In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
> 2533274840469109;1:
> In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
That’s easy, you already hit the nail on the head. They were aiming for a blank slate that every player could hop into and feel like they were Master Chief. They weren’t trying to tell the story of Master Chief, they were telling the Halo story through a blank slate named Master Chief.
Also, the books weren’t really written by Bungie. They had bona fide sci-fi authors writing them, with -Yoink!-'s team making sure they didn’t mess up too much of the canon. The authors writing stories about Chief would not have been able to be successful if they weren’t given the liberty of giving Chief some character.
> 2533274840469109;1:
> In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
To be fair, they mostly got other people to write the books for them.
> 2533274964189700;3:
> > 2533274840469109;1:
> > In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
>
>
> To be fair, they mostly got other people to write the books for them.
I think the authors wrote the story after Bungie informed them about the lore and characters. I wonder why they put alot of backstory into Chief as well as personality for the books and decided not to put it into the games.
> 2533274803493024;2:
> > 2533274840469109;1:
> > In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
>
>
> That’s easy, you already hit the nail on the head. They were aiming for a blank slate that every player could hop into and feel like they were Master Chief. They weren’t trying to tell the story of Master Chief, they were telling the Halo story through a blank slate named Master Chief.
>
> Also, the books weren’t really written by Bungie. They had bona fide sci-fi authors writing them, with -Yoink!-'s team making sure they didn’t mess up too much of the canon. The authors writing stories about Chief would not have been able to be successful if they weren’t given the liberty of giving Chief some character.
I thought Staten and the other story guys consulted with the book authors about the lore and characters and then allowed the authors to have fun 
Cause the story of the games wasnt about 117 but about humanity surviving an alien onslaught.
And you saw this story through the eyes of one of the many soldiers.
343 switched up and now the story is about 117 and whatever is happening around doesnt really matter.
Because they wanted to tell a story through a blank slate character. This should be extremely apparent after seeing how much Bungie likes silent protagonists with a limited backstories based off of what we’ve seen from ODST, Reach and Destiny.
I think the one of the only reasons Chief wasn’t initially completely nameless and silent was because Microsoft made a deal with Tor Books to release Halo: The Fall of Reach, which took some liberties to flesh-out the character to make the story interest. The book was released prior to Halo: CE. From there on Bungie continued to treat him like a blank slate for the players to immerse themselves in while Chief received a personality and character development in the books.
Thankfully 343 Industries intend to integrate the events of the EU and the games so that we can finally see Chief as a character, and not just a suit of armour to play as.
> 2533274915926813;6:
> Cause the story of the games wasnt about 117 but about humanity surviving an alien onslaught.
> And you saw this story through the eyes of one of the many soldiers.
>
> 343 switched up and now the story is about 117 and whatever is happening around doesnt really matter.
I wouldn’t say that. I’d just say that the events are now coloured through his own perception as a character, and not just the player’s. It’s the same for most written mediums. Can you imagine watching the Star Wars movies without a cast of characters to relate to? It would just be a bunch of events happening…
> 2533274915926813;6:
> Cause the story of the games wasnt about 117 but about humanity surviving an alien onslaught.
> And you saw this story through the eyes of one of the many soldiers.
>
> 343 switched up and now the story is about 117 and whatever is happening around doesnt really matter.
On the contrary, they now just have a legitimate and fleshed out character leading us through everything happening around us.
They didn’t shift focus completely to a small story, they just introduced a smaller, more personal story to contrast and complement the big space opera. And I think it’s working wonderfully.
As has already been pointed out, Bungie prefers the empty vessel approach to the player’s characters in game. It started off with having a character with some personality but nothing over the top (Chief), spiraled out of control with a completely blank slate character (the Rookie), came back a little with a blank slate that actually talked (Noble Six), and has no culminated with a completely boring empty vessel that hasn’t even asked why he/she has been revived the dead to mercilessly slaughter 4 different alien races (their Guardians in Destiny).
Personally, I think it’s a very boring way to tell a story, and much prefer having a character with some personality that can color the events and actions that we’re experiencing. 343 took the right step in painting Chief in a new light in Halo 4: he’s now a character that’s been shed of much of his mystique and was trying to figure out a world in which his closest companion was deteriorating and ultimately lost. Halo 5 seems like it can take a huge step in his evolution: he’s reunited with Blue Team (his lifelong friends and de-factor family) and is now circumventing the orders that he has followed to the letter for the last 30+ years.
