Smiled at the sight of Mig. (Gaming)

by Kermit @, Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 09:13 (547 days ago) @ Joe Duplessie (SNIPE 316)
edited by Kermit, Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 09:20

Dude, I've got to cut this down a bit, it's just too big a wall.

Ha! Yeah, sorry. Time was short, so the post was long.

One thing kind of left out is how entitled and cynical the gaming community has become.

Fed up with corporate greed infesting everything and having a negative effect. Things like microtransactions, battle passes, the entire F2P model, Loot Boxes, etc were all the result of publishers trying to get as much money as possible, and the games have suffered for it. Video games are uniquely vulnerable to these kinds of predatory monetization schemes.

I agree that corporate greed is a factor, and I'm against gambling generally (I think lotteries are predatory), but there are gray areas. Destiny has gotten better about loot boxes, but you should get the exotic way before 60-something raid completions (thankfully, most do). Corporations need customers, and customer expectations are part of the puzzle, and they are sky high.

There was always bitching and moaning.

Nothing like this. Because the games were still good. They had problems, but they were fun. If you had watched the "kvetching" section of the video, you would have seen where they were called out for charging $20 for a helmet from Reach. Or $7 dollars just to make your armor red.

I have watched it now. Twenty bucks does seem ridiculous for a helmet, but somebody will probably pay. Enough somebodies? I don't know. It's a fair point, and personally, I'm not bothered too much by cosmetic sales. I've bought a few things in Destiny (not so much with real money anymore), but it's worth it or not TO ME. If it's not, I stop caring. I want my black visor for Reach in MCC, and someday I'll get it, but I won't pay for it.

I'm just less bothered generally by luxuries not being worth what they're charging. I don't have to buy. IMHO, the bigger problem for 343 is overpromising--selling things that turn out to be less than expected. Which bring us back to customer expectations--we want more and more for basically the same price. Corporate greed plays into it, so does the fact that modern AAA games cost a LOT of money. The crisis affecting big budget movies is also affecting game development. Greed is a factor there, but another factor is a fickle fanbase that demands more pixels, higher frame rates, etc., and a business model that seems to demand instant responsiveness to everyone with a platform to bitch, which is, essentially, everyone.

Honestly, it's become harder to just love something. In other words, it's harder to just be a fan.

Absolutely, but blaming other fans for not bending over and taking it isn't good for anyone.

Again, if I get a value consummate to what I paid, I don't feel like I'm getting screwed.

And while the publishers are certainly to blame for anything related to monetization, it's 343's fault that the story and gameplay are bad (at least the art is good now, that's something I guess).

Yep, although I thought Halo Infinite's gameplay was pretty damn good. I understand the feeling of being betrayed in terms of story (Hi, the Last Jedi), and maybe I'm a hypocrite because I enjoyed the Halo TV series. I guess I can still imagine that Master Chief becoming the Master Chief I know, whereas I can't imagine Luke becoming who he became. I don't want to get us off track, though.

Bungie made it easy by delivering great games. They weren't perfect [snip] the criticism more or less died without oxygen.

Yes, the games WERE great. That's why all the criticisms were drowned out by overwhelming positivity.

As others have pointed out, critics had fewer outlets, and their criticisms generally weren't monetized.

Bungie innovated like hell at a time when there was much room for it. The Beatles could not have been the Beatles if they did not exist in their time and place. Same with Halo. And it's not like Halo was getting bigger. The business was changing, and the last few Bungie Halo games did not meet expectations--there was a drop off.

What? Halo was getting bigger every release, in spite of increased competition, until the formula changed. We will never know how successful a true Halo would be these days, because they absolutely refuse to make one.

Halo wasn't getting bigger in terms of engagement, and that's what the business was evolving towards. Microsoft was disappointed with Reach. I don't know about the true Halo idea. Halo was the true Halo and what made it successful was it delivered something new and better. It's tough to do that AND deliver so much of the old that the fans want at the same time. I find it interesting that you say they REFUSE to make a true Halo game, as if they don't want please their customers.

Let me take this analogy further. Halo-era Bungie had something akin to the Beatles in attitude. Bungie didn't exist in response to the fans, but for themselves and what they liked and what they wanted to make.

But you're missing a key element. There was little publisher interference. Outside of the launch day, Microsoft wasn't dictating the design of the games to Bungie. Nowadays, that's different.

If it was so different, why has Bungie broken up with Microsoft, then Activision? I honestly don't know the politics of 343 these days. I'm sure you follow the current state of things closer than I do.

There's nothing wrong with hiring fans...[but you have a be a bigger fan of what's possible than you are of what's come before.]

That wasn't the problem, the problem was "We hired people who hated Halo".

You cut out the point of that sentence. I saw that pull quote in the video, and I would like to know the context. All I can say is, reportedly, Tony Gilroy isn't a big fan of Star Wars, yet I've been more satisfied with Andor than with any Star Wars production since 1980. So I dunno. One could argue that the MCC in its current form is the best deliverable yet from the fans at 343, and what does it do? It preserves what's come before.

I've changed. I can't invest like I used to, but I will play co-op with my long-time co-op buddy Ozy, when I can.

Sure, as long as weren't planning on playing splitscreen...

Funny that. Halo wouldn't have become what it did without it, but Bungie didn't anticipate it. In this semi-post-Covid age, I will tout the superiority of physical presence all day long, and a good LAN party is a gaming experience like no other. Yet, had Bungie been able to deliver online play earlier, I think they would've, and we would've lost our freaking minds.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread