Well, learn a little something new everyday I suppose. Also, if they teamed up with Activision, we will never see a good game from Bungie ever again.
Blizzard is with activision too.And none of their post activision merger games get lower than 90%on metacritic.Plus,starcraft 2 is looking great right now.The beta is the only game beta that is more polished than the Halo Reach beta so far this year.By the way,Bungie is only partnering with activision,not that activision bought them like Infinity Ward.
I've been playing WoW for years, and it has been deteriorating at an alarming speed since activision took over blizzard.
We have to wait Cataclysm to come oot first,then play it and look at the reviews. WoW team is not starcraft 2 team.
I've been playing Invasion in Reach Beta, and man it is insanely fun! I also got a sweet chest piece, forget what it's called, but it's the last one to become available for purchase.
Bungie teamed up with Activision, the game(s) they're going to make is only going to be published by them and ported (meaning Bungie's next game will be multiplat). Also Bungie has full creative control, meaning Activision is only throwing money at them to make a game they're publishing. Also I remember reading the same thing, people being scared that Bungie would be ruined because Microsoft bought them. Look how that turned out.
Yeah, those Halo games turned out pretty bad, huh? XD But yes, I'm sure whatever Bungie makes will be sweet.
A game is made to be fun. A fun game is a good/great game. Reach is the definitive Halo game, as no one cares about Campaign anymore and this game is all about its multiplayer. They've made a good game and I'm glad this is how they ended the series. Cataclysm looks like shit. They'll ruin the environments and overall atmosphere of the game. I mean, the game isn't that fun, but it has it's merits. It's a good thing Bungie is going to start multiplatforming. They a bright company with good ideas and are sitting on a solid history. I'd like to see more from them then just Halo. I'm going to miss Halo, but Reach is shaping up to make the series go out with a bang. But if Activision interferes with Bungie like they did with Guitar Hero, Bungie might start to regret leaving Microsoft.
wat, the campaign for Halo 3 was the only reason to play the game imo. The multiplayer was extremely boring. As I said, Activision's only manufacturing and porting and throwing money at them. They have no involvement in the creative process.
You may think the multiplayer was boring, but many people still play it daily for hours on end. The multiplayer that came with ODST was just an extended Halo 3 multiplayer disc. The campaign in Halo 3 was pretty awful. The story was barely there, and what was there was pretty bad. It is like saying people bought MW2 for the campaign. No, most people bought it purely for the multiplayer and nothing more. Many online players have yet to touch the campaign, yet are on their 6th or 7th prestige. With games like Halo and CoD, people stopped buying the game for the campaign a long time ago. Activision ruins everything they can get their hands on. You say they only throw their money at the actual developers, but Guitar Hero is a testament to the fact that Activision does far more than that. Look at the state Guitar Hero is in now. We have freaking Band Hero, a complete disgrace that has 100% strayed from the purpose of Guitar Hero. You know why it even exists? They know there are tons of people into the mainstream garbage that litters that game that will go out and spend the extra $100 to $200 on purchasing the whole set. For Activision, it is all about the money, nothing else. When your company head admits they don't care about the content, just how much the game makes, you know there's an issue.
You're missing the point. I play halo mainly for the campaign, I found Halo 3's and ODST's campaign far more enthralling then the multiplayer portion (co-op's an exception) and it's what I mainly buy Halo games for. I liked the campaign in both games a lot, the story to me is still interesting and entertaining, the game is still fun, set pieces are cool, areas are nice etc. You said no one buys Halo for the campaign, well I do and I know for sure there's others. And there's people who bought MW2 for the campaign, in fact a lot of people rave about it. You missed the point again. Activision had total creative control over Neversoft and any Guitar Hero game (which is why Harmonix made Guitar Hero Rock the 80's and then ditched to EA), they drove it into the ground and are now hovering around the CoD franchise to drive that one into the ground. For Bungie, again as I said Bungie has total creative control, Activision has nothing to do with the game besides publishing, manufacturing, advertising, porting, and giving money to Bungie to fund the game. That's it. If Bungie wants their new franchise to be done or they want to stop making it, they can. Bungie is partnering with Activision, not working under them (like Neversoft or Harmonix back in the day or the now defunct Infinity Ward). They did that with Halo. They made (making) all the Halo games they want, and then left, despite all the controversy back in the day by Bungie being bought out by Microsoft. And guess what? Microsoft let them leave intact to work elsewhere. While Microsoft still owns Halo and can do whatever they want to do with the franchise (which is why they made the company 343 industries).
