Sorry to litigate, but I'd like to see the source for that. Who boasted about hiring people who hated Halo?

I remember 343 leadership saying they had hired people outside the gaming industry with the goal of creating a diverse team. I remember some quote stating that some people had been hired who weren't Halo fans when hired. And so what? Tony Gilroy wasn't a Star Wars fan when he was hired, and he ended up making the best Star Wars creation since 1980.

Man, I said I was only gonna say the one thing. And HBO and Google exist. But Frankie said it, and yes, he used the word hate. You can hire people who aren’t fans of a thing and have that be great. But hate? That’s quite the word.

Here's a copy of the article in question:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141014092328/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_....

Frank said "We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X', but what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team."

I think if you're interpreting that as "we hired people who hated Halo because we hate our fans", I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

No, but 'hate' is still a load-bearing word in that paragraph.

How should I put this... There's a difference between iterating on a previous formula because you think the formula would work well with new elements, and forcing new elements into a formula (Or replacing it altogether!) because you think it's lacking without them.

It's the fine line of fans who want to see a Halo game that does X cool thing, and non-fans who don't like Halo because it's not CoD or CSGO or Overwatch. The latter probably aren't going to make a good Halo game because they don't love it enough to understand what made it work in the first place.

And Halo 4 was rife with that problem. Every gun in the sandbox, every enemy you fought, just felt wrong. Jaime Greisemer said that there wasn't a single good thing added to the sandbox, and I can't disagree with him.

Everything looked wrong, too, because most of the artists working on the game didn't have respect for what came before. That's why the Forward Unto Dawn was completely changed, because one of the artists decided that UNSC ships should look like more than "Just an aggregate of boxes". That's why the Covenant were beaten with the ugly stick.

The Covenant vehicles had to wait until 5 to get beaten with the ugly stick, but that's only because 4 was developed on a bit of a time crunch.

We know this can work amazingly well, too. The new DOOM actually feels like it understands why the original DOOM was so fun and completely brings that to a modern era. I kinda want those guys to be given a shot at making Halo, honestly.

You realize Microsoft laid those people off, right?

You tried this with Infinite, and it didn't work. Any attempt at this will fail because you almost by definition can't create a "classic" Halo game since it was a classic because it was fresh and new. The results will just be boring.

It didn't work because it was barely complete. Tons of the planned campaign apparently had to be ripped out because of their stupid open world ambitions. Halo Infinite feels amazing, and if they had made an actual campaign with classic Halo levels and a good story, it would have been amazing. Instead they totally focused on making that awful open world, don't even do anything interesting with it, and set every real campaign mission in the same Forerunner hallway.

IMO the best bet. Here's an idea: Hire whoever wrote Hunt the Truth to craft you a story of mystery and intrigue, then make an RPG where you unravel it. No spartans as the main character are allowed.

We know this can work amazingly well, too. The new DOOM actually feels like it understands why the original DOOM was so fun and completely brings that to a modern era. I kinda want those guys to be given a shot at making Halo, honestly.

There are 3 paths - any one of which COULD be successful," he said.

I'm listening.

1. Make a "classic" Halo movement/sandbox/shooter experience tailored to a core audience & scaled to be successful with that core audience and attractive to a broader one so it can grow.

You tried this with Infinite, and it didn't work. Any attempt at this will fail because you almost by definition can't create a "classic" Halo game since it was a classic because it was fresh and new. The results will just be boring.

2. Make something new, modern that >reinvents< the game/universe in a surprising but fantastic way. An action/sandbox game (maybe it's a new take on the FPS, maybe it's an action RPG but it's fundamentally different) and succeeds with a combination of strong story, IP use and gets a small head start based on curiosity or loyalty.

IMO the best bet. Here's an idea: Hire whoever wrote Hunt the Truth to craft you a story of mystery and intrigue, then make an RPG where you unravel it. No spartans as the main character are allowed.

3. Translate Halo IP and sandbox into the ATVI comfort zone. Use the player, progression and business models that are proven to work and craft a big annual or semi-annual spectacle and constant content.

Financially successful maybe, but creatively boring. So we know this is what they are going to do.

Activision is almost as creatively bankrupt as it is possible to be in regards to making video games. But they do put out Call of Duty every year, and have for like fifteen years now, and whatever you think of Call of Duty, those games all have a pretty high standard of quality all things considered.

Which is why I'm ultimately at least interested to see what they do. I can't say I'm excited about it, but at least it's new and potentially interesting. That was always 343i's biggest problem. Their Halo games were all pretty much technically good (MCC excluded, I guess). They looked fine (and just on a genuine technical level, Halo 4 is a marvel for looking so good on a freaking Xbox 360), they control well, the guns are fun to shoot and whatever. At the end of the day, though, they're all just kinda boring. And that's honestly the worst thing a video game can be.

And maybe I'm a simple man, but there aren't a lot of games providing that type of objective shooter, so I kind of loved it.

I think there is something to this. I won't paint with a broad brush because I know that there were people at 343 who wanted to create meaningful experiences, but creating a game that works on that level is the product of a company culture and a defined vision. Those who won the arguments in the day-to-day struggles that are inherent in software development weren't the people with their eyes on the "meaningful experience" prize, I don't think.

Think of it this way.

You're a screenwriter. The studio says "Write us a Captain Awesome movie. The villain has to be Doctor Horrible. PG-13 so we can make toys. Oh, and you have 12 weeks for the first draft."

You're a screenwriter. You get an amazing idea for a story on a topic you have a lot of investment and interest in. You pour that passion into your screenplay, and wrie whatever you want.

Which do you think will end up being the superior 'product'?

Depends on the talent of the screenwriter. If you're talking as if this was the same screenwriter in both scenarios, probably the second, but it still depends on talent. Constraint is often a great thing for creativity, and I think it's possible to create something great that's also commercial.

Sorry to litigate, but I'd like to see the source for that. Who boasted about hiring people who hated Halo?

I remember 343 leadership saying they had hired people outside the gaming industry with the goal of creating a diverse team. I remember some quote stating that some people had been hired who weren't Halo fans when hired. And so what? Tony Gilroy wasn't a Star Wars fan when he was hired, and he ended up making the best Star Wars creation since 1980.

Man, I said I was only gonna say the one thing. And HBO and Google exist. But Frankie said it, and yes, he used the word hate. You can hire people who aren’t fans of a thing and have that be great. But hate? That’s quite the word.

Here's a copy of the article in question:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141014092328/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191234/making_halo_4_a_story_about_....

Frank said "We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X', but what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team."

I think if you're interpreting that as "we hired people who hated Halo because we hate our fans", I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

(Not looking to relitigate, either. It's just clear that all of this was long enough ago that the details are fuzzy for a lot of people, even people who cared deeply at the time.)

My point was that in their public presentation to their fans, especially in the lead-up to Halo 4, they seemed more eager to please (or more concerned about whether we would be pleased) than Bungie had been up to that point. Perhaps that wasn't a reflection of the dominant attitude inside the studio, but that's the vibe I got from the messaging, and I think there was probably some correspondence.

I’m only going to say one thing about this because I think you’re really off the mark. And we don’t need to relitigate their past or excuse them anymore. They’re a shut down studio for many reasons. But 343 publicly boasted about hiring people who hated Halo in the lead up to Halo 4. That’s not trying to appeal to the fans or trying to continue capturing Halo’s “essence.”

Sorry to litigate, but I'd like to see the source for that. Who boasted about hiring people who hated Halo?

I remember 343 leadership saying they had hired people outside the gaming industry with the goal of creating a diverse team. I remember some quote stating that some people had been hired who weren't Halo fans when hired. And so what? Tony Gilroy wasn't a Star Wars fan when he was hired, and he ended up making the best Star Wars creation since 1980.

Man, I said I was only gonna say the one thing. And HBO and Google exist. But Frankie said it, and yes, he used the word hate. You can hire people who aren’t fans of a thing and have that be great. But hate? That’s quite the word.

In regards to hiring, I would have done the same if I wanted to create something that wasn't a retread. I would certainly have hardcore Halo fans at the table, and might even give them veto power, but I would also want people who had fresh ideas and whose imaginations weren't weighed down by nostalgia. What did Cody say the other day about Halo needing its Mario 64 moment?

What would appeal to fans? You seem to know. And you talk like 343 knew in 2012 and said fuck them. With all due respect, I think you've got some major hindsight bias on this subject.

Eh, I covered a lot of this ages ago. And 343 did what they did. There’s no relitigating my thoughts on it either. All we can do is, Destiny style, hope for the future!

The retcons in Halo 4 were not evidence that 343 didn't care about what Halo fans thought any more than retcons in Reach meant that Bungie didn't. Those were creative choices. Both studios hoped that fans would come with them while they did something new. As it turned out, those choices ticked off some fans, especially in the case of Halo 4, but that could have gone the other way, and it did for some people. If anything, 343 probably should have made bolder choices. They were going to be criticized no matter what. I think worrying about what fans thought handicapped them and might have paralyzed them--that might be one reason their output was so sparse.

