Why 343i developed Halo 4

Games Other Halo
1

In the Bungie ViDoc “O Brave New World”, it is stated that after Halo 3 Microsoft wanted TWO more halo titles after Bugie claimed they wanted to go independant. The circumstance was if Bungie was leaving Microsoft would own the franchise and get TWO more Halos out of Bungie:

http://youtu.be/OtG6--4r_qk?t=40m4s “Make more Halos, leave the franchise with Microsoft”

http://youtu.be/OtG6--4r_qk?t=40m37s “Harold already promised Microsoft TWO more Halos, we already had Reach, what could we do in one year with a small team? ODST”

This kind of goes to show you that Bungie was forced into developing ODST and Reach, maybe thats why many felt that they were not on par with the original trilogy.

343i was most likely formed RIGHT after Halo 3 was released and Microsoft got word that Bungie wanted to leave. Thats why Frankie suddenly left Bungie with no explanation before Halo 3’s release in 2007, so that brings up the question when was 343i really formed? During 2007 is my guess, albeit there were probably a handful of people that made up the studio.

Not trying to start a flame war, just sharing my findings.

2

Destiny was already in development during odst. There is an Easter teasing destiny in odst. That tells you bungie wasn’t focused on reach or odst

3

Personally, I already knew this.

In fact, I’ve known this for ages. I just never thought it was a huge problem. Bungie signed a contract, Microsoft wanted two more games and Bungie were legally obliged to make those games.

That isn’t being forced, it’s holding up your end of the bargain.

4

First off MS has owned Halo since 1999, but you’re right, 343 was made right after Bungie left.

5

> In the Bungie ViDoc “O Brave New World”, it is stated that after Halo 3 Microsoft wanted TWO more halo titles after Bugie claimed they wanted to go independant. The circumstance was if Bungie was leaving Microsoft would own the franchise and get TWO more Halos out of Bungie:
>
> http://youtu.be/OtG6--4r_qk?t=40m4s “Make more Halos, leave the franchise with Microsoft”
>
>
> http://youtu.be/OtG6--4r_qk?t=40m37s “Harold already promised Microsoft TWO more Halos, we already had Reach, what could we do in one year with a small team? ODST”
>
>
> This kind of goes to show you that Bungie was forced into developing ODST and Reach, maybe thats why many felt that they were not on par with the original trilogy.
>
> 343i was most likely formed RIGHT after Halo 3 was released and Microsoft got word that Bungie wanted to leave. Thats why Frankie suddenly left Bungie with no explanation before Halo 3’s release in 2007, so that brings up the question when was 343i really formed? During 2007 is my guess, albeit there were probably a handful of people that made up the studio.
>
>
> Not trying to start a flame war, just sharing my findings.

The thing is Jason Jones was the master mind behind Halo, and he was until Halo 2, his participation was small in Halo 3 to almost none because he was working already at the time on Destiny.

This is why Halo 3:ODST and REach didn’t feel the same as the other Halos, because Jason Jones was the very core of Halo itself.

Halo 3: ODST was developed by a very small bunch of designers and Halo: Reach by the rest, while the Bungie-Halo core dev team was already working on Destiny, this is why the last two Halos were so much different from the original Halo trilogy.

6

> Personally, I already knew this.
>
> In fact, I’ve known this for ages. I just never thought it was a huge problem. Bungie signed a contract, Microsoft wanted two more games and Bungie were legally obliged to make those games.
>
> That isn’t being forced, it’s holding up your end of the bargain.

Bungie developed the original trilogy because they loved Halo and knew how to make them, after 3 they want to leave Microsoft, Microsoft says not until you make us two more Halos and give us the IP.

You can’t possibly tell me that Bungie had as much joy making ODST and Reach as they did in the original trilogy. This shows in the reception that Odst and Reach received compared to Halo:CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3.

7

I’m not sure what you mean by most likely, it’s a fact. It’s weird you didn’t already know that. 343’s a subsidiary of Microsoft’s Games Division, and was formed specifically to take over the Halo franchise.

I can find quotes from 343 employees stating this if you’d like, or quotes from both companies stating that that you can count the ex-Bungie 343 employees on one hand (because I still see idiots thinking 343 is made up of mostly ex-Bungie employees, I have no idea where that -Yoink- started).

