Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo 3 campaign could of been alot better with two seperate stories?
  • Subject: Halo 3 campaign could of been alot better with two seperate stories?
Subject: Halo 3 campaign could of been alot better with two seperate stories?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Tuite

I honestley think that if the Arbiter had a playable story that it would of been better./opinion

Thoughts?

  • 01.19.2011 8:20 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Posted by: Shishka
Everything will be gone long before me. When the first living thing was born, I was here, waiting. When the last living thing dies, my job is finished. I'll put the chairs on the tables, turn out the lights and lock the universe behind me when I leave.

Yup. That was the main reason Halo 3's story was so lacking. So much lost potential.

  • 01.19.2011 8:51 PM PDT

Posted by: ODST27
Yup. That was the main reason Halo 3's story was so lacking. So much lost potential.


Blame the fanbase for that one. A lot of people didn't like Arbiter missions in Halo 2, most probably because the majority of them involved the Flood.

  • 01.19.2011 9:22 PM PDT

Wouldve been better if they integrated the other spartans of blue team into the game rather then send them off to some random planet to do stupid insignificant stuff.

It was supposed to bring everything to a close. The spartans of blue team should've met up with the chief, then they all go through the portal to finish the fight.

They were all on earth, but they decided for some reason rather than integrate them into the game, they send them to onyx, which is utter bullshot. The spartans had been fighting since they were 6 years old to save humanity. They needed to do it together.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAgh halo 2 and 3 couldve been so much better imo.

If they decide to make halo movie(s), I would be happier if they changed up halo 2/3 than if they kept them as is.

  • 01.19.2011 9:24 PM PDT


Posted by: Rolling Flame
Blame the fanbase for that one. A lot of people didn't like Arbiter missions in Halo 2, most probably because the majority of them involved the Flood.

It was also introduced horribly. Halo 2 was billed as the Master Chief's big, epic fight for Earth, but instead we just got a decent but only semi-finished-ish (all that blank grey? lol) section in New Mombasa. And just as something REALLY INTERESTING was happening, we got shot over to this gas mine which was kind of hard to care about at that particular moment in the story, and which quickly became even harder to care about thanks to the dryness of the combat in that section of the game.

The Arbiter's introduction may be interesting from a universe-building standpoint to some people after the fact, but a lot of us still see it as clunky and painfully executed on a story flow and gameplay level, even if the cutscenes were admitedly well-made. My favorite part of Halo 2 on my first playthrough was when I saw In Amder Clad pop out of slipspace, if only because Oracle was finally over.



This having been said, I still think it's horrible that Bungie reverted to chief-only. By the end of Halo 2, they had a system going that probably would have been nicer to maintain. And almost anything would have been smoother than having the Arbiter constantly shoehorned into Chief's vicinity for no apparant reason.

  • 01.19.2011 10:02 PM PDT

I agree on this man, it would have been way better....IMO.

  • 01.19.2011 10:08 PM PDT

Posted by: Rolling Flame
most probably because the majority of them involved the Flood.
Technically no. Only half of them involved Flood. As a comparison, half of the missions in Halo 1 involved Flood.

[Edited on 01.19.2011 11:21 PM PST]

  • 01.19.2011 11:20 PM PDT

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Mutoid Log
Posted by: Rolling Flame
most probably because the majority of them involved the Flood.
Technically no. Only half of them involved Flood. As a comparison, half of the missions in Halo 1 involved Flood.

Yes, but 80% of the missions in Halo 1 involved primairly fighting the Covenant, who were actually fun to fight, whereas only 54% of the levels in Halo 2 involved primairly fighting an interesting enemy (I refuse to call the Halo 2 Brutes "interesting to fight")

  • 01.20.2011 12:15 AM PDT


Posted by: progr3550r
Posted by: Mutoid Log
Posted by: Rolling Flame
most probably because the majority of them involved the Flood.
Technically no. Only half of them involved Flood. As a comparison, half of the missions in Halo 1 involved Flood.

Yes, but 80% of the missions in Halo 1 involved primairly fighting the Covenant, who were actually fun to fight, whereas only 54% of the levels in Halo 2 involved primairly fighting an interesting enemy (I refuse to call the Halo 2 Brutes "interesting to fight")

Even more importantly, while it's not exactly unanimous, despite all the Library hate people generally seem to consider the Flood in HCE more tolerable than their manifestations in the other games. They're actually upbeat and unique (fighting them pretty much involves dancing; it becomes as much about active motion as shooting). Whereas in Halo 2 they fight more like less interesting Covenant, and in Halo 3 the specific flood forms often force the player to fight somewhat lethargically.

This is only made worse by the way that the Flood feel a little shoehorned in in some parts of Halo's 2 and 3, whereas in Halo CE their placement in the narrative feels completely organic.

[Edited on 01.20.2011 12:24 AM PST]

  • 01.20.2011 12:23 AM PDT

I thought that Halo 3 had too much Earth in it, I prefere to play ing the forerunner environments to be honest.

In terms of howmany Forerunner levels there where in each game:
Halo CE 6.5/10
Halo 2 8/13
Halo 3 3/9
Halo ODST Nill
Halo Reach we got to look at some forerunner stuff :)

The amount of Forerunner in each Halo game has steadily declined.

Halo 3 could have been made better by
-Adding Tsavo Highway and The Storm together to make one larger level (the tunnel at the end of highway, a cutscene would show some pelican dripping of some wharthogs or somthing)

-Cortana not having the Index. Instead, you have to go and retreive it from the partialy constructed Library on the Halo, fighting the flood.

  • 01.20.2011 3:58 AM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

It would have been cool. But it was mostly only MC because alot of people did not like playing as the Arbiter...

I dont why, though...

  • 01.20.2011 4:23 AM PDT

"Were it so easy..." -Thel Vadame.

As much as I loved Halo 3, I still think it could have been better. And I love the Arbiter, but I like the whole back to just Chief thing like CE.

  • 01.20.2011 6:13 AM PDT


Posted by: ODST27
Yup. That was the main reason Halo 3's story was so lacking. So much lost potential.


So true.

But like said before: blame the haters.
I seriously don't understand why Bungie listened to them. People these days are complaining Bungie "doesn't listen", well, back in those days they shouldn't have listened.

By removing Arbiter as a playable character, the story lacked depth. Halo 2 had set up for truely epic events, and Halo 3 just completely ignored that and went on to become utterly lackluster.
No Arbiter also meant no more Covenant Civil War...which really was a shame.

Another mistake by Bungie was to have H3 take place 3 weeks after the end of Halo 2. Main battle was already over and we got to play some minor battle that ended it all, when it could have been a large scale battle for Earth with the Covenant falling apart.

  • 01.20.2011 6:18 AM PDT