I think the talent 343 hired, many of which were big Halo fans, didn't want to work for a Halo factory, putting out versions of the same game every few years like COD. In my opinion, every Bungie Halo game had things about it that were better than the previous games. I think 343 wanted to extend that streak. They failed, sadly, but I think they had good intentions. I'm not sure, given all the factors, that they could have succeeded. To echo Cody, Halo needed its Andor moment, but Andor was a miracle. So many pieces had to fall into place for that to get made. Even though I'm not particularly positive about the future of Halo, I felt even worse about the future of Star Wars four years ago. Miracles can happen.

I think this is all very fair. I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. This does leave out a lot of the outright lying, PR disasters, and so many other things that yes, I promise you I could be specific with with countless examples of how they treated fans in practice vs. how they spoke about allegedly caring about fans, but that would get us nowhere and just repeat a lot of the past. But most importantly, I am 100% on board with your miracles can happen. You nailed it with Star Wars. Marathon, imo, is pretty awesome, and it also has A LOT of issues. I love the game, and I’m really hoping they can course correct and turn it all around. And now that Halo is out of 343’s hands, I have the same hopes for Halo. I also know that a year from now, Marathon could be maintenance mode or shut down. I also know Activision could be a disaster for Halo. But miracles can happen, and I am really excited for the possibility.

I think there is something to this. I won't paint with a broad brush because I know that there were people at 343 who wanted to create meaningful experiences, but creating a game that works on that level is the product of a company culture and a defined vision. Those who won the arguments in the day-to-day struggles that are inherent in software development weren't the people with their eyes on the "meaningful experience" prize, I don't think.

Think of it this way.

You're a screenwriter. The studio says "Write us a Captain Awesome movie. The villain has to be Doctor Horrible. PG-13 so we can make toys. Oh, and you have 12 weeks for the first draft."

You're a screenwriter. You get an amazing idea for a story on a topic you have a lot of investment and interest in. You pour that passion into your screenplay, and wrie whatever you want.

Which do you think will end up being the superior 'product'?

My point was that in their public presentation to their fans, especially in the lead-up to Halo 4, they seemed more eager to please (or more concerned about whether we would be pleased) than Bungie had been up to that point. Perhaps that wasn't a reflection of the dominant attitude inside the studio, but that's the vibe I got from the messaging, and I think there was probably some correspondence.

I’m only going to say one thing about this because I think you’re really off the mark. And we don’t need to relitigate their past or excuse them anymore. They’re a shut down studio for many reasons. But 343 publicly boasted about hiring people who hated Halo in the lead up to Halo 4. That’s not trying to appeal to the fans or trying to continue capturing Halo’s “essence.”

Sorry to litigate, but I'd like to see the source for that. Who boasted about hiring people who hated Halo?

I remember 343 leadership saying they had hired people outside the gaming industry with the goal of creating a diverse team. I remember some quote stating that some people had been hired who weren't Halo fans when hired. And so what? Tony Gilroy wasn't a Star Wars fan when he was hired, and he ended up making the best Star Wars creation since 1980.

In regards to hiring, I would have done the same if I wanted to create something that wasn't a retread. I would certainly have hardcore Halo fans at the table, and might even give them veto power, but I would also want people who had fresh ideas and whose imaginations weren't weighed down by nostalgia. What did Cody say the other day about Halo needing its Mario 64 moment?

What would appeal to fans? You seem to know. And you talk like 343 knew in 2012 and said fuck them. With all due respect, I think you've got some major hindsight bias on this subject.

The retcons in Halo 4 were not evidence that 343 didn't care about what Halo fans thought any more than retcons in Reach meant that Bungie didn't. Those were creative choices. Both studios hoped that fans would come with them while they did something new. As it turned out, those choices ticked off some fans, especially in the case of Halo 4, but that could have gone the other way, and it did for some people. If anything, 343 probably should have made bolder choices. They were going to be criticized no matter what. I think worrying about what fans thought handicapped them and might have paralyzed them--that might be one reason their output was so sparse.

I think the talent 343 hired, many of which were big Halo fans, didn't want to work for a Halo factory, putting out versions of the same game every few years like COD. In my opinion, every Bungie Halo game had things about it that were better than the previous games. I think 343 wanted to extend that streak. They failed, sadly, but I think they had good intentions. I'm not sure, given all the factors, that they could have succeeded. To echo Cody, Halo needed its Andor moment, but Andor was a miracle. So many pieces had to fall into place for that to get made. Even though I'm not particularly positive about the future of Halo, I felt even worse about the future of Star Wars four years ago. Miracles can happen.

