Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
Re: Reversed development priorities indeed. | |
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 9/23/10 11:25 p.m. |
In Response To: Reversed development priorities indeed. (RyanTheHeretic) : Yes, I think this sums up Halo: Reach absolutely perfectly. : Many of the biggest gameplay changes Bungie made with Halo: Reach, such as
: If Halo 3 had given the Chief Armour Lock, or Holograms, or maybe even a
You mean like with a gravity lift or an Invulnerability powerup? These things could have been explained. Armor Abilities are just another incarnation of Equipment. Perhaps Bungie came upon that design idea for Halo 3 and discarded it, or maybe Equipment was the first iteration and Reach is the final design. I think people could have lived with it, and I think they could have come up with a story reason for why the Chief was now able to augment his armor with stuff found on the battlefield. : With H:R, it seems that Bungie took a more laissez-faire attitude to the
: Bungie took a completely different approach to Halo development - they
: We got a brilliant game - the best yet, if you ask me - but a pretty naff
Or no plot to speak of until late in the story. It is perhaps regrettable that this impacts the best novel in the series, but bad or good, they're what they are-- spinoff novels. I think that's the risk you take when you decide to put those products out there, that this can happen. : Decisions taken to accommodate a better game. A trade-off, in other words. : Was the sacrifice worth it? Perhaps - but I'm not sure. It's certainly left
I doubt they'll address it at all-- it just wouldn't pay to. Most likely they can't fully explain away all the conflicts, and many people won't be satisfied with any possible solution. The rest-- don't really care.
|
|
Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |