Make the campaign feel important

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

In previous Halos, there have always been missions where you look back and go “What was the point of that?”. It’s unavoidable, and often annoying when you re-evaluate your goals.

A good example of a “useless mission” (for lack of a better term) would be Tsavo Highway of Halo 3. Summarizing it at it’s most basic level, you drive around Africa blowing up Choppers, where you reach a shielded tunnel that you un-shield, then you’re done. When you think about it, why was that needed? Couldn’t Miranda have sent a Pelican to drop you off at the tunnel?

Ultimately, I want the campaign missions to hold weight. When I play a mission, I want to feel like I’m trying to get something done. I understand there need to be some exploration missions, as that would help establish the story to build upon. But when 6/8 missions just feature Chief skipping through the meadow, I begin to feel like I’m wasting time.

I feel Midnight got this right: When I played it, I had my objective clear in-mind. “I have to kill the Didact, or Earth will be destroyed.” It made me want to fight, and killing Prometheans didn’t feel like a chore, but a responsibility.

If a mission ends with Chief hitting a button and rolling on over to the next objective, I usually question why they didn’t send a couple Marines to do what I just did. I’m a Spartan! Why should your puny buttons disturb me? I’m suppose to save the Galaxy, not collect Sgt. Johnson’s groceries.

TL;DR: I’m a Spartan, not an errand boy. Make my missions count.

2

I felt that big-time in ODST

3

Agreed and this is where Halo 2 did really well.
Every single one of the Arbiter’s missions (with the possible exception of the second to last) were all important and held impact and relevancy. You were sent to kill Heretics because your relentless faith wouldn’t sway to heresy. Your were sent to retrieve the Index because Brutes had failed and Elites were getting the ostracized so they wouldn’t be sent. They all made it feel important. Chief’s felt irrelevant at most points though.

4

I actually thought h2 was the worst for this, since most its levels were actually halves of a ‘greater level’ where the first half was really just about getting to the 2nd half.

That said, when grouped up as they should be, I have to agree the Arbiter’s missions were really well done, and are probably amongst my favorite halo levels. The chief on the flipside spends just about the whole game chasing prophets once he’s off the orbital gun.

I felt h1 did a pretty good job at making all the levels more or less important. Even the first level on the actual halo which is mostly ‘explore’ you’re rallying up the marines to form a resistance.

5

I agree, the mission should feel more important.

A Spartan shouldn’t be sent on missions ODST’s or Marines could easily do. As a Spartan you should only be sent on the hardest missions.

6

Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.

7

I remember playing Crysis 2 and realizing almost every level was completely irrelevant to the plot. Since, then I’ve been picking it up in other games more and more. The basic problem is that videogames often have very simple stories, necessitating padding missions. I don’t know why this is, especially when sci-fi as a genre lends itself to complexity very well, but I hope it’s not true for Halo 5. Every level should advance/twist/shake up the plot in at least one way.

8

> I remember playing Crysis 2 and realizing almost every level was completely irrelevant to the plot. Since, then I’ve been picking it up in other games more and more. The basic problem is that videogames often have very simple stories, necessitating padding missions. I don’t know why this is, especially when sci-fi as a genre lends itself to complexity very well, but I hope it’s not true for Halo 5. Every level should advance/twist/shake up the plot in at least one way.

I really disagree with that.

Games tend to have extremely complex stories compared to movies, for example. The problem is that the stories aren’t deep, just complex. They have so many details, and none of the details really matter.

I want a story with a good amount of story elements and details, that also plot elements hold weight.

If you look at some games that are considered good stories, you have some that just are good because of their story telling and otherwise simple (see Uncharted), and those that have good stories but horrendous storytelling (best example is early WRPGs).

There needs to be good storytelling and a good amount of plot.

9

I fully agree. Halo CE & 2 did a really good job making each mission important and memorable. Halo 3 lacked this quality. It still irritates me that you had to go through 5 whole pointless missions before setting fot on the arc.

If 343 could make every mission count in Halo 5, the game would instantly be a lot better.

10

This situation consistently evolved whenever the flood came around in the original trilogy, with the only exception that I can think of at the top of my head is the mission ‘343 Guilty Spark’.

