> 2533274812652989;57:
> > 2535421619942348;56:
> > > 2533274812652989;55:
> > > > 2535421619942348;54:
> > > > snip
> >
> >
> >
> > I don’t think any secondary characters got a fair chance in 4’s base campaign. Despite Spartan Ops’ boring as fudge gameplay, Lasky, Palmer, Halsey and Majestic had great screen time when they weren’t basking in Chief’s awesome.
> >
> > I have to say we may be in full agreement towards Chief. I won’t blame the community any more than I think it deserves, but I can’t imagine exploring Chief yet being able to project onto Chief. That may have been why I always thought he was meh in 4. They didn’t go down the route of making him emotionally unstable but they didn’t commit to having him utter nothing but one-liners in his usual badass way either. The result was some weird character who talked more than usual but didn’t say anything. They couldn’t have gone with either extreme and fulfill the fan’s expectations, I get that. At the same time though, who kindled the fan’s expectations?
> >
> > I wonder if Chief was really designed for the players to put themselves inside his shoes the way they do in CE, 2 or 3, or whether that was a happy accident resulting from little dialogue and the player’s complete control over him. It’s a decent approach, imo, one that works well for the trilogy’s intended purpose and could have worked well for 4 and 5. However, I also think being able to identify with Chief would be great, if we were to cut the “project yourself onto him,” element from his character. Using Locke is the perfect way to do this. If it’s done well, I think the smartest parts of the community will understand and applaud the decision.
> >
> > But doing both at the same time really doesn’t work, does it? I think that’s what Chief in 4 was, to me at least. There’s nothing wrong with that, but nothing inherently right about it either - especially when you don’t care about the Cortana subplot, the enemy, the secondary characters, the visuals or the multiplayer.
> >
> > Basically, I agree, but I don’t blame a community 343 is purposefully riling up to get money from, or believe Chief in 4 is a very golden standard to be achieved. Rather, transcended.
>
>
> See, even if Chief didn’t talk a lot still, how he talked says it all. Do his reassurances to Cortana feel awkward? I feel that is the point as her situation is unfamiliar territory to him. Yet some people conflate that with this. shrug
Yeah, they do. But they may conflate that all they like. We disagree but we’re both powerless to stop them. They may also compare it to Shakespeare. (Trust me, I’ve seen that too) I disagree but I can’t stop them from thinking this. Opinions are difficult to change on the interwebz.
I didn’t find it too awkward. Perhaps a little, but not enough to be seriously noticeable or influence my decision about Chief’s character. If anything, I found it forced. A bit of awkward is alright, it deconstructs Master Chief, like you’ve mentioned in those posts you write. That would’ve been good, but there wasn’t enough or too much awkward for me to really care about it. I think that’s the problem with him in 4. He’s exactly what you’re afraid he’ll become, imo.
I can think of two alternate ways Halo 4 could have gone down, using either extreme.
- MC and Cortana have a very business-like relationship. This story centers around destroying the Didact in their usual business-like fashion, killing aliens and taking names, so on and so forth - basically a giant “-Yoink- Yeah MC!” Both are virtually unchanged from Bungie’s approach to the characters. Chief is quiet, calm and confident. Cortana is witty, smart and slightly crazy. However, rather than introducing it the second cutscene in the game, Cortana would become erratic with no real explanation given until they reach Infinity, when Chief is too knee high in Promethean crap to stop killing now. They intend to fix her after murdering the Didact. They storm the Mantle’s Approach, something goes wrong, and the only way to end the Didact is for Cortana to suddenly and unexpectedly sacrifice herself, much to Chief’s immediate dismay. Her goodbye is a witty quote about the two of them kicking -Yoink- in outer space, then she’s gone. Chief gives a pained salute but the audience is forever unsure of what he’s actually thinking - so they project their emotions onto him.
- MC and Cortana have a relationship similar to the one in 4, but with more reciprocation on Chief’s end. This story centers around getting Cortana to Halsey while being waylaid by the Didact, intent on stopping them knowing they’re pivotal to humanity achieving the Mantle. When they touch on Requiem, Cortana breaks the news to Chief and he understands what his mission is, vowing not only to get her to Halsey, but, like, actually trying to do it. They never reach Infinity but in passing, establishing communications for brief moments, but in order to get aboard the ship and go home, Chief and Cortana must wade through waves of Prometheans and Covenant. The emphasis is not on how messed up Cortana is, but on how Chief is certain to fix her, and her doubts about whether or not they’ll actually get home. The game finally culminates in the Didact himself being the last obstacle between Chief, Cortana, and salvation - and Cortana sacrifices herself to stop the Didact from killing Chief. They wouldn’t even need to change Chief’s personality all that much for this. He’d have to emote just a bit more. It would have to be obvious to the audience what he’s going through and what he’s thinking, so that they may empathize with him.This duality of focus Halo 4 had might work if given to another dev, one with a more experienced board of writers, if I had to guess. I simply didn’t enjoy the way Halo 4 played out. I think if they’d focused on either aspect of the game, it would’ve been stronger for it. As it stands, it’s a Halo that shoots for the stars, but misses, and does it without charm. A bit like 343 as a company, imo.
Okay, it’s 12:30. I’m done replying. 