My point was that in their public presentation to their fans, especially in the lead-up to Halo 4, they seemed more eager to please (or more concerned about whether we would be pleased) than Bungie had been up to that point. Perhaps that wasn't a reflection of the dominant attitude inside the studio, but that's the vibe I got from the messaging, and I think there was probably some correspondence.

I’m only going to say one thing about this because I think you’re really off the mark. And we don’t need to relitigate their past or excuse them anymore. They’re a shut down studio for many reasons. But 343 publicly boasted about hiring people who hated Halo in the lead up to Halo 4. That’s not trying to appeal to the fans or trying to continue capturing Halo’s “essence.”

My point is, the dominant attitude within the studio was never we're going to do what we want, and if you don't like it, fine. They really, really wanted every fan they could get.

I would disagree with this point, pretty strongly; Kenneth Scott made a whole host of visual changes to Halo enemies for almost no other reason than "I want them to look different than they did before". There was no way to retcon those changes into the canon of the Halo universe in any smooth way. That's the opposite of 'we want to do what the fans want us to do.'

I defer to you because you saw much more on the inside than I ever did. Because Kenneth Scott did change the look of Halo enemies (Bungie did, too, but were much subtler about it from game to game), you can accuse him and others behind the retcons of not having a good sense of what they should preserve, but that's not the opposite of doing what the fans wanted them to do. Some fans were going to complain if the enemies weren’t changed. 343 didn't know what the reception was going to be. My point was that in their public presentation to their fans, especially in the lead-up to Halo 4, they seemed more eager to please (or more concerned about whether we would be pleased) than Bungie had been up to that point. Perhaps that wasn't a reflection of the dominant attitude inside the studio, but that's the vibe I got from the messaging, and I think there was probably some correspondence. I should disclose that I liked everyone I met at 343 very much and benefitted from their hospitality. It was a difficult task to take over the Halo franchise.

What I'm trying to describe is subtle, but significant. Watch the first Reach vidoc, then watch the first one for Halo 4 (A Hero Awakens). The Reach one is all about the game, the technical details, and the challenges they faced in building it. It's very concrete, and it's clear that they had specific goals that they wanted to achieve. They mention that there will be surprises, and that the characters deserve this detailed world. The word "player" isn't mentioned until the last minute. For Halo 4, the first sentence is about the player, and the player is referred to throughout. There are a few technical things discussed, but for the most part, it's full of psychologizing about characters and relationships. They basically tell you what the chief's character arc will be.

Bungie is presenting a cool thing they built to deliver an experience. 343 is grabbing you, the player, by the lapel, and pitching you on what that experience will be and the themes that will be explored. Much of that would have been better experienced in the game than talked about (they told when they should've shown in the game itself, too, but I made that post a long time ago). To me, the difference in messaging reflects a different level of confidence in their respective games to sell themselves. I hold this opinion looser than I did before this discussion, however. The bottom line for me is, I not only liked Bungie’s Halo games better, I liked the way they talked about them better. Regardless, I wish things had turned out differently for 343, and I hope the good people who were there find a good landing place.

Halo would have to have such a massive drop in quality for me to not immediately buy and play a new one, just because I’d have to know for myself.

They could have been cranking out a Halo game every two years instead of completely fucking around like they have, and I honestly think they’d be in a much stronger position than they are now.

2011 - Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary
2012 - Halo 4
2013 - Halo: Spartan Assault
2014 - Halo: The Master Chief Collection
2015 - Halo: Spartan Strike
2015 - Halo 5: Guardians

343i did that, and some might argue the drop in quality was massive and perhaps indicative that the studio just didn't have the ability to build themselves a stronger position.

They could have been easily turned Halo into COD and probably found a lot of success. I don’t mean from a gameplay perspective, but just consistently releasing decent games. Literally everyone bitches about every COD release every year, but they still sell amazingly well, and I think a lot of that is just habit. People just want to play COD. Likewise, I think lots of people just want to play Halo. I recognize that it’s a little pathetic, but Halo would have to have such a massive drop in quality for me to not immediately buy and play a new one, just because I’d have to know for myself. They could have been cranking out a Halo game every two years instead of completely fucking around like they have, and I honestly think they’d be in a much stronger position than they are now. Getting a new mediocre Halo game every five years certainly hasn’t been working.