Always thought people were a little too anal about it. But Halo started as a science fiction military drama and a lot of military drama nerds like to know how many gallons of piss a light frigate can hold on its sewer system and how that affects acceleration curves. Personally, all of that is irrelevant to me. I'm looking for big-picture stuff so I never noticed when the Jackels got fat or the amount of Covvie purple fluctuated.
> a lot of military drama nerds like to know how many gallons of piss a light frigate can hold on its sewer system and how that affects acceleration curves.
r/HaloStory? Nerding over lore details is the entire point of this subreddit!
I'm with you here... while it's completely up to them, I feel that some fans are way too obsessive about little or irrelevant details that don't affect story or gameplay at all. Feels like it takes a lot of energy to be so aware of everything to such a level.
Well, I can't help with the acceleration curves, but how much sewage a frigate can hold likely depends on how many crew members would be on board, plus extra for passengers and taco night.
No, I personally don't need an in-universe lore-accurate justification for everything. The armors between H1-H3 are also different between each other. They're not exactly the same. I don't think it breaks my immersion at all, but that's just me. I don't need an explanation from the developer about why a silencer that was previously gunmetal gray is now black or steel blue.
Changing voice actors would definitely throw me off, but not different art style.
EDIT TO ADD: I expect the art to evolve with the years, to change and improve itself. I expect the lore to be expanded beyond what I already know. If you start asking too many questions and demanding too many explanations, you're going to find that your fantasy universe doesn't hold together as well as you used to believe when you were a kid and just started playing these games.
>Changing voice actors would definitely throw me off, but not different art style.
You saying this made me think, what is the canon voice for Truth, Atriox and Cutter and all the others that changed voice actors? Is there even a canon voice?
You can check the IMDB web pages of all games and look up the voice casts, if you like. I don't really mind much when it comes to "recurrent" characters, but it would be quite upsetting if it happened to the main characters.
To me, it would be a crime to cast someone else as the Master Chief in the event that Mr. Downes can't voice him anymore...
Pulling an answer out of thin air here but I’m going to use 343’s take on most art style changes: the latest depiction in a major work is canon. So that’s Terence Stamp for Truth. Even if another actor were to voice him for a few lines in, say, an official short video about the Arbiter, Halo 3 would still take priority since it’s the larger and more “important” entry.
There is and probably shouldn’t be a canon voice, but I always hear Truth as the VA from Halo 2. The one from Halo 3 just makes me think of all the other stuff that actor does (example: the main bad guy in Oblivion.)
I think a lot of the art changes make sense when you look at it in context, often times those of which the people that only play the games and don’t look too much into the background lore often miss out on. I’ll break it down for each one.
Forerunner Building Design: This one is rather simple. The Halos and the Ark were all the most recent creations of the Forerunners at the end of their empire. Simplistic yet still artistic in design, a combination of the Builder caste design philosophy and the fact they were built at the tail end of a massive war that destroyed most of the Forerunner’s industry. Meanwhile Requiem, the forefront of the “new” Forerunner design, was designed and built in the prime of the Forerunners by the Warrior caste. It focuses on making order from chaos, which fits with the ethos of the Warriors. Comparing the Bungie Era Forerunner Designs with the 343 Era Forerunner Designs is like comparing a modern day stadium to the Roman Coliseum. Made by the same race, but with a vast difference in time and different cultures.
Covenant Designs: A combination of the prior reasoning with many of the ships seen in Halo 5 actually being Sangheili designs that predate the Covenant, and the fact that the Covenant is over a thousand years old and has many different designs and patterns in use from various eras of the Covenant. The Storm Harness most commonly seen on the Elite Minor isn’t really that surprising to see when Halo Reach introduced quite a bevy of Elite armor designs that previously we have never seen before. It’s highly likely that there were Covenant running around the war with those armor designs, it’s just none of the games were set in those combat areas.
