- Dropship dude
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Gaming Rig Specs:
Coolermaster HAF X // XFX Pro 850W XXX PSU // Corsair 16GB Vengeance RAM (1600MHz) //
Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD // Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB HDD // Intel i7 3770k CPU //
MSI Z77A-GD65 Mainboard // MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC Edition Graphics Card -- Runs BF3 on ultra at anywhere from 60FPS to 130+FPS.
|| Average Joe ||
Poll: Which would you prefer? Campaign/Multiplayer? [closed]
| A long campaign (in the vicinity of 15 hours):
67%
|
|
(55 Votes)
|
| A larger focus on multiplayer, with more features:
33%
|
|
(27 Votes)
|
Total Votes: 82
Well, we all know that multiplayer will be the big focus for Reach. It's obvious. However, I would still love to see a nice long campaign. At the moment, we know nothing of the campaign's length, but if it's anything like Halo 3's, we're not talking too long.
What would really do it for me, is a nice 15 hour campaign, or longer, with more missions. For example, a 15-mission campaign with each mission lasting an hour, would be the best thing since sliced bread. I am a huge fan of single player, more so than multiplayer, and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there who agree.
Obviously, if the idea of one-hour missions were to be incorporated, maybe the ability to unlock achievements after resuming from a checkpoint should be considered: after all, not everyone has the time to spare in a single sitting.
So, would you prefer a longer campaign mode? Or would your intentions still lie with the mutliplayer?
I know which I'd pick.
[Edited on 11.12.2009 1:20 PM PST]