Too bad the game is 7 months away... At least in 2 months we will get to see an actual trailer for the game.

The team for Halo 4 seems to be redoing all of its sounds and music. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/04/25/gadgets-guns-and-devils-the-sound-design-of-halo-4.aspx

I haven't watched it yet, but the title seems interesting.

After waiting for 12 years for Duke Nukem Forever (and yes I enjoy the heck out of that game) 7 months isn't to bad for it's release. Who knows maybe by then they'll have a cool collector's edition. I'm looking forward to the trailer .

Never much cared for the Halo series as a whole, really. The story started off good in Combat Evolved but devolved into meaningless garbage when Halo 2 rolled around. Halo 3 did a better job with the story but Halo 2 had already done enough damage that the plot as a whole was rendered senseless.

But the story for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_Trilogy is just awesome. Honestly, I've always felt that the lore in those games rival even that of the Elder Scrolls series:

From the nits and pieces of info released so far I am some what convinced the new halo trioligy will just about be superior in everything than the previous trilogy.

Not to sure what you mean by halo 2 ruined the story, if it's about the arbiter or something, maybe you're just confused.

I too am curious as to how Halo 2 ruined the story. Covenant and Master Chief working together at the end or something? Prophets?

I do like the Lore in Halo but haven't read enough books to judge whether it is as good as TES lore. Even if I had I doubt I would agree that it is.

Better lore as in the amount? In that case I really have no idea. If its about being interesting or something like that it would just be subjective as they are completely different.

I'm not confused. Halo 2's story svcked, that's all there is to it.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravemind#Reception for example was just a horrible addition to the series.

But there is more too it, you just say it svcked, and offered one reason. The idea of the gravemind is not bad considering what the flood is, but I partly agree with you and think it was introduced rather poorly, but other than that a gravemind is a good addition. Wiping out galaxies won't just happen by just wandering around, the flood need graveminds to be somewhat co-ordinated.

I could dig for more if I really cared, but I don't. Sorry.

No one's arguing that a collective conciousness would perhaps be fitting for a race of creatures like the Flood, but the Gravemind as a character was nonetheless executed very poorly and nothing can save him from that fact.

That's a faulty assertion. The Gravemind in fact was not a necessary addition to the story and only succeeded in needlessly complicating and confusing players, as the article I linked to you clearly pointed out.

This is all your opinion. And a few other people's opinions. You aren't wrong. It's just a matter of taste.

Without the gravemind the flood can't think. If they can't think, they can't spread effectively.

I'm not a fan of the gravemind per se, but it doesn't really ruin the story or the lore. To me.

1. Like I said I agree, the character was poorly introduced and designed. But the general idea of graveminds is not a bad one for the series, to me it makes complete sense, we just happen to see a poorly designed one.

2. Without the Gravemind what are the flood? For a goal such as wiping out an entire galaxy of life seems to require more than just aimlessly hoping to find something. The Gravemind is a good idea, Halo 2 was just a poor example, but other times it is used it is used rather well.

But one example does not make the story completely bad.

Part right, part wrong. There's definite good writing and definite bad writing, and Gravemind is one example of the latter.

What you're saying is that it was necessary for Bungie to create Gravemind because Bungie told us that the flood needs Gravemind. That does not explain why Bungie decided to dream up a Gravemind in the first place.

When you dream up original characters and write them into a story, your original conceptions are just that - original, with no real "reason" for their existence. They just exist. Logic and explanations follow from there. Not the other way around.

That said, Bungie could have done anything they wanted with the Flood. They could have explained their purpose and their methods any way they wanted or they could have left them completely unexplained.

Right. And this is inexcusable. It's an example of bad writing, a bad story element. It's one piece of the greater puzzle that is, "Why does Halo 2's story svck?"

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may sit down now. Questions?

I don't know. And one could say it doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes the Flood were a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin up until Halo 2 came along, at which point Bungie made it their goal to give the Flood a face and a purpose. At this they failed, and we have Gravemind. 'Nuff said.

That's right. And as I said before, I would give more examples if I cared... which I don't. But perhaps one day when I am in the mood we can continue our exploration of this most fascinating and debatable subject together.

What is good writing vs what is bad writing is mostly opinion. Some of the critics in your link liked gravemind.


No. Logic dictates that the flood needed an intelligent actor to wipe out the Forerunners since the Forerunners were more highly advanced than the Covenant and spread across the entire milky way galaxy. Who's to say the gravemind wasn't intended from the start? One couldn't form until after Combat Evolved since there weren't enough flood-infected thralls.

