Bungie, 343, and Responding to Complaints

Games Other Halo
1

Of all the reasons Bungie made Reach how it is(and there are many), there is often one that’s overlooked. No, it’s not that they wanted to cater to casuals or that they figured since they aren’t making Halo they needn’t make it good. Most of the flawed mechanics in Reach are because of equally flawed response to community complaints about Halo 3. Now, given the bipolar nature of this forum group, as well as its tendency to never agree with itself, is it a good idea to take every idea posted here? Of course not, but that’s what Bungie did with Reach. And there’s an important tie-in to what 343 is doing to be made as well.

Before Reach came out, it was often said that, “Halo belongs to its fans”. A tagline that would, at first glace, be a reference to community content and communication. But Bungie said something else there, even if they didn’t mean to and even if they didn’t realize what was said. They made the crucial mistake of letting that bipolar and seldom-agreeing group decide on features for their game. Bungie took every major complaint, justified or not, and turned it into a Reach feature. At present, most of the results of these implementations are scorned by people calling themselves “the true Halo fans”.

Some examples of this include reticule bloom, forced Spartans, hitscan, the lack of melee bleedthrough, the Nerf gun AR, and Sprint. Forced Spartans and hitscan were features much asked for by the community, and now they are some people’s only reasons to respect Bungie as a developer anymore. Point is, they’re features people like and they do not cause a major gameplay shift. That’s the thing, the rest of the things on that list (plus others I may be forgetting) are major gameplay changes that ended with a tub of contreversy. Reticule bloom was added because people claimed that utility rifles are overpowered. Bleedthrough melee (the lack thereof) and the further nerfing of the AR both have roots in the same complaint. And that complaint was AR-rushers, those much feared bad kids whose only means of defeating took you down with them.

Does this mean that it’s bad to listen to the community? No, of course not. What the implementations of Reach mechanics show is that a developer cannot rely on a community diverse as that of Halo to choose what features should be in the game. And that is what makes listening to the Halo community tricky. 343’s title update coupled with the new Anniversary gamemodes was probably the best option for “fixing” Reach. It was also the most neutral choice as far as listening to the community goes. Give the people who don’t like Reach their own section of the game, leaving the other for those who do, allowing people to switch to their desire.

What 343 should do with Halo 4 is what Bungie did with all of the other Halos. They should make the game they want to make, not the game the community wants. But, they should do it keeping in mind the feelings of their fans. If a newly announced feature is not liked, they should ask the community why and collect intelligent responses. Then, fine tune the feature until it works best for gameplay. What should not be done is either shut out the community or, more importantly, let them design the game.

Thanks for reading,
Republican Rant

2

It’s bad to listen to players who have no idea what they’re talking about. Unfortunately these kind of people are the majority.

3

I normally disagree with you Republican Rant, but I’ll agree with you here.

One of the things I hate about Reach is that Bungie tried to force their style of play on everyone.

343i is doing what Bungie did with Halo 3: different playlists for different people. Competitive player: Ranked Playlist with lots of options. Casual/don’t care about rank: Social Playlists with lots of options. Despite the bashing of Halo 3, it worked best for everyone.

Also, I’m not against change, I just don’t want the change to become the core of a new Halo game, like AAs did, and I don’t want to be forced to play with them in MM.

Then there are the people who complained about vehicles being overpowered… but that’s another rant altogether.

4

> I normally disagree with you Republican Rant, but I’ll agree with you here.
>
> One of the things I hate about Reach is that Bungie tried to force their style of play on everyone.
>
> 343i is doing what Bungie did with Halo 3: different playlists for different people. Competitive player: Ranked Playlist with lots of options. Casual/don’t care about rank: Social Playlists with lots of options. Despite the bashing of Halo 3, it worked best for everyone.
>
> Also, I’m not against change, I just don’t want the change to become the core of a new Halo game, like AAs did, and I don’t want to be forced to play with them in MM.
>
> Then there are the people who complained about vehicles being overpowered… but that’s another rant altogether.

