Originally posted by kalle90:
quote:
Originally posted by MethodicalPlot:
quote:
Originally posted by kalle90:
quote:
Originally posted by MethodicalPlot:
quote:
Originally posted by kalle90:
quote:
Originally posted by MethodicalPlot:
quote:
Originally posted by kalle90:
But you have been lone merc? Think there would be 4 mercs too, 1 grenade, mine or shooting would easily be overkill. Sure it would be little unfair being lone spy against 7 mercs, but it would be fun and different option. And in objective based gametypes it's lot better for spies to be alone and maybe lure mercs to other end of level while other spy does the job on the other end of level. If 1 spy would be neutralizing computer with 3 allies in small room when 4 mercs arrive it would easily be overkill for mercs.
You are still thinking too narrow
-8 players
-Spy or Merc/SWAT (free choice)
-Green, Blue, Red and Yellow team
=Results of combinations would be almost endless. Examples:
-2 spies vs 2 mercs
-1 spy vs 7 mercs
-1 merc vs 7 spies
-2 spies and 1 merc vs 2 spies and 1 merc
-4 spies vs 4 mercs
-2 spies vs 2 spies vs 2 spies vs 2 mercs
Sure it would be possible to have unfair battles, but we have them now too.
Yeah, I've been a lone merc. It's always worked out for me, even when getting double teamed. But I see where you're getting at. A different multiplayer, yeah yeah. I'm not saying it would be bad or anything! I just really liked the way CT played out. Such as.. gadgets, the movement of the spies, levels, and the way you did things.
Don't get me wrong, your suggestions seem great and I hope they go for that! I just don't want to see those suggestions combined with the way they made the multiplayer for Double Agent, y'know? D:
Yeah, yeah i get it. I just wouldn't like to see exact copy of PT and CT. Or DA.
That goes to Eskimobob too. Campaign wise all SCs and Halos are pretty different, althought not as much they could be. But when we talk about Multiplayer, like topic says, Halos have different maps, options, items, player amounts and gameplay compared to each other. PT and CT doesn't have much difference at all; pretty much same maps, options, items, audiovisual and overall gameplay. Just having the same maps makes me think, is this worth this? New maps in Halo completely changes everything.
Instead of making almost same multiplayer we could have had lot longer story game, for example. Was the multiplayer included in CT because Ubi had some random item ideas they couldn't include in PT? Or they didn't have time to make new, but they had to have MP or people would have started the WTF?
They had new items for CT. Heartbeat, Cloak, Shotguns, Submachine gun, Poison mine, Backpack, Gas Mask. I believe those count as new items, right? They also had
Download content and different maps as well as bringing back the old favorites. CT also brought in the Deathmatch option. As well as open voice chat if you're playing with friends. You could restrict items for custom matches.Co-op moves to allow you to get to otherwise unreachable places. Did you even play the CT multi player at all?
Wouldn't you expect similar things from a game that holds a certain title? Sure, new things can be great, but it feels like they're abandoning their old audience and appealing to new. I really liked SC multi player because I could be stealthy and not be forced to run around like a steroid abusing super spy.
Downloadable content. That's the word. Almost all those things you mentioned are something that could have been made available to PT as DL content just as well from items to maps. Items, moves, chat, maps are all things that give small boost.
CT MP feels so small update that is it really worth the price? Ubi could have just made DL content to PT, and then make CT more developed.
But then again, PT or any SC game haven't gotten many downloads or updates so maybe it's just Ubi being lazy, or more likely, marketing. In perfect world all SCs could be different and they all would be updated frequently so there would always be players and new games wouldn't have to include all the previous ideas. Sure that doesn't apply to single player so much. And that's why I rather want that time spent on Single player, if we can't have groundbreaking or new MP.
Current SC path seems like Half Life edition thing.
You're more concerned with the Single player. While I do want it to be good, I doubt the single player alone would give me the replay value that I desire.
CT multiplayer was amazing! It was well worth my money, I played it more than Halo! Now if you can have that much fun with just 4 players, it's definitely phenomenal. I love CT multi player for everything it was. Co-Op missions as well. I'm surprised that didn't satisfy you in the least bit considering the other multi player ideas you were mentioning.
I have always been more about single player, console games used to be more about them. But I still look first at single player when choosing games, Co-op being big bonus and multiplayer being smaller one. Sure, good 4 player split screen is fun nowadays, games like Halo and NHL have given a lot. SC doesn't even have split screen, which is understandable. Unfortunately, it seemed to be just a single console generations feature, new generation is all about Online. Few games have same as good Split screen features as online has. I just feel that multiplayers are pretty much repeating same, driving games, sport games, shooters, MMOs.
How much CT was better than PT? Better than it, sure, and so if PT used to be the best then CT became new top. There just seems to be very limited difference. CT passing PT as the best multiplayer if you love the gametype? Yes. Is it worth worth it compared to PT? No.
I would have bought every Halo campaign seperately, I would have been atleast very interested in buying every Halo multiplayer seperately, I would have not bought SC multiplayer seperately without second doubt. I would have bought every SC campaign seperately atleast so far, it started to stay at place but currently it looks bit better again.
Halo 1 was actually breathtaking, 2nd wasn't such big althought it had pros, 3rd was great, but pretty much the same. It survived because it was designed to be a trilogy. It is complete now.
SC on the other hand is pretty similiar considering evolvement. But there was 1,2,3 without any deeper meaning or goal, that could go on for ages, but the developement speed would make me to drop the series at some point, or atleast drop it far from elite game series list. DA (XBOX) pushed loads of life to series, I just hope that goes on.
I don't see how anyone can say "2mercs vs 2 spies is perfect, just add few new maps and items along the old ones" I would atleast push Ubi to do more, not to recycle the same. But really, give me spectacular Solo game and I won't complain. If Solo isn't good, then I have to search for reasons and spending time to recycled MP is great culprit.
I don't know where the idea came that a sequel needs to be entirely different from its predecessor. Obviously they can't just keep churning out the same thing over and over, people will get bored, but drastic changes are not needed to refresh gameplay.