- SweetTRIX
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"
Posted by: Tyguy101
Posted by: SweetTRIX
First of all, condescension is not your strong point. Second, I understand your idea, and in some ways like it (as i've stated) but your missing my point. Campaign is story driven, that means you cannot have a variable running around that could be detrimental to the games goal. The point of campaign is to complete the campaign, if (hypothetically) you run into a group of xbl players on the opposite side, and they keep preventing you from achieveing that goal, then what fun would campaign be?
If the situation is as you say above, then what would be the point of the implement? If the engagements between the actual playable characters is to be limited in anyway, then whats the point of the integration? I'd rather them just have stronger AI. For your idea to really be fleshed out it is better served as a MP mode.
Think of the Southpark episode "Make love not Warcraft", that is a good example of what i'm talking about. You cannot have a scripted campaign play out properly if you having interaction on opposing sides, and someone is able to consistently impede your progress.. Again, I think this would be a great idea for a scenario driven MP component, but campaign should remain about the story, and completing that set story.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you are missing my point completely. I agree that the point of the campaign is to complete the campaign. And if the Reach campaign was single player, the levels may be something like this:
1. Reach a certain base with a several small encounters along the way and a large encounter along the way.
2. Save a group of marines from a covy ground base.
3. Board and defend a nearby UNSC cruiser
4. Enter a taken UNSC base and restore power to a defense system.
etc.
Last level: Escape as Reach is about to be glassed.
Now, the ending of Halo: Reach will come no matter what happens in the smaller missions. What if you could actually fail the smaller missions and the campaign still moved forward? The ending of Reach would not change, just the cutscene between the missions. Now suppose that there is a team of Elites that are trying to complete a counter mission. Something like this:
1. UNSC - Reach a certain base
Covy - Hold a barracade that is bombarded with UNSC and then eventually by the spartan team
End of level - Large battle with limited lives for both teams
2. UNSC - Infiltrate base Save a group of marines from a Covy base
Covy - Defend a base from attacking waves of marines and then stop spartans from rescuing marines
3. UNSC - Board and defend a nearby UNSC cruiser
Covy - Board and destroy a nearby UNSC cruiser
4. UNSC - Enter a taken UNSC base and restore power to defense system
Covy - Finish taking UNSC base and destroy defense system
etc.
Final end - Escape Reach before it is glassed while covy team is in persuit.
Maybe we just have differing opinions, but I think the campaign still moves forward even if you fail an individual mission on either side. I think this just adds more depth the linear campaign that Halo usually has. I defenitely think it will present a very hard challenge for Bungie to design, as nothing like this has ever been done, and there would be so many variables to take into consideration, but if it is done right I think it could change campaigns forever (in a good way).
Hmm, all that being said i'm not sure this could be considered much of a campaign. I think we may very well be talking about the same thing, simply calling them by different titles. I guess a good example of what you are saying would be how some events work out in the Time Crisis games, and they affect branch endings. That way winning or losing doesn't prevent progression, it simply effects the outcome.
The hard thing with this is that if you have a story driven campaign, it's hard to keep the branches coherent and relevant. It's all fine and good to say how it would work, but writing it and playing it are a totally different thing all together. Like communism, great on paper, terrible when you add the human element.
I still very much like the idea of a situational/scenario driven MP where you actually have a larger scale goal than simply kill/capture, and a light narrative. But I don't see something like this shoehorning into a main campaign without some difficulty.