Yes. This would be Amazing, but hard at the same time. Yes. This is EXACTLY how i feel. I don't want to pay for a map that I've already paid for previously.
Yeah, there's actually a forge map based on this level called "cartographer" by a friend of mine, Col Keller (MLG Retroactive).
And they should. Most (though not all) of them make for indifferent multiplayer spaces. The Spire is transparently a campaign or invasion map and not very good for multiplayer at all. Boneyard isn't as bad but is in the same vein. Sword Base works maybe better than it ought to but still has significant problems that I think we all know about. I do like Powerhouse, and Zealot seems almost like it was designed for multiplayer first and then back-integrated into campaign, but ultimately the classic and pure multiplayer feeling of the old Halo maps is lacking from many of Reach's offerings.
All of the original maps were made for multiplayer, and then injected back into the campaign. Bungie just isn't (as a general rule) that great with map design.
They almost cut Reflection because they couldn't find a spot in campaign to put it in. That's not the way to go.
The Spire was designed first for multiplayer? I will never, ever believe that. Invasion, maybe. Regardless of which way the recycling was really going (I tend to believe it was some of both), I hope Halo 4 gets away from that completely. Multiplayer spaces and campaign spaces simply don't obey the same rules of design. Plus, it ultimately makes me feel like they really cheaped out on Reach by using so much of the content twice. If you need to cut costs, I'd prefer a campaign level like The Library that recycles a corridor a few times rather than a multiplayer map that feels like a campaign level and plays incredibly awkwardly. That campaign level will only be boring the few times I play it, but the multiplayer map ends up being a waste of disc space and drags down any playlist it appears in.
I can imagine the biggest Xbox exclusive not having resources to create a decent amount of maps. Wait what?
Well they act like it is hard to make more maps or better forge, but the truth is that is probably the easiest part. I think they are wasting too much time thinking up new storylines. On another note, the Covenant map in Reach was just a fail. Nobody ever votes it and playing the map is wierd. there are too many ways to be shot from. They just need to think simple. Simple maps are always better. Then, and only then, should they ad the asthetics.
The storylines probably take very little time to think up. Reach is at quite the limit in terms of disc space. Also, I'm assuming you're referring to Zealot on that other note. If so, then any sort of credibility I had for your opinion initially is lost, because Zealot is one of the few decent maps in Reach. It's a map that I vote for every time, it's voted for most of the time in team doubles, and most of the time in playlists like the TU Beta and the Arena. It's also the most simple design in Reach, aside from the forge maps. Everybody here is making Bungie out to be the bad guys, and while I agree on some points, there are quite a few very bad, unresearched points that I've read. A couples of notes: Each Reach map was designed for multiplayer before it was used for campaign. Including the Invasion maps. If you look at the locations which most of the maps are in place for campaign, they're usually in locations that aren't even used for fighting. Boardwalk, Reflection, Zealot, Countdown, and a few others I'm forgetting are just used as filler space, essentially. However, this integration idea did affect maps widely considered to be pretty bad, i.e. Sword Base, so I do agree to an extent that the integration should not in any way affect the design of the maps. However, this brings me to my next point: Reach was literally at the limit when it comes to space. There are a few commentaries with the programmers and designers where they talk about how tiny bits of space were saved in order to make the game fit on one disc. They couldn't do it on two, because there would be far too much free space, and would jack up the price on release. It's amazing what lengths they went to to make it fit, especially since, aside from the map-campaign integration, there aren't very many obvious corner cuts. Reach needs some improvements, but jesus ****ing christ, some people are acting like it's total garbage and nothing's being done to improve it, when we just got a Title update fixing some major issues, along with a huge map pack at a cheap price. Should reach have started out better? Probably. But that's in the past, and making complaints without giving realistic solutions (Like Pegasi constantly does) is just pointless and immature.
