Anyone else notice how Bungie didn't live up to their promises with Reach's campaign?

Games Other Halo
1

Watch these two vids to get clear view to where I’m getting at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QMBTlLmFM

You see, Bungie made a lot of promises for the campaign, but they were never lived up to. To me, Reach’s campaign was a severe disappointment. I don’t think the campaign is “bad”, it’s just plain adequate, but it could’ve been SO much more.

Here’s the promises they either didn’t live up to.

  • 60 A.I. battles on screen at once: Absolutely not true! Instead, they were only SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than they were in prior games, but never to the point where it actually made the player feel like they were engaging in a planetary scale battle. The battles weren’t built-up well either, as they felt like another variation of FireFight than actual set-piece battles.
  • Reach will feel like a living breathing, immerssive planet: ODST’s New Mombasa’s Nighttime hub-world was far more atmospheric and immerssive than Reach. Attempts to immerse players into Reach worked poorly, such as the Civillian NPCs, whom just ran around in random circles and you didn’t give a damn when they were being slaughtered. There only three indigenous animals in Reach, and one of them makes one underwhelming appearance. Reach simply didn’t have they sense of wonder or exploration than Combat Evolved had.
  • It’s going to be an intimate character driven story: For a story that’s supposedly inspired by the Seven Samurai, Bungie seem to have put more investment into doing contrived errands than to explore the personalities of Noble Team. The characters were flat, one-note archetypes. Bungie’s attempts to humanize Spartans falls flat on it’s face. ODST had better character development, and it had a shorter campaign.
  • Reach is going to be a sandbox game: What is Bungie’s definition of Sandbox? The levels in Reach are quite big, but their structure are too linear to be defined as “sandbox”. A sandbox game would put players into a free-roaming level and allow players to emergently approach the gameplay. Crysis for example, is a sandbox game because it places the player into a free-roaming level and allows players to play those missions however they want to,. Reach scripts the player into fighting in corridors and one-way path situations. Bungie clearly don’t understand what Sandbox means.

I’m pointing out the false promises Bungie has made, that no game journalist for a big named video game website or magazine would dare to. Bungie overhyped the campaign in the Vidocs, developer commentary, and interviews by making one falese promise to another. It’s quite clear that Bungie seem to have cared less about the single-player and story, but more for the multi-player and content. It’s been that way after Combat Evolved, minus ODST of course. You could say that it’s impossible for a game to contain both a great single-player and multi-player, but try to say that with a straight face after playing Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty 4. I will say this, Reach at least had a better single-player and story than Modern Warfare 2.

2

> Watch these two vids to get clear view to where I’m getting at.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QMBTlLmFM
>
> You see, Bungie made a lot of promises for the campaign, but they were never lived up to. To me, Reach’s campaign was a severe disappointment. I don’t think the campaign is “bad”, it’s just plain adequate, but it could’ve been SO much more.
>
> Here’s the promises they either didn’t live up to.
>
> - 60 A.I. battles on screen at once: Absolutely not true! Instead, they were only SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than they were in prior games, but never to the point where it actually made the player feel like they were engaging in a planetary scale battle. The battles weren’t built-up well either, as they felt like another variation of FireFight than actual set-piece battles.
> - Reach will feel like a living breathing, immerssive planet: ODST’s New Mombasa’s Nighttime hub-world was far more atmospheric and immerssive than Reach. Attempts to immerse players into Reach worked poorly, such as the Civillian NPCs, whom just ran around in random circles and you didn’t give a damn when they were being slaughtered. There only three indigenous animals in Reach, and one of them makes one underwhelming appearance. Reach simply didn’t have they sense of wonder or exploration than Combat Evolved had.
> - It’s going to be an intimate character driven story: For a story that’s supposedly inspired by the Seven Samurai, Bungie seem to have put more investment into doing contrived errands than to explore the personalities of Noble Team. The characters were flat, one-note archetypes. Bungie’s attempts to humanize Spartans falls flat on it’s face. ODST had better character development, and it had a shorter campaign.
> - Reach is going to be a sandbox game: What is Bungie’s definition of Sandbox? The levels in Reach are quite big, but their structure are too linear to be defined as “sandbox”. A sandbox game would put players into a free-roaming level and allow players to emergently approach the gameplay. Crysis for example, is a sandbox game because it places the player into a free-roaming level and allows players to play those missions however they want to,. Reach scripts the player into fighting in corridors and one-way path situations. Bungie clearly don’t understand what Sandbox means.
>
> I’m pointing out the false promises Bungie has made, that no game journalist for a big named video game website or magazine would dare to. Bungie overhyped the campaign in the Vidocs, developer commentary, and interviews by making one falese promise to another. It’s quite clear that Bungie seem to have cared less about the single-player and story, but more for the multi-player and content. It’s been that way after Combat Evolved, minus ODST of course. You could say that it’s impossible for a game to contain both a great single-player and multi-player, but try to say that with a straight face after playing Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty 4. I will say this, Reach at least had a better single-player and story than Modern Warfare 2.

So the main point is, Reach didn’t live up to expectations, based on the hype and the story line it was set in.

Had they not worked on ODST, the campaign could of been longer and better.

Skip to: 8:05.

We could have had several warthogs, and in the distant see several Frigates engaging Cruisers and a couple Carriers further off behind them in the distance. The sky would of been dark and gloomy, like a full on engagement. It was achievable, these are not fantasy’s, Bungie could have done this. 343 better execute it well.

There was no climax to the story either. Like, there’s too much to type on how bad it was. Gears of War 2 is a perfect example of improvement. Bungie cared to much on multiplayer, and YOU CAN have a great multiplayer and campaign, Halo: CE is a example.

Eg. Compare all other halo’s to Halo: CE’s vehicle dynamics…

3

Just my opinion here, but I wouldn’t say Bungie made false promises. I think that Bungie sets the bar so high that they end up figuring out during the development process that they can’t achieve what they wanted so they have to go back and create what works. Halo 2 is a good example, they spent 2 years trying to make something really great and new, but when E3 came along they didn’t really have anything.

Having thousands of sparking particles, dust, rock chips and such is fine if you spend time in the campaign shooting rocks, walls and space crates, but on the battlefield I want lots of action and that simply doesn’t happen in Reach. Having epic skyboxes, massive environments are fine if you want to spend the time in that game admiring all of that, my enjoyment is about the gameplay and that is where Reach falls flat. I don’t care about story or characters, it’s what happens on the battlefield is all that matters to me. Combat dialogue, Marine and Covenant has always been the cornerstone of all the previous Halo games, this is an extra dimension of entertainment that I have always enjoyed and it was sacrificed to give the player the impression of fighting truly alien characters. Do the Covenant appear less alien if they speak English then they do speaking babble in Reach? No they don’t!

4

Marines were non existent in Halo: Reach.

In Halo: CE, you could tell you had marines fighting along side you. No I’m not a CE fan boy.

5

60 enemies on the screen at once: I do think that it was possible for them but, ended up not doing it to difficulties. There is no 60 enemies on screen but, look at the level PoA. The Commonwealth encounter had 60 enemies in the the same area with out you having to load into new areas.

I don’t know though, I really don’t see Reach in the eyes of a pessimist. In my mind set I view Reach as a great game with a lot of hard work put into it. I do indeed view it as a definitive Halo experience. Call me a fan boy and tell me I have low expectancy but, that my mind set about Reach.

6

> 60 enemies on the screen at once: I do think that it was possible for them but, ended up not doing it to difficulties. There is no 60 enemies on screen but, look at the level PoA. The Commonwealth encounter had 60 enemies in the the same area with out you having to load into new areas.
>
> I don’t know though, I really don’t see Reach in the eyes of a pessimist. In my mind set I view Reach as a great game with a lot of hard work put into it. I do indeed view it as a definitive Halo experience. Call me a fan boy and tell me I have low expectancy but, that my mind set about Reach.

