165 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

I was hoping they'd get Chris L'Etoile back. Mass Effect(after 2) seemed to loose that hard science fiction edge.

Tbh ME really never was hard science fiction.

[Mcfly616]

Tbh ME really never was hard science fiction.

True. 

 

 

Definitely a space opera.

[AdmiralBoneToPic]

Tbh ME really never was hard science fiction.

Yes, but it approached it at times. I just think in 3 they went way to far in the other directon.

[Mcfly616]

I feel 3 was less of a departure from the original than 2 was. 

[ZipZap2000]

I think we should give this guy a chance bioware must have picked him for a reason.

[Revan Reborn]

Yes, I'm sure. The majority of 343 is comprised of former Bungle employees. Butyou know more about Halo than  you care to admit, so you would remember that being stated during Halo 4's development.....or not. You would also know that when Reach came out, it was praised as the best narrative in the series......or not.

 

Stop relating Destiny to Halo. You're making yourself look silly.

 

 

 

You know what, besides glorifying the sub-plot that was Chief and Cortana......why don't you please explain why the main plot was so very good in your opinion.....you know, the conflict. The Didact. The ridiculous out of left field exposition in the middle of the game.......That ending.....

 

 

 

You know what, nevermind. Here: http://www.gameinfor...ndex=2#comments

 

 

Take a gander at the comments. Maybe a few people here and there "loved" H4's story like you did......but the majority....not so much.

 

 

 

And some more:  http://www.polygon.c...s-effect-halo-4

 

 

 

Piling it on now: http://www.gamespot....23442/#livefyre

I'm sure you "believe" you are sure, but considering I followed Halo 4's development from the very beginning, I know most of Bungie's team left. 343 was largely a new studio, but really this is getting off topic. Reach was praised by who? You? The story was an absolute disaster. If anything, it wasn't the cohesive mess that was Halo 2, which isn't saying much. It's already been established that Bungie can't tell a story. Why are you fighting this?

 

Destiny and Halo were created by the same developer. The parallels and similarities are obvious. Destiny is essentially Halo without Master Chief. There is nothing silly or funny about this.

 

Well that's an easy question. The story actually had emotion and purpose, unlike the previous installments. There was never any real thought or meaning to the previous stories. Bungie just made a run and gun while layering a simplistic story on top of it. I find it comical that you seem to believe Bungie was some sort of mastermind of storytelling.

 

What was wrong with the ending of the game? Are you referring to the fact that Master Chief lived? If so, remember that for the entire series Cortana had been integrated and learning from the Forerunners. It's not too difficult to see that she would eventually master their technology in such a way that she could help John. Otherwise, it was an extremely well-executed ending that really showed Master Chief at his most vulnerable point.

 

Yes. Using game journalist website forums as places to gauge the "truth" about whether fans loved Halo 4 or not. I don't know if you've ever actually looked at a video game website, but most of the posters are generally console fanboys or trolls who make up whatever fits their agenda. You can believe their nonsense all you like, but that in no way hinders the incredible story 343 told. You don't have to like it, but to suggest it wasn't the best in the series is rather perplexing to me. 343 really did raise the standard in every way.

[Revan Reborn]

Could be good, could be bad. Halo 4's story jumped back and forth from great to mediocre. We'd always had hints of Master Chief being far too machine-like for his own good and that's something 4 brings to the player's attention through Cortana and it does this insanely well. 

 

On the other hand, that's literally all the narrative has to offer. The didact straight up blows as a villain compared to either Truth or the Gravemind or even 343 Guilty Spark. There's virtually no supporting characters of interest to top it all off. It's very much a Chief-Cortana story (which I loved), but if would be nice to give the player something more. Another character to route for along the way similar to Johnson or the Arbiter. 

343 Guilty Spark was great, but Truth of Gravemind? Really? The prophets were all terrible antagonists, and the Gravemind was one of the dumbest villains and subplots I have ever experienced in a video game. Bungie must have been snorting cocaine when they came up with that absolute nonsense. It infuriates me to know Halo 2 could have actually had a great story when Bungie cut half of it and butchered the experience due to time constraints. That's why Halo 2's campaign was the mess it was.

