http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3137254
Pretty much expected, but it's nice to hear it from the horses mouth.
Finally: Bungie discusses the Halo 2 ending
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
Pretty much expected, but it's nice to hear it from the horses mouth.
SantaCruZer said:
There's a reason, though. They game literally stops in the middle of what should be a major event. They really DID build it up to a major climax. I mean, just imagine a major cinematic scene with dramatic camera angles and powerful music rising. Just as you start to get really excited...it ends! The actual ending cinemas are certainly pretty good, but it really leaves you hanging.
Half-Life 2 is nearly as bad (and, in the long run, could actually end up being worse...as I know Bungie will explain what happens and allow you to experience it for yourself).
It's a shame that two of the biggest games this year really didn't end. :\
Thankfully, MGS3 more than made up for it. Honestly, the ending to MGS3 is probably my all time favorite ending for any game (and it was LONG too). Man, that was one truly amazing ending. Nobody has done it better...
I love when developers later come out and talk about their own game's problems, even when a ton of reviewers have given it near-virtual perfect scores across the board. It might not ruin it for everyone, but it seems to me that the gent being interviewed is rather upset about the state of the conclusion. And I must say, I wasn't very pleased either. Game's fun, not much of a step forward for the franchise, the ending blows, but it's quite impressive. I'm numb
I don't have a problem with the ending as much as with the marketing for the game. I didn't like the ending, but it seems to me that the marketing/advertising for the game was completely directed at the story of Halo 3 (not Halo 2).
It's like the game ends right when all the things you thought you were going to get (because of the e3 trailer, the Halo 2 movie trailer and the Halo 2 TV commercial) are about to begin. Why not address that in your next update Bungie?
It's like the game ends right when all the things you thought you were going to get (because of the e3 trailer, the Halo 2 movie trailer and the Halo 2 TV commercial) are about to begin. Why not address that in your next update Bungie?
Legal Step
Member
Wasn't Halo 2 just Halo with modifications and Live support, do you really care about the story?
Mason said:
Where was this? I could be wrong but I don't think I've seen them say it was -always- designed to end like that. (ie from the very first days of development 3 years ago).
I mean, it -was- intentional. As far as exactly when it was decided, who knows? (Though the old Balmer quote about 2 and 3 being worked on right then makes me think it was quite a while ago). Everything I've seen them say just made it clear it -wasn't- like it was the last second they couldn't finish a level so just left it.
MarkMac if you take a look at this interview and the special edition DVD, Bungie started cutting crap hardcore from Halo 2 right after E3 2K4. That included 100 pages of script and anything even remotely resembling a satisfying or even mediocre finale, the absence of which cheapened the entire single player experience.
Man that ending sucked.
Man that ending sucked.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Bungie respect +1
Although the ending sucked big time, at least they didn't try to cover it with some PR bullshit. Practically all the design decisions I've seen Bungie make have been right, and I believe that this was right for the game, too. A compressed, rushed story would have sucked, too - maybe even more than the cliffhanger.
Pretty funny for the apologists, though!
Although the ending sucked big time, at least they didn't try to cover it with some PR bullshit. Practically all the design decisions I've seen Bungie make have been right, and I believe that this was right for the game, too. A compressed, rushed story would have sucked, too - maybe even more than the cliffhanger.
Pretty funny for the apologists, though!
Chittagong
Gold Member
Azih said:
can't be bothered to look it again, but I think that they prepared the cool jeep / city demo for E3 2003. Coming back from E3 they came to realize that all they had was a cool demo, instead of a framework for the game what they had been hoping for. I might be wrong, but I recall that they would have somehow fucked up relying on the Xbox dev kits which have more memory than the actual system, but that might have been earlier in the process already - around the earth trailer.
So they had to start really rushing with the massaging of the concept, and then came the chopping. I believe it was around early 2004 when they started to have the shape into which the game would develop.
Ahh.. my bad. I shoulda remembered that the big Halo unvieling was countered by Nintendo with Pacman that E3 :lol.
