Does anyone else think that 343 made Halo better? I see a lot of people posting comments about how 343i “trashed” a “once great franchise”. I actually don’t think Bungie could have done any better…
Either Bungie would’ve gone the same way (as they started loadouts in Reach) or F-ed it up more (looking at Destiny).
I doubt they’d have done it any better.
> 2533274870489921;2:
> Either Bungie would’ve gone the same way (as they started loadouts in Reach) or F-ed it up more (looking at Destiny).
> I doubt they’d have done it any better.
So true,
> 2535445256796560;1:
> Does anyone else think that 343 made Halo better? I see a lot of people posting comments about how 343i “trashed” a “once great franchise”. I actually don’t think Bungie could have done any better…
No you’re not the only one… But I have to admit that I really prefere the way of Halo 5 multiplayer (thanks to the Beta and fedback) than the Halo 4 multiplayer, that was to much COD… I mean balance is the purpose of Halo multiplayer and I was glad to see it in Halo 5 Beta
I think lore fans will probably agree that 343 treats the expanded universe better. Doubling the number of books, integrating it into the games, etc. Since that’s the main reason I play Halo I have to say I prefer 343.
As for MP, it’s debatable. Very debatable. But I enjoyed the beta, so I’m optimistic.
The problem is that people tie in 343 with Sprint and these things of Halo 4…
Also, 343i was made by ex-Bungie members, so I think it would have been too similar
Personally, I loved Halo 4 and 343
The series took a hit with Halo 4 which was on 343’s watch, but it’s looking like they’re making amends with Halo 5.
Forward Unto Dawn was great, and while Nightfall may not have been as good I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to more live-action stories from the Halo-verse.
I like how they are putting out novels at a higher rate than Bungie, and small little side games like Spartan Assault/Strike is a nice touch.
My biggest concern is that 343 will over-saturate the franchise. I wouldn’t mind if they pulled back just a little bit.
> 2533274885566464;5:
> Also, 343i was made by ex-Bungie members, so I think it would have been too similar
Not really, they only have a handful of employees from Bungie. The exact amount is unknown, but it’s certainly less than 1% of the Halo 4 development team. It’s clear that 343i continued what Bungie had started, but not because of any influence from Bungie.
I’m a lore and campaign guy, so I love how 343i is expanding the canon. Better in my book.
When it comes to the story department, I’ll go with 343I. 
Am I really the only one who dislikes 343’s handling of the lore? I mean, the stories themselves aren’t bad per se, but the amount of inconsistencies is mind-boggling…
> 2533274801176260;10:
> Am I really the only one who dislikes 343’s handling of the lore? I mean, the stories themselves aren’t bad per se, but the amount of inconsistencies is mind-boggling…
Could you give some examples?
343 has done a good job with the story and lore. Probably better than Bungie. But they really screwed up with Halo 4’s multiplayer and there’s no excusing the broken launch of MCC.
> 2533274806473846;11:
> Could you give some examples?
Alright. Who imprisoned the Ur-Didact on Requiem?
According to Halo 4 it was the Librarian.
However, according to Silentium, it was Endurance-of-Will, as the Librarian had no security codes, thanks to not being a Promethean.
This isn’t some sort of continuity goof that happened in hindsight. Both stories were written at the same time, within the same year. Yet nobody noticed?
It’s even worse when comparing these stories to previously established lore. Basically all information from the Halo 3 terminals and some more (i.e. Halo Evolutions) is directly contradicted by Halo 4 or the Forerunner saga. The entire chronology of the Forerunner-Flood-war is an incoherent mess by now.Since then, the canonicity of this information has been somewhat revoked, but it wouldn’t have needed any retconning if it hadn’t been inconsistent in the first place.
Flash forward a few millennia to 2557. How come the Forward Unto Dawn has equipment on board that didn’t exist yet when the ship left? Why does the ship suddenly look like an entirely different class than before? Why is it larger than the infinity? Then there are the small things, like, how does Cortana know the Didact’s name when he was never introduced?
Now I’m not saying that Bungie did better in that respect. Remember the M.C.Escher-esque Warthog section at the end of Halo CE, where you’re driving three times the ship’s length in the wrong direction? Or where the name “Halo” was displayed on the PoA’s sensors before it is mentioned?