 

As far as no supporting characters, that was the point... MC and Cortana were isolated in space... Nobody even knew there were still alive... On top of that they were on this new Forerunner world. Halo 4 was really an intimate performance between MC and Cortana. It wasn't supposed to be some big, epic experience like Halo 3. Please don't even bring up the Arbiter... I don't mind the character, but his role in Halo 2 was absolutely horrendous. Johnson was actually one of the few great characters Bungie created.

 

It sounds to me you didn't appreciate the kind of story Halo 4 was trying to tell. That's fine, but to say the Didact (whose history unfortunately wasn't explored enough in the game) was worse than previous antagonists? I can't agree to that. He may not have had depth due to lack of development, but he certainly was better than anything Bungie ever put out. Heck, even Hunters were more convincing than most of Bungie's villains.

[Mcfly616]

I'm sure you "believe" you are sure, but considering I followed Halo 4's development from the very beginning, I know most of Bungie's team left. 343 was largely a new studio, but really this is getting off topic. Reach was praised by who? You? The story was an absolute disaster. If anything, it wasn't the cohesive mess that was Halo 2, which isn't saying much. It's already been established that Bungie can't tell a story. Why are you fighting this?

 

Destiny and Halo were created by the same developer. The parallels and similarities are obvious. Destiny is essentially Halo without Master Chief. There is nothing silly or funny about this.

 

Well that's an easy question. The story actually had emotion and purpose, unlike the previous installments. There was never any real thought or meaning to the previous stories. Bungie just made a run and gun while layering a simplistic story on top of it. I find it comical that you seem to believe Bungie was some sort of mastermind of storytelling.

 

What was wrong with the ending of the game? Are you referring to the fact that Master Chief lived? If so, remember that for the entire series Cortana had been integrated and learning from the Forerunners. It's not too difficult to see that she would eventually master their technology in such a way that she could help John. Otherwise, it was an extremely well-executed ending that really showed Master Chief at his most vulnerable point.

 

Yes. Using game journalist website forums as places to gauge the "truth" about whether fans loved Halo 4 or not. I don't know if you've ever actually looked at a video game website, but most of the posters are generally console fanboys or trolls who make up whatever fits their agenda. You can believe their nonsense all you like, but that in no way hinders the incredible story 343 told. You don't have to like it, but to suggest it wasn't the best in the series is rather perplexing to me. 343 really did raise the standard in every way.

Dude....you can't be taken seriously. You just stated in your previous post that it's  "just fact" that Halo 4 had a better story than anything Bungie has ever written. Second, I'm aware that Bungie developed both games, and for you to even compare the two "story-wise" is another reason you're not to be taken seriously. If you can't see the difference, you're not the Halo fan you claim to be.

 

 

And lastly, do you even know the difference between character arcs, romantic sub-plots AND the overarching/main plot of a story? Because you've clearly  demonstrated that you do not. You keep rambling on about how it had "emotion and purpose" (what was that purpose, exactly?). Whoopdi doo. Sorry, but just because the characters were fleshed out like never before (which I've already alluded to on page 1), doesn't mean that the main plot isn't complete garbage. 

 

 

As many people have stated, the main plot is incomplete without reading the novels. There's no context. Period.

 

 

And you straw man Cortanas timely new ability to become a complete shield around Chief in order to save him from the nuke he had in his lap. No, I don't have a problem with Chief living. I have a problem with this convenient new ability Cortana could've used a hundred times over and just so happened to use it now. And Cortana IS Forerunner tech. Nonetheless, her new found ability was hamfisted in as miserably as anybody has ever hamfisted something into a story.

 

No, I couldn't care less about the console fanboys on sites. But I did just show you 3 separate sites filled with comments with basically the same feelings towards the news of the new lead writer for Mass Effect and the story of Halo 4.

 

Cool, you like the game. So did I. The level design was awesome. The new weighty feel of Chief felt great. The graphics are gorgeous. Chief and Cortana were necessarily fleshed out. And the main plot was widely panned as convoluted and lacking context. 

 

 

 

When you need to read a trilogy of novels in order to add context to your game.....that means your story within the confines of the gameplay experience is not good. Or at the very least, not well told.

[Drone223]

Yes, but it approached it at times. I just think in 3 they went way to far in the other directon.

It already went too far in the other direction when they killed Shepard and brought him/her back from the dead at the start of ME2.

[Mcfly616]

It already went too far in the other direction when they killed Shepard and brought him/her back from the dead at the start of ME2.

 that might have my vote for biggest facepalm decision in the trilogy. 

