![]() ![]() Where the original trilogy was about humanity and Master Chief, the new trilogy would be about John-117 and his humanity. I remember back when Halo 4 was first announced 343i talked about how they wanted to tell this story about Master Chief and what it means to be human. When it comes to the story and how 343 has handled it is where people get really mad and where there's actual traction to the criticism. Weapon design is also generally quite good with few weapons being outright useless (although this causes problems with automatics in MP). They tweaked the Prometheans so it wasn't just Knights with shields blinking all over the place and being nigh impossible to stick damage to on higher difficulties. 343 handled enemy design (apart from reusing Warden Eternal constantly) quite well with the differences between Prometheans and Covenant (I actually enjoyed fighting both). The Campaign gameplay is actually very well done. A lot of hate is also baggage from MCC and people take out their frustrations on H5 and 343 in general. ![]() We got the first true "patch" (thinking in terms of LoL or DOTA) with the weapon tuning update, apart from that it was band-aid fixes like removing automatics or ability tracker radar (the latter was a great change and should be standard moving forward IMO). There's the camp that want barebones gameplay like back in Halo 3 (which IMO is very tinted by nostalgia goggles) and there's the group that likes the new features.ģ43 has also updated/tweaked MP at a glacial pace, they do it but it takes forever. Halo 5's MP gameplay would be considered good by most people but it tends to be very divisive because of Spartan Abilities. I don't even like Halo 4 or 5's stories, I think they both are poorly executed messes, but to claim that they are EU reliant is just completely inaccurate.ģ43 is being held to higher standards for absolutely zero reason. If you are the type of person to actually want to apperciate a game's narrative bast "good guy kills bad guy", then 4 goes way beyond CE in explaining itself: Who the didact, librarian, composer, promethians, and requim are and where they came from are all explained in game across The campaign, terminals., and Spartan OPs, and the boks are also there if you want them. Why is this not accpetable in 4 but it's not acceptable in CE, especially since as the first game of the series, the player had no prior context to it so giving extra context would have been even more important. Even if Halo 4 doesn't explain why you are fighting the covenant again, it is still obvious they are enemies. This is just as much self evident in Halo 4 and 5. Nobody minds this, since it's still obvious who the good and bad guys are. You got no context for them or what Reach was or anything. You accepted the covenant as enemies, and the UNSC, keyes, and Cortana as allies. Halo 5 also failed to significantly improve upon Halo 4's main issue, that the story was confusing and required outside knowledgeīut this isn't accurate, you don't need to understand the books or the EU to understand Halo 4 or 5. I'm hoping Halo 6 links back up with Halo 4 in some way.maybe try to salvage the damage he did to the characters (like Cortana - that was awful writing there). It's almost like he tried to act like Halo 4 didn't happen. That was foreshadowing that he was going to really screw things up badly for this game. Brian Reed? I look at how he handled Black Team in Escalation. Many look at Chris Schlerf fondly, me included. The writer for Halo 4 was Chris Schlerf, and the one for Halo 5 was Brian Reed. The Halo 5 campaign wasn't written by the same people who wrote Halo 4, and it shows badly. I could say the same about Chief, but I've known Chief since day one, and he always had this underlying quiet charisma that made him so.endearing for me. Locke, for instance, was just a little bit too "stiff" for me. Halo is usually good in that department, or at least it was usually good at giving characters memorable personalities, or lines, or anything really. I remember that being a criticism, the lack of development. ![]() ![]() They just weren't interesting to me, or even mildly compelling like Buck or Johnson.or even Palmer, honestly. I don't really recall there being any notable details about the new characters Locke, Tanaka, and Vale. What was supposed to be a character driven story was weak in that department, with little to no meaningful character development. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |