-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I'm in the camp that maybe the game isn't in as rough shape and/or as far behind as many people are making it out to be but another big employee leaving on the precipice of release would really make me think otherwise at this point so I'm glad it's just media related.
This is such a weird take.
She's a VP at XGS and the head of 343i. She's going to be the a heavy influence on any key director hires at the studio and she's going to choose people that she believes can exercise a successful vision for the brand. It turns out the brand has contacted under her stewardship. Is that the mark of a successful studio head?
A consumer must know who her replacement would be in order to opine on her output?
maybe they shouldn't have misrepresented how the game will look in that case.
There is absolutely no merit to what the person is saying.
We never saw a finished game to say that they misrepresented anything.
what was the point of an in engine trailer representing visuals not possible on target hardware?
Oh, that I can understand perfectly. But I am talking about a company that is "Product" related, were the consumer has a relationship with said brand. Phil Spencer is the Head of Xbox, for example, and if things were going sour, people would be unhappy with his performance, and so management would be shaken up, and he would be replaced, like Don Matrick, Steve Balmer and so many other higher ups that have been replaced when said company is underperforming. Suggesting Bonnie Ross and the management of 343 have lost a lot of goodwill and that it may be a great idea to shaken up their higher ups, and that this, may be beneficial to their brand and trust, is not entitlement on my part, in my opinion. I think we're talking about two types of management here. In the end we don't have to agree, and I surely understand what you mean, I just don't agree when it's the face of the Studio, it's leadership and essentially the Outreach of said company with the public, and the people responsible in eyes of the consumer. I also want to add, that at this stage I hope Infinite is awesome, and that leadership does not need to be shaken up, 343 are a very talented group, hopefully leadership finds their groove and things start looking better without a shakeup.
Last edited:
If you don't know enough about a job to know who you would like in it, you don't know enough to judge someone's performance in it. Doesn't mean you *can't* say anything about it, just that you're going to show some portion of your ass while doing so. The absence of any kind of thought along these lines makes posts like
And
gross and weirdly personal attacks.
also really amused whenever I see "they should have known before they decided to delay that they needed more time" as if we haven't seen a thousand stories just like this out of the industry
Last edited:
Personal attacks are obviously not on, but it's possible to simultaneously
1) think "OK, something isn't quite right there" when they've had 5 years and an almost infinite (pun not intended) budget to get Halo Infinite done
2) not be sure what the exact solution is, but point out that top management are accountable - part of the job is to avoid such situations
Ross is the Kathleen Kennedy of 343 based on this thread. Somehow supposedly responsible for everything bad but also nothing good and always having one foot out the door.
When people lack information on whose fault it is, they create a scapegoat.
My post just pointed out that we never saw the finished game, so how would you determine they were misrepresenting their visual goal?
The engine trailer was obviously to show what their goal was; we have no clue whether they were able to match, exceed or fall short of that; all we saw was unfinished work where they were clear in saying that some graphical features were not in that build that they were still working on and that there was still more optimization work to do.
The idea that their visual target wasn't possible because they're supporting Xbox One is completely baseless.
Last edited:
Under her leadership the following milestone missteps
Launched Halo: MCC - a broken mess for a long time
Launched Halo 5 - a good campaign but not a great Halo contribution
Was unable to get Infinite out for console launch.
Like Mattrick takes the blame for the Xbox One launch. How Kutaragi is to blame for PS3. The top dog takes the fall
It is both possible to have successful products but have those same products be disappointing. Apple has shaken up their leadership multiple times and they have some of the most successful brands on the planet.
I'm hoping they do something more meaningful than just get rid of their leadership. It is obvious that they have passionate and talented people, but they seem to have a major leadership/cultural problem that has needed fixing for years.
I'm hoping they do something more meaningful than just get rid of their leadership. It is obvious that they have passionate and talented people, but they seem to have a major leadership/cultural problem that has needed fixing for years.
That's fair, and yet I think this post makes clear that there's a difference between her job being to deliver a great game for console launch or being to deliver a great game for console launch and nobody here nor the source for this speculation knows for sure which side of that the corporate expectation is on
It's also worth pointing out that Bungie never hit their graphical targets with the engine demonstrations of Halo 2, Halo 3 and Reach. But of course that is conveniently swept under the rug everytime.
Bungie used to get shit on all the time - by virtue of developing a high profile Xbox exclusive. The change in tone on the Bungie Halos is because people feel it adds a level of legitimacy to their criticism to say that "it used to be good when Bungie did it". Make no mistake, if Bungie were still making Halo they'd be getting loads of shit for it.
I doubt it. And let's be honest, even with the criticism Bungie did get, it was nowhere near to the point of fans calling for people like Jason Jones to get fired.
You have to have a replacement in mind in order to judge someones output? What kind of nonsense is that?
I know that a a studio head is supposed to... head the studio. The buck will stop with this person if the suits determine the studio is not headed in the right direction.
In this particular case, the current head quite literally built the studio from the ground, handpicking senior leadership from the beginning. The result of 13 years of this leadership - every single one of 343s tentpole releases have served to significantly weaken the brand. Oh, and one game that has been in development for 5 years, 40% of 343s existence, got delayed , delivering a serious blow to MS' launch plans. These are the types of things that upper management is responsible for avoiding. I dont need to have a replacement in mind to know that this is not a desired trajectory.
The weirdest thing about this conversation is I've never seen Bonnie Ross try to dodge accountability. Like she took responsibility for Halo 4's multiplayer being a disservice for long term fans. She took responsibility for biting off more than 343 could chew with MCCs release. She took responsibility for Halo 5s nonsensical story and for not taking the time to improve the archaic dev tools. She's a good leader because she has no problem looking inward. Thats why if she were to leave 343, she wouldnt skip a beat. But after 13 years of monumental missteps with what was MS' biggest IP, is it really 'gross' to say she might not be the best leader for this franchise? Someone needs to have a specific replacement in mind in order to express that they feel this way?
Last edited:
Quite simply, the posts I'm talking about are not discussing specific grievances but just calling for someone's head. That's gross. I stand by that.