8 maps on disc of which 2 were for Invasion. :| (I'm not counting Forge World, because Forge maps aren't 'real 'maps) This really bugged me. A game like Call of Duty launches with like 15 maps but Reach couldn't even get to double digits. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. It was especially disappointing for the BTB crowd. All they got were Invasion maps which were obviously not fit for normal BTB matches and they got Hemorrhage (yuck). Even to this day going into normal BTB isn't a pleasant experience because all the DLC maps are poorly integrated into matchmaking and thus you will rarely run into them. Now the BTB playlist is stuck with a bunch of Forge maps and still those 2 awful Invasion maps. Also, Elite Warrior, you better not be talking about Zealot as a failure. It's one of the few good maps Reach has (at launch). Zealot, Boardwalk, Countdown and Powerhouse are the only decent maps in my opinion. That said, they still need(ed) a bit of tweaking. The outer space area on Zealot is hilariously gimmicky (fixed), The Sniper spawn-timers on Boardwalk were obviously way too short (fixed) and Countdown doesn't need any CQC power weapons let alone two (not fixed yet, sadly.). Do you mean that Pegasi does give realistic solutions or not?
On your first point, another example is Powerhouse. You go there, but not into the buildings, you just blow up a covvie mini-tower in front of it, then keep going. Also, Anchor 9, (sort of, you don't go in it.) and for your second point, Bungie even said ina ViDoc that when they made ForgeWorld, they had to use simple geometry and colors to make it so that a blank canvas wouldn't have framerate. People need to stop making Bungie out as the bad guy. They did all they could to tweak Reach as close to perfection as the 360 could allow.
"We need to keep the framerate steady guys." "Let's make the biggest map we've ever build!" "Brilliant!"
Rorak - my main point was just this: "ultimately the classic and pure multiplayer feeling of the old Halo maps is lacking from many of Reach's offerings." Whether the maps were designed first as multiplayer spaces or not is irrelevant. But I will capitulate that I play more BTB than probably many of you do, and a lot of my frustration stems from that. The Spire and Boneyard (the former more than the latter) simply feel more like campaign spaces than multiplayer ones. This works OK for invasion, which is a kind of adapted campaign basically with players filling in for AI, but it doesn't make for good multiplayer games. Thus, those two maps are infrequently voted for, and many of the games actually played on them are horrible (especially 1-flag on The Spire, which is just hideous). So what did we get on disc for Reach BTB? Hemorrhage and Paradiso. That's it. Unless you count 8v8 slayer on Countdown, which... ugh. (Since launch it has rightfully been removed from the playlist.) It makes perfect sense that the first map pack included two BTB maps, because Reach was badly lacking them. And I like both of those maps - they feel like they were made for multiplayer at least, and not just invasion/campaign - but they never come up. I have them but can't play them. It's been months, I think, since I played a single game on Breakpoint. I singled out a couple of those already as maps I felt were decent. Reflection obviously, since it's a remake (though of a map I'm not that fond of - it always had, and still has, a major design flaw). Sword Base I think is one that suffered from its integration. I think it's odd that you single out Pegasi, who has recommendations aplenty for how to fix things and is generally pretty moderate in his tone. I also think it's unfair to lump together every "complainer" in your view, though I understand the impulse - the avalanche of whining about the changes in Reach, particularly on Bungie.net, was a thing to behold. But I for one have been a pretty staunch defender of Reach for most of its life cycle, and I don't really see where this thread has degenerated into a pointless bitchfest. People have reservations about the game, and I think some of those are justified. I like more than a few of Reach's maps - I actually think once we hit Halo 4, you'll hear a lot more people calling for remakes of "classics" like Countdown and Zealot, maps which right now are complained about as much as they are praised. However, I do feel that they seriously short-shrifted BTB players, and that even on the smaller, better maps, there was a tendency to get away from simple and clean designs to "real world"-style ones that are too complicated to really play well. That's the main thing I meant when I said a lot of the maps feel like they were designed for campaign. Even if they were technically designed for multiplayer first, there's too much going on in many of them. Too many weird little nooks to hide in, too much untamed landscape to get lost in, too many perches to jet pack up to and DMR from; and more meaningfully, not enough symmetry and balance. When somebody says (on this forum) that they made a CE-style map, I think we all know what that means. Chunky architecture, a pure (and usually fully enclosed) game space, clean and simple lines of sight. They are strategically easy to understand even compared to a map like Powerhouse - which, by the way, I like. Reach is the furthest Bungie ever got away from CE style. It didn't ruin the game for me - far from it - but it does make me hope that 343 goes in a different direction for Halo 4. (So there's your proposed solution, too. )
I think he's pointing out that Pegasi does give realistic feedback. It's worded a bit confusing, though.