At the very least all you've done is point out these things are a matter of opinion, or simply tried to take the achievement away from 343i by figuring out how to frame it so that it wasn't actually their achievement.
How are bugs and glitches an opinion?
How are missing gametypes and -modes an opinion?
How is pointing out the actual
developer of a game (Creative Assembly for Halo Wars 2, Saber Interactive for CEA, H2A and Halo Online, Vanguard Games for the "Spartan" series) an opinion?
Fair enough. Your experience was mostly (if not exclusively) positive. I'm actually glad for you, and for the record, I even envy you. I don't want
to dislike every new Halo game. But I just can't force
myself to enjoy them when I fundamentally disagree with 90% of the additions they make, they constantly take away stuff that was previously there and their games release completely broken and devoid of features at launch.
(Mind you, I'm mostly talking about the developing
part of the company, not
the support team that is tasked with cleaning up the mess that the "main studio" releases and maintaining old games for decades.)
You can't look at a game like Destiny and tell me Bunige, if they had kept working on Halo, would not have at least gone in a similar direction as 343i did.
Sure we can. Destiny is a completely different game from Halo, ergo it has different concepts and mechanics. That was precisely the reason why
they wanted to get away from Halo, so they could implement new ideas that wouldn't fit the Halo franchise.
And yes, I already know the reply I'm going to get: "But Reach..."
I know. Reach already implemented several of the things that Destiny would be based off. But there are two things to consider:
First of all, Reach was a spin-off. They deliberately didn't make it a numbered title to show that distinction. In fact, they didn't even call it "Halo". Nowhere in the game does it say that. I am fairly certain that the name was just added to the cover/disc by Microsoft's marketing team to capitalize on brand recognition.
Secondly, Destiny was already in development as far back as ODST
. They already knew what that game was going to be, at least in terms of gameplay. Reach was their playground to test out these things, for better or for worse, before they add it to a title that was initially meant to last for 10 years. Reach, in the way that it was developed, probably wouldn't even exist
if Bungie hadn't intended to make Destiny next.
There is no doubt in my mind that both 4 and 5 were likely considered “failures” internally as they did not sell copies, retain players, or grow the fanbase remotely at the same rate as halo 2 or 3 did to grow both the IP and the Xbox brand.
For the record, Halo 4 did indeed sell on the same level as Reach did, which was better than 2 but worse than 3. It's just the playerbase that tanked. You are correct on H5G, though (from what we've been able to infer from other sources, as neither Microsoft nor 343 release any figures on that game).