Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

It's not subjective when there are proper techniques for the expression of emotion in storytelling. Halo 4 payed attention to virtually none of them. And lolno. There was no struggle. Everything was so static that it's disgusting. The Captain who sparked that 'conflict"? He was an easily identifiable asshole with no character of his own. He's a cardboard cutout used for the specific purpose of causing that conflict, and thus he's not a real "person." And the "conflict" that he caused wasn't much. No questioning of orders versus ethics, no internal conflict whatsoever. And he just gets away with whatever he wants to do anyway. It didn't humanize him, it just showed that he cares about a piece of software and can get away with it because the XO was all like "It's k, Chief. Here, have a Pelican." He might have emotions, but there's no conflict if there's no consequences. And he just drops the "fix Cortana" plot like it was nothing. You can argue that there was 'something better to do" but Chief doesn't even react. He does nothing. There's no inner dialogue between him and Cortana discussing how pressing saving the galaxy is over fixing one AI. There's no accompanying themes present because they don't do anything. And then she "dies" anyway. Whoopee fucking doo. And even that isn't explained. She's software. "Most of me is down there." WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN. YOU'RE A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT LIVES IN A CHIP IN CHIEF'S SKULL. COPY AND PASTE YOURSELF OUT OF THERE. Maybe if she said "I dont' have enough power to beam me up here" or something like that, then I might believe it. But they don't say anything.

Bruh. It's an art form therefore it's completely subjective, this isn't fucking math with procedure's on how to tell a story. There was a very clear struggle, we see chief actually disobey an order. How is that not a huge inner conflict? Let's look at this realistically; the chief is a guy that's been raised and indoctrinated his whole life with obeying orders and military culture. We see him change and begin to resent that.

 

If anyone in that room when chief said no to Del Rio acted differently then they did, the fate of humanity would have been drastically altered; there's your consequences and high stakes. If he stayed people would have died, if he went he could possibly be court marshaled and tried for treason plus no chance of saving his friend. It's the first time we see him something for himself and on his own. He chose treason and helping humanity over orders, this is something we've never seen before, the UNSC be in the wrong.

 

The whole shit when chief was talking about saving cortana was a basic human reaction when someone is losing someone they are close to. It was implied that saving earth was paramount but chief isn't a robot; a theme explicitly explored in the game. He didn't get away with caring about a piece of software either, lasky gave him the pelican because he knew chief was right about the Didact, how do you not know this? And did you miss the whole part where cortana keeps telling chief that saving earth is more important then her, and that he willingly sacrificed himself to save the planet?

 

The internal conflict was within chief and the fact that he is realizing who he is and what his life means. Do you pay attention to lore at all? AIs can fragment themselves to accomplish tasks, it's like designating processor power to separate tasks, she can't copy and paste processing power. She was going rampant and was shedding the infected portions of herself (processing power, information etc). She could only utilize the hardlight from the didacts ship to save chief and that's it.

 

The game was far from static, even from the first cut scene when Halsey was being questioned about the S2 Program to cortana dying. Your argument is essentially just a blanket statement of "halo 4 is trash cuz I didn't get it". I'm sorry that narratives have to hold your hand for you to enjoy it, but to each their own I guess.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

In terms of level design, I felt like Halo 4 was easily the worst of the series. Very boring and linear. That being said, I always felt like the script was particularly good (I'm looking at the Didact's lines here) and the plot was definitely a good twist on the Halo game. Very different having a single antagonist as opposed to 1 - 3's looming and imminent doom of the universe is everywhere. So plotwise, I'd say it's good. Maybe not the most original concept, and kinda difficult to follow unless you've read the books (which I don't necessarily think is good) but definitely a solid plot. Do I replay it a lot? No, it's very boring to play through, and very unlike the original trilogy/Reach/ODST. But I do enjoy watching all the cutscenes on youtube :)

I do agree there. The gameplay is kinda boring.

Share this post


Link to post

Uh, an interesting single player discussion. 

