Well clearly not because its already halfway in there. When that spree dude is introduced in the game there isn't even context to what faction he belongs to outside of some how related to the people that have something to do with the forerunners.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo 4 Story Spoilers and Speculations
- Thread starter Slightly Live
- Start date
Well clearly not because its already halfway in there. When that spree dude is introduced in the game there isn't even context to what faction he belongs to outside of some how related to the people that have something to do with the forerunners.
Cuban Legend
Member
good point, but not forcing the terminals on people was just a matter of boring the main dude-bro audience... I do agree the convoluted stuff that isn't explained does piss me off.
It's like cortana has access to all this info on that planet and in all that information she doesn't notice that a creature is imprisoned there and can't briefly tell you the who what when where and why of it all? 5 minutes tops while you are running around and shooting bad guys.
Zeouterlimits
Member
If what they did in 4 is what they think is necessary...
As for the final two months - FoR was during the seed laying of the series, it was infantile in a sense. It's not great, but it's a lot more passible than how they've seemingly handled things in 4.
The past 10 years of lore certainly hasn't been perfect but I can't believe what they've done with/for H4. My confidence/interest in the Forerunner side of the Universe has been compromised by the changes and how they've handled the Didact/Librarian in 4.
Why even make the Didact the villian? Faber would have been a great villian, that they could have sold a lot better than they did with the Didact.
Holy shit just read about that. I was just thinking about them eliminating entire worlds and species that were partially infected without warning.
I'm not sure if anything would be improved by replacing a stereotypical ANCIENT EVIL who at least has been vaguely referenced before, had a hand in the fate of the universe and ties to other characters in its prebackstory, with a stereotypical ANCIENT EVIL who is... evil... and... and pretty old, I guess (also, his title is the Master Builder and that would be the most terriblest).
"The Master Chief will have to face his greatest foe yet: The Master Builder."
Master Builder character skin for Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition, now available on the Xbox LIVE Marketplace. There are no refunds for this item. For more information, see www.xbox.com/live/accounts.
Why hasn't the master chief been promoted yet? I mean clearly this cybernetic warrior is in the marines for the long hall so the question of him being career or an enlisted man shouldn't even come up. 343 if you want to do something crazy for the story of Halo promote the chief.
The Tofunator
Member
Zeouterlimits
Member
Yeah, the Master Builder has hubris and ego, not exactly evil either. It'd be easier to sell me on him being a villian than the Didact is, so I should step back from saying it'd be out & out better, but rather better for me.
There're too many problems for what I suggested as a fixall anyway.
The word play of Master Chief and Master Builder is not something I'd considered previously, that's "great".
Oh, I certainly agree with you
I think Bear is going to make the Didact's "fall" interesting, to say the least, but I'm just a bit disappointed it's going to happen in another book. I had hoped that 343i taking the helm would mean we'd get more meaningful stories *in the games.*
Whatever he might have been in the books, he would definitely be EVIL by the time he'd get a chance to take the spotlight in a video game in which being the villain means committing genocide on a galactic scale.
But he's a career soldier why would he stop there?
Blue Ninja
Member
Some people here were asking why the Didact's ship didn't get shot to pieces by Earth's MAC guns. Replaying the final level, I noticed a line of dialogue:
"Sir, MAC defenses are ineffective against enemy ship defenses!"
So at least 343 didn't forget about them. They just don't work. :lol
"Sir, MAC defenses are ineffective against enemy ship defenses!"
So at least 343 didn't forget about them. They just don't work. :lol
Zeouterlimits
Member
Apparently so. Sadly so.
Doesn't the Infinity's gun blast a hole moments later? Anyway, they can wave their SciFi Magic wan and explain it. "The Infinity was closer than the others!"
I am genuinely shocked at the number of people who think things that don't need explaining should be explained. Reminds me of my twelve year old sister who couldn't stop asking me about the logic behind some of the story bits in Viva Pinata. There I was, having fun with the game, and she would not stop asking why people were wearing masks. It doesn't matter! It looks nice, adding to the visual appeal of the game! That's all there is.
