reply: "Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if tons of people agree with you and these features drove away the majority of the fans. It's irrelevant.

Argumentum ad populum. With regards to... what? You're operating on the pretense that people are going to judge the worth of Halo by its competitiveness alone. If that's the case then nobody should have moved to Reach after Halo 3.

Why? Because fuck you that's why." And I thought you were smart.

I'm not intelligent at all, but that doesn't change any of my points in this debate, and shifting the focus to me is setting yourself up for ad hominem. Which you've technically been doing by putting words in my mouth but w/e.

What I said is that the Halo trilogy MOSTLY relied on gunplay.

Not just gunplay. And not "mostly" gunplay either. You can have the best aim in the world and get absolutely murdered by someone who knows a map better than you, especially in CE.

343 has dumbed down the gameplay by increasing kill time.

herewego.jpg

Fast kill times took skill.

Yes they did.

You had to land all your shots perfectly, and do the button combos right.

Absolutely, this is just what I've argued.

In Halo 5, the kill times are straight up faster

... yeah? What's the difference between "straight up faster" and "faster?"

which means it takes less skill because you have to land less shots to get a kill.

What. Are. You. Talking. About. The BR is still a 4 shot, it's just the ROF is dramatically increased. AND add that the the CE gunplay assists and you have what is shaping up to be the second most competitive Halo gunplay ever.

"Irrelevant. You have no proof even though this easily observed by watching a gameplay video."

Yes, the point I've made above is indeed observed through watching a gameplay video. There's even a medal for a perfect 4 shot.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Don't worry, I believe you.

These features make the game less competitive

What we are arguing [and what you have failed to prove]

which is a bad thing and drove players away.

What we are not arguing, and what you have still resorted to a fallacious argument to prove.

You can cover your ears and shut your eyes as hard as you want, facts are facts.

Indeed.

]Sprint was meh after heavy modification in Reach. It still fucked with gameplay, but at least it was pretty limited. With Halo 4 it was no good. You have AA's, sprint, and perks. It's casual as fuck.

Legendary slayer in Halo 4 wasn't that bad.

You're right, you didn't imply anything. You said "That wouldn't prove anything" when I said "I'd have to compile hundreds of hours of video footage of gameplay comparing the Halo trilogy, Reach, and Halo 4.

Keywords highlighted there.

When the people complaining are great at Halo (all of them), then their points are valid. The fact you just say they're irrelevant because you don't like to hear the truth is your problem.

Nope, that's an appeal to authority. Fallacious, and unwarranted when we're discussing the actual mechanics.

Getting away from somebody with low shields on Halo 3, fragging them when they come around the corner chasing you and heads hitting them takes skill.

I could say knowing when to sprint takes a different kind of skill entirely. Yes, I'm saying knowing when to disengage is a skill. It's not random, and it's a controlled element offered to the player which can be mastered.

Same thing applies in Reach/Halo 4, problem is happens far too often. People are able to retreat from a shootout they're losing with ease,

And here you have a shield penalty. They're able to retreat, but it comes with a definite tradeoff.

and it takes a lot less skill so to speak.

No, not necessarily. It doesn't take skill, it just makes the game more frustrating for longtime Halo fans as it's opposite to the Halo design philosophy.

I don't see the problem with saying longtime Halo fans who are displeased with the direction Halo has gone.

Because it's irrelevant to a discussion about competitiveness. I didn't ask you to tell me how the game was going to be a bad Halo. I specifically asked you to tell me how the game would be uncompetitive [i.e. unbalanced & random].

I'm one of them. Why wouldn't I agree with them? You obviously do too, you just seem to be playing devil's advocate and arguing technicalities.

No, because I have a completely different point to make, and that is that Halo 5 is still going to be a very competitive game. It may contradict the Halo design philosophy but that doesn't nullify its worth as a competitive shooter [i.e. what I was arguing from the second I quoted you].

It actually looks pretty cool, and with some minor fixes it could be extremely good. The reason I'm criticizing is because I care and I want it to be excellent. Sprint can't last for long or should go, but we'll see come the beta. Thrusters should probably go, but I'll reserve judgement until the beta. The slam attack has to go.

No problems here.

Actually, my fixes:

-Sprint requires full shields to activate
-Thrusters are OK
-Ground pound should go

Being modest to the point of calling yourself unintelligent is a little bit beyond ridiculous, dude. This isn't a question of our personal traits, and I said that for emphasis.

Yeah, I just sorta shot that down as soon as I saw it because I've seen too many debates spiral into nothingness when that becomes a point of discussion.

What I mean by "straight up faster" is that a skilled 4 shot kill in say Halo 2 takes the time to get a 5 shot kill in Halo 5 from what I've seen.

That's fine to me. Halo CE's three shot took 0.6 seconds and I don't think anyone would contend that it's the most competitive Halo gunplay by a fair margin. It's actually what I've wanted in Halo since CE, something I only got with ZBNS Reach. Fast killtimes requiring consistent aim? Sign me up.

ROF is too fast. But we'll see. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if kill times are too fast the gameplay is really fucked.

If these features make getting away easier and killing easier or too fast, the game is less competitive. Fact. We'll only know when we play. I hope to be wrong on all points, but I doubt it. Hopefully 343 listens to complaints, but we'll see.

Well I think we're finding more and more common ground. I still stand by my point: Halo 5 looks like it will be a competitive game. But I do agree with you on your other point: for Halo, the game is making some concerning decisions.