 

 

he just drops the "fix Cortana" plot like it was nothing. You can argue that there was 'something better to do" but Chief doesn't even react. He does nothing. There's no inner dialogue between him and Cortana discussing how pressing saving the galaxy is over fixing one AI. There's no accompanying themes present because they don't do anything. And then she "dies" anyway. Whoopee fucking doo. And even that isn't explained. She's software. "Most of me is down there." WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN. YOU'RE A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT LIVES IN A CHIP IN CHIEF'S SKULL. COPY AND PASTE YOURSELF OUT OF THERE. Maybe if she said "I dont' have enough power to beam me up here" or something like that, then I might believe it. But they don't say anything.

Well, they don't really drop it, they talk about it from the star of the 2nd level, to the start of the 5th, to the starting cutscene of the last level. The point is that there is absolutely nothing they can do to avoid the death of Cortana at all. She was created through an illegal cloning project of Halsey, and can't in any way be restored, so the chief is condemned from the start to watch her slowly lose her mind and die, despite his own denial.
 
Also in the end both the Chip and the Ship get destroyed, so i'm not sure what you're on about.
 

However Halo 4 did rely way too much on external media. Citations, sideplots and details are acceptable (even desirable), major plot points are not. It's unreasonable to expect the player to buy 4 to 7 books (or even more if you consider that Glasslands it's a direct sequel to the original Nylud trilogy) just to understand the basic plotline. 

 

The new characters were all fairly uninteresting, Lasky is the only one that showed some potential, but had way too little screentime in the main game, and also it relys again too much on Forward Unto Dawn in order to be a somewhat complete character. Palmer and pretty much all the other spartan IVs are tediously boring, and Delrio is just a generic asshat that only serve the purpose of sparking some conflict between Chief and the UNSC; he is especially irritating in how his actions make very little sense in the context of an after-Halo 3 situation where MC should have become some sort of Gordon Freeman/near messiah for saving THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE almost alone at least three times. 

 

There are also some genuinely original plotholes, like the armor of the spartans in the first cutscenes and the last second teleportation into a giant room of hardlight thing, etc.

BUT

I really liked the Chief/Cortana stuff. I think it's probably the best direction they could have gone with, both for H4 and for the rest of the series.

 

The veichle sections were absolutely great, the ghost escape, the mantis mayhem, the laser-equipped Pelican, and damn that final flight on the Broadsword was a blast.

 

The gameplay was a bit meh compared to the original trilogy, but still way more enjoyable than Reach. The levels were nice and distinct, but definitely too narrow and limited. I liked the general Art direction (both visual and sound wise), but it just wasn't "Halo" enough. The prometheans were a pretty cool concept, but need some variety and some serious balance, especially the knights.

 

Overall, as far as single-player goes, it was a valid first attempt IMO, with considerable room for improvements.

Already better than Reach's campaign. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Bruh. It's an art form therefore it's completely subjective, this isn't fucking math with procedure's on how to tell a story. There was a very clear struggle, we see chief actually disobey an order. How is that not a huge inner conflict? Let's look at this realistically; the chief is a guy that's been raised and indoctrinated his whole life with obeying orders and military culture. We see him change and begin to resent that.

 

If anyone in that room when chief said no to Del Rio acted differently then they did, the fate of humanity chips have been drastically altered; there's your consequences and high stakes. If he stayed people would have died, if he went he could possibly be court marshaled and tried for treason. It's the first time we see him something for himself and on his own. He chose treason and helping humanity over orders, this is something we've never seen before, the UNSC be in the wrong.

 

The whole shit when chief was talking about saving cortana was a basic human reaction when someone is losing someone they are close to. It was implied that saving earth was paramount but chief isn't a robot; a theme explicitly explored in the game. He didn't get away with caring about a piece of software either, lasky gave him the pelican because he knew chief was right about the Didact, how do you not know this? And did you miss the whole part where cortana keeps telling chief that saving earth is more important then her, and that he willingly sacrificed himself to save the planet?

