Is it Cheating


Status
Not open for further replies.

PhantomSG13

Jr Member
Do you feel like you're cheating when you play ODST or Reach? I personally find myself conflicted because of the awesomeness of the experience and then the fact that as close as it is to how it feels like you're playing, you're not really being the chief.

I always feel a little conflicted, and more than anything find myself wanting to be MC one more time with all of the new styles, players, armors, weapons, etc.
 

Boba Fett

Well-Known Member
Eh wha? I really don't get it... So you're playing as an odst or a spartan 3. Who cares? It's all part of the Halo experience. ODST's were supposed to be playable (I think) in halo 2. Chief or not, the games are Halo.
 

PhantomSG13

Jr Member
I agree, all games are awesome, all games are Halo. But it kinda feels like playing MGS as Raven rather than Snake. . . . yeah it was good, but felt like you weren't playing to your potential or the character you wanted to play.

Of COURSE I do know that it is just a game, and that the mechanics and physics are basically identical if you're playing as the Arbitrator or and ODST or as Noble6. Maybe it's just, it just feel quite as right though as when you play MC.

Clearly though, Boba you don't feel like it's cheating and that's good enough ;) no right answer, just wanted to know if I was the only one who felt that way
 
I prefer ODST and Reach over the games where you play as Master Chief. Don't get me wrong, I think MC is awesome, but I've never been a big supporter of the "one man army" characters. ODST was similar is places, but you had to rely on tactics and using cover more, not just running in an slaughtering everything. Reach was a good mix, you were a spartan, but you didn't have the one man army syndrome, and you relied on teamwork (kind of lol) and weren't alone, which is what you were on every previous Halo game. I think, for me at least, people can relate better to the ODST's because they are just ordinary guys with no augmentations. Human. Master Chief is a superhuman and a little harder to relate to. As Boba Fett said, it's all part of the Halo experience.
 
If you have enough credits in Reach, you could still be almost MC, because his voice and the Mark VI helmet are available. Sadly, he isn't perfectly emulated in Reach because of the new look of the armor. Still, in my opinion, MC's serious tone of voice was one of the more important aspects of his all-powerful, manslaughtering, grunt-pwning persona.
 

rumble

Member
Like the posters above, I preferred the human characters in Reach and ODST over the mecha-god that Chief was. I just couldn't relate to him.
 

CoolC

Well-Known Member
Like the posters above, I preferred the human characters in Reach and ODST over the mecha-god that Chief was. I just couldn't relate to him.

This is probably one of the issue that Bungie faced when they expand the Halo universe. After building a super-human MC, how do you relate the other characters (who are lesser than MC) to the rest of Halo. Instead of building another super-icon, Bungie went with story telling. After playing Reach to ODST, all of us understand where each stand in Halo universe. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who you are playing. It is where you are at Halo universe.

Star Wars had similar problems with Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. George Lukas expand the franchise by focusing on buidling on an epic saga than trying to focus on Luke only.
 

rumble

Member
Actually, Lucas did make the mistake that Bungie avoided, at least in my opinion. The prequels sucked. They were too dependent on the whole idea of Vader's fall, which meant there was not going to be any surprises along the way ala Empire Strikes Back, and too dependent on shiny graphics to cover up horrible plot devices and a distinct lack of good writing. The original trilogy was so strong because it had such a strong supporting cast - even though it was about Luke (bullcrap on it being about Vader), Han/Leia/Chewie were strong characters and because they were there for the audience to buy into as 'real' characters, it was easier to accept the Force powers and mystical stuff. Lucas sucked that human feel out of the prequels when he got rid of the 'normal' characters. Bungie added the humanity back in by having Spartans that would remove their buckets when needed, and amping up the feeling of loss surrounding Reach.
 

