Missing Content

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I wanted to address the phrase “missing content”, as I’ve been getting pretty frustrated hearing it constantly on these forums. While I totally agree Halo 5 needs more maps and social playlists (ASAP on those maps), I don’t think that nit-picking small features like Spartan Ops and Firefight is productive at all. In these arguments, Spartan Ops and Firefight are “missing”, “classic Halo” features, when in actual fact they’ve only been in 3 games combined. Spartan Ops is especially confusing because it was panned when it came out in the first place, now parts of the community have done a massive U-turn and decided they want it back.

Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i; that Halo 5 should have launched with tons more content and that nothing should have been “left out” only to be added in later. The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way. If Microsoft let 343i take five years to develop Halo 5, then I’m sure we’d be getting a much bigger package than we currently have. But unfortunately that’s not reality, and games have to ship on time. If that means adding more content via free, monthly updates after launch then so be it - that’s not something I take issue with. Sure it would have been nice to have more maps from launch but I certainly don’t consider them “missing”.

Also, Halo isn’t a “dying” franchise as many love to throw around as fact. Sure Halo 5 didn’t sell as many as its predecessors but it exists in a radically different climate in terms of competition. That coupled with Halo’s recent difficulty and drop in popularity have seen Halo 5 launch in a difficult position. But Microsoft seem to be happy with sales, it brought in the highest ever launch figures including hardware. There aren’t any accurate global sales figures so we can’t judge them, but the franchise is clearly doing well.

343i need to listen to the community, but only to the ones setting out their criticisms in a calm and intelligent manner, rather than those complaining endlessly about tiny things which they believe should have been there at launch simply because they can.

2

I can’t do anything but agree with you. This game is fine…but i would like infection :wink:

3

> 2535421736537084;2:
> I can’t do anything but agree with you. This game is fine…but i would like infection :wink:

I’m a big fan of infection.

4

> 2533274848285823;1:
> Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i

It’s not too much to expect 343i to give us a finished product after spending $60.

> 2533274848285823;1:
> The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way.

Such a piss poor excuse when almost every Halo game released before 2012 released with a full amount of content:

> In the past, Halo games have constantly taken steps forward with the amount of content present in each game (all complete and fully operational at launch I might add).
>
> Halo: Combat Evolved (2001 at $49.99):
>
> - Full Singleplayer (with 2-player Co-op)
> - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> - LAN Multiplayer
> Halo 2 (2004 at $49.99):
>
> - Full Singleplayer (with 2-player Co-op)
> - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> - LAN multiplayer
> - Xbox LIVE Multiplayer
> - Enhanced Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> Halo 3 (2007 at $59.99):
>
> - Full Singleplayer (with 2 player Co-op)
> - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> - LAN multiplayer
> - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> - Giant leap in Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> - Forge Mode
> - File Sharing
> - Theater (including campaign theater)
> Halo: Reach (2010 at $59.99):
>
> - Full Singleplayer (with 2 player Co-op)
> - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> - LAN multiplayer
> - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> - Another giant leap in Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> - Greatly Enhanced Forge Mode
> - File Sharing
> - Theater (including campaign theater)
> - Firefight
> (skip forward five years)
>
> Halo 5: Guardians (2015 still at $59.99) (at launch):
>
> - Full Singleplayer (SOLO ONLY)
> - NO SPLIT-SCREEN SUPPORT
> - NO LAN MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT
> - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> - Enormous STEP DOWN in Custom Game Options
> - Enormous STEP DOWN in Character Customization Options
> - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> - NO FORGE MODE
> - NO FILE SHARING
> - Barely Functioning Theater (not including campaign theater)
> - NO CO-OP MODE (FIREFIGHT)

> 2533274848285823;1:
> If that means adding more content via free, monthly updates after launch then so be it - that’s not something I take issue with. Sure it would have been nice to have more maps from launch but I certainly don’t consider them “missing”.

Sounds a lot like early access games to me, only you’re paying full price up front rather than half or a quarter of the price. So great.

> 2533274848285823;1:
> Also, Halo isn’t a “dying” franchise

Halo has been slowly dying since 2012.

