Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
This is what happens when you design games by committee and listen to focus groups (and probably recommendations from your children).
He's basically saying "we don't know where to take the series so let's go back to one that sold well for us". Newsflash Spencer: Halo was 10 years ago. Like the title said - it evolved. Master Chief is not 'who we want to play' we want to play a good game. So make one of those and we'll play it no matter who is in it.
He's basically saying "we don't know where to take the series so let's go back to one that sold well for us". Newsflash Spencer: Halo was 10 years ago. Like the title said - it evolved. Master Chief is not 'who we want to play' we want to play a good game. So make one of those and we'll play it no matter who is in it.
Christ, are the fanboys really telling people to read Fall of Reach so Master Chief can get some characterization? That might be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this site.
News flash: No one should have to read a book to be persuaded to give a shit about the main character of a game. If the game doesn't cause you to care, then either you weren't supposed to care in the first place, or it has failed as a game.
OT: Crapping on your own franchise is really never a good idea, unless it was warranted. Since Reach and ODST did well, I'm guessing that isn't the case (I haven't played a Halo game since Halo:CE on the PC). Basically, they're maligning their own intellectual property because some previous games DARED to change up the formula and try some different things? That's just a terrible precedent to set. Yeah, guys, keep making the same Halo game over and over with the same bland main character and see how well you do. I'll wait.
News flash: No one should have to read a book to be persuaded to give a shit about the main character of a game. If the game doesn't cause you to care, then either you weren't supposed to care in the first place, or it has failed as a game.
OT: Crapping on your own franchise is really never a good idea, unless it was warranted. Since Reach and ODST did well, I'm guessing that isn't the case (I haven't played a Halo game since Halo:CE on the PC). Basically, they're maligning their own intellectual property because some previous games DARED to change up the formula and try some different things? That's just a terrible precedent to set. Yeah, guys, keep making the same Halo game over and over with the same bland main character and see how well you do. I'll wait.
This is a load of bovine droppings. Cut scenes is not needed to characterise and flesh out a character. Heaps upon heaps of character can be formed through simple gestures, animations and the like. Even if the characters don't speak all these things are present. On top of that you got how a person talks, catchphrases and attitude for speaking characters and cut-scenes are not needed for that.Korten12 said:But then look at it like this: Let's say they wanted to flesh them out more in game. Well Halo shows most of its story (not all) through cutscenes. So that would mean they probably would have needed to make cutscenes longer and then people would complain about the length of cutscenes.
The books are NEEDED, you can't show everything in games. In Fall of Reach, there were many times that there would be no combat and just talking. They can't show that in game without people like I said complaining about length of cutscenes or would complain about lack of action.
I would like to point to Star Wars: Republic Commando as a perfect example of this. This is a game that as I remember it is completely devoid of cut scenes and still they give all the characters a strong individual feel. Each one was defined through mostly radio chatter and not even scripted chatter but also in their response to commands. I remember the sniper being very happy every time you asked him to snipe.
Even if it has not been spray painted all over his armour Master Chiefs personality also shines through. He is a person that values function over form at all times. He is a person who is willing to go to any length to win. While his goal is the protection of the human race he would not hesitate to kill one half of the population to save the other half. He is all business and no fun. This is the person presented in the first 2 games. The only 2 I was able to play. I am sure you can guess why.
I don't begrudge Microsoft for wanting to continue the story of Master Chief. I cannot say if his story was nicely rounded of in Halo 3. If it was I see no reason to return. What I do begrudge is to say that they made an error by making 2 FPS games set in the Halo universe where you did not play Master Chief. That is just stupid. ODST and Reach were both great successes so he can't be referring to a financial mistake. If he thinks it was a narrative mistake I must again call foul. A universe as rich and diverse as Halo deserves exploration and seizing the opportunity to do so through other people is an excellent idea. Many gray/brown shooters can actually keep me interested because you get to see different perspectives. And the questions asked in these other games do the same thing. They ask questions other then just "And what happened then?"
Not every fairy tale can be about the handsome prince and not all of them can end happily. Halo is a brand with a lot to offer and limiting it to Master Chief is a mistake. As long as the games are good fans will love them and while a few may lament the lack of the chief I assure you they will be a far smaller minority the, majority that will praise the bold new direction.
Halo Wars was made by Ensemble Studios.INF1NIT3 D00M said:
Though I'll admit, Halo 4 might not be a day one purchase for me...maybe. That's the best I can do. Yeah, it's kinda sad.