But so far, I’m think both companies’ handling of the lore has been Sub-Par. Although Bungie got slightly better in the end…
> 2533274801176260;13:
> > 2533274806473846;11:
> > Could you give some examples?
>
>
>
> Alright. Who imprisoned the Ur-Didact on Requiem?
> According to Halo 4 it was the Librarian.
> However, according to Silentium, it was Endurance-of-Will, as the Librarian had no security codes, thanks to not being a Promethean.
> This isn’t some sort of continuity goof that happened in hindsight. Both stories were written at the same time, within the same year. Yet nobody noticed?
That’s strange. I remember the Librarian being there when he was imprisoned on Requiem. If she didn’t do it directly, she had a large hand in it. However I am remembering this from months and months ago when I read Silentium.
> 2533274801176260;13:
> > 2533274806473846;11:
> > Could you give some examples?
>
>
>
> Alright. Who imprisoned the Ur-Didact on Requiem?
> According to Halo 4 it was the Librarian.
> However, according to Silentium, it was Endurance-of-Will, as the Librarian had no security codes, thanks to not being a Promethean.
> This isn’t some sort of continuity goof that happened in hindsight. Both stories were written at the same time, within the same year. Yet nobody noticed?
>
> It’s even worse when comparing these stories to previously established lore. Basically all information from the Halo 3 terminals and some more (i.e. Halo Evolutions) is directly contradicted by Halo 4 or the Forerunner saga. The entire chronology of the Forerunner-Flood-war is an incoherent mess by now.Since then, the canonicity of this information has been somewhat revoked, but it wouldn’t have needed any retconning if it hadn’t been inconsistent in the first place.
>
> Flash forward a few millennia to 2557. How come the Forward Unto Dawn has equipment on board that didn’t exist yet when the ship left? Why does the ship suddenly look like an entirely different class than before? Why is it larger than the infinity? Then there are the small things, like, how does Cortana know the Didact’s name when he was never introduced?
>
> Now I’m not saying that Bungie did better in that respect. Remember the M.C.Escher-esque Warthog section at the end of Halo CE, where you’re driving three times the ship’s length in the wrong direction? Or where the name “Halo” was displayed on the PoA’s sensors before it is mentioned?
>
> But so far, I’m think both companies’ handling of the lore has been Sub-Par. Although Bungie got slightly better in the end…
The first thing was explained as the Domain giving incorrect/distorted information after being crippled by the array. Basically a way of telling people who watched the terminals but didn’t read the books what happened without going into too much detail.
Next points: 1: To remove the need of creating a whole new set of weapon models identical to the old ones. 2: Artistic liberties. 3: It isn’t… 4: Same for the Gravemind. 
And just to be fair on 343, I’d add the whole of Halo: Reach and the rather glaring issue of how High Charity got to the Ark in 3 to Bungie’s naughty list.
> 2533274932540799;15:
> > 2533274801176260;13:
> > > 2533274806473846;11:
> > > -snip-
>
>
> The first thing was explained as the Domain giving incorrect/distorted information after being crippled by the array. Basically a way of telling people who watched the terminals but didn’t read the books what happened without going into too much detail.
> Next points: 1: To remove the need of creating a whole new set of weapon models identical to the old ones. 2: Artistic liberties. 3: It isn’t… 4: Same for the Gravemind.
> And just to be fair on 343, I’d add the whole of Halo: Reach and the rather glaring issue of how High Charity got to the Ark in 3 to Bungie’s naughty list.
This cleared up a few things for me. Thanks!
> 2533274932540799;15:
> The first thing was explained as the Domain giving incorrect/distorted information after being crippled by the array. Basically a way of telling people who watched the terminals but didn’t read the books what happened without going into too much detail.
> Next points: 1: To remove the need of creating a whole new set of weapon models identical to the old ones. 2: Artistic liberties. 3: It isn’t… 4: Same for the Gravemind.
> And just to be fair on 343, I’d add the whole of Halo: Reach and the rather glaring issue of how High Charity got to the Ark in 3 to Bungie’s naughty list.
-
Yes, they created an asinine explanation for it in hindsight. Doesn’t excuse the fact that there shouldn’t have been a contradiction in the first place.
