Post by Devil Mingy on Jun 2, 2016 21:52:14 GMT -5
"Ah, but I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now."
Greetings. Welcome to another of my indulgent retrospectives.
Some of the more astute forum-goers might have picked up that I'm a fan of the Halo series. I am also a fan of googling my username and seeing all the things I've written over the years that have been archived. To build up my own hype for the release of Halo's SPV3 mod later this month, I am going to revisit some of my older Halo-related walls of text and reflect on how much (or how little) my perspective has changed with time.
I shall begin with three blog posts I wrote up in the middle of 2013 back on HTL. The first one was just a scattershot of things about Halo's storytelling that bugged me, capped off with an optimistic hope for future stories.
Not sure why I used an Uncharted title and quote for a Halo article.
Ah, my horribly muddled opinion on retcons. I still stand by it, though; retcons are irksome, but I am more than willing to excuse them if I get something good out of them. As for the main issue myself, I still stand by those examples with the exception of the Halo 4 Covenant. In light of Halo 5, I see it as less of a retcon of Halo 3's resolution and more of a sign of 343's own lack of direction with what to do with the Covenant. The Kilo-Five trilogy (and a few novels since) teased this very fragmented society populated with a bunch of different splinter groups vying for control in the power vacuum left behind, with Jul Mdama's Storm Covenant being only one of many factions. While this could have been used to change things up by giving us familiar enemies in different roles (imagine a Grunt squad leader with shields or a Jackal Grenadier or Drone Snipers. Hell, imagine them utilizing human weapons and even human manpower to help their causes), the game decided to play it safe and basically give us the Halo version of the First Order. Halo 5 muddles it even further by seeming to get rid of all of these splinter groups and make Jul's group the be-all-end-all alien enemy, fully under the banner of "The Covenant". It feels less like story justifying gameplay and more gameplay justifying a story.
I have nothing else to add here. I'm still not a big fan of 343's art direction in Halo, and I actually feel it has continued to deteriorate.
Well, my confidence did not serve me. Not only did we get Blue Team in Escalation and Halo 5, but Initiation and New Blood shows us Jun's new role as a recruiter for the Spartan IV program (though where he's been since the Fall of Reach is still a mystery), and Black Team got to show up again and be killed off to show us that the bad guy in a 3 part comic book arc was fo'serious, yo.
So hey, maybe we will see Grey Team and the Committee make a comeback. I'd love the Committee to come back just to comment on how batshit stupid Cortana's plan is. Fingers crossed.
Oh boy, what to even say about this in regards to Halo 5? Halo 5 encapsulated the worse of both scenarios, requiring massive amounts of backstory to get anything out of the characters while asking you to discard a lot of the backstory that lead up to the plot. By comparison, my issue with the Covenant's introduction in Halo 4 almost seems pedantic.
In this regard, 343 has definitely learned a lesson. All of the required tie-in material was released well before the game launched, and there has been no major lore addition since that feels like it'd retroactively improve my opinion of the story (for better or worse). The tie-in material was a pretty mixed bag, but the good stuff was really, really good.
Man, I almost forgot Spielberg was set to do a Halo series. What happened to that? Anyway, my closing optimism has shattered a bit under what I perceive to be a lack of foresight and planning that really showed itself in Halo 5 (as well as a less than solid gameplay experience that, frankly, got a tad worse with the lastest patch), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in what Fractured and Tales From Slipspace give us.
Greetings. Welcome to another of my indulgent retrospectives.
Some of the more astute forum-goers might have picked up that I'm a fan of the Halo series. I am also a fan of googling my username and seeing all the things I've written over the years that have been archived. To build up my own hype for the release of Halo's SPV3 mod later this month, I am going to revisit some of my older Halo-related walls of text and reflect on how much (or how little) my perspective has changed with time.
I shall begin with three blog posts I wrote up in the middle of 2013 back on HTL. The first one was just a scattershot of things about Halo's storytelling that bugged me, capped off with an optimistic hope for future stories.
