Well there’s some things I like about halo 4 like the BR the hitscan the no bloom the graphics and faster gameplay. But there’s some things I don’t like perks and such but regardless I’m buying halo 4 no matter what. Who else is with me? Who else is gonna buy halo 4 no matter what?
Me.
Good a true halo fan. Anybody else?
It all depends on the Multiplayer for me, if im not satisfied with how it looks from all the possible info by the time it’s released then i can honestly say i wont buy it, instead i will simply lend it off a friend or rent it, possibly buy it pre-owned just to experience the campaign.
Either way i’ll have at least played the campaign either for free (lend from friend) or cheap (rent/pre-owned).
I’m buying it (as long as I have the money at the time).
I wouldn’t say “No matter what”. I would be really surprised if I don’t buy it. Let’s put it that way.
You’d be a fool to buy a game “no matter what”. However, if you’re simply implying that you’ll be buying the game even if it sports a few changes with which you don’t agree, then I applaud that statement. I’ll definitely be buying it, but nothing I’ve seen yet has made me unhappy, so I might not count.
> Good a true halo fan. Anybody else?
Hmm blindly buying something makes you a true fan?
Me seeing as multiplayer should always come after a good campaign. and for those who disagree halo was founded on a a good campaign nothing else the multiplayer was a happy accident.
There really isn’t enough information to know whether the game will be good or not. I’m not going to buy the game just because it has the name Halo on it. Likewise I won’t refuse to buy the game if it has one or two things I don’t like in it. Honestly I might just wait until after the game comes out to see some gameplay by actual people before I decide.
If they had said we are scrapping the multiplayer all together I would still buy it just for the campaign.
So ya I’m getting it for sure.
As far as multiplayer goes, I’m gonna play it no matter what they do to it. I hope its competitive and equals the quality of the trilogy and I get to play it for 3 years. But if 343 changes it too much and I don’t enjoy it then I’ll still probably play it for a year and move on.
I hope it captivates me like the trilogy did, but even if it is Reach 2 i’ll buy it.
The fact of the matter is, even though Reach was a dissapointment and the worst Halo game to date, it’s still the only game from 2010 I still play and I would still give it my personal GOTY. That’s after I admited it was the worst in the series, just goes to show you how much I love the trilogy.
So bottomline, would love it to recapture that original feeling, but if not I suspect it will still be a good game and worth a buy.
> > Good a true halo fan. Anybody else?
>
> Hmm blindly buying something makes you a true fan?
No but having faith in something and knowing there working hard and that 1:15 second worth of gameplay footage hardly accounts for a game that will have 99.99999% more then what we have seen and that, that .00001% we’ve actually seen doesn’t account for much. sorry if you think it does but its not there so much more to a game then a couple of mechanics and some footage shown sorry.
> <mark>alo was founded on a a good campaign nothing else the multiplayer was a happy accident.
[/quote]
I can’t tell you how nice it is to find someone who realises this. I won’t go so far as to assume that you aren’t anti-Reach, but I’ve long considered the criticism against Reach’s multiplayer to stem from the fact that people don’t realise that it was a generous addition on Bungie’s part, considering that the existence of that game was predicated upon Bungie’s desire to tell the story of Reach’s fall (i.e. the campaign).</mark>
> > > Good a true halo fan. Anybody else?
> >
> > Hmm blindly buying something makes you a true fan?
>
> No but having faith in something and knowing there working hard and that 1:15 second worth of gameplay footage hardly accounts for a game that will have 99.99999% more then what we have seen and that, that .00001% we’ve actually seen doesn’t account for much. sorry if you think it does but its not there so much more to a game then a couple of mechanics and some footage shown sorry.
I refer you to my first post.
While i still will experience at the least the campaign, not buying the game full price doesnt make me any less of a Fan of Halo, while i do love Halo i refuse to pay full price if i am personally disappointed with it, i bought Reach and i felt like a chump, i’m merely trying to avoid that again if it happens 
> > <mark>alo was founded on a a good campaign nothing else the multiplayer was a happy accident.
[/quote]
I can’t tell you how nice it is to find someone who realises this. I won’t go so far as to assume that you aren’t anti-Reach, but I’ve long considered the criticism against Reach’s multiplayer to stem from the fact that people don’t realise that it was a generous addition on Bungie’s part, considering that the existence of that game was predicated upon Bungie’s desire to tell the story of Reach’s fall (i.e. the campaign).