[KaiserShep]

I was hoping they'd get Chris L'Etoile back and have him as lead writer(alongside Patrick Weekes & John Dombrow(I believe those two were responsible for the Rannoch & Tunchunka sections + many of the characters throughout ME2). But for the most part Mass Effect(after 2) seemed to loose that depth & hard science fiction edge. Im not sure the lead writer from Halo 4 would be my choice tbh. Im not positive on his involvement.

 

Man, Mass Effect lost its hard science fiction edge the moment that plant started vomiting asari commandos. It was at that moment that why-the-****-not science became the immutable law of the universe.

[PinkysPain]

So ... did Mac get taken off because they are doing a sequel? (Or maybe Alternate Universe.)

 

Hiring a new lead writer and giving him nothing to work with but the time before RGB would be a bit of a dick move.

[Drone223]

Man, Mass Effect lost its hard science fiction edge the moment that plant started vomiting asari commandos. It was at that moment that why-the-****-not science became the immutable law of the universe.

I take back my earlier post, that's the moment ME stop trying to be hard science fiction. 

So ... did Mac get taken off because they are doing a sequel? (Or maybe Alternate Universe.)
 
Hiring a new lead writer and giving him nothing to work with but the time before RGB would be a bit of a dick move.

He's workin on the next ME as the creative director.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

343 Guilty Spark was great, but Truth of Gravemind? Really? The prophets were all terrible antagonists, and the Gravemind was one of the dumbest villains and subplots I have ever experienced in a video game. Bungie must have been snorting cocaine when they came up with that absolute nonsense. It infuriates me to know Halo 2 could have actually had a great story when Bungie cut half of it and butchered the experience due to time constraints. That's why Halo 2's campaign was the mess it was.

 

As far as no supporting characters, that was the point... MC and Cortana were isolated in space... Nobody even knew there were still alive... On top of that they were on this new Forerunner world. Halo 4 was really an intimate performance between MC and Cortana. It wasn't supposed to be some big, epic experience like Halo 3. Please don't even bring up the Arbiter... I don't mind the character, but his role in Halo 2 was absolutely horrendous. Johnson was actually one of the few great characters Bungie created.

 

It sounds to me you didn't appreciate the kind of story Halo 4 was trying to tell. That's fine, but to say the Didact (whose history unfortunately wasn't explored enough in the game) was worse than previous antagonists? I can't agree to that. He may not have had depth due to lack of development, but he certainly was better than anything Bungie ever put out. Heck, even Hunters were more convincing than most of Bungie's villains.

 

1. Truth was actually developed, unlike the Didact. His voice-acting (in both 2 and 3) was amazing and his role/dialogue in manipulating events to his advantage was enjoyable to watch.  

 

2. I thought it was a crappy point on their part. They shouldn't have bothered introducing Lasky at all or any human characters in that case. How long does it take for more characters to enter the picture? Mission 4 I want to say? There's no excuse after that for the bland supporting cast. 

 

The Arbiter represents our first insight into Covenant Society. His role is what instigates the Covenant Civil War, possibly my favorite subplot from the series. 

 

3. No, I simply thought parts of the story outside of Chief-Cortana sucked. The Didact exists solely as a function of the plot, no more, no less. Even the base premise regarding the return of the Forerunners was itself rushed and under-developed, given their build-up in both the books and previous games. It would have been far preferable to see their return during the Covenant Civil War. 

 

Overall, I never felt the Didact was a serious threat in the manner of the Covenant or the Flood. He's not a character, merely  a plot device. 

[PinkysPain]

He's workin on the next ME as the creative director.

 

Sure, but that could just be just a promotion out of a position where he can do damage ... or out of a position where he would be forced to personally infringe on his artistic integrity (ie. make a sequel). It's always going to be easier for a different writer to just ignore the fact that Mac tried to salt the earth and just carry on regardless.

[Sion1138]

It says he was a screenwriter for some years, but no writing credits on IMDb except Halo 4.

[Riven326]

Is Halo 4 poorly written? I've never played any of the Halo games since I've never owned an XBox, but being a different kind of game does not preclude the writer's ability to pen a story for something like Mass Effect.