SIC PARVIS MAGNA: My Thoughts on Halo and its Extended Universe.
Posted July 7, 2013
Posted July 7, 2013
“Real greatness is what you do with the hand you're dealt.”
It began with a simple game and a tie-in novel. When Halo truly captured my imagination, that is all that it was. It's quite interesting to see things change so much over ten years. To this day, I still find the Halo universe to be an incredibly engrossing experience. However, I also acknowledge that my love for Halo's story is in spite of its many flaws. Sometimes, the developers are unable to craft a story that goes along with the fun, fast-paced shooting experience they want to craft, and this inability to compromise between the two leaves the writers to resort to convolution in order to justify the changes.
So please, dear reader, join me on my Great Journey through what I hate about what I love, from least destructive to most.
It began with a simple game and a tie-in novel. When Halo truly captured my imagination, that is all that it was. It's quite interesting to see things change so much over ten years. To this day, I still find the Halo universe to be an incredibly engrossing experience. However, I also acknowledge that my love for Halo's story is in spite of its many flaws. Sometimes, the developers are unable to craft a story that goes along with the fun, fast-paced shooting experience they want to craft, and this inability to compromise between the two leaves the writers to resort to convolution in order to justify the changes.
So please, dear reader, join me on my Great Journey through what I hate about what I love, from least destructive to most.
Not sure why I used an Uncharted title and quote for a Halo article.
-GAMEPLAY-STORY SEGREGATION... MINUS THE SEGREGATION
A sci-fi first-person shooter is going to play fast and loose with some rules for the sake of fun. That should surprise nobody and be expected, not just from this genre but from many. It's why questions such as “why can't I carry three weapons when I can flip a tank?” are treated the same way a Final Fantasy fan treats “Why didn't Cloud just use Phoenix Down on Aeris?”. A video game's suspension of disbelief has a built-in filter for certain game design elements. Some games like to immerse the player more, giving gameplay elements a lore-based justification. It's a great way to add verisimilitude to the universe. The problem lies when they want the gameplay to go one way and the story to go another, but they've already committed themselves in the lore.
In the first game, the Covenant only used Covenant weaponry. It's not uncommon for enemies in shooters to utilize their own weapons, especially a series like Halo where the weapons have an identity and, for lack of a better word, culture of their own. In Fall of Reach, it was added that the Covenant are so fanatical that they refuse to use primitive human weaponry even if it costs them their lives.
Flash forward to Halo 2, where the ability to swap weapons with your allies is added. This is combined with levels where you primarily fight the Flood and humans weapons are added simply because they're a needed variety. The problem is that these levels have you play as a Covenant Elite, the Arbiter. Rather than disable human weapons for Covenant allies, they kept it simple and just let the Covenant use them. Later on, we fight the Brutes, a new species of the Covenant. Because Halo 2 was somewhat rushed, the Brute shotgun wasn't completed (it would make it into Halo 3 as the Mauler, however). Rather than modify all Brute encounters to account for the fact they no longer have a close range weapon, they decided to just let the Brutes use the human shotgun. The Limited Edition instruction manual (written in Covenant perspective) adds some lip service to this, but not much else.
Speaking of Halo 2, the game ends with a civil war amongst the Covenant, with Brutes, Jackals, and Drones fighting Elites, Hunters, and Grunts. However, come Halo 3, the Grunts and Hunters are back siding with the Brutes, justified in fanon as “splinter groups” despite the fact that allied Hunters and Grunts are never seen. The real reason, of course, was because Grunts and Hunters were far more entertaining as enemies than as allies, story be damned.
And if you think dropping that story seemed short-sighted, look at Halo 4. Halo 4 undoes the entire premise of Halo 3, finishing the fight against the Covenant, for no other reason than because you can't have a Halo game without the Covenant, apparently. Truth be told, I'm kinda glad they did, as the Prometheans definitely couldn't hold the entire game on their own, but it definitely makes me wonder why they thought having their new trilogy begin best by rehashing the conflict from the old trilogy.
I'm going to mention one thing that often comes up in canon debates, and that is my stance on retcons. Retcons (Retroactive continuity- the process of fictional history re-writing itself as times goes on) are inevitable, in particular with a series that wasn't planned out from the start. I understand that and generally don't mind if the change is justified with a new, good story. I wasn't too bothered by seeing Elites and Hunters in Halo Wars, nor did I care that much about the Pillar of Autumn being on the planet during Reach. Nope, retcons do not inherently bother me.
That being said, however, the reason for criticizing these retcons despite believing they justify their means is that a number of retcons seem to stem from hastily trying to undo a corner they previously painted themselves into. While I fully understand the necessity to not live under the shackles of previous stories (especially if they were written by other people), it also shows a blatant disregard for previous lore and implies that details are meaningless as they are privy to change at any point. I'd be far more impressed if they took the restrictions and make their story work around them instead of just tossing aside everything they don't like.
A sci-fi first-person shooter is going to play fast and loose with some rules for the sake of fun. That should surprise nobody and be expected, not just from this genre but from many. It's why questions such as “why can't I carry three weapons when I can flip a tank?” are treated the same way a Final Fantasy fan treats “Why didn't Cloud just use Phoenix Down on Aeris?”. A video game's suspension of disbelief has a built-in filter for certain game design elements. Some games like to immerse the player more, giving gameplay elements a lore-based justification. It's a great way to add verisimilitude to the universe. The problem lies when they want the gameplay to go one way and the story to go another, but they've already committed themselves in the lore.
In the first game, the Covenant only used Covenant weaponry. It's not uncommon for enemies in shooters to utilize their own weapons, especially a series like Halo where the weapons have an identity and, for lack of a better word, culture of their own. In Fall of Reach, it was added that the Covenant are so fanatical that they refuse to use primitive human weaponry even if it costs them their lives.
Flash forward to Halo 2, where the ability to swap weapons with your allies is added. This is combined with levels where you primarily fight the Flood and humans weapons are added simply because they're a needed variety. The problem is that these levels have you play as a Covenant Elite, the Arbiter. Rather than disable human weapons for Covenant allies, they kept it simple and just let the Covenant use them. Later on, we fight the Brutes, a new species of the Covenant. Because Halo 2 was somewhat rushed, the Brute shotgun wasn't completed (it would make it into Halo 3 as the Mauler, however). Rather than modify all Brute encounters to account for the fact they no longer have a close range weapon, they decided to just let the Brutes use the human shotgun. The Limited Edition instruction manual (written in Covenant perspective) adds some lip service to this, but not much else.
Speaking of Halo 2, the game ends with a civil war amongst the Covenant, with Brutes, Jackals, and Drones fighting Elites, Hunters, and Grunts. However, come Halo 3, the Grunts and Hunters are back siding with the Brutes, justified in fanon as “splinter groups” despite the fact that allied Hunters and Grunts are never seen. The real reason, of course, was because Grunts and Hunters were far more entertaining as enemies than as allies, story be damned.
And if you think dropping that story seemed short-sighted, look at Halo 4. Halo 4 undoes the entire premise of Halo 3, finishing the fight against the Covenant, for no other reason than because you can't have a Halo game without the Covenant, apparently. Truth be told, I'm kinda glad they did, as the Prometheans definitely couldn't hold the entire game on their own, but it definitely makes me wonder why they thought having their new trilogy begin best by rehashing the conflict from the old trilogy.
I'm going to mention one thing that often comes up in canon debates, and that is my stance on retcons. Retcons (Retroactive continuity- the process of fictional history re-writing itself as times goes on) are inevitable, in particular with a series that wasn't planned out from the start. I understand that and generally don't mind if the change is justified with a new, good story. I wasn't too bothered by seeing Elites and Hunters in Halo Wars, nor did I care that much about the Pillar of Autumn being on the planet during Reach. Nope, retcons do not inherently bother me.
