Quote from: BaconShelf on August 20, 2015, 03:21:28 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on August 20, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 20, 2015, 02:53:41 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on August 20, 2015, 02:47:59 PM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 20, 2015, 02:34:08 PM

Quote from: Cocos on August 20, 2015, 02:28:01 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 18, 2015, 12:21:49 AM

It's like you guys don't take into account the MP when comparing Halo games.

They don't.

I'm sure my opinion of the Halo series would be massively different if I disregarded the hundreds upon hundreds of hours I spent in matchmaking/customs/forge, and judged it solely on a few linear 3-4 hour campaigns.

Why would I judge a game on the part I don;t give a shit about?

Many of us would say the same thing in reply to the "full priced games should be able to stand on their own in singple player" thing.

The difference is, what is the point paying for a fully priced game when you can't guarantee you'll be able to play it? If people stop playing, the servers go down, you have a bad conenction or a whole myriad of other issues, then you've just got an expensive paperweight.

Titanfall and Evolve are both basically empty servers now. It sucks if you bought them and you can't play them because no one else is playing. Whereas with Halo 3, I can still replay the campaign, should I want to, regardless of if there's other people.

I don't see how that applies at all to the Halo discussion

A game should always be able to stand on its single player alone

The single player will always be play-able (lol except destiny) regardless of playerbase or connection issues. Multiplayer won't.

That doesn't apply to any of the Halo games aside from like, MCC and maybe the Spatan Ops games. CE, 2, 3, ODST, Reach, and H4 all had local competitive and cooperative multiplayer options. I get what you're saying but it doesn't matter in this context.

I'm a loser and have no friends

But seriously. I know of no one irl who would prefer to splitscreen. But that's another argument

also;

Quote from: Solid Lemon on August 20, 2015, 02:32:19 PM

they aren't that short even if you skip all the cutscenes

Every Halo game can be beaten on Legendary in less than 3 hours, if you know what you're doing.  It's longer when you factor in gazing at skyboxes, making stops, getting your ass kicked by the AI, etc... and all around being new, but on normal, it's not very hard to breeze through the game.

Either way, my point is that Halo has a depressing amount of content if you disregard the multiplayer entirely, and judge it as a single-player game, exclusively.  Not saying the campaigns are bad, just short in comparison to any game focused exclusively on its single player.

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 20, 2015, 02:34:08 PM

Why would I judge a game on the part I don;t give a shit about?

Why would you judge the game at all, as a whole, if you're just going to disregard a staggering amount of its content?

If you rush through single player, then you're not playing properly. It's like playing fallout or elder scrolls and complaining because you finished the main quest in a couple hours. Of course you'll breeze through them if you rush them.

Because I am heavily invested in the lore for Halo. As in, books and comics and all the other expanded universe contnet, I've read it all.

I care deeply about the story, because it will only be told once. If I don't like the multiplayer, I have other games.

If the story sucks, that's something that will constantly be weighing down the rest of the story for a long time. So I judge the story because it's what I'm invested in.

But from a non-personal standpoint, why would I judge a game based on the part that will inevitably shut down? If I wanted to play Halo 3's campaign in 20 years when all the servers have shut down, I can still do that, provided I have the console. So it makes more sense to judge a game on the part that will last. Besides, multiplayer is repetitive. It's literally doing the same thing again and again. There's a reaosn why titanfall and evolve aren't good value for money; you're doing the same shit over and over again. this applies to any multiplayer. It's not very good value for money if your game relies on repetition to get good scores. And if campaign mechanics are built on the multiplayer ones, then jusging the campaign gameplay is effectively judging the multiplayer gameplay.

Unlike a game like Fallout or Elder Scrolls, there's just the main quest.  It's a linear game, and the only replay value is derived from modifiers and hunting down easter eggs.

Halo's multiplayer isn't some insignificant piece that was tacked on by the developers at the last minute, it has a massive amount of content.  You judge the game like that content doesn't exist, so it must be pretty depressingly short on content if you hold it to the same standards as any AAA game that focuses 90-100% on single player.

Your "it's literally the same thing again and again" is ironic, and just wrong on so many levels.

And I'd rather a game have hundreds of hours of replay value with an expiration date than have infinitely less, but can stand the test of time, personally.  I'd also rather a game like Battlefield put their resources into making their multiplayer (that is obviously their priority) that much more replayable, than to sink it into some lackluster campaign that no one cares about.

All I'm saying is that I'd be pretty disappointed with a game like Halo 3, too, if I kept myself sheltered from its booming multiplayer community.  Just like how I'd be disappointed with something like Fallout if I stuck to the main quests and ignored everything else.

Exactly this.