> 2533274805497312;9:
> As has already been pointed out, Bungie prefers the empty vessel approach to the player’s characters in game. It started off with having a character with some personality but nothing over the top (Chief), spiraled out of control with a completely blank slate character (the Rookie), came back a little with a blank slate that actually talked (Noble Six), and has no culminated with a completely boring empty vessel that hasn’t even asked why he/she has been revived the dead to mercilessly slaughter 4 different alien races (their Guardians in Destiny).
>
> Personally, I think it’s a very boring way to tell a story, and much prefer having a character with some personality that can color the events and actions that we’re experiencing. 343 took the right step in painting Chief in a new light in Halo 4: he’s now a character that’s been shed of much of his mystique and was trying to figure out a world in which his closest companion was deteriorating and ultimately lost. Halo 5 seems like it can take a huge step in his evolution: he’s reunited with Blue Team (his lifelong friends and de-factor family) and is now circumventing the orders that he has followed to the letter for the last 30+ years.
yeah I agree. I definitely prefer my characters to have characterisation. Thats why in halo 2 the Arbiter is more interesting then Chief. He has character, likes, dislikes, motivations.
Because Bungie has no idea about storytelling, they may have a good story with compelling characters (Halo 3 for example) and mess it up by not being able to tell the player what’s going on correctly.
That, and the notion they had of Chief needing to be an empty vessel… just like Link or the trainer from Pokémon or the Dragonborn. I’m gonna backtrack there, the Dragonborn has had better developement during Skyrim than what Chief got during the first three Halo games. And that is saddening.
Isn’t it better to have a deep character you can identify with? Instead of some empty puppet you fill with your hand but you don’t get to give a -Yoink- about?
> 2533274805497312;9:
> As has already been pointed out, Bungie prefers the empty vessel approach to the player’s characters in game. It started off with having a character with some personality but nothing over the top (Chief), spiraled out of control with a completely blank slate character (the Rookie), came back a little with a blank slate that actually talked (Noble Six), and has no culminated with a completely boring empty vessel that hasn’t even asked why he/she has been revived the dead to mercilessly slaughter 4 different alien races (their Guardians in Destiny).
>
> Personally, I think it’s a very boring way to tell a story, and much prefer having a character with some personality that can color the events and actions that we’re experiencing. 343 took the right step in painting Chief in a new light in Halo 4: he’s now a character that’s been shed of much of his mystique and was trying to figure out a world in which his closest companion was deteriorating and ultimately lost. Halo 5 seems like it can take a huge step in his evolution: he’s reunited with Blue Team (his lifelong friends and de-factor family) and is now circumventing the orders that he has followed to the letter for the last 30+ years.
Well said, my friend.
Because Bungie boo boo 
No seriously what longhorn said.
> 2533274840469109;4:
> > 2533274964189700;3:
> > > 2533274840469109;1:
> > > In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
> >
> >
> > To be fair, they mostly got other people to write the books for them.
>
>
> I think the authors wrote the story after Bungie informed them about the lore and characters. I wonder why they put alot of backstory into Chief as well as personality for the books and decided not to put it into the games.
Well if you go off the Multiplayer maps off Halo:CE. One of the stated that Spartans were clones
> 2533274803137071;14:
> > 2533274840469109;4:
> > > 2533274964189700;3:
> > > > 2533274840469109;1:
> > > > In Halo: CE-3, Master Chief (aside from a few scenes here and there) wasn’t given development. However, they had no problem exploring him in the books. Chief in the original 3 games was essentially a vessel for the player. 343 is interested in exploring him in the games as well, something Bungie seemed to avoid in the games expect for a few scenes. Why do you think Bungie was all for exploring John in the books but not in Halo: CE-3?
> > >
> > >
> > > To be fair, they mostly got other people to write the books for them.
> >
> >
> > I think the authors wrote the story after Bungie informed them about the lore and characters. I wonder why they put alot of backstory into Chief as well as personality for the books and decided not to put it into the games.
>
>
> Well if you go off the Multiplayer maps off Halo:CE. One of the stated that Spartans were clones
Yep, it was the map ChironTL-34, whose description says:
“Spartan Clone Training Complex.”
So yeah, in short, Bungie didn’t give two craps about the lore and wasn’t good at story telling either. Look at what they did with Halo: Reach and how 343I had to fix and reprint the book and release short stories to fix it up.