The lights are on
While many Halo fans would point to last year's Reach as arguably the best entry in the beloved sci-fi shooter series, apparently Microsoft Game Studios head Phil Spencer is not as impressed with Bungie's decision to take recognizable protagonist Master Chief out of the spotlight for its last two Halo releases.
Speaking to OXM UK (via VG247), Spencer suggested that stepping into the shoes of Master Chief is a core part of the appeal of the Halo games:
"The key question for me in managing the studio and the creatives is 'what is Halo?,' making sure Halo lives up to what I think gamers fell in love with [playing Combat Evolved]... What does that mean? Playing Master Chief. We kind of lost our way a little bit, I’ll say. And that’s why I wanted to make sure that at the unveiling of Halo 4, you knew you were playing Master Chief, that John was back. Because Master Chief is the John Wayne character of that universe, and that’s who you want to play."
Elsewhere in the interview, Spencer said that while Reach and ODST, the final two Halo games developed by series creator Bungie, may have made sense to players who have been following the franchise since it started on the original Xbox, new fans who had just got into the series with Halo 3 "maybe...weren't as centered."
This is apparently the justification for refocusing the franchise on Master Chief, both with the upcoming HD remake of Halo 1 and the new trilogy beginning with Halo 4. What do you think, Halo fans? Is playing as Master Chief necessary for the franchise to thrive?
i didn't play wars odst and reach but it does make more sense to go back to master cheif i played 1 and 3 n they were good odst looked stupid in comparasin to me and i didn't pay any attention to reach sept to the fact multiplayer was tweeked but i'm not paying for gold sub so don't need it
DUH!! Although Reach was awesome it had a glimpse of Chief.
Not necessarily. To me a Halo game is a Halo game if it's based on the universe, not only about the rings and the Chief. Because if all the Halo games were about Master Chief only, then the franchise wouldn't survive much. I really liked the move that Bungie did for ODST and Reach. To me it shows that Halo can still be a great game even if there was little change in the game mechanics, new characters, and a new story.
I think it's good when developers branch out with new characters to play as in their beloved franchises. It sometimes might not work out to begin with (I'm looking at you Raiden) but said new character might have a return investment on it. (MGS Rising anyone?)
Halo could survive without Master Chief at this point. I'm not saying Master Chief is insignificant (he's a very important character), it's just that Halo doesn't need him to be successful.
Reach was my favorite...
NO! Idiot! I was hoping to get another ODST type of expasion! I thought that was halo at it's best.
A good game does not solely depend on a character
Master Chief is cool and all, but really I found ODST and Reach incredibly refreshing.
Master Chief isn't even a good character. If anything the series benefited ALOT with his absence. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he just wants to ride the train Bungie left for him.
I was never truly impressed with a Halo campaign since Combat Evolved, regardless of protagonist. Bungie tried replacing their never talking, place holder character with actual characters, with personalities, and while their characters still fell flat, they at least tried.
I don't think Master Chief is an amazing character, and I think only the 8 year olds raging on Xbox Live really think that he's noteworthy. Anyone who cares for good fiction, with character development, could clearly notice that a lot was missing from Master Chief.
However I do agree that Reach and ODST must have been confusing for new players regarding story and the timeline, but I'm pretty sure most people were confused by Halo 2 and 3 (I sure as hell was, even though I read some of the expanded fiction), so I don't think it made much of a difference.
I liked Reach. Master Chief was... Okay...
I really enjoyed Reach and enjoyed the experience, even would agree that it was the best in the series, but ODST really sort of felt insignificant compared to the experiences of the Chief.
While I liked making my own Spartan in Reach, I really wanted MC back. For me personally MC is Halo, I've read all the books and own all the games and I liked playing as MC the best. Sure his character isn't really gone into in depth in the games but if you supplement your gaming experience with the novels you will find out that the chief is an awesome character:)
Definitely agree with this because it is what makes such epic games great or epic. I mean think how weird/different games like Mass Effect, Gears of War, God of War, the old Duke Nukem games, and many other games would be if you couldn't play as that one *** super cool character that is essentially the mascot of the franchise and makes it unique. Just my thoughts and opinion.
Reach was well made, but...there is some true to it as far as a blockbuster title.
In all fairness, I believe Reach was never intended for new halo players as its main audience. I believe it intentionally targeted the old halo fans, making Reach a loving bid farewell from bungie to its oldest fans. From the inclusion of Ascension and Ivory Tower and the inclusion of the scope on the pistol, Bungie gave the fans of the halo series what they wanted, making it one of the best halos yet.