That being said, however, the reason for criticizing these retcons despite believing they justify their means is that a number of retcons seem to stem from hastily trying to undo a corner they previously painted themselves into. While I fully understand the necessity to not live under the shackles of previous stories (especially if they were written by other people), it also shows a blatant disregard for previous lore and implies that details are meaningless as they are privy to change at any point. I'd be far more impressed if they took the restrictions and make their story work around them instead of just tossing aside everything they don't like.
Ah, my horribly muddled opinion on retcons. I still stand by it, though; retcons are irksome, but I am more than willing to excuse them if I get something good out of them. As for the main issue myself, I still stand by those examples with the exception of the Halo 4 Covenant. In light of Halo 5, I see it as less of a retcon of Halo 3's resolution and more of a sign of 343's own lack of direction with what to do with the Covenant. The Kilo-Five trilogy (and a few novels since) teased this very fragmented society populated with a bunch of different splinter groups vying for control in the power vacuum left behind, with Jul Mdama's Storm Covenant being only one of many factions. While this could have been used to change things up by giving us familiar enemies in different roles (imagine a Grunt squad leader with shields or a Jackal Grenadier or Drone Snipers. Hell, imagine them utilizing human weapons and even human manpower to help their causes), the game decided to play it safe and basically give us the Halo version of the First Order. Halo 5 muddles it even further by seeming to get rid of all of these splinter groups and make Jul's group the be-all-end-all alien enemy, fully under the banner of "The Covenant". It feels less like story justifying gameplay and more gameplay justifying a story.
-ARTISTIC FLAIR
Like gameplay-story segregation, the audience is at least passively familiar to the idea that different people draw things differently, especially across different genres. There is nothing wrong with that, at least not until the art design is so at odds with what the audience knows from the story that it breaks suspension of disbelief.
Armor permutations were introduced in Halo 3 in an attempt to further customize multiplayer characters, and was popular enough to be expanded upon further and further each game. However, from a story standpoint, the Spartans looking nearly identical in armor was practically one of their defining features, mentioned several times in the first three novels. Had the armor permutations stayed within multiplayer's “nothing really has to be canon” territory, it would've been fine. However, they had to give them a place in the universe... yes, even Hayabusa.
But I could swallow this retcon if they at least kept the default armor appearance consistent. The Mark V and VI default has stayed true to form if only due to being iconic. However, the Mark IV's default appearance seems to change every other day. First, it was exactly like the Mark V. Then, Halo Wars had its own render that was treated as the new canon for a while. Then, Halo Legends and Forward Unto Dawn gave us a new Master Chief in a Mark IV that looked like a poorly drawn Mark VI. This was widely accepted until Halo 4's prologue showed him and other Spartans wearing armor nearly identical to the Chief's Halo 4 armor. This could've easily been hand-waved as the cinema director being lazy and only using one Spartan model... until the Halo 4 Visual Guide had to explain that Cortana modeled the upgraded Mark VI he wears in Halo 4 after a MJOLNIR Mark IV variant... a variant that he apparently wore while fighting through Kenya in Halo 3, too.
And where do I even begin with some of the Covenant redesigns? Those poor Jackals.
Like gameplay-story segregation, the audience is at least passively familiar to the idea that different people draw things differently, especially across different genres. There is nothing wrong with that, at least not until the art design is so at odds with what the audience knows from the story that it breaks suspension of disbelief.
Armor permutations were introduced in Halo 3 in an attempt to further customize multiplayer characters, and was popular enough to be expanded upon further and further each game. However, from a story standpoint, the Spartans looking nearly identical in armor was practically one of their defining features, mentioned several times in the first three novels. Had the armor permutations stayed within multiplayer's “nothing really has to be canon” territory, it would've been fine. However, they had to give them a place in the universe... yes, even Hayabusa.
