Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

Read This if you're frustrated with MCC

OP Tyrael

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
READ ME

To the people who say that that article has no relevence to MCC, it has as much relevence as a completely new IP. MCC is a bigger challenge than any standalone game, doesnt matter if theres no animating or modeling or storyboarding or any of that, porting 4 games is much, much more difficult to do. Regardless of what you think is true, this is fact. that article explains how difficult making a game from scratch can be, and in comparison MCC is much, much more difficult of a project. Before you post your bashful, ignorant, self entitled bull crap that I know you will, read every single post and then make your own, the amount of redundancy is astounding and alot of good points are made for both sides, whether I agree with them or not. If youre gonna say something thats been said (probably 50 times or so by now) then dont post, you will be wasting your time.

Porting games is much harder than making a game from scratch, this is a fact, porting 4 games in the time microsoft gave them is borderline impossible, that is a fact. this isnt a "making games is hard" situation, this is finding a needle in a haystack, then doing a surgery with only that needle without it being sterilized.

343 is NOT Microsoft, yes 343 is owned by Microsoft, but the people at Microsoft control all of the business decisions, not the people at 343. Everyone at 343 wants to make great Halo games and they want to make them work, but with corporate BS, Microsoft will make that much harder, to the degree of impossibility, case in point with MCC. All 343 has is creative control, beyond that its all Microsoft.

I've seen a decent amount of posts talking about "I would have been fine with the game coming out a year later", I have a few personal opinions about this. I would rather have a half working game now, that gets fixed in 4-6 months rather than wait twice that amount of time to play the same product, but that's just me. Microsoft wanted the game to be released on the 10 year of Halo 2, even if that meant shipping a game that didnt entirely work.

I have seen this alot as well, "I bought an Xbox One, a headset, etc. just to play MCC." Ok first off, I dont care, simple as that. Two, You have all but one part of your purchase that works at pretty much 100% capacity and youre going to rage at the entire purchase when there's more than just one game out there? I can understand wanting to play Halo, but usually people who play Halo are open to other games and genres, so be that person and buy something else in the meantime, Dragon Age: Inquisition is a great example. Other great games can hold your attention in the meantime, but dont rage because you have nothing to play at 100% effectiveness on your Xbox.

Halo The Master Chief Collection, not Halo The Multiplayer Collection. I can understand loving the multiplayer and wanting to play it. But the campaign and achievements can hold your attention for a very long time, in my case 400+ hours. Multiplayer was an added bonus, MCC was made for the campaign and shouldnt be ignored completely, so play it. If your argument is "but i dont care about the campaign" then go play cod, if your argument is "but i want more of a challenge" go play battlefield, play Halo for the love of Halo, not any other reason.

Metaphors about buying cars. Really... Stop with this, its absolutely stupid. If you are willing to compare a car purchase to a video game, you should probably get your priorities straight. Car purchases and game purchases have no relation other than a money transaction, Its an apples to oranges comparison. If you still really want this argument, I will give my own examples. Buying MCC + Xbox + Headset is like a car with a radio that only plays AM and a select few FM stations and will be fixed in the future, so in the meantime, buy a new radio. All radios are there to achieve the same purpose, and I am very sure it is not a one size fits all situation. Buying MCC is like a car without AC, or powered windows. You can still get to point A to point B, but not as well or as comfortable as other cars, but you will get your car fixed for free in the coming months, and then the manufacturer throws in a free GPS, and a free month of gas. Cars dont work this way, if theyre broken, you pay alot of money to fix them, video games, they manufacturer will spend alot of money making you happy and fix it for you, be grateful for that.

I can guarantee you that every little update that has happened to the game that "made it worse" was in preparation of this large update, they were stepping stones to get this update to fix everything, only time will tell however and assuming that it will just break the game more is ignorant.

This thread is not made to say that people cant voice their opinions, its to say that you need to know facts and you need to not be d-bags about the whole process of complaining, these forums have turned into a dumpster fire at a chemical plant and it hurts me, as well as others, seeing it that way.

