{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/17/2013 10:28:45 PM
4
I agree with those who state that there are likely already people who hate it. "OMG THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC NOT LIKE COD"
For me personally, unless someone can rationally set out a list of design decisions which they disagree with about a work, then I consider their opinion undeveloped and infantile at that stage, so I don't really pay attention or care about it. As it's said, "Cynicism is far too easy to be useful" so, likewise, is mindless criticism.
Bungie isn't taking shots in the dark here, they're a collection of casual, but very seriously trained professionals, so even if the game is a complete antithesis to every one of my desires in a game, I will [i]still[/i] have a very strong appreciation for whatever it is about that game which makes it aggravate me, because it would be so perfect and consistent in it's execution.
Games are like art. Some people just can't see, in their minds, the practiced motions behind the brush strokes.
English
-
[quote]Bungie isn't taking shots in the dark here[/quote] You sure? Halo 1's pistol was basically a mistake. Dual wielding ended up backfiring on them. Equipment was pretty despised. Armor abilities were DEFINITELY hated by the community. Bloom was a major failure. Changing the movement properties of Spartans was considered a mistake. A lot of the additions to the Covenant weren't well received and ended up getting cut in the long-run. Bungie definitely takes a number of shots in the dark.
-
[quote]Halo 1's pistol was basically a mistake.[/quote] Yep, it ruined the game overall. No wonder it won "Worst Game of the Year" and didn't go on to become one of the largest game series in history. Everything about that game must have been accidental. [quote]Dual wielding ended up backfiring on them.[/quote] Similarly, nobody thought dual-wielding was cool, and nobody had fun doing it. What a complete mistake. Likewise, it's as if the entire studio walked into work, threw spaghetti at their keyboards, and shipped whatever keystrokes were registered. Do you see where I'm going? Trying new things is definitely risky, but those are learning experiences, and an acceptable, and actually extremely positive aspect of artistic growth. They are ideas which are acted upon by informed individuals. By stating "this [pistol, dual-wielding, AAbility] is broken" you must be comparing "it" to something which is not broken in any way, otherwise, how could it be "wrong?" It's comparing Bungie's game design decisions to an ideal of perfection which does not exist anywhere in the world, and certainly does not exist uniquely in your mind. So I'd say that they are trying new things, but there is a difference between making a decision to take a risk and acting risky without thinking about it.
-
Edited by Trollheim: 2/18/2013 12:35:53 AMMy point is, Bungie stumbled into a winning formula with Halo: CE and didn't know enough about what made their own game so successful that they didn't know how to compliment the elements that worked well. You see the same things in the following Halos for the most part - art, music, gameplay, with most of the additions to that core being less than well-received. And yes, I am saying that many of their decisions were objectively wrong, if wrong is "not received well by their core fans to the point they have to be doubled back upon". Dual wielding got nixed, bloom got nixed, movement was brought back to more classic levels (although not all the way), many of the Covenant characters were removed in favor of the core classic races, etc.
-
[quote]My point is, Bungie stumbled into a winning formula with Halo: CE and didn't know enough about what made their own game so successful that they didn't know how to compliment the elements that worked well. [/quote] While I can say Bungie didn't know Halo would be as successful as it was, this is true for most artistic endeavors. Was it a decision Michaelangelo made to become one of the most renown artists in human history? Or was it a part of who he was? Could his wrist, the way he held a chisel to sculpt David be considered a quantifiable mistake, if some art critics did not like what he produced? It would seem that you are attempting to rectify your subjective opinion with an objective method of analysis. There is a difference between me not liking a game, and the game being made [i]incorrectly.[/i] I don't like Angry Birds, but it isn't [i]wrong[/i] [quote]being less than well-received. [/quote] I would let the sales figures for the Halo series speak for themselves. How old are you? I'm curious. [quote]"not received well by their core fans to the point they have to be doubled back upon". [/quote] Halo 2 and Halo 3 are different games. This is an extremely obvious statement. A kitchen and a bedroom are two different places. This is also an extremely obvious statement. Working with this logic, if a sink is sensible and useful, enjoyable and practical in a kitchen, why not have one in every room in the house? Right. Because they are different rooms, and have different needs. Halo 3 was a monumental game, [i]this[/i] is an example of an empirical fact (sales figures) so I don't see where the problem lies. You can argue with success, it's just very difficult. [quote]My point is, Bungie stumbled [/quote] My point is, who takes credit for what Michaelangelo accomplished? I would say it's Michaelangelo. So if credit for what Bungie created should go to anyone, it should go to Bungie. They are responsible for their actions, and their actions have produced, over the last 20 years, some of the most memorable gaming experiences ever.