But I could swallow this retcon if they at least kept the default armor appearance consistent. The Mark V and VI default has stayed true to form if only due to being iconic. However, the Mark IV's default appearance seems to change every other day. First, it was exactly like the Mark V. Then, Halo Wars had its own render that was treated as the new canon for a while. Then, Halo Legends and Forward Unto Dawn gave us a new Master Chief in a Mark IV that looked like a poorly drawn Mark VI. This was widely accepted until Halo 4's prologue showed him and other Spartans wearing armor nearly identical to the Chief's Halo 4 armor. This could've easily been hand-waved as the cinema director being lazy and only using one Spartan model... until the Halo 4 Visual Guide had to explain that Cortana modeled the upgraded Mark VI he wears in Halo 4 after a MJOLNIR Mark IV variant... a variant that he apparently wore while fighting through Kenya in Halo 3, too.
And where do I even begin with some of the Covenant redesigns? Those poor Jackals.
I have nothing else to add here. I'm still not a big fan of 343's art direction in Halo, and I actually feel it has continued to deteriorate.
-NOT FINISHING THIS FIGHT
Having a lot going on is a fine staple of a universe that feels huge and alive. However, it's the worst enemy to a story writer, because it all represents loose ends that need to be addressed and tied up sooner or later... unless you're a writer these days. Then you just ignore the loose ends, focus on another story, and hope your fans forget all about it.
I know that Blue Team's fate and the rest of the Spartan IIIs will probably never be addressed, and the Chief will never be seen asking about them. I read between the lines in Glasslands, 343 wants them out of the way as quickly as possible. Still, a passing mention is better than no mention at all, which is what we've got for the fate of Jun, Black Team, and Gray Team. Same with Reach's Data Pads and the implications of the Committee. To say nothing of one of the things that has bugged me from nearly 10 years: How did Regret find Delta Halo's location? Did part of the Ark portal give it to him? Did Truth get it from 343 Guilty Spark and text him the coordinates? If so, how did 343 Guilty Spark know where Delta Halo was if the Forerunner compartmentalized what he was allowed to know?
Now, the funny thing about this is that this complaint could easily be unfounded. 343 Industries could release a few shorts tomorrow that explain everything I asked. However, I'm certain that it won't happen, because 343 Industries has no interest in telling those stories now. To show my confidence, I will keep this section of the blog unedited from here on out. (Amended and confirmed by Devil Mingy, 7/8/13 @ 12:16 EST)
Having a lot going on is a fine staple of a universe that feels huge and alive. However, it's the worst enemy to a story writer, because it all represents loose ends that need to be addressed and tied up sooner or later... unless you're a writer these days. Then you just ignore the loose ends, focus on another story, and hope your fans forget all about it.
I know that Blue Team's fate and the rest of the Spartan IIIs will probably never be addressed, and the Chief will never be seen asking about them. I read between the lines in Glasslands, 343 wants them out of the way as quickly as possible. Still, a passing mention is better than no mention at all, which is what we've got for the fate of Jun, Black Team, and Gray Team. Same with Reach's Data Pads and the implications of the Committee. To say nothing of one of the things that has bugged me from nearly 10 years: How did Regret find Delta Halo's location? Did part of the Ark portal give it to him? Did Truth get it from 343 Guilty Spark and text him the coordinates? If so, how did 343 Guilty Spark know where Delta Halo was if the Forerunner compartmentalized what he was allowed to know?
Now, the funny thing about this is that this complaint could easily be unfounded. 343 Industries could release a few shorts tomorrow that explain everything I asked. However, I'm certain that it won't happen, because 343 Industries has no interest in telling those stories now. To show my confidence, I will keep this section of the blog unedited from here on out. (Amended and confirmed by Devil Mingy, 7/8/13 @ 12:16 EST)
Well, my confidence did not serve me. Not only did we get Blue Team in Escalation and Halo 5, but Initiation and New Blood shows us Jun's new role as a recruiter for the Spartan IV program (though where he's been since the Fall of Reach is still a mystery), and Black Team got to show up again and be killed off to show us that the bad guy in a 3 part comic book arc was fo'serious, yo.
So hey, maybe we will see Grey Team and the Committee make a comeback. I'd love the Committee to come back just to comment on how batshit stupid Cortana's plan is. Fingers crossed.
-ALL THERE IN THE MANUAL... EXCEPT IT'S WRONG NOW
If there is one thing that I have hated in any franchise, it's when self-contained stories begin to fade away as the continuity begins to rely on itself more and more. Halo started out admirably enough, doing its best to ignore the EU in the games while still keeping them telling stories. Sure, not seeing other Spartans in Halo 2 was irksome, but enough was going on that it didn't detrimentally affect the story. However, Halo 3's minimalistic approach forced the tie-ins to pick up a lot of slack, the oft delayed Uprising having to bridge a gap much more necessary than First Strike. Thankfully, it still told its own self-contained story, even if the Cortana parts seemed random to anybody who hadn't read Fall of Reach.
So, the expanded universe is slowly becoming required reading. What was Bungie's solution to this problem for Halo: Reach? Well, for starts, Halo: Reach re-writes the majority of events, not flat out ignoring them (as that would be simple) but changing their timeline and locations to be completely incompatible with previous events. Fans of the novel were pissed and rightly so.
But my personal (least) favorite comes from Halo Legends and its Origins short. Cortana simplifies the last part of Halo 3 as Covenant and humanity fighting side by side against the Flood. Now, at the time, this did not bother me, because Cortana wasn't there through Halo 3. All she saw was the Arbiter and a bunch of Elites helping the Chief, so inferring that there was a truce was a reasonable, if not naive, assumption. However, it became a problem the moment Halo 4 decided that it was, in fact, a truce with the whole Covenant. The Chief and Cortana seem to think so, and it surprised them when one of Mdama's Elites attacked him on Dawn. It could have been a simplified line for the audience's benefit to justify all future Covenant encounters, but something as important as a truce (not a temporary alliance and cease-fire, as the Chief would've been aware of) with not only Elites, but with all Covenant should've been addressed... especially since Spartan Assault's trailer says the same thing, and Drones and Brutes are back as enemies in that one.
Halo is one of the few franchises that is actually less confusing the less you know.
If there is one thing that I have hated in any franchise, it's when self-contained stories begin to fade away as the continuity begins to rely on itself more and more. Halo started out admirably enough, doing its best to ignore the EU in the games while still keeping them telling stories. Sure, not seeing other Spartans in Halo 2 was irksome, but enough was going on that it didn't detrimentally affect the story. However, Halo 3's minimalistic approach forced the tie-ins to pick up a lot of slack, the oft delayed Uprising having to bridge a gap much more necessary than First Strike. Thankfully, it still told its own self-contained story, even if the Cortana parts seemed random to anybody who hadn't read Fall of Reach.
So, the expanded universe is slowly becoming required reading. What was Bungie's solution to this problem for Halo: Reach? Well, for starts, Halo: Reach re-writes the majority of events, not flat out ignoring them (as that would be simple) but changing their timeline and locations to be completely incompatible with previous events. Fans of the novel were pissed and rightly so.
But my personal (least) favorite comes from Halo Legends and its Origins short. Cortana simplifies the last part of Halo 3 as Covenant and humanity fighting side by side against the Flood. Now, at the time, this did not bother me, because Cortana wasn't there through Halo 3. All she saw was the Arbiter and a bunch of Elites helping the Chief, so inferring that there was a truce was a reasonable, if not naive, assumption. However, it became a problem the moment Halo 4 decided that it was, in fact, a truce with the whole Covenant. The Chief and Cortana seem to think so, and it surprised them when one of Mdama's Elites attacked him on Dawn. It could have been a simplified line for the audience's benefit to justify all future Covenant encounters, but something as important as a truce (not a temporary alliance and cease-fire, as the Chief would've been aware of) with not only Elites, but with all Covenant should've been addressed... especially since Spartan Assault's trailer says the same thing, and Drones and Brutes are back as enemies in that one.
Halo is one of the few franchises that is actually less confusing the less you know.
Oh boy, what to even say about this in regards to Halo 5? Halo 5 encapsulated the worse of both scenarios, requiring massive amounts of backstory to get anything out of the characters while asking you to discard a lot of the backstory that lead up to the plot. By comparison, my issue with the Covenant's introduction in Halo 4 almost seems pedantic.
-HOPING THE HORSE CATCHES UP TO THE CART
For those unaware, Halo: Spartan Assault is coming out this month. Over the course of the next few months, Dark Horse comics will be releasing a comic series that serves as a prequel to it. Combined, both of these works will add depth to the character Sarah Palmer, allegedly providing valuable character growth and showing us how she became the Spartan she is in Halo 4 and Spartan Ops... whatever the hell that means.
Shouldn't this have been something that happened close to Halo 4's release, if not before? This is not a problem isolated to Palmer, either. 343 Industries admitted that part of the reason the Didact wasn't as well-received as a villain is because they left a lot of his motivation to tie-in material. Of course, that's only half the problem. If you could get insight into his character from just the terminals on Waypoint, that'd be something else. However, a major part of his character (including his fucking identity for fans of the novels) is only revealed in Silentium, a novel released FOUR MONTHS AFTER Halo 4 came out.
This wasn't an accident, either. 343 Industries designed two novel trilogies to bridge the gap to Halo 4. One trilogy would follow the Forerunners and one would follow the galaxy post-Halo 3. They would then theoretically meet in the middle at Halo 4. However, 343 Industries scheduled their release dates so that only 2/3s of each trilogy would be completed by Halo 4's release. Why? Who the hell knows. This is especially curious since Forward Unto Dawn provides great insight into the character of Tom Lasky, and 343 didn't have to release the last part of the series months after Halo 4's release date either.
Oh, and that other trilogy? It seems to be setting up the new Covenant and its leader, Jul 'Mdama. The third and final part, which is likely very helpful in connecting the dots between the novel's pragmatic, revenge-driven Jul and the run-of-the-mill zealot we see in Spartan Ops, is still not out yet, with no release in the foreseeable future.
EDIT: Wow, do I have great timing or what? The conclusion, the pretentiously titled Mortal Dictata, will come out in January. Thanks for the info, Young Sandwich.
EDIT Prime: And before anybody comments, I know what it's a reference to. That's part of what makes it so pretentious.
They should've given this to the character in the game rather than in tie-in materials released a year later. Maybe the characters wouldn't need a whole bunch of side-stories if they worked to make them good characters in the main story. Then, fans would be enthusiastic about additional side-stories about them because it'd be about characters they already know and like.
Now, to be fair, Bungie made the same mistake with Halo: Uprising, but at least that was unintentional. It was intended to be finished prior to Halo 3's release, but was delayed due to story changes (apparently, the key of Osonalon was actually supposed to be something in the earlier drafts). ODST's tie-in comic, Helljumper, came out almost entirely before ODST and expanded on characters that already had some substance. It's a nice side-story but completely unnecessary to appreciating ODST for what it was. That's how it's done right.
For those unaware, Halo: Spartan Assault is coming out this month. Over the course of the next few months, Dark Horse comics will be releasing a comic series that serves as a prequel to it. Combined, both of these works will add depth to the character Sarah Palmer, allegedly providing valuable character growth and showing us how she became the Spartan she is in Halo 4 and Spartan Ops... whatever the hell that means.
Shouldn't this have been something that happened close to Halo 4's release, if not before? This is not a problem isolated to Palmer, either. 343 Industries admitted that part of the reason the Didact wasn't as well-received as a villain is because they left a lot of his motivation to tie-in material. Of course, that's only half the problem. If you could get insight into his character from just the terminals on Waypoint, that'd be something else. However, a major part of his character (including his fucking identity for fans of the novels) is only revealed in Silentium, a novel released FOUR MONTHS AFTER Halo 4 came out.