Raging gets you nowhere. Bashing gets you nowhere. Trolling gets you nowhere. Have an actual productive conversation and argument for once.
Good read Berserk. I don't think it sucks at all but I was still interested to read this...
It had as much effect on me as pointing me to a video about how hard it is to make cars when my Envoy breaks down for the 7th time. Explaining how hard it is to make good movies does not change my opinion of Waterworld, nor my dissatisfaction with having actually paid theater admission to watch it.

All that matters is:

1. What the devs promised the consumers; and,
2. What the devs delivered to consumers

It's the dev's responsibility to make sure the promises are commensurate with the difficulty of making the product. The read is interesting to an extent, but almost superficially true. Almost everything looks easy until you actually do it.

I could blow most people's minds with how complex and difficult making certain steel components are, but the complexity of the development and production does not change the expectations of our customers that the products we deliver will function as we promised in terms of returns, scrap, and fines. If they do not, we take the financial penalty for failing to deliver on our promises. Why should the video game industry be any different?
NNMS MXMS wrote:
It had as much effect on me as pointing me to a video about how hard it is to make cars when my Envoy breaks down for the 7th time.

All that matters is:

1. What the devs promised the consumers; and,
2. What the devs delivered to consumers

It's the dev's responsibility to make sure the promises are commensurate with the difficulty of making the product.
They didn't promise you anything of the sort however, you are saying that they explicitly told you that the game will be 100% bug free and you will be able to play flawlessly day one. if they had more time the multiplayer wouldn't have been as broken I admit that, but that wouldn't have allowed the campaign to be released on the 10 year anniversary of H2. The only thing they promised was a culmination of the 4 Halo titles on Xbox one with a remastered Halo 2, and that is what was delivered, so I guess it fits your "things that matter" list.
To me just because something is hard to do doesn't give them an excuse if it doesn't work properly. A TV would be hard to make does that mean its OK if after you buy it the picture is all jacked up? or the sound doesn't work? the fact is the game wasn't ready upon released and they released it any ways to get it on the shelf before COD AW or just to get their money. I don't by that they didn't know of the problems upon release. They cant be that incompetent or stupid, at least I hope not. I just hope they learned their lesson and i still say who ever made the call to release the game should be fired,IMO.
That article isn't really a good excuse to why this product was released in the way it was. They knew it was bad and they released it anyway to cash in.
CoD has nothing to do with this for starters, it had no relevence to the date of release for MCC. MCC was released for the 10 year anniversary of Halo 2

The game was not ready upon release, but when it comes down to it it's not even 343's decision on when the game is released, they are given the date and they did the best they could with it in the time allotted.

343 was not looking to cash in for MCC, they did it because they actually have a passion for Halo, unlike you who is bashing because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Tyrael wrote:
NNMS MXMS wrote:
It had as much effect on me as pointing me to a video about how hard it is to make cars when my Envoy breaks down for the 7th time.

All that matters is:

1. What the devs promised the consumers; and,
2. What the devs delivered to consumers

It's the dev's responsibility to make sure the promises are commensurate with the difficulty of making the product.


They didn't promise you anything of the sort however, you are saying that they explicitly told you that the game will be 100% bug free and you will be able to play flawlessly day one. if they had more time the multiplayer wouldn't have been as broken I admit that, but that wouldn't have allowed the campaign to be released on the 10 year anniversary of H2.
I claimed nothing of the sort. Do you see any product claims in my post? Anywhere I said the devs promised it would be bug free? Anywhere I said it would work flawlessly day one (which, ironically, it actually did work flawlessly Day 1 with respect to MP play . . . it broke on Day 2). You are ascribing things to me that I did not say.

What I do claim the devs failed to deliver upon (explicit statements from 343i and Microsoft confirm that the devs agree that they both promised to deliver and failed to deliver) are the following:

1. Dedicated servers for matchmaking. These were present on the first day, then disappeared for a month and a half, and were then restored in a limited fashion with the last 2 patches.

2. Working netcode. Explicit statements from Frank O'Connor and Bravo have agreed that the netcode for H2A / H4 is defective. Moreover, explicit statements from Frank O'Connor have tied at least a portion of the dedicated server issue to the netcode - which makes some games appear P2P even when on dedis.

