Let’s take it from the top.
“Ancient Evil”
Ancient AND Evil.
That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
Can’t one of those construct/AIs.
Can’t be Faber, he was more of a -Yoink!- than anything.
Chances are, it is a new thing.
according to either the IGN or Machinima videos on Campaign the Diadact is the villain.
> according to either the IGN or Machinima videos on Campaign the Diadact is the villain.
Villian of Halo 4 yes, Villian of the entire trilogy? Doubtful.
> according to either the IGN or Machinima videos on Campaign the Diadact is the villain.
He can be the villain/antagonist of the game, doesn’t mean he is evil. Could be based off a misunderstanding or something.
I think for the majority, Didact will be the villain in Halo 4. BUT in the end, the two resolve due to a greater evil, leading into Halo 5, and eventually become allies for the later games.
> I think for the majority, Didact will be the villain in Halo 4. BUT in the end, the two resolve due to a greater evil, leading into Halo 5, and eventually become allies for the later games.
This sounds about right.
> I think for the majority, Didact will be the villain in Halo 4. BUT in the end, the two resolve due to a greater evil, leading into Halo 5, and eventually become allies for the later games.
plausible
Yeah it’s most likely something we haven’t seen yet. My bet is that they are doing a Ce’s Flood Surprise kind of thing with it.
> Master Chief, the Arbiter and the Didact fighting together the new enemy of the franchise. (Maybe even a new character for 4 players.
OH GOD YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
343i has not said one thing about the Ancient Evil other then it’s there in anything outside the books, that I’m convinced of. Amazon on the other hand…
> That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
>Implying he can’t change his attitude over the course of 100,000 years.
Regardless, my money is on a Precursor controlled/influenced Didact.
> Let’s take it from the top.
>
> “Ancient Evil”
>
> Ancient AND Evil.
>
> <mark>That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.</mark>
> <mark>Can’t one of those construct/AIs.</mark>
> <mark>Can’t be Faber, he was more of a -Yoink!- than anything.</mark>
>
> Chances are, it is a new thing.
Lolololol.
It’s most definitely a new thing.
Frankie said the Didact is in on the SPIKE TV show last night, so the Didact is in. but I can’t remember if the Didact is in fact the main ultimate antagonist.
> > That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
>
> >Implying he can’t change his attitude over the course of 100,000 years.
>
> Regardless, my money is on a Precursor controlled/influenced Didact.
Doubtful. The primordial was already killed by Bornstellar (and the Primordial clearly said that it was the last precursor, but I guess that could be streched somehow). In order for the Didact to make any sense as an enemy, it would have to be the Ur-Didact, Bornstellar was too sympathysing with Humans to fight them
> Let’s take it from the top.
>
> “Ancient Evil”
>
> Ancient AND Evil.
>
> <mark>That means it can’t be the Didact</mark>. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
> Can’t one of those construct/AIs.
> Can’t be Faber, he was more of a -Yoink!- than anything.
>
> Chances are, it is a new thing.
Yeah. Because an 100,000 year old warrior who crushed Humanity into the stone age isn’t “Ancient Evil” enough
> Let’s take it from the top.
>
> “Ancient Evil”
>
> Ancient AND Evil.
>
> That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
> Can’t one of those construct/AIs.
> <mark>Can’t be Faber, he was more of a -Yoink!- than anything.</mark>
>
> Chances are, it is a new thing.
Faber tested a Halo on the San’Shyuum homeworld and did experiments with the Flood. I think he qualifies as evil.
> > Master Chief, the Arbiter and the Didact fighting together the new enemy of the franchise. (Maybe even a new character for 4 players.
>
> OH GOD YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
That’d be the best thing to ever happen!
[deleted]
> > > That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
> >
> > >Implying he can’t change his attitude over the course of 100,000 years.
> >
> > Regardless, my money is on a Precursor controlled/influenced Didact.
>
> Doubtful. The primordial was already killed by Bornstellar (and the Primordial clearly said that it was the last precursor, but I guess that could be streched somehow). In order for the Didact to make any sense as an enemy, it would have to be the Ur-Didact, Bornstellar was too sympathysing with Humans to fight them
And if I remember correctly, the Primordial said that it was the Didact’s job to kill him so that another may rise. 343 is purposefully playing this one close to the vest me thinks as we really have no idea who it could be for certain.
> > > That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
> >
> > >Implying he can’t change his attitude over the course of 100,000 years.
> >
> > Regardless, my money is on a Precursor controlled/influenced Didact.
>
> Doubtful. The primordial was already killed by Bornstellar (and the Primordial clearly said that it was the last precursor, but I guess that could be streched somehow). In order for the Didact to make any sense as an enemy, it would have to be the Ur-Didact, Bornstellar was too sympathysing with Humans to fight them
“You’re stuck here-the last of your kind!” “The last of this kind”, implying that there are other types of precursors, but wait! Before the Didact kills the Primordial, it says “It is your task to kill this servant, so that another may be freed.”
> > That means it can’t be the Didact. He may be old, grumpy and angry, but not evil.
>
> >Implying he can’t change his attitude over the course of 100,000 years.
>
> Regardless, my money is on a Precursor controlled/influenced Didact.
>Greentexting
Anyhow, an attitude change is hardly a good premise for an “Ancient evil”