If there's one thing that I don't consider Reach to be, it would be dull. Sure they were purposely going for that gritty realistic look, but in terms of everything in the game... I don't see it.
If they make an amazing game, great, I might get an Xbone and return to the party.
If they continue down the Halo 4 path, great, no need to even glance back.
But if they make a mostly amazing game that's marred by a few bad systems (i.e. icky microtransactions), that's going to be painful. I will be conflicted, and have to make choices.
These guys are unhappy with his contributions to Halo and are expressing their disappointment in seeing his return to development in an exaggerated manner.
These guys are unhappy with his contributions to Halo and are expressing their disappointment in seeing his return to development in an exaggerated manner.
What? He still works there? Well, hopefully those above him keep a better reign on him this time. Fuck every single thing he has contributed to this franchise.
Do you guys really think every idea was his AND he implemented them by himself? I don't like a lot of the decisions that happened with Halo 4 but placing the lion's share of the blame on him solely is seriously misguided.
Do you guys really think every idea was his AND he implemented them by himself? I don't like a lot of the decisions that happened with Halo 4 but placing the lion's share of the blame on him solely is seriously misguided.
He's the LEAD Multiplayer Designer. The buck stops with him. Every one of decisions were run by him before they were implemented, and if not, he came up with those ideas. I hope to God that he has a better understanding of what Halo needs to be, because if not, this franchise will pull a "Gears Of War"
He's the LEAD Multiplayer Designer. The buck stops with him. Every one of decisions were run by him before they were implemented, and if not, he came up with those ideas. I hope to God that he has a better understanding of what Halo needs to be, because if not, this franchise will pull a "Gears Of War"
Gears is less dead. At least Epic can still make it even though i doubt they will whereas Bungie will never make a Halo game again. I'll wait and see but i don't think we will see Halo ever again like what all of us want. I am sure they know what we want,they put in the features that they did for a reason.
He's the LEAD Multiplayer Designer. The buck stops with him. Every one of decisions were run by him before they were implemented, and if not, he came up with those ideas. I hope to God that he has a better understanding of what Halo needs to be, because if not, this franchise will pull a "Gears Of War"
Or, we don't play the blame game. It might have had everything to do with Franklin pushing his "vision". It might not have. But demonizing the guy strikes me as unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time.
Or, we don't play the blame game. It might have had everything to do with Franklin pushing his "vision". It might not have. But demonizing the guy strikes me as unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time.
Gears is less dead. At least Epic can still make it even though i doubt they will whereas Bungie will never make a Halo game again. I'll wait and see but i don't think we will see Halo ever again like what all of us want. I am sure they know what we want,they put in the features that they did for a reason.
And while we're at it, maybe we should stop painting Bungie in this positive picture regarding Halo's multiplayer (if you're only talking about Campaign then that's one thing) because they've been consciously killing this franchise long before they stopped working on it. If Bungie still had the rights to Halo, I doubt we would've saw ODST, Reach or any other Halo for that matter. I really think they were done with that franchise before Microsoft "forced" them into two more releases, or at least that's how it seemed at the time.
Halo 5's multiplayer direction is going to tell us everything we need to know about 343's priorities; they have a lot of pressure on them lol.
And while we're at it, maybe we should stop painting Bungie in this positive picture regarding Halo's multiplayer (if you're only talking about Campaign then that's one thing) because they've been consciously killing this franchise long before they stopped working on it. If Bungie still had the rights to Halo, I doubt we would've saw ODST, Reach or any other Halo for that matter. I really think they were done with that franchise before Microsoft "forced" them into two more releases, or at least that's how it seemed at the time.
Halo 5's multiplayer direction is going to tell us everything we need to know about 343's priorities; they have a lot of pressure on them lol.
I feel like the second half was stronger, but overall...SO was a rather bland experience. The recycling of maps got old very, very fast. Most of the missions just dragged on and felt like a chore. I imagine it probably would have been more enjoyable with partners, as a lot of the combat encounters felt like they were better suited for multiple people(not to mention sections that require you to press multiple buttons before progressing). I also never really felt any challenge due to the weak death penalty; simply wait 5 seconds and respawn a few feet away. I don't know if the higher difficulties do away with this, but in hindsight I think I should have played on something other than normal. D'oh.
