"So let me save you the trouble of trolling my statement: We have a lot to learn. We made a lot of mistakes. We can do better. And we know this, and we will. But I don’t want to spend the first moments of the year thinking about the negatives, because frankly, I am incredibly proud of both the team and the game that team created."
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.
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.
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 4-6 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'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 ?
What mistakes? I thought the game was incredible! Can't wait for Halo 5 :)
Other than network difficulties I love this game, it was easily the best shooter of 2012.
I enjoyed the game trmedously but I must say it is the first Halo game in the Halo series that I was not compelled to go through a second playthrough on.
I'm referring to the campaign. I don't have Live Gold anymore so no multiplayer for me. Never used the trial that came with the game.
A few months after Halo 5:
343 Industries "made a lot of mistakes" with Halo 5, "we can do better"
If devs think or know there's something wrong with their game before they release it, they should just make it better. Eff the greedy, impatient masses.
If they know there's something wrong with it and they release it anyway, that's dishonest and dickheaded.
If they're forced to release it (by publishers etc.) and there's stuff wrong with it, they should be vocal about that. That somewhat absolves them and I might be more inclined to buy the game and support them, despite it's flaws. Three strikes policy though. If they keep releasing crap games, claiming they'll improve so long as you keep buying them and supporting them, then they're clearly taking the piss- clearly lying.
Let me know straight away that your game isn't as good as you wanted it to be. Don't pretend it's the best thing ever but then admit further down the line (when everyone's bought it) that it's not as good as you wanted it to be. Like I said, that kind of honesty would encourage me to buy the game (within financial reason) if it meant supporting the devs on possibly much improved future titles. At the same time, others might decide they want to avoid the game because of this, but that's fine. You shouldn't be tricking customers into buying incomplete products - making them possibly waste loads of money on games they couldn't help but get excited about because of the false hype. Some will still buy the games for the sake of supporting devs, others will choose not to in order to save money they desperately needed to not spend- to not be drawn into buying luxuries with.
Just be honest and noble for chrissakes.
I think it's a great game, apart from the multiplayer lagfest. War Games has its hiccups, but SpOps is nearly unplayable in multiplayer. A solid second of latency is not something you just deal with. Shit's insane.
Anyway, the campaign could've been better, but by no means was it "bad." The rest of the game is all right by me. Best Halo yet.