Thought I would share sentiments I also posted at HBO on the new look.
If I may...
From the 2.15.12 Bulletin:
"Typically, from Halo to Halo, the Master Chiefs armor has changed and adapted, and there have been fictional reasons why. With Halo 4, were taking a different approach and focusing on the storytelling aspects of art from the design standpoint. We dont do that everywhere in the game, but we wanted to take this opportunity to really focus on him as a human being...
...When we first looked at the Chiefs armor, we studied what was done in Reach. We knew he needed to be understood as a nimble yet heavy superhero, and contrast that with Reach armor design that was more on the bulky side. Our goal is to hit that sweet spot where we represent what is fictionally true about the Chief while making sure you feel like youre a super-powerful human being when you're playing him."
(emphasis mine)
While I certainly understand the idea behind the general idea of what is being said, I feel like there is a pretty precarious balance here. Halo is a Universe that for many of us, has its story told through its visual details. We hang onto things like the technical look of Chief's armor, the the visual details of a ship like the 'Dawn.
If you told me the MC we've seen so far was Mk VII for example, problem SOLVED. But saying that it's the same armor but with much more vastly differences than what we saw say from H2-H3... That kinda sucks. I know it seems silly... but we LOVE those details. I don't look at an F-16 and an F-22 and say "That's a fighter jet... and that's also a fighter jet." I say "That one's an F-16 and has these attributes, and this one is an F-22 and has these..." The details matter.
Now, I am for one am still holding as much judgement as possible until we see the "true" product (game). But at the same time, I would love to know just one thing, straight up, without any pre-launch artistic vision metaphors...
Will there be a fictionally-viable reason for the change in Chief's armor?
Not an artistic one. Not a narrative-feeling-experience one. A Halo story-bible sanctioned Loftonian-worthy technical reason.
I thought that I had heard a few months back that there WAS going to be one, and I was comfortable with that. But recently it feels like there are mixed signals. I would just like to know. Even if you can't answer like this, here, in a forum... perhaps it can be made known when you next decide to reveal further details on the game?
I think part of what perplexes me is imagining the type of wholesale effect this would have on the franchise even from an ancillary standpoint. For example, when you say "represent what is fictionally true about the Chief." I assume that this is dead-on canon. Artistic expression is for Legends (which I really liked, btw, for exactly the role it was meant to fill), not for the new trilogy that is going to championing and flagshipping the next ten years of the franchise.
Let's take for example whatever next iteration of the Encyclopedia or Visual Guide... which Mk. VI Master Chief would they show? Would there be two pics, one for "what he really looks like" and one for "how he is supposed to make you feel"? It should be iconic and consistent, it shouldn't rewrite what we know wholesale. This isn't a reboot, this is a continuation.
I also have the awful feeling that what I'm saying is being read by some (read: 343) with a far more negative and combative tone that I mean. I'm not trying to bury the game before it's shown, not by a long shot. I'm just curious about some of the verbiage used in these latest talks of artistic vision. This franchise and it's story and believable universe are important to me. Lately I feel like I've sat by and observed, and not taken the proper time to share and discuss my thoughts with the community, both those optimistic and those apprehensive.
Apologies if my asking seems out of place. I do only because the details of this intangible universe are quite tangible to me.
<3
Grim