3. "Exactly as you remember it". This is not true by any stretch - and this has been admitted by the devs as a failed promise. It's hard for MP to be "exactly as you remember it" when you can't even play it.

I would ask you to stop apologizing for 343i (because doing so is both irritating to those of us without a working product and does not help ensure future working products), but if your desire to apologize has lasted this long, I fear it may be too late for me or anyone else to change it.
Tyrael wrote:
343 was not looking to cash in for MCC, they did it because they actually have a passion for Halo, unlike you who is bashing because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
If you think that maintaining cash flow while waiting for Guardians to release was not a concern for 343i, you don't have a clue, either.
Tyrael wrote:
NNMS MXMS wrote:
It had as much effect on me as pointing me to a video about how hard it is to make cars when my Envoy breaks down for the 7th time.

All that matters is:

1. What the devs promised the consumers; and,
2. What the devs delivered to consumers

It's the dev's responsibility to make sure the promises are commensurate with the difficulty of making the product.

They didn't promise you anything of the sort however, you are saying that they explicitly told you that the game will be 100% bug free and you will be able to play flawlessly day one. if they had more time the multiplayer wouldn't have been as broken I admit that, but that wouldn't have allowed the campaign to be released on the 10 year anniversary of H2. The only thing they promised was a culmination of the 4 Halo titles on Xbox one with a remastered Halo 2, and that is what was delivered, so I guess it fits your "things that matter" list.
Caboose said exactly what I was thinking.
How hard it is-is completely irrelevant. It's their job, not mine. Playing drums isn't easy, but if I played a show and I was losing time regularly, I'd understand people being upset... they'd have every right to be. I wouldn't say 'you think you can do it better? Go ahead.' It's not their job to.

As for the guy I'm quoting, that argument is tired. Please stop.
They don't have to actually say 'this game will work' when they sell it because that's assumed, given that it's the law. You can't just decide to release a broken product for money whenever you feel like it.
We don't even want completely bug free; the game barely works at all.
I don't care about their anniversary goals. They failed to meet it, and by selling the product, they borderline broke the law. At the very least, they slapped a bunch of people who were fans of the franchise in the face.
Stop blaming the consumers, apologist.
lmao....so basically it is telling me it is a lot of work to make a game. yay. now let's all give them a round of applause. -_- Everyone can point to different aspects of their job that are difficult...it...is...their...JOB. But oh wait, I'm completely bypassing the fact that 343 didn't need to do all those steps in that article (making a character..a story line...graphics..etc. etc. etc.) BECAUSE THE GAMES WERE ALREADY MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE! 343 had a simple job: remaster Halo 2. but wait, they went above and beyond by saying they would thrown in the other halos for awesome's sake. Except they couldn't even compile games that were already made. Don't apologize for a developer that fails at their job. Any other person that knowingly sells and ships a completely broken product (and if you say they didn't know it was broken you are delusional) at BEST loses their job (at worse the whole company goes under.) I'm not just frustrated by this broken piece of bleep, I'm disgusted by it and the business model that brought it about.
Interesting, the game is broken yet you have 8 days played on MCC and you have played over 700 multiplayer games.

You did not "claim it" but you implied it by saying they promised us things.

1: Stemmed from #2
2: With the time they were given, I'm honestly surprised that the netcode wasn't more broke than it was, The games are playable however, so this isn't really of concern.
3: How is that not true? Albeit finding games does not work as well as it did but the multiplayer is literally the same but at a higher fidelity, you can play it, your service record says so.

I am not apologizing for 343, many of the issues are not their fault in my opinion, and bashing them on their forums does not ensure future working products. I posted the article because of the incompetence that plagues these forums and the lack of knowledge about how the video game industry works.
Tyrael wrote:
NNMS MXMS wrote:
It had as much effect on me as pointing me to a video about how hard it is to make cars when my Envoy breaks down for the 7th time.

All that matters is:

1. What the devs promised the consumers; and,
2. What the devs delivered to consumers

It's the dev's responsibility to make sure the promises are commensurate with the difficulty of making the product.