This wasn't an accident, either. 343 Industries designed two novel trilogies to bridge the gap to Halo 4. One trilogy would follow the Forerunners and one would follow the galaxy post-Halo 3. They would then theoretically meet in the middle at Halo 4. However, 343 Industries scheduled their release dates so that only 2/3s of each trilogy would be completed by Halo 4's release. Why? Who the hell knows. This is especially curious since Forward Unto Dawn provides great insight into the character of Tom Lasky, and 343 didn't have to release the last part of the series months after Halo 4's release date either.
Oh, and that other trilogy? It seems to be setting up the new Covenant and its leader, Jul 'Mdama. The third and final part, which is likely very helpful in connecting the dots between the novel's pragmatic, revenge-driven Jul and the run-of-the-mill zealot we see in Spartan Ops, is still not out yet, with no release in the foreseeable future.
EDIT: Wow, do I have great timing or what? The conclusion, the pretentiously titled Mortal Dictata, will come out in January. Thanks for the info, Young Sandwich.
EDIT Prime: And before anybody comments, I know what it's a reference to. That's part of what makes it so pretentious.
They should've given this to the character in the game rather than in tie-in materials released a year later. Maybe the characters wouldn't need a whole bunch of side-stories if they worked to make them good characters in the main story. Then, fans would be enthusiastic about additional side-stories about them because it'd be about characters they already know and like.
Now, to be fair, Bungie made the same mistake with Halo: Uprising, but at least that was unintentional. It was intended to be finished prior to Halo 3's release, but was delayed due to story changes (apparently, the key of Osonalon was actually supposed to be something in the earlier drafts). ODST's tie-in comic, Helljumper, came out almost entirely before ODST and expanded on characters that already had some substance. It's a nice side-story but completely unnecessary to appreciating ODST for what it was. That's how it's done right.
In this regard, 343 has definitely learned a lesson. All of the required tie-in material was released well before the game launched, and there has been no major lore addition since that feels like it'd retroactively improve my opinion of the story (for better or worse). The tie-in material was a pretty mixed bag, but the good stuff was really, really good.
-A SINGLE STEP
So, what does Halo's future look like? Honestly, it'll probably be more of the same. With a game on the Xbox One coming out in 2014 in addition to a Spielberg-helmed TV series, Halo's story is far from over. And with it, all of the good of exciting new adventures and the bad of convoluted messes caused by poorly thought out attempts to make certain stories work despite pre-established circumstances.
Overall, I would still say that it's a net positive. While I am disappointed by some of the short-cuts taken to make a good gameplay experience, I still applaud the solid gameplay experience. And while the story is inconsistent and goes in some weird directions, I always leave entertained. I look forward to the future of Halo, and will continue to do so until the quality is such that I no longer enjoy exploring the universe, a scenario I don't see happening for a long time.
I just hope to God he doesn't wear that damn cloak in Halo 5.
So, what does Halo's future look like? Honestly, it'll probably be more of the same. With a game on the Xbox One coming out in 2014 in addition to a Spielberg-helmed TV series, Halo's story is far from over. And with it, all of the good of exciting new adventures and the bad of convoluted messes caused by poorly thought out attempts to make certain stories work despite pre-established circumstances.
Overall, I would still say that it's a net positive. While I am disappointed by some of the short-cuts taken to make a good gameplay experience, I still applaud the solid gameplay experience. And while the story is inconsistent and goes in some weird directions, I always leave entertained. I look forward to the future of Halo, and will continue to do so until the quality is such that I no longer enjoy exploring the universe, a scenario I don't see happening for a long time.
I just hope to God he doesn't wear that damn cloak in Halo 5.
Man, I almost forgot Spielberg was set to do a Halo series. What happened to that? Anyway, my closing optimism has shattered a bit under what I perceive to be a lack of foresight and planning that really showed itself in Halo 5 (as well as a less than solid gameplay experience that, frankly, got a tad worse with the lastest patch), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in what Fractured and Tales From Slipspace give us.