Support NeoGAF

[HiredN00bs]

Do you know how server browsers work?

There are different implementations that could be made. I was merely entertaining the standard Xbox model for custom search.

But let's go with a PC style list. So (assuming the system could compile an up-to-date list of active peer-hosted customs in a timely manner) you filter for Ragnorak, lowest ping, and go. Enjoy Swords only at 1000% movement speed. But the description said Team Slayer.

And that assumption I made up there isn't a small one, you're talking about keeping a quickly rolling database across the entirety of Xbox LIVE, or at least a region of it, that would need to be queried by thousands or tens of thousands, and accept hundreds and thousands of maps/gametypes, completely controlled by anyone.

The way to do it would be to list the alterations to standard gametypes, if any, in a submenu per line, but still you're potentially wading thru tons of shit to find something you'll like, and you're sacrificing matchmaking population at the same time. What about Forge maps? I don't think it's impossible, I just think the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[show me your skeleton]

immaterial is really good.

 

[Poker Face]

Could the video quality be any worse?

well most of the footage we've gotten is shaky cam, so yea it could be worse

 

[Zeouterlimits]

I don't believe the 'QTE's are the cause, because then what happens with Quick Time Events in Coop?

 

[SatansReverence]

Guys we all know that theater and quick time event dont go together, there's not enough bandwidth!
am i doing it right ?

Fixed

well most of the footage we've gotten is shaky cam, so yea it could be worse

Halo 4 barn edition.

Oh yea!

 

[HigherLevel]

I'm curious to see if there are other game types we haven't heard about yet. I mean 343 hasn't even mentioned Extraction themselves as far as I know. Maybe there are some more we'll see later on.

 

[Amazing Mic]

The same was said of the "changes" in Halo Reach...

Still completely convinced Reach's gameplay and core feature set has a far looser relationship to it's population compared to the cosmetic features.

Your typical consumers played H2/H3 when there was no big competition. IMO, they left as soon as there was an offering w/ a much, much smaller learning curve that pinned incredibly shiny virtual bling on you.

Halo lost a lot of level 20s who graduated to becoming Prestige 8 badasses. I really believe more left for these reasons compared to those who were like "OMG Armor Lock, I'm done."

 

[Gazzawa]

Guys we all know that theater and quick time event dont go together...

am i doing it right ?

Shut is real got me feelin isrealian

 

[Omni]

Unlikely, but is campaign drop in- drop out in Halo 4?

I was playing through CEA's campaign on Legendary over Live with a friend. We got the third level right near the end and my connection dropped, sending us back to the menu. Would've been nice if I could've joined his game instead of having to start over again.

 

[SatansReverence]

Still completely convinced Reach's gameplay and core feature set has a far looser relationship to it's population compared to the cosmetic features.

Your typical consumers played H2/H3 when there was no big competition. IMO, they left as soon as there was an offering w/ a much, much smaller learning curve that pinned incredibly shiny virtual bling on you.

Halo lost a lot of level 20s who graduated to becoming Prestige 8 badasses. I really believe more left for these reasons compared to those who were like "OMG Armor Lock, I'm done."

Competition is hardly the driving factor of Reachs failure. The only Halo games that didn't have competition where Halo:CE and Halo 2. Halo 3 fared well in the face of many blockbusters. Did CoD become more popular? Sure it did. But even when more people were playing CoD than Halo, Halo 3 was still at the top end of the user charts.

Reach? Getting routinely beaten by a yearly sports title...

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Shut is real got me feelin isrealian

Naw that's Brazilian.

 

[dragonelite]

Still completely convinced Reach's gameplay and core feature set has a far looser relationship to it's population compared to the cosmetic features.

Your typical consumers played H2/H3 when there was no big competition. IMO, they left as soon as there was an offering w/ a much, much smaller learning curve that pinned incredibly shiny virtual bling on you.

Halo lost a lot of level 20s who graduated to becoming Prestige 8 badasses. I really believe more left for these reasons compared to those who were like "OMG Armor Lock, I'm done."

Dont really care about skill level.
Reflexes aren't what they used to be im getting old.

/only 22.

 

[SatansReverence]

Dont really care about skill level.
Reflexes aren't what they used to be im getting old.

/only 22.

I'm 23 and I'm still getting better at aiming.

 

[willow ve]

Such a boneheaded comment to think any you could fill a bus with the number of people these changes will drive away.

The same was said of the "changes" in Halo Reach...

Seriously. Did you not purchase Reach thinking "this is going to some awesome Halo" only to play and watch the game fall apart after a few weeks of playing? The population dropped off and then matchmaking couldn't be set strict enough to ensure close/balanced/fair games.

There are changes with Halo 4 that probably won't prevent people from purchasing the game, but they most definitely will drive some players away soon after launch.

 

[dragonelite]

I'm 23 and I'm still getting better at aiming.

That is what i also keep saying to myself

 

[Amazing Mic]

Competition is hardly the driving factor of Reachs failure. The only Halo games that didn't have competition where Halo:CE and Halo 2. Halo 3 fared well in the face of many blockbusters. Did CoD become more popular? Sure it did. But even when more people were playing CoD than Halo, Halo 3 was still at the top end of the user charts.

Reach? Getting routinely beaten by a yearly sports title...

#5 consistently 2 years after release. Not sure how that's not top end of the user charts. Getting beaten by FIFA (#4), or "a yearly sports title" is hardly mindblowing at this stage.

 

[Tha Robbertster]

Shut is real got me feelin isrealian

Yo when's yo ass leaving to the land down under?

One of my housemates is there (in Melbourne) now for a year to finish his education.

 

[Reagan's BR]

Yes. It is called "Hanging on the Combat Deck" now.

Lame.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Reach? Getting routinely beaten by a yearly sports title...

So disengenious. Reach was the most popular Halo game on Xbox LIVE. And that "yearly sports title" is FIFA. The Xbox LIVE population has greatly increased and become more diverse. That doesn't prove that Halo's popularity has waned. Using your argument, all the most popular Xbox LIVE games suck because Wii Sports and Wii Fit destroyed them in popularity.

 

[Striker]

Competition is hardly the driving factor of Reachs failure. The only Halo games that didn't have competition where Halo:CE and Halo 2. Halo 3 fared well in the face of many blockbusters. Did CoD become more popular? Sure it did. But even when more people were playing CoD than Halo, Halo 3 was still at the top end of the user charts.

Split communities and it still beat Halo 3 on a regular basis, and those COD games were miniscule compared to what MW3 and Black Ops sold.

The "yearly sports title" will be in the top five for years to come, and its much larger internationally.

 

[SatansReverence]

#5 consistently 2 years after release. Not sure how that's not top end of the user charts. Getting beaten by FIFA (#4), or "a yearly sports title" is hardly mindblowing at this stage.

Halo 3 was never outside of the top 3 even 3 years after launch.

 

[Subitai]

I remember when Halo 2 came out and my clan got rocked by 12 year olds in CTF.

 

[Omni]

There are different implementations that could be made. I was merely entertaining the standard Xbox model for custom search.

But let's go with a PC style list. So (assuming the system could compile an up-to-date list of active peer-hosted customs in a timely manner) you filter for Ragnorak, lowest ping, and go. Enjoy Swords only at 1000% movement speed. But the description said Team Slayer.

And that assumption I made up there isn't a small one, you're talking about keeping a quickly rolling database across the entirety of Xbox LIVE, or at least a region of it, that would need to be queried by thousands or tens of thousands, and accept hundreds and thousands of maps/gametypes, completely controlled by anyone.

The way to do it would be to list the alterations to standard gametypes, if any, in a submenu per line, but still you're potentially wading thru tons of shit to find something you'll like, and you're sacrificing matchmaking population at the same time. What about Forge maps? I don't think it's impossible, I just think the cons outweigh the pros.

I was thinking something along the lines of BF3's server browser. You filter the list for a particular game mode (Say, team slayer) and choose a server you like. Once you click on it, another menu pops up and tells you the name of the map and some general server settings. If you like what you see, you can join from there. If not, you can just go back and choose another one.

Forge maps complicate things, but like I said before... A server browser would only be useful (even plausible) if we had dedicated servers, IMO (and that would potentially replace social match making, not just customs). Competitive matchmaking would use the traditional process of finding a match based on 'skill'.

 

[Slightly Live]

Halo 3 was never outside of the top 3 even 3 years after launch.

The platform and industry was considerably different back then. Times change.

 

[Amazing Mic]

Seriously. Did you not purchase Reach thinking "this is going to some awesome Halo" only to play and watch the game fall apart after a few weeks of playing? The population dropped off and then matchmaking couldn't be set strict enough to ensure close/balanced/fair games.

