I'm not, if only because I have no idea how you would go about doing that. The fight seems pretty fundamentally broken, but at the same time you can't simply remove it due to its importance in the story.
Worst Games in Great Franchises
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I mean ultimately, I suppose it depends on how you weigh each aspect of the game, as to which game eventually comes out on top.
Obviously if you only care about the singleplayer portion of the game, then I can definitely understand as to how Halo 5 is the worst. But, Halo multiplayer isn't insignificant. As someone who does dabble in multiplayer, I'd take the game with just one bad mode, and one good mode, over the game with two bad modes. But ultimately, at this point, it really just is an argument over "which game is the worst Halo game, and which game is the second worst Halo game".
But, seeing as we are already here, I thought that I would address your point about the plotline of the Master Chief being the bad guy. Obviously no one though that the Chief was suddenly going to be evil, but I was still excited for the plot. Why? Because I was interested to see what the "mystery" was. The Chief was AWOL, and any planet that he visited, blew up, likely resulting in 1000s of deaths. That is an intriguing story, and definitely an interesting story to see from someone else's perspective. Imagine visiting a planet, seeing the destruction, and following the Chief's path, all whilst ONI is feeding you lies about how it is the Chief's fault, and as an ONI soldier, you have to follow orders and bring him in. Even though both you, and the character, know that the Chief and Blue Team likely have their reasons, but you dont know what they are, and you have to piece together the clues left behind.
That sounds great to me. That is exactly the story that was sold to us in the marketing. But that plot was basically completely ruined by mission 2, by telling the player all of the secrets, and the "hunt" culminated in the worst choreographed, and most insultingly bad cutscene in the entire franchise, before moving onto Evil Cortana's AI uprising. A shame.
But in the end, both campaigns have major issues. Both games have uninteresting levels. Both games feature the underdeveloped Promethean faction. Both games underdeliver with their stories. Both games have an overreliance on external books/comics/short films for their context. So if we are just looking at the campaigns, the pendulum could swing either way.
Yes. HoMM4 was a major screw-up. I get that lots of fans wanted the hero on the battle map, but it didn't work. It was also their level design at its worst: missions that send you to one end of the map, then all the way to the other end of the map, then all the way back again, etc. Stupid, endless troop-grinding in cities - press "end turn" dozens of times to spin up enough cannon fodder to get past map guardians blocking progress, etc.
There's their companion RPG M&M as well. The classic is probably III; they did not transfer so well to the semi-3D (VI, VII, VIII), although the last from the original run which went fully 3D (IX) is the nadir. I felt New World Computing were a company that ended up trapped by their fans: they did not really deliver to a new audience and missed changes to RPG styles, so they were hopelessly obsolete by the end with a dwindling user base. I sort of liked the reboot (X) for nostalgia. In gamelay it's well executed, but whatever New World Computing's flaws, they had a sense of fun and creativity that the team who made the reboot did not: it is distinctly characterless in comparison.
A lot of them i was too young to fully remember the detail of. And i've never gone back for a full series run.
VII, or Blood and Honour (which was also paired up with Heroes 3 in the storyline more or less) was probably the one that stands out as the high point to me.
Then why is that “not the backbone” the majority of the game? Halo 5 is a bloated sidestory because literally most of it (as in “the majority of the playable game”) is an offensively blatant red herring.
We can go round and round, but you’ll never convince me Halo 5 is a sensical progression of the larger Halo story as a game. At best, it’s a plot of intrigue that should have been told in cut scenes, but as the majority of the game, it fails hard. I didn’t spend Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo 4 as the hero only to be relegated to the least of the game and ostensible villain in Halo 5.
I can’t argue that Halo 5 isn’t the fifth Halo simply by virtue of no one at 343 asking my damned opinion, so you’ve got me there, but “because it exists” is not reason enough to accept the decisions they made and not expect better. Yes, Halo 5 moves the over-arching plot forwards substantially; did they do it correctly? NO. Osiris was NOT the interesting story, yet it is most of the game. A comedian I listen to does a bit that analogizes my sentiments exactly; listen below, just the first 20 seconds or so.