It doesn't even matter what fans have to say about it, this statement is such a blatant marketing ploy and a betrayal of Bungie's integrity that his response might as well have been: "Bungie doesn't want to make more money for us so we don't feel we should respect the work they've done over the past 3 years. Buy our game you mindless drones." I guarantee that if Bungie had been on board with making more Halo he would be playing a different tune, specifically the euphemistic kind that involves oral sex.
I... I was wrong? In even one aspect?Poptart Invasion said:Halo Wars was made by Ensemble Studios.INF1NIT3 D00M said:
Though I'll admit, Halo 4 might not be a day one purchase for me...maybe. That's the best I can do. Yeah, it's kinda sad.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--
--anyways, I didn't like Halo Wars. I doubt I'll like Halo 4. I'd be willing to get it off gamefly to play it, but I will not be a purchaser. That's what I do with Call of Duty games now, as well as other sequels I assume won't be as good as the earlier titles. I rent them or borrow them to see if the single player or multiplayer has improved at all. If they haven't, I just return it without wasting cash on a bad game. If it's good, I'll return it then drive down to gamestop or log onto steam.
Reach is my favourite halo game by a mile, I don't think they were missteps at all. The perspective of other people in the war was really good, and the multiplayer was as goodas ever. That being said, it's good that microsoft have an opinion of what their target market want, even if it's slightly wrong in my eyes.
The books are needed because they failed to develop him as a character enough in the games. There are 3 games revolving around Master Chief, they have had ample time to characterize him, even just in cutscenes. And don't say "you can't show everything in games". There are plenty of games that manage to have well developed characters without needing the player to go out and buy a book about them. Some of them have very short or no cutscenes. Batman: Arkham Asylum, the Penumbra series, Amnesia: the Dark Descent, Metro: 2033, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2. And these are just the games that I've played. Apart from the 3 games of the Penumbra series, these are all single games and all of them have well developed characters without the need of any external media. A franchise like Halo should be able to pull that off, too.Korten12 said:The books are NEEDED, you can't show everything in games. In Fall of Reach, there were many times that there would be no combat and just talking. They can't show that in game without people like I said complaining about length of cutscenes or would complain about lack of action.
Maybe...I was wrong? About not being an unsufferable fanboy?INF1NIT3 D00M said:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--
Jeez, a lot of Master Chief haters in this thread. I personally like the Chief, sure he doesn't talk much, and his backstory is mainly explained through the books. But back in the day when I first played Halo 2, (I have yet to play the first one) I thought he was and still is kinda awesome. Although I do prefer the Arbiter, as he had the most interesting story in that game. (I seriously don't understand the hate for him.) Just my opinion I guess.
As for what Microsoft thinks about this kind of thing, I kind of disagree. It's a good thing that Bungie attempted to branch out a bit and focus on characters that aren't Master Chief, Cortana, or Arbiter. It fleshed out the universe a bit. I have no idea where they got the idea that the lack of Chief is what made the last two games so bad. (Which they aren't, not by a long shot.)
As for what Microsoft thinks about this kind of thing, I kind of disagree. It's a good thing that Bungie attempted to branch out a bit and focus on characters that aren't Master Chief, Cortana, or Arbiter. It fleshed out the universe a bit. I have no idea where they got the idea that the lack of Chief is what made the last two games so bad. (Which they aren't, not by a long shot.)
I didn't care too much for ODST but I loved Reach because you didn't play as the chief. You play as your own unique Spartan which is great [sub](also, Reach had no Flood which is the best aspect of the game in my opinion)[/sub]!
I have nothing against Master Chief. I just hope that the next batch of Halo games will let me play consistently on Blue team as an Alien. It's nice that they let me prefer the Sanghili but I can't remember the last time match-making let me actually play as one.
I have nothing against Master Chief. I just hope that the next batch of Halo games will let me play consistently on Blue team as an Alien. It's nice that they let me prefer the Sanghili but I can't remember the last time match-making let me actually play as one.
That's fucking retarded.
ODST and Reach weren't shitty games because you weren't the Master Chief, they were shitty games because they were shitty games.
With these two they intentionally tried doing something different which was meant to expand and flesh out Halo's substantial universe, and failed.
