Well, I finally got to play Halo 5, after 4 days of installing and updating due to crappy internet speeds.
Anyway, I like the Campaign, however, I am severely disappointed by the abrupt ending after the plot twist.
In Halo CE, we get the major plot twist (Halo can wipe out all life in the galaxy), and the rest of the game is about stopping that, and resolving the conflict. In Halo 2, the plot twist involving the Prophets and Brutes betraying the Elites had a satisfying resolution, with the Arbiter killing Tartarus and putting a stop to the Great Journey, even though the Chief’s story ended on a cliffhanger, leading to Halo 3. Halo 4 had the Didact retrieving the Composer and seeking to turn it on the HUman race, leading to Chief and Cortana to stop him.
But Halo 5 ended at the plot twist.
I think the reason for this is due to the change from the Reclaimer Trilogy to the Reclaimer Saga. Before they released Halo 4, they said they had the new series of games planned out from the get-go, with a Beginning, Middle, and End. Halo 4, Halo 5, and Halo 6. Halo 4 was a good, standalone story that ended with a bitter-sweet ending, but it left things open-ended to continue to the next game, Halo 5.
But then they changed it to the Reclaimer Saga, because they didn’t want to limit the number of games they could make with the cool stories they wanted to tell. I think more Halo games is a good thing, but not for Halo 5.In Halo 5, we get Locke’s Hunt for the Master Chief, which then ends with the plot twist. I think that when it was initially conceived, I think Locke’s mission was just on half of the game, with the other half focused on the Chief trying to resolve the conflict, while going through some major character development. I think that when they changed it to a Saga, they thought to make Halo 5 Locke’s story entirely, stretching out the whole manhunt plot into an entire game. I’m just guessing, but I think that’s how it went down.
I think this was a very bad call. I am a huge fan of the story of Halo: the characters, the Universe, everything found in the campaign. And now, because 343i decided to stretch things out in their saga, I have to wait another 3 -Yoinking!-! years before the conflict in Halo 5 is resolved. Of course, if 343i intend to release games more frequently, then I can live with it, but if they’re gonna stick with the standard 3 year model, then that’s just unacceptable, and I’m surprised that 343i thought that a lore enthusiast like me would be satisfied with that.
However, despite my complaints, I did enjoy Halo 5, and I would like to go on playing Halo games for the next 20 to 30 years.
I really wish they explored the covenant civil war more… 
> 2533274909623025;2:
> I really wish they explored the covenant civil war more…
Are you familiar with mass Effect? In it, the Citadel Council is in a state of Cold War with the terminus Systems, which are composed of hundreds of pirates, warlords and independent colonies. That is how I pretty much envision the Covenant Remnants: tens of thousands of colonies broken up into hundreds warring factions, from Sangheili warlords like Jul M’dama, Jiralhanae Chieftains and Kig-yar pirates. The Swords of sangheilios are, to my mind, the most powerful faction, with the most worlds and ships under their command; they are, however, hamstrung by the civil war with the Servants of the Abiding truth.
In Mass Effect, a war between the Citadel and the Terminus systems would result in mutually assured destruction, which is why they allow pirates and slavers to get away with minor raids and infractions, as any attempts to enforce Citadel law in the terminus Systems could result in them uniting against them. In Halo 5, Lasky says that the UNSC doesn’t want to get involved in the Arbiter’s war on Sangheilios, and I think they are right stay out of it, as any interference with the Covenant Remnants might cause the many warlords to unite against Humanity; and unlike with the Citadel and Terminus Systems, it won’t end in Mutually Assured Destruction, it would end with Humanity going extinct, and the Covenant would remain a menace to the Galaxy.
This is my interpretation of the Covenant Civil war.
You lost my attention after saying you liked the campaign.
> 2535441488042067;4:
> You lost my attention after saying you liked the campaign.
Well, the gameplay was pretty awesome. We got to visit a glassed colony, we went to Sangehilios (something I’ve always wanted to do since Halo 3), and I loved the armor abilities. And the hub missions were good for immersing myself in the universe. There are some things that they got right with Halo 5; they are merely overshadowed by the things they got wrong.
I liked Cortana as a threat, that that was a pretty cool direction to take the story. I found Locke to be a weak protagonist and 80% of the game centering around him was a mistake.
This is the only Halo campaign that I haven’t felt like playing through again.
> 2535441488042067;4:
> You lost my attention after saying you liked the campaign.
Why? It isn’t like he just offered blind praise. If you can’t even articulate a response you may as well not even bother.
> 2791963697563797;6:
> I liked Cortana as a threat, that that was a pretty cool direction to take the story. I found Locke to be a weak protagonist and 80% of the game centering around him was a mistake.
>
> This is the only Halo campaign that I haven’t felt like playing through again.
Well, Locke is first and foremost, a professional soldier, and yet people who have been complaining about how the Spartan VIs are unprofessional complain about the one spartan who is most like the Chief. Besides, while we’ve seen Locke in Nightfall, this is the first game we’ve played as him, so developing him into an interesting character will take time. in Halo CE, the Chief may as well have been cyborg. It was only until Halo 4 that we got some real character development in him. Although, I agree that using Locke for most of the game was a big mistake, and lying about how the Chief is the MAIN character in the pre-release info dumps.