The Problem With Halo 4

I’m writing this pure, off the head, no practice.

I’ve been a Halo fan since the very beginning, playing 4 player blood gulch with my friends and then making warthogs fly, that is what I remember halo as, just fun with friends, Halo 4 killed off that kind of play and moved completely to competitive, that is not how Halo should be, Granted I am perfectly fine with Halo being played in pro circuits, that I’m fine with, but the universal image of Halo (from when 343 took over) has been more towards competitive play and it shouldn’t focus on this,

If you ask me ‘Well was the Campaign any good?’ I’d quickly respond without going into too much detail with ‘Well, they tried to make chief cry, that was the goal, and that is not how he is, if he has emotions going through him, he’ll conceal it and get the mission done, as heartless as it sounds, it’s how he was raised’.

Going back to the Multi player, Halo isn’t about the most points you get, it’s about the fun you have, I am fine with you bringing Halo: Reach into the mix but then again, it still managed to retain the fun factor, even if it did kill a few mechanics people enjoyed. Sprint is the another problem I have with Halo 4 (The fact I don’t mind it with Reach is because it was an armor ability and you had to sacrifice the others to use sprint, that was smart) .

No matter how you look at it, 343 were looking at other games for ideas, and yes i’m going to bring up the old ‘Call of duty’ comparison, Halo 4 does not need a kill cam, Halo 4 does not need loadouts (Don’t get me started…) Halo 4 does not need you to take away playlists because they had low numbers, just keep them in and let the users decided what they want to play.

Just a few things I needed to get off my chest, I really hope Halo 5 can correct the mistakes of the first.

Thanks for reading.

Thought Halo 4’s campaign was fine. Prometheans are more fun to fight than the Flood. Thought the resurrection of the Forerunners was a lame retcon, though.

Multiplayer flopped. Loadouts, join in progress, armor abilities, instant respawn, weapon unlocks, ordinance drops, and lack of ranked/social distinction turned the multiplayer into Call of Halo and ruined the possibility of competitive play, and the heart of Halo has always been competitive play.

It is mostly the logical continuation of some of the bad decisions Bungie started with Reach.

> I’m writing this pure, off the head, no practice.
>
> I’ve been a Halo fan since the very beginning, playing 4 player blood gulch with my friends and then making warthogs fly, that is what I remember halo as, just fun with friends, Halo 4 killed off that kind of play and moved completely to competitive, that is not how Halo should be, Granted I am perfectly fine with Halo being played in pro circuits, that I’m fine with, but the universal image of Halo (from when 343 took over) has been more towards competitive play and it shouldn’t focus on this,
>
> <mark>If you ask me ‘Well was the Campaign any good?’ I’d quickly respond without going into too much detail with ‘Well, they tried to make chief cry, that was the goal, and that is not how he is, if he has emotions going through him, he’ll conceal it and get the mission done, as heartless as it sounds, it’s how he was raised’.</mark>
>
> Going back to the Multi player, Halo isn’t about the most points you get, it’s about the fun you have, I am fine with you bringing Halo: Reach into the mix but then again, it still managed to retain the fun factor, even if it did kill a few mechanics people enjoyed. Sprint is the another problem I have with Halo 4 (The fact I don’t mind it with Reach is because it was an armor ability and you had to sacrifice the others to use sprint, that was smart) .
>
> No matter how you look at it, 343 were looking at other games for ideas, and yes i’m going to bring up the old ‘Call of duty’ comparison, Halo 4 does not need a kill cam, Halo 4 does not need loadouts (Don’t get me started…) Halo 4 does not need you to take away playlists because they had low numbers, just keep them in and let the users decided what they want to play.
>
> Just a few things I needed to get off my chest, I really hope Halo 5 can correct the mistakes of the first.
>
> Thanks for reading.

Everyone has a breaking point.

This was Chief’s.