This obsession of continuity and explanations for incredibly advanced science... it's bad. It's unhealthy. It ruins enjoyment without serving any real purpose.
Drama is important. Logic less so. :\
People finding "plot holes" that are based on a fictional story not lining up flawlessly with the rules of reality are only ruining things for themselves, and fail to understand storytelling on a fundamental level.
I agree with your POV, but the difference between ME and Halo:
Mass Effect featured a PTSD kid ghost who decided to allow Shepard to make a decision for some weird reason, which created multi-colored lasers that fixed everything. In other words, it's a deus ex machina with no internal story logic that breaks down the dramatic tension of the game.
In Halo, the intended function is clearly explained: The Composer harvests consciousnesses in order to preserve them, allowing them to be recreated in the future. It is also explained that the device does not work as intended. It's a failed experiment.
Not only does the device make sense (The science behind the Halos was never explained; all that matters is that they're advanced alien tech and that they work--trying to explain the science would end up turning the story into The Core), but it adds dramatic tension and is logically consistent with the story.
-----
Alright, all that said, I'm now going to complain about a story bit that doesn't make any sense to me that could absolutely be seen as someone complaining about things that don't need complaining about, so I may appear hypocritical here. Sorry 'bout that.
So, female spartans.
They're pretty tough, right? Previous media has generally shown them to be nearly as bulky as their counterparts (see: The Package, Babysitter, the cover of The Fall of Reach, a bit in First Strike, etc). All Spartans are fairly bulky, and even without they're armor, they're definitely superhuman.
Then we get the Spartans in Halo Reach and Halo 4. The guys are still big and bulky, though, admittedly, the Spartan IVs are more lithe than the Chief, and on the whole, shorter. The women, though? They basically seem like upscaled normal human women.
Palmer doesn't look lethal, she looks like a model in armor. Even olympic gymnasts look more bulky than Halo's female super soldiers.
I get that this isn't as egregious as the average armor for women in an MMO, but it sticks out as odd to me. I was kind of expecting that, stance aside (due to the way the musculoskeletal system is different between men and women), people wouldn't really be able to tell the difference between males and females in Halo
Not really the case, sadly. :\
...you mean... moments later, when Chief shut down the shielding so that the Infinity could approach and fire the MAC round? The (capitalized for emphasis) OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION? What did you think you were doing the trench run for? The entire point was that you needed to allow the infinity's MAC round to have an effect.
It didn't need to be handwaved, it was explained in the game, and you're having trouble with it because you didn't pay attention.
This reminds me of all those Call of Duty discussions back when Modern Warfare 2 came out, where people were pointing out all sorts of "plot holes" that were explained in the game itself. I remember one particular discussion where someone was whining about how the nuke launch sequence didn't make sense because the nuke only created an EMP and it should have blown up DC. Nukes cause EMPs. Price detonated a nuke to scare people but ensured it would do nothing more than cause a power outage. This is all explained within the game.
Do people just completely ignore things that are said during gameplay? Do they only pay attention during Bioware-styled cut scenes? This would actually explain why people think Bioware has good stories--players can go through dialog at their own pace and get it repeated if they miss it. In games like Halo and Call of Duty, it's expected that players are paying attention and won't miss any story details.
I'm depressed.
This obsession of continuity and explanations for incredibly advanced science... it's bad. It's unhealthy. It ruins enjoyment without serving any real purpose.
Drama is important. Logic less so. :\
People finding "plot holes" that are based on a fictional story not lining up flawlessly with the rules of reality are only ruining things for themselves, and fail to understand storytelling on a fundamental level.
I agree with your POV, but the difference between ME and Halo:
Mass Effect featured a PTSD kid ghost who decided to allow Shepard to make a decision for some weird reason, which created multi-colored lasers that fixed everything. In other words, it's a deus ex machina with no internal story logic that breaks down the dramatic tension of the game.
