Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The advantages of two disks for Halo: Reach
  • Subject: The advantages of two disks for Halo: Reach
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: The advantages of two disks for Halo: Reach

Loading signature ... 1% complete

I hope Bungie really pushes the limits of their abilities (and the Xbox 360's) with Halo: Reach, and I'm not sure we'll be able to realise the full potential of that on a single disk.

It is rather clear that Halo 3's campaign had to be shortened due to the inclusion of Forge and Theater into the mix, and with Halo 3: ODST, Bungie realised that it was necessary for two discs: one for open world campaign and Firefight, and another for the now dozens of multiplayer maps, as well as Forge and Theater for all of them.

There was some very strong evidence a couple of weeks ago (I can't remember exactly where) that Halo: Reach will have a Firefight mode: I think someone had asked a Bungie employee at the ODST truck and the employee said that it would. I hope that the addition of Firefight will not be at the expense of a long campaign and plenty of multiplayer goodness.

The advantages of two disks far outweigh the disadvantages of having to change disks to play a different part of the game; in fact, if Bungie makes the game flawless to save to your 360, then it will hardly be an issue at all.

What do you think?

  • 09.05.2009 11:29 PM PDT

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
Posted by: tacomaster13
-Thanks to Rocket Turtle for pointing out my typing follies.

id like a nice long campaign, the length of say half life 2's or bioshock's, a good 15 hours + adventure. It's quite clear that with all of the features that bungie will want to include (multiplayer, firefight, theater, a map creator/editor, and with the 'killzone 2 rivalling graphics', it would be a stretch to fit everything onto one disk. So, i'd be very happy to have two disks if it meant a nice long campaign.

  • 09.05.2009 11:37 PM PDT

im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.

[Edited on 09.05.2009 11:40 PM PDT]

  • 09.05.2009 11:39 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.”

I approve of multiple disks.

  • 09.05.2009 11:43 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)

Posted by: Loaja343
I hope Bungie really pushes the limits of their abilities (and the Xbox 360's) with Halo: Reach, and I'm not sure we'll be able to realise the full potential of that on a single disk.

It is rather clear that Halo 3's campaign had to be shortened due to the inclusion of Forge and Theater into the mix, and with Halo 3: ODST, Bungie realised that it was necessary for two discs: one for open world campaign and Firefight, and another for the now dozens of multiplayer maps, as well as Forge and Theater for all of them.

There was some very strong evidence a couple of weeks ago (I can't remember exactly where) that Halo: Reach will have a Firefight mode: I think someone had asked a Bungie employee at the ODST truck and the employee said that it would.
I hope that the addition of Firefight will not be at the expense of a long campaign and plenty of multiplayer goodness.

The advantages of two disks far outweigh the disadvantages of having to change disks to play a different part of the game; in fact, if Bungie makes the game flawless to save to your 360, then it will hardly be an issue at all.

What do you think?


tsk tsk Loaja. I expect better from you. Some guy who "asked" a bungie employee is about as reliable as my uncle being a bungie employee who will give you recon if you give my your account password.

[Edited on 09.05.2009 11:57 PM PDT]

  • 09.05.2009 11:57 PM PDT

...

Posted by: Eastwood401
im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.


Given the fact that Reach has been in production for 2 years now, that's a bald statement.

  • 09.06.2009 3:49 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

Proud frenchie, elite fan, anthro artist not hellbent on yiff convention/pics/whatever, mature and intelligent forum guy, 4chaner, halo 2 lover and halo 3 hater.

Posted by: Mooreiuz V
Posted by: Eastwood401
im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.


Given the fact that Reach has been in production for 2 years now, that's a bald statement.


besides, afaik, bungie doesn't actually to their fans demands.
the idea of having a survival mode in H3 was around long before the game was finished, and never made it to the game, even though the poll had more than 10 000 yes and 150+ pages of text.... (how hard is it? take a sp level, add some stuff to block the exits, make enemies respawn. tada!)

[Edited on 09.06.2009 4:13 AM PDT]

  • 09.06.2009 4:12 AM PDT

Just enjoy the damn game!
Who cares about BR vs AR

Disadvantages:


Firstly, the amount of money needed to produce two disks for a game would be higher than normal. This would transpose into the price you have to pay for the game. I would imagine that new games at the moment are around $60/£50. With two disks I can forsee it being around $90/£75. Would you really be willing to pay that much for a game, even as good as Halo?

Secondly, unless it was specifically designed for one disk to be purely campaign, and the other to be purely multiplayer, there would be switching of disks, and as we all know from past two-disk games, this is a pain. People would look at it in shops, and be put off by the two disk idea. After all, how many games are on sale for the XBOX360 at the moment with two disks? I believe the number isnt high because developers realise they are not sought after.

