Can I just disagree with this? For a few reasons. One: I wouldn’t want to play a fifteen-level Halo game, depending. There’s a fine line between length and purpose. ODST is a fine example. That game has such a great campaign, but part of that was because it’s short enough to all feel warranted. If 343 Industries found a way to create a campaign for Halo 4 that exceeds the others in length, that’s fine. But I just don’t want to play something that’s super drawn-out for no reason at all. It’s hard enough as it is to get over the feeling that each Halo level ends in hitting a switch, then watching a cutscene. I assure you, more would be overkill. Short and sweet over long and bitter.
I think Halo 2 is of note here, as well. Bungie tried to do what you’re describing; create a lengthy, epic campaign. It proved to be beyond their means. As a result, you have a lot of “holes” in that game. You have minimal polish. It was glitchy and just plain underdeveloped, and even Bungie knew that. So sometimes, especially when working to a Microsoft-dictated timeline, it’s a lot better to aim correctly than to overcompensate.
I personally want Halo 4’s campaign to be like Halo: Combat Evolved’s campaign. That is, I want it to feel isolated, alien, and slightly desperate. I want it to be mainly just the Chief and Cortana’s show. I also want it to feel underdeveloped story-wise, yet fulfilling. Combat Evolved never seemed to be built around the lore; it gave a feeling of the events of the universe feeling fairly insignificant to the playing at hand. Halo 2 felt a lot more consumed in narrative, and Halo 3 even more so. I would like a return to that “gameplay first, narrative second”. I want it to be simple, and fleshed out by more novels. But most of all, I want it fun and purposeful. Not lengthy.
I’ve got to admit, I’d love a multiplayer “stacked” with content. But I also have to admit, most of that “content” would have to be maps, as content that affects gameplay tends to be negatively received by me. But dwarfing Halo 3 and Reach combined at release would be difficult. Even just dwarfing Reach as far as quantity goes would be a daunting task. To put it into perspective, Reach had sixteen maps at launch. I’m counting Firefight maps, but those still count. I also didn’t count Forge World, which is, by far, the largest and most daunting Halo map to date. You’ve got to consider that five other maps were going to ship with Reach before Forge World was created. These were remakes of Ascension, Blood Gulch, Sanctuary, ad the original maps: The Cage and Paradiso. Then they were all assimilated into a single map; a mapmaker’s paradise.
And I think Forge World is certainly worth five different maps alone, so that brings the total count of Reach maps at launch up to twenty-one. I’m not speaking at all to the quality of the maps, since you didn’t. We’re dealing pure quantity here. And we haven’t even gotten into Halo 3 yet. We’ll be more brief with that, though. Halo 3 didn’t ship with nearly as many maps as Reach. In fact, eleven maps wouldn’t be hard to top with Halo 4 at all. But we’re trying to top Halo 3 and Reach combined, bringing the total up to thirty-two. Do you really think 343 Industries can ship thirty-two separate maps and manage to make them all good? I personally will be satisfied with not even topping Reach, actually. For me, it’s all about the quality, and numbers don’t really matter. I’d rather play a single good map over and over than most of the maps that shipped with Reach any day. And that’s speaking more to quality. My point here is that this is all about quality. I believe that in striving to deliver so many maps with Reach, Bungie faltered a bit on their quality. Map-making has to be an organic process. A multiplayer “stacked” with content (maps) has to be natural, or most of the maps will be throwaway. You can’t really force excellence, unless you’re Chuck Norris.
Dedicated servers is something I’d like to see, though. And super-customizable armor. And better Big Team Battle experiences. Not bigger, but better. Focus on improving first, then expanding. But dedicated servers would be super cool to see. It wouldn’t really have the biggest impact, though. Bungie pretty much perfected peer-to-peer connections with Reach, and I’ve hardly had any connection problems, even when three different computers are surfing the internet using my modem. I honestly would be content if 343 essentially “copy and pasted” (for lack of a better term) Reach’s netcode, but improved it to further minimize things such as mid-game host migration (which has stopped many a game dead in its tracks for minutes straight in Reach), add more customizable matchmaking (prioritize DLC, players with microphones, things like that), and just general things like this. Dedicated servers aren’t really needed. But they would sure be nice for people outside the US.
I also want to flat-out say no to your separate Forge disc. There’s, again, a fine line between creativity and simplicity. Right now, Forge tows that line perfectly. In adding that feature to a separate disc, you would presumably be expanding it to feature things such as layout editing, geometry editing, even texture mapping and things of that sort. That would be cool for super tech-savvy people, but I would personally never touch Forge again. I also know I’m not the only one. I enjoy its current accessibility, even with its limitations in mind. All it needs is a bigger palette.
I want to close with this. You’re obviously very passionate about Halo. You go into detail to outline the failures of previous Halo games, and mark how Halo 4 should improve. So you obviously love the franchise. What I find ironic there is that you say 343 will fail if they don’t take the time to make your “necessary changes” listed here. I just want to know how the other Halo games weren’t failures in your eyes without these features. If two-year development cycles will fail 343 so hard, why is Halo so successful anyways?
Questions to be answered.