They didn't promise you anything of the sort however, you are saying that they explicitly told you that the game will be 100% bug free and you will be able to play flawlessly day one. if they had more time the multiplayer wouldn't have been as broken I admit that, but that wouldn't have allowed the campaign to be released on the 10 year anniversary of H2. The only thing they promised was a culmination of the 4 Halo titles on Xbox one with a remastered Halo 2, and that is what was delivered, so I guess it fits your "things that matter" list.
My God. That is like saying you buy a car from a dealer and it doesn't have an engine...the dealer never explicitly stated he would sell you a car WITH an engine...just a car. That is the most idiotic argument I have ever heard in defense of this broken pile of crap. And if you really want to nitpick...the developer did EXPLICITLY state: "you will be able to play all multiplayers, EXACTLY as you remember them." I remember a matchmaking that worked, a hit detection that ACTUALLY detected and ranking system that was perfect. So yes, we entered into an agreement with the developer..aka I give them $60 and they give me what they said they would give me. 100+ days later, I'm still waiting for them to fulfill their promise/agreement/bargain.
Porting games and remastering an engine is much more complicated than it sounds, honestly its probably even more complicated than making a game from scratch. Thats what most people dont understand, it is not just copy and paste of the code, its way, way, way more than that. Many of the problems revolving MCC stem from a lack of time, which 343 has absolutely no control over, that is the publisher's decision.
I am not sure how familiar the majority of you are with game design and the hoops that a developer has to jump through to even get a game out. If a studio is under contract with a publisher then depending on the specifics of that contract it is likely that the publisher will have the final say. They usually are the ones funding the operation and setting deadlines. Dont be so quick to point the blame just at 343. This was a multi studio operation under a publisher and so they all deserve equal amounts of blame for the failed product.
I remember 343 saying that we would have the same MP experience that we remembered. And guess what, I don't remember all these bugs. Hell, I've never had this bad of an experience with any game before in my life. BF4 is the closest, but that wasn't even as bad as this.

And ODST doesn't forgive the misgivings of a $60 game that is over 70% broken, for over 100 days now. This is seriously despicable. You're ambition only pays off, if the product actually works. Who cares how complex it is to make, if the game doesn't work. Stop defending this crap!
@Traves7y

When Halo 2 first launched it had plenty of bugs. Alot of the glitches that remained in the game were never fixed. Over time and into its second year Halo 2 became a great game but it was not without having some of its own faults fixed within that first year. We tend to remember the good times we had with that game and not the bad because it was over 10 years ago.

And aside from the Halo franchise there have been plenty of games which came out as AAA titles and were very buggy or suffered from severe issues. Homefront being one of the major ones which comes to mind.

ODST may not be forgive everything but they are providing content which was never promised for release. The amount of time and money it will cost them to provide all the forgiveness content will probably hurt the studio quite a bit. You cant talk about games just costing $60, look at the bigger picture.
Lol, you're comparing H2's launch to this? I don't think there's really any game you can compare this to, other than BF4, and even that wasn't as bad as this.
I will agree with you on one thing, there really is nothing we can compare this to because there has been nothing attempted on this scale before. Comparing a single game to something which houses enough content for 5 is not really fair now is it.
Maximus AB wrote:
I will agree with you on one thing, there really is nothing we can compare this to because there has been nothing attempted on this scale before. Comparing a single game to something which houses enough content for 5 is not really fair now is it.
I'm talking about games that work, not how ambitious a game is. You're either trying really hard to defend 343 at every corner, or aren't smart enough to understand what I'm saying when I compare it to BF4. BF4 was a huge failure, because the game was broken. The MCC is an even bigger failure, because the game is even more broken than BF4(hard to believe), and for much longer, too.

If my boss hands me a HUGE assignment that I say I can handle, and I fail the entire thing, I can't just look at him with puppy dog eyes and go, "but boss man, this was an incredibly big project that was way too ambitious for me....I'm so sawy, pwease forgive me". No, I would probably be fired, and rightfully so.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18