5

My main concern is how buggy the game is, I have to reboot my xbox every few games just to get it to work

6

> 2533274822033295;4:
> > 2533274848285823;1:
> > Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i
>
>
> It’s not too much to expect 343i to give us a finished product after spending $60.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274848285823;1:
> > The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way.
>
>
> Such a piss poor excuse when almost every Halo game released before 2012 released with a full amount of content:
>
>
> > In the past, Halo games have constantly taken steps forward with the amount of content present in each game (all complete and fully operational at launch I might add).
> >
> > Halo: Combat Evolved (2001 at $49.99):
> >
> > - Full Singleplayer (with 2-player Co-op)
> > - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> > - LAN Multiplayer
> > Halo 2 (2004 at $49.99):
> >
> > - Full Singleplayer (with 2-player Co-op)
> > - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> > - LAN multiplayer
> > - Xbox LIVE Multiplayer
> > - Enhanced Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> > Halo 3 (2007 at $59.99):
> >
> > - Full Singleplayer (with 2 player Co-op)
> > - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> > - LAN multiplayer
> > - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> > - Giant leap in Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> > - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> > - Forge Mode
> > - File Sharing
> > - Theater (including campaign theater)
> > Halo: Reach (2010 at $59.99):
> >
> > - Full Singleplayer (with 2 player Co-op)
> > - Split-Screen Multiplayer
> > - LAN multiplayer
> > - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> > - Another giant leap in Custom Game Options and Character Customization Options
> > - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> > - Greatly Enhanced Forge Mode
> > - File Sharing
> > - Theater (including campaign theater)
> > - Firefight
> > (skip forward five years)
> >
> > Halo 5: Guardians (2015 still at $59.99) (at launch):
> >
> > - Full Singleplayer (SOLO ONLY)
> > - NO SPLIT-SCREEN SUPPORT
> > - NO LAN MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT
> > - Xbox LIVE multiplayer
> > - Enormous STEP DOWN in Custom Game Options
> > - Enormous STEP DOWN in Character Customization Options
> > - 4 Player Campaign Co-op over Xbox LIVE
> > - NO FORGE MODE
> > - NO FILE SHARING
> > - Barely Functioning Theater (not including campaign theater)
> > - NO CO-OP MODE (FIREFIGHT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274848285823;1:
> > If that means adding more content via free, monthly updates after launch then so be it - that’s not something I take issue with. Sure it would have been nice to have more maps from launch but I certainly don’t consider them “missing”.
>
>
> Sounds a lot like early access games to me, only you’re paying full price up front rather than half or a quarter of the price. So great.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274848285823;1:
> > Also, Halo isn’t a “dying” franchise
>
>
> Halo has been slowly dying since 2012.

And they are giving use a finished product. once it’s finished. I am sure that if they just gave us everything all broken like it would be then Halo would have more people leaving.

And that’s a laugh. Halo 2 was riddled with bugs had an incomplete campaign and Halo 3 was an unbalanced game at launch.

And Warzone is the replacement for the terrible thing that was Firefight. The only good Firefight game was in ODST back when it was tough.

Hey, better than Destiny where you have to pay $40 for DLC to fix the broken game. Fact is 343i was forced to release the game unfinished because of MICROSOFT. Want to complain about something then complain about Microsoft.

And really? Last I checked “dying” didn’t mean being on the top 10 played consoles.

And back to the OP: Monitor Chakas you already know I agree 100% from a discussion on a different topic post. I love how many people try and claim Halo is dying when it’s still able to pull top 10 played games on the X-Box One. Even now being so focused on Fallout 4 I still find myself booting up Halo 5 when I need some release from the open world and need to just kill some enemies in Arena.

7

> 2533274962122285;5:
> My main concern is how buggy the game is, I have to reboot my xbox every few games just to get it to work

I haven’t had any problems with it so far. The only game I have had a problem with recently is Fallout 4 which froze 2 time but that’s not much to worry about from 80+ hours of gametime.