They put hard work into it, but that did not show, prove what they promised in the end.

I’m glad you liked the campaign, you won’t have to be angered and dissipointed. However, I am amazed by the fact that people who loved the campaign can’t see it through our eyes. I wish I had lower expectations, but when Bungie promises things that raise the bar to a whole new level, and the fact the time line which it took place was immerse and big in the Halo universe, the elements were not there.

No point in complaining, just hoping 343 refrains from multiplayer until they release their second game, EXCLUDING a Halo: CE remake

7

  1. They said 40, not 60, and if you actually counted, the larger ones do push 35+.

  2. Erm, yes it did.
    /sarcasm
    It’s an opinion, anyone can say whether that failed or succeeded and be right.

3)See #2

4)It’s quite sandboxy. Sandbox doesn’t mean “openworld” It means “minimal fully scripted sequences, things work on their own, you can do what you want”. Let’s go have a look see at forge and theater, shall we?

8

> 1) They said 40, not 60, and if you actually counted, the larger ones do push 35+.
>
> 2) Erm, yes it did.
> /sarcasm
> It’s an opinion, anyone can say whether that failed or succeeded and be right.
>
> 3)See #2
>
> 4)It’s quite sandboxy. Sandbox doesn’t mean “openworld” It means “minimal fully scripted sequences, things work on their own, you can do what you want”. Let’s go have a look see at forge and theater, shall we?

Here’s where they said that they would pull-off 60 A.I.:

http://www.mindch.com/2010/08/halo-reach-handles-60-ai-on-screen_06.html

They even mentioned in several other interviews, including in an issue for GameInformer.

A game doesn’t have to be “Open-world” to be a sandbox game. Crysis (in the first two acts) isn’t a open-world game, but it’s open-level. There are little to no constraints in the ways you can approach your missions, and you’re not forced to fight in open spaces or corridors. Reach limits you through it’s linear mission structures of it’s levels. Even in the third part of Tip of the Spear, you’re limited to fight in a corridor by the end of the mission.

Plus, you can judge the level of atmosphere and the character development from an objective point of view. You get glimpses of the characters relationship and personalities in the closing cutscenes in Winter Contingency, but they were never explored after then. Thus, making them one-note and generic. For a great atmosphere, you need the campaign to allow players to be invested with the planet’s enviroment, culture, and situation. That was never explored either. Reach’s campaign ends up being flat. If it weren’t for the excellent enemy A.I., dynamic combat, and a visceral gunplay, I wouldn’t gone through the third mission.