11

Hmm I see what you mean, and I agree, there are some campaign missions where you simply need to reach the end of the tunnel – the real objective or plot-advancing story point come afterwards.

Halo 3’s Tsavo Highway and the Scorpion run in Halo 2’s Metropolis stand out in particular.

I won’t hold ODST guilty of this, only because it was such a different game – an open world-ish nightscape with flashback scenes that advanced the plot. More in keeping with a ODST’s true purpose. If it was a Spartan in the campaign, I’d call it a severe misallocation of resources!

But Halo 4 campaign was pretty on-point with keeping the plot moving alongside the Chief’s gameplay. I’m feeling good about Halo 5’s ability to do the same. An open-world format could hinder this, but the devil is in the detail.

12

I feel like this is what I didn’t like about Halo 4’s campaign. The cutscenes provided the story, but the gameplay was just really linear. It felt like my entire purpose was to push buttons, and that just wasn’t very great. If the majority of Halo 5’s missions involve a “Push for next story element” then it’ll miss a potential greatness.

13

> Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.

So much this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

14

> Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.

Actually, for me at least, that’s why I liked Halo 3’s missions. The objectives made the pacing feel just right. It was a steady build up to an amazing climatic finish.

Halo 4’s pacing, on the other hand, was all over the place it seemed. Yes, it was nice to have almost each mission feel like it counted, but I always felt like I needed to rush to the objective, that I wasn’t given enough breathing room. And I believe that’s part of why Halo 4’s campaign is/felt so short. It tries to rush the player with important objectives over and over again.

And isn’t the exploration a part of what makes Halo so great? To not feel like you’re in a hurry all the time and being able to explore the environments for things of value (weapons, easter eggs, alternate pathways, etc)?

Shouldn’t it matter more on whether or not a mission is fun to play? Tsavo Highway I loved because it was a fun mission, not because of its objective. Lots of vehicle combat against infantry, Choppers, and Wraiths in wide and open spaces.

You can have an important objective all you want, but if the mission isn’t fun, then what’s the point? Shutdown from Halo 4 is a good example of a mission with a strong objective, but with poor layout. I would’ve liked the Pelican to be as important of a figure as it probably should’ve been, but that’s just my own opinion.

15

> > Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.
>
> Actually, for me at least, that’s why I liked Halo 3’s missions. The objectives made the pacing feel just right. It was a steady build up to an amazing climatic finish.
>
> Halo 4’s pacing, on the other hand, was all over the place it seemed. Yes, it was nice to have almost each mission feel like it counted, but I always felt like I needed to rush to the objective, that I wasn’t given enough breathing room. And I believe that’s part of why Halo 4’s campaign is/felt so short. It tries to rush the player with important objectives over and over again.
>
> And isn’t the exploration a part of what makes Halo so great? To not feel like you’re in a hurry all the time and being able to explore the environments for things of value (weapons, easter eggs, alternate pathways, etc)?
>
> Shouldn’t it matter more on whether or not a mission is fun to play? Tsavo Highway I loved because it was a fun mission, not because of its objective. Lots of vehicle combat against infantry, Choppers, and Wraiths in wide and open spaces.
>
> You can have an important objective all you want, but if the mission isn’t fun, then what’s the point? Shutdown from Halo 4 is a good example of a mission with a strong objective, but with poor layout. I would’ve liked the Pelican to be as important of a figure as it probably should’ve been, but that’s just my own opinion.

I do agree with you, campaign should be fun and well-paced. And I’m not suggesting we give every single mission a countdown timer so we can feel pressured to do our job. However, if my reward for killing 70 Brutes and 5 Wraiths is a pat on the back from Lasky, I begin to wonder what the point of it all was.

And I’m also a big fan of exploration, like in “Halo” of CE. But when I spend a majority of the game going “WHAT IS THIS PLACE?!” while Arbiter sings show-tunes, then it just becomes kind of odd. To this day, I don’t even know what the point of Tip of the Spear was. I know I blew up the Spire, but everything before that was just one big Revenant dash. It’s a fun mission, but (to me at least) impact is just as important as the amount of Grunts I assassinate.

16

I hate how much chief had to do effectively everything in h4.