No. I've played all the Halo games and I would argue that Halo 4 has the best writing in the series and is the closest to the books, which have always been superior to the games in this area. This is actually good news for BioWare and Mass Effect fans.

[goishen]

Uh no. Actually, the novels were great. The problem with the game is that it expected you to have read the novels. The writers should've given background context within the game. Instead, when some of the main characters to the plot show up, we're not given any sort of information on who the hell these people are, we're just supposed to know. 

 

There are people that have played every Halo leading up to that game, and they had no idea what the hell is going on 3/4's through the campaign other than the fact that Chief does have a heart, Cortana is going batshit crazy because her inevitable demise, and there's this bad guy who wants us dead.

 

It really does not bridge anything we know of the  series into the new installment. It doesn't even touch on why in the hell we're fighting Covenent still. It just expects you to know. It's a glorified shooting gallery with some of the best graphics on last gen consoles. It was a hell of a lot of fun. But the main plot is not part of that fun.

 

 

I'm glad I read the Forerunner novels. But I would hate to start up the next Mass Effect to find that the villains are just there and the only way I know they're villains is because they're speaking to me in threatening tones and the game initiates a combat sequence......only for me to find out some time later that a Mass Effect novel came out months prior in order to do all the storytelling so the game wouldn't have to worry about such a trivial thing and could just focus on the romance.

 

And this is the problem with most games that are out right now.  Including Shadow Of Mordor.  If you haven't seen the movies or read the books, you'd be walking into that game completely blind.

 

I've only played Halo 1, I think, for at most a couple'a hours.  I wasn't impressed.  "Huh, just like TFC or Half Life Deathmatch.  Gone."

[Revan Reborn]

Dude....you can't be taken seriously. You just stated in your previous post that it's  "just fact" that Halo 4 had a better story than anything Bungie has ever written. Second, I'm aware that Bungie developed both games, and for you to even compare the two "story-wise" is another reason you're not to be taken seriously. If you can't see the difference, you're not the Halo fan you claim to be.

 

 

And lastly, do you even know the difference between character arcs, romantic sub-plots AND the overarching/main plot of a story? Because you've clearly  demonstrated that you do not. You keep rambling on about how it had "emotion and purpose" (what was that purpose, exactly?). Whoopdi doo. Sorry, but just because the characters were fleshed out like never before (which I've already alluded to on page 1), doesn't mean that the main plot isn't complete garbage. 

 

 

As many people have stated, the main plot is incomplete without reading the novels. There's no context. Period.

 

 

And you straw man Cortanas timely new ability to become a complete shield around Chief in order to save him from the nuke he had in his lap. No, I don't have a problem with Chief living. I have a problem with this convenient new ability Cortana could've used a hundred times over and just so happened to use it now. And Cortana IS Forerunner tech. Nonetheless, her new found ability was hamfisted in as miserably as anybody has ever hamfisted something into a story.

 

No, I couldn't care less about the console fanboys on sites. But I did just show you 3 separate sites filled with comments with basically the same feelings towards the news of the new lead writer for Mass Effect and the story of Halo 4.

 

Cool, you like the game. So did I. The level design was awesome. The new weighty feel of Chief felt great. The graphics are gorgeous. Chief and Cortana were necessarily fleshed out. And the main plot was widely panned as convoluted and lacking context. 

 

 

 

When you need to read a trilogy of novels in order to add context to your game.....that means your story within the confines of the gameplay experience is not good. Or at the very least, not well told.

It is a "fact." Bungie could never write a story. All they were good at was gameplay. Anyone who actually looked at their games objectively who wasn't a fanboy we see all the plot holes and ridiculous outcomes. Thank goodness Bungie left Halo. They were running it into the ground.

 

It's ironic when you accuse me of the "straw man" when all you are using is straw man arguments and insults to try and bolster your terrible argument. Halo 4 actually had a story that wasn't written by a five year old. CE was the only quality story Bungie ever wrote, and that was largely because they didn't get grounded or try to explain the universe and getting lost in their own nonsense.

 

Yes. "Many people have stated." What a valid point. Thank you for that. As if Master Chief surviving at the end of Halo 4 was anymore ridiculous than him surviving re-entry in Halo 3. Bungie's explanation for why Master Chief has the ultimate character? Because he's "lucky." If you couldn't recognize they were terrible at storytelling by then, you clearly can't tell the difference between a good or a bad story.