8

> 2533274848285823;1:
> I wanted to address the phrase “missing content”, as I’ve been getting pretty frustrated hearing it constantly on these forums. While I totally agree Halo 5 needs more maps and social playlists (ASAP on those maps), I don’t think that nit-picking small features like Spartan Ops and Firefight is productive at all. In these arguments, Spartan Ops and Firefight are “missing”, “classic Halo” features, when in actual fact they’ve only been in 3 games combined.
>
>
> Oh look, years of asking, nay begging over big concerns for much-enjoyed features and whole game types being glossed over as nit-picking. It was a MAJOR COMPONENT OF GAMES WE PAID FOR AND PLAYED.
>
> Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i; that Halo 5 should have launched with tons more content and that nothing should have been “left out” only to be added in later. The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way.
>
>
> OH LOOK it’s the Developer Barbie-coding is hard! apology being trotted out. Really, REALLY? People who pay for a game expecting similar content in a sequel, for a supposed to be a next gen game on a next gen console?
>
>
>
> 343i need to listen to the community, but only to the ones setting out their criticisms in a calm and intelligent manner, rather than those complaining endlessly about tiny things which they believe should have been there at launch simply because they can.
>
> Tiny things? Normal to expect Halo-type game play amplified on a next-gen Halo? Oh the horrors of honoring implied content for a measly 60, 90 or 250 mystery meat but trust us AAA game! And we have you, our savior to save us from the sin of urgent feedback. You should fear something different Monitor Chakas…you should fear player indifference, when the love and the spark dies and players move on to other games that feed their needs.

Not saying I am not happy with many features of Halo 5, but it’s getting long in the tooth waiting for many players, Warzone is not hitting that spot for me (PvE like Firefight) BTB only scratches the itch so much, custom game types and Forge are being awaited with bated breath…being able to save and share community grown games and maps that are fresh and innovative and spread virally…waiting waiting…don’t make a player base get cold feet waiting…

9

> 2533275007895929;6:
> > 2533274822033295;4:
> > > 2533274848285823;1:
> > >
>
>
> And they are giving use a finished product. once it’s finished.

… so you agree then that the game is unfinished, yet you’re completely okay with it. To each his own I guess.

> 2533275007895929;6:
> > 2533274822033295;4:
> > > 2533274848285823;1:
> > >
>
>
> I am sure that if they just gave us everything all broken like it would be then Halo would have more people leaving.

Is it really too much to expect a complete and fully functional game at launch nowadays? Geez people come on.

Demand more from your developers and stop giving them free passes for taking advantage of you, or we’ll just get more of the same bull-Blam!- year after year.

> 2533275007895929;6:
> > 2533274822033295;4:
> > > 2533274848285823;1:
> > >
>
>
> And that’s a laugh. Halo 2 was riddled with bugs had an incomplete campaign and Halo 3 was an unbalanced game at launch.

What’s funny is that you’re attempting to compare Halo 2’s development situation with that of Halo 5’s.

Halo 2 worked properly at launch, unlike the MCC (still broken to this day).

Halo 2’s bugs were fun to exploit and are one of the game’s biggest replay factors. Disagree? Then get a dummies guide to learn how to Halo 2.

I assume you’re referring to Halo 2’s cliffhanger hanger ending when you say it’s “incomplete.” Sorry to break it to ya, but Halo 2’s campaign is nowhere near incomplete. It tells (IMO) the best story there is in a Halo game to date, offers the largest variety of different locations/enemies to fight with than any Halo game to date, and has the longest campaign in a Halo game to date. Don’t like the ending? Fine, that’s completely understandable as cliffhanger endings are bull-Blam!- for the most part. However, unlike Halo 5’s objectively BS cliffhanger, Halo 2 actually earns it’s cliffhanger with it’s fantastic campaign.

Halo 3 being unbalanced at launch is not the same as being unfinished at launch, like Halo 5.

> 2533275007895929;6:
> > 2533274822033295;4:
> > > 2533274848285823;1:
> > >
>
>
> Hey, better than Destiny where you have to pay $40 for DLC to fix the broken game. Fact is 343i was forced to release the game unfinished because of MICROSOFT. Want to complain about something then complain about Microsoft.

I don’t give a flying -Blam!- about lolDestiny. Shift the blame to the publisher all you want, but the fault of Halo 5’s failures ultimately falls on the developer whether you like it or not.

