- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
i agree with you 100%
Posted by: PlasmaSnake893
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.