 

At least 343 made better claims and arguments for why Master Chief is special (because the Forerunners made him that way) versus he just had random luck for no apparent reason when every other SPARTAN II was either dead or missing. So please, don't tell me who was better at storytelling. If I've gathered anything from your argument, you are nothing more than a Bungie fanboy who has a clouded view of what the previous games were due to nostalgia. Your arguments aren't even logical.

 

Yes. Three video game sites that are infamous for trolls and fanboys running rampant with their comments and forums. Bravo. You really know how to bring credibility to your argument. Are you really serious?

 

Wow, that's the first time I actually heard you compliment the game without bashing it. Start recognizing that it actually was a good game and you may start convincing me. I don't know why you continue to claim you "need" to read the books. You don't have to read anything. It is explained to you in the game why the Didact hates humanity as they have a long and complicated past. The only shortcoming I might even attribute to 343 is that he wasn't in the game enough. Had he been in it more, and 343 made the effort to make the Didact more understandable, I don't believe he'd be getting the criticism he is receiving.

 

1. Truth was actually developed, unlike the Didact. His voice-acting (in both 2 and 3) was amazing and his role/dialogue in manipulating events to his advantage was enjoyable to watch.  

 

2. I thought it was a crappy point on their part. They shouldn't have bothered introducing Lasky at all or any human characters in that case. How long does it take for more characters to enter the picture? Mission 4 I want to say? There's no excuse after that for the bland supporting cast. 

 

The Arbiter represents our first insight into Covenant Society. His role is what instigates the Covenant Civil War, possibly my favorite subplot from the series. 

 

3. No, I simply thought parts of the story outside of Chief-Cortana sucked. The Didact exists solely as a function of the plot, no more, no less. Even the base premise regarding the return of the Forerunners was itself rushed and under-developed, given their build-up in both the books and previous games. It would have been far preferable to see their return during the Covenant Civil War. 

 

Overall, I never felt the Didact was a serious threat in the manner of the Covenant or the Flood. He's not a character, merely  a plot device. 

I never found any of the prophets to be that compelling honestly. Why the elites and other species ever even listened to them in the beginning is beyond me since they should have realized by Halo 2 that the prophets were nothing more than fanatics that didn't understand Forerunner technology at all. I think it would have been more interesting had the Arbiter been the lead antagonist as he had many human-like qualities to his character and would have built for a more compelling and divisive story. The Halo trilogy was so transparently "good guy" versus "bad guy" that I never felt that most of the antagonists had any depth or purpose other than to be there for MC to smack around.

 

Halo has never had a strong history of supporting characters. Beyond the Arbiter, Johnson, and maybe Captain Keyes in Halo CE, the rest were really forgettable in my opinion. I thought Lasky was at least interesting because he had a history with MC and was the only one who really saw him as a hero. The SPARTAN IVs were also an interesting dynamic in comparison to MC and how they viewed him. Honestly though, Halo has always been about MC and Cortana. That was always the case with the original trilogy and I didn't expect that to change with the reclaimer trilogy. This isn't a BioWare game where we are supposed to have a supporting casts of characters that add to the story. MC is a lone wolf, if you haven't noticed by now.

 

I didn't mind the character of the Arbiter but I also didn't enjoy being forced into his shoes. By far the weakest elements of Halo 2 (besides the Gravemind) was the Arbiter's missions and what he brought to the experience. I understood the interest in wanting to develop that other perspective, but I believe it could have been handled differently. Halo 2 by far had the worst and most convoluted story out of all the Halo games, and that was partially because half of it was cut and Bungie had no idea what they were doing.

 

343 was going to bring in a new threat. We knew that the Covenant were finally going to be supplementary to the main threat. I do not see how the Didact's inclusion was "bad" or "forced." This is the first time we learn the Forerunner aren't the amazing, all-knowing, compassionate sentient beings 343 guilty sparks and the Covenant always made them out to be. We saw that in many ways the Forerruners were just as flawed as humanity was. I thought the Didact represented that dynamic quite clearly. He was certainly more interesting and had better motivations than any of the previous antagonists (which isn't saying much as they were all terrible).

