Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games

[Daveman]

Idiots... Reach was the best game so far. Shows once again how retarded Microsoft are.

 

[Animyr]

Haven't played Reach yet, but I thought ODST was the best game in the series, along with the original.

Halo 2 and 3 were solid, but by the numbers. 3 in particular took itself way to seriously for a game that barely had a story.

 

[Demonicdan]

What do they mean "we" Bungie did all the work and they haven't even be part of Microsoft for quite a while.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Oh dear god... if this is the mindset behind 343 Industries, I predict Halo will turn into the next Call of Duty. Souless yearly clones, dishing out more and more multiplayer for the hoardes and letting the campaign go stale.

If there was ANYTHING wrong with ODST or Reach is was NOT that you didn't play as the Chief. It was a refreshing change to see the world from a different perspective. Do they really believe people are so shallow that they care which faceless protagonist they play as? I mean half the time you don't even see your own character. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Chief and I think his connection with Cortana over the original trilogy culminated in a wonderfully fitting conclusion in Halo 3 BUT he's not the be all and end all of the Halo universe.

ODST and Reach are my two favourite Halo titles after the original Combat Evolved. Yeah so maybe they didn't do all they could in terms of characterisation but look at what they'd been using so far... the faceless, blank and mostly silent Chief. Yeah he has an interesting backstory but we don't see any of that in the games. Besides, there was a whole sub-narrative running beneath the main game story in ODST that a lot of people (including me) missed.

Seriously, I praise Bungie for taking the risk and making ODST and Reach, perhaps flawed but equally beautiful games. I shall not have this level of respect for 343 if this attitude persists.

Oh and 343? If you take ANYTHING at all away from Bungie ('cause ya know, their games were really good, despite what you say) PLEASE let us have more real time spaceship combat ala Reach. Thank you!

 

[Tanfastic]

ODST, Reach, and Wars were the best ones imo T-T

 

[Avatar Roku]

Master Chief was great in the first two games, but he was not what made Halo: Combat Evolved so great. It was the gameplay, the setting, and the presentation. It was the simple but dynamic AI and the element of tactics and meaningful choice introduced with the weapons and weapon swapping system, that kind of thing. As much as the PC guys are going to hate me for this, Halo was much more interesting to play than your standard 'twitch' shooters of the day. That's why I get annoyed when people (ahem, Yahtzee) call Halo a standard, run-of-the-mill shooter. It set the standard. For those of us who were actually there and playing the damned thing, Halo is the original and everything else is imitators. It's like how this generation thinks Seinfeld is just a run-of-mill sitcom and Citizen Kane is just a boring old movie.

You may say I'm rambling, but this is the kind of stuff I want to hear from the guy who will decide what Halo as a series is from now on. I want to hear that he understands what Halo was and why it was great. Master Chief was great, but he is not what made Halo great.

Then again, I thought the best things about Halo 2 were The Arbiter and the civil unrest within the Covenant (although, they should not have had the Covenant races start speaking English). I thought that was a great way to expand the story and the universe a little bit, but apparently I'm in the minority on that. So maybe I don't know shit.

Yep, there's a name [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny] for that. I agree with you completely. I remember when Halo: CE came out, and how different it was from damn near everything. It was so amazing, and people tend to forget that now.

Also, I agree with you on the Aribter, I thought he was fascinating and I loved that parts of the game where you played as him. And I agree, the Covenant should have only spoken English when you were the Arbiter.

 

[SamuelT]

I think the problem lies in that the players are supposed to be unstoppable death machines raised from child to become superman in superarmour, but are still just shooting and bashing. Perhaps if the mechanics were a little more than that; the character would become more fun to play.

 

[RADlTZ]

The Reach campaign was great the first time I played it, but replay-wise it grew boring fast, the only thing Id go back for now is the 2 minutes of space flying. For me the best campaigns were Halo 1 and 2. A lot of people seem to despise Halo 2's campaign...

Playing as the elites was epic.

 

[Buizel91]

Or you know...they just chose to stick with Halo, because they like working on it? Copying and pasting the Halo formula? Hey it's a formula that works, they are obviously going to keep it the same, how would you like it if Half Life turned into a Console RTS? Or if the controls and feel to the game were changed? (Valve... DO NOT take that seriously!)

Anyway, i have faith in them because of this...


They seem dedicated to the franchise, they don't want to ruin it. They know what fans want. I think it's about time more developers started to be like that.

If you say so. Just don't be surprised when Halo 4 is significantly worse than you expected it to be. It's a return to formula for a game that was taking steps in the right direction, namely, the direction its fans wanted it to go.

Your point is a very hollow strawman. No one is asking the Halo franchise to change genres or pull an XCOM, but I sincerely doubt that people are going to want Halo 4 to be the exact same game as 1, 2, or 3 with absolutely no adjustments whatsoever.

The fans are upset because 343 is clearly not approaching this in the same way that Bungie would have.

Heck, look at the project you're so excited about....they're putting HD paint on the original game and reselling it for full price. That's easily just as bad as the repackaging of N64 games for the 3DS (I have OoT, why the hell would I pay more money and buy a new console to play it again)? They even admit to the fact that it's the same game in the video you linked. Despite little mentions of how there are things that it "made sense to add", one individual in the video openly states that the game is "identical" to the one from 10 years ago. It basically just looks nicer. So you're excited about paying 60 bucks for a game you already own, but with new paint on it?

I'm stunned that anyone can have faith in what they're doing right now, but I suppose it'll have to wait until Halo 4 comes out before people will realize that the franchise's downward spiral has begun.

(I have shortened the points here, to the ones i could answer.)

Let me take these points for a moment...

First, Reach was a good direction to take the franchise i admit (and i highly doubt they will let that drop) but fans wanted to know what happened to the Chief and 343 answered...tell me how they are not listening to the fans of Halo...?

your second point...now that would be silly, in every Halo game they have added something new. whether it be huge or small, stop expecting the worst.

The third i answered in my first point so ill skip to the 4th, personally my favourite because it proves you have not done your homework, as the game is NOT full price, i believe it is $30 (or about £15 in England, could be a bit more but i know it isn't full price)

I have faith in them just like i had faith Bungie, who did not let me down, or any of my friends, and quite a few people on here... i have faith because of the people there, the people who have been with Halo since CE...

 

[bombadilillo]

To whom it may concern.


NO NO NO. Expanding you lore and universe is a good thing! Cookiecutter sequals with your action figure hero are the problem. If one guy, no matter how badass can consistantly save the world(s) from the big scary aliens, they just arent that damn scary are they?

More character and expanded universe scope goooooood.

Same old shit baaaaaaaaad.

But you expect 10% more sales from MC as the main character. Heres a hint, you "lost" sales because you didnt name it HALO 4!!!! These expansion pack sounding spinoffs are going to sell less because of the name, not because you had the gall to introduce new protagonists.

Goodness.

 

[_alter_ego]

I felt like Halo Reach was the best halo since Halo: combat evolved. I think this shows a disconnect between the Microsoft upper management and the players yet again.

 

[Alon Shechter]

I actually liked ODST and Halo: Reach the best!
I was getting a little tired of the faceless speechless green spartan.

 

[Buizel91]

I actually liked ODST and Halo: Reach the best!
I was getting a little tired of the faceless speechless green spartan.

He may be faceless...but he does have a voice...

 

[Buizel91]

(I have shortened the points here, to the ones i could answer.)

Let me take these points for a moment...

First, Reach was a good direction to take the franchise i admit (and i highly doubt they will let that drop) but fans wanted to know what happened to the Chief and 343 answered...tell me how they are not listening to the fans of Halo...?

your second point...now that would be silly, in every Halo game they have added something new. whether it be huge or small, stop expecting the worst.

The third i answered in my first point so ill skip to the 4th, personally my favourite because it proves you have not done your homework, as the game is NOT full price, i believe it is $30 (or about £15 in England, could be a bit more but i know it isn't full price)

I have faith in them just like i had faith Bungie, who did not let me down, or any of my friends, and quite a few people on here... i have faith because of the people there, the people who have been with Halo since CE...

You mean to say that you've ignored the points that you had no valid response to. That's fine.

The first point is easily dismissed by looking at this very thread, much less threads across the internet. Fans liked the approach of Reach and the customization, and couldn't give less of a care about His Royal Blandness, Master Chief.

The second point is a non-point, as Halo 4 has thus far given no indication that it will differ significantly from the original trilogy's design. In fact, I find it likely that the new Halo is more likely to use Halo 3's engine than the engine of Reach (and while that's pure speculation on the part of a bitter skeptic, if true, it's further evidence of their efforts to backpedal rather than innovate).