9

> > Watch these two vids to get clear view to where I’m getting at.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QMBTlLmFM
> >
> > You see, Bungie made a lot of promises for the campaign, but they were never lived up to. To me, Reach’s campaign was a severe disappointment. I don’t think the campaign is “bad”, it’s just plain adequate, but it could’ve been SO much more.
> >
> > Here’s the promises they either didn’t live up to.
> >
> > - 60 A.I. battles on screen at once: Absolutely not true! Instead, they were only SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than they were in prior games, but never to the point where it actually made the player feel like they were engaging in a planetary scale battle. The battles weren’t built-up well either, as they felt like another variation of FireFight than actual set-piece battles.
> > - Reach will feel like a living breathing, immerssive planet: ODST’s New Mombasa’s Nighttime hub-world was far more atmospheric and immerssive than Reach. Attempts to immerse players into Reach worked poorly, such as the Civillian NPCs, whom just ran around in random circles and you didn’t give a damn when they were being slaughtered. There only three indigenous animals in Reach, and one of them makes one underwhelming appearance. Reach simply didn’t have they sense of wonder or exploration than Combat Evolved had.
> > - It’s going to be an intimate character driven story: For a story that’s supposedly inspired by the Seven Samurai, Bungie seem to have put more investment into doing contrived errands than to explore the personalities of Noble Team. The characters were flat, one-note archetypes. Bungie’s attempts to humanize Spartans falls flat on it’s face. ODST had better character development, and it had a shorter campaign.
> > - Reach is going to be a sandbox game: What is Bungie’s definition of Sandbox? The levels in Reach are quite big, but their structure are too linear to be defined as “sandbox”. A sandbox game would put players into a free-roaming level and allow players to emergently approach the gameplay. Crysis for example, is a sandbox game because it places the player into a free-roaming level and allows players to play those missions however they want to,. Reach scripts the player into fighting in corridors and one-way path situations. Bungie clearly don’t understand what Sandbox means.
> >
> > I’m pointing out the false promises Bungie has made, that no game journalist for a big named video game website or magazine would dare to. Bungie overhyped the campaign in the Vidocs, developer commentary, and interviews by making one falese promise to another. It’s quite clear that Bungie seem to have cared less about the single-player and story, but more for the multi-player and content. It’s been that way after Combat Evolved, minus ODST of course. You could say that it’s impossible for a game to contain both a great single-player and multi-player, but try to say that with a straight face after playing Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty 4. I will say this, Reach at least had a better single-player and story than Modern Warfare 2.
>
> So the main point is, Reach didn’t live up to expectations, based on the hype and the story line it was set in.
>
>
> Had they not worked on ODST, the campaign could of been longer and better.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZs8ryXP4kE
>
> Skip to: 8:05.
>
>
> We could have had several warthogs, and in the distant see several Frigates engaging Cruisers and a couple Carriers further off behind them in the distance. The sky would of been dark and gloomy, like a full on engagement. It was achievable, these are not fantasy’s, Bungie could have done this. 343 better execute it well.
>
> There was no climax to the story either. Like, there’s too much to type on how bad it was. Gears of War 2 is a perfect example of improvement. Bungie cared to much on multiplayer, and YOU CAN have a great multiplayer and campaign, Halo: CE is a example.
>
>
> Eg. Compare all other halo’s to Halo: CE’s vehicle dynamics…

I agreed with everything you’ve said, up until Gears of War 2… Did you really care for that Maria nonsense? Reach’s storyline was pretty weak, but it wasn’t on par of the awfulness of Gears 2’s story. Hell, it had a better storyline than Modern Warfare 2 and Killzone 2. Then again, it’s no where on par with the excellent storytelling of F.E.A.R., Half-Life 2, BioShock, and the first two Marathon games. Even Halo 2 & 3 had better storytelling than Reach. But I will say this, Gears of War 2’s single-player, from a gameplay standpoint, was superior than Reach in almost every way.

I will say that proto-type footage of Reach, certainly looks more fun than the actual game. The single-player and story in these games had a lot of potential, but they’re ultimately wasted because Bungie clearly had their gears towards the multi-player. I can’t say I entirely blame them, since the Halo franchise and the gaming industry have becoming more commercial. Not to mention that the cost of purchasing and producing games have risen up dramatically, Bungie made safe bets with the franchise after Halo: CE. But that still doesn’t excuse them from criticism, fr delivering one underwhelming campaign to another.

That said, Halo 2 & 3’s campaign were at least solid, even if they weren’t spectacular. They had a few stand-out missions, to go along with some of the “meh” missions and the cringes Flood levels. Reach may not contain Flood levels, but it didn’t contain any stand-outs either. Long Night of Solace was cool, but that’s about it. Lone Wolf wouldn’t count, because it was more of an interactive ending, than an actual level. Halo 3: ODST’s campaign was the closest to matching Combat Evolved’s quality, but it was an over-priced expansion pack .

I doubt Bungie won’t repeat the same mistakes for their new franchise, seeing that they sold-out to Activision. You can say that they’re only made a publishing deal and they’re still independent, but it’s hard not to be skeptical when it’s a ten year publishing deal and seeing how money hungry Bobby Kotick is. I don’t have high hopes for 343 Industries either, because it’s just a Cash Cow for Microsoft to churn out more Halo games. Soon, the Halo series will be as milked as the COD franchise.