 

Agree to disagree then. Bungie was just trying to make a fun shooter and provide reason for calling aliens "bad guys." I never thought any of their stories were that compelling especially since the explanation for the Flood is "we have to starve them of their food source so that they remain in check," which otherwise means exterminate the rest of the galaxy. What? Halos are built specifically for that purpose and nothing else? Sorry. Outside of the SPARTAN project and AI companions, a lot of Halo was just a mess and half of what Bungie did was a plot device. They aren't storytellers and they certainly should have never claimed to be since they can't even make the most basic and coherent of stories.

 

Again, we can look to Destiny as their latest disaster of Bungie's ability to tell a story.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

 

 

1. Halo has never had a strong history of supporting characters. Beyond the Arbiter, Johnson, and maybe Captain Keyes in Halo CE, the rest were really forgettable in my opinion. I thought Lasky was at least interesting because he had a history with MC and was the only one who really saw him as a hero. The SPARTAN IVs were also an interesting dynamic in comparison to MC and how they viewed him. Honestly though, Halo has always been about MC and Cortana. That was always the case with the original trilogy and I didn't expect that to change with the reclaimer trilogy. This isn't a BioWare game where we are supposed to have a supporting casts of characters that add to the story. MC is a lone wolf, if you haven't noticed by now.

 

2. I didn't mind the character of the Arbiter but I also didn't enjoy being forced into his shoes. By far the weakest elements of Halo 2 (besides the Gravemind) was the Arbiter's missions and what he brought to the experience. I understood the interest in wanting to develop that other perspective, but I believe it could have been handled differently. Halo 2 by far had the worst and most convoluted story out of all the Halo games, and that was partially because half of it was cut and Bungie had no idea what they were doing.

 

3. 343 was going to bring in a new threat. We knew that the Covenant were finally going to be supplementary to the main threat. I do not see how the Didact's inclusion was "bad" or "forced." This is the first time we learn the Forerunner aren't the amazing, all-knowing, compassionate sentient beings 343 guilty sparks and the Covenant always made them out to be. We saw that in many ways the Forerruners were just as flawed as humanity was. I thought the Didact represented that dynamic quite clearly. He was certainly more interesting and had better motivations than any of the previous antagonists (which isn't saying much as they were all terrible).

 

4 Agree to disagree then. Bungie was just trying to make a fun shooter and provide reason for calling aliens "bad guys." I never thought any of their stories were that compelling especially since the explanation for the Flood is "we have to starve them of their food source so that they remain in check," which otherwise means exterminate the rest of the galaxy. What? Halos are built specifically for that purpose and nothing else? Sorry. Outside of the SPARTAN project and AI companions, a lot of Halo was just a mess and half of what Bungie did was a plot device. They aren't storytellers and they certainly should have never claimed to be since they can't even make the most basic and coherent of stories.

 

Again, we can look to Destiny as their latest disaster of Bungie's ability to tell a story.

 

1. Personally, I avoid using Halo 1 because its supporting cast is non-existent, especially during the second half of the story. Aside from brief encounters with Guilty Spark (who is fun), it's by far the worst Halo in terms of story-telling. It's basically Chief being led around the nose one location after another merely killing things without any larger context. Although Halo 4 suffers from similar pitfalls, it at least sufficiently develops the Chief-Cortana relationship to give it some gravitas. 

 

Regarding Lasky: he is another example of 343's failure at story-telling (in my eyes). He's the generic good guy, but without Johnson's charm or wit. He clearly has some history with the Chief, but nothing the narrative deems to be important enough to tell us. 

 

2. From a gameplay perspective? I might agree. The Covenant missions were basically Master Chief missions, but without human weapons available (at first). But from story point of view, it actually gives us plot development: things happen, situations change, etc. The story is given greater context than simply to shoot aliens, as per Halo 1. 

 

3. 343's use of the Forerunners as next in the villain line-up was predictable and bland, in my opinion. I got the impression that they resurrected the Forerunners because they had no idea what to do next, since the Covenant were officially dealt with and players were at least familiar with them. The Didact himself has virtually no screen time (appearing a grand total of twice in the entire narrative) and is only alluded to via terminals. As I said, he's simply a plot device for Chief and Cortana to do things and has no character of his own. 

 

What 343 attempted to do regarding the Forerunners Bioware did far better regarding the Protheans via Javik. And at least there, we're given halfway decent insight into Prothean history, instead of having to dig through hidden terminals and novels. 