 

The internal conflict was within chief and the fact that he is realizing who he is and what his life means. Do you pay attention to lore at all? AIs can fragment themselves to accomplish tasks, it's like designating processor power to separate tasks, she can't copy and paste processing power. She was going rampant and was shedding the infected portions of herself (processing power, information etc). She could only utilize the hardlight from the didacts ship to save chief and that's it.

 

The game was far from static, even from the first cut scene when Halsey was being questioned about the S2 Program to cortana dying. Your argument is essentially just a blanket statement of "halo 4 is trash cuz I didn't get it". I'm sorry that narratives have to hold your hand for you to enjoy it, but to each their own I guess.

I really hate to say this, but no. You really don't get it. You're making shit up. Storytelling has do's and don't's. It isn't subjective, because there are right ways and wrong ways to tell a story. Halo 4 did it wrong. It failed to show us bare minimum necessary material to make the plot make any sense, people act nonsensically, and, because it's a videogame, the gameplay and story only ever come together when you touch a button occasionally to trigger a cutscene.

 

You're adding in things yourself. The game, the story, didn't bring any of that up. It didn't even recognize it. Stories don't have to hold your hand, but they must present the necessities. We must see the necessities, because this isn't a book where it can say "John felt like this dot dot dot." This is a medium by which we can see, and, even better, we can act. And, again, because this is the game, we, as the player, must feel compelled to feel the feelings of the protagonist. If the protagonist is the only one feeling them, then the story fails on, ironically, an immersion side. I don't know what's going on in his head, because he's not telling us. we can sort of guess, but that draws the line between us, the players, and him, the character. We're detached from him. This is bad because it's not only a game, but also a story, where people who view such are supposed to relate to the protagonist in some way. But he doesn't say much, and he doesn't have facial expressions to show how he feels. That can be apart of his character, but the story has to utilize that, especially in viewable media, and work with it.

 

Lore means nothing. Your precious lore is flavor text. I don't give a damn about how many flux capacitors it takes for a Monitor to fly. If I can see one flying, I have to accept that, but if I don't see one fly, that calls into question whether or not one really can. And I'm not talking about being told specifically through dialogue (although on the topic of feelings, dialogue would be best) because the medium is such that we can be shown. But we're not. We're told that people are suffering, but we don't see it. We see some people get vaporized in front of us, but it's no real danger to use because of a plot device (and how amazing it would have been to actually fear this super weapon ourselves because at one point, i twas leveled at us, and we were vulnerable. And we'd get to feel how dangerous it is, because it's a game that we're participating in. The fact that they didn't do this is mind boggling. It's just another super weapon in a franchise about super weapons.) And if we couldn't get a gameplay reason why to fear that thing, the least they could do is make us care about those who were vaporized. They're just random people to me. Chief seemed to know one of them, but I didn't. I shouldn't have to read a book in order feel something for a character if that character is done right. But I don't I met them for 15 minutes and I didn't care. She was just another casualty, which we see plenty of, by the way. Dr. McFuckherself is not special just because she has a name.

 

In storytelling, and especially gameplay (because they're not mutually exclusive when you put that much work into it), missed opportunities are bad. There are allowed to be "What if?" scenarios, but if someone doesn't do or say or show something that follows a logical course of events, then it's a failure in writing. If I have to refer to paragraph 134, sentence 4 of supporting paraphenilia Q just to understand something integral to the plot, then it's a failure in writing. If a character or plot mechanism is easily identifiable as only serving a singular purpose and not having any additional depth, then it's a failure in writing. If I have to guess at what people, who are overly familiar to me (because, I don't know, for all intents and purposes I am them?), are thinking or feeling because they didn't properly convey such to me, then it's a failure in writing.

 

Understand that to an extent, yes, a story can be whatever they want it to be. Which is why you can't make the excuse of the story being a solid state. They could have written it any way they wanted, and they could have written right. They simply chose not to, whether on purpose or accident.