The ranking system is another thing that qualifies as a complaint-response. I’m not sure if you hung around the Halo 3 forums much, but if you did I’m sure you noticed how mad people were at TrueSkill. Some arguments were reasonable, others not so much. What was unreasonable is swapping the TrueSkill system with two - Arena in three playlists (now down to one) and cR in the rest. But this thread really isn’t so much an opinion of the stuff Bungie did. It’s more of an alternative explanation that explains why Reach is as it is, and how listening to the community too much can lead to disaster. It’s mostly in response to people calling Bungie a villain, and while I’m not so much a fan of their company I wouldn’t want their name smeared because they overdid exactly what 343 is doing right now, and what every developer should do - listen to the community.

5

I’m going to make one comment in regards to your entire post. I apologize if this isn’t the response you are looking for. Time is of the essence.

You may say what you will about the community being splintered on various topics (it is entirely true), but I’ll remind you of the following: No one, and I mean no one, asked for Loadout-based gameplay to become the default and only way to participate in Bungie’s latest, greatest, and final Halo FPS. That combined with a lack of any proper support for Classic-based gameplay (original Trilogy) upon launch, was all Bungie’s idea.

Take every other criticism ever made by anyone, about any of the Halo games, and toss them aside. We, the community, did not make the design decision to launch Halo Reach as it was over a year ago. Building Reach around Loadouts and the lack of Classic support were key elements belonging to one group, and one group alone; Bungie. Take that as you will.

-Always Hope

6

I have a problem with the “skill sayers.” The culmination of bloom in Reach is because of the constant talk of having a balanced and skilled sandbox. Halo has never had one of these till Reach, and because of it, it’s not “Halo.”

It’s not about skill, it’s about fun. From what I gather there are two types of weapons wanted for Halo. One that kills quickly and require FPS proficiency skill to use. The other side are weapons that kill quickly and need very little FPS proficiency skill to use. Can’t have that in a balanced AND skilled sandbox.

What we can do, especially thanks to Forge’s more refined options over just choosing “Pistols” or “Rifles” starts, is take a very imbalanced and radical sandbox and refine it in our own ways to suit our needs when it suits us.

“Competitive” Halo doesn’t use the sustained-fire weapons out of philosophical beliefs. And that’s ok. They prefer the “core” Halo weapons with specific player settings to play.
All of the Halo community likes their weapons to be reliable. And that only happens with lots of aim-assists.

Personally, once we get to a point were the “competitive” crowd realises they don’t touch the sustained fire weapons in most cases and prefer precision start weapons, they’ll concentrate on trying to perfect their style of play instead of imposing it on others by demanding the very opposite of what they claim they want for everyone, instead of themselves.

Think of it this way, you know how some players say that AAs should be an add-on to the sandbox, not something built into it? Well the same goes for how Competitive Halo compared to Vanilla Halo works. There’s the core “competitive” weapons that work with the precision weapon style of play. And then there’s the add-on of the crazy and radical alien and/or futuristic weapons of mass destruction. That due to being alien and/or futuristic, take little to no skill to physically use (because the technology does it for the user) but still requires a good sense of strategic knowledge to be used tactically.

Playing Halo is not about skill. Playing certain gametypes/playlists is, but not Halo.

7

> I’m going to make one comment in regards to your entire post. I apologize if this isn’t the response you are looking for. Time is of the essence.
>
> You may say what you will about the community being splintered on various topics (it is entirely true), but I’ll remind you of the following: No one, and I mean no one, asked for Loadout-based gameplay to become the default and only way to participate in Bungie’s latest, greatest, and final Halo FPS. That combined with a lack of any proper support for Classic-based gameplay (original Trilogy) upon launch, was all Bungie’s idea.
>
> Take every other criticism ever made by anyone, about any of the Halo games, and toss them aside. We, the community, did not make the design decision to launch Halo Reach as it was over a year ago. Building Reach around Loadouts and the lack of Classic support were key elements belonging to one group, and one group alone; Bungie. Take that as you will.
>
> -Always Hope

Sir or madam, you raise a good point. Perhaps the most important addition to the Halo series was loadout-based play. And it’s true that it’s not something anyone asked for. But then again, I wasn’t saying that. I will say again that my purpose with this post was to counter the argument of “Bungie abandoned the hardcore community” that is based on the inclusion of gameplay elements such as bloom, the lack of bleed-through, and Armor Abilities. The former two were the result of highly vocal people speaking out for reforms that would fix certain problems. The same kind of people that now diss Reach for trying to address those problems.

8

> I have a problem with the “skill sayers.” The culmination of bloom in Reach is because of the constant talk of having a balanced and skilled sandbox. Halo has never had one of these till Reach, and because of it, it’s not “Halo.”

Reach’s sandbox is FAR FAR AWAY from balanced. CE was the closest to being correct as far as sandbox balance goes.

9

> Of all the reasons Bungie made Reach how it is(and there are many), there is often one that’s overlooked. No, it’s not that they wanted to cater to casuals or that they figured since they aren’t making Halo they needn’t make it good. Most of the flawed mechanics in Reach are because of equally flawed response to community complaints about Halo 3. Now, given the bipolar nature of this forum group, as well as its tendency to never agree with itself, is it a good idea to take every idea posted here? Of course not, but that’s what Bungie did with Reach. And there’s an important tie-in to what 343 is doing to be made as well.
>
> Before Reach came out, it was often said that, “Halo belongs to its fans”. A tagline that would, at first glace, be a reference to community content and communication. But Bungie said something else there, even if they didn’t mean to and even if they didn’t realize what was said. They made the crucial mistake of letting that bipolar and seldom-agreeing group decide on features for their game. Bungie took every major complaint, justified or not, and turned it into a Reach feature. At present, most of the results of these implementations are scorned by people calling themselves “the true Halo fans”.
>
> Some examples of this include reticule bloom, forced Spartans, hitscan, the lack of melee bleedthrough, the Nerf gun AR, and Sprint. Forced Spartans and hitscan were features much asked for by the community, and now they are some people’s only reasons to respect Bungie as a developer anymore. Point is, they’re features people like and they do not cause a major gameplay shift. That’s the thing, the rest of the things on that list (plus others I may be forgetting) are major gameplay changes that ended with a tub of contreversy. Reticule bloom was added because people claimed that utility rifles are overpowered. Bleedthrough melee (the lack thereof) and the further nerfing of the AR both have roots in the same complaint. And that complaint was AR-rushers, those much feared bad kids whose only means of defeating took you down with them.
>
> Does this mean that it’s bad to listen to the community? No, of course not. What the implementations of Reach mechanics show is that a developer cannot rely on a community diverse as that of Halo to choose what features should be in the game. And that is what makes listening to the Halo community tricky. 343’s title update coupled with the new Anniversary gamemodes was probably the best option for “fixing” Reach. It was also the most neutral choice as far as listening to the community goes. Give the people who don’t like Reach their own section of the game, leaving the other for those who do, allowing people to switch to their desire.
>
> What 343 should do with Halo 4 is what Bungie did with all of the other Halos. They should make the game they want to make, not the game the community wants. But, they should do it keeping in mind the feelings of their fans. If a newly announced feature is not liked, they should ask the community why and collect intelligent responses. Then, fine tune the feature until it works best for gameplay. What should not be done is either shut out the community or, more importantly, let them design the game.
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Republican Rant

ive said this before, but its not the complaints themselves, its the VALIDITY of these complaints.

for example: bloom. its inherently flawed, and many people can shoot down 100% of any argument saying that its ‘fine’ or ‘perfect’ or ‘optimal’ with ease, using nothing but SIMPLE LOGIC and SIMPLE REASONING.

when you have someone that says ‘this is broken’ and lays out 40 reasons why, hes probably right. then, check how well he holds up in debates about said topic. is he responding to everyones thoughts using logic and reasoning, discrediting people who say otherwise? if so, hes probably right.

when you have someone that says ‘DMR IS OVERPOWERED CUZ I SAID SO!’ its probably not overpowered unless they can actually explain why using the aforementioned logic and reasoning skills.

what 343 really needs is a check list. if the mechanic in question doesnt fit all of the criterion in said checklist, it should be re-worked till it does.