Thirdly, Bungie realise that people play Multiplayer much more than Campaign, so by having the two seperate disks, it would emphasize that people play the Campaign until it is 100% complete, then only play it when no-one is online. Therefore one of the disks would be wasted. By packing it full of content Bungie would spend less time developing the Multiplayer, which most of us will play most.

Finally, I would love to see a massive campaign, but like you said, it can't be done unless they take out either Forge, Films, Firefight or Matchmaking, and believe me they won't take out things they have added and are popular.

  • 09.06.2009 4:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

Posted by: z0rgy
Posted by: Mooreiuz V
Posted by: Eastwood401
im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.


Given the fact that Reach has been in production for 2 years now, that's a bald statement.


besides, afaik, bungie doesn't actually to their fans demands.
the idea of having a survival mode in H3 was around long before the game was finished, and never made it to the game, even though the poll had more than 10 000 yes and 150+ pages of text.... (how hard is it? take a sp level, add some stuff to block the exits, make enemies respawn. tada!)

in all fairness bungie did succomb to their fans demand (firefight) but during H3 they didnt want to be forced into making something. H2 was rushed by microsoft and was probably edited by them too, once breaking free of microsofts grip bungie decided to only put thngs in that THEY wanted. once seeing how successful that was they then decided to put the survival mode into ODST. oh and creating a survival mode for halo would be easier said then done, first of all they'd have to make sure that nothing similar is on the market, and if there is, improve on it, etc, etc

  • 09.06.2009 4:41 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

Proud frenchie, elite fan, anthro artist not hellbent on yiff convention/pics/whatever, mature and intelligent forum guy, 4chaner, halo 2 lover and halo 3 hater.

Posted by: killerwatts
Posted by: z0rgy
Posted by: Mooreiuz V
Posted by: Eastwood401
im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.


Given the fact that Reach has been in production for 2 years now, that's a bald statement.


besides, afaik, bungie doesn't actually to their fans demands.
the idea of having a survival mode in H3 was around long before the game was finished, and never made it to the game, even though the poll had more than 10 000 yes and 150+ pages of text.... (how hard is it? take a sp level, add some stuff to block the exits, make enemies respawn. tada!)

in all fairness bungie did succomb to their fans demand (firefight) but during H3 they didnt want to be forced into making something. H2 was rushed by microsoft and was probably edited by them too, once breaking free of microsofts grip bungie decided to only put thngs in that THEY wanted. once seeing how successful that was they then decided to put the survival mode into ODST. oh and creating a survival mode for halo would be easier said then done, first of all they'd have to make sure that nothing similar is on the market, and if there is, improve on it, etc, etc


the originality of survival mode is ... uhm... not original anymore.
i mean, lots of new shooters have it now. nasis zombies, horde, left 4 dead,mercenaries (from resident evil) only to mention these few.... so the last part of your argument is void. survival mode is almost a standard now, besides, it only improves replayability by a huge lot.

  • 09.06.2009 4:47 AM PDT

Just enjoy the damn game!
Who cares about BR vs AR

Bungie have finally jumped on the bandwagon that wasn't theirs, but they made it within the Halo Universe so it will be better.

  • 09.06.2009 4:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

Posted by: NME Overlord
Disadvantages:


Firstly, the amount of money needed to produce two disks for a game would be higher than normal. This would transpose into the price you have to pay for the game. I would imagine that new games at the moment are around $60/£50. With two disks I can forsee it being around $90/£75. Would you really be willing to pay that much for a game, even as good as Halo?

Secondly, unless it was specifically designed for one disk to be purely campaign, and the other to be purely multiplayer, there would be switching of disks, and as we all know from past two-disk games, this is a pain. People would look at it in shops, and be put off by the two disk idea. After all, how many games are on sale for the XBOX360 at the moment with two disks? I believe the number isnt high because developers realise they are not sought after.

Thirdly, Bungie realise that people play Multiplayer much more than Campaign, so by having the two seperate disks, it would emphasize that people play the Campaign until it is 100% complete, then only play it when no-one is online. Therefore one of the disks would be wasted. By packing it full of content Bungie would spend less time developing the Multiplayer, which most of us will play most.

Finally, I would love to see a massive campaign, but like you said, it can't be done unless they take out either Forge, Films, Firefight or Matchmaking, and believe me they won't take out things they have added and are popular.


actually two disks isnt always expensive, a recent RPG named Lost Oddissey was at a standard retail price for us brits,and that had four disks i think (correct me if im wrong) although that price is going up if Modern Warfare 2 sells enough, so Halo Reach will probably be bumbed up along with every other game next year. however, you raise a good point with the multiplayer, most people do play multiplayer, but with two disks, one for multiplayer and another for campaign includind co-op and possibly firefight v2 would mean that more people would go straight to the multiplayer disk.

