Would Halo 4 be doing better if .....

War Games never existed? Without war games we would see Invasion, Firefight, a new menu, elites as playable character , maybe no personal customs, different forge environments, maybe no ordnance, new game mode?, and etc. This list can go on and on. What do you as the community thinks?

War Games not existing wouldn’t guarantee anything honestly. They could’ve messed things up just as easily without it.

I don’t understand the question. How does not having war games change any of that?

Not having war games would have made the “replay” value of this game go straight down to a burning inferno, wouldn’t even justify $40

Couldn’t give a toss whether MM is canon as long as its fun. War Games is a neat tie-in, but too much has been sacrificed for it.

Well not having war games but replaced with old classic multiplayer not taking place in a simulator.

It might have done better if there had been a public Beta. Saying it’ll put you behind is a bad decision in of it’s self. Beta’s are there not only to fix the game and make it better but in the words of Luke Smith.

> “It would force wishy washy developers to get their act together.”

> Not having war games would have made the “replay” value of this game go straight down to a burning inferno, wouldn’t even justify $40

I think OP meant about how the multiplayer is now canon and the limitations it brings instead of taking out all of multiplayer

Edit: also the OP is wrong as weather or not there is canon in multiplayer has anything to do with these desisions. 343 decided they didn’t like certain things so certain things werent part of the game

> It might have done better if there had been a public Beta. Saying it’ll put you behind is a bad decision in of it’s self. Beta’s are there not only to fix the game and make it better but in the words of Luke Smith.
>
> > “It would force wishy washy developers to get their act together.”

Like Halo: Reach amiright? That public beta fixed all the problems and quelled the whining and the “halo is dead” posts.

> > Not having war games would have made the “replay” value of this game go straight down to a burning inferno, wouldn’t even justify $40
>
> I think OP meant about how the multiplayer is now canon and the limitations it brings instead of taking out all of multiplayer
>
> Edit: also the OP is wrong as weather or not there is canon in multiplayer has anything to do with these desisions. 343 decided they didn’t like certain things so certain things werent part of the game

Less than 1 percent of the Reach pop. played as elites. Half of them were customs people who rarely played MM. Invasion probably wouldn’t have balanced w/out elites. War games is fine and completely works.

> War Games never existed? Without war games we would see Invasion, Firefight, a new menu, elites as playable character , maybe no personal customs, different forge environments, maybe no ordnance, new game mode?, and etc. This list can go on and on. What do you as the community thinks?

Nothing would have changed. Just the label from War Games to Multiplayer.

> War Games never existed? Without war games we would see Invasion, Firefight, a new menu, elites as playable character , maybe no personal customs, different forge environments, maybe no ordnance, new game mode?, and etc. This list can go on and on. What do you as the community thinks?

How would omitting war games cause everything you want to come in? Its like saying if we didn’t have campaign everyone would get a real life unicorn. You cannot speculate how removing whole features would have affected the game.