-does this mechanic gear towards bad players (in hopes of not alienating good players)
-is this mechanic LOGICAL
-is this mechanic STRAIGHT FORWARD
-is this mechanic INTUITIVE
-is this mechanic NON-CONTRADICTORY

then compare the mechanic in question with previous halo games, and weigh the pros and cons for each one.

lets take no-bleed melees as an example.

-does this mechanic gear towards bad players (in hopes of not alienating good players)
=absolutely.

-is this mechanic LOGICAL
=not in the slightest. this mechanic actually DISCOURAGES SHOOTING in a first person shooting game. furthermore, it makes shooting NOT VIABLE at certain ranges. ALSO, it makes several niche range weapons (niched at close range) completely and totally useless because melees are infinitely better with sprint.

-is this mechanic STRAIGHT FORWARD
=not in the least bit.

-is this mechanic INTUITIVE
=nope. or, how is it INTUITIVE to have to know the EXACT RANGE in which SHOOTING ISNT VIABLE in a first person shooter game, to have ANY IMPACT on the outcome of a battle? how is it more intuitive than simply… shoot… smack… player with more health wins (like halo 3 post-patch)?

-is this mechanic NON-CONTRADICTORY
=should people who shoot in first person shooters beat the people who just run at you and melee twice? i rest my case.

looking at this, no bleed melees are a catastrophic EPIC FAIL that should have never been implemented, or even thought about implementing.

also, the reason ‘-does this mechanic cater to ‘pro players’ or ‘good players’’ isnt on the list is because these types of mechanics dont really effect lower level players in the least provided matchmaking actually does its job of pairing like-skilled players together.

the people who are ‘pro’ and ‘good’ are the people who UNDERSTAND the mechanics, and CARE about the mechanics so its completely and totally illogical to make terrible mechanics because the pros and good players will feel completely alienated in favor of people who DONT EVEN KNOW WHATS GOING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

10

I agree bungie did do things based on what the community wanted not what they wanted.Did bungie think that what they did was fun and people would like it, that is where the beta came in to find out what worked and what didn’t.The problem again is that in the beta all the things that where bad they kept,slow kill times,overpowered grenades,AA’s that pause gameplay.All of these things where frowned upon in the beta but still found there way into reach mostly unaltered why.Like op said the community is bipolar, Fan boys who like halo and don’t like much change cause they want to play the same game they fell in love with.And the complainers who constantly -Yoink- about what they hate and how the games are unfair due to this and that.Now we know what side they listened to when they should have ignored the community all together and made the game the way they wanted to.If they did that there would me minimal rage threadsSession data

11

You forgot the part where Bungie only listened to the people who sucked at Halo.

Sprint was added in because players kept whining about not being able to move across big maps effectively, even though they could have just used vehicles and played the game how it is supposed to play.

People who wanted jetpack and armor lock were people who thought those abilities were “cool”. In fact, I don’t even know why Bungie even listened. Those ideas were heavily disapproved of.

People who complained about the BR didn’t know how to use it, and more importantly, didn’t know that precision weapons are supposed to be the main utility weapons in Halo. So, Bungie tried nerfing it and got a very mediocre weapons sandbox and an uninteresting, luck-based precision weapon.

Basically the entire reason why Halo Reach is a piece of crap is because Bungie listened to the wrong crowd. They listened to the crowd that thought new gimmicks were “cool and awesome”, they listened to the people who believed that “halo needed to be refreshed”, and they listened to the people who didn’t understand why Halo played so well.

12

> You forgot the part where Bungie only listened to the people who sucked at Halo.
>
> Sprint was added in because players kept whining about not being able to move across big maps effectively, even though they could have just used vehicles and played the game how it is supposed to play.
>
> People who wanted jetpack and armor lock were people who thought those abilities were “cool”. In fact, I don’t even know why Bungie even listened. Those ideas were heavily disapproved of.
>
> People who complained about the BR didn’t know how to use it, and more importantly, didn’t know that precision weapons are supposed to be the main utility weapons in Halo. So, Bungie tried nerfing it and got a very mediocre weapons sandbox and an uninteresting, luck-based precision weapon.
>
> Basically the entire reason why Halo Reach is a piece of crap is because Bungie listened to the wrong crowd. They listened to the crowd that thought new gimmicks were “cool and awesome”, they listened to the people who believed that “halo needed to be refreshed”, and they listened to the people who didn’t understand why Halo played so well.

