Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
I don't think Bungie deserves more credit than they get. Too many of their innovations are only innovations if you ignore PC games, which frankly, isn't that impressive.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bungie: Do they deserve more credit?
- Thread starter HigherLevel
- Start date
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not.
And the funny thing is Bungie really nailed the AI. People tend to forget that. Half-Life 2 came out after Halo - and Half-Life 2 is one of my favourite games of all time - but every enemy in HL2 is fucking retarded and super easy to exploit, even on hard. It wasn't until the hunters in EP2 that Half-Life got an enemy as formidable as the Elite.
If I was joking I wouldn't be using punctuation. I am being 100% serious. You can tell this because I'm actually arguing my point of view rather than going "oh god no" and "I'm not sure if you're being serious or not" like some drive-by troll.
Littlegator
Banned
They made a mediocre game with a mediocre campaign, mediocre multiplayer (no, really, compare it to other games before you tout how fun it was to play 2 matches in Blood Gulch every other weekend), a mediocre feature set, and horrible balance. This caught on with the masses, so a sequel came with much fanfare. This sequel popularized matchmaking and ruined console online play.
They have three successful franchises under their belt, each of which brought new ideas to their respective genres.
Marathon was the premiere Mac game series - sci-fi Doom with a great story. Along with Rise of the Triad, helped introduce dual wielding into shooters, as well as mouselook.
The Myth series is regarded very highly, and removed dirt farming to focus on tactics nearly a decade before Dawn of War 2.
Halo defined how shooters worked on consoles, cemented the online party/matchmaking system as the primary way to play multiplayer, and did web stats and integration for a game better than almost anyone else out there.
They've had one major flop with Oni, and that was a weird time for them since it was being developed by Bungie West in LA while the Chcago team was doing their mainline stuff.
Their primary issue is continuing to find themselves in bad business situations, first with the Myth II recall, then with the Microsoft buyout.
Lol
odin toelust
Member
Maybe i'm way off base here (prolly am), but I see Valve as Half-life, steam, and mods that they make into games. Valve and Blizz are very good at taking ideas and refining them, but I wouldn't consider either company to be particularly innovative (steam excluded)
Kibbles
Member
I'd agree, but then they released Reach, so I'm worried about their next project, as Tashi said, I feel that will make or break them.
Granted I still play Reach for extended sessions now and then so I guess it's not all that bad lol. Actually, now that I think about it, I only usually play the Anniversary playlists which were put up by 343.
Granted I still play Reach for extended sessions now and then so I guess it's not all that bad lol. Actually, now that I think about it, I only usually play the Anniversary playlists which were put up by 343.
I've played every Halo game, and while I liked them all I never really understood what everyone was seeing in them (I guess it's similar to Modern Warfare's popularity). I'd love to see them work on a non-Halo related, non-FPS game for once, but I guess that will not happen anytime soon.
I mean, overall, I don't think anyone would try to disagree with Doom > Marathon, just because Doom got the gunplay, aethetics and level design down so very fucking right. But you look at Marathon and try to see past the rather cartoony looking enemies and you just have to admire the universe building and all the various aspects it did manage to do better than Doom.
There's a lot of pedigree there and simply calling them "those Halo guys" (like that's a bad thing anyway) is really reductive. Their one single misstep was Oni. That game should have been much better than it was. I wanted Ghost In The Shell and I got clunk.
There's a lot of pedigree there and simply calling them "those Halo guys" (like that's a bad thing anyway) is really reductive. Their one single misstep was Oni. That game should have been much better than it was. I wanted Ghost In The Shell and I got clunk.
odin toelust
Member
They are working on a non-halo IP right now
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Ah you're one of those people that seem to confuse putting an argument forward with it being any good.
No real point in aiming to argue back, it's pretty plain to see that some of us have dug our heels in.
My post wasn't intending to make them noteworthy, it's just replying to people who say they're a one trick pony like they had a choice.
Thread title is 'Do they deserve more credit?'. Personally I think the credit they've acquired so far suits their achievements.
I really like Bungie as a developer. They would be considered a better developer by more people if they hadn't been stuck on the Halo franchise. That's why I'm looking forward to what they are doing now. I'm not that big a Halo fan but the games are well made ,well pollished and have great production values. They couldn't do much original because they were stuck on the IP. But considering that the first Halo was pretty ground breaking it is obvious that they have a lot of talent. They have a lot more talent than a studio like Treyarch or Guerrilla imo. They have a lot of ambition but they also have the talent to realize that ambition.
