If Reach is Bungie's farewell to Halo, then this is your farewell to Bungie - a behind-the-scenes look at how the talented team created a legendary series that is, and always will be, at the beating heart of what makes Xbox brilliant.
"Halo 3's major triumphs were Forge mode and the impressive replay recording facility. What most people don't know, though, is that the recording facility very nearly made it into the second game. "I didn't really know about it at the time, and I've since learnt that apparently we had a saved film theatre option working in Halo 2," Sankey reveals. "Chris Butcher, at the time one of our lead engineers, was so passionate about this feature he had basically worked for about six weeks on his own, outside of his main work, to get it up and running and working. They had to break it to him that it wasn't going to be able to fit in the game because there was no time in the schedule for the UI team to build a front end for it. On the back end we had saved films working even in Halo 2, but it was something that couldn't be fully realised. I was shocked when I found out that we could have had replays even on the original Xbox."" ...and people say Bungie doesn't innovate. The fact that the only thing that was missing for Theater in Halo 2 is the UI, is probably why it's nearly flawless in Halo 3.
If only MS didn't rush them... :( Also, H2 would have had the ending it deserved.
rush them? There was 3 years between Halo's. Naughty Dog puts out good games year after year. Why can't these guys release a game in two never mind three. So what are we disagree with here? The fact that I don't think three years is rushing? or That Naughty Dog makes good games year after year?
""Our biggest learning [from Halo 2] is that before you invest real time and real work, you have to have a plan that's realistic and do the diligence up front," Jarrard explains. "For Halo 2, I think we had great ambitions and great ideas, but they weren't really proven. It took a long time to realise that the team was veering down a wrong path. My recollection of Halo 2 is that it was a shotgun approach - throwing stuff up against the wall. It took too long before people started to make the hard decisions. At that point it was incredibly painful to basically start from scratch with only 18 months left in the project."" They weren't as organized as they should have been. Maybe read the article next time?
As I thought, young guys, unprofessional. So they weren't rushed which is why I responded. Why read the article, I come here for the comments, they're at least entertaining, and vg articles are nothing but advertising. I'm not wasting my time on shitty game writing, when I could be reading the gold snark like "maybe read the article next time?"
@wray77 Dang, Naughty Dog releases games year after year and yet they still win 150+ awards. I'd be amazed to see what they could do with 3.
I don't even own a ps3, but I might buy one if naughty dog got three years to craft whatever game they make next.
Microsoft had every right to rush them on it, midway through development all Bungie had was a demo that wasn't even playable on the Xbox. Bungie basicaly wasted time and sat on an engine that just wasn't going to work out. Halo 2 could have been better yes, but that was Bungies fault.
Halo 2 was definitely a learning experience for them. And through it all they still managed to craft a great game. @wray77 funny you mention Naughty Dog as a comparison, since they took the time to include a thank you to Bungie in the credits of their own game. Shows how much respect they have for those "unprofessional" young guys.
I know it's mostly Bungie's fault, but they were still rushed. If only Bungie had had their act together. :(
@bizmcoy. They thanked, bungie in 2009, we're talking about the bungie that existed circa 2001-2004. They finish games now, in the time they're given. I should hope they've learned to be more professional after that. I'd like to append my statement with the fact that I'm not impugning their quality. Just that I don't agree with the statement that they were rushed, by releasing a game three years after the original. It takes two to tango, perhaps MS should have pushed harder earlier.
"As I thought, young guys, unprofessional. So they weren't rushed which is why I responded. Why read the article, I come here for the comments, they're at least entertaining, and vg articles are nothing but advertising. I'm not wasting my time on shitty game writing, when I could be reading the gold snark like "maybe read the article next time?"" LOL, I'm sure you're the very definition of professional. Bungie had their biggest game, and they were overly ambitious and had a plethora of ideas they wanted to use and where they wanted to take the sequel. Oh noes. They made mistakes and they learned from them. It's one of the reasons why they're one of the best dev studios around.
"Just that I don't agree with the statement that they were rushed, by releasing a game three years after the original." I agree with you there, they weren't rushed. They said as much themselves if I recall. For H2, you look at the campaign demo they had @ E3 and realize that there was no game outside of that demo, Bungie had effectively pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. I remember the making of video they included in H2 and how much they screwed themselves by doing that. Probably the defining moment for them as a developer. They managed to step it up and put a game out that wasn't garbage. There probably wouldn't have been a bungie to thank in 2009 had they not gone through that. Also consider that they were tasked with making a worthy sequel to the most important console shooter in history. Had it turned out anything less than great, it could have broken them.
HALO WAR > ALL
You are in a small minority my friend, but for lovers of RTS games I suppose that would be true.
I do agree, their Halo games don't feel like they should take three years to make. I'm not saying that they're bad games at all, they just don't have the same quality of others. Look at Gears 2, it took them 2 years to make that game and it looks amazing, then again the multiplayer was messed up. Also, someone mentioned Uncharted 2, which has an amazing sinlge player and multiplayer experience. Uncharted 2 only took 2 years to make. Insomniac games puts out a game every year, each have a high level of quality. I'm not saying that Bungie's games don't compare quality-wise, it just seems that their games look like the product of 1.5-2 years of work, rather than 3. And then theres Gran Turismo 5 XD...
Sorry but this is some of the saddest reasoing I've ever seen. How exactly are you at all capable of graphing what a product with 1.5-2 years of work looks like? n4g amazes me sometimes.
Why do I see half of the comments revovling around Naughty Dog instead of the developer in topic title? Can there be one article on here with no fanboys trying to show off their e-peen?
That's a nice e-peen you got their yourself sweaty.
I'm showing it by wanting to stay on topic? :S
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.