WELL SAID. completely agree 100%.

after all COOL + GIMMICKY > GOOD, as far as mechanics go right? LOL

13

> You forgot the part where Bungie only listened to the people who sucked at Halo.
>
> Sprint was added in because players kept whining about not being able to move across big maps effectively, even though they could have just used vehicles and played the game how it is supposed to play.
>
> People who wanted jetpack and armor lock were people who thought those abilities were “cool”. In fact, I don’t even know why Bungie even listened. Those ideas were heavily disapproved of.
>
> People who complained about the BR didn’t know how to use it, and more importantly, didn’t know that precision weapons are supposed to be the main utility weapons in Halo. So, Bungie tried nerfing it and got a very mediocre weapons sandbox and an uninteresting, luck-based precision weapon.
>
> Basically the entire reason why Halo Reach is a piece of crap is because Bungie listened to the wrong crowd. They listened to the crowd that thought new gimmicks were “cool and awesome”, they listened to the people who believed that “halo needed to be refreshed”, and they listened to the people who didn’t understand why Halo played so well.

stands up and claps

Seriously TacticulBacon, you speak so much truth… again.

I remember in the days of the Halo 3 Forums, if you asked for Sprint in the next Halo, you were laughed at. If you asked for Jetpack, you were frowned apon. No-one asked for AAs, and no-one asked for no-bleed-through melees (I doubt most knew what this was, hell I didn’t know, but I liked it). The only people who asked for vehicle nerfs sucked at taking them out, and admitted they hated vehicles anyway. Bungie listened to the wrong crowd: the noobs, the fans of other FPSs(which Bungie targeted Reach for), and anyone who just wanted Halo to change “for the hell of it”, and not “for the better”.

14

For the record, it is sir. :wink:

> Sir or madam, you raise a good point. Perhaps the most important addition to the Halo series was loadout-based play. And it’s true that it’s not something anyone asked for. But then again, I wasn’t saying that. I will say again that my purpose with this post was to counter the argument of “Bungie abandoned the hardcore community” that is based on the inclusion of gameplay elements such as bloom, the lack of bleed-through, and Armor Abilities. The former two were the result of highly vocal people speaking out for reforms that would fix certain problems. The same kind of people that now diss Reach for trying to address those problems.

What we have here, is another communication error in regards to the definitions of your phrase hardcore community. In my mind, I believe the hardcore community to be a broad term encompassing multiple smaller groups with their own preferences on gameplay. Being apart of several of those smaller groups, one can understand why I stated what I did. I, firmly, stand by my proclamation, for the record.

One or more of these smaller groups, however, were very vocal regarding the gameplay mechanics you mentioned. Correct are you, to state that they continue to complain to this day. You are also correct in wanting 343 Industries to not cater towards these communities alone. With respect to balance, the Halo franchise is too vast a place to limit critical design decisions specifically towards one community or the other.

It is for that reason, and various others, why I absolutely love the possibilities a Reach Title Update will bring. Perhaps, I will be able to play Halo like classic Halo again, and not Halo Reach. Call me optimistic, but I believe this is one way 343 Industries is showing us that they have been, are, or will become more expansive concerning Halo’s gameplay elements. This could be a good thing.

-Always Hope

15

> > You forgot the part where Bungie only listened to the people who sucked at Halo.
> >
> > Sprint was added in because players kept whining about not being able to move across big maps effectively, even though they could have just used vehicles and played the game how it is supposed to play.
> >
> > People who wanted jetpack and armor lock were people who thought those abilities were “cool”. In fact, I don’t even know why Bungie even listened. Those ideas were heavily disapproved of.
> >
> > People who complained about the BR didn’t know how to use it, and more importantly, didn’t know that precision weapons are supposed to be the main utility weapons in Halo. So, Bungie tried nerfing it and got a very mediocre weapons sandbox and an uninteresting, luck-based precision weapon.
> >
> > Basically the entire reason why Halo Reach is a piece of crap is because Bungie listened to the wrong crowd. They listened to the crowd that thought new gimmicks were “cool and awesome”, they listened to the people who believed that “halo needed to be refreshed”, and they listened to the people who didn’t understand why Halo played so well.
>
> WELL SAID. completely agree 100%.
>
> after all COOL + GIMMICKY > GOOD, as far as mechanics go right? LOL

