Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Would you buy a Halo game with no campaign? (Now w/ #s)
  • Subject: Would you buy a Halo game with no campaign? (Now w/ #s)
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Would you buy a Halo game with no campaign? (Now w/ #s)

Would you buy a Halo game that had no campaign, but was vastly more beefed up in every other area...Multiplayer, Firefight, Custom Games, and Forge?

Way more maps to start out with both in Multiplayer and Firefight. More weapons and vehicles, possibly bringing all the old ones back. Much more thorough customization options in Custom Games and Firefight. Tons more Forge pieces and customization including Firefight Forge. Of course, more armor permutations...for both Spartans and Elites. Everything else is greatly expanded at the cost of forgoing campaign. Same development time, but all of campaign's time and resources goes to other parts of the game.

If so, what would you require each other game mode to have? (ex. How many multiplayer maps? Depth of Custom Games? ect.)

-----------------------------

EDIT: NO, it does not get a second disc. That would be like having your cake and eating it. (Plus, a game being on two discs doesn't make it a different game...so yeah, I don't really know where that idea came from.) The games total development time, cost, resources, and amount of staff would not change, but would now be used for developing the other modes.

-----------------------------

EDIT2 (NOW WITH #s!!):

To better illustrate what I'm saying...let's drop some numbers.

Assume you play for about the same amount of time every day.

Say you're a hardcore Halo Reach fan. You play it every day for 3 years. You beat the campaign in about a week, and then move on to multiplayer. 7/1095 spent playing campaign... .639%

Now, you're a bit less hardcore. You play it every day for a year, or 1 out of 3 days for 3 years. 7/365... about 1.9%

You beat campaign in a week, and after that only play multiplayer on the weekends for a year...about 7/111... 6.3%

You're not a hardcore fan. You play it every day for a month. 7/30 = 23%

-----------------------------

Yahtzee says the campaign is obligatory...maybe it is. Maybe the game needs it in order to sell, that's not the point. My question is, if you look at it this way...doesn't it seem like a bit of a waste? I had to make the player play for only a month (or 30 days out of 1095, if you want to look at the full lifespan of the game) to get the campaign's portion of the playtime even close to one-fourth of the total. If you look at someone who plays the game consistently throughout the entire lifespan, campaign slowly dwindles into nothingness.

That's the kind of point I wanted to illustrate. You don't have to agree with me; I just wanted to know if anyone else recognized this phenomenon. That campaign get's a disproportionate amount of work put into despite it overall being the least-played mode.


[Edited on 01.23.2011 9:03 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2011 6:00 PM PDT
Subject: Would you buy a Halo game with no campaign?

Or they could just put them on separate disks.

  • 01.23.2011 6:20 PM PDT

Of course.

  • 01.23.2011 6:23 PM PDT

"There's a very fine line between not listening, and not caring. I'd like to think that I walk that line every day."

No, probably not. I love the campaigns, and I can play the multiplayer from Halo 3 and Reach anytime I want.

  • 01.23.2011 6:24 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: xReece
  • user homepage:

If the MP was like Halo 2, then I'd pay double.

If it was like CE I'd happily pay for it.

If it was like Halo 3, Reach or worse, then no.

  • 01.23.2011 6:24 PM PDT

The tide is turning, brothers! Let us take our kingdom back!

Nah. Unless they had another campaign on a second disk, as someone else already said.

  • 01.23.2011 6:30 PM PDT

Vengeance only leads to an ongoing cycle of hatred.

Games should be made for the campaign. Not just the multiplayer. Period.

  • 01.23.2011 6:31 PM PDT

What the hell is a signature?

No, games tell a story just as much as entertain.

  • 01.23.2011 6:36 PM PDT

not a chance

  • 01.23.2011 6:43 PM PDT

About me: I am a vicious wolf of a man.

But really am sweet at heart. =)

Depends on the gameplay.

If it was fast paced like Halo 1 or 2, heck yes.

  • 01.23.2011 6:45 PM PDT

Join the Bungie Kids Podcast Group!

Listen to our podcast and listen to us talk about the latest Bungie news and Halo: Reach updates!

When I grow up, I want to be just like goofenhour.

If Halo CE did not have campaign, I would not be at this keyboard typing this on this very forum. So no.

  • 01.23.2011 6:45 PM PDT

Halo: Heretic or Hero---An Elite's Story
Choose your own destiny

FanFicFactor
Forged in the Flames of Passion, go forth and represent!

Yes, but only if it had the most amazing, unique multiplayer experience ever.

With no Campaign, I'd expect fifty multiplayer maps, if not more.

  • 01.23.2011 6:46 PM PDT

Posted by: PublicToast
Or they could just put them on separate disks.

That was not the question.

Besides, they would still have to take the time, money, and resources to develop the campaign. Disc space isn't their only limitation, you know. -___-

  • 01.23.2011 7:05 PM PDT

Hell no.

The campaign, and therefore the story, is what got me into the games in the first place. Would you read a book with no plot or watch a movie with no sound (and enjoy it)?

  • 01.23.2011 7:05 PM PDT

Supreme Dictator, Industrial Polluter, Megalomaniac, Corrupt Politician, Underhanded Reprobate, Rainforest Ravager, Puppy Kicker, Oil Spill Coordinator, Holiday Hater, and an Insurance Salesman.

Posted by: SEAL Sniper 9
Games should be made for the campaign. Not just the multiplayer. Period.

I cannot agree more strongly with this.

  • 01.23.2011 7:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

UWG Great group, you should check it out.

BungieHUB

Games were originally only witha campaign. No multiplayer. I think that's the best part of the game. The campaign. The multi-player is like an add-on to me. I wouldn't buy it. I would only play at friends' houses.

  • 01.23.2011 7:19 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Posted by: Shishka
Everything will be gone long before me. When the first living thing was born, I was here, waiting. When the last living thing dies, my job is finished. I'll put the chairs on the tables, turn out the lights and lock the universe behind me when I leave.

Posted by: Nyxiz
If the MP was like Halo 2, then I'd pay double.

If it was like CE I'd happily pay for it.

If it was like Halo 3, Reach or worse, then no.

  • 01.23.2011 7:28 PM PDT

Posted by: Unbroken
Hell no.

The campaign, and therefore the story, is what got me into the games in the first place. Would you read a book with no plot or watch a movie with no sound (and enjoy it)?

Now that you mention it, Super Smash Bros. is an excellent series with no plot. (Brawl had one, but that doesn't matter because proof of concept was established with 64 and Melee, and honestly I consider Brawl's story mode a waste of...you guessed it...time, money, manpower, and resources.) Most fighting games are like that. (No, "fight series of guys in 1 v 1 fight > kill final boss" with no real variation between characters doesn't count as a plot.) Plus racing games and sports games.

Honestly, cost-benefit analysis makes dropping the campaign seem like a reasonable trade to me. Drop a campaign that you'll beat in a week and hardly ever play again, gain a myriad of other features that you'll actually use for years to come.

Campaign isn't what kept Halo 3 thriving since it's release.

[Edited on 01.23.2011 7:32 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2011 7:29 PM PDT

Supreme Dictator, Industrial Polluter, Megalomaniac, Corrupt Politician, Underhanded Reprobate, Rainforest Ravager, Puppy Kicker, Oil Spill Coordinator, Holiday Hater, and an Insurance Salesman.

Posted by: PlasmaSnake893
Posted by: Unbroken
Hell no.

The campaign, and therefore the story, is what got me into the games in the first place. Would you read a book with no plot or watch a movie with no sound (and enjoy it)?

Now that you mention it, Super Smash Bros. is an excellent series with no plot. (Brawl had one, but that doesn't matter because proof of concept was established with 64 and Melee, and honestly I consider Brawl's story mode a waste of...you guessed it...time, money, manpower, and resources.) Most fighting games are like that. (No, "fight series of guys in 1 v 1 fight > kill final boss" with no real variation between characters doesn't count as a plot.) Plus racing games and sports games.

Honestly, cost-benefit analysis makes dropping the campaign seem like a reasonable trade to me. Drop a campaign that you'll beat in a week and hardly ever play again, gain a myriad of other features that you'll actually use for years to come.

Fighting games rarely have engaging plots, and they almost never make sense anyway.

  • 01.23.2011 7:32 PM PDT

The Forerunner, the Great Journey, and Heaven Theory

[Announcement Trailer] Halo: Forerunner

Posted by: Agustus
I lol'd at the absurd miscommunication that occurs whenever dibbs post something. Perhaps his brain is so highly evolved that he can no longer clearly communicate with lesser life forms, even among his own species.

LOL no. I'd eloquently state why I believe so now, but I'm tired and Yahtzee does a phenomenal job.