And ODST was awesome, Bungie had always planned that. But as an expansion on Halo 3, at expansion pack price. Microsoft is who forced them to publish it as a full $60 retail title, it was never intended as a main Halo game.

8

> I’m not sure what you mean by most likely, it’s a fact. It’s weird you didn’t already know that. 343’s a subsidiary of Microsoft’s Games Division, and was formed specifically to take over the Halo franchise.
>
> I can find quotes from 343 employees stating this if you’d like, or quotes from both companies stating that that you can count the ex-Bungie 343 employees on one hand (because I still see idiots thinking 343 is made up of mostly ex-Bungie employees, I have no idea where that Yoink! started).
>
>
> And ODST was awesome, Bungie had always planned that. But as an expansion on Halo 3, at expansion pack price. Microsoft is who forced them to publish it as a full $60 retail title, it was never intended as a main Halo game.

I’m not at all confused on the matter. I was just pin-pointing when 343i was starting to be conceived. And there are a few ex-Bungie employees at 343i, I know Vic DeLeon is there, an environment artist, as well as Franky of course.

I’ve met the majority of Bungie in person, I’ve spoke to Marty, Joe, Chris Carney, CJ, Rick, Brian Jarrod, Shishka (Chad Armstrong), C Paul, and others. And spoke about them leaving MS, and the creation of 343i.

As far as ODST goes, MS wanted TWO FULL Halo games, from the very beginning after Halo 3. So the question is why did Bungie first state is was an expansion, then a full retail game? MS wanted TWO $60 Halos from Bungie before they split.

9

It doesn’t matter if Bungie didn’t want to make Reach and ODST or not. They had a deal with Microsoft and they had to fulfil it. Stop hating on Microsoft, if it weren’t for them Halo probably wouldn’t have reached the heights as it has now.

10

> It doesn’t matter if Bungie didn’t want to make Reach and ODST or not. They had a deal with Microsoft and they had to fulfil it. Stop hating on Microsoft, if it weren’t for them Halo probably wouldn’t have reached the heights as it has now.

I’m not “hating” on them, I am just wondering if there is any correlation between ODST and Reach’s quality and them being forced in a way, compared to the original trilogys quality and them not being forced.

ODST and Reach werent received as well by Halo fans like 1, 2, and 3 were.

11

It seems like after Halo 3 was completely done (after the Map Packs), they were completely done with Halo. They didn’t like having anything to do with Halo anymore, and there’s proof all around. They only did more Halo because of the contract (makes legal sense), not because they actually wanted to.

They didn’t want Halo Wars to happen because they weren’t getting paid enough. They barely helped Ensemble Studios. Told them the basics really, and nothing much else.

I really liked ODST. Was a great expansion. And the small group at Bungie was happy to make it because it felt just like CE did when they made it as a small group. However, during ODST’s development, Bungie got rid of the BR, because they didn’t like it. They didn’t care if the majority of the community liked it. They didn’t like it, so they got rid of it. While this was completely their decision to make, of course, it showed they were caring less about their community, something they’re very well known for.

Reach was absoultely terrible. Only it’s Forge and Customs were treated well. Reach’s Campaign wasn’t canon because Bungie didn’t give a Yoink about that. The Multiplayer was terrible, and after many many complaints, Bungie just completely ignored them.

That’s why I see two different Bungies. There’s the Halo-era Bungie, the awesome one that I know and love, that gave great care to both Halo and its community. And then there’s the Destiny-era Bungie, that could give a care less about Halo and its community. That’s why I won’t buy Destiny, or at the least their last one. If they could care less about Halo after they were done with it, what makes me think they’ll care about a new game that I could care less about and that they won’t repeat history once they work on their last one? Not to mention they’re with Activision now. That by itself makes me not want to buy Destiny.

I’m very glad 343i is now in charge with Halo. They’ve done very great so far with Halo and its community, IMO.
However, whether they repeat the same “Reach” process with not caring about the game and the community much once they’re done with Halo is yet to be seen. I’m really hoping that doesn’t happen, and with the way they’re treating their game and community so far makes me think this won’t happen. However, Bungie was the same thing once before, so that’s why I unfortunately think it may happen.