There will always be dissenting opinions, but the consensus should tell you something.

LOL. You don't learn easy, do you? Logic had nothing to do with the conception of Gravemind. Bungie invented ALL of these reasons from nothing. Nothing told them they had to create a Gravemind. How do you not understand that?

This is irrelevant because original ideas can have nothing to do with the story that is ultimately told. Bungie could have easily retconned the hivemind idea without upsetting any common understanding in the fanbase because no one but Bungie could have guessed at these things.

And as I pointed out before, the idea of a hivemind isn't bad in and of itself. It's the execution that matters, and the execution svcked. End of story.

Ah yes, the 'consensus' that's based on one line in a wikipedia article.

The game got a 95 on MetaCritic, sold six millions copies, and is canonized in a continuing series of books. That should tell you something.


That was not a particularly intelligent comment. Bungie invented the entire halo universe. Gravemind in no way contradicts lore. You not liking Gravemind and the lore is your opinion. It's not objectively bad. How do you not understand that?

The game was not given a high rating for its story. It was praised for its well-polished gameplay, especially the multiplayer mode. This is irrelevant to the discussion.

Please make sure to read my posts entirely before making ridiculous comments about notions that are in fact held by no one.

You stated it ruined the series. It is relevant. If if was that bad its scores wouldn't be so high.


I quoted your post verbatim. You decided to edit and add to it later. That's not my problem.

I disagree. In a game like Halo where the lasting appeal boils down to deathmatch (or "Slayer"), I wouldn't expect a bad story to have a significant impact on the scores it receives from our favorite video game publications.

And I did not say it ruined the series. I said it ruined the plot. Most of Halo 2's additions to the story were so poorly executed they did nothing but complicate and confuse.
My ultimate message from the beginning has been the same. The only thing I added was a statement that clarified and emphasized the bullet points of my position.

They're still writing books that follow the series. If the story elements were that poor no one would read them.


You said the plot of Halo 2 was bad. When asked why you said because of many reasons, but the only one you gave was gravemind. When asked to elaborate you said you didn't have the time nor wish to explain yourself.

I really don't care that you think it's a dumb idea. It's just strange that you're so adamant that no one should think it's a good idea. And that it should have ruined the series for anyone. I'm fine with it.

Not all of the story elements are poor. Just those introduced in Halo 2.

And from what I understand, the people that wrote those books were quite talented. And I believe that if you're a talented writer, you can take any confusing muddle of a story and weave it into something sensible and satisfying to the reader.

I elaborated on the Gravemind example, but I did not give any others. Is this what you mean?

Then why did you ask me to elaborate on my opinion? I think you are trying to convince me that I'm wrong about Halo 2's story, and I think I am simply not interested. Go back and look at all of the posts in this thread since my first. I made a statement and then someone questioned me. I didn't start this debate.

Oh, and for the last time: I do not think that Gravemind was a dumb idea. He was very poorly written, but that's a separate issue.

It's only natural that you would think that. As you said, I haven't given many examples that explain my opinion. Nevertheless, you will have to trust that I have plenty of reasons for thinking what I think about Halo 2.

Yes, but we were essentially in agreement on the topic, not sure if I ever said it, but Halo 2 is my least favorite of the series, but I haven't play it in forever that I don't really have any in depth knowledge of any of the game.

So I'm working on CE anniversary and I was playing co-op with someone yesterday and got to The Silent Cartographer and we stopped playing and since they were hosting it didn't save any of that progress for me. I don't want to replay those missions, so basically I'm looking for someone to play some co-op with and able to start at The Silent Cartographer.

If anyone would want to play my XBL is Darth Gumballs. I should be on sometime later tonight. Thanks.

I know a lot of people just see Halo as a multiplayer game, particularly one played by 14 year olds, but I immensely enjoyed the single player story. I still like to play online, but my memories of the game always take me back to me and a friend fighting our way through those three games on Legendary, and soaking up the conflict.

I still need to play Reach and ODST, and I'm looking forward to 4.

Edit.

And just to clarify, I think Halo's multiplayer is outstanding, I just think the single player portion of the series is too often overlooked.

I think that is what one of Bungie's problems were, they were moving more towards a multiplayer centered game like Reach.

But from what 343 has releases, it seems they got it back on track towards a solid single player. They also have said that the multiplayer actually has a purpose and somehow ties into the story of Halo 4, opposed to just shooting dudes. Then there is another new feature called Spartan Ops, every week new missions come out, that you and three friends can play, so that seems like a mix between the both.

They also claim that more story elements are being added.