Microsoft: We Lost Our Way With Recent Halo Games
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And Phil Spencer, my friends, is the problem with a franchise. He's trying to think for you and say through some small trickery that what YOU want and what he wants are synonymous. They're not. Bungie made a fairly accurate world dripped on in mythos and legends, which is a good thing. The SPARTAN project is fairly unique to it, but it's not the only thing that the game has running for it.
Perhaps expanding the universe to explore the other races in detail, or just making the remake of the H2 where the pistol gets upgraded might work for now, at least until someone has MUCH better ideas than Spencer.
Perhaps expanding the universe to explore the other races in detail, or just making the remake of the H2 where the pistol gets upgraded might work for now, at least until someone has MUCH better ideas than Spencer.
Wait, Master Chief is a character? Not a GI Joe [completely masked] action figure with kung fu grip that occasionally says in a summer blockbuster voice "I need a weapon"? And the bigwigs at Microsoft think people want to play as THAT? As opposed to actual characters with personalities? As opposed to his counterpart with [relatively] more personality, the Arbiter? Well this is certainly news to me!
Reach was one of my least favorite campaigns... Halo 1 and 2 were awesome but i found the rest a bit dull.
I think in this case at least he doesn't know what he is talking about, I think the fact that those two games explored other perspectives was one of their strengths.
I liked the change of focus in ODST and Reach, just like I enjoy how the books don't always revolve around Chief.
While Halsey and Sarge may be a part of the games, and you get a glimpse of their character as you play, you don't get to really care about them until you see the world through their eyes.
In a series like Halo where you are meant to care about the soldiers in the fight, it is important to do exactly that: care about the soldiers.
Chief may be a Spartan; the last and luckiest of a breed of the best soldier humanity can pump out, but he is still just a soldier. Yes, I know that he has killed prophets, destroyed carriers, slain countless flood and covenant, and basically saved the universe, but he is still just a soldier.
By looking at the Halo series through different sets of eyes, everything is seen with much greater depth than it would be if just viewed through the Chief's visor.
If anything, I'd like to play more Halo games that didn't have the Chief at all.
While Halsey and Sarge may be a part of the games, and you get a glimpse of their character as you play, you don't get to really care about them until you see the world through their eyes.
In a series like Halo where you are meant to care about the soldiers in the fight, it is important to do exactly that: care about the soldiers.
Chief may be a Spartan; the last and luckiest of a breed of the best soldier humanity can pump out, but he is still just a soldier. Yes, I know that he has killed prophets, destroyed carriers, slain countless flood and covenant, and basically saved the universe, but he is still just a soldier.
By looking at the Halo series through different sets of eyes, everything is seen with much greater depth than it would be if just viewed through the Chief's visor.
If anything, I'd like to play more Halo games that didn't have the Chief at all.
Not that I'm a huge Halo fan, I do agree to an extent. I didn't buy ODST or Reach simply because I wasn't that interested in them. I was kind of interested in Halo Reach, but the fact there was no Master Chief did put me off a bit. That and the fact Elites were no longer equals in the online modes, even if they did have better looking armour than before.
But one thing I did feel about Reach is that in bringing in a whole bunch of new Spartans and showing off their faces it kind of took away from the specialness and mystery of Spartans and the Master Chief. They made them look like yet another band of generic gun-ho commandos. The great thing about the first 3 Halo games is that it made the Master Chief in to this mythical hero of legend, and you felt like it from the way people behaved around you and the fact that you never saw his face. He remained like some kind of legendary symbol of hope, like a superhuman hero that transcended the ordinary constraints of man, but who had to give up his personal identity to become something whose purpose is for others to look up to. Master Chief felt like an important figure, and even when you were looking through his eyes you were seeing him as others did.
EDIT: That said, Arbiter has always been my favourite character. He has a great story line in Halo 2 and is by far the most interesting and deep character in any Halo game.
But one thing I did feel about Reach is that in bringing in a whole bunch of new Spartans and showing off their faces it kind of took away from the specialness and mystery of Spartans and the Master Chief. They made them look like yet another band of generic gun-ho commandos. The great thing about the first 3 Halo games is that it made the Master Chief in to this mythical hero of legend, and you felt like it from the way people behaved around you and the fact that you never saw his face. He remained like some kind of legendary symbol of hope, like a superhuman hero that transcended the ordinary constraints of man, but who had to give up his personal identity to become something whose purpose is for others to look up to. Master Chief felt like an important figure, and even when you were looking through his eyes you were seeing him as others did.
EDIT: That said, Arbiter has always been my favourite character. He has a great story line in Halo 2 and is by far the most interesting and deep character in any Halo game.
So the people taking over for Bungie think the two best games in the series were missteps. Comforting.
As for Reach, it was established for a while that there were more Spartans and the handful we see in Reach are clearly gone by the time of the main trilogy.
And what you mention about the arbiter is one of the things that made ODST and Reach so incredibly good - we got great Halo gameplay (very intelligently using squad-mate specialties to lead into some really nice themed levels without things feeling forced) with actual characters with a lot more depth.
The thing that I find so disconcerting about the announcement isn't even really that they think the best two games in the series were missteps (though that is troubling, and a little bit fucked up - as soon as Bungie leaves they claim that their last two games were basically mistakes?). The problem I have is that they're basically claiming that there is no room in the Halo series for any game that isn't about Master Chief. They didn't say "we did too much side stuff not focusing on the main character, we should do less", they said "we did side stuff not focusing on the main character, we shouldn't ever do that".
You should probably play ODST and Reach. ODST wasn't about Spartans at all, so I'm not really sure what the issue there is. And they were very certainly not stealing any thunder - very much vincible and not really mythological in any way.Scrustle said:
As for Reach, it was established for a while that there were more Spartans and the handful we see in Reach are clearly gone by the time of the main trilogy.
And what you mention about the arbiter is one of the things that made ODST and Reach so incredibly good - we got great Halo gameplay (very intelligently using squad-mate specialties to lead into some really nice themed levels without things feeling forced) with actual characters with a lot more depth.
The thing that I find so disconcerting about the announcement isn't even really that they think the best two games in the series were missteps (though that is troubling, and a little bit fucked up - as soon as Bungie leaves they claim that their last two games were basically mistakes?). The problem I have is that they're basically claiming that there is no room in the Halo series for any game that isn't about Master Chief. They didn't say "we did too much side stuff not focusing on the main character, we should do less", they said "we did side stuff not focusing on the main character, we shouldn't ever do that".
No, Microsoft/Bungie, the arbitrary space marine/camera on a stick you're incidentally playing as has absolutely nothing to do with whether the games are good, or even if the story was good; Especially since Master Chief was a barely talking, characterless mobile gun platform in the games.
The only difference, and I do mean only difference, is what your support characters call you before saying "Go from A to B and kill everything on the way". Which is pretty much the entire Halo Experience in a nutshell.
What makes Halo bland and uninteresting is the gameplay, not what fleshy vehicle carries you through the gameplay.
The only difference, and I do mean only difference, is what your support characters call you before saying "Go from A to B and kill everything on the way". Which is pretty much the entire Halo Experience in a nutshell.
What makes Halo bland and uninteresting is the gameplay, not what fleshy vehicle carries you through the gameplay.
To be honest out of playing Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach (decided just to wait for the rerelease of Combat Evolved) the only two I found to be genuinly good were ODST & Reach, the weapons felt better in both, especially Reach, the character didn't feel as powerful which was a nice change and the story telling was better than in the previous Halo games that I have played. Are Microsoft basing this entire thing on the amount of sales or something? Did ODST & Reach sell worse than Halo 3? Well, ODST probably did but that's besides the point.
What was wrong with these games that was so much better in 3? You played different characters? There was barely any difference anyway, in the games Master Chief is barely even a character, he says about 10 lines in the entire game. To me it's just like playing Gordon Freeman but with some mediocre one liners. Halo 2 was better about having Master Chief character though. Besides, the customisation in Reach was great and let you really make your own spartan. Master Chief to me is just a generic hero in an ugly green suit of armour.
A lot of the reason Master Chief is boring is the feeling of invincibility he has, you know he isn't going to die no matter what and comes across as a less interesting James Bond in that regard. In Reach there is a definite feeling of mortality and many people die.
