Google+

We Recommend

54 comments

  • udUbdaWgz - November 5, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    i want the next halo to have a completely separate single player campaign with absolutely no multiplayer. i want it long, innovative and full of terrific characters and stories. i don't want multiplayer infecting it.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 4:32 a.m.

    Halo has ALWAYS had multiplayer, so the odds of that happening are pretty much less than zero. Though I do want a good campaign as well.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    yes, we all know that fact. however, i was obviously speaking to a much bigger issue in gaming: multiplayer ruining single player. in truth, the next halo should lead the way with true innovation on a much wider scale and do what i've been advocating for years: release the disease i call multiplayer through digital means only and completely separate from single player. i'm tired of my single player campaigns being hijacked.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    You do realize that if 343i did that, there would be an explosion of riots on forums, right? Since it was first released, multiplayer has always been an important part of Halo. Halo practically CREATED online multiplayer on consoles. With that in mind, you're advocating that they sell the multiplayer for Halo 5 separately? What drugs are you on?!
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    if multiplayer enthusiasts exploded in anger over separate single and multiplayer releases of a halo game, then, they prove they lack intellectual comprehension and prove my point correct.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    No, they'd simply be angry over the fact that corporate bullshit is making them pay for two separate things that should have been a single product in the first place. If that happened, they'd just end up paying more money then they would had the two been released in a single game. Nobody wants to do that.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    you just proved my point in a couple ways: single player only gamers could care less about multiplayer. there are millions of people who, like me, despise multiplayer. we are the ones getting the shaft because our single product is getting diluted by a second product we don't want. btw, it's time for people like you to realize that single player and multi are 2 completely separate beasts and should be treated as such. single player only gets the shaft. not multiplayer junkies who can also play the single mode. if you don't understand this argument, the conversation ends there. as well, your entire argument is pro-multiplayer gamers. single player only gamers could give a rip about multi. corporate b.s? the corporate b.s is the entire concept of FORCED multiplayer. that entire debacle at the beginning of this gen is all about corporate b.s.. the single product, as you say, should be single player and multiplayer only. if you multiplayer lovers want it, then, have your own games. don't infect and dilute and cause subpar single player campaigns on my games. keep the the multi digital buys only and separate from the majority of us who hate multiplayer.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    let me add this for thought: keep your multi with the 5-10 hour single player add-ons and let me have my 30-100 hour campaign with no multiplayer released separately. THAT proves my case.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    So you're saying that Halo multiplayer is "forced" onto the game when multiplayer is what Halo has mainly been known for FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE FRANCHISE?!!! The multiplayer's existence does not mean that the developers don't put any effort in the campaign. The campaigns for Halo have always been great shooter sandboxes, and in Halo 4 they told a pretty good story as well. The multiplayer isn't "diluting" it. If you're looking for a single-player campaign that lasts 30-100 hours, why the hell are you looking at Halo? If you want that kind of lengthy content, play something like Mass Effect, The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto, or Red Dead Redemption. Those all have great, long single-player campaigns, and the multiplayer that is present does not detract from their quality one iota. The thing is, I DON'T EVEN HAVE XBOX LIVE!!! As such, I get most of my gaming entertainment FROM great singleplayer in games. Even though I wish I was able to play multiplayer for games like Halo and Mass Effect 3, I still love a good long story. So I'm not arguing with you because I'm a multiplayer junkie. I'm arguing with you because you're argument is illogical as hell!
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    first, i can see i didn't make it clear to you that i'm referring to multiplayer games, in general. the halo series has done a great job of having great single player campaigns. second, halo 1-3 is known primarily for its great single player campaign, story/characters/lore and its multiplayer. to push the multi aspect to the forefront is ridiculous. third, my point with the 30-100 hour campaign single player is specifically referring to games without multiplayer. in fact, you prove my point when bringing up mass effect. if a halo single-player only game was released it would be epic and rival any other game in existence. the multiplayer resource siphoning brings down the single player campaign. fourth, the multi aspect of those games are far from good and undeniably take away from the single player aspect, in terms of, resources, time, quality, etc. and, finally, let me simply state my point again: single player and multiplayer games should be sold separately with their own full allocation of financial resources. multiplayer is forced on single player only gamers. there are millions of us and the only people benefiting are the companies and multiplayer junkies. the only people that get the shaft are the single player gamers.