You know ever since Halo:CE micro(derp)soft has been rushing Bungie like crazy. If I remember correctly it’s why the last 3 levels of CE are repeats of older levels [to save time].
It’s the reason Halo:2 is not even half the game it could and should have been. Which in term is the reason Halo 3 wasn’t perfect and why ODST and Reach may not have been the amazing games they should and could have had.
Think of Halo 2 if it was more of what it was supposed to be, with the E3 level and with even half of what they cut it would have been amazing. The story would have been great, the multiplayer would have been even better. Then in tern Halo 3 would have or at least could have been as good or just great on it’s on. Then assuming ODST and Reach would still be made they also would have been great.
Think of how more amazing Forge and Firefight may have been with more time? How more balanced and fun MP could have been and how much more in depth the story is.
Of course Halo the way it is is fun, I play it, I have all of them, I liked all of em (except Halo wars, it sucks, sorry) and the memories it has given me I wouldn’t give up for anything. So this is not saying Halo or Bungie is bad. I love both. (as much as I can love games n stuff)
However if it wasn’t for greedy money Yoink! ding companties and such with more care for getting there money in time then making better HALO could have been better, stronger and would be just a lot more FUN.
In my opinion, each Halo game today should have at least 4 years to be developed on the 360, since there are so many more features than there were on past Halo games. Though I think we should get a demo/beta 1-2 years before the release to make up for the time, and also to help the developers out with unknown glitches.
> Think of how more amazing Forge and Firefight may have been with more time? How more balanced and fun MP could have been and how much more in depth the story is
Bungie has had 10 -Yoinking!- YEARS to balance the game and fill in the universe. They’ve barely made any progress on either account because they collectively form a sub-standard studio.
“To war” with the DMR and “a pox” on the energy sword, the reason that Reach doesn’t represent the culmination that it was sold to us as is because there is a serious flaw in the organizational decision making process at Bungie. Frankly stupid -Yoink- (super evasive banshees, double melee, armor lock) gets through test while at no point does any sort of critical review enter the writing process and suggest that it might want to have a plot for more than just the very last two missions. Short sighted engineers build an unwieldy engine which sets the designers in a world with truncated encounters, which other dullards react to by building false-challenge into AI behaviors and health models to try to make up for the lack of complexity elsewhere. And still the game looks like -Yoink-, because the artists are devoted to the effects that the engineers spent most of their resources on rather than trying to inject some life into the game’s distinctly Halo 2 combat.
Bungie, simply put, sucked, which is why each Halo game past CE has always felt short of it’s “true potential.” It isn’t because MS is pushing them too hard, or even further along the line of scape-goating -Yoink- that we just don’t appreciate it. It’s because there is more hype than talent to any Bungie game.
I’m not going to do any Bungie bashing. I’ve said some things before about them that are strong words, but aren’t attacks. However, one of the things that stands out is early on they said there was no time limit on Halo 3, it would be done when it was done. Then the multiplayer map Guardian came out, only map not inspired by campaign. Later they finally said it was coming from campaign, but that section got cut due to time constraints. That always drove me nuts.
I understand that at some point they set a date and decided to stick to it, but I would rather have delays to get a better game than have content cut and get the game on time.
> Short sighted engineers build an unwieldy engine which sets the designers in a world with truncated encounters
Hm.
It was my understanding that Reach’s engine was able to handle more AI than Halo 3, but that Bungie simply didn’t use it to its fullest capabilities (sections of The Package excepted). Reach had more enemies per wave than Halo 3, but Halo 3 had more waves – more squads of Covenant advancing and moving on you after you killed a herd of their buddies.
> Like Bungie said in their latest ViDoc: “if we didn’t have deadlines in place, we’d never get the game complete”.
This, and Bungie has always done the most they could with the time they were given, and I was only once disappointed with a Halo title that Bungie made (Halo2).
> Bungie has had 10 Yoink! YEARS to balance the game and fill in the universe. They’ve barely made any progress on either account because they collectively form a sub-standard studio.
>
> “To war” with the DMR and “a pox” on the energy sword, the reason that Reach doesn’t represent the culmination that it was sold to us as is because there is a serious flaw in the organizational decision making process at Bungie. Frankly stupid Yoink! (super evasive banshees, double melee, armor lock) gets through test while at no point does any sort of critical review enter the writing process and suggest that it might want to have a plot for more than just the very last two missions. Short sighted engineers build an unwieldy engine which sets the designers in a world with truncated encounters, which other dullards react to by building false-challenge into AI behaviors and health models to try to make up for the lack of complexity elsewhere. And still the game looks like Yoink!, because the artists are devoted to the effects that the engineers spent most of their resources on rather than trying to inject some life into the game’s distinctly Halo 2 combat.
>
> Bungie, simply put, sucked, which is why each Halo game past CE has always felt short of it’s “true potential.” It isn’t because MS is pushing them too hard, or even further along the line of scape-goating Yoink! that we just don’t appreciate it. It’s because there is more hype than talent to any Bungie game.
Oh, lets see your hugely successfull (critically and commercially) games, made amazing by your unrivaled programming and modeling skills.
> I’m not going to do any Bungie bashing. I’ve said some things before about them that are strong words, but aren’t attacks. However, one of the things that stands out is early on they said there was no time limit on Halo 3, it would be done when it was done. Then the multiplayer map Guardian came out, only map not inspired by campaign. Later they finally said it was coming from campaign, but that section got cut due to time constraints. That always drove me nuts.
>
> I understand that at some point they set a date and decided to stick to it, but I would rather have delays to get a better game than have content cut and get the game on time.
That is a reality though. Content is always cut from games because of some reason or another. Delaying a game so they can muscle in all the stuff that they are cutting isn’t a good idea either. We all know what happened to Duke Nukem :-/
Sadly, no matter how good a developer is, stuff they originally intended to put in a game is either cut or modified from the original vision. That isn’t always a bad thing however.
> > with the exception of ODST, i believe every Halo game made by bungie took 2-3 years to develop. how is that a rush???
>
> This. Compare a 2-3 year time frame for a game to a CoD game that’s pumped out every year.
Each call of duty title has 2 years worth of development.