The game feels more intense and the characters more human for having them as such. The characters in Reach were also far better written than the Halo 2, 3 or ODST characters in my own humble opinion.
Edit: And the ODST charactes were also better than the 2 or 3 characters, again, this is merely my opinion.
What was wrong with these games that was so much better in 3? You played different characters? There was barely any difference anyway, in the games Master Chief is barely even a character, he says about 10 lines in the entire game. To me it's just like playing Gordon Freeman but with some mediocre one liners. Halo 2 was better about having Master Chief character though. Besides, the customisation in Reach was great and let you really make your own spartan. Master Chief to me is just a generic hero in an ugly green suit of armour.
A lot of the reason Master Chief is boring is the feeling of invincibility he has, you know he isn't going to die no matter what and comes across as a less interesting James Bond in that regard. In Reach there is a definite feeling of mortality and many people die.
This includes members of your own squad and even the player character at the end.
Edit: And the ODST charactes were also better than the 2 or 3 characters, again, this is merely my opinion.
Akalabeth said:
Good point, it would definitely be an improvement if they did make him more "vocally active" as you put it. Having Master Chief talk more and have a more fleshed out personality like in the books would be neat and a vast improvement. Nonetheless it is, as you say, only a possibility, it's also a possibility that they won't have him speak more, which would be a shame, well, unless they decide to give him the same sort of dialogue as they did in 3 in which case it would just be irritating.
Fuck this noise. ODST was my favourite solo experience from any of them. Not having to deal with the flood while also having an interesting story was far superior than "Chief go here, Chief kill stuff'.
MGS boss Phil Spencer made a frank admission: ODST and Reach weren't what gamers wanted.
what! only the first halo could beat them. I thought ODST and reach were the best two of the series (after combat evolved of course)
what! only the first halo could beat them. I thought ODST and reach were the best two of the series (after combat evolved of course)
I honestly played the Halo games mostly for the multiplayer...I played CE a lot on the computer and original xbox, I think I played some Halo 2...I played the shit out of Halo 3, I liked the campaign and the multiplayer was fun.
I never really played ODST, I think I played a couple games of firefight at a friends house.
As for Reach, I really liked it. The multiplayer is fun and hilarious at times, just what I expect from a Halo game.
I'm looking forward to Halo 4. Master Chef is bland and dull, but I do love all the little 12 year old kids on xbl >
I never really played ODST, I think I played a couple games of firefight at a friends house.
As for Reach, I really liked it. The multiplayer is fun and hilarious at times, just what I expect from a Halo game.
I'm looking forward to Halo 4. Master Chef is bland and dull, but I do love all the little 12 year old kids on xbl >
I really liked ODST. It was good finally having no more overpowered huamns, who could thow grenades over buildings and also who couldn't jump high. Also because Nathan Fillon was in it.
The books aren't needed, though. They shouldn't be needed.Korten12 said:But then look at it like this: Let's say they wanted to flesh them out more in game. Well Halo shows most of its story (not all) through cutscenes. So that would mean they probably would have needed to make cutscenes longer and then people would complain about the length of cutscenes.
The books are NEEDED, you can't show everything in games. In Fall of Reach, there were many times that there would be no combat and just talking. They can't show that in game without people like I said complaining about length of cutscenes or would complain about lack of action.
That is of course not to say they shouldn't exist (supporting material is okay, but I've always held to the belief they should NOT focus on the main story or character in a game).
What I'm saying is that, if they wanted to flesh out his character in the game, then they should have just done that. And they could've. Others have worked with less and come out with stronger characters.
No one should need someone else to write a novel to flesh out their character.
Advertising the books as "Hey, felt Master Chief was devoid of any personality or qualities? Pay us more money and you can have that!" isn't really a good thing.
Buuuuuuuut, that's all moot to me anyway, because I'm kinda sure they intended for Chief to be as he is: A silent action-hero type guy made of brick, and twice as charming as one.
Translation from Microsoft: "Boo-hoo, we didn't sell as many copies of ODST and Reach as we wanted. SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG!"
Personally a single character from either ODST or Reach (especially Buck, and you all know why) had more depth and personality than Chief ever did.
Personally a single character from either ODST or Reach (especially Buck, and you all know why) had more depth and personality than Chief ever did.