In Halo, the intended function is clearly explained: The Composer harvests consciousnesses in order to preserve them, allowing them to be recreated in the future. It is also explained that the device does not work as intended. It's a failed experiment.
Not only does the device make sense (The science behind the Halos was never explained; all that matters is that they're advanced alien tech and that they work--trying to explain the science would end up turning the story into The Core), but it adds dramatic tension and is logically consistent with the story.
-----
Alright, all that said, I'm now going to complain about a story bit that doesn't make any sense to me that could absolutely be seen as someone complaining about things that don't need complaining about, so I may appear hypocritical here. Sorry 'bout that.
So, female spartans.
They're pretty tough, right? Previous media has generally shown them to be nearly as bulky as their counterparts (see: The Package, Babysitter, the cover of The Fall of Reach, a bit in First Strike, etc). All Spartans are fairly bulky, and even without they're armor, they're definitely superhuman.
Then we get the Spartans in Halo Reach and Halo 4. The guys are still big and bulky, though, admittedly, the Spartan IVs are more lithe than the Chief, and on the whole, shorter. The women, though? They basically seem like upscaled normal human women.
Palmer doesn't look lethal, she looks like a model in armor. Even olympic gymnasts look more bulky than Halo's female super soldiers.
I get that this isn't as egregious as the average armor for women in an MMO, but it sticks out as odd to me. I was kind of expecting that, stance aside (due to the way the musculoskeletal system is different between men and women), people wouldn't really be able to tell the difference between males and females in Halo
Not really the case, sadly. :\
...you mean... moments later, when Chief shut down the shielding so that the Infinity could approach and fire the MAC round? The (capitalized for emphasis) OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION? What did you think you were doing the trench run for? The entire point was that you needed to allow the infinity's MAC round to have an effect.
It didn't need to be handwaved, it was explained in the game, and you're having trouble with it because you didn't pay attention.
This reminds me of all those Call of Duty discussions back when Modern Warfare 2 came out, where people were pointing out all sorts of "plot holes" that were explained in the game itself. I remember one particular discussion where someone was whining about how the nuke launch sequence didn't make sense because the nuke only created an EMP and it should have blown up DC. Nukes cause EMPs. Price detonated a nuke to scare people but ensured it would do nothing more than cause a power outage. This is all explained within the game.
Do people just completely ignore things that are said during gameplay? Do they only pay attention during Bioware-styled cut scenes? This would actually explain why people think Bioware has good stories--players can go through dialog at their own pace and get it repeated if they miss it. In games like Halo and Call of Duty, it's expected that players are paying attention and won't miss any story details.
I'm depressed.
I have tendency to agree with you but when the developer is pushing the story and plot and characters of their game as a selling point I think it's fair to break it down in a similar way game play mechanics might be broken down on a level by level basis.
Bornstellar seems pretty cool with humans when he's chillin' with Chakas in Primordium. He also seemed to be a somewhat noble guy, if overly-dedicated to the idea that the Forerunner possessed the Mantle. To have him suddenly be like "IMA KILL ALL HUMANS FOR THE SAKE OF MY RACE THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE AND TURN THEM INTO GENOCIDAL ROBOT SLAVES" is kind of jarring.
In Halo 4, though, if you haven't read the books, it seems just fine.
I agree. I'm simply saying that MANY (not all, but many) people are pointing out 'flaws' where there are none.
I can see the frustrations with continuity problems, but I've always been one to argue that the story is what's important, not how it relates to other stories within the same canon. Look at comic books, for instance: DC is terrible right now in part because they're striving so hard to make everything canon, and when it doesn't work, they scrap the universe and start over. I like Alien, but Aliens came along, turned the Xenomorphs into pathetic horde monsters that couldn't hold their own against guys with guns. The franchise changed in both continuity and theme, but Aliens is considered to be one of the finest movies ever made, right alongside Alien.
