Again, they've got a ton of focus groups and labs at MS for this. A public beta isn't the place to be working on that stuff. If big design features aren't working optimally for them at this stage, they've got problems.

That said, whilst I'd still be surprised to see any SP in the beta, there is no smoke without fire so I guess it can't be completely ruled out.Did you add enough condescending to that or did you want to go back and add some more?and really?

All this bitching about big "empty" environments yet

a) Bungie deliberately attempting to replicate the exploration / large level feel from the first Halo (you know, after changing it in the sequels) is being completely ignored.

b) Nobody seems to have found a current generation game yet that renders combat on the same scale proposed (i.e. peaks at 40 enemies or 20 vehicles)

Seeing as these are so obviously terrible then, it should be trivial for the detractors to compile a list of ten games that have better environmental design/art and comprise combat of say, half the number of combatants.

I guess no one doesn't include me? Or is that hyperbole?

Talk about condescending tones! Ha! Kettle, meet Pot. Look, I said I doubted they would have any SP elements available to the public. That said your entire argument is the same one for every game: we have had a ton of extra eyeballs on the game, why would we actually need real consumers to give feedback? -- And we see how this turns out on a regular basis.

Guys working on a game don't have fresh eyes and are married to their concepts and frequently don't take criticism well.
A lot of internal suits don't have a clue. Period.
A lot of developers frankly suck at games (we party game with a couple of them regularly and we regularly trash them--and both are excellent developers) so internal feedback can be hit and miss.
Friends are never a good source of feedback.
"Fans of special standing" who are emotionally attached to the products, defensive of all their moves, and are essentially secondary mouth pieces in the market aren't giving it a critical look.
The "test groups" often include demographic targeting that is not representative of core gamers. Read up on the Halo 3 MS lab tests and a lot of the feedback they talk about is targeted at non-core gamers.
Even journalists can be hard to get quality feedback. You have the fan journalists and the haters, and then the reality sinks in they aren't game designers anyhow and present a pretty jaded audience.

So here is the best reason to get feedback from the general public who will buy your game: They are the ones who will be playing Halo Reach (2010 release) in 2013. They are the ones who are the true viral marketers. And ultimately it is THEIR opinion that matters. Allowing non-gamers to decide what real gamers like or think needs changed is arrogant. That is condescending!

And I am not talking out my ass. Bad Company 2 had and has internal testing on a MASSIVE scale. DICE knows the routine and they are constantly testing and balancing their game.

That didn't stop them from making what seemed like HUNDREDS of fine tuned tweaks from the BFBC2 PS3 beta. While Bungie can surely create a good, balanced, and engaging SP product without testing with the general public, there are some reasons to engage them. Gamers are your best critics and ultimately they are the ONLY critics that matter.1. They are empty. I am surprised at all the games you play you are not noticing the lack of standard AAA Xbox 360/PS3 features like grass, a lot of trees, or other world garnishments. A walk around MW2 shows off a ton of detail, as does UC2.

2. (re: a) So "exploring" is synonymous to empty worlds?

3. (re: b) I already mentioned MW2. The White House stage has a huge amount of characters.

And I noticed you said "proposed." We will see if we are talking about "40 people in a general battle sequence" ala FireFight or "40 baddied that can all be viewed at one time." Based on our past discussions I know you felt Halo 3 had huge epic battles so we have a different definition. I don't think Halo 3 had as big of battles as some hyped before release on forums. There were less than a handful of scenes with the 20ish or so AI in immediate player "contact and engagement" and there were the scarab scenes. Halo 3 also had enough marines that seemed to dilute the battlefield size. Halo 3 has some great AI and 3 or 4 brutes could be tough, but it didn't replicate the theme of a universal war or the Halo 3 montage. Doesn't make it a bad game, but definitely didn't have scenes with 20 guys shooting at YOU at once. Games like Battlefield have always felt like much larger skirmishes. (Not an exact parallel of AI versus Humans, but hopefully you can see what I am trying to communicate: the urgency of getting to points and defense and the intensity of the engagement is far different).I am not going to argue art with you. You are absolutely in love with Halo art--which is fine--but Halo 3 probably has the worse human art of ANY next gen game. At least any that I have seen. Art appeal is subjective, but Halo 3 has some objectively BAD art. And there is no arguing that their choice of art (large flat objects, open areas with little to no ground cover) was a bad pairing with no AA, sub-HD, and no filtering. Bungie went for a "clean" look and then chose a really rough rendering IQ output. Halo 3 also may have some of the worst animations this generation of a top tier shooter.

