How I think Halo should have been after Halo 3

Following the disappointment of the Halo 5 campaign and the notable rise of people complaining Halo 5 is not Halo since 4 and Reach, I went back to play the Halo 2 campaign yesterday (original not MCC). It appears that one of the reasons the Halo 5 campaign was a disappointment, and why more players complain 343’s Halo is increasingly feeling like its distancing itself from the original Halo is because the story is being driven almost completely by Master Chief and the Halo universe a vessel to contain such a story, instead of the story driven principally by the Halo universe with Chief guiding the player through it. I came up with my own post Halo 3 storyline for a theoretical Halo 4/5/6, more true to the original games and less emotion/meaning heavy. With the original Halo 2 soundtrack along with side Arbiter missions for a deeper perspective into the universe.

cut down for longevity sake, can expand if requested

Backstory:
So after the Human/Covenant War, the former Covenant enters into a hostile age. The Sanghellis, now the highest caste and defacto leaders among the former Covenant species, try to decide what to do with the Halo rings and other Forerunner infrastructure. The Sangelli government splits into two factions, one faction, lead by the Arbiter wants to destroy the Halo rings, as a symbolic gesture to the true end of the Covenant and to stop the super-weapon from falling into the wrong hands. While, another group of Sanghellis the Forerunner Loyalists wish to study the Halo rings and cannot bare to destroy something that has been part of the Sanghelli culture for so long.

The two factions begin to deploy their troops on the Halo rings to stop the other from carrying out their plans, the Forerunner Loyalists with more numbers thanks to help from the Brutes, who still remain loyal to the former Covenant. The Arbiter returns to Earth to ask Lord Admiral Hood for their assistance in whats become a new Cold War in the galaxy. Hood, now head of the UNSC, reluctantly agrees to what would be a massively unpopular decision. Humanity is tired and weak and he assumes the public want a quiet existence to rebuild. He agrees anyway, and beings to deploy what marines and ODSTs to bolster the Arbiter’s troops on the remaining Halo rings.

Halo after Halo 3:

So it turns out the UNSC knew of Chief’s location a year before Cortanna awakes him, but fails to do so on fears that he may have gone Rouge after all that time alone in Space. Anyway, the Chief falls into the Shield World as per Halo 4, he meets a few Covenant forces who still believe the war is ongoing but most importantly-Flood, lots of Flood. The Shield World is infested with flood, safe from the firing of the Halo rings. Chief, after some exploring come to a crashed falcon…
This falcon contains professor Anders from Halo Wars, who informs Chief that after encountering the Flood (If anyone has played the Halo Wars campaign the protagonists do encounter the Flood near the end of the game) an infection spore infected the crew on the ship, upon evacuating to the Shield World the Flood infection spread.

Chief/Anders is rescued by a Brute fleet and unknowingly to Anders and Chief, bring in a Flood Infection spore in with them. Upon near destruction of the ship’s crew, the Brute shipmaster assumes the humans are attempting to use the Flood as a biological weapon on behalf of the Arbiter to kill the Brutes. News gets to the Halo rings and a Cold War turns into a hot war. Humanity is at war with the “Storm Covenant” once more. Halo 4 and 5s story involves Brute and Sangelli loyalist forces being fought by the UNSC to keep them away from key Forerunner artifacts/infrastructure, and avoiding social uprisings on Earth from a small (but growing) number of fringe groups who campaign for the UNSC’s disarmament and for humanity to join the Storm Covenant.

I’d go on, but I don’t want to post to be too long, if there’s enough interest I’ll continue typing and write an entire story-line for Halo 4, 5 and 6. If you have any questions please do ask and share your ideas, is it a good story? Would you have preferred it to the Halos we got? How would you continue it? Anyway if you made it this far, thanks for reading.

Halo 4 and Reach weren’t ‘not Halo’ because of the campaigns, per se. I personally enjoyed Reach more than any other Halo, but some people disliked Halo:Reach for introducing armor abilities (mostly Armor lock) and bloom, while Halo 4 introduced ordinance which completely destroyed the idea of map control. It was moving away from the core mechanics seen in CE-3. The debate started even earlier in H2 as dual wield emerged. It was the multiplayer that some people didn’t like. While Reach’s campaign is mixed (It thought it was decent. Cool to play as your own personal Spartan) Halo
4’s campaign was fairly good. It added character and depth to Chief and Contana’s relationship, culminating in a rather heart wrenching ending. Halo 5’s Campaign is quite weak imo, but Reach and 4 were at least somewhat better campaign wise.