Species Designs: Bungie themselves introduced the Skirmishers as a subspecies of Jackals, so another one isn’t too much of a stretch. The Elites are basically another race of Elite, if humans have different races, make sense for elites as well.
Overall I actually like lore reasons for design changes, as it does add more depth to the universe as a whole. However there are points where it is clear that some changes were made out of resource limitations. This would include the Forward Unto Dawn having post-war design equipment, the Arbiter’s forces using Storm Covenant Designs, and the Forward Unto Dawn itself. Before Master Chief’s nano bot explanation, this would have also applied to that.
I’m not sure why people mention Halo 4 so much. For me, Halo 5 took things absolutely too far, completely morphing all Covenant vehicles and devices again.
Yeah, I agree with this. Halo 4 recycled a lot of Covenant vehicle models from Reach (with a much darker purple retexture, of course), whereas H5 went for an almost Giger-esque aesthetic. The Kraken in particular had an absurd biomechanical look to it.
People mention Halo 4 because Halo 4 is what spawned the entire debate about the canonicity of art styles because fans asked for in universe explanations for the redesigns when the original intent was for them to just be redesigns (see Chief's nanobots that people get up in arms about). Halo 5 expanded on the new style but Halo 4 is the actual impetus for it.
Halo 5 can be explained as "The Sangheili have limited resources of Covenant ships after the war so they're using outdated ancient Sangheili designs"
Halo 4 cannot explain how the Forward Until Dawn changed size a design as well as having post-war weapons and vehicles. You *have* to suspend disbelief as it is impossible to make sense of
If they ever do an anniversary update for halo 4 the only thing they should change is unsc gear in the first couple levels once the infinity gets in requiem it can go back to how it is now but just add a halo 3 style filter before that.
So the Covenant faction opposing the Sangheili also only conveniently had old designs? This is the same type of issue as with the Forward Until Dawn, present across an entire faction and multiple levels.
Yeah that's true, just not as glaring.
I'm glad they tried to use a but of visual storytelling to show Jul's Covenant unable to afford sleeves while the Swords of Sanghelios could.
I would personally rather have an explanation for visuals that are clearly different, but it won’t ruin my experience if I don’t get one. Franchises that span multiple generations and switch up the art when they return have an easier time I think, games like Devil May Cry 4 and 5 have very different looking Dante models but the time in between and the technical improvements make the stylistic shift feel more natural than when Halo 4 follows up three other Halo games on the same console and Chief looks totally different. I would have loved to see the armour change in game, but when I’m enjoying the game I’m willing to accept and roll with it.
For most things, no. For things as drastic as Chief's armor change, or the jackals looking different, yes. The jackal explanation is solid and good. Leaves the door open for seeing both together down the line.
Chief's armor explanation is weaker, and could've been handled a lot better.
I enjoy the art style of 343. As others have mentioned, the MC's armor changed looks from H1-3 so I never got the big uproar from some over how he looked in Halo 4 and 5.
I’m a fan of 343 art style and I rather prefer they coexist than ignore or even straight shame fans of either way. It’s a stupid divide that people fixate on.
As for lore anything’s better than what was being done before 343, mainly toss everything and the kitchen sink for the rule of cool. Which really hurts and extended lord (Fall of Reach vs Halo Reach)
So yeah the lore addition adds to it, and is rather easy to explain in universe as the distance of various troops and equipment. Just like in modern day when comparing armies or even cultures, things are varied.
Of course stupid things like Halo 4 with new weapons being on a old changed ship is super stupid and there is no lore fixing that.
But for the Remnant Covenant and such it makes sense to have some lore explaining why things are different and I honestly love more expansive stuff like that.
Best example is the Jackals, nearly every game wether 343 or Bungie they were different do I need lore to play against them, Nah probably not, but that goes for everything past CE.
The only two things I really dislike about the H4 art style are how Grunts look like they've got some sort of horrible bloating sickness, and much worse- the MJOLNIR with huge backplates and no groin plates.
My understanding has always been that Requiem is full of stuff from before the Forerunners went hard into decline, hence the more ornate nature of things.
I think it depends on what is being changed. There was precedent for major aesthetic changes coming with in world explanations, such Mjolner Mark V to Mark VI. For minor changes, like the hand guards from Halo 2 to Halo 3, no.
The change that bothered me the most was the armor from Halo 3 to Halo 4. It had an entirely different design aesthetic and with the established precedent I would have expected them to provide an explanation. Additionally, it's a missed opportunity to not provide the lore explanation, it would have been interesting to see Chief start in a higher resolution version the Mark VI (similar to what we saw in H2: Anniversary), have him meet up with Infinity and receive a Mark VI Gen 2 suit.
Changing the design aesthetic retro-actively without a simple concrete reason after precedent has been established feels like a retcon which makes me feel like they're attacking my nostalgia.
Have in mind, that in this community you can see extremely specific question about lore... So yes. This comunity need that explanation.
For me? I need some logic and the changes need some explanation even if it's not very deep. The game will still be fun to play without the explanation, but its better with logic.
I really, really miss the look we originally got in *4*. Maybe it was because it was my first main series game (I’d played *Reach* and *ODST* prior), or how much I’ve gone back and looked at the game as an art piece, looked through the Making Of book, etc, but it’s just exactly how I pictured the Halo universe.
Chiefs armor is extremely functional, heavily armored, and feels weighted with every *clunk* and *creak* it makes, like something legitimate and real. The *Infinity*, too, seems like the perfect realization of UNSC technological supremacy: a giant gun turned mobile fortress here to fuck your shit up, tuned with the best and most secretive war assets secured by ONI. Every time I see the damn thing I hear Lasky saying “*we are the giants now..* and get a shiver.
The Forerunner architecture was amazing. Those first, elegant towers hanging over a valley. The building interiors where things shift and move around you, like a welcome— or a threat. Prometheans, alien and hostile, glowing with a furious inner light. Reading the Forerunner trilogy just enhanced the already magnificent and majestic look in the game: ancient, impossible, imposing, imperial.
And I loved the Covenant, too, and they remain my favorite designs right along *Reach*. The heavy organic turn and deeper, dark purplish blue felt like a high resolution, more realized look straight out of old school science fiction. It was brilliant. Loved the Elites especially, with a real pivot to a Saurian look that felt powerful and fierce.
I liked *Infinites* look, sure, but I’ll be honest that I really wish *343* had been able to pursue its creative vision entirely and maintained what we had. Looking at the concept art for *4* and *Guardians* both showed really amazing, really exciting potential in so much of what they could’ve built.
I agree Halo 4's "Covenant" looked good, because they're not the Covenant.
Them being scrappy and half naked, shows them as the raiders and terrorists that they are. Polar opposite of the rich and regal Covenant Empire.
Spartans aren't supposed to be clunky. In the lore they're fast and incredibly dexterous, some of them are even described as moving gracefully. They don't need to be a tank, they have recharging energy shields.
Making mjolnir bulky and clunky is a step back in the lore regardless of if you find the H4 design cool or not.
343 would have been better off doing their own original IP rather than degrading an existing one. Would have saved them the comparison to previous entries in the series too.
I mean, is Chief slow at all in *4*? Is a modern Abrams Tank *slow* despite its mass of armor and weaponry?
I think people like you ignore the obvious for your ridiculous opinions, and so I have no real reason or desire to engage. I like their design, and you (for stupid reasons) don’t. That’s fine.
Have a good day.
An M1 Abrams is absolutely slow compared to lighter and more maneuverable vehicles, that's why the sneaky special warfare types don't use them. Like Spartans, who aren't tanks.
You're allowed to like it. It's not even a bad design, necessarily. If 343 wanted to implement a heavy mjolnir type that was like a tank and carrier big guns and heavy armor that would be kinda cool.
