they are better than bungie because they arnt re-useing campaign maps for multiplayer and making it a completely new experience.
One of the biggest things i hated with Reach was their was no new feel in the enviorment everything besides the forge map felt the same, and even than the forge maps started to feel too similar because of the same enviorment. and instead of taking the easy way out and re-useing maps you have decided to make things completely new with competative gameplay in mind.
honestly this is the best thing you guys could be doing and i have even more faith in you than i did before.
> they are better than bungie because they arnt re-useing campaign maps for multiplayer and making it a completely new experience.
>
> One of the biggest things i hated with Reach was their was no new feel in the enviorment everything besides the forge map felt the same, and even than the forge maps started to feel too similar because of the same enviorment. and instead of taking the easy way out and re-useing maps you have decided to make things completely new with competative gameplay in mind.
>
> honestly this is the best thing you guys could be doing and i have even more faith in you than i did before.
I know how you feel and I agree. It was obviously a big enough problem to be mentioned in the video so I’km glad they addressed it.
Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
> Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
It was still corny and they still used it as Campaign Content, and that was lazy as well. Either way you look at it, it was a poor decision.
I wouldn’t like to comment on who is better but I agree that MM maps being created from scratch not just taken from campaign is amazing. Although you have to remember Bungie only did that in Reach.
> Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
either way its still bad, and even without my argument in the OP about the enviorments. Any games story should create the enviorments, the enviorments shouldnt be whats leading the story.
so either way you look at it it was a bad idea and lazy on bungies part
> I wouldn’t like to comment on who is better but I agree that MM maps being created from scratch not just taken from campaign is amazing. Although you have to remember Bungie only did that in Reach.
I actually was not bothered as much by it myself. The maps were made for the Multiplayer first and then imported into the Campaign. The only level where you really fight through a map rather than walking through or near it is the last level.
> Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
Unfortunately you have it completely wrong. Because Campaign made the full map and showed the real scope of the battlefield, the smaller version that sat in multiplayer was the copy cat; it was simply a way of saying “were too lazy to make another map more unique than this one with the same elements, so were going to use a campaign mission’s field of play for the online battlefield.” It doesn’t have to be interpreted that way, but it gives that impression a lot more strongly than if they were to say “a lot of people liked the map, so we reused it in multiplayer.” Having separate maps for the online players than from the campaign can create a needed barrier that separates the two and allows for a more genuine experience.
Mainly with Halo 3, a lot of the multiplayer maps were great, they felt separated, and I didn’t feel like when I transitioned from one are of the game to another I wasn’t seeing the same textures and settings as before. If I was, then it wasn’t the same area and there was some variation in the style and map.
> Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
That’s a total misconception, they don’t design multiplayer before campaign it’s just arrogant to think that way. They do indeed take aspects from the campaign and build a multiplayer level with multiplayer in mind. They do not how ever take a 100% campaign level and cut it out to make multiplayer. This is how most game similar to halo do seeing as halo is a game which focuses more on campaign then multiplayer unlike other FPS that have a majority focus on Multiplayer.
> > Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
>
> Unfortunately you have it completely wrong. Because Campaign made the full map and showed the real scope of the battlefield, the smaller version that sat in multiplayer was the copy cat; it was simply a way of saying “were too lazy to make another map more unique than this one with the same elements, so were going to use a campaign mission’s field of play for the online battlefield.” It doesn’t have to be interpreted that way, but it gives that impression a lot more strongly than if they were to say “a lot of people liked the map, so we reused it in multiplayer.” Having separate maps for the online players than from the campaign can create a needed barrier that separates the two and allows for a more genuine experience.
>
> Mainly with Halo 3, a lot of the multiplayer maps were great, they felt separated, and I didn’t feel like when I transitioned from one are of the game to another I wasn’t seeing the same textures and settings as before. If I was, then it wasn’t the same area and there was some variation in the style and map.
I will say it again, every MM map Bungie put in Reach was designed as a competitive multi-player map, then added to campaign. That statement is 100% correct no matter how much you disagree.
> Bungie designed all the MM maps as competetive maps in their own right first. Unless you want to believe Ivory Tower from Halo 2 was originally designed as a Reach campaign space. Multiplayer maps were worked into the campaign, not the other way around. I personally think it was pretty cheap of 343 to feed into that misconception in their vidoc. Rather ungrateful to the giants whose shoulders they stand on.
This guy’s got it right. Bungie themselves stated that they started developing multiplayer maps first before working on the campaign play spaces. Same goes with the Firefight levels.
I still say it was a bad choice either way because there are those kind of players (myself included) that go into the Campaign first. Having to see those play spaces again in multiplayer and Firefight was kind of a turn-off for me. I liked what the past Halos did where the multiplayer spaces were loosely based on the Campaign (or not at all completely), which made the overall experience fresh and unique.