{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/28/2012 11:01:34 AM
25
Is Destiny the reason Halo:Reach was hit and miss with a lot of folks?
I personally loved Halo:Reach. From the campaign, firefight, even the multiplayer. I felt it was a great addition to the Halo series.
I rank the campaigns Halo:CE>Halo:Reach>Halo3>Halo4>Halo2>ODST
The more news from Destiny leaks, the more we see just how long they were working on it.
Is that why Halo:Reach saw such poor support from Bungie? I mean there were a lot of features added that weren't necessarily fine tuned and then Bungie just left the series and it's upkeep to 343 Industries who were so busy with halo 4.
Is it because they started to invest too much time in Destiny knowing that the problems with Reach and Halo are not theirs any longer to sort out? It's not like Bungie to put out lackluster forge maps, not patch game breaking features right away etc. Besides, when the entire studio has moved on to something bigger, did it become a question of who cares if AL is overpowered, or who cares if forge maps don't necessarily play well, forget trying to fix bloom or making sure the Noble Map Pack was implemented well.
Now I am not the best Halo player in the world, nor am I the worst, so I see both points of view from competitive ranked play to fun social play, but the hate on Bungie for Reach was unwarranted no? I mean the game launched September 2010 and by March had a map pack made by another dev team. By July 2011 Bungie stopped being in charge of servers or challenges correct? I mean I don't even remember a real title update until 343 announced theirs before the release of anniversary.
So can you necessarily blame anyone for why Reach wasn't managed well? Both studios in charge were heavily involved with other things. I truly believe had Bungie not relinquished control of Reach so quickly, a lot more care could have gone into the game no?
Anyone agree?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Madness87 I rank the campaigns Halo:CE>Halo:Reach>Halo3>Halo4>Halo2>ODST [/quote]That's so close to how I would rank them, but I'd take ODST from the bottom and put it between Halo 4 and Halo 2. I still think all of them are awesome though.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] fez479 I would like start a vote to shun you for claiming ODST was the worst campaign. It was by far the best.[/quote] Yes, someone agrees with me
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog No, they're a professional company who wouldn't risk the damage to their (previously stellar) reputation by intentionally shipping a half-hearted game. They put their all into [i]Reach,[/i] and it just wasn't that good. Nothing more to it, everyone makes mistakes. Now they've got to work to regain the support of fans they lost.[/quote] Harsh, but i agree.
-
Maybe you guys didn't read the part where I said that the campaigns each mean someething different to others. I was totally indifferent to ODST and it was the worst campaing IN MY OPINION. What I originally intended to say was, now we are finding out that as early as 2007, Bungie was shying away from Halo. Just how much of the teams actually worked on ODST, Reach etc. When Halo:Reach released, people said it was the best campaign since CE. They said they were liking the multiplayer, and then, it went down. Go back and read your posts here, the guys over at NEOGAF etc. The same thing is happening for Halo 4. People said it was the best campaign and multiplayer is so fun. Less than a month later and already people are saying Halo 4 multiplayer has fundamentally changed the series. Back to my topic, why is it so hard to believe I liked Reach so much? I loved the campaign. After a decade of playing as Master Chief, it was nice to play as a team of Spartan's defending a planet. For me, Master Chief's story was somewhat ended with Halo 3. It was the perfect sendoff. I would have been happy had Halo 4 not brought back the Chief. I loved Reach's art direction. Seeing Reach for the first time, the Nightfall level. I really loved the music as well. It's telling that I still remember the music from all Halo games except the new one. Some people hated the Reach campaign and that's fine, I liked it from start to end. I especially liked it better than Halo 4. Anyways, I guess we aren't allowed to have opinions on Bungie or something. Why people chose to attack me for saying I liked Reach, I don't know. My intent was to discuss why Reach was hit or miss with folks. A lot of the hate comes from multiplayer. But as I stated, aside from a single map pack, Bungie wasn't really in control of the multiplayer at all. The rest of the studio had already moved on, and 343 Industries was de facto in charge within a few months. This is in stark contrast to Halo 3 where Bungie added updates, feeatures, new maps for well over 2+ years. Halo:Reach is the game stuck between two studios who never truly "had their heart in it". Bungie was forced to relinquish it and decided to move on quickly, 343 industries was reluctant to accept because they were already knee-deep in Halo 4 development.