12

> > Personally, I already knew this.
> >
> > In fact, I’ve known this for ages. I just never thought it was a huge problem. Bungie signed a contract, Microsoft wanted two more games and Bungie were legally obliged to make those games.
> >
> > That isn’t being forced, it’s holding up your end of the bargain.
>
> Bungie developed the original trilogy because they loved Halo and knew how to make them, after 3 they want to leave Microsoft, Microsoft says not until you make us two more Halos and give us the IP.
>
>
> You can’t possibly tell me that Bungie had as much joy making ODST and Reach as they did in the original trilogy. This shows in the reception that Odst and Reach received compared to Halo:CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3.

Microsoft already owned the Halo IP in 1999.

They merely had a contract stating that BUNGIE would be making two additional Halo games. Now that has been done, they’re gone.

13

> It seems like after Halo 3 was completely done (after the Map Packs), they were completely done with Halo. They didn’t like having anything to do with Halo anymore, and there’s proof all around.
>
> They didn’t want Halo Wars to happen because they weren’t getting paid enough. They barely helped Ensemble Studios. Told them the basics really, and nothing much else.
>
> I really liked ODST. Was a great expansion. However, during ODST’s development, Bungie got rid of the BR, because they didn’t like it. They didn’t care if the majority of the community liked it. They didn’t like it, so they got rid of it. While this was completely their decision to make, of course, it showed they were caring less about their community, something they’re very well known for.
>
> Reach was absoultely terrible. Only it’s Forge and Customs were treated well. Reach’s Campaign wasn’t canon because Bungie didn’t give a Yoink about that. The Multiplayer was terrible, and after many many complaints, Bungie just completely ignored them.
>
> That’s why I see two different Bungies. There’s the Halo-era Bungie, the awesome one that I know and love, that gave great care to both Halo and its community. And then there’s the Destiny-era Bungie, that could give a care less about Halo and its community. That’s why I won’t buy Destiny, or at the least their last one. If they could care less about Halo after they were done with it, what makes me think they’ll care about a new game that I could care less about and that they won’t repeat history once they work on their last one? Not to mention they’re with Activision now. That by itself makes me not want to buy Destiny.
>
> I’m very glad 343i is now in charge with Halo. They’ve done very great so far with Halo and its community, IMO.
> However, whether they repeat the same “Reach” process with not caring about the game and the community much once they’re done with Halo is yet to be seen. I’m really hoping that doesn’t happen, and with the way they’re treating their game and community so far makes me think this won’t happen. However, Bungie was the same thing once before, so that’s why I think it may happen.

Thats what I’m saying, they started to be… careless in a sense after Halo 3 came out.

14

I still find it hard to believe that some people enjoyed Halo 3: ODST. I mean, the story is boring, the characters cliche, the game design was bad… pretty much everything in the game is wrong, except for the music. Marty, as usual, you did a great job.

You are in a group of ODSTs with characters that you’ve seen in every war movie, with the “oh so great” leader, the soldier who has a bad attitude but can get the job done, the strict-by-the-book soldier, and the girl who places her career over her relationship. Yes, I know I’m missing one more, but honestly, I never cared about him because the game never bothered with him. It doesn’t helps that your character has no personality at all. Seriously, at this point Joseph Staten should know better.

At the beginning of the game I found myself confused, just like in Bioshock 2, not knowing what’s my motivation. The Superintendent was a very ambitious idea, and I really liked the concept, but it barely appeared on the game. The city also felt boring, not the charming Mombasa I visited in Halo 2, but just a sterile, boring city. After I fell from my drop pod, I already wanted to leave the city. And what is the Rookie doing? Looking for objects? I mean, when you think about it, it barely makes sense, he should be looking for a -Yoink- Banshee or Phantom to escape as soon as possible, or the Superintendent should have some sort of personality. Perhaps you should contact Dare as soon as you wake up, to have some sort of motivation, you know, like in the original Bioshock. You’re alone, nervous, I can assure you if I was in his position, I wouldn’t care about Romeo’s broken Sniper Rifle, or Dare’s Recon helmet… oh, wait, the game was released in 2009, when Recon was still cool, I take all my statements back.