You guys,Natalie is wholly right on this matter.Seroisly,have you guys been following/reading all articles that are related to this?If yes,you guys will surely agree with her here.
There really isn't a whole lot to the stories of the Halo games, but you learn to appreciate them much much more if you've read the books.
At least the books that were written well. There are one or two that didn't exactly go under a strict editorial process before getting published. MW2 has the worst campaign story every established. When you look at it, it honestly makes no sense. After playing the campaign start to finish, I hated myself a little more inside. Also, I hate the campaign of anything past Halo 2. They really butchered it in Halo 3, and made poor attempts at redemption with ODST. All they did with ODST was try to make the game as pretty as possible anyways, they didn't really strive for substance. Don't remind me about Rock the 80's, that was as bad as Band Hero is now. Honestly though, your half proving my point. People leave Activision, generally after creating a game that they might as well be ashamed in after previous releases. I can't combat the partnership thing for now. I suppose it is just a matter of how easily swayed Bungie will become once Activision starts throwing money at them.
You're ignoring the point I made in the first post and the second. You said that, Which is a large generalization and is not true. You're also basing this off of Bungie making a multiplayer beta, not single player. Well okay, what about the Network Test 1 playlist? It's to test out the single player code online under stress. That and how many single player betas have you seen? I said that people rave about it (see A LOT of reviews), and that people buy the game for the campaign. People may think it's fun or whatever. I don't think it's any good (gameplay wise, graphics wise, and story wise). Pretty as possible? What are you talking about? If they wanted to make ODST as pretty as possible, they would've made a new engine, not the same engine they used in Halo 3. I liked it, it was fun and likewise with Halo 3 (I didn't like Halo 2's that much). You're totally ignoring my point. Harmonix made Rock The 80s because the contract they had under Activision specified they had to make 3 GH games, after GH2 they wanted to make Rock Band, Activision said no, so they made Rock the 80s so their contract would be over and they can go else where. I never opposed you that Activision is evil in a lot of aspects, I never said anything like that, jeez. Also Activision has no involvement in the creative process. If Bungie sees them do something they don't like, they're free to leave and go to EA's partnership thing.
The problem with ODST; it is nothing but a touched up graphics engine from Halo 3. The main issue lies in the fact that the game got marketed because of how it looked since they had the time to work out some of the issues that Halo 3 had graphically. Anyways, enough about that. Just pointing out that Activision strives for looks, not game play. And why do you assume Activision has no influence in the creative process? You don't think they don't get their way in several aspects? When offered enough money, a company is generally willing to change one or two things. No person or company is pure, and now that Halo is done with (for Bungie anyways), Bungie is only going to be working off the fact that they produced the Halo games when trying to sell later games. As crappy as it may sound, that is how people are going to judge nearly every game Bungie makes from now on the Halo series (especially if Reach is anywhere near as awesome as the first game). Once again, you may think differently in that respect, but people will always expect something great nearly every time if they create something great even once. Activison can use this to their advantage to push what they might be able to convince Bungie to be "better" aspects of one sort or another. You (Natewlie) will probably disagree with 95% of that, and I accept that. For now, I think this can go back to talk purely about Halo Reach before Joshbow here creates another thread thoroughly whining about the outcome of this one.
From what I heard, the guns in the beta are ridiculously overpowered. Hopefully that doesn't translate over to the actual game.