 

I don't care if you like it. Power to you if you do. But that doesn't make it a good story, because people have come up with what works and what doesn't in a story, because we've been telling stories for a long time. And successful stories are clear, present all necessary data for their contentions, and function in a logical format. The sensationalism you feel towards it is the subjective part, but not the construction.

 

And that stupid tank with the handheld laser pointer is just plain ridiculous on how lazy they were with their story and gameplay that they just segregated it completely and made it so. It's just stupid.

  • Upvote (+1) 5
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

With the Xbox One's power if I don't see 40+ grunts and Elites charging myself and a marine-held bunker as we wait for orbital support, which then rains down, annihilating the first wave, then the next wave comes and it's Shadow Transports backed up by Ghosts and Wraiths whilst three scorpions arrive to save the day, I will be very dissappointed.

 

If (I even by it and) I'm in a corridor shooting 3-10 enemies with no allied backup for 70% of the campaign I will be pissed off to no end. I don't care how pretty the corridor is, or how good the backdrop is.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, they don't really drop it, they talk about it from the star of the 2nd level, to the start of the 5th, to the starting cutscene of the last level. The point is that there is absolutely nothing they can do to avoid the death of Cortana at all. She was created through an illegal cloning project of Halsey, and can't in any way be restored, so the chief is condemned from the start to watch her slowly lose her mind and die, despite his own denial.

 
Also in the end both the Chip and the Ship get destroyed, so i'm not sure what you're on about.

Not true. Cortana brings up in the second mission that, because she was created from Halsey's neural network, she could technically be renewed "if only they could get to Halsey."

 

This is just dropped. Sure, saving the galaxy is probably more important, and I'm not going to argue whether or not it is. But there's no "I'm sorry Cortana, we have to go save the galaxy again." MC just kind of lets her continue to die. He does constantly ask her if she's alright, but he does little to comfort her. The hope was gone before it started.

 

And she's still software. I don't know what 'processing power' and whatnot relate to the "body" of an AI, but when you say, specifically "Most of me is down there," that implies that she has something hard that she can't just move. Which, when you're an Ai that's easily beamed herself to and fro between networks all the time, even in this game, doesn't sound that hard. However, that's not even the issue. The issue is that they don't address it properly. She could have said "Oh, John, I sure wish I could beam into your suit right now, but unfortunately there aren't any relays strong enough to do this because they all blew up. I'm just barely maintaining a hologram of hardlight to talk to you." The scenario raises an important question, because, you know, they're "killing" off an important side character, and the explanation doesn't work without people making shit up.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

With the Xbox One's power if I don't see 40+ grunts and Elites charging myself and a marine-held bunker as we wait for orbital support, which then rains down, annihilating the first wave, then the next wave comes and it's Shadow Transports backed up by Ghosts and Wraiths whilst three scorpions arrive to save the day, I will be very dissappointed.

 

If (I even by it and) I'm in a corridor shooting 3-10 enemies with no allied backup for 70% of the campaign I will be pissed off to no end. I don't care how pretty the corridor is, or how good the backdrop is.

Halo needs to redefine what it thinks reliable NPCs are, because I want friendlies that don't just die immediately without accomplishing anything (besides driving me off a cliff for the twentieth time) or friendlies that simply just don't die, but also don't really do much.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

With the Xbox One's power if I don't see 40+ grunts and Elites charging myself and a marine-held bunker as we wait for orbital support, which then rains down, annihilating the first wave, then the next wave comes and it's Shadow Transports backed up by Ghosts and Wraiths whilst three scorpions arrive to save the day, I will be very dissappointed.

 

If (I even by it and) I'm in a corridor shooting 3-10 enemies with no allied backup for 70% of the campaign I will be pissed off to no end. I don't care how pretty the corridor is, or how good the backdrop is.

Agreed. Let's hope for once they prioritize Gameplay over detail, so we can have some improvements that won't look a lot less important in a couple of years. Too bad the industry it's still stuck in that mindset, at least if Ryse and The Order:1886 are anything to go by.

 

Not true. Cortana brings up in the second mission that, because she was created from Halsey's neural network, she could technically be renewed "if only they could get to Halsey."