  • Claps*i agree with you on some parts but two were the bleed through and BR.

bleed through attracted more noobs to sprint with an assualt rifle shoot half a mag,melee u died,some DMR shots to the face 3 or 4,u dead.and about the BR,ive used it the way it was supposed to be.strafe,aim for the head,and spam.but it didnt work out.bungie had a good idea of adding the DMR cuz imagine Bloom with BR.and the DMR helped with the advanced scope.this is my opinion.

16

> What we have here, is another communication error in regards to the definitions of your phrase hardcore community. In my mind, I believe the hardcore community to be a broad term encompassing multiple smaller groups with their own preferences on gameplay. Being apart of several of those smaller groups, one can understand why I stated what I did. I, firmly, stand by my proclamation, for the record.
>
> One or more of these smaller groups, however, were very vocal regarding the gameplay mechanics you mentioned. Correct are you, to state that they continue to complain to this day. You are also correct in wanting 343 Industries to not cater towards these communities alone. With respect to balance, the Halo franchise is too vast a place to limit critical design decisions specifically towards one community or the other.
>
> It is for that reason, and various others, why I absolutely love the possibilities a Reach Title Update will bring. Perhaps, I will be able to play Halo like classic Halo again, and not Halo Reach. Call me optimistic, but I believe this is one way 343 Industries is showing us that they have been, are, or will become more expansive concerning Halo’s gameplay elements. This could be a good thing.
>
> -Always Hope

As strange as it sounds, I would enjoy having multiple combinations of gameplay mechanics in certain playlists. Hell, even whole playlist categories can be devoted to a single set of gameplay mechanics. It’s something I’m very much looking forward to in Halo 4, and by the looks of things just might be implemented.

343 could have done one of two things with their Title Update. They could have patched every known glitch and bug in the game, tweaked imbalances like Armor Lock, but not added the Classic stuff. Conversely, they could have turned the entire game into Halo 1 as best they could. But they didn’t. They’re making a special playlist where people can test this, then later on we’ll have a new column, or hopper as some call them, where we can find stuff like Classic Objective, Classic BTB, and so forth. This idea of catering to multiple communities is a radical idea.

But for some reason, it feels like Halo.

17

You know I have thought about this quite a lot lately. And I’ve realized when designing Reach, Bungie seems to have taken the core ‘issues’ with H3 and tried to firmly stop those issues. The main one that comes to mind is H3’s ranking (and deranking) system. The second one would be vehicles, and a third escapes me right now but I know I had it the other night while playing.

Sadly, what they managed was a horribly designed ranking system (I no longer play Ranked when I basically only played TS and Doubles in 3) and weak as hell vehicles, except the oddly overpowered Banshee and a huge lack of actual anti vehicle weapons near spawn…

[Mini rant on] Can we all recall Sandbox for a moment. Not that big of a map, four possible vehicles (Two chomps and two hogs) to use. And an anti-vehicle weapon (missle pod) in your base. Now look at Paradiso and tell me how a tank and banshee have one counter twice the size of sandbox away… and another in the wide open center of the camp zone? Hmm…[mini rant off] Now I know Banshee/tank doesn’t compare to chomp/hog…but the weapon placement/lack there of is my point to be taken from that.

I must say that I feel any weak aspect of 3 Bungie attempted to remedy in reach completely collapsed all gameplay surrounding it. Is the only thing that worked not being able to derank? …no…wait…if you quit you go down in arena and can abuse the lower brackets huh? I’m not sure, I don’t play arena…that was a semi question.

(I have more points about AA’s in general…mostly about sprint and how all the cries to be able to sprint weren’t answered, they were mocked with AA’s…but we’ll save that for another time)