{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/18/2013 6:26:53 AM
1
I have to say, I was surprised by the analysis, in a good way. The comparison between the earlier and later Halo games, and how Jones' absence affected the development, was certainly interesting and thought provoking. But I can't help but question it. I can't believe Jones' absence is to be blamed on how Halo 3 and Reach turned out.
Surely, Halo 2 had BR spread initially, albeit it was removed further down the line in an update. There are weapons in the sandbox like the Shotgun and the Magnum that both felt very disempowering compared to their CE counterparts. Same could be said about Elites that could eat three sniper bullets on Legendary before dying and Brutes that were just bullet sponges in general. And that's of course not forgetting the final boss that was invulnerable most of the time, and even when vulnerable, took numerous headshots with the Beam Rifle to kill.
Do we attribute all these to same type of balancing mistakes like the CE Ghost, things Jones would have gotten fixed if he could? Could bloom have been something Bungie would've fixed had it not been out of their hands (with 343i taking the franchise)?
IGN's article certainly made me believe that Jones is a man worth at least some of my trust. But can we say that with him at the helm it's substantially more likely that Destiny will be empowering in almost every aspect like Halo CE and that without him it would have lots of disempowering mechanics like Reach?
English
-
Good thoughts. With Halo 2 I was thinking more about the Multiplayer aspect. Halo 2 was a very empowering game, due to speed of movement, fast kill-times, and auto-aim and bullet magnetism. This all made for very fun, consistent, strategic gameplay. Strategic, because the reduced emphasis on aiming competency reduced the impact of players having 'off-days', and allowed the best players and, by extension, best teams, to dominate (see: Walshy and Final Boss). The patch, which you note, increased the empowering elements (increased grenade explosion radius, melee damage, tightened BR spread). In regards to Campaign, you are right to note that the game fell very short, in terms of empowering players. I discussed the issues it in more detail [url=http://www.think-entertainment.net/1120/big-bap-boring-welcome-to-firefight/]here[/url]. It would be wrong to consider Bungie or Jones infallible. But, to defend Jones in regards to Campaign, he was also behind the decision to give Elites colour coded armour, something which other staff initially thought ridiculous. (I haven't a source to hand, but I can try and dig a little, if you would like.) The impact of this subtlety alone is HUGE. The best way of understanding how much of a difference it makes to gameplay is to play the remake, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. 343i/Saber Interactive, in their graphical overlay, opted for a more 'modern' (which is to say super-saturated) pallet for the enemies. As consequence, it is difficult to distinguish the registering of bullets (the Elite shields do not flare or pop), or the rank of opposition (minor, major, zealot). You can't exactly quantify the impact of Jones. All that can be said is that he is influential, in a very positive way, and has a philosophy that inspires trust and great games. Destiny may well have a number of flaws, but I would rather a Destiny with Jason Jones at the helm, than a Destiny without him.
