Bungie devs: Halo 2 campaign a 'disastrous failure'
Posted: 07.08.2011 05:35 by Comments: 5
In one of the Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition documentaries by Bungie, some interesting opinions come to light from some members of the developer regarding Halo 2's campaign. One even called it a "disastrous flaming turd of failure".

Part of the reason for this was that the campaign was cut short to make it's release date, as senior engineering lead Chris Butcher described the project as a "three act tragedy".

According to Butcher, "The first act was when we were all optimistic and fun, we were saying "this game is going to be 70 times more fun than Halo 1, because we've got all these great vehicles and environments and we're just going to jam in as much stuff as we can,"

He went on to say that their enthusiasm "lead us into some very, very scary places, with a graphics engine that was "totally unsuited" to Xbox and levels that "didn't make sense in a shooter".

Bungie COO Pete Parsons stated, "We had to throw out a lot of stuff that we'd wanted to do", and blamed some of the issues from the absence of studio founders Alex Seropian and Jason Jones, which made them develop Halo 2 "by committee".

"Before Halo 2, we could fail in silence and in misery but no-one really knew we were failing," writer Joseph Staten added. "But with something like Halo 2, everyone knew we'd cut missions at the end, that we'd lopped off our third act - we failed spectacularly in public as far as the story was concerned."

However, one thing all agree on is that players rushed through the single player campaign and delved into the revolutionary multiplayer, whose matchmaking and clap support made Xbox Live finally explode and become the popular service it is now.


By K3Spice (SI Core) on Aug 07, 2011
It's really very amazing... I thoughts those graphics where great... Wonder what the next gen graphics are going to look like, and make me think of current gen graphics...

The campaign was going to be better? Interesting...
By JustCommunication (SI Core) on Aug 07, 2011
It's fascinating to hear what comes out once the incident/product in question is long buried and everyone's moved on.

Fascinating, but also kind of annoying - although you can understand why they wouldn't have wanted to say any of this at the time.

Still, part of me wishes Dev studios would man up and take more responsibility quicker.
By Xyfer117 (SI Core) on Aug 07, 2011
I loved this game when it first came out I thought the grpahics and campaign were amazing tbh but after whats now been said you cant help but wonder what COULD have been?
By PowerJack (SI Elite) on Aug 08, 2011
Then I'm glad I haven't played it
By SydSelf (I just got here) on Apr 26, 2012
Well, as it's true the campaign was cut short, I personally felt that the ending was the best possible for it's unfortunate existence, also that doesn't explain why the majority of people I've talked to who've played all four games reference 2 as the high point of the campaigns. 1's being filled with shoddy visuals, even for the time, and 3's being cliche-ridden, reach's was okay, it just didn't hit the character depth that 2's did. It may have been rushed, but the biggest impression I got was that it was the best they had at the time they were forced to release, and at least they had put the effort into it. Their anger at 2 really shows in 3, however, as it screams of writing out dialogue for a vague outline of a story at the last second. 2 could have been better, but it was they best they were allowed, and with the exception of multiplayer, was the best so far in the series.