> Thought Halo 4’s campaign was fine. Prometheans are more fun to fight than the Flood. Thought the resurrection of the Forerunners was a lame retcon, though.
>
> Multiplayer flopped. Loadouts, join in progress, armor abilities, instant respawn, weapon unlocks, ordinance drops, and lack of ranked/social distinction turned the multiplayer into Call of Halo and ruined the possibility of competitive play, and the heart of Halo has always been competitive play.
>
> It is mostly the logical continuation of some of the bad decisions Bungie started with Reach.

It wasn’t a retcon. They never said there were no survivors.

It’s even implied that there were survivors, seeing as the IsoDidact activated the Array from the Ark. Plus, the galaxy was littered with shield worlds. It makes sense that at least a couple of these were completed and managed to hold a few Forerunners.

> > Thought Halo 4’s campaign was fine. Prometheans are more fun to fight than the Flood. Thought the resurrection of the Forerunners was a lame retcon, though.
> >
> > Multiplayer flopped. Loadouts, join in progress, armor abilities, instant respawn, weapon unlocks, ordinance drops, and lack of ranked/social distinction turned the multiplayer into Call of Halo and ruined the possibility of competitive play, and the heart of Halo has always been competitive play.
> >
> > It is mostly the logical continuation of some of the bad decisions Bungie started with Reach.
>
> It wasn’t a retcon. They never said there were no survivors.
>
> It’s even implied that there were survivors, seeing as the IsoDidact activated the Array from the Ark. Plus, the galaxy was littered with shield worlds. It makes sense that at least a couple of these were completed and managed to hold a few Forerunners.

A retcon doesn’t have to explicitly contradict previous lore to be a retcon. The return of the forerunners is a significant reshaping of Halo lore that was not envisioned in the original trilogy or books, hence it’s a retcon.

> > > Thought Halo 4’s campaign was fine. Prometheans are more fun to fight than the Flood. Thought the resurrection of the Forerunners was a lame retcon, though.
> > >
> > > Multiplayer flopped. Loadouts, join in progress, armor abilities, instant respawn, weapon unlocks, ordinance drops, and lack of ranked/social distinction turned the multiplayer into Call of Halo and ruined the possibility of competitive play, and the heart of Halo has always been competitive play.
> > >
> > > It is mostly the logical continuation of some of the bad decisions Bungie started with Reach.
> >
> > It wasn’t a retcon. They never said there were no survivors.
> >
> > It’s even implied that there were survivors, seeing as the IsoDidact activated the Array from the Ark. Plus, the galaxy was littered with shield worlds. It makes sense that at least a couple of these were completed and managed to hold a few Forerunners.
>
> A retcon doesn’t have to explicitly contradict previous lore to be a retcon. The return of the forerunners is a significant reshaping of Halo lore that was not envisioned in the original trilogy or books, hence it’s a retcon.

No… they never said the Forerunners all died. Just because they didn’t plan to do something about it doesn’t mean it is a retcon of a story that didn’t exist.

Was Halo 2 a retcon because Bungie never planned to go past CE? Was Halo 3 a retcon because Bungie wanted to finish the story in Halo 2?

It’s not a reshaping of the Halo lore. There was no lore after Halo 3. Just the fact that Chief was drifting towards a Forerunner shield world.
You can’t retcon what wasn’t there.

You all have opinions and I respect that!

Here is a follow-up question, personally do you think 343 justified the Halo franchise? (Improved it)

> You all have opinions and I respect that!
>
> Here is a follow-up question, personally do you think 343 justified the Halo franchise? (Improved it)

Wep balance wise? Yes.
Story wise? Yes.

A lot of others things had potential but alas were ruined by small things I.E load-outs and AAs.

I want a game that does not revolve around UNSC rifles H4 is the first halo to make the CC good. BR/CC starts need to be a thing.

> > You all have opinions and I respect that!
> >
> > Here is a follow-up question, personally do you think 343 justified the Halo franchise? (Improved it)
>
> Wep balance wise? Yes.
> Story wise? Yes.
>
> A lot of others things had potential but alas were ruined by small things I.E load-outs and AAs.
>
> I want a game that does not revolve around UNSC rifles H4 is the first halo to make the CC good. BR/CC starts need to be a thing.

