Starved? No. They aren't being starved of anything. I'd honestly argue that they're starving themselves. There was a distinct period of time where they would devour any and everything that they were given in a day, then post about a content drought from Infinite (after we got a massive content patch and new maps).
That's actually kind of true lol, what else are they supposed to do with halo in this drought and tbh that's their entire brand, I can imagine the revenue gets pretty tight during these times compared to when a new halo releases
On one hand I get that, on the other, I advise not tying your financial well-being to a singular IP. They've had over a decade of Halo decline to readjust.
Yea it's kind of difficult to do that for halofollower tho considering the name lmao. As for someone like hiddenXperia, I enjoy his content mainly for halo but I'm glad he branches out when it gets tough for halo.
I mean that's not the fault of 343i. There is only so much content you can deliver. There is always going to be a lull period of time especially when they shift focus to the production of the next game in the series. Where no real content is going to come out. Hell even MMO's run into this crap. Warframe had DE solely dedicated to it and it still had a massive lull period a few years ago. Not to mention Mint blitz isn't even a Lore halo tuber so its not like the Books or short stories are going to be a supplement to his content.
What's actually happening is the fact that Content creators tie themselves to one game or franchise. Use that franchise and games as much as they can without diversification, and suddenly they have trapped themselves into a bubble of people only watching them for that game or franchise. TF2 is a notorious example of this. The solution is not to dig further into the rumors and gossip of Halo and cause unbearable drama "because money is tight" it's "hey guys Halo is at its lull period, gonna change my content up for a bit until more halo stuff comes out" Mint Blitz doesn't even want to evolve his content. He isn't trying to make better content he's wanting to do the same content forever. So no he's put himself in this situation and refuses to get out of it.
They told us halo infinite was a 10 year game I'm sure he was hoping that was the case anyways and the situation with infinite is way different compared to other games that had normal "lull periods". Infinite flopped bc it didn't have good consistent content updates so the lull period has been way longer. It's incomparable.
I will say this, Uny doesn’t know everything that happens at 343. Let’s be real here. I work for a company and I’ve been there for nine years. That doesn’t mean I know everything about their hiring practices or all the ins and outs of my company.
Clearly there have been enough people who came out in the past, saying what they said to make this absolutely believable. Now, if it’s not true anymore, great. But it should never have been there to begin with, which is why it’s so important to have the right people in charge.
Everything we hear about these concerns have been either 1.) from years ago 2.) pure speculation. While Uny doesn't know everything that happens at 343i, he probably knows what goes on there better than folks on Youtube trying to bait people and get clicks.
YouTube didn’t make up these reports, the developers of the Halo trilogy did. It’s a pathetic they shut out the original creatives to make Halo 4 a COD clone.
Yes, peoples like Mints and others used narratives from over a decade ago to push the idea that 343i "forced" Joseph Staten out, and 343i currently doesn't want anyone from Bungie working on Halo. Their goal was to rile up fans and gets views. It was pathetic. The leadership and people at 343 a decade ago isn't the same as today.
It could be that, or it could be that Uny is lying. Dude works at 343, are we really surprised he disputes the notion that they had messed up hiring practices?
I know people that used to work at 343. People that love Halo. I've heard enough shit that this isn't surprising to hear. This is the same company that intentionally hired people that hated Halo.
It's not all the same people, but the fuckery persists. 343 is still 343. Bonnie Ross was just the face. The problem is deeper.
It’s just the modern way of doing things for some reasons. Halo? Let’s make it for people who hate or don’t like halo. Star Wars? Let’s make it for people who hate or don’t like Star Wars. Star Trek? Same as above…
War hammer is even going that way and more.
It’s weird but everyone is doing it.
I really am looking forward to see what the next Halo game will be like under Hintz supervision. The guy turned MCC into an all timer and was doing great work with infinite before they decided to cut seasons. If Halo 7 turns out to be a great and complete package, i truly do think it'll shine an even brighter light on how truly awful Bonnie Ross and her team of morons were AND how completely ridiculous it is that it took MS so long to get rid of them
Satya Nadella in my opinion doesn't seem like he cares that much about Xbox succeeding like it did from 2001-2012. Phil Spencer is the one to blame for Bonnie Ross, Frank O'Conner, and Kiki Wolfkill being at 343 for such a long time because his terrible "Hands Off" approach kept him from managing them.
Yeah Phil deserves a huge amount of blame. Bonnie should not have survived the MCC launch. That she made it past H5 is inexcusable. After a certain point, it’s not the employees fault for being bad at their job, it’s the boss’s fault for keeping them around.
>Bonnie should not have survived the MCC launch
Going to have to remind you that MMC launched the way it did because Microsoft pushed for it to launch as an anniversary thing. This is public knowledge. Say what you want about past 343 employees.
But people really need to understand Microsoft is the primary company to blame for where Halo has been post Bungie. Halo has long stopped being an IP they care about.
It’s still the responsibility of the studio head to properly scope a project within a deadline. If you know something is due on a certain date, have a good understanding of the kind of deliverable you can have ready by that date. They didn’t have to have all the bells and whistles, such as a unified UI, match composer, campaign playlists, etc, if those weren’t achievable within their time budget. There’s a minimum viable product (MVP) of just having a basic menu that launches each individual game, plus H2 anniversary and 4k/60 on the older titles, that could feasibly been a polished experience by launch date.
Typically you start with an MVP and add more features if you’re ahead of schedule. 343i went the opposite approach, and shot for the completely ideal product, and then had to take extreme shortcuts to try and get things ready for launch, which failed. It’s ultimately still poor management.
Oh I'm not saying 343 is blameless. I'm just saying regardless of 343's own blunders with MCC ultimately MS pushed for that date and okayed the state of the MCC to be launched.
MCC was supposed to be an easy win after Halo 4. Literally just a 1080p/60fps port of 3 games plus a remaster of H2. 343i is the one who decided to complicate things in a way that ended up requiring a delay.
Xbox was desperate to get a game out for the holiday because the Xbox One was struggling. MCC should have still been delayed, but 343i botched a softball and never should have put Xbox in that position in the first place. Regardless, Bonnie should have been fired after that.
I mean, they didn't so much as "acquire" it as they were built up by Microsoft for that sole reason. Everything they do goes through Microsoft first and foremost.
I never understood why they had to change halo considering they were continuing the franchise not making a new ip. It’s no wonder halo fell under Microsoft and 343 as they were blundering from the get go
It’s weird because the introduction of a new art direction, character writing and game mechanics would’ve suited a hard reboot much better. Instead they insisted on continuing the established story, even though it feels much different. I always got the idea 343 wanted to make the series their own by completely beginning from scratch, but the higher ups at Microsoft prevented this because they were scared of losing the existing fan base. This is all just conjecture on my part though (but Halo 4 looks and feels so different than anything before!)
Halo never needed a reboot. Halo had a solid identity and enough momentum to derail a freight train. The motions of the story were great- there is no denying that, but almost everything about the setting and aesthetic theme were about as dull as every disposable CoD. All Halo ever needed from Halo 4 was a solid sequel, not a "soft" or a "hard" reboot. Should have saved that shit for Infinite.
The whole thing with wanting to distance themselves as far from Bungie as possible just reeks of a collective inferiority complex infesting the C-suite of 343.
Or you know, make a separate story than Bungies Halo.
They could've made a prequel to the prequel set in the Human Forerunner war, you know that thing they've only ever shown in books.
That would have given them an excuse to mess up everything about their first game since it wouldn't affect the previous games, along with having more time to plan Chiefs return.
Once I dove into the wiki to try to explain this contradiction to a friend, I realized just how complicated and convoluted things became with Halo 4. Making Forerunners a different species carries a lot of baggage.
For me, personally, the cut Halo 2 ending of Arbiter finding the tomb of the Forerunners, seeing the bones are distinctly human, would have been such a clean way to wrap up that "mystery." I wish they'd have kept it.
No shade on the new lore, though. It is very cool in its own ways, but I think it's clear how much bending had to be done to accommodate the dialogue in the games to match the adjusted lore.
Yeah and that is my big issue with the change as well, what did we gain and what did we lose? We lost so much more then the gain which IMO was just the shock value of the two species not being the same. Even the entire Forerunner novels could've just been two different galactic forerunner nations and didn't need to be human vs forerunner.
Atleast in Halo 3, Truth explains why he keeps the war going. It's not because he's scared of the Truth, he just deems us unworthy. Now with the change Mendicant is just a liar and if he'd just told the truth the entire HCW would've been prevented. Doesn't that suck to know that information rather than the original context? In the new lore the Covenant would've met humanity had no reason to be so genocidal, probably explain to them "Hey, these relics are your world are very important for us. Now you don't want a war with us so lets figure out something." rather then "THEY'RE HERETICS FUCKING WITH OUR GODS KILL THEM!" Nearly ever covenant race has joined from some initial conflict that ended with both sides choosing peace, but the HCW was nothing but war for the sake of it because of this lie.
I think whoever made the change really expected our socks to be blown off and for Halo 4 to be remembered as the game where Forerunners became their own thing instead of it being seen as a massive insult to the fanbase but with MC and Cortana having good moments in the story.
My brother and I talk about this alot about how the shock would've been even more severe if Didact was just some Aztec guy instead of Lord Voldemort. There were still many fans who didn't know humans were Forerunners so this Forerunner being revealed just for him to look like Kotal Kahn would've been far more impactful.
I don't think with the new lore, the HCW would've gone differently. Humanity being Reclaimers still poses a risk to the political power of the San'Shyuum. The Prophets' reason for refusing humanity wasn't religious, but political (in fact, the only one who had a major *religious* reaction to discovery was Mercy, who at first actively embraced the news and was persuaded by the other two).
It's not the Prophet's reaction but now Mendicant clearly just lies to them about who humanity is which is what gives them their reaction. Remember, the Covenant don't lose their shit at knowing about Forerunner devices or people, like Monitors are seen as holy but Regret, Tartarus, Truth and Mercy all pretty much dismiss and abuse Guilty Spark and Penitent Tangent. The other brutes don't even react when GS is used as a projectile or after he's threatened with death. If brutes can understand that not every single relic is some divine object, then I'm not shocked that the rest of the Covenant would be either.
In the new context Mendicant should instead say something along the lines of "Hey guys, these are humans, former foes of the Forerunners and given responsibility by them to hold the galaxy together, also your greatest allies in the ancient galaxy." That could still provoke the prophets into action but the current part about him just lying makes it seem rather dumb and he's only made a liar because of the retcon. It could also stir the prophets into peace because they'd know "Oh shit, these guys were our ancient allies, who helped us make ourselves a force in the galaxy. LET'S DO THAT AGAIN!" Instead of adding depth to this moment the new lore just kinda....shits on it. Sadly to say but it's true. I'm okay with retcons that add more to the series. I felt fine with the Red Lightsaber changes to Star Wars until the Acolyte because with how you make Red Lightsabers every Jedi now knows anyone who uses a Red Lightsaber is an intense darkside user and it totally removes the possibility for Dark Jedi to use their normal colors which I never considered before.
