Halo MCC/Infinite/general Griefing thread - Six months, two maps, no refunds

What did you think of Infinite after the campaign showcase?

  • It looked good

  • Good, but they need to iron out some issues

  • Majorly apprehensive

  • It sucked donkey dick

  • I need to see more

  • I don't know

  • Craig monke


Los resultados solo se pueden ver después de votar.
By making her into a such an exceptional mental case that there’s no way she could possibly function as a soldier. Lucy would break down and have retarded PTSD episodes or whatever from the littlest of things, and they still let her wear power armor instead of giving her a padded room.
Don't forget the fact that being stranded with an Engineer for a few chapters, and subsequently Halsey threatening said Engineer (like the horrible devil woman Traviss wanted to make her out to be) was the catalyst that finally broke Lucy's PTSD-induced muteness and caused her to speak again for the first time in years.

Glasslands was a really painful read. And I'm someone who suffered through most of Traviss' Republic Commando novels as well.

EDIT to add this little addendum:
And then there’s Margaret Parangosky. She’s solid gold for a writer like me. I couldn’t believe nobody had developed her before. A 92-year-old serving admiral who’s also the chief spook? Damn, she’s got to be one tough old bird. She and Halsey, alpha female to alpha female – one of the most rewarding scenes I’ve ever “reported.”
Parangosky seriously felt like Traviss' self-insert. I hope I'm not the only one who got that vibe from her.
 
Halo under 343i is an overexplored and contrived version of Marathon, rather than an inversion like Bungie had intended.

Even right down to the lore of how a cosmic terror was released from a prison through a cosmic superweapon.

I'm not the only one who noticed this right?
 
Última edición:
Don’t even get me started on Karen Traviss and 343i giving Halsey the Josef Mengele treatment. I absolutely destroyed Halo: Glasslands in a two-star Amazon review nine years ago. They got so buttmad, they eventually pushed my review out of the Most Helpful Critical Review spot, even though it had 434 helpful ratings, lol.

Glasslands and Halo 4 contravene the established canon of the series by laying all the blame for everything bad at Halsey’s feet. The overall effect of this is to ruin the depiction of the UNSC as having sinister and dystopian undertones; after all, if they’re willing to hold themselves accountable—or at least scapegoat the people responsible for kidnapping children and making them into super-soldiers—then clearly, they aren’t as bad as we thought. Except that’s not what happened.

What happened is that Karen Traviss didn’t even bother to read the Halo story bible, and either didn’t realize or didn’t care that Margaret Parangosky and ONI had full oversight over the SPARTAN-II program and every aspect of it, including the abductions and the flash clones. The idea that Halsey could keep anything secret from ONI when ONI Smart AIs were trawling the very equipment she worked on as a civilian contractor is a giant fucking farce. Rather than making it clear that the UNSC knew what they did was evil, but were throwing Halsey under the bus anyway, Karen Traviss elected to write the UNSC up as being totally ignorant of the nature of their own black projects. It was the dumbest thing I’d ever seen committed to print.
Speaking of moralizing...
Didn't Traviss have ONI flex about how the Spartan-III's were morally superior to the Sprtan-II program because the III's "volunteered" or some shit like that?
Because the consent of broken 4-6-year-old suicide mission cannon fodder war orphans is worth so much amirite?
Traviss's views on morality are fascinatingly odd.
 
Post-Bungie ONI is so competent and damn-near psychic that they know what the San’Shyuum have for breakfast, and yet so incompetent that they don’t even know what they’re spending their own money on. Parangosky was going all “You lied about the Flash Clones, Halsey,” and it’s like, no, she didn’t lie. Instead, the author made Parangosky retarded.

Also, there’s the hilarious juxtaposition of ONI moralizing about the awfulness of the SPARTAN-II program while also doing the Elites dirty at the same exact fucking time, Jesus Christ. Not only did Traviss use her OCs in her glorified Halo fanfic as her unbearably smug mouthpieces, she also had those same mouthpieces acting immorally and not even really commenting on it or feeling conflicted about it at all.

I haven’t read any of her Star Wars novels, but I’ve heard the horror stories, and how she has a tendency to depict Mandalorians as egalitarian and wholesome instead of the ruthless meritocrats they actually are.

Glasslands was so bad, I haven’t read a Halo novel in close to a decade. :(

Welcome to Karen Traviss' mental gymnastics. She's the same person who accuses the Jedi of being child-snatchers, yet glorifies the Mandalorians who snatch children and turn them into killing machines. Both Jango Fett and Kal Skirata were children when they were snapped up by Mandalorian soldiers who indoctrinated them into becoming Mandalorians. And yet Traviss has the gall to whine about how immoral it is that the Jedi were snatching up children. So basically, her making ONI hyper-competent on one end and incompetent on the other is just another show of her ineptitude when it comes to consistent logic: how can ONI be smart enough to manipulate the Sangheili, yet stupid enough not to know about the flash clones who replaced the Spartan-2 children or all the horrid shit that went on in the Spartan-2 Program? It reeks of amateur writing and forced characterization. At this point, it sounds more like ONI is blaming Halsey for things THEY approved of, which is akin to Adolf Hitler putting Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann on trial for the Holocaust. It really is that stupid.

Just as Traviss condemns the Jedi for snatching up kids but absolves the Mandalorians of any wrongs when they snatch kids, so too does the same logic apply to ONI. ONI condemning Dr. Halsey is righteous condemnation, whereas ONI starting a civil war against a Sangheili Arbiter who helped save humanity is justified because the Sangheili are somehow a threat to humanity and they need to be kept destabilized. Yeah, real moral. Condemn a woman who was trying her best to save lives in an unethical project ONI started, and justify ONI screwing over someone who helped save humanity. It's even worse than what she did to the Mandalorians. At worst, she turned them into whiny bitches who complained about the Jedi. At this point, Traviss unwittingly made ONI a faction of evil, manipulative bastards.


Eric Nylund really should have been given authority over the rest of the Halo books. Instead, Traviss' writing spilled over to the games, and we get Sangheili who make Tartarus look like British nobility from Victorian England.

I’ve seen that interview before. It’s just as appalling of a read now as it was back then. Karen Traviss is either deluded or dishonest, or both.

At this point, alarm bells should be going off in one’s head. Authors of prose are not journalists and should not see themselves as such. They are not commenting on worlds. They are creating them.

This is the exact opposite of what Karen Traviss does. Her characters are her hand puppets, with no will of their own whatsoever.

Translation: She writes existing characters extremely OOC and expects you to eat shit and die if you don’t like it.

Karen Traviss’s one-sided depiction of Halsey offers absolutely no room for interpretation whatsoever. Halsey is a cartoon villain, and not even a smart one. She took one of the smartest people in the series and turned her into Dr. Heinz fucking Doofenshmirtz.

Rewarding for Traviss, maybe. For the audience? Torture.

By making her into a such an exceptional mental case that there’s no way she could possibly function as a soldier. Lucy would break down and have retarded PTSD episodes or whatever from the littlest of things, and they still let her wear power armor instead of giving her a padded room.

Karen Traviss deludes herself and is dishonest. Simple as that.

Journalists only tell the story from one point of view. Authors have a God's-eye point of view. The job of a journalist is to sell a narrative, usually from one side's point of view. The job of an author is to create a narrative where both sides' point of view are articulated and logical. Party A runs a rebellion because they believe in freedom, Party B wants to stamp out rebellion because they support order and may have had bad memories of chaotic times. Traviss basically eschews that and makes a one-sided argument as to why A is good and B is bad, or vice versa.

Traviss' puppets are either used by her to espouse her views, or made to look bad so as to support her views. For example, in SW EU works, Jedi care about the lives of clone troopers and sympathize with their plight. In Traviss' hands, the Jedi barely care about the clones' suffering outside of the token Jedi who either leaves or condemns the Jedi Order as a whole. And when people call her out on this and tell her it's out of character, she gets pissy and doesn't take well to criticism, sometimes even saying that her detractors have Nazi-like thinking. Which is ironic, considering what she turned her ONI mouthpieces into-an organization scapegoating people for others' problems and making plans against a race they deem a threat. How ironic.