[/quote]
I happen to like reach’s multiplayer but i play halo for the campaign 1st and foremost</mark>
> > <mark>I happen to enjoy playing some fun multiplayer maps with friends in a friendly setting, JUST LIKE HALO CE used to be (for those who think Halo is purely competitive) And that what multiplayer is for fun that why it was invented For fun active engagement any one who thinks other wise needs to rethink games Competition is a side effect.</mark>
> > > > Good a true halo fan. Anybody else?
> > >
> > > Hmm blindly buying something makes you a true fan?
> >
> > No but having faith in something and knowing there working hard and that 1:15 second worth of gameplay footage hardly accounts for a game that will have 99.99999% more then what we have seen and that, that .00001% we’ve actually seen doesn’t account for much. sorry if you think it does but its not there so much more to a game then a couple of mechanics and some footage shown sorry.
>
> I refer you to my first post.
>
> While i still will experience at the least the campaign, not buying the game full price doesnt make me any less of a Fan of Halo, while i do love Halo i refuse to pay full price if i am personally disappointed with it, i bought Reach and i felt like a chump, i’m merely trying to avoid that again if it happens
But how do you know your disappointed till you have played it?
Disappointment comes from 1st hand experience with something.
I’m buying it no matter what…
> I happen to like reach’s multiplayer but i play halo for the campaign 1st and foremost
> I happen to enjoy playing some fun multiplayer maps with friends in a friendly setting, JUST LIKE HALO CE used to be (for those who think Halo is purely competitive) And that what multiplayer is for fun that why it was invented For fun active engagement any one who thinks other wise needs to rethink games Competition is a side effect.
There definitely has been a shift in focus in the last decade of gaming, so that multiplayer now represents a reason for purchase all on its own. It’s quite unfair on games that still deliver a campaign experience first and foremost, with an optional multiplayer component. Again, I would point to Reach as an example. Had Bungie eliminated the multiplayer entirely, people would not have complained, but their decision to include some form of it with new and interesting features (given the fact that the game was a spin-off of the main series and therefore permitting of a new style of play) unjustly backfired on them. They really aren’t deserving of the criticism they get.
> > I happen to like reach’s multiplayer but i play halo for the campaign 1st and foremost
> > I happen to enjoy playing some fun multiplayer maps with friends in a friendly setting, JUST LIKE HALO CE used to be (for those who think Halo is purely competitive) And that what multiplayer is for fun that why it was invented For fun active engagement any one who thinks other wise needs to rethink games Competition is a side effect.
>
> There definitely has been a shift in focus in the last decade of gaming, so that multiplayer now represents a reason for purchase all on its own. It’s quite unfair on games that still deliver a campaign experience first and foremost, with an optional multiplayer component. Again, I would point to Reach as an example. Had Bungie eliminated the multiplayer entirely, people would not have complained, but their decision to include some form of it with new and interesting features (given the fact that the game was a spin-off of the main series and therefore permitting of a new style of play) unjustly backfired on them. They really aren’t deserving of the criticism they get.
I agree. And people don’t realize this at all. and there so many different Opinions on all fraction of the game. Facts are your not going to make everyone happy. And the best you can do is to make something they has the best possible outcome with the most possible players. from both a Financial point of view as well as from a fan base point of view. and while the point in making games is to make the most engaging and interesting experience, while keeping it functional and interesting. now it gets tricky as to how to do this and some succeed and some fail. but from an all around stand point reach hardly fails as a game. seeing as there are so many game that are release and just fall to the wayside.
as for Halo 4 i Personally Beli343(hahaha) that they are focusing on a hard balance of both “casual” and “competitive” players they have stated multiply times there keeping the core halo as well as bring back the debated most love weapon in halo, they have stated that there working with MLG and many other competitive players to make sure their interest is kept. While still adding thing that other gamer might light which isn’t always bad. It was bad in reach But only because (IMHO) bungie truthfully lost interest in the franchise. and where contractually obligated to make another halo and didn’t have there full heart in it. Bu this isn’t reach and this isn’t bungie, (obviousness coming) his is halo 4 and it being made by 343 Which up to this point has put alot of hard work trying to make a “certain” group happy(while nothing will make this certain group happy enough) and have don’t several thing to help improve bungie short comings and inconsistencies, Not only that but this 200+ team is made up of 12 top ex bungie employees working as important aspect of the game. and while the other haven’t worked on halo before are 100% fan wanting to make the best halo for everyone, as well as most of them working for AAA developers created AAA game which are the leading in Graphics, gameplay, netcode, mechanics and many other appealing aspects.
Sorry for the wall of text i have some strong feelings on the issue lol but i have f4ith and i beli343
> They really aren’t deserving of the criticism they get.
LOL, they aren’t deserving of the criticism they get for multiplayer? Sorry, I had a real laugh right there.