OK, let’s just get this out of the way: I am a "Halo" fanatic. An aficionado, if you will. "Halo" stands comfortably as my favorite video game series, bar none. So, unsurprisingly, you can bet I was ecstatic about "Halo 5: Guardians" when they were spilling out ads like it was going out of style (and with so many ads running around the Internet nowadays, that just may be).
My mind was begging to find out the answer to this one question: what could have possibly happened to make Master Chief Petty Officer John-117, the series protagonist, go AWOL and turn against the UNSC? I could only assume the Chief had done something incredibly wrong to warrant his retrieval by the legendary man-hunter, ONI Spartan Jameson Locke, a new character debuting in "Halo 5." The Hunt the Truth campaign, an audio series leading up to the game’s release, suggested that Master Chief had been responsible for untold mass amounts of casualties in the human colonies of space, and Locke was ordered to bring him in, dead or alive.
Alas, that turned out not to be the case on launch day.
I have to say that my initial reception of "Halo 5: Guardians" was mixed, though leaning on the positive side. The story did not have the most coherent structure in terms of context or narrative, but the level design and the gameplay was superb and solid. I was equally excited for multiplayer, which has yet to disappoint. As a longtime fan of the series, I can say that "Halo 5" is a solid entry. But there are a number of things holding it back. Let’s get down to the details.
Positives:
The gameplay.
As I mentioned before, the gameplay is very good, and I would argue that it is among the best performances in the entire series. The new Spartan abilities like Spartan Charge and Ground Pound make me feel even more like a Spartan super-soldier as well as a force to be reckoned with on the virtual battlefield. The new passive upgrades to movement are a welcome change as well. The ability to slide and clamber onto nearby ledges help the player traverse the environment in new and interesting ways, and the mechanics help "Halo" keep up with the competition in the market of first-person shooters. I personally enjoy the need for these new abilities in campaign mode so I can find hidden equipment and get the drop on a horde of unsuspecting Grunts.
Plus, there’s Ground Pound. No words are needed for that kind of satisfaction.
The multiplayer.
I find the "Halo 5" multiplayer to be a load of fun. The multiplayer is divided into two main sections dubbed Arena and Warzone. Arena consists of more competitive game types and match-ups that "Halo" veterans and hardcore gamers will love. Warzone acts as a sort of hybrid between multiplayer and campaign, in which two teams of 12 fight against each other and scripted AI enemies. This is a great mix that provides a breath of fresh air and refines classic styles of play.
When it comes to Arena, I mostly play Big Team Battle and the weekend specialty playlists from time to time, but I have to admit that Arena feels like a natural evolution of traditional multiplayer play from "Halo." I have not had this much fun playing classic multiplayer since "Halo 3," and it even brought back a few memories. But that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to embrace the new features.
Warzone as a concept is a decent leap forward for the series. It has a degree of appeal for fans of MOBA’s, but it gives the structure more of a "Halo" flavor of combat. Bosses can be either a challenge or a chore depending on whom you prioritize as a target, but more often than not you or your team will need to take them out in order to get the points needed for victory.
But the focus is undeniably spent on player versus player combat. Fighting over control points on the map can be a suspenseful struggle of cat and mouse, and once your REQ level gets high enough, you can be sure to experience an array of heavy vehicle skirmishes. I do want to stress that Warzone is far from perfect, as I will elaborate on it further when we get to the negatives. But it is definitely a concept that deserves to be expanded upon, and it is practically begging for it.
Cooperative play.
I am ever so thankful that they finally brought Blue Team into a "Halo" game! Kelly-087, Frederic-104 and Linda-058 have been in the picture since the very beginning – that is, if you have been reading the books. But as the game and novels will tell you, these three super-soldiers are the last of the Spartan-II commandos along with Master Chief. They have trained and fought alongside one another since the young age of six, and their reputation precedes them to a far greater degree than any other team across the entire UNSC. It is truly sad to see split-screen go away, but at least we have a choice in which epic Spartan-II we get to play when we fire up co-op (the game mandates that one player always has to be the Chief, though, so there is that). And we also see another familiar face returning from "Halo 3: ODST": Spartan Edward Buck, voiced by none other than the dashing Nathan Fillion himself.
The character development could have been better, but at least the all-around fan service is spot on!
Negatives:
The story.
My biggest gripe about "Halo 5" is that the story was not what I was expecting, and in many ways was not what we were promised. I was under the impression that when we were playing as Fire Team Osiris (Locke, Buck, Tanaka and Vale), we would actually be hunting the Chief, as in bringing him in dead or alive. I was also hoping that when we actually play as the Chief, alongside his Spartan brother and sisters, we would get considerably more playtime.
But no – we get three missions total from the Chief’s perspective, and the other 12 (three of which were non-combat) are played as Spartan Locke.
In addition, without delivering any spoilers, the big bad conflict between the two Spartans turned out to be nothing more than the Chief talking back to UNSC command followed by a glorious instance of miscommunication. Don’t get me wrong, there’s an epic fight scene between Locke and Master Chief, but it would have been even more incredible and emotional if there were a good reason for them to be fighting. They were literally going after the same exact thing, and they ended up fighting over it.
I was honestly hoping for the story to be darker, grittier and able to stand on its own. I suppose 343 Industries was hoping to deliver something along the lines of "The Empire Strikes Back," but instead we see something more like "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest." A conflict and daunting adversary are presented, but the latter is never actually confronted and the former goes unresolved. I can only hope that 343 can address these concerns and therefore truly deliver in their next release with "Halo 6."
The REQ system.
Remember when I said Warzone was far from perfect? Well, this is the most alarming symptom. The REQ system can work, but the fact that practically every piece of content unlocked in the game is behind this system is frankly quite annoying. It certainly didn't help matters when they introduced REQ bundles that can only be bought with real money.
When it comes to Warzone itself, it makes sense to have a randomized reward system consisting of new weapons and vehicles. That is because Warzone seems to be designed with casual play in mind, although thankfully it can get quite competitive.
But when it comes to permanent unlocks such as armor, emblems and even assassination animations, all of a sudden this can be a problem. In the past, "Halo" players have worked for their armor so they can show off some sense of accomplishment for their skill in the game, and that is unfortunately lost when the only reason you have a sick new armor set is because you were lucky in your last REQ pack.
I would suggest reintroducing the achievement system from "Halo 3" or the commendation system from "Halo 4" in order to give players some options for unlocking the armor they want. It might also be possible to offer a lump sum of REQ points for armor rather than having to fish for them in the REQ system.
Sans split-screen.
I will try to keep this brief, because the Internet has made this point well and truly clear: we want split-screen back. Some would say it’s obsolete because just about everyone and their dog has a video game console with Internet access. I would argue that split-screen is a tradition, more so in "Halo" than any other video game.
I was truly disappointed when I found out that in order to play four-player co-op in "Halo 5," my friends and I have to be hooked up to four separate Xboxes — and likely in four separate households — in order to do so. This does not bring people closer together, despite what the technological advances may trick you into believing. Split-screen brings people closer together because we can share laughs and memories face to face and in the moment. The headset and the monitor can only make up for so much. I am truly thankful to hear that 343 is supposedly putting the return of split-screen high on their list of priorities for the next game. I really hope they can pull it off. And with the supposed capabilities of consoles these days, there is just no excuse not to.