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    Yes, the Halo games are known for their great campaigns, but to some extent multiplayer has ALWAYS been at the forefront. Halo 2 pioneered the online shooter experience. Halo 3 dominated Xbox Live before CoD came along. So yes, this is something that is a key part of Halo, always will, and always should be. To push it to the sidelines would be pissing in the face of those who enjoy the multiplayer. In regards to multiplayer in mainly single player games, I did get the chance to play Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, and let me tell you, it was really fun, and I know for a fact that plenty of people enjoy it, even if their numbers don't rival CoD. As for the singleplayer, while the original ending may have sucked, it was still one of the best games I've ever played. The multiplayer didn't detract from it one bit. Also, Assassin's Creed IV. That franchise's multiplayer is something that does have quite a following I believe, but I haven't even touched it. The singleplayer of that game is awesome, and probably the best pirate sim ever. Don't see any dip in quality just because there's multiplayer. GTA V is utterly phenomenal singleplayer-wise, and guess what? It ALSO has multiplayer, and CLEARLY it's presence hasn't affected the singleplayer's excellence. Red Dead Redemption? Same exact thing. Do I even need to mention The Last of Us? The point is, all these games have excellent singleplayer campaigns, and the fact that multiplayer is included doesn't affect it at all. In many cases, the multiplayer is actually GOOD. So your complaint of subpar multiplayer affecting the quality of the singleplayer is unfounded and ludicrous.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    the primary point is that the majority of gamers do not play multiplayer games. it's that simple and there is no pushing "to the sidelines" since you'd be able to go buy the single/multi if you wanted. in the current format, the only people that truly get pushed to the side are the single player only gamers who hate multiplayer. and, we outnumber the multi's by millions. as well, multiplayer takes away from the single player campaign. you can deny it, but, it's very obvious to anybody with intellectual honesty that the money and resources spent on multi means less money and resources for the single player portion. whether or not the multi is great or not is irrelevant. btw, tlou and gta5 are my top two most overrated games ever, recently, overtaking gta4. the single player is been there, done that, old and cliched gameplay. and, gameplay always trumps graphics and story.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    "the primary point is that the majority of gamers do not play multiplayer games." Where are the statistics to back this up? Last time I checked, CoD still sells like hotcakes every year. "as well, multiplayer takes away from the single player campaign. you can deny it, but, it's very obvious to anybody with intellectual honesty that the money and resources spent on multi means less money and resources for the single player portion. whether or not the multi is great or not is irrelevant." No, it's very fucking relevant. It means the developers have created more than one way for gamers to enjoy their product. This is NOT necessarily bad if both portions are up to par with or exceed the expectations of their target audience. If both are excellent, what does it matter? That should make EVERYONE happy, single and multiplayer gamers included! Why can't we all just get along? "btw, tlou and gta5 are my top two most overrated games ever, recently, overtaking gta4. the single player is been there, done that, old and cliched gameplay. and, gameplay always trumps graphics and story." Congratulations. With this one statement, you've just evaporated into thin air any and all credibility you might have had. Yes, gameplay is important, but what a lot of gamers care about is story, and for some it's even more important than gameplay. Why do you think games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, and Red Dead Redemption are so critically acclaimed and loved by gamers everywhere? It's not because of the gameplay, it's because the developers crafted such excellent stories with memorable characters and moments that awed us just as much if not more so than some of the best movies out there. Is that not in and of itself worth a lot? Of course it is, and you saying that story doesn't matter is pissing on the hard work of the ones who made these great stories, as well as rejecting the value of video games as an art form. THAT pisses me off.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    a.) go check the stats of those who pay for gold and/or play multiplayer games on psn. b.) what about single player only do you not understand? a great multiplayer component does nothing for those who don't play it, except, take away more from the single player portion. separate and great single and multi makes both parties happy. there is no reason why the multiplayer minority should get to play multi and single, while, those who don't play multi get the shaft. c.) mass effect , bio and rdr are great because of their gameplay. they could have horrid stories and character development and still shine. if you don't care about gameplay first, then, go read a book or watch a movie or go to an art gallery. yes, single and multi don't mix. yes, gameplay trumps story, characters and art.