> 2533275007895929;6:
> > 2533274822033295;4:
> > > 2533274848285823;1:
> > >
> >
> >
> > And really? Last I checked “dying” didn’t mean being on the top 10 played consoles.
> >
> > And back to the OP: Monitor Chakas you already know I agree 100% from a discussion on a different topic post. I love how many people try and claim Halo is dying when it’s still able to pull top 10 played games on the X-Box One. Even now being so focused on Fallout 4 I still find myself booting up Halo 5 when I need some release from the open world and need to just kill some enemies in Arena.

Last I checked, Halo games released before 2012 never fell to 9th or 10th place on the XBL leader boards you’re mentioning like Halol 4 and Halo 5 a few days/weeks after release. Why do you think 343i is hiding their population counts from their game this time around? Or why Microsoft refuses to share worldwide game sale numbers for Halo 5, not including hardware? Or why any mention of population counts on these forums get locked and sent to one centralized location? These dodgy tactics are designed to make people believe that their franchise is not dying, when it is. It’s so painfully obvious.

10

It’s laughable that you would try to justify the obvious lack of content that Halo 5 launched with. Ever since we entered next gen, that lame “it’s new hardware and they have limited resources, give them a break guys!” excuse keeps popping up everywhere to try and convince yourselves that you didn’t spend full price on half a game. What, you think developing for the original Xbox or the 360 was a piece of cake when they first appeared? You think Bungie didn’t have a deadline with limited resources as well? News flash: they did, and they managed to deliver a full Halo experience every time and even added onto that experience with each new release. There is no excuse. Consumers who pay full price for a game expect it to be fully finished. Not everyone has time to wait several months before the full experience finally arrives. That’s why the population for Halo 5 is dwindling much faster than we all want it to.

11

> 2533274822033295;9:
> > 2533275007895929;6:
> > And they are giving use a finished product. once it’s finished.
>
>
> 1) … so you agree then that the game is unfinished, yet you’re completely okay with it. To each his own I guess.
>
>
> > 2533275007895929;6:
> > I am sure that if they just gave us everything all broken like it would be then Halo would have more people leaving.
>
>
> 2) Is it really too much to expect a complete and fully functional game at launch nowadays? Geez people come on.
>
> Demand more from your developers and stop giving them free passes for taking advantage of you, or we’ll just get more of the same bull-Blam!- year after year.
>
>
> > 2533275007895929;6:
> > And that’s a laugh. Halo 2 was riddled with bugs had an incomplete campaign and Halo 3 was an unbalanced game at launch.
>
>
> 3) What’s funny is that you’re attempting to compare Halo 2’s development situation with that of Halo 5’s.
>
> Halo 2 worked properly at launch, unlike the MCC (still broken to this day).
>
> Halo 2’s bugs were fun to exploit and are one of the game’s biggest replay factors. Disagree? Then get a dummies guide to learn how to Halo 2.
>
> I assume you’re referring to Halo 2’s cliffhanger hanger ending when you say it’s “incomplete.” Sorry to break it to ya, but Halo 2’s campaign is nowhere near incomplete. It tells (IMO) the best story there is in a Halo game to date, offers the largest variety of different locations/enemies to fight with than any Halo game to date, and has the longest campaign in a Halo game to date. Don’t like the ending? Fine, that’s completely understandable as cliffhanger endings are bull-Blam!- for the most part. However, unlike Halo 5’s objectively BS cliffhanger, Halo 2 actually earns it’s cliffhanger with it’s fantastic campaign.
>
> Halo 3 being unbalanced at launch is not the same as being unfinished at launch, like Halo 5.
>
>
> > 2533275007895929;6:
> > Hey, better than Destiny where you have to pay $40 for DLC to fix the broken game. Fact is 343i was forced to release the game unfinished because of MICROSOFT. Want to complain about something then complain about Microsoft.
>
>
> 4) I don’t give a flying -Blam!- about lolDestiny. Shift the blame to the publisher all you want, but the fault of Halo 5’s failures ultimately falls on the developer whether you like it or not.
>
>
> > 2533275007895929;6:
> > And really? Last I checked “dying” didn’t mean being on the top 10 played consoles.
> >
> > And back to the OP: Monitor Chakas you already know I agree 100% from a discussion on a different topic post. I love how many people try and claim Halo is dying when it’s still able to pull top 10 played games on the X-Box One. Even now being so focused on Fallout 4 I still find myself booting up Halo 5 when I need some release from the open world and need to just kill some enemies in Arena.
>
>
> 5) Last I checked, Halo games released before 2012 never fell to 9th or 10th place on the XBL leader boards you’re mentioning like Halol 4 and Halo 5 a few days/weeks after release. Why do you think 343i is hiding their population counts from their game this time around? Or why Microsoft refuses to share worldwide game sale numbers for Halo 5, not including hardware? Or why any mention of population counts on these forums get locked and sent to one centralized location? These dodgy tactics are designed to make people believe that their franchise is not dying, when it is. It’s so painfully obvious.