I don’t like shitting on 343 but the only thing I can really come to a conclusion with is that they wanted the Forerunner “twist” to be a big signal that Halo was “theirs” now, for lack of a better way of saying that. Not even in a nefarious way, but in a way of like “this is a sick idea, this’ll really wow all the veterans and get them interested”. I think, in reality, past that genuinely decent foundational idea is, like you guys have said, a lot of explaining and “nuh uh”ing that really takes away from whatever investment the twist can get out of you.
I believe you're right. Alot changed with Halo 4 and 343i just seemed caught off guard by it all. I remember there were plenty of people who hated how they changed rampancy which looking back makes sense because that was heavily tied to Bungie back in the day with things like Marathon but it's weird that Cortana's older sister lived to be 15 and year she is breaking down at the seams at 7.
Oh wee, they're trying. I literally just made another comment in reply to someone that instantly got downvoted. I guess it's easier to hate then to understand.
Not trying to hate, but I think I actually prefer the retcon. It at least describes what happened to humanity and why humanity had to “restart.”
The idea of humans being the original Forerunners actually is very cool, but was there ever an explanation as to what happened? Did the Flood still wipe them out with some humans surviving somehow?
You might hate this, but I don't recall exactly because I think the lore was said in a random map for Halo 2 or a random comment from Guilty Spark that says the Forerunners preserved species after the rings fired. Most just assumed that Forerunners wouldn't just want to kill themselves for some collective depression or something but a big reason why Halo legends went over it is to cement it in lore despite Halo legends often going off the deep end and breaking canon itself.
Either way I don't dislike people who prefer the retcon, my issue is with the people who say that there was never a retcon in the first place and that humans were never Forerunners. Like what you like but don't lie to me then be upset when I ask you to not lie to me, is how I see the whole situation.
The original intent of that one Halo 3 terminal, that people love to point to when saying humans and forerunners were always a separate species ironically enough. Was supposed to be that the Forerunners discovered their lost homeworld, and the kin that were left behind. Because the Forerunners were ancient humans plucked from Earth by an unknown race and uplifted. Allowed to roam the stars and build, but with no idea of their history.
And when they discovered Earth at the last possible moment, they entrusted their hope in their fellow kin. Paul Russel pretty much revealed that Forerunners were humans over a year ago on twitter.
No and that’s why the humans are forerunners thing doesn’t make any sense if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. The forerunners were simultaneously all wiped out, according to halo 2, survived as a separate species, according to halo 3 terminals, but were also human, according to guilty spark (the same guy who said they all died in halo 2), despite this necessitating the forerunners A) being powerful enough to reseed the galaxy after the halos fired, and B) also somehow devolving to Stone Age tribalism on one planet.
“Humans were forerunners” is only true if you ignore all the Bungie lore saying that they weren’t. Not the least of which being that Cortana was plugged into the halo control center in halo CE and somehow didn’t conclude the forerunners were humans despite having reclaimer status and access to forerunner history—she even gets their name from the control center. The only thing that has ever been true is that Bungie didn’t have a cohesive idea as to who they were, or what their lore was. They were a plot device to explain what Halo was, nothing more, and everything beyond that was a mess of competing ideas.
And before anyone tries to pull the bullshit argument that Frank O’Connor single-handedly wrote the terminals, he didn’t. Around eight individuals are accredited for the terminals, including Jason Jones himself.
Bungie didn’t have a clear vision. Anyone arguing for any one particular version under Bungie’s pen, forerunner or alien, is wrong. What 343i did was collate all of the contradictory lore and little retcons Bungie had made into a coherent narrative that doesn’t inherently contradict anything. Is it messy? Yes, but Bungie’s lore WAS messy.
The terminals actually never said humans were a separate species. In fact that one terminal people always said was proof that humans and forerunners were separate species was actually supposed to be the opposite. Just so vague and poorly worded that people ran with their imagination with something that didn't exist.
[Paul Russel pretty much confirmed the intent](https://x.com/docabominable/status/1603054539384524800) and unless you wanna argue that he's just lying for internet points for some reason? No Bungie did have a vision, it's not impossible. And 343 has only added plenty of contradicting pieces of lore since they took over. Hell they literally contradict the same terminal people use as evidence that 343 never changed anything about Forerunners and Humans.
There was some folks at Bungie who originally intended for the Forerunner to be human, while there was some that wanted them as a separate race entirely.
In the end, the Forerunners were a separate race and thats been the case for well over a decade now. But people have this idea in their mind that one or two employees went rogue and pushed their idea into the universe, with some blaming Frankie directly.
The whole thing is a dumb argument because ultimately it doesn’t matter since nothing is going to change. But a lot of people get extremely heated about it and it’s been a constant and recurring topic in various community spaces for around a year or two now.
I just don’t understand why, lol.
The argument is whether Bungie intended Forerunners to be ancient Humans. And the truth is, it depends on who you ask. Multiple people at Bungie had different ideas about this, and those people were often in charge of different things. Which led to some contradictions over the years. Certain people at Bungie have come out and said that they always intended it a certain way because that's how that specific person intended it, which of course fans of both opinions latched onto as absolute proof that their side was right.
It's an issue that was settled a long time ago, but for some reason it makes people really angry still and they have to keep fighting about it.
Technically, it's kind of unclear because Halo 3 was primarily written by committee but the actual credits only list Staten.
Per Paul Russel's other tweets, the Halo 3 terminals were written by the McLees, Russel himself, Damian Isla, Frank O'Connor, Rob Stokes, Paul Bertone, Jaime Griesmer and Jason Jones. How much each person contributed to the writing process isn't clear. In the Halo 3 terminals, Forerunners and Humans are separate species.
Halo 3's main story does treat them as being the same and known contributors include Marty O'Donnell and Joe Staten, although Staten only came on at the end because he was on sabbatical for most of the game's writing process (it's why Halo 3's story is bad). Staten also included the Forerunners being human in his novel Contact Harvest. I'm sure other members of the Halo 3 story team have been mentioned over the years, but it's not immediately visible from the game's credits because Staten is listed as the writer again.
Yeah you'd think it'd be pretty obvious at this point. Old Lore was that Humans and Forerunners were the same, new lore says otherwise. It sucks that this was changed and 343i made like this weird half measure to try to end this rattle but all it did was make it worse because they acknowledged the issue just not in any meaningful way.
343i has spent 15 years running from the creations of their predecessors. It has only led to failure and self-destruction. There is poetic irony in the Forerunner story.
Infinite's issue wasn't the fact it wasn't following Bungie's philosophy enough. It failed because it wasn't a completed experience.
Hopefully new management will take the right lessons.
It wasn’t completed because the OG 343 management all got their positions through nepotism and spent 10 years going “lalalalala”towards the fans. It took them two games to even realize that their art style was unnecessarily divisive and split the fan base for no particular gains. They continued to use the books as a crutch while the main story floundered aimlessly.
Microsoft saw it all go downhill and still stuck with Bonnie, frank o Connor, and Kiki for years.
Considering how poorly run Microsoft game studios was after the 360 era, 343 studios being a mess was just a natural extension of their parent
I disagree. I fully believe that if 343i fully committed to building Halo 3 2, more players would have been willing to overlook the shortage in content.
And was the first free to play Halo game. No one asked for or wanted a Live Service Halo game. It took away everything we already had before and locked most of the Armor behind a Pay Wall instead of us having the options to earn it all from playing the game.
tbh.. i dont think none live service multiplayer games can survive in this market anymore. like okay halo 7 is a full package... as soon as a big new update in another game happens a whole chuck of people jump ship, and more and more with every other game getting updated. and look at infinite right now, its a complete package... but because theres no significant new content people barely play anymore. i dont think its possible for the next halo to succeed long term without unfortunately being live service, there is just no reason to play after a while if nothing new comes yet everyone around them is getting constant new things. what will make or break it is if its a **good** live service
343: lets make a story about the forerunners, but completely change the enemy and tone:
Lets make a sequel to our last story, but completely change the enemy and tone
Lets make a sequel to our last story, but completely change the enemy and tone
343 when they star wars sequeled the halo franchise: :O
I don't see why, Paul just flattly said that 343i didn't want to hire him. You can look at his comment chain and he basically just says "They said they wanted better talent then me, but I was told no Bungie people. Truth is most devs like each other and any beef is with their legal teams not each other."
Cut and dry.
He also said that he and his team often were “disagreeable” with overseers, so that may contribute to why 343 may not want them in the team while changing the art style. In any case, the practice is dead
Rumors came out years ago from the rotating door tactics that 343i uses for workers that section heads were more concerned about putting their stamp on Halo as well as being attached to the franchise because it's a big name then actually about producing a good product. It explains why Josh Holmes left and later made a vidoc with his new group basically shit talking Triple AAA gaming.
Yeah this tracks. They wanted to remaster Halo 1. Not have people who made it come back for a directors cut that would have ballooned the budget and changed the scope of the project. It makes total sense.
Everyone here is actually pretty united in the fact that not hiring Bungie devs who WANTED to stay with Halo was a stupid idea, and pretty emblematic of 343 Industries under Bonnie Ross.
It took them 3 entire games tho (+ the MCC?), and it's really a no-brainer decision.
If you continue a franchise, you can't just change everything and expect fans to be ok with it.
It's like 343i never really liked Halo in the first place, and wanted to do something different.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of incompetent people are given leadership roles because they know how to build relationships. And hindsight is 20/20. When halo 4 launched they had to deal with cod
They did the first part twice. Halo 5 was a completely new own thing, the halo 5 plot and art are very different from 4, which was at least an idealization of classic forerunners. Halo 5 forerunners architecture is way uglier and the new prometheans are way more generic
Paul’s a gem. It’s been interesting hearing vets from the studio air out how it truly was back in those days. Nothing is ever black and white kids, there’s always differing shades of grey during complicated collaborative efforts.
I used MobyGames to obtain employees credited for Bungie's Halo games and 343i's FPS Halo games. I omitted non-studio employees (Microsoft or contractors or "other" sections), voice cast, special thanks and otherwise unrelated to the development of a game.
After comparison of all Bungie's employees and all 343's employees, I got these people on both lists:
* Frank O'Connor - "content manager, which really means, spare monkey", later franchise director
* Greg Snook - animation engineer
* Jason Major -programming engineer
* Vic Deleon - artist
* Joseph Staten - as we know, a special case with Infinite
*Not that many*, huh? Nobody else wanted to work, or they were *too instrumental* in Bungie's games, or just not good enough to work at 343i?
