>>713074915>>713075509>>713075514Forgot link: https://halo.bungie.org/halobulletins/69
Might as well throw in another link: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/making-i-halo-4-i-a-story-about-triple-a
>343 scrapped it, Holmes says, as it was too traditional. >But that first build showed the new team that this amalgamation of different studio cultures could work together and achieve a common goal.It just comes off as trend-chasing + "hey guys we're such an awesome team" second, being priorities over trying to show love and care with this golden opportunity and IP they were handed, you know?
Like they think the IP is invincible even though Bungie caught flak for weapon balance and other issues, but at least offered amazing new modes to compensate each time. Then comes 343 either launching with that stuff broken, or straight-up missing in favor of new stuff no one asked for.
I have my own ideas, Ensemble did too, and yes every Halo comes with some leeway for wanting/having to offer something fresh. But even while making an RTS Ensemble tried to nail the vibes and not get too crazy, despite the changes that are demanded by an RTS game, that also wasn't allowed to have a story that was too impactful to the setting's past.
Naturally, the more advanced your tech gets with the years, the less excuse there is for missing stuff at launch and not getting certain things right. Even Reach caught heavy flak for its changes that Bungie members working on it admitted, both before and after launch in official videos, were things that fundamentally changed the gameplay.
Lehto himself, who went from being the Lead Art Director of the trilogy to Creative Director on Reach, is on-record for thinking non-ability gameplay (H3) aged better than ability-based gameplay. Like he has more reason than anyone else to be stubborn and hold to his mistake but he doesn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJCQbJA3v0&t=3854s
It's just so simple to get Halo back on track via proper priorities.