I believe it was back in Jul when Microsoft's Phil Spencer made the statement about how the Halo franchise "lost its way" without Master Chief as the main character. When it was dredged up again recently as a link in a GIO article, that for the life of me I haven't been able to find, I started thinking about the implications of what he said and the broader topic of preservation of a franchise's identity. Personally I thought the statement seemed like an unnecessary and ungrateful stab in the back of Bungie on their way out the door and an attempt to win over the fans before actually earning it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it did make me think.

The comments have me wondering, as far as Halo is concerned, if going right back to Master Chief really is the right move for the franchise. If we go back and look at the games, there's a pattern of progression that really takes off once MC is frozen at the end of Halo 3. Most noticeably from a story standpoint. If we look at the first entry, it's clearly your average everyday shooter with cursory glances at a relatively simple story throughout. The second game didn't actually progress the writing any, but it did elevate the story to stand on an even ground with the gameplay as far as how much the player was asked to invest in it. Halo 3 was the first game to set the story at the forefront of the action, the first to feel like you work actually working towards some bigger sequence of events while carving your own personal swath of destruction.

Despite this progression the first three games lacked a key element that I consider necessary for developing a player-character bond. For all intensive purposes Master Chief might as well not even be human. He's an invincible machine of war. No face, no personality, no humanity. Master Chief is a fine character for an action game, just like the Terminator is a fine character for an action movie, but he lacks serious depth. What makes him interesting is his role in a bigger story, but as a character he's one dimensional.

Master Chief is in stark contrast to the SPARTAN-IIs from Reach. The idea of the SPARTANS on Reach, the fact that they aren't these unstoppable doom machines, that's what made Halo: Reach the first Halo game that I actually felt compelled to buy myself. And as I sit here and read/listen to what Phil Spencer says I can help but think it's going to be difficult for 343 to avoid taking a step backwards with the reintroduction of Master Chief as the main focus.

Outside of the series it has me wondering when it's necessary to keep characters around and when it isn't, when it's time to move on from the original and tread new ground. It's quite a confusing topic for me. I see things like the Uncharted game for the PSV and can't help but feel like it's going to suffer without the whole crew of familiar characters involved. At the same time I listen to BioWare's announcement that ME3 will, without a doubt, be the end of Shepard's story, and I feel confident that it really should be. Those two games are both examples of extremely well written games with very fleshed out characters, and yet they fall at two entirely separate ends of the spectrum.

Got any games that you think should head in a new direction? How about some that you think should never change? How about your thoughts about Halo's move back to Master Chief as a main character.