I'm also on the "ODST and Reach were great games" boat. I understand MC is iconic, and a badass, and I don't dislike him. But I don't think you need to make 7 games just featuring him. 3 was fine. Put him in 4, sure. Play as him some, sure. But saying "ODST and Reach were bad because they didn't have MC, 4 will be good because it has MC" is a bit silly.
Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
That goes under the assumption that Halo is all about MC.
If that was the case, there would be no Ghost of Onyx, Contact Harvest or Cole Protocol. Seriously, I don't see why they "lost their way" with telling another part of a story that goes farther than just one character.
Also: Master Chief being the main character doesn't improve the game at all.
Edit: It also assumes that ODST and Reach were bad because there was no Chief. Haven't played ODST, but Reach was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Halo 3 with had Master Chief.
If that was the case, there would be no Ghost of Onyx, Contact Harvest or Cole Protocol. Seriously, I don't see why they "lost their way" with telling another part of a story that goes farther than just one character.
Also: Master Chief being the main character doesn't improve the game at all.
Edit: It also assumes that ODST and Reach were bad because there was no Chief. Haven't played ODST, but Reach was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Halo 3 with had Master Chief.
I get what he's saying about Halo: ODST and Reach not being very inclusive to people who weren't already familiar with Halo as a franchise (although if someone can remain completely indifferent to a franchise for the first 4 games does he really think they need to bother about what their perspective of the 5th and 6th would be?), but to say the games were worse off for it is rubbish, and this is coming from someone who likes The Master Chief as a character.
Yeah - much as (game) Master Chief is really just a foil for Cortana, he does that job pretty well, tbh. The Chief is mostly defined by the reactions of those around him, which is also why taking him out of human space is a questionable idea.Cain_Zeros said:
(Side note: I have absolutely no idea why people have an issue with game characters like Gordon Freeman, Chell, and Master Chief. Silent/might-as-well-be-silent protagonists, while not well-written themselves, get the job done as foils for actual characters.)
Point of contention; I've never given a good gorram about Master Chief. He's barely a character, being relegated to saying things like "I need a weapon" on the very few occasions he's actually given the opportunity to, you know, show some character.
In terms of, well, everything Halo: Reach managed just fine without him, especially with it's story (yes, even with it being cliche at points). The fact that Spencer is highlighting the Chief as the essential element of the franchise over, say, things like the combat makes me kind of wary of whatever it is 343 is going to crank out as the next Halo game.
In terms of, well, everything Halo: Reach managed just fine without him, especially with it's story (yes, even with it being cliche at points). The fact that Spencer is highlighting the Chief as the essential element of the franchise over, say, things like the combat makes me kind of wary of whatever it is 343 is going to crank out as the next Halo game.
IMO the Arbiter was the best thing to happen to the Halo series.
I mean as much as you try to make the human side of the conflict interesting Microsoft it's gonna be hard to break Chief out of the generic space marine stereotype without taking a step in the Mass Effect direction or borrowing heavily from the books and focusing more on story.
The Covenant was always the most interesting part of the story anyway. The books do a phenomenal job of making the human's side interesting but it's much harder to do that in the games where you want to focus on a super-soldier who will mow through every last hostile enemy from beginning to the end of the game (something not exactly done in Reach which made it a nice change).
I mean even after Halo 3's conclusion you still have a hierarchy of alien races probably all in a power struggle now all devastated at the undeniable proof of the falseness of their religion that has been their unifying call for years upon years. Will the Jackals go back to their pirating ways? How will the Elite-Brute war end up? What about the grunts? The drones? The hunters?
There's potential there Microsoft. More potential IMO than you have with the Chief even with more interactions with forerunner stuff because that's been the main focus for a full trilogy already.
I mean as much as you try to make the human side of the conflict interesting Microsoft it's gonna be hard to break Chief out of the generic space marine stereotype without taking a step in the Mass Effect direction or borrowing heavily from the books and focusing more on story.
The Covenant was always the most interesting part of the story anyway. The books do a phenomenal job of making the human's side interesting but it's much harder to do that in the games where you want to focus on a super-soldier who will mow through every last hostile enemy from beginning to the end of the game (something not exactly done in Reach which made it a nice change).
I mean even after Halo 3's conclusion you still have a hierarchy of alien races probably all in a power struggle now all devastated at the undeniable proof of the falseness of their religion that has been their unifying call for years upon years. Will the Jackals go back to their pirating ways? How will the Elite-Brute war end up? What about the grunts? The drones? The hunters?
There's potential there Microsoft. More potential IMO than you have with the Chief even with more interactions with forerunner stuff because that's been the main focus for a full trilogy already.
Except that the faceless protagonist in Reach Died at the end. So undoubtedly not the Chief. I liked the second the most myself, always liked Arby better, and not a big fan in general, but Reach was me giving the series a last chance, it didn't fail, but didn't convince me for the future.BlindChance said:
Meh. I think they're assuming a lot about the fan base. Personally I thought ODST was great. If it was a few hours longer I think it would have been the best of the series.
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cainx10a said:Bah, Reach will always be my favorite Halo. No flood = Great Experience
Also, I liked Noble Six more than Master Chief....*Puts up flame shield*
I just threw away all my hope that Halo will ever be good again.
