Halo: Combat Evolved Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: 343 have ruined a good game
  • Subject: 343 have ruined a good game
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: 343 have ruined a good game

all that the new halo CE remake is:
halo reach multiplayer
with a map pack
and halo CE story.

the reason that people wanted the game to be remade is so they could reminisce the good old day of playing halo system link at LAN parties and so on.

and to have an experience they have not had before (playing halo CE online.

as if people want to play the halo CE campaign when it doesn't even look that much better than it did before.
yes of course people will enjoy the campaign.

i would of preferred it to be a full priced game but to be a proper remake ( including online play)



price of game:

halo reach multiplayer £0 (most people already have it)
with a map pack £10 (normal price for map pack)
and halo CE story. £5 (compared to halo:odst which was
£20, because all there doing is putting a layer of graphics on top of the original game, no need for script writers, concept artist, voice actors and most other game developers. its not alot of work compared to an original game)

  • 06.06.2011 4:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: lulz7
  • user homepage:

You say this, not having played ANY Halo game.

I feel this opinion is near baseless.

  • 06.06.2011 4:19 PM PDT


Posted by: ReconHunter101
You say this, not having played ANY Halo game.

I feel this opinion is near baseless.

I feel that your suspicion that he hasn't played any Halo game is near baseless. I didn't have an Xbox Live account until less than a year ago, but you can bet I bought Halo's 2, 3, and reach on release day (and I only didn't for ODST because I didn't have a 360 available at the time of its release).

  • 06.06.2011 4:21 PM PDT

yes i have played every halo game from start to finish and have played it all online, y would you think otherwise?

  • 06.06.2011 4:23 PM PDT

Im quite fine with no mp for halo ce I rather them spend more time on halo 4. If you want the multiplayer experience get the pc version there are still tons of people who play it online

  • 06.07.2011 1:30 PM PDT

Derp it's a remake, it's suppose to be the same game with update visuals. THAT'S IT. Stop complaining.

[Edited on 06.07.2011 1:37 PM PDT]

  • 06.07.2011 1:37 PM PDT

MEEEE NARRR

Derp is a remake, it's suppose to be the same game with update visuals. THAT'S IT. Stop complaining.

You are a master, sir. Thank you

  • 06.07.2011 1:38 PM PDT


Posted by: Tycho X
Derp it's a remake, it's suppose to be the same game with update visuals. THAT'S IT. Stop complaining.


but its not the same game, the original included multiplayer.
derp derp.

  • 06.07.2011 1:45 PM PDT

They said multiplayer wouldn't work, stop moaning.

  • 06.07.2011 1:47 PM PDT


Posted by: TyrannoSoul
They said multiplayer wouldn't work, stop moaning.



when and where did they say that??

  • 06.07.2011 1:49 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Better to be a smartass than a dumbass.

As usual, once a game is announced people must bash it even though it'll be months before it comes out and people know next to nothing about it.

  • 06.07.2011 1:51 PM PDT

Posted by: Ice Demon18

Posted by: TyrannoSoul
They said multiplayer wouldn't work, stop moaning.



when and where did they say that??

http://Halowaypoint.com/
Look for the articles of Anniversary.

  • 06.07.2011 1:53 PM PDT

Posted by: Ice Demon18

Posted by: TyrannoSoul
They said multiplayer wouldn't work, stop moaning.



when and where did they say that??


"And multiplayer! Well that was the challenge. We ached over this one. Do we build peer-to-peer netcode for Halo 1 and simply update the graphics? Do we disrupt the Halo: Reach player base and community ecology? Or do we invest in the loyalty of those players, and the amazing new features Reach has brought to the table? It was a super hard decision, but ultimately the thing that tipped the balance in Reach's favor was this simple fact: If we added netcode to Halo CE's console gameplay, it would change it irrevocably. It would NOT be the same game you remembered it would be a compromised vision of it, with the pros and cons that lag, latency and more can bring. Oh, and everyone would whore the pistol 24/7. " - here

Which is complete bull-blam!-. They have all the original source code and could fix it if they wanted. If ANY fps can have decent netcode (CS:S, GOW, MW2, reach) then there is no reason that 343 cannot fix the originals. They're being lazy, cutting corners, and saving money. Which is a damn shame.

