THIS POST SPOILS BASICALLY THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN
Story was awful. Cortana is interesting, but I feel like she wasn’t written well. She doesn’t really retain any of her personality traits, and has become a manipulative villain. She doesn’t seem like someone lost and thinking she’s doing the greater good, but rather than she knows that she’s not and just wants power/control… Doesn’t seem like Cortana, I’d rather have the old her just be so deluded rather than basically reinvent her personality.
Killing off the head of the Covenant at the very beginning, and then still fighting them until the end on Sangheilios. Why not just have Locke kill Jul Mdama’s second in command or just save Halsey and Jul gets away? If you have the Arbiter kill the head of the Covenant at their last stand, that would make for a much stronger impact.
The Sangheilios arc was strong, as I find most content with the Arbiter has been throughout the series. However, I found that the beginning of the game (Locke’s side) was weak. Locke after Sangheilios wasn’t too bad, but the monitor’s performance felt a little weak, though I did like her character. I did find her character personality flawed, because isn’t a monitor supposed to know everything about their installation? But whatever, she was an interesting character, so I enjoyed her for the most part.
The biggest part that ruined the game for me, was that MASTER CHIEF, who is kind of the main character of the series, was COMPLETELY ABSENT for 80% of the campaign. I could almost find the team’s passion throughout the campaign. Locke’s missions (other than Sangheilios, or at the end when he was close to Chief (basically the story was interesting)) were mostly boring and sometimes even felt uninspired. Chief’s levels, however, were awesome. First level with Blue Team was badass, and the story was strong with Chief/Cortana aspect. His other two missions were on awesome terrain and really got you excited. If the game did the opposite, and followed Master Chief for the majority of the game, who had the interesting story, then the story would have been much better. Locke perusing him still would have been cool, and the Arbiter’s significance would have still been emphasized if you played through that part.
They could have put all the missions on the glassed planet into one. The two “missions” where you spoke to someone and left, were pretty cool. But what makes me hate them is the fact that they’re considered missions. They could have been included, but then after you got on the Pelican, the “mission” wouldn’t end and you can continue on. But they used that to advertise more levels…
The Guardians, the title of the game, were completely underplayed and underdeveloped and their impact was lost on me. Think Mass Effect with Reapers. Although they took three games and Halo wouldn’t have to go that lengthy route, could have some buildup to make them feel cool. Make ONE feel awesome and make you excited, and then start introducing them in a giant majority.
Hunt the Truth campaign, and the whole Locke vs Chief marketing was a load of absolute garbage and it honestly betrays anyone who bought the game after seeing any of it. Locke wasn’t out to kill Chief, it was to bring him home. They were never on the verge of killing one another. Chief and Locke’s fight was awesome, but it was basically Chief trying to knock him out, not kill him, and Locke wanted to imprison him. When Locke draws near at the end, he wants to help Chief, they’re basically on the same side because they’re both UNSC and Chief never really went rogue. It was overplayed, overhyped, so it failed.
The entirety of game was buildup, and ended on a point that I was READY FOR IT, then it ended. Arby n Chief reunited was something to look forward to, and Cortana (despite her almost writing) was finally going to do what the buildup was all for. Then it ended. Mirrored Halo 2’s ending, except it felt worse, though it could be because this is still fresh to me, and I’ve lived with having Halo 3 to immediately play for so long.
If the game was marketed correctly, it wouldn’t have left such a sour taste in my mouth, but it still would have been lackluster… I don’t consider it worthy of the title Halo 5 because the protagonist was absent, and the story felt like filler. I wouldn’t have had this much of a problem if it was called Halo: Guardians without the number and was a bridge between this and the next numbered title. The writing is not on par with the other numbered Halo installments. Wars wasn’t bad (but they completely underplayed Sangheili for no good reason), and Reach was just an awful story with awful characters. This is better than Reach, but I would rank it the lowest out of all of the other Halo titles. Story wise.
Sorry for the rant, but I’m not happy with the way they treated the campaign. This is just campaign, nevermind any other issues I have with it that I feel the need to discuss. I don’t want to seem like I HATE Halo 5 because I adore it, but the campaign was falsely advertised. Not just misleading, but they lied to their fans.