Ishal said:
Azahul said:
VoltySquirrel said:
Ishal said:
Ahh but acknowledging faults is a sign of weakness. Haven't you heard, Grey? If you give even a tiny bit of ground, its blood in the water! You'll be forced that much further from your point. Jeez Grey, you need to learn more from Fox News.
edit: but I will say Master Chief has the most character out of those three. Lul.
Well, that's only because he isn't strictly silent (like Freeman) and what he does say aren't variations on his name and YAHOOOOO (like Mario). And, I'd argue that Halo 4 made him a much more interesting character. However, he still isn't anywhere near a list topper.
After reading the books, it's actually rather hard to reconcile yourself to the idea that some people think that Master Chief doesn't have a character. Of course, until Halo 4 they never really tried to bring that across in the games, which was a mighty shame. Even in Halo 4, which starts to investigate a bit about the Master Chief's personality, doesn't really capture the best of the exploration of the character as found in the books. Most them revolve around his interactions with the other Spartans and how he copes without them, mind you. The closest the games ever get to the books on that level is the opening cutscene of Halo 4 bringing up the possibility that all Spartans are sociopaths/"at their core, broken".
Well 90% of people who you'll find saying the things Grey is talking about usually haven't read the books. Fall of Reach gave him the most character, and when compared to the other two he is leagues ahead of them in terms of "being a character."
But he is still no Nathan Drake or other more realized hero. Chief is a vehicle through which you experience the rest of the Halo universe, Bungie even stated as much. He just happens to have a bit of character in him in the games, and even more in the books.
Characterization that occurred in another work doesn't count when you're talking about characterization within that work.
Especially when you're talking about work that occurred in a completely different medium. We don't give movie adaptations a pass when characters fall flat in translation, and those are the
same stories. Why would we give a video game a pass, and say, "Oh, I know his character is shitty in
this work (which is the exposure 99.9% of consumers get), but he's actually an awesome character because of this completely
separate work that is pretty much the definition of niche. You have to consume both of them in order to get it." The master chief that exists in the game is poorly characterized. The books don't make up for that.
I mean, we frequently overlook this:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/332/564210_20061128_790screen001.jpg
when we're talking about the quality of the Zelda's character, and that's in the same medium. Because the works are to be consumed separately, independently. Why would the books have any bearing on the perception of Master Chief as a video game character?