  1. Yep. Because as I have already stated that it is better than a broken game at launch.
  2. You seem to be missing my argument completely or just don’t care. I’ve said it before so let me say it one last time: the developers don’t get to pick when their game comes out. The Publisher does. You want somebody to blame then whine at Microsoft.
  3. "Halo 2 worked properly at launch" you just lost any credit to your argument. It is obvious that you know nothing of Halo 2’s release. And no, unlike you I know what I am talking about. I am not talking about the cliff hanger ending which they had to quickly mop up (which I think they did well at). It’s the fact that they had so much more to put in the game but couldn’t get their and decided on just quickly trying to finish everything. An unbalanced game is an unplayable game to many especially the players who love being competitive like me.
  4. Look back up to #2
  5. Last I checked being in the top ten games is a pretty damn good thing so I don’t know why you’re complaining. And why do you think they are? Because I doubt they are. Do I need to start telling you how many sandwiches I eat or else you’ll be mad I’m not telling you? Or what? Is that how that works?
12

I prefer warzone to firefight and ops, I have no problem with these missing. I get some people will and they are entilteld to say so.

13

> 2533274848285823;1:
> Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i; that Halo 5 should have launched with tons more content and that nothing should have been “left out” only to be added in later. The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way. If Microsoft let 343i take five years to develop Halo 5, then I’m sure we’d be getting a much bigger package than we currently have. But unfortunately that’s not reality, and games have to ship on time. If that means adding more content via free, monthly updates after launch then so be it - that’s not something I take issue with. Sure it would have been nice to have more maps from launch but I certainly don’t consider them “missing”.

This excuse needs to -Yoink- off already. Every other AAA developer of a flagship franchise manages to do it. Are they just that good, or is 343 just that incompetent? It’s a one or the other proposition. Take this, for instance:

> 2533275007895929;11:
> Yep. Because as I have already stated that it is better than a broken game at launch.

As I’ve said for months now, 343 has lowered our standards so far that buying half a game is okay because at least it’s functioning this time. No other developer of their resources and properties has the bar set this low. Hell, part of me thinks the decision to stop trying to fix the MCC was made so that Halo 5 would look that much better in comparison. But Hanlon’s Razor strikes again, I suppose.

And incidentally, while you could argue that SO is gone because nobody liked it and FF is gone because Halo 4 didn’t bother with it either, that still doesn’t excuse the absence of oddball or any of the other gametypes that have been staples of the series for the past decade or longer.

14

> 2533274823519895;13:
> > 2533274848285823;1:
> > Part of me can’t help thinking that those parts of this community expect way too much of 343i; that Halo 5 should have launched with tons more content and that nothing should have been “left out” only to be added in later. The fact is that game development is incredibly tough, and there are time constraints every step of the way. If Microsoft let 343i take five years to develop Halo 5, then I’m sure we’d be getting a much bigger package than we currently have. But unfortunately that’s not reality, and games have to ship on time. If that means adding more content via free, monthly updates after launch then so be it - that’s not something I take issue with. Sure it would have been nice to have more maps from launch but I certainly don’t consider them “missing”.
>
>
> This excuse needs to -Yoink- off already. Every other AAA developer of a flagship franchise manages to do it. Are they just that good, or is 343 just that incompetent? It’s a one or the other proposition.
>
> And incidentally, while you could argue that SO is gone because nobody liked it and FF is gone because Halo 4 didn’t bother with it either, that still doesn’t excuse the absence of oddball or any of the other gametypes that have been staples of the series for the past decade or longer.

