Did 343 ruin the Halo series?

[Dougie4]

I personally think 343 should have never touched the Halo series. They butchered it and continue to butcher it. Bungie should have kept their rights to the game.

[Unease Peanut]

Remember how Bungie abandoned Halo because they wanted to do "something else" and made another space shooter with alot more content on the PS, a terrible story that you have to pay for to complete it (DLC) and an unfinished game altogether?

Bungie in my eyes has lost its way completely. The Halo they made was a complete stroke of luck to begin with and now they tried their luck again and it bit them in the arse. To still try and make Destin a succes they have to scramble.

 

What 343i tries, and in my eyes is doing, is keeping the Halo series alive with new games with new features instead of copy/pasting H2 or H3 over and over again, because to be honest... That's what most people appear to want.

343i adds new features, the community either loves or hates it and they proceed to change it the way most people want it to be. Take Halo 4 for example, people didn't quite like the loadouts and ordnance so they got rid of it in Halo 5. They even hired some pro players to work with them and create the best possible game for us.

Sure they cannot always give you what YOU want but try to understand and respect that they have to cater to the ENTIRE community.

[E-Runner]

Na. Halo 4 is definitely my least played Halo game, but I guess that's because I simply like old-school style play more. Still a fun game, not as fun as Halo 1,2,3, even Reach...for me. But the MCC enables me to play my favs to my heart's content. So I'm satisfied. I have the legends. I'll see what 343 does with H5 with patience and an open mind.

 

While we are discussing this, what is the deal with Halo 4s "view range"? It's almost like if a vehicle/person is far away across the map, in open view, you cannot see it - unless you zoom in. I wanna see everything like in the old Halos! Very much so in Campaign mode.

 

Also I remember the Wraith in Halo 4 really bummed me out. It's mortar seems so weak and frail. In the previous incarnations it was a blue blob of death.

[-Stealer-L1F3]

Remember how Bungie abandoned Halo because they wanted to do "something else" and made another space shooter with alot more content on the PS, a terrible story that you have to pay for to complete it (DLC) and an unfinished game altogether?

Bungie in my eyes has lost its way completely. The Halo they made was a complete stroke of luck to begin with and now they tried their luck again and it bit them in the arse. To still try and make Destin a succes they have to scramble.

 

What 343i tries, and in my eyes is doing, is keeping the Halo series alive with new games with new features instead of copy/pasting H2 or H3 over and over again, because to be honest... That's what most people appear to want.

343i adds new features, the community either loves or hates it and they proceed to change it the way most people want it to be. Take Halo 4 for example, people didn't quite like the loadouts and ordnance so they got rid of it in Halo 5. They even hired some pro players to work with them and create the best possible game for us.

Sure they cannot always give you what YOU want but try to understand and respect that they have to cater to the ENTIRE community.

Let's start with number 1 - about Bungie.

They were given 500 million as a development budget for an MMOFPS. They completely and royally ****** it up. Personally, I knew they'd screw everything up when they fired Martin O'Donnell from the team with him starting an entire lawsuit against Bungie. And now they have the balls to make a sequel. TO AN MMO. How stupid can you get? All you have to do is issue a grand ''fix-it-all-DLC'' and your game is fixed (No matter how difficult it is).

 

#2 - 343i is doing the right thing. Not only did they let us know what happens to the Chief and Cortana after Halo 3, but they are exploring the universe far more than Bungie did. #3 - And why the hell do people want a Call of Duty-style game that has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES? Why? Can any foolish person please explain this to me?

 

I had no quarrel against loadouts and ordnance. I want loadouts in Halo. ;-;

[Kal825B]

I personally think 343 should have never touched the Halo series. They butchered it and continue to butcher it. Bungie should have kept their rights to the game.

In all honesty, 343i is actually handling the Halo Franchise better than Bungie did. They also handle canon better for the most part.

[BerriesBoo]

I think Bungie did great with all halos for X1, but They wanted to remake it to have better graphics, Just saying, Also I've seen videos of it. Around H2A Throwing generades the hand didn't look like it was holding it then throw it. o_O

[Twinreaper]

While we are discussing this, what is the deal with Halo 4s "view range"? It's almost like if a vehicle/person is far away across the map, in open view, you cannot see it - unless you zoom in. I wanna see everything like in the old Halos! Very much so in Campaign mode.

 

Every Halo game suffers from LOD.  Not so much in halo 1, 2 and 3, but in Reach adn 4, the LOD was reduced to enable more things to be drawn on screen in closer proximity to the player.  Increasing LOD on objects at a certain distance, or maintaining a constant LOD would wreak havok on the rendering side of the engine and cause massive lag.  LOD is your friend. 

 

That being said, just because there is a new console with beefier hardware, does not automatically mean that the engine will be written to harness the potential of the hardware.  Look at halo 3 compared to Reach.  it's obvious how mcuh they refined the engine to interact and utilize the available resources of the 360. 

[Vaulting♥Frog]

The spoiled children (I include every age when referring to children in this case) of the gaming community ruin games in my experience.

[depressant]

I don't think 343 RUINED the series, but I certainly think Bungie did it WAY better, and switching to a new game that is also Sci-Fi first person shooter? Really?

Halo 4 was pretty bad, but 343 barely jumped in to an old series, and to do it EXACTLY the same as its old owner is pretty hard.

But I know 343 will continue to improve on Halo and hopefully have us feeling like it's still Halo.

[Kal825B]

I don't think 343 RUINED the series, but I certainly think Bungie did it WAY better, and switching to a new game that is also Sci-Fi first person shooter? Really? Halo 4 was pretty bad, but 343 barely jumped in to an old series, and to do it EXACTLY the same as its old owner is pretty hard. But I know 343 will continue to improve on Halo and hopefully have us feeling like it's still Halo.

I thought Halo 4's story was handled better than prior Halo games. Also cause Schlerf is good at what he does.

[XI James 116]

I thought Halo 4's story was handled better than prior Halo games. Also cause Schlerf is good at what he does.

Mhm, I think Halo 4's storyline is the best in writing however I prefered playing through Halo 3's campaign. The atmosphere, music and the fact that Chief felt more like the silent, strong type is what makes Halo 3's campaign more enjoyable for me! Halo 4 was excellent though, I have every faith in 343i!

[Awoken Epidemic]

I think that we have to give 343 a chance. Halo 4 was their first game and MCC does'nt really count. I think that we should be able to tell after Halo 5

 

[TWD26]

I like 343's story telling abilities, but I wasn't too fond of some of the mechanics in Halo 4, but I don't think they butchered it.

[Axilus Prime]

They absolutely did not. If you don't like the stuff they're putting out, nothing they do can ever ruin the older games that you already have.

 

And they're doing great with the MCC, matchmaking issues excepted. But those are mostly fixed now. And even if they weren't, you could still play the campaigns for months and not run out of stuff to do.

[Kal825B]

Mhm, I think Halo 4's storyline is the best in writing however I prefered playing through Halo 3's campaign. The atmosphere, music and the fact that Chief felt more like the silent, strong type is what makes Halo 3's campaign more enjoyable for me! Halo 4 was excellent though, I have every faith in 343i!

Yeah, nostalgia will do that... 

[Ailean]

Woooot???Already 6 votes for YES?!

Let me guess,just because everything started with Bungie and Gearbox,then Bungie continued with developing until 2010,doesn't mean (IN ANY WAY) 343Industries ruined Halo franchise.Visit 343Industries in Kirkland and see how much respect they are giving to Halo game.Bungie was good at Halo that's for sure,but don't forget who abandoned Halo and fired Martin O'Donnell,a man who revived the soul of this game.After all,what gave you that idea of making topic like this with ridiculous poll?

If you still think they ruined the game,I believe you do,look what lies behind their name.It is Halo.Halo lies there.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmuFBK26TtE

[Caboose The Ace]

^

 

Bungie didn't abandon Halo, they had a ten year contract with Ms to make five Halo games within a decade and they did.

 

Contract ran out, and Bungie felt Ms was too restrictive. And had a "falling out" with Ms. So Bungie did not renew the contract.

[Ailean]

^

 

Bungie didn't abandon Halo, they had a ten year contract with Ms to make five Halo games within a decade and they did.

 

Contract ran out, and Bungie felt Ms was too restrictive. And had a "falling out" with Ms. So Bungie did not renew the contract.

 

How can you be so ridiculous?You think it was only about ten year agreement?You have no idea how much WRONG is your belief.That 10 year contract could be extended because Microsoft was surely ready to go on.Anyways,not only 2010 was the last year of making Halo games for Microsoft,but it was a game (not to get me wrong - very GOOD game) which wasn't following the book.Maybe you should think about what Bungie wanted to change in Halo franchise and what Microsoft didn't wanted.It's always easy to read Wikipedia and say ''Hey Ailean,you are wrong!They had a ten year contract,they did their good job and have not abandoned Halo''.There is far greater story behind Bungie than ''10 year contract'' as shown in Bungie's Biography.

It's not a secret anymore that Bungie didn't ''only'' completed their ten year agreement,but there was something more.There are reasons why Wikipedia doesn't talk about that.You don't need to know why.Or you really don't want?

