Ten Years of Halo: What Bungie Did Right and What Bungie Did Wrong (1up)

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

Yes, I realize there's a Halo 4 hype thread, but this is about the franchise under Bungie, so I thought it deserved it's own.

The story:

For ten years, Halo has meant Bungie and Bungie has meant Halo. Now that the Halo baton has been handed to 343 Industries, it's the end of one era and presumably the beginning of another. What better time to look back at what went right and what went wrong?

Bungie did weapons right

If there's one thing a shooter has to get right, it's the guns. A hallmark of Halo was that every weapon was unique. They each had personality, whether it was the way the needler's ammo popped out like porcupine quills or whatever that indicator on the battle rifle was pointing at. North? Is there north on a halo? What's more, every weapon was useful given the right circumstances. Even the lowly pistol had a little sniper rifle in it. And Halo never afforded you the luxury of just picking your favorite weapon and sticking with it. You had to scavenge weapons as you played. You had to experience firsthand the diverse arsenal. Furthermore, can any developer match Bungie's reputation for treating weapon balance and tuning with the utmost seriousness and detail? I once attended a GDC talk given by a Bungie developer discussing the velocity of their sniper rifle bullet. It was -- no joke -- fascinating.

Bungie did writing wrong

The storytelling in the Halo series has always been awkward at best, incoherent at worst, and overly earnest throughout. Meanwhile, other notable developers played with new ways to tell stories in a genre where the main mode of interaction was shooting something. Bungie's stories never made their way into the gameplay (the introduction of the Flood in the much maligned library was a rare exception). They bent our ears with exposition during cutscenes. To make matters worse, a story about a guy in a badass suit of armor saving the universe should not be convoluted. Yet we got some sort of prophecy mumbo jumbo, a bunch of hoo-ha about alien artifacts, and the talking plant fromLittle Shop of Horrors. Can anyone explain Gravemind to me? At least the weirdly moody ODSTand the forced war-is-hell-so-let's-take-turns-at-noble-sacrifices of Halo Reachwere something different.

Bungie did aliens right

It's called a shooter. What you're shooting at is equally important as what you're shooting with. Just as the guns had personality, so too did the aliens. The grunts scuttled confusedly, just as likely to huck a fatal plasma grenade as they were to run away. Elites sidestepped adroitly when you popped their shields. Brutes heaved their hammers mightily. And oh how you had to agonize over the unique dilemma of how to smack a hunter in its squishy back while avoiding its obligatory twin. Seriously guys, if you'd just show up one at a time, my life would be much easier. Even the ancillary aliens had their place. Sentries were always a cause for serious dread or serious relief. And love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit the Flood weren't your garden variety zombie apocalypse. Bungie provided as rich and diverse a shooting gallery as any game could hope to have.

Bungie did characters wrong

The humans don't fare nearly as well in the Halo universe. Master Chief was a stuffed suit. Of green armor. He didn't even have a face. He was from a time when the player character was a mute cypher. I'm still surprised every time I hear him speak. I can see him and Gordon Freeman getting along royally. Cortana, Guilty Spark, Miranda Keyes, and the cigar chomping Johnson were all derivative and/or underdeveloped. The cast of Reach is straight out of a Call of Duty game. I'd argue the only interesting character in the entire series is the Arbiter, which is probably because Bungie knows how to do aliens right. See above.

Hit the jump for the full article.

_________________

I agree and disagree. Having the Chief largely be a blnk slate was, I think, a very good decision. I also disagree about Cortana being a bad character, and found the moment-to-moment writing to be solid overall.

I agree that they did DLC wrong, and bots would have been nice, but their absence isn't game-breaking.

Your thoughts, System Warriors?

Also, inb4 people realize this is the same guy that gave Halo 4 a 20 and likes the Flood and use that to discredit the article.

#2 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -

Disagree with

-Their complaint on what they did wrong in MP

The rest I would say are valid. His take against a silent protagonist is at least consistent. It's not like when someone says Masterchief is a brick, and then in the same f*cking sentence acts like Gordon Freeman is this beacon of videogame character excellence. Because he himself is a f*cking brick.

#3 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

Disagree with

-Their complaint on what they did wrong in MP

The rest I would say are valid. His take against a silent protagonist is at least consistent. It's not like when someone says Masterchief is a brick, and then in the same f*cking sentence acts like Gordon Freeman is this beacon of videogame character excellence. Because he himself is a f*cking brick.

jg4xchamp

Well thank Christ someone can be consistent in that regard. :P

I still diagree about Cortana being a bad character, though.