This means nothing but I am not a fan of what the Plasma rifle became, I always loved the small unique design, not to say I never used the storm rifle though, I’d like to see the Plasma rifle in future titles.

> snip

I actually agree I like the Plasma rifle more too.

I’m not trying to tear 343 a new hole, Halo: Reach was not the best it could be, it’s just, some of the implementations put in Halo 4 are not really necessary, the whole point of starting with default weapons is to hunt for better ones or use the ones you start with.

I love the 343 staff team, they’re transparent with us all, I just wish with Halo 5 we could have a lot of transparency so the buyers of the product can put feedback in to the thing they invest in, now I am all for surprises so keep the best stuff away from us, let us find it ourself what is to come,

Halo 4 is a good game, it really is, trust me I play it every day for a long time, it’s great!. but some things in the game kind of ruin it on your later playthroughs, I love the new forge features, my god they were perfect and I’ve created some (I hope) fantastic maps.

I don’t know if you all think I’m annoying with this rambling but it’s good to get it all out in the open.

I love 343 and can’t wait for future endeavours.

The forums are here to ramble ^-^. I understand IMO we usually started with weps that out-classed the map weps H3 BR beat all HR DMR beat all.

Originally, the big twist was going to be that the Forerunners were ancient Humans (thus Spark telling Chief “You ARE Forerunner”) but they changed it. Thankfully, because I totally saw that coming back then.

I like Halo 4.

> I’m writing this pure, off the head, no practice.
>
> Going back to the Multi player, Halo isn’t about the most points you get, it’s about the fun you have, I am fine with you bringing Halo: Reach into the mix but then again, it still managed to retain the fun factor, even if it did kill a few mechanics people enjoyed. Sprint is the another problem I have with Halo 4 (The fact I don’t mind it with Reach is because it was an armor ability and you had to sacrifice the others to use sprint, that was smart) .
>
> No matter how you look at it, 343 were looking at other games for ideas, and yes i’m going to bring up the old ‘Call of duty’ comparison, Halo 4 does not need a kill cam, Halo 4 does not need loadouts (Don’t get me started…) Halo 4 does not need you to take away playlists because they had low numbers, just keep them in and let the users decided what they want to play.

Totally agree on these points. Halo 4 is my favorite game in the franchise, but for all these reasons, I really don’t like it’s multiplayer. Disagree about the sprinting though. When I went back and did a Legendary playthrough of Halo 3 recently, there are no words that can describe how desperately I missed the sprint feature.

> > I’m writing this pure, off the head, no practice.
> >
> >
> > <mark>If you ask me ‘Well was the Campaign any good?’ I’d quickly respond without going into too much detail with ‘Well, they tried to make chief cry, that was the goal, and that is not how he is, if he has emotions going through him, he’ll conceal it and get the mission done, as heartless as it sounds, it’s how he was raised’.</mark>
>
> Everyone has a breaking point.
>
> This was Chief’s.

Agreed. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

They even establish in the beginning of the book First Strike that the Master Chief is not immune to stress. When he and Cortana are still floating on the Longsword looking for a way home, he realizes with a bit of surprise that his nerves are starting to fray and his emotions are starting to get away from him a little bit because of it.

Think about it this way, Halo 4 is pretty much the first time the Master Chief had ever completely failed at one of his objectives. He spends the entire game promising and trying to save Cortana, and despite his absolute best efforts, he fails anyway. After everything they’ve been through, not only surviving but defeating both the Covenant and The Flood, he still wasn’t fast enough, strong enough, or lucky enough to save her.

How could anyone go through a loss like that and NOT start to break down on some level?

I think the Chief is going to be in a VERY dark place when we catch up to him in Halo 5, and quite frankly, that’s what excites me most about the game. I absolutely LOVE the idea of taking an incredibly stoic, incredibly badass character like the Master Chief and going “Let’s break you and find out what happens.”

I’d like to remove my statement on Master Chief being a cold heart killer because that is not what i wanted to imply.

How master chief became quote on quote ‘Human’ was not how I imagined it would be, I know everybody has there own taste but this is mine, I do however agree if we take Halo 4’s campaign now, this was his breaking point.

