Topic: Halo: MCC General Discussion

@VanillaLake: Bungie left MS because MS wanted Bungie to make Halo games and ONLY Halo games. Bungie wanted to make other games, to branch out and try something new, different and didn't want to restricted to a title they had no real control or ownership of. Halo 3 was meant to be the end of a trilogy anyway but to split from MS, they had to make 2 more games - Reach and ODST. There comes a point when you have to let go of things in order to progress. They had to give up Halo in essence to gain creative freedom - the ability to make games they want and how they want, to have control over how it is used, advertised etc - not to be pushed into making something they effectively considered 'finished' just because it's name was successful. Bungie wanted to make 'Destiny' but MS was dictating to them they had to make another Halo game - to keep churning them out. Its doing something similar now with Gears of War. That was a trilogy too and Epic didn't want to make anymore so they sold the licence and MS has locked a studio into making just Gears of War games.

@VanillaLake
I don't remember exactly what happened with MS and Bungie but it was around the time of Halo 3's launch back in 2007 when the rumblings began about a split, then it happened. @BAMozzy summed some of what I remember reading. All I know is looking back, it would've been nice if MS and Bungie could've worked something. Let Bungie take a bit of a break from Halo after 3, maybe to make Destiny and then later down the road, after a diversion to something else, it could've gone back to Halo, if need be, refreshed and not locked into the 'you can only do this, nonsense.' Halo isn't a platformer like Mario, there's only so much you can do with the formula that fans expect. It's disappointing how things played out, however, because what 343 and MS have done to Halo and the disaster that is Destiny, neither MS or Bungie is better off because of the split and gamers lose out as well.

@Gamer83: I agree about that it would have been nice if Microsoft and Bungie could have worked something. I think that "break" could be compared to "The Last of Us" for Naughty Dog, after which they made Uncharted 4 and now they are not apparently forced to make Uncharted 5, at least not right away. Microsoft could learn that a developer name can sell too. Your comment is very wise in its conclusions.

Funny that you mention Mario, I was tempted to mention it the other day. A platformer like Super Mario does not need story but at the very least it needs quality, something that recent Mario games clearly lack because, unfortunately, Nintendo was too busy milking the name.