Halsey should be portrayed as a broken woman who mulls over the losses her Spartan-2s suffered. Instead, she's portrayed as a cartoon villain.

Lucy should be more of a strong reliable character, instead of someone who should be locked up in a hospital for people who need a safe space.

Don't forget the fact that being stranded with an Engineer for a few chapters, and subsequently Halsey threatening said Engineer (like the horrible devil woman Traviss wanted to make her out to be) was the catalyst that finally broke Lucy's PTSD-induced muteness and caused her to speak again for the first time in years.

Glasslands was a really painful read. And I'm someone who suffered through most of Traviss' Republic Commando novels as well.

EDIT to add this little addendum:

Parangosky seriously felt like Traviss' self-insert. I hope I'm not the only one who got that vibe from her.

It's ironic that Traviss is using Parangosky as her self-insert. Parangosky is probably the one who should be blamed for the unethical practices of the Spartan Program. She checked off on all that. And if she didn't know that horrible things were happening in the Spartan Program, then she sucks as a spymaster and doesn't deserve her post. Even that chubby grease-ball Darth Baras would be more worthy of being ONI chief when compared to her, because he at least uses his spies well and had them infiltrate friend or foe alike rather thoroughly.

Come on, this is revisionist history. You can love the game, but Halo Reach was not beloved, it was a very divisive game.

Halo Reach had tributes up the ass from Halo fans, who loved it and hailed it as Bungie's swan song game. Some aspects of the multiplayer were criticized, but most fans loved it and wanted more.

Speaking of moralizing...
Didn't Traviss have ONI flex about how the Spartan-III's were morally superior to the Sprtan-II program because the III's "volunteered" or some shit like that?
Because the consent of broken 4-6-year-old suicide mission cannon fodder war orphans is worth so much amirite?
Traviss's views on morality are fascinatingly odd.

That's why I can't accept ONI having any moral high ground against Halsey. Not only did they kidnap kids for the Spartan-2 Project, but they took in more kids and slated them to be cannon fodder who will most likely die one day, because basically, that's what the Spartan-3s are meant to be.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is the same woman who condemns the Jedi for snatching up kids as recruits while praising Mandalorians who also snatch up kids as recruits. Counting on her to have consistent morality is like counting on Johnny Bravo to stop flirting with girls. It's improbable, if not impossible.
 
Última edición:
Halo Reach had tributes up the ass from Halo fans, who loved it and hailed it as Bungie's swan song game. Some aspects of the multiplayer were criticized, but most fans loved it and wanted more.
I think it's inarguable to say that it's the least liked of the Bungie era games, that's for sure. I also believe a large portion of the praise was from newcomers who never played CE/2/3 in their prime.

The story was poor with no emotional impact (despite the subject), the voice acting and characters were one-note, campaign levels were uninspiring with one of the worst missions of all time (Long Night of Solace), the sandbox was unbalanced and full of problems (armor abilities, bloom, etc.) and the multiplayer was a mess (to say it lightly).
Halo 4 stunk, but 343 was just following in Reach's footsteps.
 
Come on, this is revisionist history. You can love the game, but Halo Reach was not beloved, it was a very divisive game.
Halo Reach was very divisive, but the people who loved it really loved it. I haven't played in a while, but the 360 version had around a 1,000 people online at any given time before Reach was added to MCC.
 
I think it's inarguable to say that it's the least liked of the Bungie era games, that's for sure. I also believe a large portion of the praise was from newcomers who never played CE/2/3 in their prime.

The story was poor with no emotional impact (despite the subject), the voice acting and characters were one-note, campaign levels were uninspiring with one of the worst missions of all time (Long Night of Solace), the sandbox was unbalanced and full of problems (armor abilities, bloom, etc.) and the multiplayer was a mess (to say it lightly).
Halo 4 stunk, but 343 was just following in Reach's footsteps.

Most of the people I knew who loved Halo Reach played Halo 1, 2, 3, and ODST when they first came out. Including me. So no, that's completely false. I've been with this franchise ever since it came out, and I loved every minute of Halo Reach. Does it have its hard/less tolerable parts? Yes, but so did every Halo game.