Gaming nerds (and I do speak in a derogatory sense, here) seem so focused on whether or not stories work together, rather than whether the stories work by themselves. Halo 4 has some major issues, but most of what's in this thread is about the series canon as a whole and making sure this huge, sprawling thing, authored by dozens of people, works together, which is a silly goal. This nitpicking is what's so frustrating to me.
Storytelling's a sandbox. Ideally, stories in a series should work together, but the drama and the exploration of human themes are important, not arguments about how the composer works or why a guy isn't like he is in some related books.
I think my rant back on page 18 that talked about how certain character motivations made no sense within the scope of Halo 4's narrative, and how the game needed another act to explain things dealt with the genuinely serious issues of the game's plot moreso than some of the weird minutae people are bringing up.
NullPointer
Member
A single line of dialogue from an unknown character floating out of the sky randomly in the middle of the game is anything but "clear". But it is what goes for clarity in Halo 4.
Zeouterlimits
Member
No he didn't. He shut down the anti-air guns, as was specifically said by Laskey and Cortana.
Are you saying that DocSeuss is wrong about the (capitalized for emphasis) OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION
I don't remember the specifics. All I really remember was that the entire point of that mission was to allow the Infinity to fire the shot, because none of the other guns had an effect. It could not be fired until after you blew up whatever you were blowing up.
I admit, I loled.
I'm fairly certain it was longer than that, seeing as there was an entire cutscene dedicated to saying "The Didact wants this thing because he doesn't like people. This thing is a machine that had a good goal, but broke. It turns people into insane robots now," and then, later on, the effects of the Composer were demonstrated first hand. That is pretty clear storytelling.
If anything, the fact that it's so on-the-nose is what makes it bad storytelling. It's nothing quite so egregious as Half-Life 2's "let's lock players into a room where people will explain literally everything at them for five or ten minutes," but it is still breaking that fundamental "show, don't tell" rule of good storytelling.
Huh. I do remember thinking that didn't look like a MAC cannon at the time, but I'd forgotten that. The MACs that fire earlier in the game definitely looks different.
NullPointer
Member
This seems to be the sum total we are told of Didact, his origins and motivations and to set the stage for the rest of the game. And this is told by an unknown character that isn't referenced in any of the games, short of hidden terminals. A figure that appears out of the sky seemingly at random as you try to shut down some central turret controls.
This is intermingled with tales of Humanity at war with the Forerunner, without the reminder that we are talking of a long lost humanity, wiped out by the firing of the Halo rings.
Its quite a lot to take in at one time, and you don't have the courtesy of reading and re-reading text to make it all fit in real time and inform the gameplay.
Good storytelling would be to reinforce these notions by having other characters in the game ask the very basic and simple questions that we the player would also ask, whether in-game or as an extension to an existing cutscene. It could have been a matter of putting the player into the conversation aboard the Infinity earlier, where we could hear the Chief or Cortana explain their take of what the Librarian had said and their experience on Requiem. You know, the tales of an aging Spartan and his malfunctioning AI.
The Librarian said:
This is intermingled with tales of Humanity at war with the Forerunner, without the reminder that we are talking of a long lost humanity, wiped out by the firing of the Halo rings.
Its quite a lot to take in at one time, and you don't have the courtesy of reading and re-reading text to make it all fit in real time and inform the gameplay.
Good storytelling would be to reinforce these notions by having other characters in the game ask the very basic and simple questions that we the player would also ask, whether in-game or as an extension to an existing cutscene. It could have been a matter of putting the player into the conversation aboard the Infinity earlier, where we could hear the Chief or Cortana explain their take of what the Librarian had said and their experience on Requiem. You know, the tales of an aging Spartan and his malfunctioning AI.
For it to be important, there first needs to be some drama.