10

> > 1) They said 40, not 60, and if you actually counted, the larger ones do push 35+.
> >
> > 2) Erm, yes it did.
> > /sarcasm
> > It’s an opinion, anyone can say whether that failed or succeeded and be right.
> >
> > 3)See #2
> >
> > 4)It’s quite sandboxy. Sandbox doesn’t mean “openworld” It means “minimal fully scripted sequences, things work on their own, you can do what you want”. Let’s go have a look see at forge and theater, shall we?
>
> Here’s where they said that they would pull-off 60 A.I.:
>
> http://www.mindch.com/2010/08/halo-reach-handles-60-ai-on-screen_06.html
>
> They even mentioned in several other interviews, including in an issue for GameInformer.
>
> A game doesn’t have to be “Open-world” to be a sandbox game. Crysis (in the first two acts) isn’t a open-world game, but it’s open-level. There are little to no constraints in the ways you can approach your missions, and you’re not forced to fight in open spaces or corridors. Reach limits you through it’s linear mission structures of it’s levels. Even in the third part of Tip of the Spear, you’re limited to fight in a corridor by the end of the mission.
>
> Plus, you can judge the level of atmosphere and the character development from an objective point of view. You get glimpses of the characters relationship and personalities in the closing cutscenes in Winter Contingency, but they were never explored after then. Thus, making them one-note and generic. For a great atmosphere, you need the campaign to allow players to be invested with the planet’s enviroment, culture, and situation. That was never explored either. Reach’s campaign ends up being flat. If it weren’t for the excellent enemy A.I., dynamic combat, and a visceral gunplay, I wouldn’t gone through the third mission.

Whatever, they said they could have 60 AI, not that they would.

Back to the sandbox thing, once again, it does not mean “do whatever you like”, it means “throw whatever together, add minimal scripting, and it works”

11

Why did they even develop the technology, and then refuse to use it?

Hopefully 343 is using it in the newest FF map, but I doubt it.

12

One of the main things I enjoyed in Reach were the elites. Swift, agile, huge. They were actually a threat (even on normal difficulty). Same with Hunters.

13

> Why did they even develop the technology, and then refuse to use it?
>
> Hopefully 343 is using it in the newest FF map, but I doubt it.

A) It might not be as efficient over a network.

B) In the off chance that something gets left behind and never despawns, you always have wiggle room.

C) Probably dragged FPS down to use that many anyway.

14

> > Why did they even develop the technology, and then refuse to use it?
> >
> > Hopefully 343 is using it in the newest FF map, but I doubt it.
>
> A) It might not be as efficient over a network.
>
> B) In the off chance that something gets left behind and never despawns, you always have wiggle room.
>
> C) Probably dragged FPS down to use that many anyway.

You don’t brag about things your engine can handle but at a cost to performance. You brag about what the engine can push to the limits while maintaining peak performance. They wouldn’t tell us (no company would) that they created an engine capable of such feats but then leave out that it can’t actually be done because the engine can’t really handle it.

That’s ludicrous.

The only thing that sort of makes sense there, is that the networking could not handle it efficiently to have that many enemies on-screen in two to four player co-op. But the thing is, Bungie already told us the game up-scales the amount of enemies thrown at us. Not the AI.

So why would it be, that in single player, when we SHOULD be seeing more enemies on screen (because there is no network latency issues involved), there is actually less enemies than Co-op? Where we do have latency issues.

In fact if it was network issues, the game could simply down-scale the enemy count for co-op, but keep the higher amount of enemies in single player.

These sort of things make me less interested in Bungie as a VG developer the more I think about it.