 

4. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Forerunner's solution, it intentionally being a desperate gambit against an implacable foe. 

[Revan Reborn]

1. Personally, I avoid using Halo 1 because its supporting cast is non-existent, especially during the second half of the story. Aside from brief encounters with Guilty Spark (who is fun), it's by far the worst Halo in terms of story-telling. It's basically Chief being led around the nose one location after another merely killing things without any larger context. Although Halo 4 suffers from similar pitfalls, it at least sufficiently develops the Chief-Cortana relationship to give it some gravitas. 

 

Regarding Lasky: he is another example of 343's failure at story-telling (in my eyes). He's the generic good guy, but without Johnson's charm or wit. He clearly has some history with the Chief, but nothing the narrative deems to be important enough to tell us. 

 

2. From a gameplay perspective? I might agree. The Covenant missions were basically Master Chief missions, but without human weapons available (at first). But from story point of view, it actually gives us plot development: things happen, situations change, etc. The story is given greater context than simply to shoot aliens, as per Halo 1. 

 

3. 343's use of the Forerunners as next in the villain line-up was predictable and bland, in my opinion. I got the impression that they resurrected the Forerunners because they had no idea what to do next, since the Covenant were officially dealt with and players were at least familiar with them. The Didact himself has virtually no screen time (appearing a grand total of twice in the entire narrative) and is only alluded to via terminals. As I said, he's simply a plot device for Chief and Cortana to do things and has no character of his own. 

 

What 343 attempted to do regarding the Forerunners Bioware did far better regarding the Protheans via Javik. And at least there, we're given halfway decent insight into Prothean history, instead of having to dig through hidden terminals and novels. 

 

4. I personally don't see anything wrong with the Forerunner's solution, it intentionally being a desperate gambit against an implacable foe. 

Halo CE may not be an achievement of storytelling, but it's by far the best out of the Bungie games. It had the most coherent and digestible story, versus the other games that went off on a tangent about MC being some sort of god and Bungie getting caught up in their own mess about the Covenant, the Forerunners, and the Flood.

 

I'd also like to make the distinction that Halo 4 is the first in a new trilogy of Halo games. If we are to be fair, it would only make sense to compare Halo 4 to Halo CE. Halo 2 and 3 were merely true sequels that attempted to build off of CE and muddled it up. With the exception of MC and Cortana, the reclaimer trilogy is an all new cast of characters.

 

While the Arbiter does progress the plot from a different perspective, I would argue Bungie didn't really do a great enough job to make the player care. Part of the problem was that we already had the perspective of MC and so many other plots and subplots were taking place in Halo 2. Then we throw the Arbiter on top of that and have this completely independent experience? I would have rather Bungie just made a game focused on MC and then create an expansion or spin-off game to give context from the Arbiter's perspective. Trying to put two protagonists into one game that was already cluttered? Terrible execution.

 

I agree that the Didact should have been used more. 343 was really focused, however, on building the MC-Cortana dynamic, which I didn't mind. While I agree the Forerunner threat was inevitable and predictable, what do you believe 343 should have done? The Covenant threat was done and honestly getting old. There needs to be some sort of conflict and purpose. The Forerunners were always this outside party, so it only made sense they'd play a role at some point.

 

My issue is why build such a large and complex construct with varying multi-regional ecosystems if they are built to just starve the Flood? I personally find that to be somewhat narrow-minded and flawed in approach. I think Bungie may have been better off if they never really explained the purpose of Halo. As you said, they more or less wrapped up the story in a way where there isn't really a lot for 343 to extrapolate from. At this point, they essentially just need to create new enemies and villains to justify a progression of Halo.

 

I really see this more of Bungie doing a terrible job of using the universe they created rather than 343 just not getting it. If anything, they were limited in the tools they could use, and they had to be conservative as to not "change" Halo too much. Even though I personally thought Halo 4 was fantastic and had an amazing story, I'm hopeful that 343 will have the creativity to really take Halo places it never went before.

[Linkenski]

I think Halo 4's story was pretty good when it came to Chief and Cortana but the rest, especially the actual plot didn't hold up too well IMO, especially not the whole nuke-thing at the end. It just makes zero sense to me.