My comparison to Mario was flippancy; taking a renowned franchise’s flagship face and turning him upside down; was not an attempt to make a point-for-point equivalence.
Red Herring: "Something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question."
I'm not sure how the hunt aspect is misleading, because you'd somehow have to ignore everything that's going on around you. ODST is a red herring because most of the game is wasting your time - Rookie goes to location, finds item, flashback happens, rinse and repeat, until finally, he stumbles upon a location that ties in with the plot. Unless the Rookie has psychometry, almost everything occurring in the present is a waste of time. Halo 5 isn't a red herring however, because the hunt isn't distracting you from the stuff that's actually going on, but takes you on the route that exposes you to those very things. Promethean turning on Jul? Check. AI rebellion? Check. Guardians gathering at Requiem? Check. Created coming to the fore? Check.
First, you're not the villain in Halo 5. The 'sins' there lie with the marketing. If we're judging a story based on how well it matches what it's sold at, then by all rights, Halo 2 should be one of the worst stories in the series. Second, I really don't get the aversion to playing anyone other than John. Even if we're confining this to the main series, I still don't get it. This isn't a defence of Osiris in of itself, people are free to criticize them as much as possible, but suddenly, not playing as John all the time is bad? Really? I never experienced that sentiment prior to Halo 5. In fact, as far as "sole playability" goes, I actually overestimated that when I ran the numbers, because I forgot about Spartan Ops in Halo 4. Again, we weren't playing as John there, but no-one complained about that. Complained about the mode, sure, but not his absence.
Course, it's a moot point now, because Infinite seems indent on nostalgia pandering, and that includes John's sole playability, but whatever.
I've heard some of the same stuff, and its a shame they didn't get to achieve their original goal. It feels very much like a situation where their eyes were bigger than their stomach and they ended up too full after the appetizers to enjoy the main course. A lot of what I didn't like about DS2, though, feels kind of separate from those issues. The effort and polish put into DS2 bosses is clearly comparable to DS1, but lacks the imagination. The dependence on Big Armoured Dudes, and the inclusion of Old Orenstien and Kind-of Quelaag made me feel like they understood that one of the huge draws of the original game was the epic, impressive, strange bosses, but demonstrates that they didn't really know how to go about it on their own. The references were nice, but without the emotional weight of seeing Smough and Orenstien line up for a serious fight between equals, or looking at Quelaag and her sister and realizing "holy shit, fire and chaos are not to be fucked with", there's limited reason to care about the specifics of why this woman has a scorpion for a butt - at the time or in hindsight.
I'm actually pretty okay with the world of DS2, and although I recognize that a lot of people thought it was stilted and disconnected feeling (probably owing to the issues you mentioned above), I appreciate the sense of scale it gives you. Like, wow. I really was walking through country miles of tunnels but I didn't notice it except for the fights because I'm dead so I don't care. It could have been communicated a bit better, but I can see the goal behind the design and I enjoyed the extra effort that went into reminding me that I'm not a person who recognizes the world like an aging human would.
Yeah, its a credit I'll give FF7:R, even if I thought near everything they redid ranged from blaisse, to the director self-fanwanking his own canon and preference for time-travel destiny schtick on it, and totally killed what was one of the best paced opening chapters in the series. At least they put a lot of solid effort in trying to do something that really merited the release.
Ultima 9, which I already mentioend (and to lesser extent, 8, and 7 pt 2) I'd love to see get remastered into their original visions without the maelstrom of issues that caused them to be half-done, or in 9's case, a complete nonsensical clusterf---- designed to stitch some cutscenes they'd already paid too much to produce together.
