Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Future Bungie Titles' Campaigns/Story
  • Subject: Future Bungie Titles' Campaigns/Story
Subject: Future Bungie Titles' Campaigns/Story

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein

It seemed to me ever since Halo 3 that Bungie has allowed the multiplayer component of their games take precedent over the single player portion. From the ViDoc, it was abundantly clear that Bungie is almost fanatical about the MP in their games.

Take a look at Reach's story, and Halo 3's story. Both are subpar in comparison to the two Halos before them. While CE and Halo 2 had excellent multiplayer components, one didn't take away from another.

Unfortunately, Bungie's next endeavor may be plagued by the same mistakes. Bungie had paid less and less attention to a competent set of writers than to say what was going to be new in matchmaking every month.

The single player of the game makes or breaks it. The multiplayer is not an excuse for a subpar single player. I only hope that Bungie focuses much more on the story of their next Universe rather than obsess over multiplayer as they have been doing for half a decade.

  • 08.08.2011 8:48 PM PDT

Gamertag: Vengeance304


Posted by: Plasma Prestige
I only hope that Bungie focuses much more on the story of their next Universe rather than obsess over multiplayer as they have been doing for half a decade.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, multiplayer is important, but the single player mode is almost as equally important (the only reason why multiplayer is slightly more important is because that is what keeps most people playing). I think a good single player mode is more essential than having game modes like firefight, forge, and theater.

  • 08.08.2011 8:57 PM PDT

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.
--Ralph Ellison

Halo 3's Campaign wasn't bad IMO. Sure, it had a few holes in it, but overall the story was solid IMO and a good wrapup to the trilogy. You conveniently forgot to mention ODST's campaign which by all accounts was a good campaign. Reach's campaign wasn't very good, though. I'll give you that.

I think since Bungie will be creating a whole new universe, they will focus very heavily on creating something solid for it to stand on.

  • 08.08.2011 8:58 PM PDT

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein

Halo 3's story wasn't terrible because it was finishing up a trilogy, but it had so much more potential if not for multiplayer taking precedent.

  • 08.08.2011 9:05 PM PDT

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.
--Ralph Ellison

Posted by: Plasma Prestige
Halo 3's story wasn't terrible because it was finishing up a trilogy, but it had so much more potential if not for multiplayer taking precedent.


One thing I've been confused about since watching the ViDoc is the length of campaigns. Bungie talked about how they had to cut a lot out of the Halo 2 campaign. Some people say nearly half? The Halo 2 campaign would have been insanely long then. Yet, Halo 3, ODST and Reach where they didn't have the same problems as with Halo 2, all had campaigns of similar length to Halo 2.

Did Halo 2 set a precedent for how long a campaign should be for Bungie?

  • 08.08.2011 9:08 PM PDT

Hi.

I agree, one shouldn't take away from the other, they should pay equal attention to both categories.

  • 08.08.2011 9:20 PM PDT

8/5/08 Bungie Favorites- NoEnd
7/1/09 Bungie Favorites- RECON Devil
9/9/09 Bungie Favorites- Champion
5/22/10 HaloCharts Favs- Prey

You're saying the story of Halo 3 wasn't great? Easily the deepest story of any of the previous games. Between the conclusion of the story, the Terminals, and the easter eggs. I'd say it had the best story.

  • 08.08.2011 9:39 PM PDT

What is to say their new game even has a single player campaign?

Personally I'm leaning towards a single universe environment for the new game.

The comment about eventually becoming the players world instead of Bungie's leads me to believe a single universe MMO FPS.

Kinda of a mash up of Eve RTS, Halo FPS and Skyrim RPG elements.

Take into account Bungie's new accessiblity on multi-platform and multi-device enabled gaming combined with their website, statistics, armoury (Reach) and datacentres already...

I think we're in for something very online all the time that brings players together in a single universe with the freedom to level up player traits, level up player owned possession, advanced group/alliance formations and player defined gaming for interaction based on combat, territory and/or exploration.

The ViDoc shows thir ambition and it seems all the tech experience throughout Halo, ODST, Reach, Crimson etc is coming together in one single project...their new IP.

That's my best guess right now anyhow.

  • 08.08.2011 10:01 PM PDT

>>{Snap Crackle Pop}<<


Posted by: Plasma Prestige
It seemed to me ever since Halo 3 that Bungie has allowed the multiplayer component of their games take precedent over the single player portion. From the ViDoc, it was abundantly clear that Bungie is almost fanatical about the MP in their games.

Take a look at Reach's story, and Halo 3's story. Both are subpar in comparison to the two Halos before them. While CE and Halo 2 had excellent multiplayer components, one didn't take away from another.

Unfortunately, Bungie's next endeavor may be plagued by the same mistakes. Bungie had paid less and less attention to a competent set of writers than to say what was going to be new in matchmaking every month.

The single player of the game makes or breaks it. The multiplayer is not an excuse for a subpar single player. I only hope that Bungie focuses much more on the story of their next Universe rather than obsess over multiplayer as they have been doing for half a decade.

seems as if you wish to make MP dull? why so? sure story is important do not get me wrong, i love it but MP is something more lasting and enjoyable. something that never becomes stale and always has something new to amaze while such as story is something told once and only relived by ones intent

  • 08.08.2011 10:12 PM PDT

Tiger seems to be a open world game. I remember Misriah Solutions found what appeared to be a label for a landmark like what is found on open world games like fallout and morrowind.

Link

Because of this I expect Bungie to be more focused on the story/backstory and enviroments for Tiger. So far nothing points to it having a multiplayer experience like halo does. This should ease your worries.

  • 08.08.2011 10:14 PM PDT