I see a lot of Wishlists stuff and Adds to the games people would like. But if 343i only has so much time and money to make the game would you be cool with them reusing assets to add these things? My example would be Reach and ODST, in these games Bungie had reused multi-player maps for locations in the games. I didn’t mind it at all and liked that they changed them from night to day for campaign or multi-player or firefight. Any new map takes time to create and time to playtest and polish. So if they did this maybe they would free up some manpower to add Elites, or your favorite playlist, or that vehicle you miss.
Would you be cool with it?
I would be.
I’d also like to say if they could release a map pack with every map EVER made for multi-player and firefight with the new sandbox. I would buy it and buy a hard drive just to get it.
I wouldn’t mind if the multiplayer maps were put into the campaign. I would take issue with areas made for campaign being in mp though. They probably have time to keep them seperate, I don’t think it’ll come out until at least 2020, maybe 2021.
No, certainly would not want 343i to sacrifice quality for quantity. A well thought out and polished experience will always have more depth to it than one where corners have been cut to throw in everything under the sun. It doesn’t matter if the game has five hundred maps if all of them are mediocre, because mediocre maps are not fun. Zero hours of fun times 500 hundred is still zero hours of fun. On the other hand, a single very well designed map will have endless hours of fun on it.
Quantity is a silly thing to shoot for in game design, because it doesn’t have any intrinsic value.
Alot of halo mp maps are inspired form campaighn levels, and Some are nearly the same level. I rather have them take time to polish all aspects of the game and come up with orginal things. Of course we know they will have alot of halo stuff form various games, with new sounds and looks.
> 2533274825830455;3:
> No, certainly would not want 343i to sacrifice quality for quantity. A well thought out and polished experience will always have more depth to it than one where corners have been cut to throw in everything under the sun. It doesn’t matter if the game has five hundred maps if all of them are mediocre, because mediocre maps are not fun. Zero hours of fun times 500 hundred is still zero hours of fun. On the other hand, a single very well designed map will have endless hours of fun on it.
>
> Quantity is a silly thing to shoot for in game design, because it doesn’t have any intrinsic value.
I don’t think its Quantity over Quality. I’m not trying to say for example, if the game is going to have 12 multiplayer maps at launch that we’d get 18 instead by reusing assets. We’d still just get 12, however, if 343i could spent the time lets say createing the Elites from the ground up vs creating completely separate campaign and multiplayer play spaces also from the ground up. This would allow greater depth to the game by having Elites brought in as playable vs just Spartans. Its not really sacrificing quality of those reused play spaces because they would still get the matchmaking and campaign testing treatment standards. Its more Variety of ways to play over Quantity of individual play spaces to play, really.
I think the Spire from Reach is the best example of this. Its made lasting memories for many in Invasion and had a fun climax to a mission with a good cut scene to top it off. I’d say the Spire had, Quality and Depth equaling good Value.
> 2781911019823810;5:
> > 2533274825830455;3:
> > No, certainly would not want 343i to sacrifice quality for quantity. A well thought out and polished experience will always have more depth to it than one where corners have been cut to throw in everything under the sun. It doesn’t matter if the game has five hundred maps if all of them are mediocre, because mediocre maps are not fun. Zero hours of fun times 500 hundred is still zero hours of fun. On the other hand, a single very well designed map will have endless hours of fun on it.
> >
> > Quantity is a silly thing to shoot for in game design, because it doesn’t have any intrinsic value.
>
> I don’t think its Quantity over Quality. I’m not trying to say for example, if the game is going to have 12 multiplayer maps at launch that we’d get 18 instead by reusing assets. We’d still just get 12, however, if 343i could spent the time lets say createing the Elites from the ground up vs creating completely separate campaign and multiplayer play spaces also from the ground up. This would allow greater depth to the game by having Elites brought in as playable vs just Spartans. Its not really sacrificing quality of those reused play spaces because they would still get the matchmaking and campaign testing treatment standards. Its more Variety of ways to play over Quantity of individual play spaces to play, really.
>
> I think the Spire from Reach is the best example of this. Its made lasting memories for many in Invasion and had a fun climax to a mission with a good cut scene to top it off. I’d say the Spire had, Quality and Depth equaling good Value.
>
> Don’t you think so too?
First, I don’t see how the addition of playable Elites would require compromising on level design, considering these are two wildly different aspects of the game largely worked on by completely different people. Secondly, playable Elites are very low on my priority list, certainly well below varied level design, so my answer is obvious: I would not compromise on level design to get playable Elites.
When it comes to Spire, it showcases the problem Reach ran into trying to do much. From a visual stand point, I fully agree that Spire is a great piece of level design. From a gameplay standpoint, it’s conceptually fascinating. However, as an Invasion map it was at best decent, though not exceptional, and as a BTB map it was just bad, having no clear structure or flow, and a huge concentration on just a small part of the map, leaving half the map unused. Reach trying to do Invasion ended up throwing traditional BTB under the bus, a mistake Halo 5 would repeat five years later.