 

This is just dropped. Sure, saving the galaxy is probably more important, and I'm not going to argue whether or not it is. But there's no "I'm sorry Cortana, we have to go save the galaxy again." MC just kind of lets her continue to die. He does constantly ask her if she's alright, but he does little to comfort her. The hope was gone before it started.

 

And she's still software. I don't know what 'processing power' and whatnot relate to the "body" of an AI, but when you say, specifically "Most of me is down there," that implies that she has something hard that she can't just move. Which, when you're an Ai that's easily beamed herself to and fro between networks all the time, even in this game, doesn't sound that hard. However, that's not even the issue. The issue is that they don't address it properly. She could have said "Oh, John, I sure wish I could beam into your suit right now, but unfortunately there aren't any relays strong enough to do this because they all blew up. I'm just barely maintaining a hologram of hardlight to talk to you." The scenario raises an important question, because, you know, they're "killing" off an important side character, and the explanation doesn't work without people making shit up.

Fair enough. But isn't the complete Denial of the chief still a character trait? He is been taught to never consider failure as an option, and we've seen this already when he left Cortana on Alta Opera in the end of H2. I'm not saying he's justified, but it would make sense.

 

And yes, admittedly, that was a bad choice of words. 

Share this post


Link to post

All I know is that part way into Halo 4 i felt like I had stopped playing a military/sci-fi shooter and began playing some kind of nerdy manga/anime bullshit. I just want to shoot aliens and zombies. Enough with this "chosen one" and forunner prophecy garbage.

 

What happened to blowing up space ships and huge armies going to war and shit?

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I know is that part way into Halo 4 i felt like I had stopped playing a military/sci-fi shooter and began playing some kind of nerdy manga/anime bullshit. I just want to shoot aliens and zombies. Enough with this "chosen one" and forunner prophecy garbage.

 

What happened to blowing up space ships and huge armies going to war and shit?

I still don't know what happened in Halo 4.  Shit got magical and I was chasing a giant orange ball in the sky and then I killed some magic dude by pushing X and cortana died.  Halo 1-3 felt like an epic struggle.  Halo 4 was just lame.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I still don't know what happened in Halo 4.  Shit got magical and I was chasing a giant orange ball in the sky and then I killed some magic dude by pushing X and cortana died.  Halo 1-3 felt like an epic struggle.  Halo 4 was just lame.

Exactly. Like "omg Crotana is in the room so she sacrificed her life for meh". I had NO clue what was happening and frankly, I didn't give a shit.

 

I miss killing scarabs that are slaughtering your city. I miss punching crazy religious prophets in the face. I miss nuking an entire ringworld and fisting zombies with my energy sword.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

In order to understand the Halo 4 plot you had to of:

  • Read like 12 Halo Novels
  • Seen every terminal
  • Have a personal conversation with Karen Travis in which she explains the Halo lore
  • And fluently speak Sanghelli 

The last couple of days I've been making the switch to bumper jumper so I've been playing a lot of campaign to adjust. And my god playing Halo 4 straight after 1, 2 and 3 really shows how bad it was. In the original trilogy you had the funny, snarky banter between chief and Cortana, Johnson was funny, you genuinely cared about the Arbiter and the story was full of surprise. In Halo 4 Cortana is no longer sassy or witty and is now way to emotional (blah blah blah rampancy), Palmer was annoying, Lasky was generic character #53, the story was boring and didn't really make sense, and the game had ZERO charm.  The gameplay was pretty fun but besides that the Halo 4 campaign was just plain bad imo. 

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post
  • Have a personal conversation with Karen Travis in which she explains the Halo lore

That would probably lead to further confusion.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

If by well, you mean riddled with holes and several failures in logic and general storytelling technique, then yeah. It was told very well.

Because H3 was just the pinnacle of story telling :/

 

There is no right or wrong in this. If you didn't enjoy it that's fine. Someone else can't be wrong because they did. That's just fucking ridiculous.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Maximus IL

 

Your username looks so familiar. Did you used to post a lot on Waypoint? I don't know if it's my imagination or not.