The third point I'll submit only when I see the game in stores, and not a moment before. Though I am curious where you got your information from....a citation would not go amiss here. Considering that the game allegedly has content that will provide DLC for Reach, however, among other small features that strongly imply that the game will be a full price relaunch, until I have that citation and see the game on shelves for less than 50 bucks, consider me a skeptic.

Want proof on the price? Here you go http://www.shoptonews.net/2011/06/15/halo-hd-anniversary-price-confirmed/ (admittedly more than i thought, but still cheap considering today's standards.)

and again you assume the worst, they will probably make a new engine, or stick with Reach's.

I also know a lot of people liked Reach but you still didn't answer me, Fans wanted to know more about the chief, just check the Bungie forums, so how are 343 not listening to the fans?

EDIT: Just read your edit, and i apologise if i seem like a ranting fanboy i just don't see why they are getting so much hate when we haven't even played the game, from what i see they are doing EXTREMELY well

 

[BrotherRool]

No! This is exactly wrong! This is like someone saying, we realised that we made a mistake and accidentally made our last two games have interesting stories and show some personality. They only sold umpty million copies so we're going to replace all that with bland, just in case you buy Halo for it's non multiplayer side

 

[Legendairy314]

I understand why people consider the chief a boring character. Those without the background of where he came from would easily see it that way. The man was abducted at the age of 6 from his family, was replaced with a clone, and was forced to kill other human beings at age 12. He's just so used to following orders that doing things the military way is all he knows. Unfortunately, it doesn't excuse the devs from taking away any semblance of character he had before and replacing it with a shell of a personality. Hopefully 343 will at least ATTEMPT to bring some life to him when he's not following orders and acting alone.

Also, I liked ODST and Reach more than most of the other Halo games.

 

[Buizel91]

Want proof on the price? Here you go http://www.shoptonews.net/2011/06/15/halo-hd-anniversary-price-confirmed/ (admittedly more than i thought, but still cheap considering today's standards.)

and again you assume the worst, they will probably make a new engine, or stick with Reach's.

I also know a lot of people liked Reach but you still didn't answer me, Fans wanted to know more about the chief, just check the Bungie forums, so how are 343 not listening to the fans?

Thank you.

Though from that link, it seems that I'm right and you're wrong, since 34.99 pounds is roughly $55.40 in American. That suggests the US price is likely to be between $49.99 and $59.99, and in either case that's considered to be the price for a full priced game. I see no indications that the game is going to cost 30 bucks, judging from that, unless they're purposely waving a middle finger at England for some unknown reason. So it seems that perhaps you should verify your own research a bit more, before you start laughing at me for "not doing my homework".

It was simple business mathematics to know that the HD remake of Halo would be given a full price tag, or at the very least, one very close to full price, given the fact that the market is doing this a lot right now (3DS remakes, anyone?). Apparently developers think that repackaging the same old game with better graphics and a few extra maps or small features makes it worth 50-60 bucks again, and as long as people keep buying, they'll keep doing it.

I assume the worst based on what they've said. If they believe that ODST and Reach were missteps in the franchise, they will not reuse the engine from those games. Developers don't recycle an engine that they've publicly denounced, because then when people buy the game and notice the similarities, it means bad press for them because they look like hypocrites for denouncing a game that they then recycled wholesale. If they were to recycle Reach's engine, then they're just doing precisely what I said they were doing: slinging mud on Bungie's last works in the hopes of convincing people that Bungie didn't know what was best for the franchise, and that 343 knows the franchise better than Bungie did. I don't know how you can buy into what 343 is saying at this point.

And yes, I did answer you. Look at this thread, and various other threads across the internet. You are part of a minority of players that wanted to see the MC story continue past Halo 3.

$39.99 in america http://www.everybodyplays.co.uk/news/360/Halo-Combat-Evolved-Anniversary-gets-a-budget-price/735 can i still laugh? hehe i kid i kid

Look, i like Reach,and ODST, more than CE, i personally didn't care if the Chief was continued or not, but looking on the Bungie forums, it's what fans wanted, So i accept that.

Plus they said the game wasn't that good, not the Engine, but i assume they will make a new Engine anyway.

I hope you read my edit on my last post, if not i mean no offence and i'm sorry if i come over as a fanboy