I think to justify reuse of playspaces, I would have to be given something that 1) justifisies the reuse, and 2) very concretely necessitates the reuse. To this day I’m not sure how much exactly did Bungie gain from reusing multiplayer maps as portions of campaign levels, but as a player I never felt that the reuse enriched some other part of the experience.
> 2533274825830455;7:
> > 2781911019823810;5:
> > > 2533274825830455;3:
> > >
>
> First, I don’t see how the addition of playable Elites would require compromising on level design, considering these are two wildly different aspects of the game largely worked on by completely different people. Secondly, playable Elites are very low on my priority list, certainly well below varied level design, so my answer is obvious: I would not compromise on level design to get playable Elites.
Elites and Spire are just one example. The reuse of assets is a question of manpower and time management. 343i is a business that like all companies work on a budget for there product. No company is going to drop unlimited capital for a product just to make the consumers happen. So they might use the same programer that makes the grunt hop around and then move them to a waterfall in a map when that part is done, and so on.
Its ok not to pefer Elites as a playable character, but they could use the manpower to do more than just that. Like I mentioned before they could bring back fun vehicles or playlists or whatever, with the manpower and time managment of multi functional level designs.
Isn’t there a feature you would like to add or revisit with the compromise of a playable space shared in campaign and matchmaking or firefight or a new Spartan Ops? As long as the qualtiy of the play space was up to par.
> 2781911019823810;8:
> > 2533274825830455;7:
> > > 2781911019823810;5:
> > > > 2533274825830455;3:
> > > >
> >
> > First, I don’t see how the addition of playable Elites would require compromising on level design, considering these are two wildly different aspects of the game largely worked on by completely different people. Secondly, playable Elites are very low on my priority list, certainly well below varied level design, so my answer is obvious: I would not compromise on level design to get playable Elites.
>
> Elites and Spire are just one example. The reuse of assets is a question of manpower and time management. 343i is a business that like all companies work on a budget for there product. No company is going to drop unlimited capital for a product just to make the consumers happen. So they might use the same programer that makes the grunt hop around and then move them to a waterfall in a map when that part is done, and so on.
> Its ok not to pefer Elites as a playable character, but they could use the manpower to do more than just that. Like I mentioned before they could bring back fun vehicles or playlists or whatever, with the manpower and time managment of multi functional level designs.
> Isn’t there a feature you would like to add or revisit with the compromise of a playable space shared in campaign and matchmaking or firefight or a new Spartan Ops? As long as the qualtiy of the play space was up to par.
But it’s a question of priorities. Sure, if somebody told me about a thing that would be awesome, and convinced me that it would require reusing multiplayer levels in campaign, then I would accept that. However, this relies on the existence of such a thing. As it is, I see no reason to compromise on the uniqueness of level design., so of course I’m going to say “no, I wouldn’t want that”.
Halo 2 and 3 reused a lot of assets (primarily dialogue) from the game before them. Halo games have a long history of reusing the same songs with minor tweaks. I’m not saying any of these things are bad as the original games sold quite well. As for models and maps, let’s be real, we finally have a new game engine. Everything is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch.
> 2781911019823810;1:
> I see a lot of Wishlists stuff and Adds to the games people would like. But if 343i only has so much time and money to make the game would you be cool with them reusing assets to add these things? My example would be Reach and ODST, in these games Bungie had reused multi-player maps for locations in the games. I didn’t mind it at all and liked that they changed them from night to day for campaign or multi-player or firefight. Any new map takes time to create and time to playtest and polish. So if they did this maybe they would free up some manpower to add Elites, or your favorite playlist, or that vehicle you miss.
> Would you be cool with it?
> I would be.
>
> I’d also like to say if they could release a map pack with every map EVER made for multi-player and firefight with the new sandbox. I would buy it and buy a hard drive just to get it.
When it comes to maps,no I wouldn’t be because I feel like halo 5 maps are terrible
> 2533274909139271;10:
> As for models and maps, let’s be real, we finally have a new game engine. Everything is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch.
Outside of the programming, nothing would actually have the be remade.
3D models, textures, sounds and so forth are separate files created with external programs, and then imported into the engine.
Mechwarrior Online is made with crytech
BattleTech with Unity
Mechwarrior 5: Mercenaries with Unreal Engine 4
As far as I’m concerned, the mech models are the same throughout the games, and they were done for MWO.
Perhaps some small tweaks here and there needed.
> 2533274825830455;7:
> To this day I’m not sure how much exactly did Bungie gain from reusing multiplayer maps as portions of campaign levels, but as a player I never felt that the reuse enriched some other part of the experience.
I don’t think they did it for any other reason than to slightly tie campaign and mp together. Especially not to save resources.