15

> > > Why did they even develop the technology, and then refuse to use it?
> > >
> > > Hopefully 343 is using it in the newest FF map, but I doubt it.
> >
> > A) It might not be as efficient over a network.
> >
> > B) In the off chance that something gets left behind and never despawns, you always have wiggle room.
> >
> > C) Probably dragged FPS down to use that many anyway.
>
> You don’t brag about things your engine can handle but at a cost to performance. You brag about what the engine can push to the limits while maintaining peak performance. They wouldn’t tell us (no company would) that they created an engine capable of such feats but then leave out that it can’t actually be done because the engine can’t really handle it.
>
> That’s ludicrous.
>
> The only thing that sort of makes sense there, is that the networking could not handle it efficiently to have that many enemies on-screen in two to four player co-op. But the thing is, Bungie already told us the game up-scales the amount of enemies thrown at us. Not the AI.
>
> So why would it be, that in single player, when we SHOULD be seeing more enemies on screen (because there is no network latency issues involved), there is actually less enemies than Co-op? Where we do have latency issues.
>
> In fact if it was network issues, the game could simply down-scale the enemy count for co-op, but keep the higher amount of enemies in single player.
>
> These sort of things make me less interested in Bungie as a VG developer the more I think about it.

(I’m doing these in order of your paragraphs, to keep it organized)

Erm…Yes you do. You brag about what your engine can while still being playable.

Ya, more AI over internet = more lag = more unplayability. Not sure what you’re saying here.

We see less enemies so it’s not impossible to finish, and the game has somewhere to scale up to when we have more friends in. Otherwise 4 people + less AI than 1 person = boring

16

> (I’m doing these in order of your paragraphs, to keep it organized)
>
> Erm…Yes you do. You brag about what your engine can while still being playable.
>
> Ya, more AI over internet = more lag = more unplayability. Not sure what you’re saying here.
>
> We see less enemies so it’s not impossible to finish, and the game has somewhere to scale up to when we have more friends in. Otherwise 4 people + less AI than 1 person = boring

Now I’m not making an argument here. I was simply covering the examples you gave and stated reasons why Bungie would not do this.

I said “a game developer does not brag about what it’s engine can do at a cost to performance”, not “a game developer does not brag about what it’s engine can do”.

You stated that even though they said they can put sixty AI on screen, “here are some reasons why they might not have”. I put that out there, because it’s bad business in the long run to hype up potential buyers by telling them what an engine can do, but not implementing it into the game as a feature.

To your second point, no need to re-instate what I already typed. You might just not understand properly what I am trying to convey.

If a game can push out sixty AI, then at easy difficulty in solo mode you should expect larger numbers of enemies because they drop faster. Hence I would expect to see all sixty AI used somewhere, but I don’t. In fact the enemy encounters between easy to legendary is about the same. I believe legendary might even have more enemies.

Also to counter-act the heightened difficulty of legendary solo, they can throw in FRIENDLY AI as well. It’s all apart of using the sixty AI promised, they count too, and the battles would have felt more immense.

One more point. It’s legendary. If you’re doing it solo-mode. You WANT the challenge, even if it’s down-right impossible at times. It should be that way. If you can’t handle it, then co-op or a lower difficulty is for you.

