From the Review:
"The relationship between Cortana and Master Chief deserves some special attention because for all the gravitas and effort put into cementing the weirdest love story just north of Lars and the Real Girl, I couldn't take it seriously. It's as if Halo 4 is the galactic parable of someone marrying an anime girl body pillow. Or that guy that runs his fingers along the hood of his car like it will shudder some kind of response to his loving touch. And that's the lens through which I viewed the entirety of the game. Master Chief exhibits some real emotion with Cortana, but c'mon, she's a computer AI."
In Halo 4, 5, and Infinite, Master Chief became a more nuanced, human character.
In spite of the Halo series’ struggles, 343 deserves praise for adding nuance and characterisation to the ever-beating heart of Halo - The Master Chief. Playing through Infinite, it's abundantly clear that the events of the current and previous trilogies have irrevocably changed the iconic hero. He’s no longer the ‘blank slate’ that was previously presented by Bungie. He’s a fatigued, damaged and fallible protagonist, and one who is meandering through currents of grief, while reveling in his newfound agency. Giving the Chief a compelling and meaningful voice was no small feat, and 343 should be proud of that victory.
This article completely misses part of the appeal of the original iteration of character in the original game trilogy. It was the Chief and Cortana vs an entire alien collective. The blank slate Bungie displayed in their games was genius, he was an mysterious hero a wide audience could identify with because he wasn't as clearly defined as most characters.
The books added a lot of lore and backstory but most Halo players just want a fun game with exposition that doesn't get in the way of gameplay, it's why the Cortana level in Halo 3 was derided.
Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty.
A lot of people give the 343 version of Master Chief a lot of slack.
But Fundamentally he is still the same character, he just has a couple more dialogues. He has not changed in terms of attitude.
"Not every character has to be a damaged soyboy, a soldier has to suck it up and do his duty."
And that's what he has done at the end of the day, he did his duty. Watch his partner die, and was ready to destroy the weapon in Halo infinite....he is still the same soilder that everyone remembers
Halo Infintes one was a nice balance between both.
The 343i Master Chief has is based on the books. However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion.
"However, in Halo 4-Infinite, the Master Chief overtime become. gradually becomes more willing to show some emotion."
Which is awesome! I love how Master Chief become more John and less soldier.
It’s a law of nature that eventually, every long-running game franchise will have a particular entry that gets dinged for straying too far from what made it so fun in the first place. Your Super Mario Sunshine, your Dragon Age II, Assassin’s Creed III, and so on. Whether or not that opinion changes more favorably over time, the initial specter of negativity will forever hover it. Microsoft’s Halo is no exception, except that negative specter hasn’t hovered over one particular game, but one whole studio.
Halo 4 released 10 years ago today, and its disappointing reception was just an omen of things to come with 343 Industries at the helm.
Halo 4 and infinite have a 87 on metacritic and five a 84🤣. 343i need contents and everything else will play it self out.
Halo 4, 5, and Infinite reviews are good examples of the pressure on review sites to score everything between 8-10 out of 10.
As if reviews scores are any indication of a franchises health.
Halo has been in shambles for YEARS
Halo 4-6 are like the Star Wars sequel trilogy
They all just seem like a brand new games with small connections to the last one but no solid arc connecting them, you’re just told stuff that happened off screen in between the games and nothing makes sense
It’s like they didn’t plan a new trilogy out
I would argue that the new Star Wars trilogy is still better. lol
Most Halo fans would kill for the equivalent of The Force Awakens at this stage (a competent rehash of what came before it). Halo Infinite tried to be that but was undercooked and failed. Halo 4 wasn't that either - they started messing with the formula straight away although the story was okay.
There was nothing particularly compelling about Halo 5's story besides the fake plot they advertised. The Last Jedi is a divisive movie but as RedLetterMedia would say, it was "sporadically interesting" because it tried some new things and set up things that could have been great (like Kylo teaming up with Rey after backstabbing Snoke). That conversation with Yoda is great and it felt like the real Yoda, not that CGI thing in the prequels.
- "Skywalker, still looking to the horizon. Never here, now, hmm? The need in front of your nose."
- "The greatest teacher, failure is ... Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters."
- "That library contained nothing that the girl Rey does not already possess." (because she already took them, haha).
The Rise Of Skywalker is the only one where loads of stuff happens off screen ("Palpatine has returned") in between and nothing makes sense because ... they just needed a main villain and 100 star destroyers to blow up. They could have done something much better.
no, all disney star wars sucks also disney marvel and everything godamn disney touches
Replies(3)
I'm getting a good gaming laptop soon and i'm finally going to play through the Halo franchise again plus Infinite but i never played Halo 4 before .. can anyone tell me how's the campaign in comparison to the games before it and compared to Halo 5 ?
Halo 4 campaign great, multi bad.
Halo 5 campaign trash, multi good.
Best Cortana halo 4.
Halo 4 was when they started turning it into a “modern” game. Aka taking tips from CoD.
The older titles were sandbox based with weapons that all filled a niche and vehicles that did the same. Open levels with multiple ways to approach in different spots with different weapons etc.
Halo 4/5 doesn’t have that. It’s a linear shooter and nothing else. The story is alright but that’s about it. If it wasn’t a halo game, it would be ok but because it is a halo game, it’s outshone by the previous games.
It’s a hell of a lot better than 5 though. I found infinite pretty meh
From the review
The Good:
- Looks phenomenal
- The "backpack" power-ups are cool, especially the jet pack
- Instantly playable for anyone with previous Halo experience
- Moments of bad-assery
- Multiplayer (so far) and Spartan Ops
- More Halo for Halo fans
The Bad:
- Hard time buying the Master Chief/Cortana love story
- Weapon variety is basically about the looks
- "You are required to maneuver straight down this trench..."
- A Halo game without the familiar theme is like Superman without John Williams
Even though I don't agree with the negatives, I respect the reviewer's opinion, but are those negatives really considerable enough to drop the score down to a low 5.5?? It's as if some of these reviewers acknowledge all the great and more positives, but do so while almost completely weighing the game with the less quantified and less game-changing negatives..
And I think the relationship between the chief and cortana makes sense if you played through the previous halo games, considering the type of bond and experiences both of these characters share. And cortana's death cycle is only making it worse on both of them.
I mean...eh, whatever.
Reviews like this is why you can't trust game reviewers. It's a shame too because when I saw the 7s and 8s AC3 was getting I didn't believe them, but after beating the game with a full 100% synch for the main story, I agree with the 7s and 8s reviews.
Oh well, it's better to play a game and find out for yourself than to blindly believe reviewers anyways. Either the major game reviewers are being deceptive because of ad revenue or want for clicks. Or the smaller game reviewers are just looking to expand their site by kissing ass or being controversial. I wish desperately for the old days when Gamespot was credible and reading Reviews with scores meant something.
Based off the positives / negatives of this reviewer I would have guessed a 7/10...possibly 8/10. 5.5? The reviewer gives no justification for going that low. The only justification I can see... site hits and haters hate.