User 73706
Banned
I think that Bungie might have held back not only due to time constraints (anyone else remember how we got nearly twice as many promises during development back in Halo 2 and about half of them came true?) and wanting to not totally outclass 343 in terms of gameplay. I personally think it was a smart move; while the campaign could have been better, if they really made it that good, we'd all be complaining that "343 IS GOING TO RUIN THE FRANCHISE I AM QUITTING AFTER REACH UGH" and whatnot.
Not only that, while a lot of the dull surprises and expectations were admittedly disappointing, it's still a great campaign, and several of the cutbacks were justified. For example, cutting the New Alexandria Scarab run was apparently due to driving a Scarab taking up way too many resources in order for it to be worth it. Now, how do they compromise? Give us a Falcon mission that lets us fight four Hunters at once. In a nightclub. So it's not all that bad, really.
Not only that, while a lot of the dull surprises and expectations were admittedly disappointing, it's still a great campaign, and several of the cutbacks were justified. For example, cutting the New Alexandria Scarab run was apparently due to driving a Scarab taking up way too many resources in order for it to be worth it. Now, how do they compromise? Give us a Falcon mission that lets us fight four Hunters at once. In a nightclub. So it's not all that bad, really.