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?