I just wanted to know everyone’s opinion on one of the things that really pissed me off in halo reach. That’s the use of firefight and multiplayer maps in the campaign, or vice versa whatever u see it as.
Literally 80% of the campaign was firefight and multiplayer maps strung together, they didn’t even make the maps BASED on the story mode, just copy pasted it. I started playing multiplayer and firefight before the campaign, cuz i wanted to take it slow. And since i had pretty much played on most of the maps, the campaign was essentially ruined for me.
I know bungie’s intention was to make the world seamless between multiplayer and campaign so everyone would be familiar with the planet, but it honestly just killed the campaign. It was still good, but I could predict what every mission was going to be like before even playing it, and add on the fact that the campaign used the same ‘dropship’ gameplay as firefight, the excitement was basically gone.
Do you guys not think that the campaign deserves to be totally mysterious and unpredictable? I really hope 343 doesn’t do that with halo 4 because there would be no point in exploring the planet. Halo 3 did a really good job at it, maybe because there was no firefight, but at least maps like “guardian” were totally different from the campaign.
Please no Campaign based maps in MM.
I don’t think you know what “literally” means.
> I don’t think you know what “literally” means.
lol
No! God! Please No! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
(cookie for reference)
> No! God! Please No! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
>
>
> (cookie for reference)
The Office: Michael Scott.
> > No! God! Please No! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
> >
> >
> > (cookie for reference)
>
> The Office: Michael Scott.
A virtual cookie for you
I did not mind that the maps in MM were used in the campaign , kinda gave me a known feeling.
Considering the fact that Reach had the worst maps in Halo history, and it is the only game that used that feature, I say no.
Does it matter where the maps come from if they are good? If you play a great map, but it comes from the campaign, do you automatically disqualify it?
> Does it matter where the maps come from if they are good? If you play a great map, but it comes from the campaign, do you automatically disqualify it?
Thats what I’m asking myself all the time, i mean , how can a map suck anyway ? tell me, really.
> > Does it matter where the maps come from if they are good? If you play a great map, but it comes from the campaign, do you automatically disqualify it?
>
> Thats what I’m asking myself all the time, i mean , how can a map suck anyway ? tell me, really.
Well let me tell youuu, really. I have no complaints with the maps themselves, and i don’t “disqualify” anything. The problem is not with the multiplayer experience, it’s with the campaign. The maps don’t suck at all, they just make the campaign less exciting when you see the same things in both modes.
When they use the same maps from campaign in multiplayer, you have already seen what the missions will looks like in story mode. It takes away that mystery element from the campaign. When i was playing it, i really wanted to to explore the world, but everything looked the same as in multiplayer and firefight, so i didn’t have anything new to see. In halo 3 they took some areas from the story mode and made some maps based off of them. For example, you could tell high ground was set in new mombasa but the geography, topography, and layout weren’t copied exactly from the campaign.
Do you seriously not understand? If not, plz tell me so i can explain better.
> <mark>When they use the same maps from campaign in multiplayer, you have already seen what the missions will looks like in story mode. It takes away the mystery element from the campaign.</mark> When i was playing it, i really wanted to to explore the world, but everything looked the same as in multiplayer so i didn’t have anything new to see. In halo 3 they took some areas from the story mode and made some maps based off of them. For example, you could tell high ground was set in new mombasa but the geography, topography, and layout weren’t copied exactly from the campaign.
Then play the campaign first.
> > <mark>When they use the same maps from campaign in multiplayer, you have already seen what the missions will looks like in story mode. It takes away the mystery element from the campaign.</mark> When i was playing it, i really wanted to to explore the world, but everything looked the same as in multiplayer so i didn’t have anything new to see. In halo 3 they took some areas from the story mode and made some maps based off of them. For example, you could tell high ground was set in new mombasa but the geography, topography, and layout weren’t copied exactly from the campaign.
>
> Then play the campaign first.
So i have to hold off on multiplayer just so nothing is spoiled? It defeats the purpose of making new skins for new things. Why wouldn’t you want both things to be different? the more of the world you get to see the better.
That’s like using the same character models from past games, just so you feel “familiar”.
No…look how well it turned out for reach.
More symmetrical maps like halo 2/3, and make forge world better (if there is gonna be one for halo 4) like adding colour palettes etc.
> > > <mark>When they use the same maps from campaign in multiplayer, you have already seen what the missions will looks like in story mode. It takes away the mystery element from the campaign.</mark> When i was playing it, i really wanted to to explore the world, but everything looked the same as in multiplayer so i didn’t have anything new to see. In halo 3 they took some areas from the story mode and made some maps based off of them. For example, you could tell high ground was set in new mombasa but the geography, topography, and layout weren’t copied exactly from the campaign.
> >
> > Then play the campaign first.
>
> So i have to hold off on multiplayer just so nothing is spoiled? It defeats the purpose of making new skins for new things. Why wouldn’t you want both things to be different? the more of the world you get to see the better.
Because I always play the Campaign before going into multiplayer. Seriously, if the map plays well, I don’t care where it came from.
> > > > <mark>When they use the same maps from campaign in multiplayer, you have already seen what the missions will looks like in story mode. It takes away the mystery element from the campaign.</mark> When i was playing it, i really wanted to to explore the world, but everything looked the same as in multiplayer so i didn’t have anything new to see. In halo 3 they took some areas from the story mode and made some maps based off of them. For example, you could tell high ground was set in new mombasa but the geography, topography, and layout weren’t copied exactly from the campaign.
> > >
> > > Then play the campaign first.
> >
> > So i have to hold off on multiplayer just so nothing is spoiled? It defeats the purpose of making new skins for new things. Why wouldn’t you want both things to be different? the more of the world you get to see the better.
>
> Because I always play the Campaign before going into multiplayer. Seriously, if the map plays well, I don’t care where it came from.
Omg you’re referring to the multiplayer again. It doesn’t matter if it plays great or not, that’s a different issue. I get the feeling you really don’t care for the campaign. If that’s the case then i may understand why you’re saying what you’re saying.
im up for the idea. halo reach had a few good campaign based maps but really halo 3’s type maps were amazing
Am I the only that thinks that playing multiplayer first will spoil more than just the level layout? I can’t stand the idea of seeing the new weapons or abilities outside of their campaign context; I like to be introduced to the new additions gradually and only once I’ve acquired some affinity with them at the conclusion of the campaign will I turn to multiplayer.
