Anyone else think that 343 made bad in-game maps/bad map rotations to get us to buy the DLC?
Just wondering if this is possible or if I’m crazy
No.
That would be one of the stupidest things 343i could ever do.
Didnt the DLC only have like three maps? How is that even a good trade off for the ten maps we got? Not saying the defaults are anything spectacular, but still…
Being as the DLC has ready before the final game launched, this tells me that they actually do not include things that should be in the game, so we will have to pay money for it.
mark my words, next thing they will have us buy is a pass to play MM just like BF3.
No way. The best strategy would’ve been to (assuming they could) release amazing maps with the game and then people would be so psyched for more they’d buy the dlc. Putting out bad maps on purpose would just put people off of the game. That makes no sense.
> No way. The best strategy would’ve been to (assuming they could) release amazing maps with the game and then people would be so psyched for more they’d buy the dlc. Putting out bad maps on purpose would just put people off of the game. That makes no sense.
Yep. That is a much better strategy, and it turns out well both for the producer and consumer. They get money from us buying DLC’s, and we get good maps plus DLC’s.
And I’m fine with Halo 4’s maps. Maybe they’re not amazingly awesome, but I like them.
I doubt it. I’d be more inclined to believe this except for the fact that the DLC maps suck as much or worse than the maps that shipped.
No. 343 is just trying have their game stand out from previous installments, except when it “stands out,” it’s mostly because of an annoyance…
> > No way. The best strategy would’ve been to (assuming they could) release amazing maps with the game and then people would be so psyched for more they’d buy the dlc. Putting out bad maps on purpose would just put people off of the game. That makes no sense.
>
> Yep. That is a much better strategy, and it turns out well both for the producer and consumer. They get money from us buying DLC’s, and we get good maps plus DLC’s.
>
> And I’m fine with Halo 4’s maps. Maybe they’re not amazingly awesome, but I like them.
Yeah, I guess I like them overall, too. I have some minor gripes, like most of them are way too big and they keep shoehorning vehicles onto maps where they’re annoying. Like the borderline instantly respawning ghosts on Complex. That’s pretty much my biggest complaint. They seem to want 5 active ghosts on every map at any given time.
I think the maps are fine(the only map i hate is complex), its just that ordinance allows for camping so people don’t move around. If there was actually weapon placement i think they would be better
> I think the maps are fine(the only map i hate is complex), its just that ordinance allows for camping so people don’t move around. If there was actually weapon placement i think they would be better
haha Everyone hates Complex.
The December DLC is enough to debunk this theory. Those maps were horrible.
Not sure why the maps are so bad but I’m willing to give 343 the benefit of the doubt. Truth is, they probably didn’t realise how the game would truly play out during the design phase - hence making good competitive and balanced maps was always going to be a shot in the dark.
Much like with the original trilogy, bungie didn’t really perfect their map design until H2 and then H3. CE did have some good maps, but most were a miss.
Reach’s maps are bad, but not as bad as H4. Zealot & Countdown were very decent.
The first DLC map pack consist of more oversized, uninspired maps. So no, they did not create bad maps to sell DLC, they created bad maps because they have lost touch with what makes a Halo map fun.
At least the next map consist of three smaller maps, this is something seriously lacking at the moment in Halo.