Bunch of spartan 4’s? Nah just send chief to clear the LZ on his own with a handful of useless marines.

Guns back online? Yeah…but our targeting system is still jammed, chief has to press some random button on the outside of the hull in order to activate them (what?).

Chief is the only one allowed to fire the target designator for the MAC gun, even though he also has to defend the mammoth.

Giant anti-air particle cannon spotted, but we still can’t fire our own weapons! Quick, deploy a target designator to the ground so that chief can aim at the weapon. Opening a window or airlock or just firing it straight at it is too much work.

> I do agree with you, campaign should be fun and well-paced. And I’m not suggesting we give every single mission a countdown timer so we can feel pressured to do our job.

Oh god, I remember Mace Gryphon: Bounty Hunter for the original xbox. It was cool in that it was seemless ship to FPS combat, it was terrible in that 90% of the missions were time based.

17

> > > Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.
> >
> > Actually, for me at least, that’s why I liked Halo 3’s missions. The objectives made the pacing feel just right. It was a steady build up to an amazing climatic finish.
> >
> > Halo 4’s pacing, on the other hand, was all over the place it seemed. Yes, it was nice to have almost each mission feel like it counted, but I always felt like I needed to rush to the objective, that I wasn’t given enough breathing room. And I believe that’s part of why Halo 4’s campaign is/felt so short. It tries to rush the player with important objectives over and over again.
> >
> > And isn’t the exploration a part of what makes Halo so great? To not feel like you’re in a hurry all the time and being able to explore the environments for things of value (weapons, easter eggs, alternate pathways, etc)?
> >
> > Shouldn’t it matter more on whether or not a mission is fun to play? Tsavo Highway I loved because it was a fun mission, not because of its objective. Lots of vehicle combat against infantry, Choppers, and Wraiths in wide and open spaces.
> >
> > You can have an important objective all you want, but if the mission isn’t fun, then what’s the point? Shutdown from Halo 4 is a good example of a mission with a strong objective, but with poor layout. I would’ve liked the Pelican to be as important of a figure as it probably should’ve been, but that’s just my own opinion.
>
> I do agree with you, campaign should be fun and well-paced. And I’m not suggesting we give every single mission a countdown timer so we can feel pressured to do our job. However, if my reward for killing 70 Brutes and 5 Wraiths is a pat on the back from Lasky, I begin to wonder what the point of it all was.
>
> And I’m also a big fan of exploration, like in “Halo” of CE. But when I spend a majority of the game going “WHAT IS THIS PLACE?!” while Arbiter sings show-tunes, then it just becomes kind of odd. To this day, I don’t even know what the point of Tip of the Spear was. I know I blew up the Spire, but everything before that was just one big Revenant dash. It’s a fun mission, but (to me at least) impact is just as important as the amount of Grunts I assassinate.

Fair enough. I think it’s just that Halo 4 had too many objectives with a sense of urgency tied to them. Escaping the FUD before it gets pulled into Requiem, warn Infinity before it’s pulled into Requiem, escape Requiem’s core before it collapses, you get the picture. And I think that’s the main issue. The whole “do x before y happens” deal. Those types of objectives are things that I’d expect maybe once or twice in a 6-8 hour long Halo campaign.