In ODST you were meant to experience the battle of a vital human city through the eyes of a regular UNSC grunt, but you didn't, you played the exact same thing but with the addition of a couple gimmicky weapons which can't even fulfill their intended purpose. There was no sense of urgency, vulnerability or an overall objective, you simply stomped from place to place trying to find cardboard cutout characters whom you have absolutely no reason to give a shit about and defending 'super secret' government installations you have no reason to give a shit about.
In Reach you were meant to experience first hand the terrible fall of the UNSC controlled world whose destruction served as a major plot point of the first game. Instead, you play through many levels which feel like cheap rehashes of the classic Halo CE environments with characters which are downright hateable and a plot that tries so desperately to be full of emotion and completely sucks at doing it.
"Oooo Reach is getting burned! Isn't that just immersing the player in the super emotive emotional 'experience'!?"
No, it's not. The highlight of the game's campaign was it's final cutscene, but the thing I liked even more than that was the fact the game ended.
At least they finally made the multiplayer decent. Shit, they should make all their games multiplayer only.
-
This whole article is a weird way of justifying the return of their posterboy.
Halo 4 isn't going to be a shitty game because you do or do not play as Master Chief, it's going to be a shitty game because they are going to churn it out as quickly as possible and make it even more idiot friendly to compete with other games. Seeing as everybody's dead or went home they'll put their lead ideas guy in a room for two minutes and have him create some new over the top shit on the spot instead of working towards making a good plot and environments and characters the player has reason to care about. It'll be nothing more than a cheap excuse to advance the game, even moreso than the Halo games after CE and to a lesser extent, 2.
I generally avoid from making major assumptions about games before their release, but it's ridiculously easy to see what's going on.
Cash, fucking, grab.
ODST and Reach weren't shitty games because you weren't the Master Chief, they were shitty games because they were shitty games.
With these two they intentionally tried doing something different which was meant to expand and flesh out Halo's substantial universe, and failed.
In ODST you were meant to experience the battle of a vital human city through the eyes of a regular UNSC grunt, but you didn't, you played the exact same thing but with the addition of a couple gimmicky weapons which can't even fulfill their intended purpose. There was no sense of urgency, vulnerability or an overall objective, you simply stomped from place to place trying to find cardboard cutout characters whom you have absolutely no reason to give a shit about and defending 'super secret' government installations you have no reason to give a shit about.
In Reach you were meant to experience first hand the terrible fall of the UNSC controlled world whose destruction served as a major plot point of the first game. Instead, you play through many levels which feel like cheap rehashes of the classic Halo CE environments with characters which are downright hateable and a plot that tries so desperately to be full of emotion and completely sucks at doing it.
"Oooo Reach is getting burned! Isn't that just immersing the player in the super emotive emotional 'experience'!?"
No, it's not. The highlight of the game's campaign was it's final cutscene, but the thing I liked even more than that was the fact the game ended.
At least they finally made the multiplayer decent. Shit, they should make all their games multiplayer only.
-
This whole article is a weird way of justifying the return of their posterboy.
Halo 4 isn't going to be a shitty game because you do or do not play as Master Chief, it's going to be a shitty game because they are going to churn it out as quickly as possible and make it even more idiot friendly to compete with other games. Seeing as everybody's dead or went home they'll put their lead ideas guy in a room for two minutes and have him create some new over the top shit on the spot instead of working towards making a good plot and environments and characters the player has reason to care about. It'll be nothing more than a cheap excuse to advance the game, even moreso than the Halo games after CE and to a lesser extent, 2.
I generally avoid from making major assumptions about games before their release, but it's ridiculously easy to see what's going on.
Cash, fucking, grab.
haha, what are the odds of me reading 'Nathan Fillion' just as a song with him in from Dr Horribles Sing Along Blog came on?FinalDream said:
Also i agree how Master Chief can be boring, i quite like Cortana and the Arbiter but I'm not bothered who you play as in these games as long as the overall story and gameplay is good.
While the Chief is actually interesting in the books, he's boring as hell in the games. That's simple. I get why he is (the player is supposed to project onto him), but I've never agreed. Personally, I had more attachment to my Reach Spartan than I ever did with Chief. Probably due to the deep armor customization.
But I guess this means Microsoft is making damn sure that we'll be seeing a lot more Chief and less experimentation than ODST or Reach. I don't really dig that, and I hope it isn't a sign that Bungie's absence is gonna suck hard for Halo.
But I guess this means Microsoft is making damn sure that we'll be seeing a lot more Chief and less experimentation than ODST or Reach. I don't really dig that, and I hope it isn't a sign that Bungie's absence is gonna suck hard for Halo.