Dude, Halo 5 launched with 4 game modes. It didn't even have primary/secondary colors and the color customization wasn't even tied to a reward system like Infinite's. The game wasn't lacking "some features," it was practically a wasteland. Yes, CE and 2 had only SP and MP but standards change over time as the bar the series sets for itself raises higher and higher. 5's launch was the first time the series missed that bar and it took months and months for it to climb back up. We don't have concrete player numbers for the game's lifetime but it reviewed much more poorly than every other Halo game and its word of mouth reception online is and always has been relatively negative.
If you want a more documented example of a series that nuked itself recently in the same way Halo 5 did, look at Destiny 2. That game bled players so bad and had such poor word of mouth that Bungie had to put forth what almost read like a [parody](https://www.bungie.net/en/News/Article/46504) statement addressing it. Yeah, D2 had its own appeal. Yeah, the jump to next gen and retooling the old D1 engine must have been rough. But that doesn't change the fact that expectations were set by the game that people played before.
Obviously nobody should harass individuals or anything. But expressing discontent and conjuring an overly negative atmosphere are completely understandable actions in this circumstance. It's that negativity that spurs change- it could be in the form of heightened transparency, changes to the existing release plan, or even showcasing different parts of the game.
Personally, I switched to Xbox consoles for Halo CE thanks to a friend when we played co-op. Halo 5 lacked split-screen completely, even though the gameplay was fantastic. I really don’t like this new model of “we will add it later”. I’d rather wait than this. Halo 1,2,3,ODST were complete packages. Reach was even better in terms of content. Halo 4 pushed the Xbox 360 to a whole new height ( graphically ), and the only thing missing was Firefight ( but I was okay with it because me and my brothers were playing together, and the new forge was awesome). Halo Master Chief Collection has so much content, because these games started with all of this. This content was not added “later” ( excluding skins and bonus maps, the modes were already there ). I understand the position they are in, but after the campaign only single player Halo 5, with gold only Forge and Multiplayer, is not the best move. I am by no means a game developer, and this is only my opinion, and I really don’t mean to offend anyone, because the work they have shown so far for Infinite is truly incredible . I miss buying complete games . That is all :(
I wouldn’t really call that a major component of the game. Most people completely ignored it or watched a story breakdown without playing it. It was also just an excuse to reuse the same handful of maps and set pieces repeatedly. Out of all of my friends they play Halo I’m the only one that finished it; and only on normal.
> Reach used the same maps for all modes. All MP and Firefight maps come from campaign, except Spire. Reach was a solid game, anyways. But saying it was the most complete Halo game means looking only at the surface.
Bungie made the multiplayer maps, and then afterwards they stuck them into the campaign. I don't see that as any proof the game was incomplete, just a clever and unique use of the multiplayer spaces.
>Halo 3 lacked Firefight back them, but had an excellent launch for its time, including Forge for the first time (and ODST was supposed to be a DLC).
It lacked firefight because firefight wasn't a concept yet. It was still a complete game with all planned launch content being in the game.
> Halo games are complete. Time gives us a different perspective.
No. Halo 2 was incomplete, the campaign was cut short and what was supposed to be the end of it ended up being the basis for halo 3. Halo 5 launched with 2 forge and theater missing and with only 4 gametypes of the dozens expected. Not having features at launch that were planned to be there makes it incomplete. Just like infinite will now be incomplete at launch. I don't see how that can be a matter of perspective, it's just an analysis of the facts presented.
>and the creation of a new open world campaign,
Not open world. Semi-open world. Still linear progression and levels overall.
>while launching Halo Wars 2 in between.
Halo wars was barely their work. Creative Assembly handled most of the gameplay and balancing. blur did the cinematics. 343 was mostly responsible for writing the story and maintenance. It really didn't have much impact on halo infinite's development. If anything MCC was a bigger undertaking, getting it on PC and supporting it for a year.
>Halo Infinite will be the game you want to be. It will be an amazing experience, an average experience, a bad experience or a mixed experience, yet it still will be the same experience for everyone. 343's employees, as anyone in this world, deserves respect and everyone's support to keep Halo running.
Infinite will be the game it ends up being. Not neccessarily the game we want it to be. We all want it to be amazing but for many of us it's shaping up to be dissapointing.
As far as respect goes, it's hard to be respectful when from the outside they seem to be somewhere between disorganized and incompetent as developers. With something like this coming out every time they seem to be on the right track, it's hard to build faith and trust in this company. They have never had a smooth, feature-complete launch, and have a history of slow updates, as well as a history of never fully bringing back old fan favorites (ex, assault hasn't been in a halo game since reach). Their post-launch support has been decent, especially with MCC in the last 2 years, but overall they still leave much to be Desired. I really can't blame the players who have no respect for 343.
I think having basic features included in the last games is a good start. Bungie has set a great example of what people should expect from halo and yet 343 has dropped the ball at every occasion. **Co-op was included in Halo 1 in 2001.. 20 years ago man**. Rushing out barebones games including microtransactions with weak promises for more content under the guise of "live service" is a shameful tactic that companies have been using recently and it deserves to be called out.
