- SweetTRIX
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"
Posted by: Smug Dark Loser
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: Smug Dark Loser
Halo 2 was where the story really got going. Halo 1 was more of an introduction in a way.
Where it really got going mediocre, they handled it as if everyone was reading the novels in between the games, which few were. Personally i don't think the writing for any one of them sucked, but the pacing and presentation for 2 was terrible, with 3 being better but not by much.
Maybe you should really pay attention a bit more. Because no story from the books is needed.
Are you part of the number of people who can't pay attention to actual spoken dialogue during both cutscenes and in game when, say, guilty spark is talking to you or whatever?
Because shield worlds, who the prophets are, the purpose of the ark, etc. are all told within halo. the books are just some extra backstory.
Your joking right? Those things are talked about but never fleshed out in the second game, ever. Don't try to make me look stupid because you like to get by with tidbits of info when others actually like a fleshed out story.
The inclusion of the Brutes and the direction of the Covenant is unjustified and unexplained, until you read FIrst Strike and Contact Harvest. There are many instanced where you don't understand the reasoning behind something unless you read the novels. Johnson survival of Halo, the need for MC to have new armor, not to mention how the hell he got back to Earth in a short range interceptor.
All your comment did was prove that your understanding of the Halo universe is limited, and that you prefer it that way, or simply that you are a liar. Because if all you have ever known about Halo was given to you through the games, you would know very little.