There was a very grim period of PC gaming, the whole Unreal Tournament, Quake 3: Arena era, when the emphasis was on multiplayer. This was thankfully ended by the arrival of a new generation of shooters like Half-Life, which reminded us what multiplayer is supposed to be: a nice bonus attached to an already strong single player experience. If the multiplayer ever becomes the main selling point, then something's gone wrong. The fact is that most people are going to play the single player first, and if that fails to impress, they're less likely to move onto the endgame multiplayer content (this is especially true of games that force you to play the single player first to unlock -blam!-).

Other human beings are basically unreliable. If you play with them online they're an unknown quantity: an internet connection can drop out at any time, and there's no way to know if the people you're playing with are playing from some kind of prison for sociopaths. And if you try to get your friends around to play LAN or splitscreen, you have to make sure everyone's schedules sync up, and there's a strong possibility that most of your guests will vote to switch over to Tekken half an hour in.

No, if you're trying to get into a game, the only person you can rely on is yourself. So games must always have single player by default, because there will always be factors standing in the way of multiplayer that the game cannot help.


Shocking how when multiplayer became the main selling point of the Halo series, it all went to -blam!-.

  • 01.23.2011 7:42 PM PDT


Posted by: JamesLongstreet
Posted by: PlasmaSnake893
Posted by: Unbroken
Hell no.

The campaign, and therefore the story, is what got me into the games in the first place. Would you read a book with no plot or watch a movie with no sound (and enjoy it)?

Now that you mention it, Super Smash Bros. is an excellent series with no plot. (Brawl had one, but that doesn't matter because proof of concept was established with 64 and Melee, and honestly I consider Brawl's story mode a waste of...you guessed it...time, money, manpower, and resources.) Most fighting games are like that. (No, "fight series of guys in 1 v 1 fight > kill final boss" with no real variation between characters doesn't count as a plot.) Plus racing games and sports games.

Honestly, cost-benefit analysis makes dropping the campaign seem like a reasonable trade to me. Drop a campaign that you'll beat in a week and hardly ever play again, gain a myriad of other features that you'll actually use for years to come.

Fighting games rarely have engaging plots, and they almost never make sense anyway.

I agree. As I said, most cases it's just "Fight X guy on Stage A, Fight Y guy on Stage B...........Fight Final Boss"

It's essentially just a programmed series of Vs. Matches...not really taking too much to make. I don't really play a lot of fighting games, though.

  • 01.23.2011 7:43 PM PDT


Posted by: dibbs089
LOL no. I'd eloquently state why I believe so now, but I'm tired and Yahtzee does a phenomenal job.

There was a very grim period of PC gaming, the whole Unreal Tournament, Quake 3: Arena era, when the emphasis was on multiplayer. This was thankfully ended by the arrival of a new generation of shooters like Half-Life, which reminded us what multiplayer is supposed to be: a nice bonus attached to an already strong single player experience. If the multiplayer ever becomes the main selling point, then something's gone wrong. The fact is that most people are going to play the single player first, and if that fails to impress, they're less likely to move onto the endgame multiplayer content (this is especially true of games that force you to play the single player first to unlock -blam!-).

Other human beings are basically unreliable. If you play with them online they're an unknown quantity: an internet connection can drop out at any time, and there's no way to know if the people you're playing with are playing from some kind of prison for sociopaths. And if you try to get your friends around to play LAN or splitscreen, you have to make sure everyone's schedules sync up, and there's a strong possibility that most of your guests will vote to switch over to Tekken half an hour in.

No, if you're trying to get into a game, the only person you can rely on is yourself. So games must always have single player by default, because there will always be factors standing in the way of multiplayer that the game cannot help.


Shocking how when multiplayer became the main selling point of the Halo series, it all went to -blam!-.

I don't think Yahtzee's ever reviewed the multiplayer of a game in his entire career. Though he does bring up legitimate points.

While I suppose it does serve a purpose, it also seems like it can be a meaningless waste. "Yay, we spent half of our development time creating a campaign people will play for a week, be done with, and then move on to multiplayer for the next three years. Go us."

It seems a bit bassackwards that the mode that's probably played the least gets the most work.

  • 01.23.2011 8:10 PM PDT

Of course I would. It's Halo; provided it's Bungie-made and Microsoft-backed, it's prolly a good game.

  • 01.23.2011 8:11 PM PDT

maybe....would have to be realy cheap like $5 or $10 at most

  • 01.23.2011 8:44 PM PDT

I am Field Master Avu Med 'Telcam, Servant of the Abiding Truth, and I have many brothers.

A god who creates tools is still a god. It is not for us to impose qualifications upon the divine or presume to guess its intentions.

Nope.

  • 01.23.2011 8:45 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2