> 2533274881560701;2:
> Halo 4 and Reach weren’t ‘not Halo’ because of the campaigns, per se. I personally enjoyed Reach more than any other Halo, but some people disliked Halo:Reach for introducing armor abilities (mostly Armor lock) and bloom, while Halo 4 introduced ordinance which completely destroyed the idea of map control. It was moving away from the core mechanics seen in CE-3. The debate started even earlier in H2 as dual wield emerged. It was the multiplayer that some people didn’t like. While Reach’s campaign is mixed (It thought it was decent. Cool to play as your own personal Spartan) Halo
> 4’s campaign was fairly good. It added character and depth to Chief and Contana’s relationship, culminating in a rather heart wrenching ending. Halo 5’s Campaign is quite weak imo, but Reach and 4 were at least somewhat better campaign wise.

Yeah I agree that it wasn’t the campaigns that took the Halo from Reach and 4 (I personally hated the 4 campaign buts thats another story), but I think people miss the 1-3 stories. The Halo 2 guitar riffs, the US Marine-esque gungho spirit of Johnson etc. Can’t remember much of Reach’s campaign, I only played it once too, so that probably says everything.

> 2533274861703344;3:
> > 2533274881560701;2:
> > Halo 4 and Reach weren’t ‘not Halo’ because of the campaigns, per se. I personally enjoyed Reach more than any other Halo, but some people disliked Halo:Reach for introducing armor abilities (mostly Armor lock) and bloom, while Halo 4 introduced ordinance which completely destroyed the idea of map control. It was moving away from the core mechanics seen in CE-3. The debate started even earlier in H2 as dual wield emerged. It was the multiplayer that some people didn’t like. While Reach’s campaign is mixed (It thought it was decent. Cool to play as your own personal Spartan) Halo
> > 4’s campaign was fairly good. It added character and depth to Chief and Contana’s relationship, culminating in a rather heart wrenching ending. Halo 5’s Campaign is quite weak imo, but Reach and 4 were at least somewhat better campaign wise.
>
>
> Yeah I agree that it wasn’t the campaigns that took the Halo from Reach and 4 (I personally hated the 4 campaign buts thats another story), but I think people miss the 1-3 stories. The Halo 2 guitar riffs, the US Marine-esque gungho spirit of Johnson etc. Can’t remember much of Reach’s campaign, I only played it once too, so that probably says everything.

I thought out of all of them Reach was the least replayable of the lot (excluding Halo 5). In the Reach campaign, you pretty much know what is going to happen if you have played Halo: CE or Halo 2, so it kinda in a sense was unsatisfying. It was nice to see them expand on that story, but it became too much of a “Urgh, I have to finish it.” rather than, “Ooh, I cant wait what happens next!” because you already know what is going to happen there or there abouts (and if you read the Halo books on this (Fall of Reach) it becomes more confusing then anything).

I’d say the only true problem/difference with the story now is the overall lack of emotion portrayed in the storytelling. In the beginning since CE I’ve felt so involved and touched by the story whereas now it’s just another campaign for me to overcome. Which i’m not going to kick and scream and lie/threaten about how i’m close to being done with Halo (no offense to the ones who do) but I definitely can tell that there is a difference in how well the story is being told.

> 2535430244238444;5:
> I’d say the only true problem/difference with the story now is the overall lack of emotion portrayed in the storytelling. In the beginning since CE I’ve felt so involved and touched by the story whereas now it’s just another campaign for me to overcome. Which i’m not going to kick and scream and lie/threaten about how i’m close to being done with Halo (no offense to the ones who do) but I definitely can tell that there is a difference in how well the story is being told.

Thats the problem I tried to address, its because we are not being immersed into a universe growing organically, but a manufactured plot to keep progressing the story. 343 should never have committed themselves to a new story arc-it would have been more natural if they had just done a Halo 3 part-2.

I just don’t feel like we’re in a fight for our lives now. In the OG trilogy and reach you’re fighting for earth and the rest of the earth but now it just seems different. It just doesn’t feel like a war anymore.

> 2533274827113670;7:
> I just don’t feel like we’re in a fight for our lives now. In the OG trilogy and reach you’re fighting for earth and the rest of the earth but now it just seems different. It just doesn’t feel like a war anymore.

Yup, it has become a “Chief on a wild emotional journey” story, I miss the original trilogy, hence my idea to how Halo should have went after 3.