big flub with multiplayer

#1 Posted by manhunter1000 (25 posts) -

I was really excited to see this game, but not having the original multiplayer was really stupid. Halo Reach has enough maps, plus, it has maps that resemble combat evolved maps. Why couldn't they give the same treatment to the multiplayer that they did with the single player.

#2 Edited by Zacagawea (1582 posts) -

Because money/time/work

#3 Posted by manhunter1000 (25 posts) -

then why do it at all? Multiplayer was a huge part of Combat Evolved.

#4 Edited by Mordi (553 posts) -

I wish they had released the multiplayer in the first one with online play as well. I never played a lot of the first one, other than with three other friends once in a while. We first got into Xbox-LANs when Halo 2 had already been out for a while. 
 
@Zacagawea said:

Because money/time/work

Because splitting the matchmaking playerbase further is not a good idea, and introducing old Halo-fans to the latest Halo-game makes sense business-wise.
#5 Posted by Goboard (103 posts) -

They most likely didn't include it because they did not want to split the halo player base.

#6 Posted by big_jon (5709 posts) -

I'm good with this.

#7 Posted by Irvandus (2826 posts) -

@Zacagawea said:

Because money/time/work

#8 Posted by Aus_azn (2224 posts) -

I just found it to be total crap that they have a pathetic number of maps and didn't even include Blood Gulch.

#9 Posted by Brendan (7687 posts) -

If they created and implemented multiplayer it probably would have been a $60 game, and it probably would have been very poorly received because of it. They have most likely profited more from taking the road that they did.

#10 Posted by SamFo (1514 posts) -

I think this game is probably one of the best HD port jobs ever made, and it cops a fair bit of flak.
The multiplayer component included in this game is an extremely smart idea.
Compare it to the GOW or ICO & Shadow of the Colossus ports.
They have lovingly recrafted the singleplayer grpahics in this game, as opposed to up ressing them to look decent on modern resolutions.

#11 Posted by InfiniteGeass (2051 posts) -

It's either implement the multiplayer into Reach or split the playerbase. They chose the former of the two.

#12 Posted by SLUSHiNaToR (156 posts) -

What I don't understand is why they don't give you all the dlc maps for reach like they did with ODST and halo 3.. I was really bummed to hear you just get the anniversary map pack.

#13 Posted by adoggz (2042 posts) -

@Aus_azn said:

I just found it to be total crap that they have a pathetic number of maps and didn't even include Blood Gulch.

yeah because its not like blood gulch isnt already in reach...

#14 Posted by davidinwrofy (71 posts) -

I am very glad the multiplayer is a chunky DLC for Reach (which desperately needed new maps) rather than a re-boot of a decade-old multiplayer, which, far more than the CE single-player, would have showed its age badly. Splitting the player base would have been a very bad idea. I agree that the first two DLCs for Reach weren't managed very well: I didn't get nearly enough playtime out of those maps because few playlists required players to purchase them and they rarely appeared in the rotation.

#15 Edited by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@adoggz said:

@Aus_azn said:

I just found it to be total crap that they have a pathetic number of maps and didn't even include Blood Gulch.

yeah because its not like blood gulch isnt already in reach...

Not to mention it sucks ass in Reach due to tinfoil vehicles and DMRs.

EDIT: Also it's the worst map for sniper betrayals I find.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.