Just to put it out there on how I feel. Halo 2 sucked and Halo 3 sucked more. ODST was fantastic, and Halo Reach was fucking amazing (I actually cared for the story).
I would really not like to play as Master Chief again, he isn't all that good when it comes to being a characters. He is just there, unlike Noble Six who, basicly was, the player.
Just to put it out there on how I feel. Halo 2 sucked and Halo 3 sucked more. ODST was fantastic, and Halo Reach was fucking amazing (I actually cared for the story).
I would really not like to play as Master Chief again, he isn't all that good when it comes to being a characters. He is just there, unlike Noble Six who, basicly was, the player.
Honestly, I think Reach had the best campaign of the series. Though I could easily argue the price tag for it, ODST was a very good game as well.
While I can't speak for all of the Halo fans, I enjoy seeing the universe expanded. Master Chief is a huge part of the Halo series, sure, but seeing things through a different set of eyes makes the whole experience much more interesting. I enjoy seeing new characters and new perspectives. If the game focus squarely on the Chief, the series will get stagnant, and fast.
While I can't speak for all of the Halo fans, I enjoy seeing the universe expanded. Master Chief is a huge part of the Halo series, sure, but seeing things through a different set of eyes makes the whole experience much more interesting. I enjoy seeing new characters and new perspectives. If the game focus squarely on the Chief, the series will get stagnant, and fast.
Master Chief was great in the first two games, but he was not what made Halo: Combat Evolved so great. It was the gameplay, the setting, and the presentation. It was the simple but dynamic AI and the element of tactics and meaningful choice introduced with the weapons and weapon swapping system, that kind of thing. As much as the PC guys are going to hate me for this, Halo was much more interesting to play than your standard 'twitch' shooters of the day. That's why I get annoyed when people (ahem, Yahtzee) call Halo a standard, run-of-the-mill shooter. It set the standard. For those of us who were actually there and playing the damned thing, Halo is the original and everything else is imitators. It's like how this generation thinks Seinfeld is just a run-of-mill sitcom and Citizen Kane is just a boring old movie.
You may say I'm rambling, but this is the kind of stuff I want to hear from the guy who will decide what Halo as a series is from now on. I want to hear that he understands what Halo was and why it was great. Master Chief was great, but he is not what made Halo great.
Then again, I thought the best things about Halo 2 were The Arbiter and the civil unrest within the Covenant (although, they should not have had the Covenant races start speaking English). I thought that was a great way to expand the story and the universe a little bit, but apparently I'm in the minority on that. So maybe I don't know shit.
You may say I'm rambling, but this is the kind of stuff I want to hear from the guy who will decide what Halo as a series is from now on. I want to hear that he understands what Halo was and why it was great. Master Chief was great, but he is not what made Halo great.
Then again, I thought the best things about Halo 2 were The Arbiter and the civil unrest within the Covenant (although, they should not have had the Covenant races start speaking English). I thought that was a great way to expand the story and the universe a little bit, but apparently I'm in the minority on that. So maybe I don't know shit.
Why are there loads of people against 343? They are made of Ex-Bungie staff, Martie(?) O'Donnel... for example.Meaning, they are people who KNOW the Halo series and are not going to let it fall. Microsoft probably won't get involved that much either (to my knowledge they didn't with Bungie)
OT: Mehh, i still hope they make more games without him, i'd like to see more of the conflict before him/without him.
OT: Mehh, i still hope they make more games without him, i'd like to see more of the conflict before him/without him.
Are you fucking kidding me? They lost their way because they didn't have Master Chief? Bullshit! Master Chief is a blank character with no personality who rarely even speaks. The Campaigns are decent and the level of customization in the multiplayer is great. Reach kept that going and ODST (while just recycling Halo 3's multiplayer).
Master Chief is the absolute least of anyone's worries, Microsoft. Believe me.
Master Chief is the absolute least of anyone's worries, Microsoft. Believe me.
I'm sorry, but OUR way?! Seriously, OUR WAY?! In case you didn't realize MS, it was Bungie's way from the get-go and last time I checked, people had absolutely no problem with controlling a different character outside of the Master Chief. More proof that Microsoft clearly knows dick about anything. ESPECIALLY the franchises they own. Suck a dick, MS. Halo: Reach is the best in the series with or without Master Chief, and what they said is practically an insult towards Bungie, 343, and the Halo fanbase. Thanks for dampening my enthusiasm of Halo 4. It's clear that you fuck-skulls don't know what you're doing with this franchise.
I didn't much like Reach, I DID like ODST. And not playing the Master Chief was not the problem, Halo 3 has so far been the biggest disappointment. It's multiplayer was amazing, but it's single player / coop was far below the expectations after Halo 2 (my favorite).
Any piece of media should be able to stand up on it's own without supporting material.Korten12 said:
The fact he was better fleshed out in the books means nothing to me. If they can't do that in the game, I'm not gonna care what becomes of him in the game.
And on topic, ODST and Reach were probably my favourite Halo games. So... yeah, I'm inclined to refute that theory of his.