The Secret of Mana remake was another case. SoM was originally gonna be on the Nintendo CD system they were collabbing with Sony on (and even if you aren't familiar, you can guess what happened to that). When they had to hack it down to go on a SNES cartridge.... you can really tell with an adults perspective that there's just a point where the game kind of crunches down. LAter Temples that were dungeons early on, become one room scenes, boss pallettes start getting re-used like mad. And half the final Mana Weapon orbs don't even have attached bossses/events for them.
The hunt aspect might not be directly misleading, but it’s knowingly pointless; we spend the majority of the game tracking down the person, the iconic hero, who’s experiencing the most interesting turn of events that are moving the franchise forward. The more interesting story (y’know, all the boxes you checked?) are happening with John, the Master Chief, the face of the franchise, the character on the box art of every iterative Halo since the early 2000s.
And feel however you want about ODST, but it never purported to be as substantive an installment of the franchise as Halo 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5; it was sold as an additional, in-universe story (it was actually going to be sold as Halo 3 DLC, but they decided there was enough there that a standalone release could be merited. And let’s not forget, it sold new for $30 when you compare it to the $60 games.) Yes, it IS a sidestory, and it never claimed to be anything else. Judging it by the standards of major installments is akin to judging your fries by the standards of your burger.
No one said playing as anyone other than John is bad, but as someone once said:
So don’t act “surprised” when people are upset that they spend the least of the game continuing John’s journey. Relegating him to the least of the game and putting the player in control of some new guy chasing down him and the more interesting events in the game and calling it “the next major Halo” sounds like 343 is milking the tale, like someone who found a million dollars in a briefcase (AMAZING!!), but spends the first three-quarters of their story telling you what they had for breakfast that morning (who gives a shit?)
I, for one, had no problem SHARING Halo 2 with the Arbiter; at least substantive events were happening in his portion of the game; it’s how we learned, intimately, the beliefs and structure of the then ominous Covenant. What of any significance did we learn as Osiris that couldn’t have been learned during John’s tale? What SIGNIFICANT contribution did Osiris’ tale make to the Halo universe that it deserved the mantle (lol) of Halo “5”?
Now I'm getting Star Ocean flashbacks. The first one for the SNES, which is going for a nice pace, looks like it's about to hit the last half or third of the game, and instead BOOM FInal(Shortass) Dungeon another planet then you're done. Turns out there was supposed to be a lot more to that part but they ran low on disc space or time or resources or something like that.
Most of what I listed is happening from Osiris's POV, not Blue Team's. I mean, if we're keeping track:
-Promethean rebellion: Osiris
-AI defection: Osiris
-Destruction of Jul's Covenant: Osiris
-Created taking control: Mainly Osiris, but technically both, since the teams are working together by then.
Blue Team is mostly there to understand why this is happening (as in, understanding from a narrative point of view).
ODST is just all around lousy though.
Yes, it's a sidestory. Yes, it might have sold for less than other Halo games. Yes, it was a spinoff to Halo 3. I don't care, it was still lacklustre. I don't give special pleading to other sidestories in other IPs, ODST doesn't get any special protection because of its status.
I'm not "acting" surprised, I was (and am) surprised.
To be clear, this isn't a case that criticism of Halo 5's story is invalid (there's plenty of things to criticize it for), but the idea of sharing screentime with John never registered as an issue to me. I mean, okay, playing through the campaign, I would have preferred to spend more time with Blue Team, but you're hindering yourself if, in a multi-stage story, you're tying yourself to the same protagonist regardless as to whether it demands it or not.
To be clear, I put Halo 2's story above Halo 5's, even if I find almost all of the Arbiter's levels tedious, which isn't something I can say for Osiris. That said, I've already listed above the stuff we learnt with Osiris, how most of the plot points are seen from their POV. I mean, hypothetically, you could completely rewrite Halo 5 in such a matter that every main plot point is from Blue Team's POV, but we're getting into hypotheticals. Games like Halo 3 and Halo 4 would definitely benefit from rewrites, but that's a path I'm wary of going down. In part, because we're in the realm of hypotheticals. In part, because multiple times on FFN, I've seen people say things to the effect of "X was bad, so I'm going to rewrite X so it's good," only for their content to be sub-par. I mean, yes, I've novelized stuff, and made alterations/additions as I've deemed necessary, but never declared that "my shit is better than your shit" as part of the description.