Yes.

 

I now post there as "I IZ CAB0OSE".  Never bothered to change it anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

My issues with the H4 campaign - and keep in mind I started with H4 - were:

 

1.  Cheesy pseudo-scientific dialogue.  This is endemic in modern science fiction and it really irks me, because there are literally millions of people in the job pool that could come up with dialogue that better keeps with actual known physical laws.  Probably doesn't bother too many other people, though.  Personal issue.  It's one of the reasons I really didn't enjoy Spartan Ops too much, because it was even more pervasive there.  Not that Bungie didn't screw this up either . . . but everyone talked less in Bungie's campaigns so there were fewer opportunities to piss me off.

 

2.  Final fight with the Didact was pretty lame.

 

3.  Knights were not particularly difficult, but they were bullet sponges.  Not terribly interested in fighting a bunch of them in H5 unless some of their characteristics change.  And the teleportation ability - while it did make them challenging at times - made them challenging in a way that the player can't always compensate for.  A good challenge is when skill can be used to defeat them.  A bad challenge is when they can teleport right in front of you (randomly) and melee you to death before it is possible for you to take any action.

 

4.  I had to play the campaign multiple times to make any sense of the story - especially as, at the time, I'd not yet played earlier installments or read any outside material.  I still haven't read outside material, by the way.

 

What I liked about H4:

 

1.  Art.  Yep, I know many of you strongly disliked the H4 art design.  I loved it.  The Forerunner objects were beautiful and mysterious in ways that the cement block / rusty metal vision of Bungie did not have.  There is merit in Bungie's design as well, but the H4 design (in my opinion) fits the Forerunner backstory far better.  The only real issue I had with H4 art was that I still prefer Chief's armor in CE (which I knew prior to buying H4 from watching RvB).

 

2.  Character depth.  The secondary characters had little to no depth; they were cliches (even Johnson started as one).  But I really don't care about them, nor was that a difference from previous titles.  Time was spent on the primary characters.  Some of it was cheesy and melodramatic . . . but Cortana's lines were super cheesy and melodramatic in the Bungie ones, too.  And if one is going to criticize character development in H4, it would be hypocritical not to criticize the lack of it in the Bungie titles as well.

 

Overall, I enjoyed the H4 campaign . . . but based on it alone, I would have wondered why the franchise was considered as iconic as it was because the story didn't quite feel up to it.  It was very good . . . but not quite at the iconic level.  Anyway, in my opinion, the H4 campaign was enjoyable enough to earn a "would recommend" from me.

 

After having bought the MCC and having my knowledge of the overall Halo universe significantly upgraded, I found the Halo 2 campaign to be my least favorite.  In my opinion, the H2 story is an absolute mess and the campaign feels completely unfinished.  (On the other hand, the parts specific to the Arbiter's character were done very well . . . the Arbiter was much cool . . . his story was definitely the highlight of the H2 campaign.)  For me, the H4 campaign far and away exceeds the H2 one.

 

Were I to rate the campaigns, the would go like this:

 

CE -----------------> H3 -> H4 -------------> H2

 

Yes, I know the level design in CE is Wolfensteinish.  Yes, the dialogue is cheesy (but unlike H4, it is intentionally so).  Yes, I know it makes no sense why the grunts say what they do (but it is funny).  Yes, I know all of the graphics are outdated.  Yes, I know it makes no sense that an alien race would build huge lush rings that would attract life while at the same time quarantining a parasitic species that requires other life to expand (why not quarantine them on an empty rock?).  I can't really explain why . . . but somehow all of those things work for CE.

 

Nothing produced since campaign-wise has given me nearly the fun that CE did.

 

CE truly was awesome . . . and I can't tell you why.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Some ones probably already said it but without question Id love to see Breakout in comp play. It could be worked into out version of cod's SnD which I find extremely entertaining to watch and I'm not a massive cod fan.