Knowing the maps was in the campaign, it was kind of fun looking for and seeing how they’d used them.
Some maps were barely used, while others saw heavy fighting.
I’ll take quality maps over quantity. I’m okay if they reuse certain things. Actually having mp maps inspired from campaign to tie it all together would be great imo
No, I wouldn’t like that. They’re literally making the game now with no public set timeline so if they want to take their time then I except original things for everything. Warzone was bad with that when they used the same type of bases and garages for everything until they gave us the update with new maps, but they still had the same assets for some things.
Not only would I be okay with it, I hope they do. There’s some really cool environments in 343i’s Halo campaigns and it honestly annoys me quite a bit that they didn’t use them in any other modes. If I’ve learned anything from playing the Halo campaigns, it’s that killing aliens is fun to do in almost any environment. I would have no issue whatsoever with 343i using maps initially designed for multiplayer modes in campaign (and Firefight, but I think that goes without saying at this point).
I wouldn’t be cool with it, it lacks creativity in doing so which even bungie was criticized for when reusing map environments in reach. People want originality even if there’s less of it over copy and pasting. I’ll remember a one time only map far more than another map getting remixed X times over.
> 2533274923562209;17:
> I wouldn’t be cool with it, it lacks creativity in doing so which even bungie was criticized for when reusing map environments in reach. People want originality even if there’s less of it over copy and pasting. I’ll remember a one time only map far more than another map getting remixed X times over.
To be fair, I remember a lot of the criticism towards Bungie’s decision being misplaced, since people didn’t quite understand the situation and tought Bungie had just been lazy and taken their multiplayer maps directly from campaign, rather than the other way around as was actually the case. I don’t know whether people would’ve cared that much had they understood the process better.
> 2533274825830455;18:
> > 2533274923562209;17:
> > I wouldn’t be cool with it, it lacks creativity in doing so which even bungie was criticized for when reusing map environments in reach. People want originality even if there’s less of it over copy and pasting. I’ll remember a one time only map far more than another map getting remixed X times over.
>
> To be fair, I remember a lot of the criticism towards Bungie’s decision being misplaced, since people didn’t quite understand the situation and tought Bungie had just been lazy and taken their multiplayer maps directly from campaign, rather than the other way around as was actually the case. I don’t know whether people would’ve cared that much had they understood the process better.
Much as I hate to say it, probably not. Explanations and raw data do not tend to change opinions very much.
People STILL call Jul 'Mdama’s Covenant faction the “Storm Covenant” to this day.
> 2781911019823810;1:
> I see a lot of Wishlists stuff and Adds to the games people would like. But if 343i only has so much time and money to make the game would you be cool with them reusing assets to add these things? My example would be Reach and ODST, in these games Bungie had reused multi-player maps for locations in the games. I didn’t mind it at all and liked that they changed them from night to day for campaign or multi-player or firefight. Any new map takes time to create and time to playtest and polish. So if they did this maybe they would free up some manpower to add Elites, or your favorite playlist, or that vehicle you miss.
> Would you be cool with it?
> I would be.
>
> I’d also like to say if they could release a map pack with every map EVER made for multi-player and firefight with the new sandbox. I would buy it and buy a hard drive just to get it.
It really wouldn’t matter as long as I maintain the feeling that 343 put big work into this game. Effort to indirectly say they wanted us to enjoy it. I’m not saying they haven’t done that, content (for the most part) hasn’t been a big problem with their games, though it isn’t noticeable aside Halo 5’s pour launch.
You release this game with a full campaign, all our favourite modes, and all our favourite armours, and for my case Playable Elites, then we’re set.
For lack of a better statement, if I’ve missed anything, please let me know.
I just don’t want this game to turn out to have content that 25% of either what we’ve seen or what we expect. Battlefront 2 EA was neither of these things because we are both talking about a gaming succeeding Pandemic’s OG battlefront 2, but also the entire Star Wars universe. EA Battlefront 2 is missing 80% of the heroes from Pandemic’s battlefront 2, and has only delivered General Grevious a year later, as I am writing this message.
That is both an insult to Star Wars, and one to the fans of the original game.
I really doubt this can happen at this far into 343’s learning curve, but if we get Halo 6 shipped without ANY Iconic modes, the lazy customization from Halo 5 only with LESS armour, another lazily written campaign, and zero playable elites whatsoever then we are going to have a problem, because they would be taking a step back.
Like EA and DICE with Battlefront 2, they took a step back with what made the previous game so fun; all the iconic characters (Jedi Council, Separatist leaders, and a plethora of almost all Star Wars locations we’ve ever seen), and modes (mainly conquest) or even space battles, which we’ve asked for years.
It would be almost impossible for 343 to screw up on this now, since they’ve had all the time in the world so far to take all the criticism we’ve given them on this very website to screw that up, you know what I mean?