The story was great with emotional impact being more from the fall of the planet rather than having it shoved in your face, the voice acting and characters did their jobs well for the part, the campaign levels combined elements from the previous three games, and no, Long Night of Solace is one of the best Halo levels, ever. Right up there with Halo 2's "Gravemind," Halo 3's "The Covenant," and Halo 1's "Assault on the Control Room." I still wax nostalgic about the time when I first played that level and the emotional impact at the end of it. Armor abilities each had their strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited, and the multiplayer attracted many fans and players. Even though I preferred Halo 3's multiplayer, I understood why people loved Reach and even saw the appeal of it.

Here's a guy who can explain why Reach is good in detail:
Halo 4 was OK, it was basically the Halo Reach 2 that many Halo fans were clamoring for.
 
Come on, this is revisionist history. You can love the game, but Halo Reach was not beloved, it was a very divisive game.
Why was Halo: Reach divisive? The armor abilities? The departure of Master Chief?

I loved Halo Reach. Great shooter that gave you lots of value, with a competent down to earth story and immersive multiplayer that refined the tried and true Halo formula. Firefight was a nice diversion as well.
 
Long Night of Solace is one of the best Halo levels, ever.
No disrespect, but I really don't understand how you can say this. It carries very little Halo DNA and feels like a side project (I think it was their Destiny aspirations more than anything). Play it on higher difficulties and it really falls apart. It's jarring, the A.I. makes no sense, it turns into trial and error.

Armor abilities each had their strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited, and the multiplayer attracted many fans and players.
Armor abilities were silly. Having an ability where you stop time (armor lock essentially) just ruins the flow of the sandbox. There's nothing worse than winning a gunfight only for you to have to stop for 10 seconds because the other player refuses to accept death. It very rarely helped, and in the few places it did it felt like cheating.

The biggest problem with Reach was the multiplayer maps. Bungie was so lazy they just copied campaign levels, with no respect to sight lines, balance, flow, or anything else.

Why was Halo: Reach divisive?
A lot of it is in respect to the multiplayer. Armor abilities, bloom, maps, sandbox, balance, etc. But that also carries over into the single player, just not as glaringly.
Thing is, I'll grant you that Halo Reach is a good game. I don't believe it's a good Halo game.
 
Última edición:
No disrespect, but I really don't understand how you can say this. It carries very little Halo DNA and feels like a side project (I think it was their Destiny aspirations more than anything). Play it on higher difficulties and it really falls apart. It's jarring, the A.I. makes no sense, it turns into trial and error.


Armor abilities were silly. Having an ability where you stop time (armor lock essentially) just ruins the flow of the sandbox. There's nothing worse than winning a gunfight only for you to have to stop for 10 seconds because the other player refuses to accept death. It very rarely helped, and in the few places it did it felt like cheating.

The biggest problem with Reach was the multiplayer maps. Bungie was so lazy they just copied campaign levels, with no respect to sight lines, balance, flow, or anything else.

I beat that level on Legendary and it wasn't bad at all. In fact, it reminded me of Truth and Reconciliation with a dash of Star Fox.

Armor Abilities were fine. In my experience, people who whine about them didn't study them long enough to discover their strengths and weaknesses.

Most people in multiplayer I saw didn't complain about the campaign maps on multiplayer. They just played Invasion and DMR sniping all the time and enjoyed it. Not my cup of tea, but people did love this stuff.

Why was Halo: Reach divisive? The armor abilities? The departure of Master Chief?

I loved Halo Reach. Great shooter that gave you lots of value, with a competent down to earth story and immersive multiplayer that refined the tried and true Halo formula. Firefight was a nice diversion as well.

Exactly. People who were longtime Halo fans couldn't stop lauding it. I loved it, many longtime Halo fans loved it, and the people who hated its changes just don't understand the fact that there was still balance in all the stuff there. Even armor lock is easy to beat once you know how it works.

Firefight was the best in Halo Reach. Unlike in Halo ODST where you played as characters from the story, you designed your own Spartan and the composition of the enemy forces. Allowing you to make your own Halo battles on your own terms.
 