Compare the Halo games with other console FPS games and you'll find less flaws in the overal package that the game offers than you would in another.
Halo gets hate for the same reasons COD gets hate. But the difference is that COD deserves it.
This is coming from someone who almost exclusively plays FPS games on PC btw.
Compare the Halo games with other console FPS games and you'll find less flaws in the overal package that the game offers than you would in another.
Halo gets hate for the same reasons COD gets hate. But the difference is that COD deserves it.
This is coming from someone who almost exclusively plays FPS games on PC btw.
Barkley's Justice
Member
In my opinion Halo was a fluke.
oh, I didn't know that. That's pretty cool, thanks
Oh, okay, so you weren't being like a troll; you're actually being a troll. Gotcha.
Sir Abacus
Member
This.
Also who ships a game with a broken PAL-60 mode? OH THAT'S RIGHT BUNGIE DOES!
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
Just throwing a hornets nest in here, because well, its what I do...but...
Would I be justified to say that Bungie slowly became todays Bioware of the FPS genre?
Would I be justified to say that Bungie slowly became todays Bioware of the FPS genre?
And this is helping your argument how? Instead of arguing the subject, you're arguing the opponent.
Littlegator
Banned
These don't bring them anywhere near the level of Valve and Blizzard.
Sir Abacus
Member
No. Bioware still actually release games.
Not that I don't agree with your general point, but I wouldn't even have to try before I fall over hundreds of examples in the strategy space of superior AI.
Also, the very first F.E.A.R game has perhaps the greatest AI I've ever played in a FPS campaign. No idea what went wrong with all the sequels...
I mean in shooters.
You're welcome to that opinion, even if I peronally disagree with it. I was primarily pointing out that they do, in fact, have 3 successful IPs, each of which brought something new to the table, even if people just focus on their time with Microsoft.
Like I said, F.E.A.R. That just about beats Halo.
I'd still consider Bungie top-tier, or bordering on it, whereas I most definitely wouldn't consider Monolith of that status.
Uhh what... Their only IP that took off to be successful was Halo, and their other games are hardly ever mentioned. Marathon is probably their second most praised title and It is often over looked for countless other games that did much more for the medium. I'm not trying to discredit them, but they are not in the same class as Blizzard or Valve. At least they are privately owned, next-gen will be there proving ground into the upper echelon of developers.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
They already get plenty of credit, but I also feel they deserve more. They're an amazing developer, very consistent and one of the best in the industry.
Speaking in terms of pre-Halo product,
Marathon was actually a pretty good FPS for its time. Back in the early 90s, Mac did have a lot of gamers who had a lot of good and bad games to play with. Marathon was a big deal, a few other Mac shooters used the same engine. I'd rate the original right beside Doom 2. You might say that Bungie got lucky and struck gold when they made Halo, but they really did know what they were doing and how to blaze a trail with an FPS.
Myth was also pretty interesting, good physics and very strategic. Interesting backstory. I still like to play it every once in a while even I always devolve to blowing shit up with dwarf bombs just to hear "CASUALTIES".
Yeah, Bungie was always an above-average developer.
Marathon was actually a pretty good FPS for its time. Back in the early 90s, Mac did have a lot of gamers who had a lot of good and bad games to play with. Marathon was a big deal, a few other Mac shooters used the same engine. I'd rate the original right beside Doom 2. You might say that Bungie got lucky and struck gold when they made Halo, but they really did know what they were doing and how to blaze a trail with an FPS.
Myth was also pretty interesting, good physics and very strategic. Interesting backstory. I still like to play it every once in a while even I always devolve to blowing shit up with dwarf bombs just to hear "CASUALTIES".
Yeah, Bungie was always an above-average developer.
I think the main reason their 90s work doesn't get more praised is because much of it was Mac only, at least at first.
Hah! Yeah, you're not the only one.
Maybe because Bungie was forced to make nothing but Halo for the majority of their existence...
Lupin the Third
Member
Bungie probably deserves about as much credit for popularizing console FPSes as Old Infinity Ward.
I can't speak to their creative or gameplay contributions.
I can't speak to their creative or gameplay contributions.
Eh, I think Bungie is a good developer, but I always get the feeling that they got lucky with Halo's formula, as every Halo title seems to be a drop in quality in some regard while fucking up basic things that make you go "wat?" when you come across them. I need to see a non-Halo outing from Bungie that is also a great game for me to label them one of the best in the industry.