I do believe Spartan Ops has potential. For example, I quite liked one of squidhands' ideas:
Looking back at Spartan Ops now that it's finished, I can say with all certainty that I would have preferred it to be more akin to ODST in terms of the hubworld and branching stories that tied in together (but with one central character that you play compared to ODST), and the Firefight-style gameplay combined with the customization that Reach had.
Imagine a more fleshed-out hubworld that could be updated every month alongside a new episode (monthly release for new content is a good tradeoff in terms of putting out quality missions. I feel SpOps really suffered because of the fast-paced release schedule). Not only could you throw in new enemy progression/tactics to keep the gameplay fresh for the hub, but you could also go as far as throwing some new and different easter eggs in there to enhance the experience a la the wall in Valhalla.
Do we have any idea what the plan is with the story? I'm curious where it goes, despite being nothing special. Oh, and I must mention that the cutscenes were simply gorgeous!
I feel like the second half was stronger, but overall...SO was a rather bland experience. The recycling of maps got old very, very fast. Most of the missions just dragged on felt like a chore. I imagine it probably would have been more enjoyable with partners, as a lot of the combat encounters felt like they were better suited for multiple people(not to mention sections that require you to press multiple buttons before progressing). I also never really felt any challenge due to the weak death penalty; simply wait 5 seconds and respawn a few feet away. I don't know if the higher difficulties do away with this, but in hindsight I think I should have played on something other than normal. D'oh.
I do believe Spartan Ops has potential. For example, I quite liked one of squidhands' ideas:
Do we have any idea what the plan is with the story? I'm curious where it goes, despite being nothing special. Oh, and I must mention that the cutscenes were simply gorgeous!
I think your comment on it dragging on during solo play highlights an overall philosophical issue with Spartan Ops: it wasn't flexible enough. Ops could be a blast with friends (when the networking gods graced us with their heavenly light), but unlike Halo campaigns, the experience often felt like a chore solo. The lack of scoring, enemy scaling for player counts, and avenues for enemy engagement in the first half (since you were going to be using the other routes when you returned to that location) just cut down opportunities for players to go their own way.
Halo campaigns (and multiplayer, for that matter) have always been at their best when players get to 'make their own fun' with the options they've been given.
reachtruckjump.gif
Giving the next incarnation of Spartan Ops that sort of freedom would do wonders to improving on the formula in my mind.
Do you guys really think every idea was his AND he implemented them by himself? I don't like a lot of the decisions that happened with Halo 4 but placing the lion's share of the blame on him solely is seriously misguided.
Well, it kind of comes with the territory of being a lead designer. While I don't blame him for all of the problems Halo 4's multiplayer has, he did play a part in designing it. Like some of the justifications he had for the design, like when he was on HaloGAF radio, were kind of vague and bizarre.
Josh Holmes gets a lot of flack too, it's fair game to pass around the blame.
I think Kevin is the potential savior of Halo. He has learned a lot and I wouldn't doubt Frankie has a hate for Halo but Kevin is there to stop him from ruining the series. #teamKevin
Derskey (Halo pro) just announced he now works at 343. Guessing he is doing the same thing Neighbor is doing, which I think is just an internal testing team.
Derskey (Halo pro) just announced he now works at 343. Guessing he is doing the same thing Neighbor is doing, which I think is just an internal testing team.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
Because Halo 4 had to follow on from Reach? It's not like 343i had no idea about what people thought about the gameplay additions in Reach either... they did spend like a year patching the god damn thing,
Granted these are just testing positions but I don't know. They could hire a lot of good guys, but it all comes down to how they want the multiplayer to be. I mean Bravo was a great hire too. Just read a few of his interviews in 2012 before the launch of Halo 4.
I wonder what Bravo would have to say about Halo now, especially competitively. Having your cheques signed by 343/MS might give you different priorities.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
I can't stand people with this logic. It honestly makes no sense at all. Blame the company that made an entirely different game? Did Bungie hold Frankie at gunpoint and demand they make Halo 4 the way it was? No, 343 chose the options they did, Bungie has nothing to do with it.
Derskey (Halo pro) just announced he now works at 343. Guessing he is doing the same thing Neighbor is doing, which I think is just an internal testing team.
If you want to blame somebody, blame Bungie for halo Reach's lackluster multiplayer. Halo 4's multiplayer is just and evolution of what was given to us with reach.
Not only did 343 not have to follow Reach for Halo 4, they could have changed the primary complaints of Reach (AAs, sprint) minus bloom without even needing a title update. Yet they reintroduced armor lock and made achievements that locked jetpack and AL into the game.