  • 09.06.2009 4:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Firstly, the amount of money needed to produce two disks for a game would be higher than normal. This would transpose into the price you have to pay for the game. I would imagine that new games at the moment are around $60/£50. With two disks I can forsee it being around $90/£75. Would you really be willing to pay that much for a game, even as good as Halo?

I think you are wrong. On all the web-sites i`ve been to blank CDs cos less than a dollar,and I don`t think it costs $29.50 to burn the cd.

  • 09.06.2009 5:09 AM PDT

Just enjoy the damn game!
Who cares about BR vs AR

Posted by: killerwatts
actually two disks isnt always expensive, a recent RPG named Lost Oddissey was at a standard retail price for us brits,and that had four disks i think (correct me if im wrong) although that price is going up if Modern Warfare 2 sells enough, so Halo Reach will probably be bumbed up along with every other game next year. however, you raise a good point with the multiplayer, most people do play multiplayer, but with two disks, one for multiplayer and another for campaign includind co-op and possibly firefight v2 would mean that more people would go straight to the multiplayer disk.

Was it? I can't remember. I was thinking back to the original Metal Gear Solid game from PS1. That was considerably more expensive than other games.

Lost Oddysee was the same price? Hmm interesting. How much is it now, in English money?

  • 09.06.2009 5:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

now? ummmmmm depends which lace you go. but when it came out it was £40. metal gear probably would have been more pricey considering it was ps2, back then 2 disk was relatively rare, so to sell more they bumped up prices (all this is assumption) good game though, shame i have to wait until next year/ year after to play another metal gear without buying a new console

  • 09.06.2009 5:16 AM PDT

Just enjoy the damn game!
Who cares about BR vs AR

Yeah. MGS and Abe's Exodus are the only game I can think of that were two disks for PS1. There were undoubtably more, but I can't say for sure any more.

  • 09.06.2009 5:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

ummmm oooh! Heart of Darkness! loved that game, probably cus i was about 5 at the time, if anyone knows this game tell me! memories. back on topic, i think a 2 disk Halo is an ace idea, it gives players the the best Halo can offer, the only other downside is that it would take more time, though personally i would rather wait longer for a near perfect game, than wait five minuites for a totally crud game

  • 09.06.2009 5:40 AM PDT

Just enjoy the damn game!
Who cares about BR vs AR

Do you understand what I am saying or do I need to spell it out for you?

The companies will charge higher money for two disks because it would take more time to produce. More time costs more money. They need to make profit to pay all their employees. By hiring more people that costs money, but reduces the time it takes to develop the game. They have to pay all the people doing voiceovers, the directors, microsoft to let the game be played on the Xbox, the list is endless.

Also, its not just the burning of the disks. Notice how your disks have pretty little pictures on them? That doesn't happen for nothing. They have to burn it yes, but also stop it from being copied. Copy-protection isn't free either. Then they have to buy the cases. More disk means more money spent on Cases to hold the higher amount of disks.

Don't antagonise me please. I'm tired.

  • 09.06.2009 5:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

if it is going to be two disk then hooray, but it doesnt exactly mean anything bad if it isnt, its still Halo. due to my curiosity of the games nature, i will buy it anyway. i loved Fall of Reach, and i do wonder what happens on reach as the cheif n' keyes flee. however it is presented its still Halo

  • 09.06.2009 5:58 AM PDT

I think there should be a disk for the campaign (so it will be long) and another for multiplayer and forge (MORE FORGE THINGS)

  • 09.06.2009 7:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

war never determines who is right, only who is left

welcome to the conversation

  • 09.08.2009 2:46 AM PDT

I <3 you, Shishka.

www.cheathappens.com/default.asp?refid=67880

Posted by: Eastwood401
im glad people are already putting out their ideas while bungie is early in development so theyll be able 2 add things in.


Agreed. I was saddened when I played through Halo 's shortened Campaign. I loved it, but it was just too short. If Bungie makes this next game in two disks, it would be one great deal.

Disk 1: Campaign, Theater Campaign only
Disk 2: Matchmaking, Firefight, Theater, Forge, some other unrevealed option

This could work out extremely well for Bungie, and the community.

  • 09.08.2009 3:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Fz JP
  • user homepage:

Yo.

2 disks also help this game because in Halo 3 when u play MM it is mostly laggy and hard to find games because the campaign takes up alot of use, even when u are not even playing it :)

  • 09.08.2009 5:06 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2