Amen!

15

I’m getting flashbacks from the Destiny forums, just by looking at the arguments in this thread. shudders pls stahp.1. I agree with OP completely. His argument is sound, and I have no reason to disagree.

  1. YOU try making a “complete” Halo game in 3 years; if it was easy, then glitches wouldn’t exist.

  2. The file share doesn’t exist because of the XBox DVR, and will arrive with Forge in a week or two.

  3. The amount of data it would take to add Halo 4’s Customization to Halo 5’s 700+ Customization Options would be ludicrous.

16

> 2533274823519895;13:
> > 2533275007895929;11:
> > Yep. Because as I have already stated that it is better than a broken game at launch.
>
>
> As I’ve said for months now, 343 has lowered our standards so far that buying half a game is okay because at least it’s functioning this time. No other developer of their resources and properties has the bar set this low. Hell, part of me thinks the decision to stop trying to fix the MCC was that it would make Halo 5 look that much better in comparison. But Hanlon’s Razor strikes again, I suppose.
>
> And incidentally, while you could argue that SO is gone because nobody liked it and FF is gone because Halo 4 didn’t bother with it either, that still doesn’t excuse the absence of oddball or any of the other gametypes that have been staples of the series for the past decade or longer.

And how have they lowered our standards? And really cause Bungie forced players to pay for DLC to fix a broken game called Destiny, and you either waited for Taken King after buying it the first time and spent $120 or you spent $140 paying for all the DLC so far just for it to work correctly. Again, how do you even get to these conclusions?

SO? FF?

343I has shown they aren’t that great with their time and they are also showing us that they are getting better at making games run on time. MCC isn’t even broken anymore, I can perfectly play any of the games and get on multiplayer pretty quickly and have a blast. It was broken the first couple months but I don’t see how anybody can say it is now. Now back to what I was saying. They have shown us that they are getting better even though Microsoft forced them to release the game 2 weeks early for some stupid reason.

17

> 2533274950478805;15:
> I’m getting flashbacks from the Destiny forums, just by looking at the arguments in this thread. shudders pls stahp.
> 1. I agree with OP completely. His argument is sound, and I have no reason to disagree.
>
> 2. YOU try making a “complete” Halo game in 3 years; if it was easy, then glitches wouldn’t exist.
>
> 3. The file share doesn’t exist because of the XBox DVR, and will arrive with Forge in a week or two.
>
> 4. The amount of data it would take to add Halo 4’s Customization to Halo 5’s 700+ Customization Options would be ludicrous.

Not to mention how much time it would take reworking the gametypes and creating new maps for the older gametypes like Flood/Infection and Grifball. Oh Grifball is going to be so epic with shoulder charge :smiley:

18

> 2533275007895929;16:
> > 2533274823519895;13:
> > > 2533275007895929;11:
> > > Yep. Because as I have already stated that it is better than a broken game at launch.
> >
> >
> > As I’ve said for months now, 343 has lowered our standards so far that buying half a game is okay because at least it’s functioning this time. No other developer of their resources and properties has the bar set this low. Hell, part of me thinks the decision to stop trying to fix the MCC was that it would make Halo 5 look that much better in comparison. But Hanlon’s Razor strikes again, I suppose.
> >
> > And incidentally, while you could argue that SO is gone because nobody liked it and FF is gone because Halo 4 didn’t bother with it either, that still doesn’t excuse the absence of oddball or any of the other gametypes that have been staples of the series for the past decade or longer.
>
>
> And how have they lowered our standards? And really cause Bungie forced players to pay for DLC to fix a broken game called Destiny, and you either waited for Taken King after buying it the first time and spent $120 or you spent $140 paying for all the DLC so far just for it to work correctly. Again, how do you even get to these conclusions?
>
> SO? FF?
>
> 343I has shown they aren’t that great with their time and they are also showing us that they are getting better at making games run on time. MCC isn’t even broken anymore, I can perfectly play any of the games and get on multiplayer pretty quickly and have a blast. It was broken the first couple months but I don’t see how anybody can say it is now. Now back to what I was saying. They have shown us that they are getting better even though Microsoft forced them to release the game 2 weeks early for some stupid reason.

How have they lowered our standards? Do you live on a planet where the MCC was released? It was a broken, buggy, mess of a collection. It still is, to a lesser extent. Your quote in particular sticks out to me: 343 has shown they aren’t that great with their time. Believe me, we know that, but that’s precisely my point. No other developer of their size would get this benefit of the doubt. No other fanbase would say “it’s okay that y’all suck at your jobs”.

Destiny is another can of worms entirely, but Bungie doing something arguably more reprehensible doesn’t make every other poor decision better.

19

> 2533275007895929;17:
> > 2533274950478805;15:
> > I’m getting flashbacks from the Destiny forums, just by looking at the arguments in this thread. shudders pls stahp.
> > 1. I agree with OP completely. His argument is sound, and I have no reason to disagree.
> >
> > 2. YOU try making a “complete” Halo game in 3 years; if it was easy, then glitches wouldn’t exist.
> >
> > 3. The file share doesn’t exist because of the XBox DVR, and will arrive with Forge in a week or two.
> >
> > 4. The amount of data it would take to add Halo 4’s Customization to Halo 5’s 700+ Customization Options would be ludicrous.
>
>
> Not to mention how much time it would take reworking the gametypes and creating new maps for the older gametypes like Flood/Infection and Grifball. Oh Grifball is going to be so epic with shoulder charge :smiley:

You know that you can turn off Spartan Abilities in Custom Games, right?

20

> 2533274823519895;18:
> > 2533275007895929;16:
> > > 2533274823519895;13:
> > > > 2533275007895929;11:
> > > > Yep. Because as I have already stated that it is better than a broken game at launch.
> > >
> > >
> > > As I’ve said for months now, 343 has lowered our standards so far that buying half a game is okay because at least it’s functioning this time. No other developer of their resources and properties has the bar set this low. Hell, part of me thinks the decision to stop trying to fix the MCC was that it would make Halo 5 look that much better in comparison. But Hanlon’s Razor strikes again, I suppose.
> > >
> > > And incidentally, while you could argue that SO is gone because nobody liked it and FF is gone because Halo 4 didn’t bother with it either, that still doesn’t excuse the absence of oddball or any of the other gametypes that have been staples of the series for the past decade or longer.
> >
> >
> > And how have they lowered our standards? And really cause Bungie forced players to pay for DLC to fix a broken game called Destiny, and you either waited for Taken King after buying it the first time and spent $120 or you spent $140 paying for all the DLC so far just for it to work correctly. Again, how do you even get to these conclusions?
> >
> > SO? FF?
> >
> > 343I has shown they aren’t that great with their time and they are also showing us that they are getting better at making games run on time. MCC isn’t even broken anymore, I can perfectly play any of the games and get on multiplayer pretty quickly and have a blast. It was broken the first couple months but I don’t see how anybody can say it is now. Now back to what I was saying. They have shown us that they are getting better even though Microsoft forced them to release the game 2 weeks early for some stupid reason.
>
>
> How have they lowered our standards? Do you live on a planet where the MCC was released? It was a broken, buggy, mess of a collection. It still is, to a lesser extent. Your quote in particular sticks out to me: 343 has shown they aren’t that great with their time. Believe me, we know that, but that’s precisely my point. No other developer of their size would get this benefit of the doubt. No other fanbase would say “it’s okay that y’all suck at your jobs”.
>
> Destiny is another can of worms entirely, but Bungie doing something arguably more reprehensible doesn’t make every other poor decision better.

Yes that is the question I am asking you if you didn’t noticed. And MCC was terrible at launch but then again 343I has shown they are getting better at releasing their games. You try creating a video game as everybody yells at you that they want different things. Really cause people said that to Bungie when they forced them to buy $40 DLC to fix the game. And you seem to forget that Microsoft is the ones who choose the launch date not 343I.