17

> > > Watch these two vids to get clear view to where I’m getting at.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QMBTlLmFM
> > >
> > > You see, Bungie made a lot of promises for the campaign, but they were never lived up to. To me, Reach’s campaign was a severe disappointment. I don’t think the campaign is “bad”, it’s just plain adequate, but it could’ve been SO much more.
> > >
> > > Here’s the promises they either didn’t live up to.
> > >
> > > - 60 A.I. battles on screen at once: Absolutely not true! Instead, they were only SLIGHTLY more enemies on screen than they were in prior games, but never to the point where it actually made the player feel like they were engaging in a planetary scale battle. The battles weren’t built-up well either, as they felt like another variation of FireFight than actual set-piece battles.
> > > - Reach will feel like a living breathing, immerssive planet: ODST’s New Mombasa’s Nighttime hub-world was far more atmospheric and immerssive than Reach. Attempts to immerse players into Reach worked poorly, such as the Civillian NPCs, whom just ran around in random circles and you didn’t give a damn when they were being slaughtered. There only three indigenous animals in Reach, and one of them makes one underwhelming appearance. Reach simply didn’t have they sense of wonder or exploration than Combat Evolved had.
> > > - It’s going to be an intimate character driven story: For a story that’s supposedly inspired by the Seven Samurai, Bungie seem to have put more investment into doing contrived errands than to explore the personalities of Noble Team. The characters were flat, one-note archetypes. Bungie’s attempts to humanize Spartans falls flat on it’s face. ODST had better character development, and it had a shorter campaign.
> > > - Reach is going to be a sandbox game: What is Bungie’s definition of Sandbox? The levels in Reach are quite big, but their structure are too linear to be defined as “sandbox”. A sandbox game would put players into a free-roaming level and allow players to emergently approach the gameplay. Crysis for example, is a sandbox game because it places the player into a free-roaming level and allows players to play those missions however they want to,. Reach scripts the player into fighting in corridors and one-way path situations. Bungie clearly don’t understand what Sandbox means.
> > >
> > > I’m pointing out the false promises Bungie has made, that no game journalist for a big named video game website or magazine would dare to. Bungie overhyped the campaign in the Vidocs, developer commentary, and interviews by making one falese promise to another. It’s quite clear that Bungie seem to have cared less about the single-player and story, but more for the multi-player and content. It’s been that way after Combat Evolved, minus ODST of course. You could say that it’s impossible for a game to contain both a great single-player and multi-player, but try to say that with a straight face after playing Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty 4. I will say this, Reach at least had a better single-player and story than Modern Warfare 2.
> >
> > So the main point is, Reach didn’t live up to expectations, based on the hype and the story line it was set in.
> >
> >
> > Had they not worked on ODST, the campaign could of been longer and better.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZs8ryXP4kE
> >
> > Skip to: 8:05.
> >
> >
> > We could have had several warthogs, and in the distant see several Frigates engaging Cruisers and a couple Carriers further off behind them in the distance. The sky would of been dark and gloomy, like a full on engagement. It was achievable, these are not fantasy’s, Bungie could have done this. 343 better execute it well.
> >
> > There was no climax to the story either. Like, there’s too much to type on how bad it was. Gears of War 2 is a perfect example of improvement. Bungie cared to much on multiplayer, and YOU CAN have a great multiplayer and campaign, Halo: CE is a example.
> >
> >
> > Eg. Compare all other halo’s to Halo: CE’s vehicle dynamics…
>
> I agreed with everything you’ve said, up until Gears of War 2… Did you really care for that Maria nonsense? Reach’s storyline was pretty weak, but it wasn’t on par of the awfulness of Gears 2’s story. Hell, it had a better storyline than Modern Warfare 2 and Killzone 2. Then again, it’s no where on par with the excellent storytelling of F.E.A.R., Half-Life 2, BioShock, and the first two Marathon games. Even Halo 2 & 3 had better storytelling than Reach. But I will say this, Gears of War 2’s single-player, from a gameplay standpoint, was superior than Reach in almost every way.
>
> I will say that proto-type footage of Reach, certainly looks more fun than the actual game. The single-player and story in these games had a lot of potential, but they’re ultimately wasted because Bungie clearly had their gears towards the multi-player. I can’t say I entirely blame them, since the Halo franchise and the gaming industry have becoming more commercial. Not to mention that the cost of purchasing and producing games have risen up dramatically, Bungie made safe bets with the franchise after Halo: CE. But that still doesn’t excuse them from criticism, fr delivering one underwhelming campaign to another.
>
> That said, Halo 2 & 3’s campaign were at least solid, even if they weren’t spectacular. They had a few stand-out missions, to go along with some of the “meh” missions and the cringes Flood levels. Reach may not contain Flood levels, but it didn’t contain any stand-outs either. Long Night of Solace was cool, but that’s about it. Lone Wolf wouldn’t count, because it was more of an interactive ending, than an actual level. Halo 3: ODST’s campaign was the closest to matching Combat Evolved’s quality, but it was an over-priced expansion pack .
>
> I doubt Bungie won’t repeat the same mistakes for their new franchise, seeing that they sold-out to Activision. You can say that they’re only made a publishing deal and they’re still independent, but it’s hard not to be skeptical when it’s a ten year publishing deal and seeing how money hungry Bobby Kotick is. I don’t have high hopes for 343 Industries either, because it’s just a Cash Cow for Microsoft to churn out more Halo games. Soon, the Halo series will be as milked as the COD franchise.