Age of Booty was awesome though. Has Certain Affinity made anything else since that game?
What?
Age of Booty was awesome though. Has Certain Affinity made anything else since that game?
These are all your opinions. I don't see how that relates to your original assertion that Halo got popular because of advertising from Microsoft and through "tried-and-true" mechanics.
At one point? Perhaps. The Bungie of today? No. The thing that sets Valve and Blizzard apart from others is their consistency in their products. There might be minor issues here or there with their games, but they're always top of the line, highly praised and sell incredibly well. I cannot see any sort of decline in quality from either Valve over the course of the Half-Life series into Portal and Left 4 Dead or from Blizzard from their RTS roots to WoW to SCII and Diablo III.
Bungie hasn't made a true high quality game since Halo 2, and that's arguable. While it has my favorite multiplayer of the series, it was horribly buggy, had major issues both technically and artistically and featured a lackluster campagin. Halo 3 and Reach my feelings have been stated many times and are disappointments at best and massive failures at worst, buoyed by Internet message board fans that praise the "innovative" features as if PC games and even some console games have not done it before. They use these features to proclaim the greatness of said games, ignoring the underlying extremely lackluster gameplay.
So no, they do not belong in that same echelon, and I think they're actually vastly overrated by their fans.
Bungie hasn't made a true high quality game since Halo 2, and that's arguable. While it has my favorite multiplayer of the series, it was horribly buggy, had major issues both technically and artistically and featured a lackluster campagin. Halo 3 and Reach my feelings have been stated many times and are disappointments at best and massive failures at worst, buoyed by Internet message board fans that praise the "innovative" features as if PC games and even some console games have not done it before. They use these features to proclaim the greatness of said games, ignoring the underlying extremely lackluster gameplay.
So no, they do not belong in that same echelon, and I think they're actually vastly overrated by their fans.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Bungie pretty much started the whole "Fun FPS"-genre, and their games are still the top contenders.
Their games are fast paced, pretty, and not weighed down by unnecessary "realism".
Their games are fast paced, pretty, and not weighed down by unnecessary "realism".
Well it's interesting, because like Bungie's games, it's easy to forget what makes Valve and Blizzard games 'innovative' due to the fact that everything they do has been assimilated into newer games. They've become the norm.
Scripted events and scenarios that defined Half Life 1 are norm. Physics, atmosphere, world realization, character voicing/facial animation/acting, and pacing that made Half Life 2 stand out are now norm. Blizzard's massive influence with WoW also can't really be disregarded. These two developers have created communities, cultivated mod scenes, and established online infrastructures. I wouldn't hesitate to call them innovative.
Jack Scofield
Member
Bungie accidentally creates good games. If they didn't have the massive monetary support of Microsoft the Halo series would've been dead before the first one even released.
Halo 1: lightning in a bottle
Halo 2: scrapped together in a few short months, sold because of (unearned) namebrand recognition, blatant lies and misinformation, and the dudebro demographic
Halo 3: rehash of Halo 2, didn't even take full advantage of the 360 hardware
Halo 3: ODST: expansion charged as full game
Halo Reach: lol
I'm curious to see if Bungie can accidentally strike gold a second time now that they're independent or whatever.
Halo 1: lightning in a bottle
Halo 2: scrapped together in a few short months, sold because of (unearned) namebrand recognition, blatant lies and misinformation, and the dudebro demographic
Halo 3: rehash of Halo 2, didn't even take full advantage of the 360 hardware
Halo 3: ODST: expansion charged as full game
Halo Reach: lol
I'm curious to see if Bungie can accidentally strike gold a second time now that they're independent or whatever.
NinjaBoiX
Member
This. They get lots of credit, and rightly so. It's like asking if Shinji Mikami or Hideo Kojima get enough credit.
Its so hard to take you seriously with that comment.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Halo is the best thing they came up with, Oni and Marathon are no that good I am sorry. (ever played myth though).
However, We will remember you Bungie, we will.
However, We will remember you Bungie, we will.
Sir Abacus
Member
They were also first to innovate repetitive purple corridors.
I'm not sure where people get this matchmaking fetish from either. When I played TF using Quakeworld back in the day (GET OFF MY LAWN) you hooked up with local servers and got to know people in and around the community.
When I play matchmaking on XBL I get some pimply faced twerp calling me a fag.
I'm not sure whether this is an advancement worth mentioning when proselytizing the Bungie fanboy faith. But since there's so little of them I guess you don't have a choice.
Similar threads
- Poll