Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Um, first of all it was BUNGIE that made these games, Microsoft just produced them. Bungie made the decision to do an ODST game, and then to do a prequel. I thought those were great ideas, because it was a change of paces, created genuinely different games. It helped prevent it from being like Call of Duty, with the same game being released every year. And yes, many will say that all of the Halo games are the same, but I disagree. ODST was a very different, and enjoyable, experience, and the mood of Reach was far different from the other Halos.
I like how the head of MS studios (the publisher) apparently knows what Halo is about better than Bungie (the original developers)...
...and for the record, Halo Reach was the best game of the series and just because you are including Master Chief doesn't necessarily make for a good game.
...
I think my confidence in Halo 4 just dropped even lower.
...and for the record, Halo Reach was the best game of the series and just because you are including Master Chief doesn't necessarily make for a good game.
...
I think my confidence in Halo 4 just dropped even lower.
But Reach and ODST were awesome, what they talking about? Still can't wait to play as MC again. Role on Summer 2012, if the world has ended.
I don't like the Master Chief.
In Halo 2 he wouldn't keep his mouth shut, in Halo 3 he was egotistical.
I liked ODST and Reach, because it meant that Bungie had the balls to abandon their icon for one that the players could forge the personality of.
Its kind of like Gordon Freeman. because he doesn't say anything and lets the other characters work out the plot, players are able to interprete the character in any way they choose.
In Halo 2 he wouldn't keep his mouth shut, in Halo 3 he was egotistical.
I liked ODST and Reach, because it meant that Bungie had the balls to abandon their icon for one that the players could forge the personality of.
Its kind of like Gordon Freeman. because he doesn't say anything and lets the other characters work out the plot, players are able to interprete the character in any way they choose.
Got to agree.ZeZZZZevy said:
In my opinion (as well as my sister, who I played it with in co-op), ODST was better than Halo 3.
There are two things that I can see which makes John special: He have Cortana, and he is one of the two last spartans alive, as of Halo 1.
Well...there's also that thing about him being a spartan, but that doesn't count really, since the whole of Noble Team was as well.
I would not in the slightest mind playing as a marine, trying to beat down rebels.
I would not complain if I had to play as an ODST, fighting for his life against some remnant flood. (Yes, the flood are probably my favorite enemy ever in a game. Think if there were Firefight against them!)
I would not boycott a Halo game, because the main character is an before hand unknown elite, quenching an uprising of the few covenants still believing that humans have to be destroyed, and the elites are traitors.
I would, however complain, if they decide to make Master Chief the only important character in Halo games to come.
While Master Chief is probably one of my favorite characters in an FPS, I don't think it was missteps.
There's NOTHING wrong with changing the perspective in a story like this.
Why not do like in Halo 2? You play with several characters, over several missions. ...and if they actually meet up, let me choose which one I want to play as.
So, my suggestion is; more Master Chief, but not only Master Chief.
An opinion made my knowing only half.cursedseishi said:
Yeah also trained. They took them at young age and didn't just modified and augmented them. They put them in schools and taught they warfare and everything. Since they were so young, they were basically raised by Hasley and such.Jamie Hawkins said:
Knowing these words fall on deaf ears, I'll say it anyway.
I prefer my spartan model in Reach, it was my characterization of a spartan and I liked it that way. I honestly have no attachment to master chief and I have all the games, save for wars.
Sure maybe some of the mechanics felt off, and they didn't leave the option to make reach multiplayer have a halo 3 feel with shields and BR's ( DMR's are to guns what DRM's are to games).
I don't want to be chief in 343 iterations I want to build a spartan up from scratch again. Maybe squeek out some more armor options with cheaper prices, or achievement requirements, but other than that don't fuck with it.
All in all I would say going back to the old ways would be the misstep, everyone playing as mister chief, unless they do a single player and then reach style multiplayer.
Because lets face it, thanks to modern warfare if a game isn't supposed to be a quick romp like team fortress, then you need ranks and unlocks and all that crap to keep people interested, because god knows its not like they are giving out free maps to draw you back in.
I prefer my spartan model in Reach, it was my characterization of a spartan and I liked it that way. I honestly have no attachment to master chief and I have all the games, save for wars.
Sure maybe some of the mechanics felt off, and they didn't leave the option to make reach multiplayer have a halo 3 feel with shields and BR's ( DMR's are to guns what DRM's are to games).
I don't want to be chief in 343 iterations I want to build a spartan up from scratch again. Maybe squeek out some more armor options with cheaper prices, or achievement requirements, but other than that don't fuck with it.
All in all I would say going back to the old ways would be the misstep, everyone playing as mister chief, unless they do a single player and then reach style multiplayer.
Because lets face it, thanks to modern warfare if a game isn't supposed to be a quick romp like team fortress, then you need ranks and unlocks and all that crap to keep people interested, because god knows its not like they are giving out free maps to draw you back in.
*HalseyKorten12 said:
And they were not raised as such. Everything done to them by Halsey, Mendez and the scholarly AI was a method of allowing them to use their modifications to the best of their abilities. It was not intended to 'educate' them in the way we use the word 'education'.
Well I liked the changes Bungie made to the Halo games from Halo 3. Really I think just having more Master Chief isn't going to improve the games at all. Besides Master Chief never had much of a character in the games to begin with.