Besides the minor small drama with Dom’s side story, the entire campaign was engaging and filling. Yes, it still was a improvement, it’s just a element some people did not like, but all agree it was a compelling story and is still going to be for Gears Of War 3.

18

> > 60 enemies on the screen at once: I do think that it was possible for them but, ended up not doing it to difficulties. There is no 60 enemies on screen but, look at the level PoA. The Commonwealth encounter had 60 enemies in the the same area with out you having to load into new areas.
> >
> > I don’t know though, I really don’t see Reach in the eyes of a pessimist. In my mind set I view Reach as a great game with a lot of hard work put into it. I do indeed view it as a definitive Halo experience. Call me a fan boy and tell me I have low expectancy but, that my mind set about Reach.
>
> They put hard work into it, but that did not show, prove what they promised in the end.
>
> I’m glad you liked the campaign, you won’t have to be angered and dissipointed. However, I am amazed by the fact that people who loved the campaign can’t see it through our eyes. I wish I had lower expectations, but when Bungie promises things that raise the bar to a whole new level, and the fact the time line which it took place was immerse and big in the Halo universe, the elements were not there.
>
> No point in complaining, just hoping 343 refrains from multiplayer until they release their second game, EXCLUDING a Halo: CE remake

Not to say I had very low expectations but, when they were talking about the 60 A.I. on screen at once(They never said “promise”) I thought “Yeah right, like the producers are going to want that”. Read between the lines, just because they can do it doesn’t mean they will. I can imagine the conversation. Bungie1: “This encounter was a little tricky and it may cause some lag when co-op. It might work though (:.” Producer: “You know, that looks too fun and awesome. Lower it.” Bungie1: “:confused: Well, if you think so.”.

I was a little disappointed that we fought in the more civilian continent of Reach: Epoz, but that is where ONI sword base was which is where that artifact was so it made sense kind of. In all honesty I think the Red team story would of been too short for a campaign story. The route bungie took made sense to me although I did expect more at particular parts but, it was fine for me.

19

> (Eliminate quote pyramids! Save forum space!)

I know what you said, I was saying what I thought. It’s known as marketing. Remember they said it was before release though. It would hype buyers, and cause them to pre-order, but by the time the game actually came out they would’ve forgotten about it and just played the game anyways.

As to your 4th para, why don’t you try to reconvey what you wanted to say? I admit to not understanding your point 100%.

On easy solo, you have less enemies, and easier to drop enemies. That’s why they call it “easy”. If they were easy to drop, but the number was scaled up, then it wouldn’t be “easy”, since you scaled things up to balance.

60 AI was never promised, it was just possible.

Also, about that legendary campaign. Co-op is no easier than solo, just because they scale up enemy quantity too.

20

If I remember correctly, the saying was “40 AI and 20 vehicles”. Before Christmas, someone made a post on the Bungie forums about this. He went through the campaign solo on Legendary, using Theatre to count up the AI stuff. In many encounters, the numbers Bungie stated were very nearly reached. So while they didn’t have the exact numbers, they were very close.

Edit: Here’s the thread, as you can see the numbers were surpassed in some encounters.