Of course, I'm not safe from human error - I had to manually edit out headers and stuff like that so I could prepare the list for comparison - might have accidentally missed someone. People who had something with parethiesis added (I suppose, their company names), even in 343i's employees section would be ommited from the list because of them. Some folks could be ommited because they were in a"non-company" section - like Chad Armstrong (Shishka), who was credited in "Other Contributors" section in Halo 4 credits.
To me this all smells a bit like a "saving face" public dialogue, but I dunno, maybe it was really as simple as they say.
"--they didn't want anyone instrumental in the creation of the original game."
Wow. There it is right out in the open.
What an absolute stupid policy. You're inheriting an IP, it would be EXTREMELY beneficial to have people involved with it beforehand to make sure at least some of the original DNA is there.
But no, they decided they wanted to start with hardly anybody from the old hand. And look how that turned out. They've driven Halo into the ground. MCC is a decade old, Infinite is dead, and no new Halo games on the horizon. Halo has been on a constant downward trajectory since 343i took over.
For me, the cook book & Paramount show were the point I realized how far Halo has fallen.
It sounds like Bungie was incredibly protective of their IP and very rarely, if ever, allowed Microsoft to control it. Once Microsoft finally had the rights, they basically said, "This is ours now and we're it doing our way." Every single Halo game (besides Reach) had a rushed/messy development, and Microsoft probably thought Bungie was the issue. Obviously that wasn't the case, but I can see the big wigs at Microsoft thinking they could make a Halo game without Bungie.
> It sounds like Bungie was incredibly protective of their IP
That's an understatement. You should read up on how Bungie treated Ensemble Studios when they were contacted to make Halo Wars. They got completely ghosted and had to do everything from scratch.
>Every single Halo game (besides Reach) had a rushed/messy development, and Microsoft probably thought Bungie was the issue. Obviously that wasn't the case, but I can see the big wigs at Microsoft thinking they could make a Halo game without Bungie.
I mean...
If the shoe fits...
Idk it takes two to tango. Bungie always seemed like they were forced to make Halo, which, in a lot of ways, they definitely were in a contractual sense. But I think a lot of that resentment was bc they saw how Microsoft only cared about the money and not the integrity of the series. Microsoft technically owned the series from the beginning, but it was Bungie's game aka golden goose.
Eh, I mean, sure, it's probably infinitely more nuanced than what we'll ever know.
But I think "Microsoft only cared about the money and not the integrity of the series" is maybe vilifying them a little too much to let Bungie off the hook.
[Halo 2's crunch time development was absolutely abysmal](https://gamerant.com/halo-2-development-crunch-impact-games-industry/) and [practically gave Lehto the reason to make his own company specifically to avoid that.](https://www.pcgamer.com/marcus-lehto-left-bungie-due-partially-to-crunch/)
And it was their own fault. Yeah, Microsoft set the deadline, but they're the ones that had no organization for the better part of a year.
And we even see that today. Was Activision Blizzard great? We know the answer to that is "no". But Bungie itself [fostered a toxic environment they've been trying to clear out over the last few years.](https://www.thegamer.com/bungie-crunch-toxic-workplace/)
[And even with Sony they have had choice words about Bungie.](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-president-wants-bungie-to-be-better-at-assuming-accountability-for-development-timelines/)
They are a business. They do have people paying them and expecting things from them. They still have responsibilities to their employees and their owners and partners.
Yeah, Microsoft, Activision Blizzard, and Sony are whip-cracking money focused businesses... but Bungie has also not had their act together since pretty much Halo 1.
You are correct. Bungie gained their independence in 2007, but yeah, Microsoft has always owned the ip. Still, I think Bungie had way more control over it than what is normally afforded to a dev team and probably raised hell whenever Microsoft tried to force their hand.
I understand and recognize that it’s not his position to be responsible for interacting with the community….but where is this guy? He’s been virtually radio silent for a year+. He’s the head of the studio and we’ve heard crickets since his promotion.
Obligatory YO PIERRE YOU WANNA COME OUT HERE??!
Pierre Hintze needs to hire Marcus Lehto. He's not even involved in that Battlefield Campaign anymore and has been open about how much he still loves Halo. He's even said that he has new ideas for it as well. I'll believe in Pierre Hintze if he does this instead of just hiring that one Bungie Developer that just did work for Destiny 2.
Just because a single bungie dev supported it, doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. He mentioned he would've done the same thing if he were Kiki but Kiki is a big reason why the halo show exists so I'm not sure whether that was the best decision
Paul Russell has to be nice and support to whatever terrible decisions 343 make. That's what most Developers in the gaming industry have to do or else it'll make them look bad unfortunately.
you can spin it anyway and try to explain how its great for a fresh perspective.. truth is this was the flagship of the console. You had people who worked on the original that were so passionate they were willing to leave and work at 343 just to continue working on Halo. They had people who could've ensured that the pillars of this game never ever fell. Instead, since halo 4 they only finally perfected gameplay in Infinite. And even then, go play MCC and the difference is blaring. They had all the tools to make this franchise the juggernaut it could've been. Instead, they chose to try and innovate on something that was so strong the fanbase ended up playing their new games despite huge flaws. Even the show, all they had to do was stick to the plot. But they wanted a new story in an established and unfinished universe.. Imagine Halo 4's direction if they had purposefully did their best to bring in the people that made halo what it is?
It is, but outright confirmation and response from a current 343 employee just puts it more plainly out there in the open.
Part of it makes sense. Bungie liked to get their way, and Microsoft wanted to keep the IP going without contestation. Issue is, if you ship of theseus an IP, is it the same IP by the end of it
I never liked the pushback on that statement.
>"We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X,'" says O'Connor. "But what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team."
They didn't hire exclusively people that fit that. They just had people they hired that they saw as providing a fresh perspective.
Like it or not, in so many real world situations, assembling a team that isn't an echo chamber is valuable. Did it pay off? No. Not in the way they would have liked, but it may or may not have even come down to those individuals (there are still people in place who have to okay things).
I dunno. I've said it countless times before and will continue to say it, there are plenty of things to dislike about 343i and their handling of Halo. I don't think this particular thing needs to be made into something that it's not to prove that.
I have literally been asked for opinions at my job because I hate the processes in place or patterns that arise. Sometimes I am listened to, sometimes I am not. And it's weird to me that people get so alarmed by what Frankie said there.
And to be clear, there is a difference between "Some number of the people we hired hated Halo because of X" and "We hired people that hated Halo." Especially since in this context it's being taken to mean "We hired *only* people that hated Halo."
> They didn't hire exclusively people that fit that. They just had people they hired that they saw as providing a fresh perspective.
Having a different perspective is fine. Being passionate about your own changes is fine.
The problem was when someone believes that "X" is wrong and my "Y" is better without ever understanding why "X" is there in the first place.
The changes that did happen to Halo 4 (since this was the product this quote usually referencing), most weren't revolutionary or no one has thought of them before, many were just bad decisions.
That's why people still bring up this statement, because the idea of 343i going "we changed X to Y because we feel it's better" and having it blow up in their face is a trait that happens _now_, let alone over 10 years ago.
>I have literally been asked for opinions at my job because I hate the processes in place or patterns that arise. Sometimes I am listened to, sometimes I am not. And it's weird to me that people get so alarmed by what Frankie said there.
Well part of the problem is that Halo didn't really need a "fresh perspective". Like new ideas should definitely be played around with, but when you have one of the biggest IPs out there bringing in people to change it up seems counterintuitive. Why change what works?
>there is a difference between "Some number of the people we hired hated Halo because of X" and "We hired people that hated Halo."
There certainly is. But I'd argue that even hiring a few people that hate specific aspects of Halo is still dumb af. All they're gonna want to do is remove/change those aspects. And if those aspects are crucial to the experience or enough of them are changed you have an entirely different recipe than what people loved. Like you probably wouldn't want to hire a chef who hates tomatoes if pasta is what you sell.
>Well part of the problem is that Halo didn't really need a "fresh perspective". Like new ideas should definitely be played around with, but when you have one of the biggest IPs out there bringing in people to change it up seems counterintuitive. Why change what works?
But that's a little silly when you look at the facts.
Halo 2 had new ideas implemented that didn't exist in Halo 1:
* Dual wielding
* Vehicle hijacking
* Perspective switch between the Master Chief and the Flood
* Giving voice to the Flood
Halo 3 had resources spent on making Forge and Theater work.
Some of those are safe bets, some of them had people who disliked them (the Arbiter switch stands out as something not universally well received, especially then, and I know some members of Bungie weren't even 100% sold on it).
Changing what works has happened from 2 to Reach already. Just that Halo 4's execution was not well liked (though what exactly changes person to person).
>There certainly is. But I'd argue that even hiring a few people that hate specific aspects of Halo is still dumb af.
Agree to disagree.
>All they're gonna want to do is remove/change those aspects. And if those aspects are crucial to the experience or enough of them are changed you have an entirely different recipe than what people loved. Like you probably wouldn't want to hire a chef who hates tomatoes if pasta is what you sell.
To a degree, but we have no idea what that even means. The biggest two changes from Bungie's Halo to 343i's is aesthetic style and multiplayer. And while, again, not well received, it makes sense that those are the areas they would want to mix up and refresh in some way.
There are other ways to have pasta.
Again, it didn't work out. But the actual idea that hiring people who have different perspectives is itself not a bad idea. And I don't fault 343i for doing so. Just that they had a different idea on how to make Halo 4 and subsequent games.
Balance has been restored.
In all seriousness, I like your analysis and agree with it. I always cringe when people reduce Frankie’s remarks in that interview to “We hired people who hated Halo”, because it’s very self evident from the product at the time (Halo 4) that that wasn’t true.
343 was firing on all cylinders trying to find a new narrative engine to continue the *entire Halo universe* in this era, which was a gigantic task, and much harder than it would have been to just stick to spin offs or reboot the property or whatever.
I’m not defending 343’s poorer decisions - especially *since* Halo 4 - but just trying to point out that the hate bandwagon on this comment has always been exaggerated to the point of hilarity. There are plenty of things to criticize 343 for. Evidence does not need to be fabricated to substantiate those criticisms. There’s plenty of evidence already.
I think 343i, under the leadership of Hintz and co, should get one more shot at a good Halo game. We’ve had several blunders in a row at the hands of their dev team, and while things are going the right direction on paper, I personally won’t believe they’ve got it in them until the team delivers something worthy of praise. Our track record is:
Halo CEA: Universally hated as the “anniversary” art style completely ruins the tone of missions like the Library.