There are changes with Halo 4 that probably won't prevent people from purchasing the game, but they most definitely will drive some players away soon after launch.

I don't see how any of this has to be related to core gameplay. I'm arguing that it's probably much more likely they left because they found other options where the progression system was more suited to their needs.

Reach had limited unlockables compared to others, and the progression tree for merely cosmetic items was very slow.

The changes that matter are the gameplay looks crisp and they added a ton of little bread crumbs for the people w/ short attention spans. I have very little doubt that populations will be higher and will stay higher.

Halo 3 was never outside of the top 3 even 3 years after launch.

I wasn't aware MW2 and Black Ops had come out that early.

 

[TheOddOne]

The whole notion of removing something because not a lot people use it baffles me. That is not a valid reason to even cut it, there are bound to people who use it and often is seen as a convenience or enriching the overall package. I understand development realities, so not everything can be updated or upgraded but at least let the option open. More options is always better, even if they are not as polished as the other counterparts. Also, there is always the chance of a resurgence of previously barely used options – this could lead to future games benefiting from this, so improvements can be made and even helping enrich it more.

Seriously Spartan Ops sounds like a fantastic premise, but cutting something like Firefight was not needed. Both modes could have lived side-by-side. Yes, we know the mode was very predictable but it was simple and fun. Carbon copying everything from Reach and giving us the option to add the new enemies to the sandbox doesn’t sound like that much work. Yes, 343 would get criticized for not updating the mode but at least the mode was still there.

Same logic above applies to all the strange design decisions 343 has chosen.

 

[Striker]

A server browser would only be useful (even plausible) if we had dedicated servers, IMO (and that would potentially replace social match making, not just customs). Competitive matchmaking would use the traditional process of finding a match based on 'skill'.

It doesn't seem to be this way right now, anyways. Just be wishful there's restrictions on guests partaking in many playlists and not getting matched up with randoms versus full teams, an occurrence I've seen far too much in Halo 3 social and in Reach.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

The whole notion of removing something because not a lot people use it baffles me. That is not a valid reason to even cut it, there are bound to people who use it and often is seen as a convenience or enriching the overall package. I understand development realities, so not everything can be updated or upgraded but at least let the option open. More options is always better, even if they are not as polished as the other counterparts. Also, there is always the chance of a resurgence of previously barely used options – this could lead to future games benefiting from this, so improvements can be made and even helping enrich it more.

Seriously Spartan Ops sounds like a fantastic premise, but cutting something like Firefight was not needed. Both modes could have lived side-by-side. Yes, we know the mode was very predictable but it was simple and fun. Carbon copying everything from Reach and giving us the option to add the new enemies to the sandbox doesn’t sound like that much work. Yes, 343 would get criticized for not updating the mode but at least the mode was still there.

Same logic above applies to all the strange design decisions 343 has chosen.

Might just be me, but I would assume that they could not ad both SpOps and Firefight. Personally, SpOps looks like more my cup of tea anyways. I like that they are trying something new there. Story-based co-op content is always welcome.

As far as the other cuts, i highly doubt they removed anything due to lack of use. My money is on technical limitations. You can't have shiny new graphics and new modes and not lose something.

 

[SatansReverence]

The platform and industry was considerably different back then. Times change.

Sigh...

Things haven't changed enough to the point where Reach could have less players than Halo 3 while also having a significantly higher pool of players to pull from.

Having a smaller percentage of the player base? Sure understandable because of the significantly higher number of XBL users (Halo 3 it was something like 8 million users where as around Reach it was 20 million users or something to this effect). But Reach having significantly less players than Halo 3 AND having a significantly higher pool to pull from? Yea, no. Just no.

Reach failed because of it's game designs and philosophies, not because times have changed.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Forge maps complicate things, but like I said before... A server browser would only be useful (even plausible) if we had dedicated servers, IMO (and that would potentially replace social match making, not just customs). Competitive matchmaking would use the traditional process of finding a match based on 'skill'.

I mean, it's a nice idea, but the fact is that people who will do a good job hosting custom lobbies are in the minority (and you can already add these people to your friends list and enjoy customs in this way as it is) so you'd be up to your neck in shit in such a system. Furthermore, (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think Microsoft has yet provided dedicated servers on a first party title. It's way more than I would expect from them.

But believe me, I would love to sort for lowest ping. Poor networking conditions are my primary source of frustration in online Halo.

Having a smaller percentage of the player base? Sure understandable because of the significantly higher number of XBL users (Halo 3 it was something like 8 million users where as around Reach it was 20 million users or something to this effect). But Reach having significantly less players than Halo 3 AND having a significantly higher pool to pull from? Yea, no. Just no.

You have no evidence to support that Reach had lower populations than 3. All the evidence I've ever seen was to the contrary. You would have to compare active player numbers over 24 hours at the same time each day for both games by days out from release until Halo 4's release and then average the difference.

Furthermore, a player that buys a box to play FIFA and doesn't buy Reach is not evidence of poor design hurting population.

 

[willow ve]

Same logic above applies to all the strange design decisions 343 has chosen.

The biggest gripe I have is the sheer amount of changes made. Along with that most of the explanations are either change for changes sake, or "...."

If there was one thing that I would have appreciated as a carbon copy from the COD or BF series it would have been this. Those games (COD especially) has thrived due to iterative changes. Not radical changes, but small, almost predictable changes that leave gameplay largely unchanged over the years but provide new maps, weapons, and gametypes.

Instead with Reach (and now 4) Halo has adopted a lot of the extraneous design elements from COD and BF that, when incorporated into the Halo franchise, are now radical game altering decisions.

 

[Slightly Live]

Reach failed because of it's game designs and philosophies, not because times have changed.

Sure buddy. You're the expert.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Sigh...

Things haven't changed enough to the point where Reach could have less players than Halo 3 while also having a significantly higher pool of players to pull from.

Having a smaller percentage of the player base? Sure understandable because of the significantly higher number of XBL users (Halo 3 it was something like 8 million users where as around Reach it was 20 million users or something to this effect). But Reach having significantly less players than Halo 3 AND having a significantly higher pool to pull from? Yea, no. Just no.

Reach failed because of it's game designs and philosophies, not because times have changed.

Being in the top 5 as a non-numbered sequel is not "failing." We may have qualms with Reach, but the game was a huge success, and a ton of people play it. Halo 4 should gain more simply based on the number after the name alone. I think the changes to make it more like Halo 2/3 will help retain more players too, along with things like SpOps episodes.

 

[Woorloog]

Seriously Spartan Ops sounds like a fantastic premise, but cutting something like Firefight was not needed. Both modes could have lived side-by-side.

Time, manpower and budget. You need Firefight maps (directly using MP maps is not possible AFAIK, they need to be setup for FF, no?), who is going to make them? And all the FF systems, i doubt 343i would have left FF unchanged (back to ODST would have been good, anything else not).
And disc space. EDIT true, SpOps is downloaded but would Firefight be downloaded? AFAIK, they've maxed out the discs as it is.

 

[Raide]

The biggest gripe I have is the sheer amount of changes made. Along with that most of the explanations are either change for changes sake, or "...."

If there was one thing that I would have appreciated as a carbon copy from the COD or BF series it would have been this. Those games (COD especially) has thrived due to iterative changes. Not radical changes, but small, almost predictable changes that leave gameplay largely unchanged over the years but provide new maps, weapons, and gametypes.

Instead with Reach (and now 4) Halo has adopted a lot of the extraneous design elements from COD and BF that, when incorporated into the Halo franchise, are now radical game altering decisions.

See, I don't mind them making major changes to a game in order to provide fresh experiences, I just wish they would give players the options to play a more Classic style if they wanted. Bungie and now 343 are bound to do Playlist updates with all manner of new modes etc, it would just be really nice if they fleshed out Forge and said "Yup, you can just custom make your Assault mode, or Multiteam stuff!"

The Theatre stuff is a downer, despite myself not being overly attached to it but I understand why people want it around.

Hopefully 343 come out of the gates with TU's with changes and additions.

 

[Tawpgun]

 

[willow ve]

See, I don't mind them making major changes to a game in order to provide fresh experiences, I just wish they would give players the options to play a more Classic style if they wanted. Bungie and now 343 are bound to do Playlist updates with all manner of new modes etc, it would just be really nice if they fleshed out Forge and said "Yup, you can just custom make your Assault mode, or Multiteam stuff!"

The Theatre stuff is a downer, despite myself not being overly attached to it but I understand why people want it around.

Hopefully 343 come out of the gates with TU's with changes and additions.

I really hope we see a Title Update within 6 months of launch. It doesn't even need to be a major, game altering, massive change. Just a tweak to the gameplay that consciously acknowledges and fixes the issues which the sheer idiocy of Xbox Live has found in that amount of time. If we go a full year, or more, without a Title Update then either a) the game is perfect! or b) the population has dwindled and you'll never get a huge portion of those gamers back.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

The whole notion of removing something because not a lot people use it baffles me. That is not a valid reason to even cut it, there are bound to people who use it and often is seen as a convenience or enriching the overall package. I understand development realities, so not everything can be updated or upgraded but at least let the option open. More options is always better, even if they are not as polished as the other counterparts. Also, there is always the chance of a resurgence of previously barely used options – this could lead to future games benefiting from this, so improvements can be made and even helping enrich it more.

Seriously Spartan Ops sounds like a fantastic premise, but cutting something like Firefight was not needed. Both modes could have lived side-by-side. Yes, we know the mode was very predictable but it was simple and fun. Carbon copying everything from Reach and giving us the option to add the new enemies to the sandbox doesn’t sound like that much work. Yes, 343 would get criticized for not updating the mode but at least the mode was still there.

Same logic above applies to all the strange design decisions 343 has chosen.

I don't know if I agree with any of this.
It's not just a case of clicking the "port to Halo 4" button.
And on top of that development work, you have to do all that QA to ensure it meets the standards of the rest of the product. So if only 3% are using them siginificantly, and instead you can spend that money having .. oh I don't know, 5 weekly missions for Spartan Ops instead of 4, then there's an argument there for that.

It's in no way a small thing to commit to having FF. Scoring.. I can't imagine why that would be so difficult.

My point is, I think cutting theatre was a big mistake, it's a big loss for me as a fan, but I certainly don't think it was an easy decision to make. Of course this is just me trying to hypothesise.

 

[MaDGaMEZ]

Reach failed because of it's game designs and philosophies, not because times have changed.

How did Reach fail again? Game still has 80,000 people online daily 2 years after launch. I wouldn't call it a success but far from a failure. Reach can still be marginally fun at times. I used to play everyday, now I still play 3-4 times a week because I can no longer stand any other FPS.

 

[kylej]

wow great ass. very nice. Cortana probably squats 2 plates.

 

[Tha Robbertster]

Time, manpower and budget. You need Firefight maps (directly using MP maps is not possible AFAIK, they need to be setup for FF, no?), who is going to make them? And all the FF systems, i doubt 343i would have left FF unchanged (back to ODST would have been good, anything else not).
And disc space. EDIT true, SpOps is downloaded but would Firefight be downloaded? AFAIK, they've maxed out the discs as it is.

If there are any firefight-like encounters in the campaign, they could have used those environments for a Firefight game mode. You'd have the map and I don't think you'd have to do much more coding for the AI.

 

[TheOddOne]

Might just be me, but I would assume that they could not ad both SpOps and Firefight. Personally, SpOps looks like more my cup of tea anyways. I like that they are trying something new there. Story-based co-op content is always welcome.

As far as the other cuts, i highly doubt they removed anything due to lack of use. My money is on technical limitations. You can't have shiny new graphics and new modes and not lose something.

I really don’t see how it could not, because Spartan Ops looks more technically advanced and does what Firefight does too, wave based AI fighting. So that argument doesn’t seem rock solid, they could have easily lived side-by-side. Heck if disk space was the problem, they could have done it digitally or reuse Spartan Ops sections.

Seeing as they stripped down everything and looked at what worked, didn’t work, was used a lot and was used not so much, these cuts seem to indicate a lot of looking at spreadsheets and statistics. Basing cuts only on those perimeters is a bit narrow.

 

[Raide]

I really hope we see a Title Update within 6 months of launch. It doesn't even need to be a major, game altering, massive change. Just a tweak to the gameplay that consciously acknowledges and fixes the issues which the sheer idiocy of Xbox Live has found in that amount of time. If we go a full year, or more, without a Title Update then either a) the game is perfect! or b) the population has dwindled and you'll never get a huge portion of those gamers back.

Agreed. I can understand 343 wanting to take Halo as their own now and put their own flavour into it but if they loose people now, trying to back-pedal when Halo 5 gets announced could be hard. Sure 720 Halo will be utterly awesome but once they go down a path, it will be harder and harder to convince people. They pretty much get a free pass this time around but people may be more harsh on 343 if they mess up Halo 4.

If there are any firefight-like encounters in the campaign, they could have used those environments for a Firefight game mode. You'd have the map and I don't think you'd have to do much more coding for the AI.

Let people Forge FF maps. TBH, the FF maps were super basic but it was more about the enemy encounters than the actual level design. Well, for me it was.

 

[Woorloog]

If there are any firefight-like encounters in the campaign, they could have used those environments for a Firefight game mode.

Possibly. I do not really know... do FF maps need waypoints for AI or something?

IIRC, someone from Bungie or 343i noted (here? Not sure) that converting a Firefight map to normal MP map or vice versa (or making one support both) takes so much work its not worth it, you might as well make a completly new map for either one.
This was when there was discussion about some Reach Firefight maps and how they'd be nice MP maps.

 

[Amazing Mic]

I want mooooooore options .... complains about poor matchmaking because of low populations.

I neeeeeeed ranks and skill based matching .... played 20 games of Arena, moved back to TS.

I have to have campaign scoring or I'm gone .... I just don't even know a single person that spent more than 2 seconds ever thinking about campaign scoring so who knows.

 

[MaDGaMEZ]

I really don’t see how it could not, because Spartan Ops looks more technically advanced and does what Firefight does too, wave based AI fighting. So that argument doesn’t seem rock solid, they could have easily lived side-by-side. Heck if disk space was the problem, they could have done it digitally or reuse Spartan Ops sections.

Seeing as they stripped down everything and looked at what worked, didn’t work, was used a lot and was used not so much, these cuts seem to indicate a lot of looking at spreadsheets and statistics. Basing cuts only on those perimeters is a bit narrow.

Technical limitations such as the unbearable lag I would get with Firefight matchmaking. Not sure why but Firefight in Reach did not hit the same high as when it was introduced in ODST for me, I just had way more fun with Firefight in ODST.

 

[willow ve]

How did Reach fail again? Game still has 80,000 people online daily 2 years after launch. I wouldn't call it a success but far from a failure. Reach can still be marginally fun at times. I used to play everyday, now I still play 3-4 times a week because I can no longer stand any other FPS.

Reach didn't fail if the only metric you use to measure success is "how well does it perform (and continue to perform) against all other titles on Xbox Live."

Reach does fail if the metric you use is "how well does it perform against the popularity of previous Halo titles."

Halo was once the gold standard, king of the hill, virtually unbeatable, top First Person Shooter on the Xbox. If you wanted a console shooter during the Halo:CE - Halo 3 years then your very first thought was "Halo!" If you want a shooter now the most common thought is "COD!"

So yes, Reach made money, sold a shit ton of copies, etc. But it never performed as well as Halo 3. As far as I can remember it didn't even outsell Halo 3 even though it was included for free with a lot of Xbox bundles...

 

[TheOddOne]

Technical limitations such as the unbearable lag I would get with Firefight matchmaking. Not sure why but Firefight in Reach did not hit the same high as when it was introduced in ODST for me, I just had way more fun with Firefight in ODST.

Chances are you will get it with Spartan Ops too.

 

[Reagan's BR]

immaterial is really good.

My favorite track.

Technical limitations such as the unbearable lag I would get with Firefight matchmaking. Not sure why but Firefight in Reach did not hit the same high as when it was introduced in ODST for me, I just had way more fun with Firefight in ODST.

ODST firefight was more fun simply because there was more of a survival component when playing as a ODST and were forced to work with your team. In Reach, playing as a spartan hurt FF.

I want mooooooore options .... complains about poor matchmaking because of low populations.

I neeeeeeed ranks and skill based matching .... played 20 games of Arena, moved back to TS.

I have to have campaign scoring or I'm gone .... I just don't even know a single person that spent more than 2 seconds ever thinking about campaign scoring so who knows.

I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

When did we get all of these juniors?

 

[Woorloog]

Technical limitations such as the unbearable lag I would get with Firefight matchmaking. Not sure why but Firefight in Reach did not hit the same high as when it was introduced in ODST for me, I just had way more fun with Firefight in ODST.

ODST Firefight is a survival mode. Reach Firefight is a shooting gallery, shoot some AI, kkthxbai!

Survival is interesting and fun, for shooting gallery i can play the campaign on easy. Or survival Firefight on easy.