> I’d like to remove my statement on Master Chief being a cold heart killer because that is not what i wanted to imply.
>
> How master chief became quote on quote ‘Human’ was not how I imagined it would be, I know everybody has there own taste but this is mine, I do however agree if we take Halo 4’s campaign now, this was his breaking point.

Although it’s not really shown in the game, I think Combat Evolved might have been the darkest time for Chief.
It’s his first time encountering anything relating to the Forerunners (outside of that little artifact he recovered in that museum on that planet whose name escapes me right now), he knows Reach has fallen (his childhood home from the age of six until adulthood), he has no idea if any of his “family” (other Spartan IIs he’s known from age six until adulthood) are dead or alive, the Flood is wiping out all of his fellow soldiers and commanding officers, he’s got a psychotic Forerunner AI trying to kill him, and the Covenant are trying to fire the Ring and kill everything within 25,000 light years, and on top of that, Sgt. Johnson keeps dying then showing up in the next mission as if nothing’s happened!

But as far as his “breaking point” where the line between cold blooded killing machine and human being is finally crossed, yes, that’d be Halo 4.

> > I’d like to remove my statement on Master Chief being a cold heart killer because that is not what i wanted to imply.
> >
> > How master chief became quote on quote ‘Human’ was not how I imagined it would be, I know everybody has there own taste but this is mine, I do however agree if we take Halo 4’s campaign now, this was his breaking point.
>
> Although it’s not really shown in the game, I think Combat Evolved might have been the darkest time for Chief.
> It’s his first time encountering anything relating to the Forerunners (outside of that little artifact he recovered in that museum on that planet whose name escapes me right now), he knows Reach has fallen (his childhood home from the age of six until adulthood), he has no idea if any of his “family” (other Spartan IIs he’s known from age six until adulthood) are dead or alive, the Flood is wiping out all of his fellow soldiers and commanding officers, he’s got a psychotic Forerunner AI trying to kill him, and the Covenant are trying to fire the Ring and kill everything within 25,000 light years, and on top of that, Sgt. Johnson keeps dying then showing up in the next mission as if nothing’s happened!
>
> But as far as his “breaking point” where the line between cold blooded killing machine and human being is finally crossed, yes, that’d be Halo 4.

I’ve never looked at Combat evolved like that before, If I would give my evaluation of chief in CE i would think of him as man caught in the middle of a crossfire, The Halo installation is a new experience for Chief, but a battleground is a battleground for him, as he starts to explore the ring he’ll encounter his old enemies now and then, making it a normal day at the office, but when he is caught between the flood and the covenant at this point, no matter how big the cost, he contemplates the idea of nobody leaving that that ring alive, it’s the ultimate price to pay but a worthy goal for all parties.

I think the choices he makes in CE don’t necessarily break him, but they put some psychological trauma onto his shoulder, which he then conceals until '4.

> No… they never said the Forerunners all died. Just because they didn’t plan to do something about it doesn’t mean it is a retcon of a story that didn’t exist.
>
> Was Halo 2 a retcon because Bungie never planned to go past CE? Was Halo 3 a retcon because Bungie wanted to finish the story in Halo 2?
>
>
> It’s not a reshaping of the Halo lore. There was no lore after Halo 3. Just the fact that Chief was drifting towards a Forerunner shield world.
> You can’t retcon what wasn’t there.

Sorry, but it is in fact a reshaping of Halo lore. If you asked anyone after Halo 3 “are the Forerunners alive?”, everyone would say no. Maybe 1/10 would say “most likely not” or “their AIs/technology lives on” but that’s very different from what anyone would say now. This is a retcon. It’s a retcon that is internally consistent, more or less, but it’s still a retcon.

If Halo 5 reveals that the events of Halo 1-4 are all a dream in the mind of Cthulhu and didn’t really happen, you wouldn’t dare use the argument “but it can’t be a retcon because they never said it WASN’T a dream in the mind of Cthulhu!”. I recognize that’s an absurd example, but the logic is the same.

