nope... they just put the guy who was at the trigger point first in the cutscene... didn't change a blessed thing.
Personally I find that multiplayer, while fun, doesn't do it for me. For example, Fighting games are primairly multiplayer because of the way they are designed. I'll play a fighting game but because I don't have any friends (that can be drawn away from THEIR single player XP's) I find it extremly boring to play a game.
Others, primarily from the FPS genre, are almost entirly based around Multiplayer. This causes me no end to fits because I keep hearing how this is such a fantastic game. But when I play it I find it's a dull and forgettable experiance because A) the single player is garbage and B) when you take it online there are two catagories, HORRIBLE! and 1337. the "leet" are usually the ones who are trained (yes... trained... damn I thought games were supposed to be fun!) to use breaks in the system to get around. Like in battlefield 1942 on normandy people would go onto the second terrace and promptly set a satchel at their feet and blow themselves up to the last victory point so that they could get free kills.
In Call of duty and a few others there are ways to work around and swap teams fast enough that you dont' get - points but do get pretty much free kills.
Halo multiplayer generally is on Xbox and the only times I've ever seen somthing with more than four people I ended up with kids that would literally hang the fact that their score was higher than yours over your head for the next seven days.
So Honestly? Multiplayer shouldn't be the centerpiece for any game worth it's cards. To base a score in a review entirly on multiplay is utterly stupid because 90% of that score will be based on who's playing with you.
And openendedness should be hit with a hacksaw and dumped in the marinaris trench never to be heard from again.