The plot twist felt like watching The Village, directed by the mastermind who brought us The Last Airbender, M. Night Shyamalan. There’s like some sort of super secret mission. It’s so damn important that you had your priorities changed. Kill a prophet? Too mainstream, we have something better prepared to you. I was actually crossing my fingers, hoping that the revelation would blow my -Yoinking!- mind and redeem the game. The mission? Save an Engineer. Yep… just like The Village…

15

Dude, they weren’t forced. They were still allowed to work on the games at their own pace, with all their heart and soul from the franchise.

ODST was an experimental look into Halo: CE. They wanted to see what they could do in the same amount of time they used for Halo: CE. To see if the tighter schedule was a great inspiration and motivation that helped made Halo: CE a good game.

Reach was more of a love letter to the actual fans of the franchise and the universe, by setting the game around an event they all know and care about. They also wanted to end the franchise “full-circle” by ending the game where they started.

16

You obviously dont understand forced. You might as well say that were forced to pay for simple things like food and such everyday were basically signing contracts based on trust through money. The same way MS trusted Bungie to produce the amount of top notch Halo titles before there contract while Bungie trusted them to support there company so they could keep producing the series they loved.

17

> You obviously dont understand forced. You might as well say that were forced to pay for simple things like food and such everyday were basically signing contracts based on trust through money. The same way MS trusted Bungie to produce the amount of top notch Halo titles before there contract while Bungie trusted them to support there company so they could keep producing the series they loved.

You think Reach and ODST were on par with the original Trilogy? Myself and many other Halo fans bought the games out of respect for Bungie. Bungie’s last two titles were no where near as good as their earlier games IMO and I know many others feel the same way.

343i seems like they care about Halo more than Bungie did after Halo 3 shipped. Halo 4 is miles better than Reach ever was.

18

> 343i seems like they care about Halo more than Bungie did after Halo 3 shipped. <mark>Halo 4 is miles better than Reach ever was.</mark>

Very debatable, especially in light of Reach having better custom game options, a fully functional Theater system and, in my opinion, a better Campaign. The new Halo book released, Silentium, makes Halo 4’s campaign less aggravating, but a book coming out about 5 months after the game releases to make sense of said is shoddy writing at best in Halo 4’s case.

19

> > 343i seems like they care about Halo more than Bungie did after Halo 3 shipped. <mark>Halo 4 is miles better than Reach ever was.</mark>
>
> Very debatable, especially in light of Reach having better custom game options, a fully functional Theater system and, in my opinion, a better Campaign. The new Halo book released, Silentium, makes Halo 4’s campaign less aggravating, but a book coming out about 5 months after the game releases to make sense of said is shoddy writing at best in Halo 4’s case.

I understand that statement I made is very debatable, and many are very dissapointed with Halo 4. I just find Halo 4 overall more fun to play. Whether its the return of the Chief, the Prometheans, the plethora of new and returning weapons, more armor and what seems to be more DLC, Halo 4 is not as bad as some make it seem.

20

> > > 343i seems like they care about Halo more than Bungie did after Halo 3 shipped. <mark>Halo 4 is miles better than Reach ever was.</mark>
> >
> > Very debatable, especially in light of Reach having better custom game options, a fully functional Theater system and, in my opinion, a better Campaign. The new Halo book released, Silentium, makes Halo 4’s campaign less aggravating, but a book coming out about 5 months after the game releases to make sense of said is shoddy writing at best in Halo 4’s case.
>
> I understand that statement I made is very debatable, and many are very dissapointed with Halo 4. I just find Halo 4 overall more fun to play. Whether its the return of the Chief, the Prometheans, the plethora of new and returning weapons, more armor and what seems to be more DLC, <mark>Halo 4 is not as bad as some make it seem.</mark>

I’d have to disagree. Chief and Cortana and their relationship are the only good things I have to say about the Campaign. I just didn’t feel like I was playing a Halo game. I’d hoped Spartan Ops would be good, but too much recycled environments and the hype of it being a “second campaign” turned me off because it is not that at all.