-
I would like start a vote to shun you for claiming ODST was the worst campaign. It was by far the best. [Edited on 11.28.2012 9:36 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meanoldrep Bungie broke off from Microsoft after Halo 3, I dont think they were under contract?[/quote]After the trilogy, they still had to make two more games. Those two were ODST and Reach. Sure, there could have been people who still loved making Halo games in Bungie, and I honestly loved both of them, but they were there because to break away they had to tie up their loose ends with Microsoft.
-
That could be the case but I dont know why Bungie would just push aside their flag game
-
My thoughts are: Because Reach's multiplayer was not constantly updated, it was not as well received as it should have been. And though I enjoyed it, I thought the campaign for Reach was the weakest in the series. I can understand people's disappointment with campaign even if I don't think it was the reason people moved on. Halo 3 multiplayer was very different from launch compared to right now. Unless my memory betrays me, I believe there were many large patches that tweaked weapons melee, grenades, shields, etc. Think of how long Halo 3's multiplayer lasted and the long term following it had. Compare that to Reach... I think people were expecting that same thing and were let down. I think a major player was the lack of patches from the start, so a large portion of complainers and disappointed people left. That combined with Halo 4 being released only two years later made Reach have a shorter life span than other Halo games. Unfortunately, I think many people will dismiss Reach as "not Halo" or "just a misstep" which is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I would like to point out that I'm not cursing anyone here. This was a transfer of a major franchise from one studio to another. All things considered, I think the job was executed well... if a little rough around the edges. Bungie was finished with Halo and wanted to start work on their next game. And I was pleasantly surprised with the care that 343 put into the shift. Combat Evolved Anniversary was lovely and I really enjoyed the updates and maps they made for Reach near the end. I also really enjoy Halo 4 but I guess its up to you to decide whether it was a step forward or backward. So I do agree that Destiny is a large reason for Reach's lack of title updates. They had their attention elsewhere after they shipped the game. Do I think that was a mistake more so on Bungie's part? I am certainly leaning that direction. But if Destiny delivers I think it will be a game much more important than Halo.
-
But it's also one of the most loved
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DonVinzone1 Partially I guess. In the sense that Bungie was done with Halo ever since 2007 and they really didn't have the same drive as they had while making the first 2-3 games. I'm sure they put their all into Reach...but they forgot to also put their hearts and souls into the project. [/quote] This.
-
In a way, yes; the [i]core talent[/i] wasn't fully involved, which means that it wasn't given as much attention as it could have [i]intellectually[/i]. The craftmanship however was just as high as the other games. It was a contract work more or less, don't believe the [i]core[/i] felt as passionate about it as they did for Halo in the beginning. I'm most certain that Destiny has received more attention from the entire studio than Reach, since many were tired of Halo. [Edited on 11.28.2012 2:45 PM PST]
-
Bungie wouldn't ship an unfinished game just because they were working on another one. They had two teams, one was working on Destiny, another was working on Reach. I think a lot of the hate for Reach was because the expectations were too high. Too much hype. I personally thought it was a very fun and well done game.
-
Bungie broke off from Microsoft after Halo 3, I dont think they were under contract?
-
I loved reach, maybe not as much as the other Halo's. but I still thought it was a great game. The first few months it was out, I played it non-stop. And I found my self playing it religously earlier this year all the way up till Halo 4. so the way I look at it, Reach was a great game maybe not as good as the original triliogy; but still holds a special place in my heart. And I do agree with the fact that they may have been putting more resources into Destiny. It seems like a very ambitious game, and projects like this need a lot of planning and development obviously.
-
I felt Halo 3 was a really beautiful way to wrap up the series and the music was fantastic (only second to CE in my book) reach had cool elements in it but it just didn't hit home like some of the past games in the series for me.
-
They were done with Halo in 2007; they could have worked day and night, but that passion seemed pretty much gone. They weren't making them because they wanted to at that point, but because it was required by contract.