 

1 thing that I really want to see removed is that 3rd person camera, I'd allways find myself alive and getting my team mates who where dead to look round corners and watch my back with there camera. Personally it puts more enjoyment to see a team with there controllers down after they die watching there team mate attempt to do the unthinkable and play solo and possibly pull a 1v3.

 

Admitantly it's a hell of a lot harder due to kill times but I can only think what would happen if some one pull a 1v4 or got a triple as last alive at high end competitive in a game 5 or something.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

(and even so there are plenty of things that still don't make sense, like, you know, how MC is the chosen one because they somehow introduced luck into his family line's genome),

Sorry, don't mean to be nit-picky but Master Chief's luck genome (at least the how of it) is explained pretty well in Cryptum if I remember right. He was essentially "seeded" to be the culmination of all of the Librarian's work. I can't remember all the details now but maybe someone on this forum will help to fill this in for me.

Share this post


Link to post

1 thing that I really want to see removed is that 3rd person camera, I'd allways find myself alive and getting my team mates who where dead to look round corners and watch my back with there camera. Personally it puts more enjoyment to see a team with there controllers down after they die watching there team mate attempt to do the unthinkable and play solo and possibly pull a 1v3.

 

I agree. It's a lot more competitive to have a teammate clutch a situation like that than simply say a callout in real-time that they couldn't see. I tweeted Quinn about it, and he said it was good feedback, but proceeded to defend it. I said other competitive FPS games disable 3rd person spectating in their non respawn gametypes for a reason, to which he said Halo is different and it puts more emphasis on communication. I probably shouldn't have tried to use the "it's in other games argument" but whatever. Roy has given feedback saying it should be locked to first person too so that's good.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus.

 

Chief's geas has only been alluded to since the novelization of CE. You don't cry about it now. Don't do it.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, don't mean to be nit-picky but Master Chief's luck genome (at least the how of it) is explained pretty well in Cryptum if I remember right. He was essentially "seeded" to be the culmination of all of the Librarian's work. I can't remember all the details now but maybe someone on this forum will help to fill this in for me.

I think you just proved his point. Why do you need to read an external novel to understand the plot of Halo 4?

 

Also, since we're talking about pros/cons of H4s campaign in this thread for some reason:

 

I didn't like how easy the campaign was. When MCC came out, I played H1 legendary (solo), and h2 + h4 legendary coop with the same friend. H4's campaign was ridiculously easy. We were hardly ever required to use our brains or skills to overcome difficult parts. We finished the H4 campaign in nearly half the time of H2. Overall, this gave less of a sense of "overcoming the impossible" that I had with H2 or H1. Fighting an entire covenant armada while fending off the flood is hard, and it definitely felt that way in H1/H2. Fighting off a shit ton of covenant and prometheans in H4 sounded impressive, but did not feel so at all.

 

Not sure if anyone here played Jedi: Outcast, but they had a great way of inspiring the player to defeat the final boss. You fight the boss very early in the game, and you get your shit wrecked. Using only your starting guns and abilities, you fight a full fledged jedi (who obviously destroys you. The game will not progress until you die at this point in the game). You chase him for the rest of the game, and have a final confrontation that has personal meaning.

 

Idk about you, but I wish something similar would have happened when the didact was released. Instead of showing a cutscene where Master Chief was held immobile (boring), I wish we would have gotten the chance to actually fight him. When he destroys us with his godly forerunner powers, I would have been frothing with rage to follow the asshole, kill him, and prevent him from destroying humanity. As it stands, I kinda just did it because the waypoints told me to.

 

I also don't like how the majority of the plot for H4 is crammed into a 2 minute dialogue with the Librarian. Like, wtf. I still don't know exactly what happened.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think you just proved his point. Why do you need to read an external novel to understand the plot of Halo 4?

His point wasnt that you had to read the extended media (although he doesn't like that you have to), it's that some information is not available at all to explain plot points, even within extended media. I just wanted to point out that for his specific example, I believe that's false. It may be hard to find, but it's there.
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.