Boba Fett

Well-Known Member
Actually, Lucas did make the mistake that Bungie avoided, at least in my opinion. The prequels sucked. They were too dependent on the whole idea of Vader's fall, which meant there was not going to be any surprises along the way ala Empire Strikes Back, and too dependent on shiny graphics to cover up horrible plot devices and a distinct lack of good writing. The original trilogy was so strong because it had such a strong supporting cast - even though it was about Luke (bullcrap on it being about Vader), Han/Leia/Chewie were strong characters and because they were there for the audience to buy into as 'real' characters, it was easier to accept the Force powers and mystical stuff. Lucas sucked that human feel out of the prequels when he got rid of the 'normal' characters. Bungie added the humanity back in by having Spartans that would remove their buckets when needed, and amping up the feeling of loss surrounding Reach.
I second that... and NOW he to make them in 3d! NOOOOO! off topic but...

The 1-man-army thing is also a valid point. We really can't relate to ANY of the characters, except the marines perhaps, and that's a stretch even. But the BEST spartan ever?
 

CoolC

Well-Known Member
Actually, Lucas did make the mistake that Bungie avoided, at least in my opinion. The prequels sucked. They were too dependent on the whole idea of Vader's fall, which meant there was not going to be any surprises along the way ala Empire Strikes Back, and too dependent on shiny graphics to cover up horrible plot devices and a distinct lack of good writing.

Agree that the prequels suck. I watched a documentary a while back that George Lucas admitted the mistakes after he filmed SW1. He knew the real fans of SW were getting old. He put in some cartoonish characters to pull in younger fans, not knowing that he alienated the true fans. Yes, the prequels focus on Darth Vader, but at the same time he also explored other characters as well. If you read some of the novels after SW6, he began to explore new characters in the new Jedi Order. The last novel I read was on Jacen Solo died from his dark side. The point I am making is to make a good and long lasting story, the story itself should not focus on only 1 character.
 

PhantomSG13

Jr Member
Thanks for all the replies guys. I am clearly in the minority here. Again, I hope no one is getting me wrong about how great ODST and Reach are, or how much I have loved playing every title to date. I was just wondering if I was the only one who felt a little weird playing characters other than MC after 3 games in a row of the same character.

And I'll disagree that the Star Wars prequels were as bad as everyone thinks (Clearly SW1 had some of the best AND worst moments in SW history, aka darth maul and jar-jar, pod-racing, jar-jar, 3 stooges slapstick) but overall I think it was done to a standard that matched the series (Although having seen each starwars movie 100-200 times each I think I might be bias)
 

SchizophrenicMC

Well-Known Member
why is odst called "halo 3" odst
It used the Halo 3 game engine, instead of a new or tweaked version, like the others. (Even Firefight was done using stock parts of the engine.)

No, I don't think it's cheating. That's like saying it's cheating to read Star Wars: Millennium Falcon, because Luke has 4 lines in the entire book, and doesn't actually appear in it. I think it's using a different sense of perspective to tell a part of the story we wouldn't know otherwise.

The Prequel Trilogy tried too hard to focus on Vader, while completely ignoring the background of all the other characters. Padmé just kinda shows up, and no one knows anything about her until the end of the first movie, she's not developed past a disjointed version of her original character in 2, and in 3, she simply serves as the catalyst for Vader's fall, and only coincidentally gives birth to Luke and Leia. Meanwhile, Anakin gets all the attention, and the story, if you can even call it that anymore, focuses around him. It's like Halo 3, where Johnson and Miranda didn't mean anything to you. If it weren't for the major side characters, (Johnson, Miranda, Arbiter, Cortana) I wouldn't have enjoyed it because all it does is show the Chief's final battle. Those characters tied the one-man-army down to the "real" people he knew and cared for. Arguably, the Master Chief has no character development, whatsoever, except that we know he wants his hologram girlfriend back. We don't even see anyone else develop character. In ODST, while the rookie has no development, we see the entire story through the eyes of his team, and we see their characters. In Reach, we see the entire team through the eyes of someone you can get a sense of emotion out of. Noble Six has human movements, and he hesitates when he speaks, sometimes, showing that he knows the human cost of everything that's happening. You only see Master Chief move from his normally-military-perfect stance once, when he slumps in the Forward Unto Dawn.


On a side note, I noticed Firefox's spell check recognizes Darth and Vader to be real words. Also, Obi-Wan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top