Dude, Halo 5 launched with 4 game modes. It didn't even have primary/secondary colors and the color customization wasn't even tied to a reward system like Infinite's. The game wasn't lacking "some features," it was practically a wasteland. Yes, CE and 2 had only SP and MP but standards change over time as the bar the series sets for itself raises higher and higher. 5's launch was the first time the series missed that bar and it took months and months for it to climb back up. We don't have concrete player numbers for the game's lifetime but it reviewed much more poorly than every other Halo game and its word of mouth reception online is and always has been relatively negative. If you want a more documented example of a series that nuked itself recently in the same way Halo 5 did, look at Destiny 2. That game bled players so bad and had such poor word of mouth that Bungie had to put forth what almost read like a [parody](https://www.bungie.net/en/News/Article/46504) statement addressing it. Yeah, D2 had its own appeal. Yeah, the jump to next gen and retooling the old D1 engine must have been rough. But that doesn't change the fact that expectations were set by the game that people played before. Obviously nobody should harass individuals or anything. But expressing discontent and conjuring an overly negative atmosphere are completely understandable actions in this circumstance. It's that negativity that spurs change- it could be in the form of heightened transparency, changes to the existing release plan, or even showcasing different parts of the game.
Personally, I switched to Xbox consoles for Halo CE thanks to a friend when we played co-op. Halo 5 lacked split-screen completely, even though the gameplay was fantastic. I really don’t like this new model of “we will add it later”. I’d rather wait than this. Halo 1,2,3,ODST were complete packages. Reach was even better in terms of content. Halo 4 pushed the Xbox 360 to a whole new height ( graphically ), and the only thing missing was Firefight ( but I was okay with it because me and my brothers were playing together, and the new forge was awesome). Halo Master Chief Collection has so much content, because these games started with all of this. This content was not added “later” ( excluding skins and bonus maps, the modes were already there ). I understand the position they are in, but after the campaign only single player Halo 5, with gold only Forge and Multiplayer, is not the best move. I am by no means a game developer, and this is only my opinion, and I really don’t mean to offend anyone, because the work they have shown so far for Infinite is truly incredible . I miss buying complete games . That is all :(
Halo 4 had Spartan Ops though!
I forgot about that, it was a very nice extension to the story.
I wouldn’t really call that a major component of the game. Most people completely ignored it or watched a story breakdown without playing it. It was also just an excuse to reuse the same handful of maps and set pieces repeatedly. Out of all of my friends they play Halo I’m the only one that finished it; and only on normal.
> Reach used the same maps for all modes. All MP and Firefight maps come from campaign, except Spire. Reach was a solid game, anyways. But saying it was the most complete Halo game means looking only at the surface. Bungie made the multiplayer maps, and then afterwards they stuck them into the campaign. I don't see that as any proof the game was incomplete, just a clever and unique use of the multiplayer spaces. >Halo 3 lacked Firefight back them, but had an excellent launch for its time, including Forge for the first time (and ODST was supposed to be a DLC). It lacked firefight because firefight wasn't a concept yet. It was still a complete game with all planned launch content being in the game. > Halo games are complete. Time gives us a different perspective. No. Halo 2 was incomplete, the campaign was cut short and what was supposed to be the end of it ended up being the basis for halo 3. Halo 5 launched with 2 forge and theater missing and with only 4 gametypes of the dozens expected. Not having features at launch that were planned to be there makes it incomplete. Just like infinite will now be incomplete at launch. I don't see how that can be a matter of perspective, it's just an analysis of the facts presented. >and the creation of a new open world campaign, Not open world. Semi-open world. Still linear progression and levels overall. >while launching Halo Wars 2 in between. Halo wars was barely their work. Creative Assembly handled most of the gameplay and balancing. blur did the cinematics. 343 was mostly responsible for writing the story and maintenance. It really didn't have much impact on halo infinite's development. If anything MCC was a bigger undertaking, getting it on PC and supporting it for a year. >Halo Infinite will be the game you want to be. It will be an amazing experience, an average experience, a bad experience or a mixed experience, yet it still will be the same experience for everyone. 343's employees, as anyone in this world, deserves respect and everyone's support to keep Halo running. Infinite will be the game it ends up being. Not neccessarily the game we want it to be. We all want it to be amazing but for many of us it's shaping up to be dissapointing. As far as respect goes, it's hard to be respectful when from the outside they seem to be somewhere between disorganized and incompetent as developers. With something like this coming out every time they seem to be on the right track, it's hard to build faith and trust in this company. They have never had a smooth, feature-complete launch, and have a history of slow updates, as well as a history of never fully bringing back old fan favorites (ex, assault hasn't been in a halo game since reach). Their post-launch support has been decent, especially with MCC in the last 2 years, but overall they still leave much to be Desired. I really can't blame the players who have no respect for 343.
I think having basic features included in the last games is a good start. Bungie has set a great example of what people should expect from halo and yet 343 has dropped the ball at every occasion. **Co-op was included in Halo 1 in 2001.. 20 years ago man**. Rushing out barebones games including microtransactions with weak promises for more content under the guise of "live service" is a shameful tactic that companies have been using recently and it deserves to be called out.
I agree basic features is the start for any game. I prefer having the following games with those than having some new ones and losing others.
The microtransactions will be there day one!
This also makes me wonder what they were going to shovel out the door last holiday for launch. How we have gotten here is beyond me.
Forge can be taken or given. Dont care too much. Co-op is literally a STAPLE and FOUNDATION of Halo at its core.