Hrm, I'd like to know at what date the ending was finalised. Because my impression at the moment is that Halo 2's single player campaign bore the brunt of the design scale-back.
Hrm, I'd like to know at what date the ending was finalised. Because my impression at the moment is that Halo 2's single player campaign bore the brunt of the design scale-back.
I hope you guys are going in and reading the entire interview (it's from the new EGM). It's pretty honest and PR-free. I found this to be equally noteworthy:
Sounds to me that when Bungie committed to a date at the last E3, they made design decisions then regarding how much of the story to tell.
He also mentions some of the give-and-take on the deletion of melee combos, sprinting and the ATV. With the ATV, it came down to the fact that there were no missions designed where there was any advantage to using the ATV vs the Warthog, and besides the ATV wasn't as fun to use. They debated tooling with it and tweaking the missions to fit it in, but they decided to polish what they had rather than do all that redesign for just a new vehicle. I was satified with that answer.
He also expresses complete surprise that their game got 10's. Good, insightful stuff.
Sounds to me that when Bungie committed to a date at the last E3, they made design decisions then regarding how much of the story to tell.
He also mentions some of the give-and-take on the deletion of melee combos, sprinting and the ATV. With the ATV, it came down to the fact that there were no missions designed where there was any advantage to using the ATV vs the Warthog, and besides the ATV wasn't as fun to use. They debated tooling with it and tweaking the missions to fit it in, but they decided to polish what they had rather than do all that redesign for just a new vehicle. I was satified with that answer.
He also expresses complete surprise that their game got 10's. Good, insightful stuff.
jorge13130
Banned
Bungie, MArketing, and Microsoft owned all the Halo fans
Save the Earth..................Play as Master Chief...........See an ending...........Play a different game
Save the Earth..................Play as Master Chief...........See an ending...........Play a different game
** SPOILER WARNING **
You know Halo 2 ended up pretty much being about preventing the activation of Delta Halo. In that sense it was very similar to the first game and had a proper dramatic conclusion. Covenant came to Earth, got the location of another Halo, went there and tried to turn it on. You fought the Brute boss, you stopped the activation. It wasn't as spectacular as the first game's ending (with the Halo blowing up) but it was an ending nonetheless.
Along with that central thread we got dissention amonst the Covenant ranks (Hierarch betrayal of the Elites, Brute rebellion) more info on the Forerunner mystery, introduction of The Monument, more Flood explanation, much more information about the Elites as a race, etc. I for one really liked the story.
I think Bungie's BIG mistake was making the bit where Master Chief arrives at earth part of the regular ending rather than a post-credits sting or Legendary specific reward or something. I don't have a problem with setting up a cliffhanger for Halo 3 but the way it happened the game gets you all pumped to play that level and then it just ends. It was the execution not the concept I had an issue with.
You know Halo 2 ended up pretty much being about preventing the activation of Delta Halo. In that sense it was very similar to the first game and had a proper dramatic conclusion. Covenant came to Earth, got the location of another Halo, went there and tried to turn it on. You fought the Brute boss, you stopped the activation. It wasn't as spectacular as the first game's ending (with the Halo blowing up) but it was an ending nonetheless.
Along with that central thread we got dissention amonst the Covenant ranks (Hierarch betrayal of the Elites, Brute rebellion) more info on the Forerunner mystery, introduction of The Monument, more Flood explanation, much more information about the Elites as a race, etc. I for one really liked the story.
I think Bungie's BIG mistake was making the bit where Master Chief arrives at earth part of the regular ending rather than a post-credits sting or Legendary specific reward or something. I don't have a problem with setting up a cliffhanger for Halo 3 but the way it happened the game gets you all pumped to play that level and then it just ends. It was the execution not the concept I had an issue with.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
dark10x said:
sprinting would be annoying and too helpful in multiplayer
All you guys seem to be tards. The game's story is pretty damn cool, who the hell cares if it was on earth or not? It eventually will be. If anything the thing I think sucks more than the "misleading" ad campaign is the lack of any refrences to the novels set in the Halo unieverse. What the hell happened to all the story elements from First Strike? None of it was ever mentioned; Master Cheif's giant fight at the end with other Spartans, Cortana's memory overload, Sarge's weird brain anamoly, what the hell happened with that? Are the games ever going to take anything from the novels?