  • N7Spartan95 - November 6, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    "go check the stats of those who pay for gold and/or play multiplayer games on psn." Can you provide a link? "what about single player only do you not understand? a great multiplayer component does nothing for those who don't play it, except, take away more from the single player portion. separate and great single and multi makes both parties happy. there is no reason why the multiplayer minority should get to play multi and single, while, those who don't play tulti get the shaft." Here's an idea: if you don't like the multiplayer, DON'T PLAY IT! It is that fucking simple! As I apparently need to point out AGAIN, all the games I mentioned have awesome singleplayer modes. You are not "getting the shaft," you're complaining for the sake of complaining because of a feature that you personally don't like, but one that a ton of other people gain enjoyment from. Why should THEY get the shaft? It'd be one thing if the multiplayer sucked, but for games like AC or Halo that have strong multiplayer components, taking them away because YOU don't like them is idiotic. News flash: the universe doesn't revolve around you! There are other people's desires and wants for games that have to be taken into account! "mass effect , bio and rdr are great because of their gameplay. they could have horrid stories and character development and still shine. if you don't care about gameplay first, then, go read a book or watch a movie or go to an art gallery." I'm not saying I don't care about gameplay. Gameplay can be awesome, and by all means developers should make it the best it can be. But that doesn't mean that story shouldn't be an important part as well. Video games are capable of providing a level of immersion in the story that other genres simply can't. To not push this aspect to it's fullest potential is a disservice to the medium. Those games would still be great with just the gameplay, but it was the story that elevated them to high honors for gamers. Would Red Dead be as good without John Marshton, or would the game have made as big an impression on those playing it without his shocking death? Would we be talking about Mass Effect without its incredible characters like Tali, Garrus, Mordin, Legion, and Wrex? What would BioShock be without the madman known as Andrew Ryan, or its mind-boggling twist that didn't just get players talking, but thinking about the meaning of it as well? If you're just going to dismiss all of that by saying I should go read a book, then I have no respect for your opinion on the matter.
  • udUbdaWgz - November 6, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    actually, it's amazing you're still missing the very simple point: millions of people don't play multiplayer and, therefore, common sense, logic and truth, expose the reality that single player content is hampered. you say such idiocies as, then don't play it and those games all have great single player modes. that tells me you just don't get it. the multiplayer enthusiast gets both multi and single player modes. great deal for them. single player only gamers get multi that they can't/don't/won't play with less single player content because of the added multi. btw, i don't dismiss character, story, graphics and the art within gaming. my response was in direct response to your embellished response. you are the one dismissing my very valid and very simple complaint: keep all multiplayer separate. give each mode its full attention and stop short-changing the other. like i said, they are completely different beasts. totally different and cater to completely different types of gamers. they function in different realms. to shrug that fact off is foolish.
  • Fuzunga - November 5, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    A Halo would be nice.
  • chad-munn - November 5, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    First and Foremost: Firefight. Bring it back and make it awesome. Second: Dual wielding. Third: ... keep the set pieces coming'. I loved them in each game, but I really loved everything about REACH so aim for the stars. Lastly: recapture the wonder. The new enemies just didn't do it for me. The weapons were too similar to what we already had so- go a bit more WTF? Sci-Fi.
  • chad-munn - November 5, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    OH! And bring back Chief's armor! That Halo 4 armor SUCKS. I really hated the 'thin' version of the new armor- for both the Chief and the 4's! Really garbage design!
  • rruggles - November 5, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    For it to be Macintosh compatible again for God's sake!
  • ParagonT - November 5, 2013 6:58 p.m.

    I would really love for the addition of Spartan 2's, 3's and 4's in a combination. A passing of the torch if you will. Many of the older Spartans are not emotional due to being trained, but that makes for a boring game, with the addition of the unpredictable and agitated spartan 3's and the less trained and more personality driven 4's, it could be an interesting mix. Give them a little character and give them their own spotlight and players will become attached to SOMETHING in the game. But of course, everything has already been decided.
  • Shigeruken - November 5, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    The return of dual wielding!

Showing 21-40 of 54 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.