The Cortana part of the story has that covered, everything else is already nothing but continuity and insufficient explanations.
I assume it's some sort of Forerunner-engineered phasers. Looks far more like Star Trek, and they mention "batteries".
It would also explain why MAC rounds didn't work.
NullPointer
Member
bat·ter·y   [bat-uh-ree]
noun, plural bat·ter·ies.
1. Electricity .
a. Also called galvanic battery, voltaic battery. a combination of two or more cells electrically connected to work together to produce electric energy.
b. cell ( def. 7a ) .
2. any large group or series of related things: a battery of questions.
3. Military .
a. two or more pieces of artillery used for combined action.
b. a tactical unit of artillery, usually consisting of six guns together with the artillerymen, equipment, etc., required to operate them.
c. a parapet or fortification equipped with artillery.
4. a group or series of similar articles, machines, parts, etc.
5. Baseball . the pitcher and catcher considered as a unit.
They charge the batteries, smartass. Not to mention they've never used generic artillery to describe any human weapon in Halo.
NullPointer
Member
Not being a smartass - just explaining the usage of the word battery, especially in naval combat.
Those big guns on naval vessels are referred to as batteries. The Infinity is one large naval vessel in space with a pair of bug guns in front, and plenty more where that came from I'm sure.
Baller. PhD
Banned
Because that's how the military works. His rank is a "career soldier" rank (sailor, to be correct), just on the enlisted side. In the real world the enlisted and officer corps don't mix back and forth. Enlisted members can seek a commission and become and officer if they meet the prerequisites (usually a college degree + Officer Candidate School), but most don't want to. A guy like John-117 doesn't want to be directing assets from a starship up in orbit. He wants to be on the ground shootin' dudes.
Was there even a canon explanation for why UNSC's flagship has a crazy pig man face that shoots lasers out of its eyes?
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
Was there ever a canon explanation why there isn't a Buzz Lightyear statue on the bridge of the Infinity?
Cuban Legend
Member
ProtoCents
Banned
Was there even a canon explanation for why UNSC's flagship has a crazy pig man face that shoots lasers out of its eyes?
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
Gauss cannons are MAC guns.
Magnetically accelerated cannon.
The infinity is made up of reverse engineered forerunner tech, the engines and probably those guns are forerunner stuff slapped on a UNSC ship frame.
AdmiralSnackbar
Member
Thanks, but I'm hardly the first one to do it, and I feel like I should give credit where credit is due:
PromKnight69 said:FIRST!!!1!
When your ship's mass is big enough to hold a fleet of soldiers and vehicles and just ram through every other currently known form of starship, how big a priority is a cannon, really?
Very when you live in a universe that has giant ring worlds that are weapons that up until five years ago you didn't know existed, parasitic aliens that are controlled by a apparently eternal and all knowing planet monster and on top of this it's implied that there were civilizations that might have remnants still around that are even more powerful then all current civilizations. I'd say a big cannon is sort of important.
BuckRobotron
Member
Just finished second playthrough, got to see my Legendary "Chief eyes" directly rather than just on YT. And one of the few things I knocked previously--Master Chief's last line (after Lasky left him alone)--actually didn't seem as awkward to me this time.
Might do that current Campaign challenge of Requiem/solo/Legendary before setting it aside for a bit.
Might do that current Campaign challenge of Requiem/solo/Legendary before setting it aside for a bit.
It's only awkward IMO because he (apparently) says it to himself. They should've shown Lasky walking away in the foreground and pause for a bit when Chief says it.
NullPointer
Member
BuckRobotron
Member
Indeed, that was the main reason it specifically came off as awkward, whereas I welcomed all his other speaking moments (talking to Cortana or others). Still so, but it didn't bother me as much this second time through the scene.
NobleGundam
Banned
Would like this abit explained in Silentium. The Librarian leaving a log of her work while being last on Earth or Dr. Halsey testing Chiefs abnormalities within his DNA?