[Edited on 06.07.2011 1:59 PM PDT]

  • 06.07.2011 1:59 PM PDT


Posted by: C9316
As usual, once a game is announced people must bash it even though it'll be months before it comes out and people know next to nothing about it.


its been confirmed it has not got Halo:CE multiplayer

  • 06.07.2011 1:59 PM PDT


Posted by: t3heford2
Posted by: Ice Demon18

Posted by: TyrannoSoul
They said multiplayer wouldn't work, stop moaning.



when and where did they say that??


"And multiplayer! Well that was the challenge. We ached over this one. Do we build peer-to-peer netcode for Halo 1 and simply update the graphics? Do we disrupt the Halo: Reach player base and community ecology? Or do we invest in the loyalty of those players, and the amazing new features Reach has brought to the table? It was a super hard decision, but ultimately the thing that tipped the balance in Reach's favor was this simple fact: If we added netcode to Halo CE's console gameplay, it would change it irrevocably. It would NOT be the same game you remembered it would be a compromised vision of it, with the pros and cons that lag, latency and more can bring. Oh, and everyone would whore the pistol 24/7. " - here

Which is complete bull-blam!-. They have all the original source code and could fix it if they wanted. If ANY fps can have decent netcode (CS:S, GOW, MW2, reach) then there is no reason that 343 cannot fix the originals. They're being lazy, cutting corners, and saving money. Which is a damn shame.


i completely agree with you, personally i would of preferred to pay for a full priced game e.g. 60 bucks or £40 in UK.
and for it to have:
1. the original game remade
2. maybe a few extra missions
3. the original multiplayer added and updated
4. maybe some of the maps that we know and love from halo 2, halo 3, and reach maybe included (or for future map-packs.) (they could even call them "map packs from the future")lol
5. Co-Op for the campaign
6. Firefight against the Flood.
7. And possible even forge.

and i would be happy to pay the full price for these,
and if they did this then they could even hold out for longer until they release halo 4 e.g. 2013 or something like that.

i mean if reach could came out with a bland new campaign, multiplayer, firefight, forge theater all for 60 bucks then why cant HALO anniversary??

i am not hating on reach but its obvious that it has not lived up to what halo 2 or halo 3 had. (in the amount of people that were still playing them 6 months later. and i really don't think that 7 new maps will really make a difference. yeah sure it will boost the amount of players for a while but only for maybe a few months before in dissolves small again.

  • 06.07.2011 2:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Seven new maps. Not three.

$20. The price makes sense. A double map pack, an upgraded campaign with coop.

  • 06.07.2011 2:19 PM PDT

Three-time legendary member on a single account

xbc still works.

  • 06.07.2011 2:32 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: t3heford2
Which is complete bull-blam!-. They have all the original source code and could fix it if they wanted. If ANY fps can have decent netcode (CS:S, GOW, MW2, reach) then there is no reason that 343 cannot fix the originals. They're being lazy, cutting corners, and saving money. Which is a damn shame.


No actually, that is not complete bull-blam!-. Bungie has been commenting on this for years, that they cannot simply "patch" CE to play on xbl and the biggest reason for that is because they would have had to remake the game from the ground-up as it was never made for xbl multiplayer. That means there was never any consideration for weapon balance outside of split-screen or LAN, and that IS A BIG DEAL.

If you think it's a simple or smart thing to take existing CE MP and throw it on live you understand relatively little about game design or game balance.

  • 06.07.2011 2:37 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

The only disappointing part is the multiplayer just being Reach's. Severely disappointing. I was looking forward to the reskinned CE MM for LIVE. How fun would that have been? Now it looks like little more than Reach's ODST.