Also, I don't know if it's a question of 'deserving' the spotlight. You could apply that question to pretty much anything when there's alternatives. Why does Noble Team 'deserve' the spotlight of Halo: Reach for instance, when you could have told the story from the POV of Spartan-IIs that had been canonically established. Why does Palmer 'deserve' the spotlight of Halo: Spartan Assault? Why does the Arbiter 'deserve' half the spotlight of Halo 2? Deserving is the wrong question to ask - Halo 2 benefits from Thel's presence narrative-wise. Having Noble Team in Halo: Reach works narratively because all bets are off as to whether the characters survive or not. So to get to Halo 5, yes, John is put on a pedastal, both in-universe and out of universe, but he's not the only game in town - least at this point in the franchise, when the Spartan-IVs are a thing.
Other games I just thought of:
- Soul Calibur V
- King of Fighters XII
- Advanced Guardian Heroes - Fails hard. What was Treasure thinking?
- Gunstar Superheroes - I like this game, but the main problem is you can't mix and match weapons like the original. Also, the Thunderblade Helicopter sections suck so bad on Hard Mode. It's luck based. Once you do those section, never do them again. When you die, you immediately go back to the title screen, instead of a continue screen like the original. I do not know why Treasure would get rid of common and convenient features for no reason. Especially when it's a game from the 90s that has unlimited continues. While this GBA game from 2005 does not have any of that.
- Sin and Punishment
- Mortal Kombat Armageddon
- Max Payne 1
- Bayonetta 1
- GTA London & IV
- Dead Space 3
- House of the Dead: Overkill - I love it, but it can be jank. Once you get the auto shotgun, there is no other reason to pick the any other weapon over it. Auto shotty is a game breaker.
- Time Crisis 5
Last edited:
Oh speaking of Mortal Kombat, can we count that weird Sub Zero Brawler that sucked a bunch of ass?
The original Mortal Kombat trilogy may have been able to grab a place in the pop culture consciousness through bloody spectacle, but even then as a game it was stiff and awkward compared to Street Fighter 2, and now that its graphics and fatalities are no longer all that appealing, it doesn't have anything to stand on anymore. And seriously, whose idea was it to give every single character the exact same normals, anyway?
Eh, i'd give it to 4. I know 5 had its controversy with the roster shifts, but 4 was just bareebones nothing.
I'm kind of surprised you'd pick 1 over 3. 1 has flaws, to be sure(the fucking crying baby nightmare mazes), but 3 didn't feel much like a Max Payne game. It felt like an adaptation of Man on Fire(or something) that was retroactively turned into a Max Payne game and it felt like it reset Max's character development(or failed to acknowledge any).
IV was at least fun. V wasn't. I don't like the roster being changed with little to no reason. There are less interesting characters. I hate the main character, and he can get fucked in the ass with a spiked dildo wrapped in barbed wire, while constantly being kicked in the balls by a woman in high heels. Fuck him! I have no idea what Namco was thinking with making a "hero" such as him. A whiny hypocritical douche. It's why the series had to "reboot" itself of that tragedy and mess of a game.
In terms of gameplay mainly. I did not make this decision lightly. I hate the running puzzle maze sections, and I have even less patience for them now than I did back then. The dynamic difficulty can be overbearing too. I know 3 was just Man on Fire, but in Brazil. While it did have problems, I found it to be a fitting end for Max.
The game had the really annoying habit of cinematically dumping you into a firefight right out in the open with no cover though. And then also switching your current weapon from long gun to handgun, eventhough you went into the cinematic with the long gun equiped. Never finished Max Payne 1 because of the puzzle maze nonsense, and I have finished Max Payne 3, but 3 aggravated me way more mechanically (as well as narratively) than 1 did.