Just going by the games, the only thing interesting about Master Chief was Cortana. I preferred The Arbiter, because he was interesting on his own.
-E3 Presentation.
-Universal underwhelmed reaction from community and press.
-Get butt-hurt that Bungie ran away.
-Bash the last games over a trivial issue
-Lose respect of remaining Halo fans
-Profit???
Seriously though.
Sound's like someone's bashing Bungie because the new game is gonna be no where near as good.
ODST was great, but over priced for what you got (and you can thank Microsoft for that).
Reach was the best Halo game by a long shot. Both single player and multiplayer.
The ODST and Noble team were both very pleasant to work with and had alright personalities. You could see how Bungie had matured in their style as time went on.
And now we're back to the franchise's Mary Sue: The Chief. Oh joy.
I can't wait reenact my 10 year old self's power fantasy. Again.
-Universal underwhelmed reaction from community and press.
-Get butt-hurt that Bungie ran away.
-Bash the last games over a trivial issue
-Lose respect of remaining Halo fans
-Profit???
Seriously though.
Sound's like someone's bashing Bungie because the new game is gonna be no where near as good.
ODST was great, but over priced for what you got (and you can thank Microsoft for that).
Reach was the best Halo game by a long shot. Both single player and multiplayer.
The ODST and Noble team were both very pleasant to work with and had alright personalities. You could see how Bungie had matured in their style as time went on.
And now we're back to the franchise's Mary Sue: The Chief. Oh joy.
I can't wait reenact my 10 year old self's power fantasy. Again.
As is Gordon Freeman, a quite lauded 'proagonist'. Hell, Master Chief at least has a couple of lines, a backstory contained within books and a support character with whom he has a pre-existing relationship that's quite complex. And he has a reason (being a super-soldier in strength-enhancing power armor) to be proficient with lots and lots of weapons and being superhumanly endurant; Gordon Freeman is a MIT-educated black mesa researcher.maturin said:
Just saiyan.
Sadly, here's where you concede the point. Much like movies, you cannot defend what happens with something outside of the core experience, such as a book. The books might be fantastic, but they are not part of the core Halo videogame experience. Much like one cannot defend the Star Wars prequels with a novel, you can't defend Master Chief Boring Pants by what he does in a book.Korten12 said:
If he's amazing in the book, he needs to be amazing in the games. But he isn't. He just kind of bobs along and says his emotionless lines in his emotionless, dullard way. And that's how most of the gamers are experiencing him. He can do a tap dance in the novels, it wouldn't make any difference.
Personally, I prefer Halo: Reach the game to anything with Master Chief in it, which is why this "we messed up" bit turns me off. I loved being able to customize my armor and get out of that plain jane olive green.
Here's to more boring Halo games, and ditching all the innovative concepts that ODST & Reach brought to the table. Well played, MS!
I'm really raising my eyebrow at that OP statement.
Not using Master Chief wasn't a mistake, it was a breath of fresh air.
That kind of statement makes me nervous about Microsoft getting greater creative control of the series.
Honestly, 343 should have taken Halo in a new direction when they took the reins. Using MC is just riding the coat-tails another company established and fairly played out already.
I'm getting a sense of "We will not succeed unless we milk everything already established for all it's worth," like the name on the box doesn't already do that.
Whether or not a certain character is in the game doesn't matter for squat after 5 minutes of gameplay, if anyone even cares in the first place. Reach was an excellent fucking game. It wasn't less of a game because there wasn't a certain character in a certain armor modification with a certain voice. And, admittedly, he's pretty fucking generic. You could put him in a lineup of customized Spartans, and I'd have a hard time singling him out.
No, not using Master Chief wasn't a mistake. Reach was the strongest entry in the series since the first. And it wasn't a faceless guy in green armor that made the first one great. This is giving me less interest in the future of the series in those statements he made alone.
Not using Master Chief wasn't a mistake, it was a breath of fresh air.
That kind of statement makes me nervous about Microsoft getting greater creative control of the series.
Honestly, 343 should have taken Halo in a new direction when they took the reins. Using MC is just riding the coat-tails another company established and fairly played out already.
I'm getting a sense of "We will not succeed unless we milk everything already established for all it's worth," like the name on the box doesn't already do that.
Whether or not a certain character is in the game doesn't matter for squat after 5 minutes of gameplay, if anyone even cares in the first place. Reach was an excellent fucking game. It wasn't less of a game because there wasn't a certain character in a certain armor modification with a certain voice. And, admittedly, he's pretty fucking generic. You could put him in a lineup of customized Spartans, and I'd have a hard time singling him out.
No, not using Master Chief wasn't a mistake. Reach was the strongest entry in the series since the first. And it wasn't a faceless guy in green armor that made the first one great. This is giving me less interest in the future of the series in those statements he made alone.
I guess the thing I loved about Halo 1 more than the others, and the reason I felt the series decline, is because at the time of launch, Halo 1 felt as close to a real life intergalactic war as anything other game. Since then, other games and their developers have got better at this, and Halo has fallen behind. So therefore, whilst Master Chief might be irreplaceable to many of the series fans, I feel the most important aspect is the war itself.
And seriously, hire new voice actors for the marines. That one Australian guy and that Latin American guy somehow followed me through space, and then back in time.
And seriously, hire new voice actors for the marines. That one Australian guy and that Latin American guy somehow followed me through space, and then back in time.