  • 06.07.2011 2:37 PM PDT

Three-time legendary member on a single account


Posted by: SweetTRIX

No actually, that is not complete bull-blam!-. Bungie has been commenting on this for years, that they cannot simply "patch" CE to play on xbl and the biggest reason for that is because they would have had to remake the game from the ground-up as it was never made for xbl multiplayer. That means there was never any consideration for weapon balance outside of split-screen or LAN, and that IS A BIG DEAL.

If you think it's a simple or smart thing to take existing CE MP and throw it on live you understand relatively little about game design or game balance.
It's not complete bull-blam!-, but it is pretty garbage. The reason it works on LAN at all is because of bandwidth. Honestly, if everyboady had cable or fiber, the game would run fine most of the time. The game doesn't send that much information console to console. But the low standards of "broadband" logistically kill hce multiplayer cuz about half the population would lag too severely to play a decent game.

  • 06.07.2011 2:43 PM PDT

Three-time legendary member on a single account


Posted by: dahuterschuter
The only disappointing part is the multiplayer just being Reach's. Severely disappointing. I was looking forward to the reskinned CE MM for LIVE. How fun would that have been? Now it looks like little more than Reach's ODST.
I agree. But 343 is supposed to be taking over Reach in the coming months. Maybe after this transfer of power, 343 might actually FIX this game! I know it sounds crazy, but I can dream. And I really don't want to wait until Halo 4 for another chance at another properly playable Halo MP game; Halo 2 1.1 was several years ago.

  • 06.07.2011 2:48 PM PDT


Posted by: Big T Mac10

Posted by: dahuterschuter
The only disappointing part is the multiplayer just being Reach's. Severely disappointing. I was looking forward to the reskinned CE MM for LIVE. How fun would that have been? Now it looks like little more than Reach's ODST.
I agree. But 343 is supposed to be taking over Reach in the coming months. Maybe after this transfer of power, 343 might actually FIX this game! I know it sounds crazy, but I can dream. And I really don't want to wait until Halo 4 for another chance at another properly playable Halo MP game; Halo 2 1.1 was several years ago.


i very much doubt it. these guys will not be loyal to there fans like bungie was.
i think that they will try to make Microsoft as much money as possible (yes i know that this is the point of making a game) but for bungie it seemed like from halo 1 to halo 3 there main goal was to make the fans happy, because they new that loyal fans would grow to love the franchise, and then when they new that they were not going to be around forever (at least making halo games) they went downhill e.g ODST and reach.

I think that 343i are just sponging off of bungie success and the francise.

i really doubt that when halo 4 comes out they will be doing as many things that involve the community as bungie did or they amount of playlist updates and double xp weekend fun playlist like bungie did.

  • 06.07.2011 3:37 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: Big T Mac10

Posted by: SweetTRIX

No actually, that is not complete bull-blam!-. Bungie has been commenting on this for years, that they cannot simply "patch" CE to play on xbl and the biggest reason for that is because they would have had to remake the game from the ground-up as it was never made for xbl multiplayer. That means there was never any consideration for weapon balance outside of split-screen or LAN, and that IS A BIG DEAL.

If you think it's a simple or smart thing to take existing CE MP and throw it on live you understand relatively little about game design or game balance.
It's not complete bull-blam!-, but it is pretty garbage. The reason it works on LAN at all is because of bandwidth. Honestly, if everyboady had cable or fiber, the game would run fine most of the time. The game doesn't send that much information console to console. But the low standards of "broadband" logistically kill hce multiplayer cuz about half the population would lag too severely to play a decent game.


But that is in no way the fault of the developer or 343i as the guy I quoted was insinuating, that's my point.

  • 06.07.2011 4:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Didn't 343 make Halo CE.

  • 06.07.2011 4:07 PM PDT

343 has said they didnt want to split the halo community, reach isnt even a year old yet and halo 4 would be out 1 year right after do we want another activation that needs to release a game every year. all that multi player for the remake will do is have people will either
A saying its not the same
B compare reach to halo cea and halo 4 and among the halo fan base people will be bashing other people over what game they choose to play. do we want to be that type of community

  • 06.07.2011 4:09 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2