In any case, they gave a perfectly good reason for the ending being as it was. So stfu, thats done with.
In any case, they gave a perfectly good reason for the ending being as it was. So stfu, thats done with.
GhaleonEB said:
I agree that's what it sounds like. But it also sounds to me like he majorly dodged the question.
(IIRC) the movie trailer came out in August and the TV commercial came out in October. If they made design decisions right after e3 2k4 then they had plenty of time to come up with a Movie Trailer/TV Commercial that accurately reflected the game they were planning to ship on Nov. 9th.
I actually wished they would have dumbed down the stupid sci-fi story to make it a more complete game.
The covenant's side of the story is just about the least-interesting thing they could have put in there, IMO.
on the bright side, the ending is a very small aspect of the game as a whole..
thankfully the multiplayer is more than worth the entrance fee alone.
The covenant's side of the story is just about the least-interesting thing they could have put in there, IMO.
on the bright side, the ending is a very small aspect of the game as a whole..
thankfully the multiplayer is more than worth the entrance fee alone.
Actually yes it does help. The only thing that would make the healing complete is if Bungie took out a full spread magazine ad that said 'Yes, we're Sorry. Halo 2's ending sucked. And everybody who defends said ending is a stupid whore'.drohne said:
Of course I don't believe that anybody who defended that horribly bad ending is a whore. It'd just help with providing closure is all.
jetjevons said:
I absolutely agree with this. I think the ending would have been better had the game ended with the MC taking off to Earth as a stowaway on the Forerunner ship, leaving his fate, Cortana's fate, and what he would find at Earth open. I actually would have felt more closure to the story with less shown, because that last snippet at Earth is such a tease.
As for Deku Tree's comment, I entirely agree that marketing blew how they sold the game. "Earth Will Never Be The Same" is the most inappropriate tag for this game I can think of. To Bungie's credit, they were talking about the gas mine level, another Halo and the Covenant homeworld two years ago (in the November EGM with the famous cover). I don't mind the marketing that only showed Earth - I'm fine leaving the story open - but the theme and the TV spot in particular made it pretty clear that your mission was to save Earth from Covenant assault, and that's not what Halo 2 was about.
Mind you, I'm very, very happy with the actual game. I'm not happy with the marketing of said game.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
Wow I love how Tyson Green (Creator of the Library) has the balls to take shots at Goldeneye.
Lame, that's not a problem that's just a feature Rare included in there to add something I like to call diversity.
What the hell? That's what made Goldeneye the classic it is today! The crazy random fun of remote mines, RCP 90s, proximity mines and all that good stuff.
I'm sorry, I love Halo 2 as much as the next guy but I really didn't like the cheap shots at my favorite FPS of all time.
Lame, that's not a problem that's just a feature Rare included in there to add something I like to call diversity.
What the hell? That's what made Goldeneye the classic it is today! The crazy random fun of remote mines, RCP 90s, proximity mines and all that good stuff.
I'm sorry, I love Halo 2 as much as the next guy but I really didn't like the cheap shots at my favorite FPS of all time.
Cerrius said:
Those are not cheap shots, but rather observations about what they felt didn't work in that game, and so didn't want to repeat in theirs. The question was about remote activated grenades, and he references Goldeneye and says he didn't like the effect on the game. That's his opinion - yours is different. Such is life.
Maybe he deserves props for actually mentioning the game? I mean, I would never have brought up GE in his situation, as I feel that it is far too dated to take seriously as a reference point (not that I ever found it to be a particularly good game, mind you).
Azih said:
Whether or not the guys at Bungie were satisfied by the way they wrapped up the game is irrelevant to my enjoyment. I felt extremely satisfied when I
kicked Tartarus' ass and prevented the Delta Halo from firing
Some people hated the way the game ended, and that's fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us should be obligated to hate the ending.
