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

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.

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.

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.

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

After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander

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.

After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander

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

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

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.

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

[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

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.

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Which is a shame, because fighting along side other SPARTAN-II's would be GLORIOUS.FrozenLiquid

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.

Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.DarkLink77

After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander

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.

After reading Fall of Reach I find the concept of John as a silent protagonist to be a complete waste of a character.Zeviander

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.

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

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

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Did Karen Traviss stuff up Halo? I liked reading her blogs and stuff.FrozenLiquid

[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

[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

I was never a fan of them calling Chief a Demon

[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

Halo 3? Little better

Halo 4 and Reach? new ballgame

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

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.

[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

Halo 3? Little better

Halo 4 and Reach? new ballgame

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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

[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.

[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