 

But one thing I think ultimately made me dislike Halo 4 was the complete lack of humor. It's so dreary and depressing through and through. I liked the more serious tone at first, but by the end it was just too much. The story took itself too seriously, and not so strange is that it's a common sign of bad writing. I actually think it felt a lot like fan-fiction. I'm not saying Bungie or Joseph Staten are masters at storytelling but they set the tone and style for Halo only for 343 to break it. As bad as Reach might have been, it still had a lot of the tongue in cheek humor with expressive characters. Halo 4 just generally has a lot of bad lines in its script. Clumsy writing and these in particular stick out to me: "Something tells me that the didact knows where we're heading" or "I know I am supposed to know what to do" or worse "I don't know about you, but I usually like a bit more intel with my intel".

 

The fluency of writing is awful a lot of the time, and even when it finally tries to be funny it made me cringe. I'm not looking forward to Schlerf helming ME4. He might come up with good character arcs or character development or something, but I think he'd be better suited as a senior writer judging from his skill as it showed in Halo 4.

[Revan Reborn]

I think Halo 4's story was pretty good when it came to Chief and Cortana but the rest, especially the actual plot didn't hold up too well IMO, especially not the whole nuke-thing at the end. It just makes zero sense to me.

 

But one thing I think ultimately made me dislike Halo 4 was the complete lack of humor. It's so dreary and depressing through and through. I liked the more serious tone at first, but by the end it was just too much. The story took itself too seriously, and not so strange is that it's a common sign of bad writing. I actually think it felt a lot like fan-fiction. I'm not saying Bungie or Joseph Staten are masters at storytelling but they set the tone and style for Halo only for 343 to break it. As bad as Reach might have been, it still had a lot of the tongue in cheek humor with expressive characters. Halo 4 just generally has a lot of bad lines in its script. Clumsy writing and these in particular stick out to me: "Something tells me that the didact knows where we're heading" or "I know I am supposed to know what to do" or worse "I don't know about you, but I usually like a bit more intel with my intel".

 

The fluency of writing is awful a lot of the time, and even when it finally tries to be funny it made me cringe. I'm not looking forward to Schlerf helming ME4. He might come up with good character arcs or character development or something, but I think he'd be better suited as a senior writer judging from his skill as it showed in Halo 4.

MC survived re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere with nothing but his armor. You really believe it's that much more ridiculous to believe his armor and Cortana's intervention could survive a nuke? Halo is already ridiculous and Bungie made that a standard long before 343 came into the picture. At least there were story reasons and justifications for why he survived, versus Halo 3's "MC has luck" explanation.

 

That's a matter of opinion. I never found humor to be that pronounced or quality in Halo outside of Johnson or 343 guilty spark. The rest of the humor was rather forced and awkward. I will say that Reach had a much more vibrant cast of characters, but that's entirely because MC wasn't involved. Up until 343 came in, MC had the personality of a brick wall. They finally added depth and humanity to the character.

 

I didn't find Cortana's humor to be any worse than previous games. If anything, I think 343 was rather true to the material of continuing what Bungie left off with. Was it diehard hilarious? No. Then again, Halo has never been a comedy or that funny to start. Opinions on Halo 4 are subjective and that's fine. To say 343 did a worse job than Bungie? I just don't see the evidence to support that. Bungie didn't even really have a writing team as their focus was always gameplay and multiplayer.

 

343 realized that shortcoming of Halo and decided to try and tell a really convincing story, with a focus on character development of MC and Cortana. Just the scenes with MC and Cortana alone were much more gripping and suspenseful than anything Bungie did out of their five Halo games. BioWare isn't stupid and they have an incredibly intense trial before any writer joins their team. Schierf knows his stuff and if BioWare believes he should lead the story for the new Mass Effect, then I believe it to. I would have believed it anyways a I personally thought he did a fantastic job with Halo 4.

[Riven326]

I preferred the most serious storyline Halo 4 had. It was closer to the books.

[Revan Reborn]

I preferred the most serious storyline Halo 4 had. It was closer to the books.

I just believe for the kind of franchise it is, a more serious storyline makes sense. There was never and fear or expectation that you would lose in Halo CE, 2, or 3. It was always obvious that MC would save the day, no matter how ridiculous it was. Halo 4 changed that dynamic by making MC make mistakes and making Cortana vulnerable. They didn't have all the answers and they struggled to get through. Did MC save the day? Yeah, but at a great cost. That's a level of depth we've never had in previous Halo games.