[Caboose The Ace]

...... I have to ask. But I don't think you understood the post at all.
 
I said....

"The Contract ran out, and Bungie felt Ms was too restrictive. And had a "falling out" with Ms. So Bungie did not renew the contract"

 

Bungie could have renewed it. But they didn't because of, reasons above.

 

Bungie generally didn't like working with Ms. Because they felt like they never had enough time. And that is true, Bungies Halo games were always rushed to some degree. In Halo 2, 2 missions were cut from the game. In Halo 3, Firefight was cut. Other things were cut but those are perhaps the biggest.

 

Bungie also felt Ms was too restrictive, that is also true, Marty didn't like working with Ms as they forced him to make songs that were between two and five mins long. With Destiny among other things he could make the songs as "as long as they need to be"

 

Bungie did have a "falling out" with Ms at some point between Halo 3 and Halo 3 odst.

 

 

[Jack Of Harts]

...... I have to ask. But I don't think you understood the post at all.

 

I said....

 

"The Contract ran out, and Bungie felt Ms was too restrictive. And had a "falling out" with Ms. So Bungie did not renew the contract"

 

Bungie could have renewed it. But they didn't because of, reasons above.

 

Bungie generally didn't like working with Ms. Because they felt like they never had enough time. And that is true, Bungies Halo games were always rushed to some degree. In Halo 2, 2 missions were cut from the game. In Halo 3, Firefight was cut. Other things were cut but those are perhaps the biggest.

 

Bungie also felt Ms was too restrictive, that is also true, Marty didn't like working with Ms as they forced him to make songs that were between two and five mins long. With Destiny among other things he could make the songs as "as long as they need to be"

 

Bungie did have a "falling out" with Ms at some point between Halo 3 and Halo 3 odst.

 

"Bungie felt MS was too restrictive, and had a falling out so they didn't renew the contract"

"They felt like they never had enough time"

So they went with Activision... Genius right there! That's just like an Elite saying "Screw that, I'm not gonna fight those 2 ODSTs, it's suicide! I'll fight Master Chief and the Arbiter instead!"

 

[Caboose The Ace]

^
 
Well that is what happen.

Activision gave them what they wanted.

 

They gave them the time, and the creative freedom to do what they wanted, and they did.

[Ailean]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE

[Twinreaper]

So I just read through the latest responses and I will say just this.  Yes Bungie chose NOT to renew their contract to work on Halo.  Bungie was not happy with the direction that Halo was taking and Microsoft's controlling development pressure.  Reach was the game that Halo 3 should have been to Bungie.  Also, as much as Bungie loved Halo, it just wasn't their game anymore.  They felt they had no real control over it at the end of the contract and felt they needed to move onto another project.

 

Bungie could have worked on Destiny and released it themselves, except they just don't have the money to do all that as an independent studio.  Every developer needs a financial backer.  The sole reason Activision backed Bungie so quickly, is because they saw how Halo took off.  If you were a publisher, who had a chance to snag and back the development company that directly competed with one of your biggest FPS titles, CoD....wouldn't you want to pick them up and publish their next big thing before Microsoft?

 

The partnership between Activision and Bungie wasn't just about promises, it was about Bungie having both creative freedom to make a game they WANTED to make, and have the financial backing they needed to survive and retain certain rights to their newly created IP.

 

That being said, lets talk about 343 Industries.  So many people hear and read about how many Bungie employees switched over to 343i to keep working on Halo because they love it so much.  BULL****!  Any employee that was "allowed" to leave Bungie or was offered something more to leave, obviously was not an employee that Bungie felt was integral to the company or the new games they wanted to create.  For all we know, half the employees that left Bungie to work for 343i, could have been low level programmers, or even simple environment artists. 

 

Point being, judging from the blunders and mishandles that have occurred under 343i in terms of launch, support and execution for Halo, all logical thinking leans towards these employees not being very good or particularly skilled within their own realm or game development.  Frank, was not a big part of Bungie.  He just wasn't.  Bungie would have been just fine without him when they had Halo.  Now if it had been Joe Staton or Jason Jones that they had working for them heading the franchise up now, things would have been greatly different on the 343i front.

 

Summary.....343i didn't ruin Halo.  Microsoft themselves ruined Halo by forcing their own people and the development teams to rush through the titles and emulate aspects of other FPS titles without a slow migration to implement features or innovation.

[TopHatMcJones]

I don't think 343i did the best- and I think Bungie did it better, but I don't mind any of the games.(Besides Halo Reach, that was terrible)

[joshyzburton]

yes