18

> > > > Actually, I felt like Halo 3 was the worst in terms of objectives. Sierra-117 through The Ark felt like one huge exploration mission. The Ark didn’t even feel like it lead to a conclusion, just “Okay, here’s a big picture of the Galaxy AND NOW TO DESTROY THE COVENANT.” Only on the Covenant and Halo did I feel like I was really making a difference, not backtracking or blowing up Wraiths that really didn’t make a difference.
> > >
> > > Actually, for me at least, that’s why I liked Halo 3’s missions. The objectives made the pacing feel just right. It was a steady build up to an amazing climatic finish.
> > >
> > > Halo 4’s pacing, on the other hand, was all over the place it seemed. Yes, it was nice to have almost each mission feel like it counted, but I always felt like I needed to rush to the objective, that I wasn’t given enough breathing room. And I believe that’s part of why Halo 4’s campaign is/felt so short. It tries to rush the player with important objectives over and over again.
> > >
> > > And isn’t the exploration a part of what makes Halo so great? To not feel like you’re in a hurry all the time and being able to explore the environments for things of value (weapons, easter eggs, alternate pathways, etc)?
> > >
> > > Shouldn’t it matter more on whether or not a mission is fun to play? Tsavo Highway I loved because it was a fun mission, not because of its objective. Lots of vehicle combat against infantry, Choppers, and Wraiths in wide and open spaces.
> > >
> > > You can have an important objective all you want, but if the mission isn’t fun, then what’s the point? Shutdown from Halo 4 is a good example of a mission with a strong objective, but with poor layout. I would’ve liked the Pelican to be as important of a figure as it probably should’ve been, but that’s just my own opinion.
> >
> > I do agree with you, campaign should be fun and well-paced. And I’m not suggesting we give every single mission a countdown timer so we can feel pressured to do our job. However, if my reward for killing 70 Brutes and 5 Wraiths is a pat on the back from Lasky, I begin to wonder what the point of it all was.
> >
> > And I’m also a big fan of exploration, like in “Halo” of CE. But when I spend a majority of the game going “WHAT IS THIS PLACE?!” while Arbiter sings show-tunes, then it just becomes kind of odd. To this day, I don’t even know what the point of Tip of the Spear was. I know I blew up the Spire, but everything before that was just one big Revenant dash. It’s a fun mission, but (to me at least) impact is just as important as the amount of Grunts I assassinate.
>
> Fair enough. I think it’s just that Halo 4 had too many objectives with a sense of urgency tied to them. Escaping the FUD before it gets pulled into Requiem, warn Infinity before it’s pulled into Requiem, escape Requiem’s core before it collapses, you get the picture. And I think that’s the main issue. The whole “do x before y happens” deal. Those types of objectives are things that I’d expect maybe once or twice in a 6-8 hour long Halo campaign.

True. Urgency doesn’t mean the same as impact. If I feel rushed, then I feel like it goes by too quickly. I’d hate for the campaign to become a “CHIEF, STOP FAFFING AROUND AND HURRY!” But I also feel like being given a Spartan-worthy objective would give me a reason to act like a Spartan.

I also feel the problem comes from the amount of stuff you can be given. In ONI: Sword Base, when you’re given a lot of objectives that all take 2 minutes each, then it becomes hard to value what you do when it only takes 2 minutes.

19

> Fair enough. I think it’s just that Halo 4 had too many objectives with a sense of urgency tied to them. Escaping the FUD before it gets pulled into Requiem, warn Infinity before it’s pulled into Requiem, escape Requiem’s core before it collapses, you get the picture. And I think that’s the main issue. The whole “do x before y happens” deal. Those types of objectives are things that I’d expect maybe once or twice in a 6-8 hour long Halo campaign.

I actually liked H4’s campaign a lot . . . except for this. Much of the urgency just seemed too artificial. More exploration. Less random button pushing. The major RPGs do this well. Give the campaign replayability by not forcing Chief to accomplish almost everything the first time . . . include some side-paths that do not need to be taken to complete the level, but can be if the player desires. Like side-quests, off the main path.

20

I think that Halo: CE had the best missions, and this is one of the reasons: almost every mission felt important from beginning to end. You didn’t trek anywhere needlessly.

PoA had you start from the cryo bay, making your way to the bridge to retrieve Cortana so she wouldn’t fall into Covenant hands, and then to the lifepod to escape.

In Halo, you crash landed at a random place and needed to travel to several different lifepod locations to help the marines in extraction.

In T&R, you were dropped off near a Covenant ship to rescue Captain Keyes. Of course they weren’t going to drop you off right next to the ship because that would be too risky. Then after you get into the ship, you have to travel through the ship to reach the brig.

In SC, you’re dropped off on an island that houses that Halo’s Cartographer. Of course you have to travel to and through the structure in order to reach it.

In 343GS, you are attempting to stop Keyes from whatever he’s doing, and when you don’t find him, you have to escape.

In The Maw, you had to detonate the Autumn’s fusion reactor and, again, escape.

Every mission had a purpose and a meaning and was paced just right. Halo: CE definitely had the best Campaign.