Yeah the whole Bungie, Activision thing is just a partnership. Activision will not have any influence over the actual game. Bungie was smart enough to write this into the contract. Activision will just be helping with advertising and such.
Microsoft Wasn't Fond of the "Halo" Brand
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Leaving Microsoft to pair up with Activision. How is that "greener pastures?" That's more like descending into a deeper level of Hell.
I just hate the continued insistence on adding the subtitle. To me, the game is just "Halo". If I want to specify the first game in the series, I'll say "Halo 1".
I don't see this as incredibly surprising, though; I mean, coming up with a name is always hard, and I always second-guess it. Heck, I remember having a two-hour "meeting" trying to come up with a name for a server at work once, and even when we all agreed on it, we all complained about it for the next two weeks.
For that matter, I have machines on my home network that I keep thinking I should rename, if I didn't have to update every machine that talked to it and if I didn't know I'd just hate the new name in three months anyway.
Although Microsoft is probably the last company that has any right to complain about what should be an exciting name. "Windows", "Office", "Money", "SQL Server", "Windows Phone", "Internet Explorer", "Streets & Trips"... For crying out loud, the game system is called the "X-BOX" (attached to which I have a "Live Vision Camera" -- it wouldn't surprise me if Natal's non-codename ends up being the "Live Advanced 3D Camera System").
I don't see this as incredibly surprising, though; I mean, coming up with a name is always hard, and I always second-guess it. Heck, I remember having a two-hour "meeting" trying to come up with a name for a server at work once, and even when we all agreed on it, we all complained about it for the next two weeks.
For that matter, I have machines on my home network that I keep thinking I should rename, if I didn't have to update every machine that talked to it and if I didn't know I'd just hate the new name in three months anyway.
Although Microsoft is probably the last company that has any right to complain about what should be an exciting name. "Windows", "Office", "Money", "SQL Server", "Windows Phone", "Internet Explorer", "Streets & Trips"... For crying out loud, the game system is called the "X-BOX" (attached to which I have a "Live Vision Camera" -- it wouldn't surprise me if Natal's non-codename ends up being the "Live Advanced 3D Camera System").
Halo
Combat Simplified
Combat Simplified
Might have been a more appropriate title.
OT: It's really common for big name games to major changes, or just any game with anime in it especially in the 90's and such where every RPG had to be "fixed" for american and european consumers by having a painter (In Segas case Boris Vallejo). Which was ridiculous because you'd boot up the game and see it is NOTHING like the cover art. Breath of Fire 3 got some terrible treatment in Europe, that was the biggest bastardization of a cover ever.
Considering that "Halo" almost ranks up there right alongside "Mario" as one of the most recognizable titles/names in the business (and is practically a household name)...
...what more could you ask for? So they didn't like it. Seems strange to talk about it now, 3-4 games after the fact...
...what more could you ask for? So they didn't like it. Seems strange to talk about it now, 3-4 games after the fact...
Well this is a nice piece of mud that comes out after Bungie is away from Microsoft. Guess ol' MS forgot to include a hush-hush in the separation papers. Wonder what new revelations are yet to be discovered?
Not like the same scenario where Activision had ownership over Infinity Ward, and had a lot more to say over what IW did. And apparently they came up with a lot more to say than just what to call the game.
Well with Microsoft they were actually under ownership, according to the article here. With Activision, Bungie is just in a partnership. Bungie maketh the game, Bungie calleth the game whatever the hell they want to, and Activision puteth a box on it and finds places to selleth it.Glademaster said:
Not like the same scenario where Activision had ownership over Infinity Ward, and had a lot more to say over what IW did. And apparently they came up with a lot more to say than just what to call the game.
You aren't taking into account that at the time Halo first came out, they had some new revolutionary stuff to put in. One of the first to have vehicles in FPS's, new sorts of weapons, etc.Snotnarok said:
Microsoft was still being rather pedantic about the title. But Microsoft does as Microsoft thinks.
It was revolutionary perhaps for console gaming as there was no game with online as expansive as that but on PC there was. So while it deserves some credit, it's also responsible for knocking weapons down to two, and taking away health bars which has really made games far too similar in gameplay and annoying.samsonguy920 said:
Carting around every possible weapon in your hyperspace arsenal [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HyperspaceArsenal] and always having health bars replenished by health-packs was just as similar (and potentially annoying) if not more.Snotnarok said:
There's a place for both. Halo made regenerating health and limited carrying capacity popular, and that's quite an accomplishment what with almost every shooter fan of the day being an "Old Guard" type proclaiming the impossibility of shooters on consoles, limited equipment, and regenerating health being fun and interesting.
i loved the Halo 2: Combat Evolved Again and Halo 3 wasn't Halo 3: Even More Evolution With Regards to Combat. i would have loved that in the title
The two gun thing is fine when it's just one or so games doing it, now it's EVERY game does it. I want 2 pistols, 2 kinds of machine guns (preferably one being a chaingun), a rocket launcher , a death ray. Now it's just 2 guns, go into mission and do it. Not that it matters most games now enemies die in 3 bullets so that hyper death beam is useless, but hilarious.awsome117 said:
Yes while itwas interesting new way to play games, every game does it now. Every new shooter has regen health, hell Mass Effect 2 a RPG shooter has it. It was innovative and new at one point, now it's expected, over used and needs to be used less so more variety can come into play.Eldritch Warlord said:
Variety you know, like health, armor, shields or HP. All recovery shooters have the same way of playing, rush, shoot, get hit heal, repeat. In a healthpack shooters you have to be more careful, or sometimes you just rush in. Or how about stim shooters where you carry health packs and use them as you go? There's many ways that health can be used but they've all been dropped. That's what I'm saying here, Halo HAD quite an interesting way of health but now EVERY game has it and it's killed the variety in shooters. And while it's a cool gameplay mechanic, I want to see other things tried before or new implemented.
It's just something I would personally like to see reborn. If you like regen health/shields, that's fine and dandy, but would it be so bad if they put out games without that along side it? Don't snuff out regen shooters, just put out more variety.
You're a soldier with regen health/shields with 2 guns grenades and a pistol. I've just summed up 95% of shooter heros of recent years. I have more shooters than most people have games, it's not like I don't play what I talk about here.
Edit: Fixed with snips