#4 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
He's mostly right, but I hated being called Demon. Most cornball nickname in gaming. I liked how in Halo: CE you could tell the Elites and Jackals were dropping their sacks at you decimating their allies by their panicked alien talk. When they started going all 'The Demon is here!', sounded like the sci-fi version of Return of the Living Dead. But yeah, good article. He should've ended with Bungie did gameplay right. They did story wrong.
#5 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.
#6 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
Oh yeah, and also, I like the Chief as a silent character. Dammit he is so annoying in Halo 4 when he constantly yaps to Cortana. Inane dialogue is not character development.
#7 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16570 posts) -

I think people can agree that Johnson, Keyes, and Sparks aren't great characters. However, that still doesn't stop them from being likable.

#8 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -
After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander
My guess is that's a major reason why Bungie wanted complete control of their next IP. Because Halo's lore and Masterchief became something they never really intended it to be.
#9 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

They're right in a lot of aspects, but I disagree with some of them:

Character- Halo's characters are just fine. Like champ said, don't praise Freeman as one of the greatest if you think Chief is lackluster. At the end of the day, they're both essentially the same thing: a tank. One just has an energy sword and the other has a crowbar.

Multiplayer- Bungie did nothing wrong with multiplayer. The complaint for bots is absolutely stupid. Halo is fun and easy to get into. But it's a skill-based game and consistent play will make you better. Why coddle gamers with a safety net? Bots are not necessary and I hardly view them as a flaw in the connected world of gaming.

Sequels- The Halo sequels are spectacular. It seems like the biggest complaint the writer has is that "Grunts don't call me demon so I don't feel like a badass." That's lame. Halo as a series has provided the superior shooting experience almost every year that it released and if not the best, very near the best. The games may play it safe, they also enhance and refine the formula.

Aside from my disagreement with those three portions, I agree with much of the rest. The storytelling is kind of awkard. The DLC was poorly handled and over-priced as well. As for the rest of the ups, those I agree with as well.

#10 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander
Considering he's pretty much the same damn dude in that book and in the games, I don't see the issue. He just talks less because he's not giving commands to a squad.
#11 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
Oh yeah, and also, I like the Chief as a silent character. Dammit he is so annoying in Halo 4 when he constantly yaps to Cortana. Inane dialogue is not character development.FrozenLiquid
I like you. :D
#12 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -

They're right in a lot of aspects, but I disagree with some of them:

Character- Halo's characters are just fine. Like champ said, don't praise Freeman as one of the greatest if you think Chief is lackluster. At the end of the day, they're both essentially the same thing: a tank. One just has an energy sword and the other has a crowbar.

NeonNinja

But he didn't. He's actually calling out most silent protagonists in a sense

Sequels- The Halo sequels are spectacular. It seems like the biggest complaint the writer has is that "Grunts don't call me demon so I don't feel like a badass." That's lame. Halo as a series has provided the superior shooting experience almost every year that it released and if not the best, very near the best. The games may play it safe, they also enhance and refine the formula.

That's crap

#13 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Considering he's pretty much the same damn dude in that book and in the games, I don't see the issue. He just talks less because he's not giving commands to a squad.DarkLink77
Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.
#14 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

They're right in a lot of aspects, but I disagree with some of them:

Character- Halo's characters are just fine. Like champ said, don't praise Freeman as one of the greatest if you think Chief is lackluster. At the end of the day, they're both essentially the same thing: a tank. One just has an energy sword and the other has a crowbar.

jg4xchamp

But he didn't. He's actually calling out most silent protagonists in a sense

Sequels- The Halo sequels are spectacular. It seems like the biggest complaint the writer has is that "Grunts don't call me demon so I don't feel like a badass." That's lame. Halo as a series has provided the superior shooting experience almost every year that it released and if not the best, very near the best. The games may play it safe, they also enhance and refine the formula.

That's crap

Silent characters- I agree with him that silent characters are a lame crutch. It was worst in ODST where "The Rookie" didn't speak at all and when spoken to just shrugged. I think the rest are fine, Guilty Spark, Cortana, The Arbiter and Johnson. My point wasn't in disagreement with him, but how everyone here thinks Freeman is such a wonderful characters "because he channels the feelings of the player" or whatever crap reasons people have. It's the same deal. I'm in agreement with him, and you, for the silent characters. I think the speaking characters are just fine though.

Sequels- You know they're fun man. C'mon, just admit it.

#15 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Considering he's pretty much the same damn dude in that book and in the games, I don't see the issue. He just talks less because he's not giving commands to a squad.Zeviander
Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.

It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.
#16 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Oh yeah, and also, I like the Chief as a silent character. Dammit he is so annoying in Halo 4 when he constantly yaps to Cortana. Inane dialogue is not character development.DarkLink77
I like you. :D

*brofist* Honestly though, if the Chief must have character development, do it through the gameplay. It's going to completely change the feel of the game though, so you gotta have kahunas to do it. Just a random idea that someone could possibly elaborate/debate though: a mission in Halo 4 could have been the archvillain doing his archvillainous thang, and the level is basically you vs. a his personal guard/army, and the environment is set up for you have an elaborate, glorious battle. But you've got... I dunno, two minutes to get Cortana to a doctor for her rampancy, so you gotta leg it to the end. If you stop to have fun, her boobs grow so large they explode and she dies. But yeah, that sort of thing completely changes what Halo is, and maybe that's what Halo needs to keep it fresh, but at the same time, it's the route Bungie DID NOT want to go down.
#17 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Considering he's pretty much the same damn dude in that book and in the games, I don't see the issue. He just talks less because he's not giving commands to a squad.DarkLink77
Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.

It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

That wouldn't necessarily make him less badass. Badass is a mentality. Admiral Adama can't do sh1t in a fist fight or in a viper anymore, and he's by far the biggest badass on Battlestar.
#18 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.

It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

That wouldn't necessarily make him less badass. Badass is a mentality. Admiral Adama can't do sh1t in a fist fight or in a viper anymore, and he's by far the biggest badass on Battlestar.

True. But his badassery comes from how good he is as a commander. The Chief's (in the games) comes from him riding f*cking bombs into space to blow up capital ships. The only time we ever see him as a leader of men is in the books. Making him look inferior to other Spartans in the games would take away so much from the character it's not even funny.
#19 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Considering he's pretty much the same damn dude in that book and in the games, I don't see the issue. He just talks less because he's not giving commands to a squad.DarkLink77
Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.

It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

I thought it was pretty suspicious that you never see any other spartans in Halo 2 and 3, despite them apparently surviving in the EU. It's like Bungie just said f*ck off, Chief's the last one in our games.
#20 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Oh yeah, and also, I like the Chief as a silent character. Dammit he is so annoying in Halo 4 when he constantly yaps to Cortana. Inane dialogue is not character development.FrozenLiquid
I like you. :D

*brofist* Honestly though, if the Chief must have character development, do it through the gameplay. It's going to completely change the feel of the game though, so you gotta have kahunas to do it. Just a random idea that someone could possibly elaborate/debate though: a mission in Halo 4 could have been the archvillain doing his archvillainous thang, and the level is basically you vs. a his personal guard/army, and the environment is set up for you have an elaborate, glorious battle. But you've got... I dunno, two minutes to get Cortana to a doctor for her rampancy, so you gotta leg it to the end. If you stop to have fun, her boobs grow so large they explode and she dies. But yeah, that sort of thing completely changes what Halo is, and maybe that's what Halo needs to keep it fresh, but at the same time, it's the route Bungie DID NOT want to go down.

I mean, it's not like the Chief doesn't have any characterization or anything in the previous games. You watch him move in cutscenes, you watch how he leans down to pick up Cortana in Halo 3, you watch him talk to Johnson or his COs at pretty much any point, and you have a damn good idea of who the Chief is. Making him talk more does not add to this. His already been characterized, just not in the traditional "Let me tell you about my feelings" sense. And to me, the former is far more interesting.
#21 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.

It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

That wouldn't necessarily make him less badass. Badass is a mentality. Admiral Adama can't do sh1t in a fist fight or in a viper anymore, and he's by far the biggest badass on Battlestar.

What are you suggesting. "Press X to sh1t on Linda". Chief may be a badass, but he ain't a grandaddy lol
#22 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.FrozenLiquid
It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

I thought it was pretty suspicious that you never see any other spartans in Halo 2 and 3, despite them apparently surviving in the EU. It's like Bungie just said f*ck off, Chief's the last one in our games.

I think the EU went a lot farther than Bungie ever intended it to go.

I mean, I don't mind that much, because I liked Halo's EU (inb4Champ)up until about the time they let Karen Traviss write Halo novels (Eric Nylund she is not), but it was pretty obvious that in Bungie's eyes, the Chief was the ultimate Spartan.

#23 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.
#24 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.FrozenLiquid
They let her write some of the newer novels. They really haven't gone over well with the fanbase.
#25 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] It would also completely undermine the Chief's claim to the whole "I'm the most badass badass to ever badass" thing. I mean, hell, if they put you on a sniping mission, with, say Linda, and actually made it follow the lore, you'd feel like a f*cking chump.

I honestly never saw John as this "biggest badass" since falling in love with the series. He is essentially a child programmed and built to be a killing machine. Though, his behavior as a kid (i.e. I will always win) certainly was a step ahead of most of the others. But then he learned the value of being a team player. Does my love of FoR show a little too much? :3
#26 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.DarkLink77
They let her write some of the newer novels. They really haven't gone over well with the fanbase.

Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?
#27 Posted by Spartan070 (16355 posts) -
After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander
Thoughout the entire novelized saga he is far from silent, agreed.
#28 Posted by Heirren (17328 posts) -
What Bungie did wrong was simply following popular gameplay mechanics. There's ways to elaborate on ideas without taking away from what makes Halo, Halo. This was done exceptionally well with everything before Reach. Reach is still a great multiplayer game, but it is obvious Bungie succumbed to what was popular at the time of release.
#29 Posted by balfe1990 (6747 posts) -

Disagree with all the "bad" characters they mentioned. How the hell was Guilty Spark derivative? None of the characters were bad, they just wern't given enough screentime, as is customary with any Halo game.

Though I'm having mixed feelings with how they've handled MC's "expanded character" in Halo 4. One one side I like hearing him speak (because Steve Downes has an awesome voice), but on the other, he didn't really say much of anything. Although he does utter the word "Cortana!" about seven dozen times. When he did speak, he never said anything particularly remarkable. I'm not expecting him to be a poet, but write a few decent one liners for him, at least.

Actually, I just had a look at the whole article and I have to say, I don't agree with any of it. :lol: Bungie didn't "do DLC wrong". The SP campaigns always wrapped up, it would have been stupid to duct tape a missing chapter or something to that. So what's the next avenue for DLC? Map packs, naturally. Not sure what his problem is.

#30 Posted by ShadowsDemon (10147 posts) -
After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander
Yeah, in the books he was restless and hyper. Doesn't suit his character at all.
#31 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Disagree with all the "bad" characters they mentioned. How the hell was Guilty Spark derivative? None of the characters were bad, they just wern't given enough screentime, as is customary with any Halo game.

Though I'm having mixed feelings with how they've handled MC's "expanded character" in Halo 4. One one side I like hearing him speak (because Steve Downes has an awesome voice), but on the other, he didn't really say much of anything. Although he does utter the word "Cortana!" about seven dozen times. When he did speak, he never said anything particularly remarkable. I'm not expecting him to be a poet, but write a few decent one liners for him, at least.

Actually, I just had a look at the whole article and I have to say, I don't agree with any of it. :lol: Bungie didn't "do DLC wrong". The SP campaigns always wrapped up, it would have been stupid to duct tape a missing chapter or something to that. So what's the next avenue for DLC? Map packs, naturally. Not sure what his problem is.

balfe1990

The author did a poor job with a lot of it.

I will say though that the DLC was done wrong in terms of pricing. $10 for three maps or whatever it came out to was a ripoff.

And storytelling could have been handled better on the whole, but yeah, this is a pretty poor article.

#32 Posted by EliteM0nk3y (3382 posts) -
What Bungie did wrong was simply following popular gameplay mechanics. There's ways to elaborate on ideas without taking away from what makes Halo, Halo. This was done exceptionally well with everything before Reach. Reach is still a great multiplayer game, but it is obvious Bungie succumbed to what was popular at the time of release.Heirren
And then 343 did it even more, and we now have game that is though different, it is the same as most shooters out there.
#33 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23433 posts) -
What bungie did wrong: 1) Story. Halo Ce was great. Halo 2 started great but got steadily worse. Halo 3 and Reach were garbage. ODST was better. All pretty crappy as far storytelling goes. Way behind other games telling compelling stories. Bungie always had a great story but told it in the stupidest way. 2) Weapon balance. Their obsession with weapon balance basically resulted in everything being equally nerfed. There were always comedy guns in the beta tests. By the time the final game came out, everything feels equally weak and inadequate. 3) Obstinate refusal to admit the ****ed something up. The sword in Halo 2. It was ridiculously stupid. Way over powered. There was a petition on bnet for its removal from day one til the day Halo 3 came out. They not only ignored the uproar but included the sword in DLC maps, as if rubbing it in your face. Reach had armor lock. Same deal. After over a year of waiting for the title update to come out, it's still ****ing there.
#34 Posted by Spartan070 (16355 posts) -
What bungie did wrong: 1) Story. Halo Ce was great. Halo 2 started great but got steadily worse. Halo 3 and Reach were garbage. ODST was better. All pretty crappy as far storytelling goes. Way behind other games telling compelling stories. Bungie always had a great story but told it in the stupidest way. 2) Weapon balance. Their obsession with weapon balance basically resulted in everything being equally nerfed. There were always comedy guns in the beta tests. By the time the final game came out, everything feels equally weak and inadequate. 3) Obstinate refusal to admit the ****ed something up. The sword in Halo 2. It was ridiculously stupid. Way over powered. There was a petition on bnet for its removal from day one til the day Halo 3 came out. They not only ignored the uproar but included the sword in DLC maps, as if rubbing it in your face. Reach had armor lock. Same deal. After over a year of waiting for the title update to come out, it's still ****ing there.Ninja-Hippo
The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.
#35 Posted by Heirren (17328 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]What bungie did wrong: 1) Story. Halo Ce was great. Halo 2 started great but got steadily worse. Halo 3 and Reach were garbage. ODST was better. All pretty crappy as far storytelling goes. Way behind other games telling compelling stories. Bungie always had a great story but told it in the stupidest way. 2) Weapon balance. Their obsession with weapon balance basically resulted in everything being equally nerfed. There were always comedy guns in the beta tests. By the time the final game came out, everything feels equally weak and inadequate. 3) Obstinate refusal to admit the ****ed something up. The sword in Halo 2. It was ridiculously stupid. Way over powered. There was a petition on bnet for its removal from day one til the day Halo 3 came out. They not only ignored the uproar but included the sword in DLC maps, as if rubbing it in your face. Reach had armor lock. Same deal. After over a year of waiting for the title update to come out, it's still ****ing there.

The sword was great, and what it ought to be.
#36 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.FrozenLiquid
They let her write some of the newer novels. They really haven't gone over well with the fanbase.

Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?

I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

#37 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]What bungie did wrong: 1) Story. Halo Ce was great. Halo 2 started great but got steadily worse. Halo 3 and Reach were garbage. ODST was better. All pretty crappy as far storytelling goes. Way behind other games telling compelling stories. Bungie always had a great story but told it in the stupidest way. 2) Weapon balance. Their obsession with weapon balance basically resulted in everything being equally nerfed. There were always comedy guns in the beta tests. By the time the final game came out, everything feels equally weak and inadequate. 3) Obstinate refusal to admit the ****ed something up. The sword in Halo 2. It was ridiculously stupid. Way over powered. There was a petition on bnet for its removal from day one til the day Halo 3 came out. They not only ignored the uproar but included the sword in DLC maps, as if rubbing it in your face. Reach had armor lock. Same deal. After over a year of waiting for the title update to come out, it's still ****ing there.Spartan070
The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.

Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.
#38 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="Spartan070"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]What bungie did wrong: 1) Story. Halo Ce was great. Halo 2 started great but got steadily worse. Halo 3 and Reach were garbage. ODST was better. All pretty crappy as far storytelling goes. Way behind other games telling compelling stories. Bungie always had a great story but told it in the stupidest way. 2) Weapon balance. Their obsession with weapon balance basically resulted in everything being equally nerfed. There were always comedy guns in the beta tests. By the time the final game came out, everything feels equally weak and inadequate. 3) Obstinate refusal to admit the ****ed something up. The sword in Halo 2. It was ridiculously stupid. Way over powered. There was a petition on bnet for its removal from day one til the day Halo 3 came out. They not only ignored the uproar but included the sword in DLC maps, as if rubbing it in your face. Reach had armor lock. Same deal. After over a year of waiting for the title update to come out, it's still ****ing there.jg4xchamp
The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.

Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.

Halo 2 sword wasn't even that bad, though. Dude runs at you with sword. Are you Dual Wielding? It's Halo 2, so yes. Congrats, you win.
#39 Posted by HaloPimp978 (7295 posts) -

I was never a fan of them calling Chief a Demon

#40 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Spartan070"] The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.

Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.

Halo 2 sword wasn't even that bad, though. Dude runs at you with sword. Are you Dual Wielding? It's Halo 2, so yes. Congrats, you win.

If you're an ape, that lunge was OD. Besides the sword petitions had more to do with the crazy lunging, the canceling of rockets, the super jump sh1t and all that jazz.
#41 Posted by Spartan070 (16355 posts) -

[QUOTE="Spartan070"] The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.jg4xchamp
Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.

Halo 2 shotty is the weakest of the series and you already admitted the lounge in Halo 2 was ridiculous.

Halo 3? Little better

Halo 4 and Reach? new ballgame

#42 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.

Halo 2 sword wasn't even that bad, though. Dude runs at you with sword. Are you Dual Wielding? It's Halo 2, so yes. Congrats, you win.

If you're an ape, that lunge was OD. Besides the sword petitions had more to do with the crazy lunging, the canceling of rockets, the super jump sh1t and all that jazz.

Not defending the glitches, but, not counting them, if you couldn't figure out how to counter a sword in Halo 2, you were a baddy.
#43 Posted by catfishmoon23 (5197 posts) -

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] They let her write some of the newer novels. They really haven't gone over well with the fanbase.DarkLink77

Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?

I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

#44 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Spartan070"] The sword would have been ok if the shotgun killed anyone from farther than melee reach. You had to impale someone with the barrel then pull the trigger.Spartan070

Get the f*ck out the sword gets clowned by a shotgun any day of the weak in Reach. He's talking about Halo 2 when the sword had all those awesome glitches in its favor.

Halo 2 shotty is the weakest of the series and you already admitted the lounge in Halo 2 was ridiculous.

Halo 3? Little better

Halo 4 and Reach? new ballgame

I get that, but you're saying the shotgun couldn't kill in Reach.....................ooooooooooooooooooooo melee reach....my bad.
#45 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?catfishmoon23

I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

I miss Eric Nylund. :(
#46 Posted by ShadowsDemon (10147 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?catfishmoon23

I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

I was about to buy it myself. I read it for a bit, and it doesn't seem to bad actually.
#47 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Oh dear, what did she do that messed with the EU?catfishmoon23

I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

I've got a backlog of Halo books to read, but I dunno if I wanna read 'em coz I just don't like bad prose. A lot of the novels felt like the written version of Bungie level story telling. I might try again. I'll start with Ghosts of Onyx and then I have Contact Harvest. I wanna try Joseph Staten, coz he wrote the original Halo game pretty well in my opinion.
#48 Posted by DarkLink77 (31697 posts) -
[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I haven't read them myself, but if you want specifics, I'd check out the customer reviews here.

FrozenLiquid

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

I've got a backlog of Halo books to read, but I dunno if I wanna read 'em coz I just don't like bad prose. A lot of the novels felt like the written version of Bungie level story telling. I might try again. I'll start with Ghosts of Onyx and then I have Contact Harvest. I wanna try Joseph Staten, coz he wrote the original Halo game pretty well in my opinion.

Ghosts of Onyx is so good. Probably my favorite Halo book. Well, that or Fall of Reach. I haven't read Contact Harvest, though. And I'd recommend staying away from Cole Protocol. It's just not interesting.
#49 Posted by FrozenLiquid (12815 posts) -
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

To be fair, the second book in the "Kilo-five" trilogy seems to have garnered a much better reputation.

I can't vouch for it because I'm still reading Glasslands, which definitely does have flaws, but is still enjoyable enough to read. Really though, I'm trudging throught so I can start on the Thursday War.

DarkLink77
I've got a backlog of Halo books to read, but I dunno if I wanna read 'em coz I just don't like bad prose. A lot of the novels felt like the written version of Bungie level story telling. I might try again. I'll start with Ghosts of Onyx and then I have Contact Harvest. I wanna try Joseph Staten, coz he wrote the original Halo game pretty well in my opinion.

Ghosts of Onyx is so good. Probably my favorite Halo book. Well, that or Fall of Reach. I haven't read Contact Harvest, though. And I'd recommend staying away from Cole Protocol. It's just not interesting.

They made a book out of a backstory's plot device? :?
#50 Posted by jg4xchamp (48357 posts) -
What are you guys even talking about? What the f*ck do any of those titles even mean, besides Fall of Reach. That extended universe is so ga...lame.