If we cannot even agree on the above then there is no point even discussing the issue with you. Since 2007 we have seen a lot of games released that have upped the rendering threshhold--games that include all sorts of extensive physics, destruction, animation, etc. MW1 had a ton of detail and AA in 2007. Besides MW, WaW, MW2, Gears 2, Killzone, Uncharted, etc you have games like Bad Company with large sandboxes with massive world deformation.And what is incorrect about saying Halo fans, real fans of the franchise, aren't as demanding as non-core gameplay/feature elements of the game like graphics? They are not as demanding as general fans or hardcore shooter fans looking for the "biggest and best."

Maybe our mixed messages can be summed up by this: On B3D people are saying they want to take away some enemy AI and get prettier pixels because the game looks bare and falls short of other AAA games. My retort: Gameplay > Graphics. Bungie, by going with 4 player coop in large levels full of enemy AI and vehicles, needs to make compromises.

But you are taking offense at my comments about graphics. A game could have boring graphics, even subpar for what they are doing (e.g. large areas), and I could still comment objectively on the graphics while still defending the approach. As it stands I don't see many screenshots that will hold 40 enemies + 20 vehicles, those scenes have a lot of objects in the near background obscuring a long draw distance so there is no reason not for more detail.

So I find it hilarious the different reactions to the SAME comments from the Halofans and the graphicwhores (B3D).

Your guys feelings all must still be hurt because I shot down the "realtime" hype being bantered around by Bungie and the press days before Bungie opened the can that the Reach trailer was offline rendered :P

Re-iterating a point is hardly the same as slagging off a whole community of fans is it? :)

Focus groups and labs are with members of the public, of all abilities and experience. They are consumers. Yes, that might include "non-gamers" as the MGS videos allude to but it is by no means restricted to them. MGS do an absolute ton of this stuff so all I was re-iterating was that they get plenty of feedback from real consumers already, mitigating the need to do a public beta of SP.

The BFBC2 beta is MP, as will be at least, the Reach one. Getting public feedback is good! There is a slim possibility there might be an SP beta of Reach, for reasons we both understand but still consider unlikely. We aren't disagreeing.

As far as the screens you said;-Not just "they aren't great" or "I've seen better" but an implication that they are some of the worst you have seen. We have both seen a lot of Xbox 360 games I will wager, I just think 'worst' is just a bit over the top. I've seen quite a lot worse. I'm playing Mass Effect again for starters and I love that game, but it's definitely got worse environments than Halo 3.I would say fans of anything are amongst the most demanding, wouldn't you? Diehard fans will care about details and are extremely passionate. I would say that's pretty much the hardest group to please. I would think diehard fans of anything would take offence if you said to them, "you aren't as demanding about the thing that you love as the average person.

What you said was 'we're all just fans so will just accept anything and we fear change'. I can quite assure you I'm not offended but it's hardly the friendliest thing I've read on a video game discussion board.

Lets talk about the game shall we?You are at least the only poster who replied to this point originally so thankyou. I would venture that MW2 and UC2 are environments where the player is tightly controlled and heavily driven by scripting. They are both great at what thay do and look great. You definitely can't explore the environments of either though.

Halo is a bit more open-ended, supports four player co-op and has stronger AI. I've not played gotten to the White House scene in MW2 on my second playthrough yet so haven't had a chance to check it out again. Is it 40 enemies? I'm not sure but I'm going to have another look.

Neither of these games let you explore those environments and the jury is out as to how many enemies they throw in. My point was that current generation games that render combat on an extended scale are few and far between. Battlefield: Bad Company had huge maps and lots going on but suffered from a poor draw distance, everything was in the mist! On the other hand, they also had a large destructible element though nothing like as complex as AI, saved films or four player co-op.

Different games doing different things. Neither of these approaches are wrong. I'm just not seeing a whole bunch of games that are attempting to do larger scale combat on large maps looking dramatically better. Even taking all of the games you mention, we've got a handful of games that do somethings better and others worse or not at all.

That's why I find it difficult to agree that these screens are "horrible". Yes, I'm a fan of the art but considering what they are designed to do and what has been confirmed thus far (i.e. definitely improved models, animation and AA) I think suggesting they are amongst the worse on the console is a bit of a stretch. No more, no less.