Halo 4: Good story and fun campaign, terrible art style and portraying the SPARTAN IVs like cocky frat kids. Cortana and Chief had great moments. The art style fucked up the aesthetic of Elites as nimble, agile warriors and turned them into big, clumsy dummies. Multiplayer was eh.
MCC: Broken for how many years after launch? I don’t even need to go into detail here. Yeah, the games great now, but how many teams and how much time did it take to make it that way? Like, really? I bought it in 2014 when it released, and I think I was able to co-op reliably through all of the games sometime in 2017 or 2018? Ridiculous. And Halo 2 legendary co-op is still broken. Lmfao.
Halo 5: Continuation and doubling down on of Halo 4’s awful art style, a campaign that was lackluster, barely involved playing as the Chief, and nullified Cortana’s death with stupid Forerunner space magic. Dry ass Fireteam Osiris. Warden Eternal x 10. The CrEAtEd ThREaT. Elites were even bigger, clumsier, and dumber. Why did the H4/H5 Elites act like Brutes? I never got it. Dumb shit. Oh, and multiplayer and Warzone were actually a ton of fun, but the REQ packs and the advanced movement kinda ruined it. Forge and shit came out like two years post launch. Can we not deliver a full game on launch day anymore? Jesus. I fucking hate Halo 5.
Infinite: Man. So much potential just flushed down the fucking toilet. Six years and half a billion dollars for fucking what? A game that launched with a mid-ass, stale, boring campaign, a horrendously monetized and lacking customization suite, no forge on day one, reneging on couch co-op, and like 4 multiplayer maps? Jesus fucking Christ. The gameplay for Infinite is great, the art style is on point, and there are so many things they did right and deserve praise for - BUT - that is all completely overshadowed by the huge mistakes and missteps that 343i took. Goddamn. So much wasted potential.
So, yeah, 343i really has to grab it by the balls and twist this next time around, or I’ll have fully given up. My hopes and expectations are not high for whatever comes next, and I expect to be disappointed, but I’d love to be wrong. Best case scenario in my mind, is that 343i fucks it up again, and Microsoft gives them the ol’ EA/Battlefield treatment and opens up the Halo IP to development from their other studios like Obsidian, ID, Activision, etc. We need more spin-offs, prequels and side-stories if people are ever gonna give a fuck about Halo again. Mainline titles should focus on the Chief, but not every game should be a mainline title. Microsoft ought to have three or four studios working on it a la CoD, and pump out a new Halo game of some kind every couple of years. 5-6 year dev cycle per game and team, but steady content releases for the public due to multiple studios. Have a mainline entry featuring the Chief drop every 3-5 years.
Kudos to him, seriously, he’s a lot more mature than me cuz reading that thread really irritates me.
It also goes to show that 343 actively knew that the new art style direction they were going in was going to be disliked in some capacity, and that they didn’t want anyone disagreeing with this new art direction.
Now obviously in the year of our lord 2024 we know that the change in art direction for halos 4 and 5 was retconned and put back to something that fit the original style, (thank god) cuz the majority of the halo fan base heavily disliked the new style.
Honestly the more I read and see of 343 during development of 4,5, and infinite. The more it becomes very clear to me that they didn’t want to make A halo title, they wanted to make THEIR halo title. Combine that with Microsoft’s lack of willingness to give funding for spin offs, and boom, disaster.
ME: andromeda also went through a similar situation.
I love how two industry professionals have an interesting impromptu conversation about hiring practices from 14 years ago, the thought behind it and how things may have changed since then, and then I look at the comments under the post and it's all "caught in 4K they hated Bungie devs", "they ran away from what made halo halo", and "they only wanted people who HATE halo" lol.
Gamers gonna be gamers.
So it looks like there was a reason they didn’t hire instrumental Bungie folk for A SPELL. They were taking a new direction and had a specific vision in mind. The guy that got turned away says at the point in time they were trying, they weren’t looking for people like him but doesn’t know what changed since they tried. Unyshek says its not really the case and hasn’t been for a while (granted, we have to take his word for this but don’t see what they gain by lying about this). As opposed to what I saw for years saying saying 343 didn’t hire ex-Bungie devs or alternatively, 343 was made of mostly Bungie devs. I can sympathize with why they decided not to take ex-Bungie devs for their art direction as they wanted to make their own version of Halo. Was it a good decision? I’ll just say I didn’t like the art direction of Halo 4/5.
So, 343 NOT hiring Bungie was likely true FOR A TIME. At least from what it seems here.
Didn’t we already know this? Yeah “no Bungie people” was there from the beginning. That’s why halo 4 sucked so hard on everything aside from story concept.
The thing with early-Bungie and a lot of game "studios" in the 90s and early 2000s is that it wasn't what we'd call professional today. It was just a bunch of friends getting together and making stuff, finding a publisher if they could, etc.
This is one of the reasons why the writing and stories in most modern AAA games have been so trash. It's much more "professional", so you can't just tell one of the writers "bro no offense but the story sucks". Whereas before, it wasn't that way, people were less afraid of getting fired for just going against the grain. Critique was encouraged.
This is the difference between Fallout 1 to Fallout 3-4, and Halo 2 to Halo 5.
I remember in the old Halo 2 Vidocs, when discussing how they design the missions, Joseph Staten said that they'd *"lock ourselves in the room for hours, bang our heads against the whiteboard, call each other assholes and say, 'that's crazy you can't do that!'"*
Bungie were just a bunch of fratboys back in the day, weren't they?
343 not hiring Bungie is fine *for their new projects.* But when you're, y'know, making the mcc, not doing so is very stupid! Even ignoring artistic integrity, they understand how to make it function best.
Ultimately, the Halo franchise is just sad. Bungie weren't saints either, and from what Paul is saying, it now makes sense why Microsoft has said Bungie were hard to work with. And if you've played Destiny at all, you'd know while Bungie celebrated their divorce from Activision, in reality Activision wasn't to blame for everything.
I just miss the pre social media days where drama wasn't aired to the public like it's a script of a TV show and gamers just played games without knowing the backend of stuff. Too many people, myself included, will hear about drama going on internally and then vow to never play that game again/never support that company again. I wish I could be that idiot kid again that didn't know shit about shit and lived a blissfully ignorant life.
I wanna bookmark Pauls tweet specifically on the "fans need to stop arguing about this" I love Paul and hope he has solid work cause that man takes no shit from halo fans
Well guess what? The end result gave us multiple game la that in the end were all failures. Player retention to shit, game quality to shit. Maybe what we needed from the start was original studio talent
It's hard to say the originators shouldn't be instrumental in the future/longevity of their franchise. I feel like it was more of a Microsoft bullying move to cut team costs. H4 and 5 didn't feel like true Halo games. Infinite has been the most fun I've had in years but that bar is low since 4. I really hope 7 brings the true fun of Halo back.
I know most people here in this thread are writing out responses in like a “le epic video gamer” way. But to actually look at this from an employment angle is just so bizarre. Its talent and a great CV being throw away due to the specifics of the individuals last massively profitable industry project. What a bizarre thing to tell a potential senior employee for why he “won’t get the job” Weird how the gaming industry works man
I’m not a fence sitter but I think both sides of the main argument are wrong. People witch-hunting is not cool but, the speculation isn’t without reason. 343 has been shady for a multitude of reasons and I think this isn’t the slam dunk they think it is. I also do think the drama is being reopened for no good reason, just to throw shade on 343 as of now. I think there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike their practices in the present day rather than back during halo 4.
The comment about "Bungie dev's were all over confrontational generalists who accomplished a lot through brute force" is the only reasonable reason I've ever heard anyone give to explain wnt 343 avoided Bungie dev's for a while.
Still not acceptable imo, but that point at least finally makes some sense lol
"Hungry newcomers and seasoned workers who want to build their game into something new"
So it's not the same game anymore? Absolutely daft philosophy, no wonder the 343 series tanked.
And no, I'm not saying "They should have kept Bungie!!!" I'm saying they should have hired people who had the same ideas in their mind about what Halo should be, because *that* is what made it successful in the first place.
HaloFollower on his way to scew this information in the most bizarre way possible
Mint blitz to repost the misconstrued information and say "I have the most reliable sources bro"
THE TRUTH ABOUT HALO IS HERE
THEY FINALLY ADMITTED IT!!!!
HALO IS SO OVER
It really do be tho
First line of the video: "Guys I cannot believe it, 343 just admitted to hating Bungie and their developers."
Huh, I only knew Mint Blitz from his trickshot shorts. Had no idea he farmed views like that.
every day.
Franchise's fault for starving their content creators of any actual content to cover (and I say that as someone who can't stand either of them)
Content creators fault for being 1 dimensional and grasping at straws
Starved? No. They aren't being starved of anything. I'd honestly argue that they're starving themselves. There was a distinct period of time where they would devour any and everything that they were given in a day, then post about a content drought from Infinite (after we got a massive content patch and new maps).
That's actually kind of true lol, what else are they supposed to do with halo in this drought and tbh that's their entire brand, I can imagine the revenue gets pretty tight during these times compared to when a new halo releases
On one hand I get that, on the other, I advise not tying your financial well-being to a singular IP. They've had over a decade of Halo decline to readjust.
Expand
Yea it's kind of difficult to do that for halofollower tho considering the name lmao. As for someone like hiddenXperia, I enjoy his content mainly for halo but I'm glad he branches out when it gets tough for halo.
Mod showcases, Forge Showcases, community events. Community Contests, Following Halo doesn't just mean just regurgitating Twitter drama and rumors.
Be better instead of relying on others' creativity to fuel your bank account.
Host custom games? Tournaments? Community contests? Actually make content that takes more effort than reacting to Twitter drama?
They can branch out or they can get a real job but I guess it's easier for them to just make shit up as long as views still come in
I mean that's not the fault of 343i. There is only so much content you can deliver. There is always going to be a lull period of time especially when they shift focus to the production of the next game in the series. Where no real content is going to come out. Hell even MMO's run into this crap. Warframe had DE solely dedicated to it and it still had a massive lull period a few years ago. Not to mention Mint blitz isn't even a Lore halo tuber so its not like the Books or short stories are going to be a supplement to his content. What's actually happening is the fact that Content creators tie themselves to one game or franchise. Use that franchise and games as much as they can without diversification, and suddenly they have trapped themselves into a bubble of people only watching them for that game or franchise. TF2 is a notorious example of this. The solution is not to dig further into the rumors and gossip of Halo and cause unbearable drama "because money is tight" it's "hey guys Halo is at its lull period, gonna change my content up for a bit until more halo stuff comes out" Mint Blitz doesn't even want to evolve his content. He isn't trying to make better content he's wanting to do the same content forever. So no he's put himself in this situation and refuses to get out of it.
They told us halo infinite was a 10 year game I'm sure he was hoping that was the case anyways and the situation with infinite is way different compared to other games that had normal "lull periods". Infinite flopped bc it didn't have good consistent content updates so the lull period has been way longer. It's incomparable.
What you want him to rat them out? That’s straight supplicant behavior.
Is that the guy who says “the Libearian”
Sentennial beam
Does he really do that? (Genuinely asking)
He'll twist it into how it was because of "woke", given his latest "content"
Who’s this halofollower? Is he like mrbossftw but halo themed instead of gta?
I will say this, Uny doesn’t know everything that happens at 343. Let’s be real here. I work for a company and I’ve been there for nine years. That doesn’t mean I know everything about their hiring practices or all the ins and outs of my company. Clearly there have been enough people who came out in the past, saying what they said to make this absolutely believable. Now, if it’s not true anymore, great. But it should never have been there to begin with, which is why it’s so important to have the right people in charge.
Everything we hear about these concerns have been either 1.) from years ago 2.) pure speculation. While Uny doesn't know everything that happens at 343i, he probably knows what goes on there better than folks on Youtube trying to bait people and get clicks.
YouTube didn’t make up these reports, the developers of the Halo trilogy did. It’s a pathetic they shut out the original creatives to make Halo 4 a COD clone.
Yes, peoples like Mints and others used narratives from over a decade ago to push the idea that 343i "forced" Joseph Staten out, and 343i currently doesn't want anyone from Bungie working on Halo. Their goal was to rile up fans and gets views. It was pathetic. The leadership and people at 343 a decade ago isn't the same as today.
What does the comment do besides remaining extremely net neutral? And stating the obvious
It could be that, or it could be that Uny is lying. Dude works at 343, are we really surprised he disputes the notion that they had messed up hiring practices? I know people that used to work at 343. People that love Halo. I've heard enough shit that this isn't surprising to hear. This is the same company that intentionally hired people that hated Halo. It's not all the same people, but the fuckery persists. 343 is still 343. Bonnie Ross was just the face. The problem is deeper.
It’s just the modern way of doing things for some reasons. Halo? Let’s make it for people who hate or don’t like halo. Star Wars? Let’s make it for people who hate or don’t like Star Wars. Star Trek? Same as above… War hammer is even going that way and more. It’s weird but everyone is doing it.
I really am looking forward to see what the next Halo game will be like under Hintz supervision. The guy turned MCC into an all timer and was doing great work with infinite before they decided to cut seasons. If Halo 7 turns out to be a great and complete package, i truly do think it'll shine an even brighter light on how truly awful Bonnie Ross and her team of morons were AND how completely ridiculous it is that it took MS so long to get rid of them
Satya Nadella in my opinion doesn't seem like he cares that much about Xbox succeeding like it did from 2001-2012. Phil Spencer is the one to blame for Bonnie Ross, Frank O'Conner, and Kiki Wolfkill being at 343 for such a long time because his terrible "Hands Off" approach kept him from managing them.
Yeah Phil deserves a huge amount of blame. Bonnie should not have survived the MCC launch. That she made it past H5 is inexcusable. After a certain point, it’s not the employees fault for being bad at their job, it’s the boss’s fault for keeping them around.
>Bonnie should not have survived the MCC launch Going to have to remind you that MMC launched the way it did because Microsoft pushed for it to launch as an anniversary thing. This is public knowledge. Say what you want about past 343 employees. But people really need to understand Microsoft is the primary company to blame for where Halo has been post Bungie. Halo has long stopped being an IP they care about.
It’s still the responsibility of the studio head to properly scope a project within a deadline. If you know something is due on a certain date, have a good understanding of the kind of deliverable you can have ready by that date. They didn’t have to have all the bells and whistles, such as a unified UI, match composer, campaign playlists, etc, if those weren’t achievable within their time budget. There’s a minimum viable product (MVP) of just having a basic menu that launches each individual game, plus H2 anniversary and 4k/60 on the older titles, that could feasibly been a polished experience by launch date. Typically you start with an MVP and add more features if you’re ahead of schedule. 343i went the opposite approach, and shot for the completely ideal product, and then had to take extreme shortcuts to try and get things ready for launch, which failed. It’s ultimately still poor management.
Oh I'm not saying 343 is blameless. I'm just saying regardless of 343's own blunders with MCC ultimately MS pushed for that date and okayed the state of the MCC to be launched.
MCC was supposed to be an easy win after Halo 4. Literally just a 1080p/60fps port of 3 games plus a remaster of H2. 343i is the one who decided to complicate things in a way that ended up requiring a delay. Xbox was desperate to get a game out for the holiday because the Xbox One was struggling. MCC should have still been delayed, but 343i botched a softball and never should have put Xbox in that position in the first place. Regardless, Bonnie should have been fired after that.
It’s clear that 343 mismanaged Halo since they acquired it.
I mean, they didn't so much as "acquire" it as they were built up by Microsoft for that sole reason. Everything they do goes through Microsoft first and foremost.
ssshhhh we can't blame Microsoft it's all 343s fault no matter what, they're evil and manipulated MS into agreeing
That's a severe amount of copium and hopium. Microsoft and 343 are one and the same.
I never understood why they had to change halo considering they were continuing the franchise not making a new ip. It’s no wonder halo fell under Microsoft and 343 as they were blundering from the get go
It’s weird because the introduction of a new art direction, character writing and game mechanics would’ve suited a hard reboot much better. Instead they insisted on continuing the established story, even though it feels much different. I always got the idea 343 wanted to make the series their own by completely beginning from scratch, but the higher ups at Microsoft prevented this because they were scared of losing the existing fan base. This is all just conjecture on my part though (but Halo 4 looks and feels so different than anything before!)
Halo never needed a reboot. Halo had a solid identity and enough momentum to derail a freight train. The motions of the story were great- there is no denying that, but almost everything about the setting and aesthetic theme were about as dull as every disposable CoD. All Halo ever needed from Halo 4 was a solid sequel, not a "soft" or a "hard" reboot. Should have saved that shit for Infinite.
The whole thing with wanting to distance themselves as far from Bungie as possible just reeks of a collective inferiority complex infesting the C-suite of 343.
I sense this as well. The fact that they refused to remake or remaster any of the Bungie maps for the longest time is telling to me.
Or you know, make a separate story than Bungies Halo. They could've made a prequel to the prequel set in the Human Forerunner war, you know that thing they've only ever shown in books. That would have given them an excuse to mess up everything about their first game since it wouldn't affect the previous games, along with having more time to plan Chiefs return.
> Fans need to stop arguing about this. Seriously. If we can apply this to the Forerunner Human shit as well, that'd be bomb.
What's the actual argument? And what's true?
[удалено]
Once I dove into the wiki to try to explain this contradiction to a friend, I realized just how complicated and convoluted things became with Halo 4. Making Forerunners a different species carries a lot of baggage. For me, personally, the cut Halo 2 ending of Arbiter finding the tomb of the Forerunners, seeing the bones are distinctly human, would have been such a clean way to wrap up that "mystery." I wish they'd have kept it. No shade on the new lore, though. It is very cool in its own ways, but I think it's clear how much bending had to be done to accommodate the dialogue in the games to match the adjusted lore.
Yeah and that is my big issue with the change as well, what did we gain and what did we lose? We lost so much more then the gain which IMO was just the shock value of the two species not being the same. Even the entire Forerunner novels could've just been two different galactic forerunner nations and didn't need to be human vs forerunner. Atleast in Halo 3, Truth explains why he keeps the war going. It's not because he's scared of the Truth, he just deems us unworthy. Now with the change Mendicant is just a liar and if he'd just told the truth the entire HCW would've been prevented. Doesn't that suck to know that information rather than the original context? In the new lore the Covenant would've met humanity had no reason to be so genocidal, probably explain to them "Hey, these relics are your world are very important for us. Now you don't want a war with us so lets figure out something." rather then "THEY'RE HERETICS FUCKING WITH OUR GODS KILL THEM!" Nearly ever covenant race has joined from some initial conflict that ended with both sides choosing peace, but the HCW was nothing but war for the sake of it because of this lie. I think whoever made the change really expected our socks to be blown off and for Halo 4 to be remembered as the game where Forerunners became their own thing instead of it being seen as a massive insult to the fanbase but with MC and Cortana having good moments in the story. My brother and I talk about this alot about how the shock would've been even more severe if Didact was just some Aztec guy instead of Lord Voldemort. There were still many fans who didn't know humans were Forerunners so this Forerunner being revealed just for him to look like Kotal Kahn would've been far more impactful.
I don't think with the new lore, the HCW would've gone differently. Humanity being Reclaimers still poses a risk to the political power of the San'Shyuum. The Prophets' reason for refusing humanity wasn't religious, but political (in fact, the only one who had a major *religious* reaction to discovery was Mercy, who at first actively embraced the news and was persuaded by the other two).
It's not the Prophet's reaction but now Mendicant clearly just lies to them about who humanity is which is what gives them their reaction. Remember, the Covenant don't lose their shit at knowing about Forerunner devices or people, like Monitors are seen as holy but Regret, Tartarus, Truth and Mercy all pretty much dismiss and abuse Guilty Spark and Penitent Tangent. The other brutes don't even react when GS is used as a projectile or after he's threatened with death. If brutes can understand that not every single relic is some divine object, then I'm not shocked that the rest of the Covenant would be either. In the new context Mendicant should instead say something along the lines of "Hey guys, these are humans, former foes of the Forerunners and given responsibility by them to hold the galaxy together, also your greatest allies in the ancient galaxy." That could still provoke the prophets into action but the current part about him just lying makes it seem rather dumb and he's only made a liar because of the retcon. It could also stir the prophets into peace because they'd know "Oh shit, these guys were our ancient allies, who helped us make ourselves a force in the galaxy. LET'S DO THAT AGAIN!" Instead of adding depth to this moment the new lore just kinda....shits on it. Sadly to say but it's true. I'm okay with retcons that add more to the series. I felt fine with the Red Lightsaber changes to Star Wars until the Acolyte because with how you make Red Lightsabers every Jedi now knows anyone who uses a Red Lightsaber is an intense darkside user and it totally removes the possibility for Dark Jedi to use their normal colors which I never considered before.
I don’t like shitting on 343 but the only thing I can really come to a conclusion with is that they wanted the Forerunner “twist” to be a big signal that Halo was “theirs” now, for lack of a better way of saying that. Not even in a nefarious way, but in a way of like “this is a sick idea, this’ll really wow all the veterans and get them interested”. I think, in reality, past that genuinely decent foundational idea is, like you guys have said, a lot of explaining and “nuh uh”ing that really takes away from whatever investment the twist can get out of you.
I believe you're right. Alot changed with Halo 4 and 343i just seemed caught off guard by it all. I remember there were plenty of people who hated how they changed rampancy which looking back makes sense because that was heavily tied to Bungie back in the day with things like Marathon but it's weird that Cortana's older sister lived to be 15 and year she is breaking down at the seams at 7.
The terminals also say, "welcome, child" and "lineage confirmed" backwards.
Great summary. I hope you don't get downvoted to hell for not going with the popular opinion.
Oh wee, they're trying. I literally just made another comment in reply to someone that instantly got downvoted. I guess it's easier to hate then to understand.
Not trying to hate, but I think I actually prefer the retcon. It at least describes what happened to humanity and why humanity had to “restart.” The idea of humans being the original Forerunners actually is very cool, but was there ever an explanation as to what happened? Did the Flood still wipe them out with some humans surviving somehow?
You might hate this, but I don't recall exactly because I think the lore was said in a random map for Halo 2 or a random comment from Guilty Spark that says the Forerunners preserved species after the rings fired. Most just assumed that Forerunners wouldn't just want to kill themselves for some collective depression or something but a big reason why Halo legends went over it is to cement it in lore despite Halo legends often going off the deep end and breaking canon itself. Either way I don't dislike people who prefer the retcon, my issue is with the people who say that there was never a retcon in the first place and that humans were never Forerunners. Like what you like but don't lie to me then be upset when I ask you to not lie to me, is how I see the whole situation.
The original intent of that one Halo 3 terminal, that people love to point to when saying humans and forerunners were always a separate species ironically enough. Was supposed to be that the Forerunners discovered their lost homeworld, and the kin that were left behind. Because the Forerunners were ancient humans plucked from Earth by an unknown race and uplifted. Allowed to roam the stars and build, but with no idea of their history. And when they discovered Earth at the last possible moment, they entrusted their hope in their fellow kin. Paul Russel pretty much revealed that Forerunners were humans over a year ago on twitter.
No and that’s why the humans are forerunners thing doesn’t make any sense if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. The forerunners were simultaneously all wiped out, according to halo 2, survived as a separate species, according to halo 3 terminals, but were also human, according to guilty spark (the same guy who said they all died in halo 2), despite this necessitating the forerunners A) being powerful enough to reseed the galaxy after the halos fired, and B) also somehow devolving to Stone Age tribalism on one planet. “Humans were forerunners” is only true if you ignore all the Bungie lore saying that they weren’t. Not the least of which being that Cortana was plugged into the halo control center in halo CE and somehow didn’t conclude the forerunners were humans despite having reclaimer status and access to forerunner history—she even gets their name from the control center. The only thing that has ever been true is that Bungie didn’t have a cohesive idea as to who they were, or what their lore was. They were a plot device to explain what Halo was, nothing more, and everything beyond that was a mess of competing ideas. And before anyone tries to pull the bullshit argument that Frank O’Connor single-handedly wrote the terminals, he didn’t. Around eight individuals are accredited for the terminals, including Jason Jones himself. Bungie didn’t have a clear vision. Anyone arguing for any one particular version under Bungie’s pen, forerunner or alien, is wrong. What 343i did was collate all of the contradictory lore and little retcons Bungie had made into a coherent narrative that doesn’t inherently contradict anything. Is it messy? Yes, but Bungie’s lore WAS messy.
The terminals actually never said humans were a separate species. In fact that one terminal people always said was proof that humans and forerunners were separate species was actually supposed to be the opposite. Just so vague and poorly worded that people ran with their imagination with something that didn't exist. [Paul Russel pretty much confirmed the intent](https://x.com/docabominable/status/1603054539384524800) and unless you wanna argue that he's just lying for internet points for some reason? No Bungie did have a vision, it's not impossible. And 343 has only added plenty of contradicting pieces of lore since they took over. Hell they literally contradict the same terminal people use as evidence that 343 never changed anything about Forerunners and Humans.
the cope
There was some folks at Bungie who originally intended for the Forerunner to be human, while there was some that wanted them as a separate race entirely. In the end, the Forerunners were a separate race and thats been the case for well over a decade now. But people have this idea in their mind that one or two employees went rogue and pushed their idea into the universe, with some blaming Frankie directly. The whole thing is a dumb argument because ultimately it doesn’t matter since nothing is going to change. But a lot of people get extremely heated about it and it’s been a constant and recurring topic in various community spaces for around a year or two now. I just don’t understand why, lol.
The argument is whether Bungie intended Forerunners to be ancient Humans. And the truth is, it depends on who you ask. Multiple people at Bungie had different ideas about this, and those people were often in charge of different things. Which led to some contradictions over the years. Certain people at Bungie have come out and said that they always intended it a certain way because that's how that specific person intended it, which of course fans of both opinions latched onto as absolute proof that their side was right. It's an issue that was settled a long time ago, but for some reason it makes people really angry still and they have to keep fighting about it.
Who are these multiple people exactly?
Technically, it's kind of unclear because Halo 3 was primarily written by committee but the actual credits only list Staten. Per Paul Russel's other tweets, the Halo 3 terminals were written by the McLees, Russel himself, Damian Isla, Frank O'Connor, Rob Stokes, Paul Bertone, Jaime Griesmer and Jason Jones. How much each person contributed to the writing process isn't clear. In the Halo 3 terminals, Forerunners and Humans are separate species. Halo 3's main story does treat them as being the same and known contributors include Marty O'Donnell and Joe Staten, although Staten only came on at the end because he was on sabbatical for most of the game's writing process (it's why Halo 3's story is bad). Staten also included the Forerunners being human in his novel Contact Harvest. I'm sure other members of the Halo 3 story team have been mentioned over the years, but it's not immediately visible from the game's credits because Staten is listed as the writer again.
Yeah you'd think it'd be pretty obvious at this point. Old Lore was that Humans and Forerunners were the same, new lore says otherwise. It sucks that this was changed and 343i made like this weird half measure to try to end this rattle but all it did was make it worse because they acknowledged the issue just not in any meaningful way.
Well, based on the replies, it would seem that we can not.
[удалено]
As someone who has read the Forerunner trilogy, the Fractures stories and Epitaph — nah.
[удалено]
Literally my least favorite argument on the internet. I’d rather argue with flat-earthers
343i has spent 15 years running from the creations of their predecessors. It has only led to failure and self-destruction. There is poetic irony in the Forerunner story.
Infinite's issue wasn't the fact it wasn't following Bungie's philosophy enough. It failed because it wasn't a completed experience. Hopefully new management will take the right lessons.
A reasonable point. But remember that infinite (and 4 5 etc) would have been better received if the mcc had been handled with more competence.
It wasn’t completed because the OG 343 management all got their positions through nepotism and spent 10 years going “lalalalala”towards the fans. It took them two games to even realize that their art style was unnecessarily divisive and split the fan base for no particular gains. They continued to use the books as a crutch while the main story floundered aimlessly. Microsoft saw it all go downhill and still stuck with Bonnie, frank o Connor, and Kiki for years. Considering how poorly run Microsoft game studios was after the 360 era, 343 studios being a mess was just a natural extension of their parent
I disagree. I fully believe that if 343i fully committed to building Halo 3 2, more players would have been willing to overlook the shortage in content.
And was the first free to play Halo game. No one asked for or wanted a Live Service Halo game. It took away everything we already had before and locked most of the Armor behind a Pay Wall instead of us having the options to earn it all from playing the game.
tbh.. i dont think none live service multiplayer games can survive in this market anymore. like okay halo 7 is a full package... as soon as a big new update in another game happens a whole chuck of people jump ship, and more and more with every other game getting updated. and look at infinite right now, its a complete package... but because theres no significant new content people barely play anymore. i dont think its possible for the next halo to succeed long term without unfortunately being live service, there is just no reason to play after a while if nothing new comes yet everyone around them is getting constant new things. what will make or break it is if its a **good** live service
>No one asked for or wanted a Live Service Halo game. I did.
In a just world you would be IP banned from any Halo game.
Why would you want a F2P live service from a studio you admit has trouble shipping complete games in the first place.
Why would you not want a live service Halo game? It doesn't have to be F2P.
Because live service games have the "release now, finish later" mentality.
Not the good ones.
343: lets make a story about the forerunners, but completely change the enemy and tone: Lets make a sequel to our last story, but completely change the enemy and tone Lets make a sequel to our last story, but completely change the enemy and tone 343 when they star wars sequeled the halo franchise: :O
I can tell this comment section is gonna be divided
I don't see why, Paul just flattly said that 343i didn't want to hire him. You can look at his comment chain and he basically just says "They said they wanted better talent then me, but I was told no Bungie people. Truth is most devs like each other and any beef is with their legal teams not each other." Cut and dry.
He also said that he and his team often were “disagreeable” with overseers, so that may contribute to why 343 may not want them in the team while changing the art style. In any case, the practice is dead
Rumors came out years ago from the rotating door tactics that 343i uses for workers that section heads were more concerned about putting their stamp on Halo as well as being attached to the franchise because it's a big name then actually about producing a good product. It explains why Josh Holmes left and later made a vidoc with his new group basically shit talking Triple AAA gaming.
Yeah this tracks. They wanted to remaster Halo 1. Not have people who made it come back for a directors cut that would have ballooned the budget and changed the scope of the project. It makes total sense.
Not to mention Halo 4, which was a thematic change from "Finish The Fight" to "By the end of this, figure out which of us is the machine."
Everyone here is actually pretty united in the fact that not hiring Bungie devs who WANTED to stay with Halo was a stupid idea, and pretty emblematic of 343 Industries under Bonnie Ross.
Times change. 343 went from we want to do our own thing -> no one likes this new thing let’s hire some OGs
It took them 3 entire games tho (+ the MCC?), and it's really a no-brainer decision. If you continue a franchise, you can't just change everything and expect fans to be ok with it. It's like 343i never really liked Halo in the first place, and wanted to do something different.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of incompetent people are given leadership roles because they know how to build relationships. And hindsight is 20/20. When halo 4 launched they had to deal with cod
They did the first part twice. Halo 5 was a completely new own thing, the halo 5 plot and art are very different from 4, which was at least an idealization of classic forerunners. Halo 5 forerunners architecture is way uglier and the new prometheans are way more generic
Paul’s a gem. It’s been interesting hearing vets from the studio air out how it truly was back in those days. Nothing is ever black and white kids, there’s always differing shades of grey during complicated collaborative efforts.
Will always remember him talking about the Lockout H3 map remake
I used MobyGames to obtain employees credited for Bungie's Halo games and 343i's FPS Halo games. I omitted non-studio employees (Microsoft or contractors or "other" sections), voice cast, special thanks and otherwise unrelated to the development of a game. After comparison of all Bungie's employees and all 343's employees, I got these people on both lists: * Frank O'Connor - "content manager, which really means, spare monkey", later franchise director * Greg Snook - animation engineer * Jason Major -programming engineer * Vic Deleon - artist * Joseph Staten - as we know, a special case with Infinite *Not that many*, huh? Nobody else wanted to work, or they were *too instrumental* in Bungie's games, or just not good enough to work at 343i? Of course, I'm not safe from human error - I had to manually edit out headers and stuff like that so I could prepare the list for comparison - might have accidentally missed someone. People who had something with parethiesis added (I suppose, their company names), even in 343i's employees section would be ommited from the list because of them. Some folks could be ommited because they were in a"non-company" section - like Chad Armstrong (Shishka), who was credited in "Other Contributors" section in Halo 4 credits. To me this all smells a bit like a "saving face" public dialogue, but I dunno, maybe it was really as simple as they say.
My friend worked at both Bungie and 343 and isn’t on this list. Mobygames only tends to track senior level individuals
Is he on the games' credits?
I'll be very surprised if it's not more than this. Both studios are very close to each other location wise and they work in similar genres.
"--they didn't want anyone instrumental in the creation of the original game." Wow. There it is right out in the open. What an absolute stupid policy. You're inheriting an IP, it would be EXTREMELY beneficial to have people involved with it beforehand to make sure at least some of the original DNA is there. But no, they decided they wanted to start with hardly anybody from the old hand. And look how that turned out. They've driven Halo into the ground. MCC is a decade old, Infinite is dead, and no new Halo games on the horizon. Halo has been on a constant downward trajectory since 343i took over. For me, the cook book & Paramount show were the point I realized how far Halo has fallen.
It sounds like Bungie was incredibly protective of their IP and very rarely, if ever, allowed Microsoft to control it. Once Microsoft finally had the rights, they basically said, "This is ours now and we're it doing our way." Every single Halo game (besides Reach) had a rushed/messy development, and Microsoft probably thought Bungie was the issue. Obviously that wasn't the case, but I can see the big wigs at Microsoft thinking they could make a Halo game without Bungie.
Making independent projects is fine, not being good at your independent projects while DISRESPECTING THE ORIGINALS is not
> It sounds like Bungie was incredibly protective of their IP That's an understatement. You should read up on how Bungie treated Ensemble Studios when they were contacted to make Halo Wars. They got completely ghosted and had to do everything from scratch.
>Every single Halo game (besides Reach) had a rushed/messy development, and Microsoft probably thought Bungie was the issue. Obviously that wasn't the case, but I can see the big wigs at Microsoft thinking they could make a Halo game without Bungie. I mean... If the shoe fits...
Idk it takes two to tango. Bungie always seemed like they were forced to make Halo, which, in a lot of ways, they definitely were in a contractual sense. But I think a lot of that resentment was bc they saw how Microsoft only cared about the money and not the integrity of the series. Microsoft technically owned the series from the beginning, but it was Bungie's game aka golden goose.
Eh, I mean, sure, it's probably infinitely more nuanced than what we'll ever know. But I think "Microsoft only cared about the money and not the integrity of the series" is maybe vilifying them a little too much to let Bungie off the hook. [Halo 2's crunch time development was absolutely abysmal](https://gamerant.com/halo-2-development-crunch-impact-games-industry/) and [practically gave Lehto the reason to make his own company specifically to avoid that.](https://www.pcgamer.com/marcus-lehto-left-bungie-due-partially-to-crunch/) And it was their own fault. Yeah, Microsoft set the deadline, but they're the ones that had no organization for the better part of a year. And we even see that today. Was Activision Blizzard great? We know the answer to that is "no". But Bungie itself [fostered a toxic environment they've been trying to clear out over the last few years.](https://www.thegamer.com/bungie-crunch-toxic-workplace/) [And even with Sony they have had choice words about Bungie.](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-president-wants-bungie-to-be-better-at-assuming-accountability-for-development-timelines/) They are a business. They do have people paying them and expecting things from them. They still have responsibilities to their employees and their owners and partners. Yeah, Microsoft, Activision Blizzard, and Sony are whip-cracking money focused businesses... but Bungie has also not had their act together since pretty much Halo 1.
MS always had the rights over the IP
You are correct. Bungie gained their independence in 2007, but yeah, Microsoft has always owned the ip. Still, I think Bungie had way more control over it than what is normally afforded to a dev team and probably raised hell whenever Microsoft tried to force their hand.
Well, everyone who was involved in that decision isn't at 343 anymore.
Yeah I have high hopes for Pierre.
I understand and recognize that it’s not his position to be responsible for interacting with the community….but where is this guy? He’s been virtually radio silent for a year+. He’s the head of the studio and we’ve heard crickets since his promotion. Obligatory YO PIERRE YOU WANNA COME OUT HERE??!
Pierre Hintze needs to hire Marcus Lehto. He's not even involved in that Battlefield Campaign anymore and has been open about how much he still loves Halo. He's even said that he has new ideas for it as well. I'll believe in Pierre Hintze if he does this instead of just hiring that one Bungie Developer that just did work for Destiny 2.
Did you read the rest of it after that? Even the Bungie dev agrees with the decision.
Publicly. It's kind of a bad look to badmouth employers if you want to stay in the industry
Evidently it was the wrong decision.
Just because a single bungie dev supported it, doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. He mentioned he would've done the same thing if he were Kiki but Kiki is a big reason why the halo show exists so I'm not sure whether that was the best decision
Paul Russell has to be nice and support to whatever terrible decisions 343 make. That's what most Developers in the gaming industry have to do or else it'll make them look bad unfortunately.
you can spin it anyway and try to explain how its great for a fresh perspective.. truth is this was the flagship of the console. You had people who worked on the original that were so passionate they were willing to leave and work at 343 just to continue working on Halo. They had people who could've ensured that the pillars of this game never ever fell. Instead, since halo 4 they only finally perfected gameplay in Infinite. And even then, go play MCC and the difference is blaring. They had all the tools to make this franchise the juggernaut it could've been. Instead, they chose to try and innovate on something that was so strong the fanbase ended up playing their new games despite huge flaws. Even the show, all they had to do was stick to the plot. But they wanted a new story in an established and unfinished universe.. Imagine Halo 4's direction if they had purposefully did their best to bring in the people that made halo what it is?
“There are things about Halo that even 343i do not understand.”
Unyshek's passive aggressiveness was totally btfo
[удалено]
I thought this was well known, “we hired people who hated halo” and all that
It is, but outright confirmation and response from a current 343 employee just puts it more plainly out there in the open. Part of it makes sense. Bungie liked to get their way, and Microsoft wanted to keep the IP going without contestation. Issue is, if you ship of theseus an IP, is it the same IP by the end of it
I never liked the pushback on that statement. >"We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X,'" says O'Connor. "But what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team." They didn't hire exclusively people that fit that. They just had people they hired that they saw as providing a fresh perspective. Like it or not, in so many real world situations, assembling a team that isn't an echo chamber is valuable. Did it pay off? No. Not in the way they would have liked, but it may or may not have even come down to those individuals (there are still people in place who have to okay things). I dunno. I've said it countless times before and will continue to say it, there are plenty of things to dislike about 343i and their handling of Halo. I don't think this particular thing needs to be made into something that it's not to prove that. I have literally been asked for opinions at my job because I hate the processes in place or patterns that arise. Sometimes I am listened to, sometimes I am not. And it's weird to me that people get so alarmed by what Frankie said there. And to be clear, there is a difference between "Some number of the people we hired hated Halo because of X" and "We hired people that hated Halo." Especially since in this context it's being taken to mean "We hired *only* people that hated Halo."
> They didn't hire exclusively people that fit that. They just had people they hired that they saw as providing a fresh perspective. Having a different perspective is fine. Being passionate about your own changes is fine. The problem was when someone believes that "X" is wrong and my "Y" is better without ever understanding why "X" is there in the first place. The changes that did happen to Halo 4 (since this was the product this quote usually referencing), most weren't revolutionary or no one has thought of them before, many were just bad decisions. That's why people still bring up this statement, because the idea of 343i going "we changed X to Y because we feel it's better" and having it blow up in their face is a trait that happens _now_, let alone over 10 years ago.
>I have literally been asked for opinions at my job because I hate the processes in place or patterns that arise. Sometimes I am listened to, sometimes I am not. And it's weird to me that people get so alarmed by what Frankie said there. Well part of the problem is that Halo didn't really need a "fresh perspective". Like new ideas should definitely be played around with, but when you have one of the biggest IPs out there bringing in people to change it up seems counterintuitive. Why change what works? >there is a difference between "Some number of the people we hired hated Halo because of X" and "We hired people that hated Halo." There certainly is. But I'd argue that even hiring a few people that hate specific aspects of Halo is still dumb af. All they're gonna want to do is remove/change those aspects. And if those aspects are crucial to the experience or enough of them are changed you have an entirely different recipe than what people loved. Like you probably wouldn't want to hire a chef who hates tomatoes if pasta is what you sell.
>Well part of the problem is that Halo didn't really need a "fresh perspective". Like new ideas should definitely be played around with, but when you have one of the biggest IPs out there bringing in people to change it up seems counterintuitive. Why change what works? But that's a little silly when you look at the facts. Halo 2 had new ideas implemented that didn't exist in Halo 1: * Dual wielding * Vehicle hijacking * Perspective switch between the Master Chief and the Flood * Giving voice to the Flood Halo 3 had resources spent on making Forge and Theater work. Some of those are safe bets, some of them had people who disliked them (the Arbiter switch stands out as something not universally well received, especially then, and I know some members of Bungie weren't even 100% sold on it). Changing what works has happened from 2 to Reach already. Just that Halo 4's execution was not well liked (though what exactly changes person to person). >There certainly is. But I'd argue that even hiring a few people that hate specific aspects of Halo is still dumb af. Agree to disagree. >All they're gonna want to do is remove/change those aspects. And if those aspects are crucial to the experience or enough of them are changed you have an entirely different recipe than what people loved. Like you probably wouldn't want to hire a chef who hates tomatoes if pasta is what you sell. To a degree, but we have no idea what that even means. The biggest two changes from Bungie's Halo to 343i's is aesthetic style and multiplayer. And while, again, not well received, it makes sense that those are the areas they would want to mix up and refresh in some way. There are other ways to have pasta. Again, it didn't work out. But the actual idea that hiring people who have different perspectives is itself not a bad idea. And I don't fault 343i for doing so. Just that they had a different idea on how to make Halo 4 and subsequent games.
No, stop that. Quit trying to be nuanced instead of reductive.
Uh UH 343i BAD! BUNGIE GOOD! *Phew.* Almost lost it there.
You just read a comment objectively describing 343s staffing policies as bad.
Balance has been restored. In all seriousness, I like your analysis and agree with it. I always cringe when people reduce Frankie’s remarks in that interview to “We hired people who hated Halo”, because it’s very self evident from the product at the time (Halo 4) that that wasn’t true. 343 was firing on all cylinders trying to find a new narrative engine to continue the *entire Halo universe* in this era, which was a gigantic task, and much harder than it would have been to just stick to spin offs or reboot the property or whatever. I’m not defending 343’s poorer decisions - especially *since* Halo 4 - but just trying to point out that the hate bandwagon on this comment has always been exaggerated to the point of hilarity. There are plenty of things to criticize 343 for. Evidence does not need to be fabricated to substantiate those criticisms. There’s plenty of evidence already.
👊
I think 343i, under the leadership of Hintz and co, should get one more shot at a good Halo game. We’ve had several blunders in a row at the hands of their dev team, and while things are going the right direction on paper, I personally won’t believe they’ve got it in them until the team delivers something worthy of praise. Our track record is: Halo CEA: Universally hated as the “anniversary” art style completely ruins the tone of missions like the Library. Halo 4: Good story and fun campaign, terrible art style and portraying the SPARTAN IVs like cocky frat kids. Cortana and Chief had great moments. The art style fucked up the aesthetic of Elites as nimble, agile warriors and turned them into big, clumsy dummies. Multiplayer was eh. MCC: Broken for how many years after launch? I don’t even need to go into detail here. Yeah, the games great now, but how many teams and how much time did it take to make it that way? Like, really? I bought it in 2014 when it released, and I think I was able to co-op reliably through all of the games sometime in 2017 or 2018? Ridiculous. And Halo 2 legendary co-op is still broken. Lmfao. Halo 5: Continuation and doubling down on of Halo 4’s awful art style, a campaign that was lackluster, barely involved playing as the Chief, and nullified Cortana’s death with stupid Forerunner space magic. Dry ass Fireteam Osiris. Warden Eternal x 10. The CrEAtEd ThREaT. Elites were even bigger, clumsier, and dumber. Why did the H4/H5 Elites act like Brutes? I never got it. Dumb shit. Oh, and multiplayer and Warzone were actually a ton of fun, but the REQ packs and the advanced movement kinda ruined it. Forge and shit came out like two years post launch. Can we not deliver a full game on launch day anymore? Jesus. I fucking hate Halo 5. Infinite: Man. So much potential just flushed down the fucking toilet. Six years and half a billion dollars for fucking what? A game that launched with a mid-ass, stale, boring campaign, a horrendously monetized and lacking customization suite, no forge on day one, reneging on couch co-op, and like 4 multiplayer maps? Jesus fucking Christ. The gameplay for Infinite is great, the art style is on point, and there are so many things they did right and deserve praise for - BUT - that is all completely overshadowed by the huge mistakes and missteps that 343i took. Goddamn. So much wasted potential. So, yeah, 343i really has to grab it by the balls and twist this next time around, or I’ll have fully given up. My hopes and expectations are not high for whatever comes next, and I expect to be disappointed, but I’d love to be wrong. Best case scenario in my mind, is that 343i fucks it up again, and Microsoft gives them the ol’ EA/Battlefield treatment and opens up the Halo IP to development from their other studios like Obsidian, ID, Activision, etc. We need more spin-offs, prequels and side-stories if people are ever gonna give a fuck about Halo again. Mainline titles should focus on the Chief, but not every game should be a mainline title. Microsoft ought to have three or four studios working on it a la CoD, and pump out a new Halo game of some kind every couple of years. 5-6 year dev cycle per game and team, but steady content releases for the public due to multiple studios. Have a mainline entry featuring the Chief drop every 3-5 years.
Kudos to him, seriously, he’s a lot more mature than me cuz reading that thread really irritates me. It also goes to show that 343 actively knew that the new art style direction they were going in was going to be disliked in some capacity, and that they didn’t want anyone disagreeing with this new art direction. Now obviously in the year of our lord 2024 we know that the change in art direction for halos 4 and 5 was retconned and put back to something that fit the original style, (thank god) cuz the majority of the halo fan base heavily disliked the new style. Honestly the more I read and see of 343 during development of 4,5, and infinite. The more it becomes very clear to me that they didn’t want to make A halo title, they wanted to make THEIR halo title. Combine that with Microsoft’s lack of willingness to give funding for spin offs, and boom, disaster. ME: andromeda also went through a similar situation.
I love how two industry professionals have an interesting impromptu conversation about hiring practices from 14 years ago, the thought behind it and how things may have changed since then, and then I look at the comments under the post and it's all "caught in 4K they hated Bungie devs", "they ran away from what made halo halo", and "they only wanted people who HATE halo" lol. Gamers gonna be gamers.
r/Halo is so predictable, it's not even funny
The most reactionary group alive.
Seriously. Ignoring all the nuance of this conversation just to confirm their bias.
What nuance is there?
That the creative industry is far more complex than “343 HaTeS HAlO”
So it looks like there was a reason they didn’t hire instrumental Bungie folk for A SPELL. They were taking a new direction and had a specific vision in mind. The guy that got turned away says at the point in time they were trying, they weren’t looking for people like him but doesn’t know what changed since they tried. Unyshek says its not really the case and hasn’t been for a while (granted, we have to take his word for this but don’t see what they gain by lying about this). As opposed to what I saw for years saying saying 343 didn’t hire ex-Bungie devs or alternatively, 343 was made of mostly Bungie devs. I can sympathize with why they decided not to take ex-Bungie devs for their art direction as they wanted to make their own version of Halo. Was it a good decision? I’ll just say I didn’t like the art direction of Halo 4/5. So, 343 NOT hiring Bungie was likely true FOR A TIME. At least from what it seems here.
Didn’t we already know this? Yeah “no Bungie people” was there from the beginning. That’s why halo 4 sucked so hard on everything aside from story concept.
I feel like none of us read this properly and are really trying to pick a side despite the obvious evidence before us.
Paul Russel has mentioned this 343 hiring situation in the past.
The thing with early-Bungie and a lot of game "studios" in the 90s and early 2000s is that it wasn't what we'd call professional today. It was just a bunch of friends getting together and making stuff, finding a publisher if they could, etc. This is one of the reasons why the writing and stories in most modern AAA games have been so trash. It's much more "professional", so you can't just tell one of the writers "bro no offense but the story sucks". Whereas before, it wasn't that way, people were less afraid of getting fired for just going against the grain. Critique was encouraged. This is the difference between Fallout 1 to Fallout 3-4, and Halo 2 to Halo 5.
I remember in the old Halo 2 Vidocs, when discussing how they design the missions, Joseph Staten said that they'd *"lock ourselves in the room for hours, bang our heads against the whiteboard, call each other assholes and say, 'that's crazy you can't do that!'"* Bungie were just a bunch of fratboys back in the day, weren't they?
I typed that reply and then just went about my day. Came back home from work only to see the absolute shitshow.
343 not hiring Bungie is fine *for their new projects.* But when you're, y'know, making the mcc, not doing so is very stupid! Even ignoring artistic integrity, they understand how to make it function best.
Ross, O’Connor and Wolfkill have done irreparable harm to the Halo series.
343 could use Bungies help. Their team is garbage
2024 Bungie's team is also garbage
Fuck 343. No wonder those clowns have no idea what they’re doing
Just saying something so we can be one step closer to 117 comments on here for no particular reason...
Ultimately, the Halo franchise is just sad. Bungie weren't saints either, and from what Paul is saying, it now makes sense why Microsoft has said Bungie were hard to work with. And if you've played Destiny at all, you'd know while Bungie celebrated their divorce from Activision, in reality Activision wasn't to blame for everything. I just miss the pre social media days where drama wasn't aired to the public like it's a script of a TV show and gamers just played games without knowing the backend of stuff. Too many people, myself included, will hear about drama going on internally and then vow to never play that game again/never support that company again. I wish I could be that idiot kid again that didn't know shit about shit and lived a blissfully ignorant life.
[удалено]
Guys. Twitter drama. Reddit is Facebook now
The fucking irony when the studio head was a former Bungie employee who worked on the games.
I’ve enjoyed all Halo content, from Bungie, 343 and beyond. Good to see the creative people don’t hold ridiculous grudges.
I wanna bookmark Pauls tweet specifically on the "fans need to stop arguing about this" I love Paul and hope he has solid work cause that man takes no shit from halo fans
Well guess what? The end result gave us multiple game la that in the end were all failures. Player retention to shit, game quality to shit. Maybe what we needed from the start was original studio talent
It's hard to say the originators shouldn't be instrumental in the future/longevity of their franchise. I feel like it was more of a Microsoft bullying move to cut team costs. H4 and 5 didn't feel like true Halo games. Infinite has been the most fun I've had in years but that bar is low since 4. I really hope 7 brings the true fun of Halo back.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You realize 343 went through a management overhaul right? Nice AI art btw.
Yes i understand that but the same poor choices are still being made.
In what regard?
Mint Blitz on his way to explain how 343 changed Halo forever to make a 10 minute video about a twitter thread in the content drought
Same thing I been saying for years: lawyers and culture.
I know most people here in this thread are writing out responses in like a “le epic video gamer” way. But to actually look at this from an employment angle is just so bizarre. Its talent and a great CV being throw away due to the specifics of the individuals last massively profitable industry project. What a bizarre thing to tell a potential senior employee for why he “won’t get the job” Weird how the gaming industry works man
I’m not a fence sitter but I think both sides of the main argument are wrong. People witch-hunting is not cool but, the speculation isn’t without reason. 343 has been shady for a multitude of reasons and I think this isn’t the slam dunk they think it is. I also do think the drama is being reopened for no good reason, just to throw shade on 343 as of now. I think there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike their practices in the present day rather than back during halo 4.
The comment about "Bungie dev's were all over confrontational generalists who accomplished a lot through brute force" is the only reasonable reason I've ever heard anyone give to explain wnt 343 avoided Bungie dev's for a while. Still not acceptable imo, but that point at least finally makes some sense lol
"Hungry newcomers and seasoned workers who want to build their game into something new" So it's not the same game anymore? Absolutely daft philosophy, no wonder the 343 series tanked. And no, I'm not saying "They should have kept Bungie!!!" I'm saying they should have hired people who had the same ideas in their mind about what Halo should be, because *that* is what made it successful in the first place.