-
It has to be heart-breaking for these guys. To put everything they had into Reach only to hear people go "well it was horrible. Obviously they didn't care about it." I truly don't think that's the case. I'm sure they loved the game, and they were said to pass over the reigns. And I'm sure they did their best on Reach, just as they had with every other game. [Edited on 11.28.2012 1:02 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Rayman gamer I'm not even gonna read this because of how you ranked the halo campaigns yes Halo CE was the best campaign and nothing will beat it. Halo 4 was a great campaign introducing new enemies keeping old ones and revitalizing the story. Halo 2 is next I loved the halo 2 campaign. It was fun awesome and it has my favorite multiplayer and maps of all time. Next is Halo 3. I like the halo 3 campaign just felt like it was missing a few things at times. Next is Halo ODST and Reach. The reach campaign was interesting but it's just not the same when you're not the chief same thing goes for ODST. Granted a lot of these are pretty close to each other but I don't see why the ODST game was so hated. I personally thought it was a great story. I missed being the chief but I liked the fact that you were something other than a spartan. Granted it was a different style of shooter rather than the run and gun like usual you had to be a bit more tactical and investigate more. The thing I liked most about reach was the campaign did not like the forged maps at all I'd rather have real remakes I think a lot of other people feel that way as well therefore 343i found it fitting to not do that. I liked learning a bit more where Cortana came from. I would have liked to learn more in the game. I think everyone else can say that instead of being on noble team people would have rather chose to be on I think it was Red Team was the one chief was in. I may be wrong but you get a different feeling when you are him. Now that I went totally ranting on my opinions of the campaign I forgot what this topic was even about. [/quote] What a waste of time writing that. Just because someone does not have the same opinion as you you're not going to let his thoughts get to you? Your acting like a child.
-
I'm not even gonna read this because of how you ranked the halo campaigns yes Halo CE was the best campaign and nothing will beat it. Halo 4 was a great campaign introducing new enemies keeping old ones and revitalizing the story. Halo 2 is next I loved the halo 2 campaign. It was fun awesome and it has my favorite multiplayer and maps of all time. Next is Halo 3. I like the halo 3 campaign just felt like it was missing a few things at times. Next is Halo ODST and Reach. The reach campaign was interesting but it's just not the same when you're not the chief same thing goes for ODST. Granted a lot of these are pretty close to each other but I don't see why the ODST game was so hated. I personally thought it was a great story. I missed being the chief but I liked the fact that you were something other than a spartan. Granted it was a different style of shooter rather than the run and gun like usual you had to be a bit more tactical and investigate more. The thing I liked most about reach was the campaign did not like the forged maps at all I'd rather have real remakes I think a lot of other people feel that way as well therefore 343i found it fitting to not do that. I liked learning a bit more where Cortana came from. I would have liked to learn more in the game. I think everyone else can say that instead of being on noble team people would have rather chose to be on I think it was Red Team was the one chief was in. I may be wrong but you get a different feeling when you are him. Now that I went totally ranting on my opinions of the campaign I forgot what this topic was even about.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Armedsavage01 The only half hearted game by Bungie may have been Halo 2. That game was rushed and unfinished and you could tell.[/quote] That's because they had too many ideas for the game, and since they had a deadline to complete the game, they ended up having to rush things. If anything, I would say that Halo 2 was the game that Bungie tried the hardest on. OT: DonVinzone1, I couldn't have said it any better. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DonVinzone1 In the sense that Bungie was done with Halo ever since 2007 and they really didn't have the same drive as they had while making the first 2-3 games. I'm sure they put their all into Reach...but they forgot to also put their hearts and souls into the project. [/quote] [Edited on 11.28.2012 8:59 AM PST]
-
The only half hearted game by Bungie may have been Halo 2. That game was rushed and unfinished and you could tell.
-
Bungie has always tried to capture the feel of CE after Halo 2 but this is what maimed Halo unfortunately. Halo 3 had moments and even level design that was very similar to CE's but it was very inferior. ODST looked into the story while Reach looked into both and they also failed (they felt unfinished, short, lackluster). Halo 4 has also tried to replicate CE while at the same time being distinct (story received a lot of attention). I can't say that it has gone the path of Bungie but I think it's not on a straight path and crooked paths leading to ruin, it will follow. [Edited on 11.28.2012 8:23 AM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog No, they're a professional company who wouldn't risk the damage to their (previously stellar) reputation by intentionally shipping a half-hearted game. They put their all into [i]Reach,[/i] and it just wasn't that good. Nothing more to it, everyone makes mistakes. Now they've got to work to regain the support of fans they lost.[/quote] Well said, but i think some of the keys brain wasn't really involved during "all" the process of Reach, i remember there was the ODST Team who reconvert in "Tiger/Destiny team", this little part of the studio was lead by guess who : Jason Jones.
-
Partially I guess. In the sense that Bungie was done with Halo ever since 2007 and they really didn't have the same drive as they had while making the first 2-3 games. I'm sure they put their all into Reach...but they forgot to also put their hearts and souls into the project.
-
No, they're a professional company who wouldn't risk the damage to their (previously stellar) reputation by intentionally shipping a half-hearted game. They put their all into [i]Reach,[/i] and it just wasn't that good. Nothing more to it, everyone makes mistakes. Now they've got to work to regain the support of fans they lost.