Última edición:
I beat that level on Legendary and it wasn't bad at all. In fact, it reminded me of Truth and Reconciliation with a dash of Star Fox.
It's not that it's hard (I think Reach is the easiest Halo on Legendary), it's that there's no rhyme or reason to any of the space section. To this day I can't tell you what works or what the strategy is to that level.
Even armor lock is easy to beat once you know how it works.
The problem is that it just stops time. It was like someone pushing a pause button in the middle of a firefight.
 
It's not that it's hard (I think Reach is the easiest Halo on Legendary), it's that there's no rhyme or reason to any of the space section. To this day I can't tell you what works or what the strategy is to that level.

The problem is that it just stops time. It was like someone pushing a pause button in the middle of a firefight.

Really, man, that level wasn't that hard in the space level once you figure out how to handle it.

No it isn't. Armor lock makes you invulnerable, but immobile. If I step back and take out a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle, the moment you get out of armor lock, you're dead. Armor lock has its uses, but it also has its weaknesses. Same with other armor abilities. Learning how to compensate for them is crucial. If you can't do that, then go back to Halo 3. Nothing's stopping you from going back to that game.
 
Why was Halo: Reach divisive? The armor abilities? The departure of Master Chief?
Particularly because the initial reaction to the story was that Halo Reach was retconning the events of the novel "The Fall of Reach" or was horribly inconsistent with the events as described in the first book.

I'll admit that, for the longest time, I was also of the incorrect opinion that Reach was an awful cash-in until I finally played Firefight at a cousin's house. Firefight was actually the thing that made me pick up a 360 copy for myself and I was actually quite glad to have had my former opinion on it completely reversed after having played through it.

The problem is that it just stops time. It was like someone pushing a pause button in the middle of a firefight.
But it doesn't. Armor Lock is very much anti-infantry vehicle and it puts you at a little bit of advantage when cancelling it around nearby enemies since it looses an "EMP" like effect on shields. Armor Lock is incredibly stupid practically speaking, but it certainly doesn't "stop time".
 
I'll admit that, for the longest time, I was also of the incorrect opinion that Reach was an awful cash-in until I finally played Firefight at a cousin's house. Firefight was actually the thing that made me pick up a 360 copy for myself and I was actually quite glad to have had my former opinion on it completely reversed after having played through it.
Halo: Reach is a game I wouldn't call a cash-in, but it was too ambitious with's it's game design and it suffered because of it. But I would rather play reach instead of 4 or 5.
 
My biggest beef with Reach is how fucking boring the story is. Not only is it less awesome than TFoR, it has stupid shit like a supercarrier decloaking out of nowhere and annoying teammates (French exposition woman really bugs me) you spend too little time with to really care about them, and notably that character's hilariously shitty death should have had your team leader get fucking pissed and damn near tear the elevator apart, but no... And of course Emile and the team leader die exactly as you'd expect. I knew the boss was gonna suicide run at some point as soon as he got shot in the mission intro, and anyone who has played Republic Commando knew what was gonna happen when Emile got on the turret.
 
My biggest beef with Reach is how fucking boring the story is. Not only is it less awesome than TFoR, it has stupid shit like a supercarrier decloaking out of nowhere and annoying teammates (French exposition woman really bugs me) you spend too little time with to really care about them, and notably that character's hilariously shitty death should have had your team leader get fucking pissed and damn near tear the elevator apart, but no... And of course Emile and the team leader die exactly as you'd expect. I knew the boss was gonna suicide run at some point as soon as he got shot in the mission intro, and anyone who has played Republic Commando knew what was gonna happen when Emile got on the turret.

I actually liked the supercarrier decloaking to attack. Too many times I've seen the Covenant pull the whole "we've got superior numbers and they're primitive heathens" shtick, and the only other gimmick they knew was shooting themselves on the foot a la Halo 2. In Halo Reach, the Covenant were actually cunning, sneaking in a supercarrier to sneak an army into Reach's airspace so that the humans will be lulled into thinking they actually have a chance, before blasting their ship out of the sky and rolling over their forces. If they attacked with a fleet from the start, the humans would just pack up and flee, which defeats the purpose of sending in a fleet to exterminate the populace.

Why should the Carter get pissed off at the death of a teammate? At this point, the humans have gotten their butts kicked all across the galaxy. They're more depressed and than they are pissed. Boss from Republic Commando gets pissed when one of his team is lost to him, but that's because they usually get their way and the Republic usually comes out on top in most battles in the Clone Wars, so much so that the enemy was forced to make a mad dash for the Republic capital where their prime minister literally lost his head in the penultimate battle of the war. Meanwhile, the Human-Covenant War has been one long tale of the Covenant pounding the humans into pancake batter, down to the point where in Halo 2, the story has a Covenant scouting fleet finding Earth by accident, and this small Covenant fleet, one that was stated to be 50 times smaller than the fleet that glassed Reach, proceed to decimate the so-called "impenetrable" defense system Earth has, even though the Covenant soldiers aboard the fleet never even thought that humans would be on the planet until they arrived. So by the time of the Fall of Reach, people have gotten used to loss and officers wouldn't go Rambo over one team member getting killed, because that's happened before, considering how much stronger the Covenant is. And of course, we knew from the outset that most of Noble Team were marked for death, since Halo 1 starts without them and most Spartans died on Reach. So of course, everyone was going to die.

It seems to me that people who complain about Reach's story just didn't understand the context of the events. That, or they made no effort to understand what the story was trying to convey.
 
Última edición:
Why should the Carter get pissed off at the death of a teammate? At this point, the humans have gotten their butts kicked all across the galaxy. They're more depressed and than they are pissed. [...] So by the time of the Fall of Reach, people have gotten used to loss and officers wouldn't go Rambo over one team member getting killed, because that's happened before, considering how much stronger the Covenant is.
There should also be consideration to the fact that Noble Team was, aside from Jorge, predominantly made up of Spartan-IIIs, and Spartan-IIIs have a high fatality rate to begin with, having basically been built to be expendable. It would stand to reason that no single member of Noble Team is not accustomed to the loss of comrades by the time the Fall of Reach occurred, no matter how close they might be to said comrades. In fact, they had already lost their former Noble Six before the new one (our player character) was rotated into the team. They know the score, they know what's expected of them, they know exactly how they're likely to end up before too long. It's part of the grim reality of their existence, to die in the line of duty.
 
I'm just gonna say it; for as bad as 343 are (very!), it was really Halo: Reach that killed the franchise. It was clear Bungie didn't care anymore and was just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately a lot stuck and it still reeks to this day.

343 could turn things around if they had a passionate team, but employees were literally hired for their passion of hating Halo. So that's not happening. I feel bad for Staten, he's in an unwinnable situation and will inevitably take some of the blame.

Speaking as someone that just played it for the first time last month, I thought Halo Reach was awesome.

Fighting the Elites again was great as was having a whole game where you fight just the Covenant and not the Flood, on top of that I also liked the atypical locations you find yourself fighting in like a nightclub.
 
There should also be consideration to the fact that Noble Team was, aside from Jorge, predominantly made up of Spartan-IIIs, and Spartan-IIIs have a high fatality rate to begin with, having basically been built to be expendable. It would stand to reason that no single member of Noble Team is not accustomed to the loss of comrades by the time the Fall of Reach occurred, no matter how close they might be to said comrades. In fact, they had already lost their former Noble Six before the new one (our player character) was rotated into the team. They know the score, they know what's expected of them, they know exactly how they're likely to end up before too long. It's part of the grim reality of their existence, to die in the line of duty.

Exactly. Unlike Spartan-2s, Spartan-3s were designed to be suicide soldiers. They were used to the sight of their fellows getting killed. Being used to death is part of the job for them. It's like with Imperial Stormtroopers from Star Wars. In that first scene of them we see, they push on and keep shooting at rebels even as their comrades fall, and Stormtroopers calmly step over the bodies of their own fellows to keep pushing forward while continuing to open fire. Why? Because they're used to loss and have been conditioned to see death as a common thing in their lives. And since Spartan-3s were designed from the ground up to be expendable goon squads, they'd be used to death by now, so expecting Carter to suddenly go apeshit over the death of a team member doesn't make any sense.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo