Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Reach should be more campaign focused rather than multiplayer...right?
  • Subject: Reach should be more campaign focused rather than multiplayer...right?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I love a good campaign, but most of my hours are spent playing multiplayer by far.

  • 08.06.2009 4:36 PM PDT

What could go wrong

man i see this as the next big bungie project not that odst doesnt look awsome.But back to the point it has to live up to predacesers in all aspects and excede them to

  • 08.06.2009 4:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Oh yes I did!

Posted by: firehero182
man i see this as the next big bungie project not that odst doesnt look awsome.But back to the point it has to live up to predacesers in all aspects and excede them to


Halo: Reach was not planned to be an expansion at first so I have high hopes for it.

  • 08.07.2009 7:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.

I really think it's best when the multyplayer and singleplayer blend in. In some cases it feels like the multyplayer and singleplayer are two completely different games.

Hell, with Halo 3, the campaign IS part of the multiplayer. The only difference is that you have the choice to play alone. Now if only the SCRIPT was up to par with the other two games.

  • 08.08.2009 8:30 PM PDT

Nice long campaign.

  • 08.08.2009 8:32 PM PDT

Posted by: Tonoottu
Why not both equally focused? Multiplayer homes a greater amount of gamers than campaign. Even campaign is a must to be good but both should so be equally balanced. Unlike in H2 and H3 where MP was higher in the totem poll

And even then multiplayer wasn't that great.

  • 08.08.2009 8:47 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: Sgt Johnson ODST
Single Player must come first.
Single player only lasts so long. How many times can you go through the campaign?

How many times are you going to fire up the multiplayer?

I do multiplayer almost infinitely more than single player. I want the focus on what I will spend the most time doing.

  • 08.08.2009 8:54 PM PDT

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: Sgt Johnson ODST
Single Player must come first.
Single player only lasts so long. How many times can you go through the campaign?

I agree with you, but look at ODST. Obviously Bungie is trying to change the way we look at campaign, and is trying new things. Have faith, they will not let Multiplayer suffer, they are just putting a little extra effort make sure the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

[Edited on 08.08.2009 9:16 PM PDT]

  • 08.08.2009 9:15 PM PDT

Ya know what I hate? People who automatically think the original of something has to be the best. Halo 3 is clearly superior to Halo: CE. If anything, Reach will be improving on both multiplayer and campaign of Halo 3. If people were interested by Halo: CE's mystery, you'll be getting more with Reach. Why knows what Bungie's going to throw at us. Not much is known about Reach.

And remember; Good core campaign gameplay is needed for multiplayer, it's what makes the game what it is.

  • 08.08.2009 9:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: Sgt Johnson ODST
Single Player must come first.
Single player only lasts so long. How many times can you go through the campaign?

How many times are you going to fire up the multiplayer?

I do multiplayer almost infinitely more than single player. I want the focus on what I will spend the most time doing.


A campaign's replay value relies on it's quality.

  • 08.08.2009 9:23 PM PDT

Posted by: master piraka
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: Sgt Johnson ODST
Single Player must come first.
Single player only lasts so long. How many times can you go through the campaign?

How many times are you going to fire up the multiplayer?

I do multiplayer almost infinitely more than single player. I want the focus on what I will spend the most time doing.


A campaign's replay value relies on it's quality.

Not at all. A campaign might be phenomenal, but if it's always the same, you'll get bored quick. It's more core gameplay that makes a campaign replayable.

  • 08.08.2009 9:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.

Posted by: ABotelho
Posted by: master piraka
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: Sgt Johnson ODST
Single Player must come first.
Single player only lasts so long. How many times can you go through the campaign?

How many times are you going to fire up the multiplayer?

I do multiplayer almost infinitely more than single player. I want the focus on what I will spend the most time doing.


A campaign's replay value relies on it's quality.

Not at all. A campaign might be phenomenal, but if it's always the same, you'll get bored quick. It's more core gameplay that makes a campaign replayable.


That of which is a part of a campaign's quality :/ lol.

  • 08.08.2009 9:34 PM PDT

bungie's here to domanate the world and i'm in for the ride

halo is based of books without the story behind every thing halo isnt halo without caimpain halo would be more like call of duty and we dont want that so i say single player

  • 08.08.2009 9:45 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

I agree. The campaign is how I define a Bungie game. The measure of the game is how well they can convey the story into a fun campaign. Multiplayer is fun, but not why I buy a Bungie game.
Halo Reach should be Campaign focused.

  • 08.08.2009 9:49 PM PDT

campaign is most important.
A good multiplayer will not get a game good reviews. It will not make a game a classic, it will just make a game a gimmick.
If Halo:CE had of been less focused on campaign do you think Halo would have become the sensation it is?

  • 08.09.2009 1:31 AM PDT

I want Reach to be multiplayer focused but still have a great campaign. I think the theme of Reach really lends itself to multiplayer because it is possible to combine the two (training exercises in campaign against other players). The ability to incorporate multiplayer into campaign, because there are more than one spartan in the story, is a concept that should really be thought about. Also the campaign focused nature of ODST really makes me want a multiplayer title. The greatest thing for halo after these next two games would be a Halo: ME (multiplayer edition).

  • 08.09.2009 5:40 AM PDT

Rigor mortis has been kind to you, and left you in a sexy pose!
Cheeky Muslim
God = Lie
Cake = Lie
God = Cake
Wednesday 13 is the best vocalist ever. /fact, not opinion

as long as reach has the most awesometasticabulous(awesome-fantastic-fabulouse) campaign ever then i wouldn't need MM anyway

[Edited on 08.09.2009 5:44 AM PDT]

  • 08.09.2009 5:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Proper gameplay is made before both. After the gameplay is made there isn't much for the multiplayer besides making maps, the UI and balancing the gameplay. There really isn't a reason to spend excessive amounts of time on multiplayer, although the matchmaking system must takes some time. Campaign is what needs all the work, there is so much that can go wrong if time isn't taken. AI needs to be good, it needs to be fun and it needs to run smoothly. The cutscenes and audio probably take a massive amount of work.

  • 08.09.2009 5:53 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2