-
They didn’t need to create anything. Most of the assets of Halo Reach are still on the disc, some modders were actually able to load a Scarab into Spartan Ops. They could just have used those for the first few missions until Chief meets up with the Infinity. But they didn’t care, even this would have been too much work. “Who cares that it makes no logical sense, now we can call it a day early.”
-
I agree with you on Reach, partially. But seriously, I’ve read this a few times now… what “glaring issue” are you talking about? High Charity used the portal in Voi, it’s even explicitly mentioned ingame within Halo 3!
> 2533274801176260;17:
> > 2533274932540799;15:
> > The first thing was explained as the Domain giving incorrect/distorted information after being crippled by the array. Basically a way of telling people who watched the terminals but didn’t read the books what happened without going into too much detail.
> > Next points: 1: To remove the need of creating a whole new set of weapon models identical to the old ones. 2: Artistic liberties. 3: It isn’t… 4: Same for the Gravemind.
> > And just to be fair on 343, I’d add the whole of Halo: Reach and the rather glaring issue of how High Charity got to the Ark in 3 to Bungie’s naughty list.
>
>
> 0. Yes, they created an asinine explanation for it in hindsight. Doesn’t excuse the fact that there shouldn’t have been a contradiction in the first place.
> 1. They didn’t need to create anything. Most of the assets of Halo Reach are still on the disc, some modders were actually able to load a Scarab into Spartan Ops. They could just have used those for the first few missions until Chief meets up with the Infinity. But they didn’t care, even this would have been too much work. “Who cares that it makes no logical sense, now we can call it a day early.”
> 3. Yes it is.
>
> 5. I agree with you on Reach, partially. But seriously, I’ve read this a few times now… what “glaring issue” are you talking about? High Charity used the portal in Voi, it’s even explicitly mentioned ingame within Halo 3!
I’m just going to add my two cents in here, but what about those sentinels on the ark in Halo three and where they went when they used slipspace to leave to do something? (Just replaying Halo 3, so pardon me if it explains in game.)
> 2533274801176260;17:
> > 2533274932540799;15:
> > The first thing was explained as the Domain giving incorrect/distorted information after being crippled by the array. Basically a way of telling people who watched the terminals but didn’t read the books what happened without going into too much detail.
> > Next points: 1: To remove the need of creating a whole new set of weapon models identical to the old ones. 2: Artistic liberties. 3: It isn’t… 4: Same for the Gravemind.
> > And just to be fair on 343, I’d add the whole of Halo: Reach and the rather glaring issue of how High Charity got to the Ark in 3 to Bungie’s naughty list.
>
>
> 0. Yes, they created an asinine explanation for it in hindsight. Doesn’t excuse the fact that there shouldn’t have been a contradiction in the first place.
> 1. They didn’t need to create anything. Most of the assets of Halo Reach are still on the disc, some modders were actually able to load a Scarab into Spartan Ops. They could just have used those for the first few missions until Chief meets up with the Infinity. But they didn’t care, even this would have been too much work. “Who cares that it makes no logical sense, now we can call it a day early.”
> 3. Yes it is.
>
> 5. I agree with you on Reach, partially. But seriously, I’ve read this a few times now… what “glaring issue” are you talking about? High Charity used the portal in Voi, it’s even explicitly mentioned ingame within Halo 3!
0: Call it asinine if you will, but bear in mind Silentium was written, or at least finished, months after H4’s release. I’m inclined to think it was intentional.
1: I’d call PR on that one. The last thing the fledgling studio needed was people on their backs about recycling assets.
3: How is that image scaled? Im legitimately curious.
5: High charity is a lot, lot larger than the portal. Unless things got really freaky over at the senders node, it wasn’t going to be able to fit.
> 2533274882913802;18:
> I’m just going to add my two cents in here, but what about those sentinels on the ark in Halo three and where they went when they used slipspace to leave to do something? (Just replaying Halo so pardon me if it explains in game.)
You mean those in the closing cutscene of The Ark?
I don’t think they were actually using slipspace but rather just flying very fast… anyways, they were leaving for the foundry in order to try and complete the replacement ring, as instructed by Mendicant Bias. I think it’s mentioned in the terminals.