> > No… they never said the Forerunners all died. Just because they didn’t plan to do something about it doesn’t mean it is a retcon of a story that didn’t exist.
> >
> > Was Halo 2 a retcon because Bungie never planned to go past CE? Was Halo 3 a retcon because Bungie wanted to finish the story in Halo 2?
> >
> >
> > It’s not a reshaping of the Halo lore. There was no lore after Halo 3. Just the fact that Chief was drifting towards a Forerunner shield world.
> > You can’t retcon what wasn’t there.
>
> Sorry, but it is in fact a reshaping of Halo lore. If you asked anyone after Halo 3 “are the Forerunners alive?”, everyone would say no. Maybe 1/10 would say “most likely not” or “their AIs/technology lives on” but that’s very different from what anyone would say now. This is a retcon. It’s a retcon that is internally consistent, more or less, but it’s still a retcon.
>
> If Halo 5 reveals that the events of Halo 1-4 are all a dream in the mind of Cthulhu and didn’t really happen, you wouldn’t dare use the argument “but it can’t be a retcon because they never said it WASN’T a dream in the mind of Cthulhu!”. I recognize that’s an absurd example, but the logic is the same.

So, because a bunch of people neglected to look into the story and terminals, it is a retcon?

If you asked people who read the terminals, they would say yes. There is a possibility that some survived.

There was nothing saying the Forerunners didn’t survive, but there wasn’t neccesarily anything saying we’d be talking to one anytime soon either. Besides Chief drifting towards a Forerunner planet, of course.

That’s not a definite story direction, and it’s not a retcon for following a path that was set up as a possibility. The option to bring back the Forerunners was always there. 343i decided to take it. Bungie could have too. Forerunners were originally a concept for Halo 3’s story, but they decided against it.
A retcon is a change in the established story, usually to support the existing plot or provide a new route to take it. This is not a retcon, as nothing in the story was changed. The possibilities were gathered and a new direction was taken.

There is nothing in the story that would provide any evidence or foundation for the concept that it was all a Cthulhu’s dream. There were several existing possibilities and points in the story that logically allowed Forerunners to enter.

> > > I’d like to remove my statement on Master Chief being a cold heart killer because that is not what i wanted to imply.
> > >
> > > How master chief became quote on quote ‘Human’ was not how I imagined it would be, I know everybody has there own taste but this is mine, I do however agree if we take Halo 4’s campaign now, this was his breaking point.
> >
> > Although it’s not really shown in the game, I think Combat Evolved might have been the darkest time for Chief.
> > It’s his first time encountering anything relating to the Forerunners (outside of that little artifact he recovered in that museum on that planet whose name escapes me right now), he knows Reach has fallen (his childhood home from the age of six until adulthood), he has no idea if any of his “family” (other Spartan IIs he’s known from age six until adulthood) are dead or alive, the Flood is wiping out all of his fellow soldiers and commanding officers, he’s got a psychotic Forerunner AI trying to kill him, and the Covenant are trying to fire the Ring and kill everything within 25,000 light years, and on top of that, Sgt. Johnson keeps dying then showing up in the next mission as if nothing’s happened!
> >
> > But as far as his “breaking point” where the line between cold blooded killing machine and human being is finally crossed, yes, that’d be Halo 4.
>
> I’ve never looked at Combat evolved like that before, If I would give my evaluation of chief in CE i would think of him as man caught in the middle of a crossfire, The Halo installation is a new experience for Chief, but a battleground is a battleground for him, as he starts to explore the ring he’ll encounter his old enemies now and then, making it a normal day at the office, but when he is caught between the flood and the covenant at this point, no matter how big the cost, he contemplates the idea of nobody leaving that that ring alive, it’s the ultimate price to pay but a worthy goal for all parties.
>
> I think the choices he makes in CE don’t necessarily break him, but they put some psychological trauma onto his shoulder, which he then conceals until '4.

It’s certainly an interesting idea, and one that’s actually backed up by the canon because in the first few pages of First Strike (the novel that bridges Halo 1 and Halo 2), they show that the events of Halo 1 have rattled the Master Chief in a way he didn’t think he could be.