- POKEY CLYDE
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
Well, ODST was completed in and around a year. The original thought out scale of the game was a 4-5 hour campaign expansion. Why was it thought to be this? Well with the small team, and time-span they had, this was realistically possible. Bungie screwed up and told us this was an expansion before they were done the game.
With the small team, and the time they had they over-achieved. They got this thing called firefight in there, the campaign was now expanded to like an 8-10 hour game. Microsoft/Bungie saw this as a full-game, so it deserved a full-price. We already thinking it was an expansion didn't believe it deserved that price. (Not to mention all the extras, like achieving Recon, Halo: Reach Beta, all the multi-player maps, etc) I think it was well worth the money, but a lot of you don't, and that is why you are dissapointed with ODST.
Your opinion of ODST is your opinion of ODST. But what I don't get is why your opinion of ODST is affecting your opinion of Reach.
In my opinion Call of Duty took a step backwards, they usually have a game with decent lovable multi-player, and an awesome story. Modern Warfare 2 has a crappy short story, almost if not as short as ODST's, and the multi-player was improved, which it should be.
I don't know where I am going with this, just a tangent I guess. But your opinion isn't just, you can't base how Halo: Reach will be off of a past game. Especially a past game that had a small team and only a year to be worked on. If ODST was as good as it was, forget the price tag, and it had a small team and a year, how good will Halo: Reach be considering it has a huge team, and 3 years worked on?