JoshandSarah

Err, well, all trolling aside, I too would love some better forge mode customization. It is true that this is 343's first attempt at a brand new Halo game, but they had a LOT to work off of, that worked quite well. I'm not quite sure why they /downgraded/ certain things rather than pushing the series further. This is Halo, something that has thrived not just from being a FPS with good gameplay, but EXTREME innovation. Forge specifically. Now I'm not expecting them to be geniuses of Forge like Bungie was, but they should've at least tried to do everything that Bungie had. Foundry started it as being a perfect blank canvas Sandbox furthered it, using the skybox for tons of new possibilities. And Forge World perfected it, opening up a vast realm of Forge masterpieces. aaand then Halo 4 has a few big maps that you can make somewhat decent creations on. Essentially, it's the beginning of Halo 3 all over again. Nothing that great, but it's still /kinda/ usable. Unfortunately, no masterpieces were really made out of opening Halo 3 maps like Valhalla or Last Resort without the help of Sandbox/Foundry. Anywho, yes! I'd love if they kept pushing the series forward! I hope they add something better for Forgers soon. Aaaand, they should fix/add some of the gametypes, definitely. Flood is nothing like infection was in terms of customization. A few notable gametypes are missing entirely that allowed amazing player-made gametypes to be born. Otherwise, I really like some of the new stuff they've added. A lot of weapon customization, much better map design than reach, some interesting new gametypes. I'm not totally bashing Halo 4 or 343 here at all. I think they've done a fine job for their opener to the game-design industry. However, there's a lot they removed entirely that were huge staples of the Halo franchise, and moreso, they were innovating, FUN staples of it. I hope they bring it back! That's my two cents.

LOL have you even played Halo? The entire first Halo is based around the Pillar of Autumn being crashed, then blown up to destroy the ring. And LOL@PROTECTOR DRONES. xD

So far in Halo there's never been a 'main antagonist'. It's not like most games where you're working up to defeat one villain and then you win. There's been the prophets, and Tartarus, and Guilty Spark, and Gravemind...And /all/ of those antagonists are powerful and dangerous. And none of them can be considered main or all powerful. In fact, the covenant seems to be still fighting us in Halo 4. So, defeating their 'main antagonist' didn't stop their efforts, only weakened them. And Gravemind was certainly persistent. It's all about the various wars, the various villains, and the immense amount of baddies being fought at all times. Halo is fantastic because it's a vast war involving many species and many threats. If there was a 'main antagonist' that we had to 'stop because he's nefarious and evil' I'd be severely disappointed.

Some of the responses to this thread are ridiculous, honestly. I've noticed a lot of people say Master Chief will die in Halo 6. Or even that they couldn't end the series without him dying at the end. I find that completely absurd. Not because I'm under the impression that Master Chief is Superman and "omg my hero can never die nooo". But only because of the spirit and idea behind the original Halo series. Halo was not about the growth and progression of Master Chief. It was not about that in ANY WAY. Master Chief was a monotone, essentially emotionless, 'god of war' sort of hero. He was always confident, calm and collected. He was essentially a cliche. Which in almost any other story would've been boring and unrelatable. Not too many people can relate to Master Chief, and stories are normally played out better when you can relate to the main character. Halo was more based off of the character development and the war progression around Master Chief. The immersion was all based on how powerful and vast these threats were, and how hopeless everyone /else/ was. But not you. Not the player. Not Master Chief. Master Chief would be the placeholder to allow you to destroy hordes upon hordes of covenants (and here's the important part) while avenging and protecting the people around you. The deaths of the supporting characters around you that had been developed, as well as the hopelessness of the civilians and other soldiers and even other Spartans. (In the case of Reach.) This all built up the story and created tension and vulnerability in the player. But it was never Master Chief who was vulnerable. The second you were able to get back on the field as Chief, you would eliminate everything around you. You were untouchable. It was that contrast that made the Halo series so endearing. They did such a great job of forming this tension by having weak supporting characters and hordes of threats to face, but you were always able to turn the battle with the fearless hero that you played as. SOOO when the game is so much more based on the character development of everyone EXCEPT the character you play as, Chief, there's no reason to have him killed at the end. He doesn't need to die to have a conclusion to the game. He didn't change throughout the series. He was always the same way. Watch through the cutscenes again throughout Halo. Listen to what the Chief always says. Halo 1: We'll make it. Halo 2: We'll make it -and- Sir, Finishing this fight. Halo 3: We'll make it. (Obviously there are tons of other Master Chief quotes, but I was noting them as reference to his 'action hero' nature. "Chief, we're not gonna maaake iiit!" ---> "We'll make it." A very natural response for the character.) He doesn't change. He's always that monotone, deep voiced, action hero. That's what HE was meant to be in this series. The deep-voiced, monotone action hero doesn't need to die to complete the series. Halo 3 did it right. "Wake me when you need me." THAT was true to the series. Confident and blunt. It was a brilliant last line for the Chief. That was the original ending to the series, and it did a wonderful job without killing off Chief, didn't it? And I hope they do that again. A death of Master Chief at the end of Halo 6 would be nowhere near as climactic as you think, and seems like it would betray the idea of his character. Again, not because I feel that 'zomg mastercheef should always be alive he's the best' but just because of the carefree, hysterical character design Bungie clearly had in mind for him. Stay true to the character, 343! Create immersion without feeling the need to just kill off the main character at the end. That's /exactly/ what Bungie did, and they did an okay job at making Halo. xD