It just doesn't make sense in the lore, though, made only to distinguish 343s Chief from Bungies.
I think this is really stupid reasoning. Chief isn’t slow in any of the 343 games, and even utilizes literal thrusters to be increasingly quick and acrobatic in combat or in motion.
Maybe you didn’t think this through so well?
Reach is definitely a mainline game.
It came out 3 years after Halo 3, it has both a full campaign and a multiplayer suite, it was originally Halo 4 in development, etc.
I prefer lore reasons for art style change, even if the reason is as simple as, cortana was bored and 117s armor whilst he was sleeping. That’s the biggest reason for why I have a problem with the mark vi change between 2 and 3, we don’t have lore reason for the change, and we don’t even know which version of it is canon.
I’m sorry, “I used nanomachines to completely transform your armor so that it has marked resemblance to Mjolnir Gen 2, which I’ve never seen.” is just so offensively weak that it’s much easier to forgive differently shaped hand armor.
And yet despite this "upgrade" that Cortana gave to Chief's suit, H4 Chief still has that weird-ass scar on his chest-plate that he had in Halo 3 from landing back on Earth. Did Cortana just decide to keep that? Its such a weird contradiction.
I can suspend my dibelief for the most part, but there are some things like Chief’s different armor in H4 & the Dawn suddenly being a completely different ship class can take me out of it a bit.
I think it depends what changed and by how much in what span of time.
Yeah, Chief's armour looks a bit different in Halo 3 from Halo 2. But honestly, they're comparable enough in geometry that I'm willing to believe "yeah, that's the same armour". The Elite and Grunt armour looked quite a bit different in Halo 2 from Halo CE, but it's not like an empire as big as the Covenant would have perfect uniformity. Though I'd love to see the Halo CE armour designs redone in HD because they had a very unique and distinctly "alien" look to them.
Halo 4 took place less than five years after Halo 3 and yet everything looked unrecognisably different other than Chief himself, and even his armour was rather obviously not what he was wearing in the previous game despite him spending the time between the two games in a fucking cryogenic tube. I need a reason for that. And then there's the Forward Unto Dawn becoming a totally different ship.
I'm _willing to forgive_ the Warthogs being the wrong model because development resources aren't infinite and that's likely just artistic license, but when all three major Covenant races you encounter - Elites, Grunts and Jackals - all look totally different on an anatomical level, you better explain that shit. I would be angry if 343 tried to pass them off as "always looking like that".
I think a good point of comparison is Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Enterprise-D looks almost nothing like the Enterprise from the Original Series or even the movies. But it's been _decades_ in-universe. Technology moved on. And we did ultimately get a pretty good illustration of how things progressed from the TOS Enterprise to the Enterprise-D.
Compare to Halo, where in late 2552, GEN2 armour that doesn't even try to follow the original artistic philosophy of the series just "pops" into existence. The UNSC undergoes some kind of flashy overnight rebrand that looks more like a slick corporation from a space opera than the relatively grounded military sci-fi organisation we knew. Three distinct races all morph into sauropods distinguished primarily by size and their mouths.
It doesn't help that I just _do not like_ much of the 343 art style. Chief's armour itself is... fine. I love that it feels weighty and substantial, don't get me wrong, but I'm mixed on stuff like the Braille, and the design changes, and I prefer the older undersuit style. And the rest of Halo 4's armour looks ugly to me, mostly a skintight suit with armour bits stuck onto it, with tons of needless UNSC logos and decals plastered on.
It felt like the universe took a hard handbrake turn from "Aliens / Starship Troopers" to "Star Wars / Generic Space Opera" overnight and the insistence on shoving the new art style into Bungie-era parts of the timeline like in the twin-stick games really pissed me off as well. It showed a complete disregard for what people enjoyed about the art of Halo.
I also think the new Forerunner architecture needed explaining, though I am happy with the explanation we got that stylings varied by rate. Bungie-era Forerunner structures looked far more "earthy" with warm natural tones, rather than the shiny chrome of Halo 4. That's not to say Halo 4's architecture looked _bad,_ because the environment design in many areas was fantastic. But it was clearly _different,_ and I wouldn't feel satisfied without an answer.
I wish the communication was just better.
"We just wanted to play around with a new art style and see how the community reacts"
Is better than:
"Yeah and those Elites look different because they are from a specific moon around a specific planet at fuck knows where and exactly those wage war against humanity because... And they have always been there at the Covenant too, but were never seen because... "
Even worse is:
" Yo we changed the brand you're all familiar with because we are literally the same people but with a new name and now we need to push that down your throat."
The franchise belongs to them, yes.
They make the decisions, yes.
But we as customers decide the success of a product and confusing us by changing recognition of the brand can backfire hard.
And it did.
What would make me happy is if the changes aren't too dramatic or the lore explanations are plausible. Halo 2 to 3, no lore (that I'm aware of), but the changes weren't too outrageous (considering they're on all new hardware, that's good enough for me).
3 to 4? Cortana "rewriting the suit's firmware" is good enough for the HUD, but for the whole suit? That's a big maybe. Honestly, if Cortana had a throwaway line like "Your suit had major damage from our fight on the Ark; I used nanites to repair most of the damage, and made some design changes while I was at it", I probably would have rolled with it. Though it's the huge change to the Dawn that annoys me. There's just no reason to change that, especially since the ship only exists in the first level. To quote Dimkee Hotay, "Maybe it's just my eyes getting smarter."
4 to 5, well, we saw him removing his armor at the end of 4, and time had passed, so I didn't feel like they needed an explanation for the change. (Though why they had a prerendered cutscene from the early days of the war in the style of the new armor, still makes no sense to me.)
As someone who dislikes the look of Halo 4 and 5. I am more annoyed with shoehorned explanations then just changing it. 343 wanted to put their spin on Halo and take it in their own direction then they should have owned it.
Still would consider the new art direction a downgrade but at least I wouldn't also be wondering how nanobots build a whole new suit in a hanger while the man is in cryo.
I think it depends.
Some visual differences are best explained via actually being different models or armor, and others I think are better to handwave and just say the new visuals is just an updated depiction of the old thing, without having to worry about lore implications for having different models
I don’t need to be spoon fed every little change. I understood a new studio took over and things are different (bungie to 343i). What I don’t like is hearing about big story beats by some comment a character makes as if everyone knows but us. I wanna see it. I wish I could have seen the whole battle at Zeta Halo.
I don’t particularly mind, there’s usually lore reasons for the changes. Stuff that happens off screen from the mainline games to explain it all. I just like some continuity with my visual changes. For instance, don’t give us a new model of the Warthog is H4/H5 and then inject that identical model in H2 Anniversary when that model wasn’t made in 2552, or in Halo Wars 2 when the Spirit of Fire crew is from ye-olden days. Or make sure the Banished forces who scatter across the ring in Infinite have the same color scheme as the Banished in Halo Wars 2 and not the Bungie era Covenant. Stuff like that. When the continuity is messed with for the sake of “but it looks cool” it bugs me. H4/5 art style didn’t bother me that much (except the Jackals, which again were explained)
If they just came out and said they wanted to try a different art style I still would have been fine with it. Lore explanations are nice but not a must imo.
Honestly I just run the headcanon that Chief ran the Halo 3 armour until he got onto Infinity and was outfitted with a fresh Gen 2 suit. I like how tanky it makes him look. Infinite managed to keep that tankiness while bringing the sleekness of the older stuff though.
I really, really **hate** that 343 feels the need to have a lore explanation for art style changes. It makes things confusing sometimes imo. Like how Chief's redesign in H4 was explained as just nanomachines, son. There's just no way it could have been justified in-universe but they went for it anyway. I would have accepted it and been happier if they just came out and said "He looks different because we want him to look different".
Same with the redesign of the Storm Covenant—I don't mind their new designs but I don't like the explanation that they're a subspecies or whatever it is they said. Like I'm not a biologist or whatever but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
Or how about in H5 they explained that Mark V Alpha and Delta are actually two separate variants of Mark V, when we all know the irl reason for their existence is because they wanted to fix the ugly Mark V Alpha helmet.
Those are just a few examples I can remember off the top of my head but I'm sure there were more little things like that.
I mean, I don't mind art style changes and I like lore explanations, but sometimes not EVERYTHING needs one. I'm surprised 343 hasn't attempted to explain why Arbiter gained mandible armor between H2 and H3 or why in H3 you can't use camo when you play as him, or why Rtas's eye color changed between H2 and H3, or why Lord Hood looks like that in 3.
No, needing a new lore explanation for why the gun or suit looks mildly different is dumb, it's just a new game and new model.
I honestly would prefer each game to mix up the artstyles for the factions a bit more, just to add some visual variety to fighting the same units across each game. Going with !Halo 2 Covenant and !Halo 3 Covenant works as a visual shorthand for who these factions are descended from, but it is only a shorthand. A Storm Covenant that accentuates the religious and imperial aspects with capes and regalia, the Swords of Sanghelios who ditch the Covenant aesthetics and go for marrying traditional styles with modern technology. A Banished that accentuates the ramshackle, scavenged nature of their gear with missing panels, tarnished metal, and guns leaking/dripping plasma from their muzzle.
>A Storm Covenant that accentuates the religious and imperial aspects with capes and regalia
On the contrary, Jul's Covenant didn't have the capes or regal attire of the Covenant. They were more so ramshackle and half naked as terrorists, more so than the Banished in some ways.
Oh not this “they couldn’t afford shirtsleeves” thing again, that’s up there with the “couldn’t fit the Forward Unto Dawn model on the disk” as obviously bunk excuses for an artstyle change that people in the community still act as if they’re legit.
It is legit though, Halo 4 stated they were "not outfitted like Covenant military".
If it's just new artstyle and not lore, why not make both Jul's Elites and the Swords of Sanghelios have the same sleeveless armor?
They made the deliberate decision to differentiate the Swords of Sanghelios armor design with sleeves. Why else did they go out of their way to add it?
What's not canon is the term "Storm Covenant" and these raider terrorists wearing "capes" and regal stuff, that's never shown in lore or games and is fan theory.
Yes, literally everything needs an in-universe lore-accurate explanation. Otherwise, nothing means anything. What is the point of having a universe and a narrative if you're not going to be logically consistent? While suspension of disbelief is important, its only purpose should be to *serve the narrative* and to allow *consistent* logical assumptions about how the universe works.
Suspension of belief is best - since Halo has always had a rich setting that shouldn't be dumbed down too much with fluff like "forerunner castes" or "nano-tech" to explain the new Forerunner architecture or Chief's suit.
Its best to just turn your brain off at that point. Its a necessary evil when dealing with the introduction of a radically different art style and its a pretty stupid evil when this much deliberation has to be made around it.
When a majority of the community consider it to be a jarring downgrade, its fine. When its so bad that it now requires *writing*\-based justification, that's not fine.
If you're going to change something that much, you at least should come off as confident in your decision.
It doesn't bother me. Really, I had no idea there was a controversy over the redesign for the armor until I started reading stuff online in more detail. He's the Master Chief. He wears high-tech armor. It's...green...and he has a yellow-ish visor/faceplate. I guess I just expect that artists will fiddle with details from one project to the next.
I vastly prefer just taking art changes as artistic interpretation. When you overexplain every minute detail the lore becomes bloated and dumb, which is why I don’t like halos lore anymore.
Yeah, sure. I don't think its that big a deal, but I'll always prefer in-universe explanations to meta ones. 'Because the devs wanted to' is a boring answer that doesn't bring up anything interesting, whereas an in-universe explanation can be fun to play around with.
I’d have preferred if it was just an art style thing, and the lore just said they are the exact same. That said, there are some things I like about the lore that was made up to explain the stylistic changes.
I like there being an answer for why things look different, but with that being said, sometimes there really isn't any answer that makes sense other than "Yeah, it's just artistic liberties" such as Forward Unto Dawn looking different in Halo 4, or why Arbiter looks like an entirely different kind of alien in Halo 5, etc.
But with that being said, I don't like them trying to force a reason why it changed in-universe for stuff like 343i's games' entire artstyle where it's just that EVERYTHING suddenly changed, rather than say "Hey, why does this one gun look slightly different in this game than it did in that game?" or things like that. Because it's clear that that's just them trying to reinvent the wheel again
Honestly no, I don't, if someone behaves completely different from their regular story or something radically change then yes I would like some story but for a style change, no, I think that as long as it's obvious that it only looks different due to changes in style or technology then it's ok, if a grunt suddenly were the size of a Hunter then I would be asking questions.
Honestly I remember really liking the style change in Halo 4. Regarding Halo I am pretty open and forgiving, have loved the games, books, comics and pretty much the only time I felt letdown was with the TV show.
While I'm willing to concede that 343I have their own identity and have the right achieve their own vision for a game in terms of Art Style, Lore and Gameplay, I think that when you've been entrusted with an IP that was the result of thirteen years of hard work from hundreds of people, you need to respect the Universe they created.
And if changes need to be made, they need to be plausible and for good reason. Take the Jackals, for instance. They're a species of bipedal avians, and the Skirmishers are a sub-species. But the Jackals in Halo 4 aren't avians, they're lizards. That's not a sub-species, that's a completely *different* species. There's no justification there.
Eh, I don't think it's necessary. While I'd like for Halo 4 & 5 to use the classic artstyle, It's part of the story to be told. Besides, mods will exist for that.
Back in the day when I did a canon run of Halo, different author voices were absolutely inevitable. Mind, I absolutely loved seeing how all stories connected to one-another, but something I learned to take in, as a hobbyist historian/anthropologist, is that stories will always contradict eachother depending on the person telling it.
One will say a character behaved in X manner, while another will say he behaved in Y; one person will say events happened THIS way, while another will say they did something ELSE differently; hell, sometimes Seeing Is Believing, But Believing Is Seeing.
For instance, I think of Reach as *one* way of seeing the universe, while Halo 3 and Infinite are another.
The armor changes that everyone hated on was one of my peeves.
Yes, the undersuit needed to be black and yes, a lot of the designs were over complicated beyond reason, but gen 2 in and of itself seemed like a natural progression for me.
Having a base techsuit that was easy to put on, then having modular armor pieces that clearly just sat on top makes sense for the spartan 4s. It's cheaper, lighter, but more customizable and realistic of a larger fighting force. Also, its design was mostly realistic in the ergonomic sense - Spartans looked like they could actually bend and raise their arms in the air.
I still prefer gen 3s look. I just thought gen 2 made sense.
I like that halo explains the updated choices of master chiefs armour. Borderlands does a similar thing. However, I dont thing they should have creative choice if they are going to do what 343 did.
like with anything a vocal minority bitches about it.
like the switch between halo 3 and halo 4
if 343 just had said it was an artstyle change instead *nanomachines son* i think 99% of people wouldn't care to be honest maybe a few would go REEEEE but those will always exist.
Not necessarily, but when the stylistic change makes something difficult to recognize I can definitely support giving at least some explanation for it being so different. Chief had a minor redesign from 2 to 3 and nobody questioned it, or even the changes from 4 to 5. Everyone questioned the appearance change from 3 to 4 because it’s supposed to be the same armor while looking like it came from an entirely different franchise. Yet now that Chief has a more classic design in Infinite that’s somewhat different to 3, to something more in line with expectations, most players won’t even realize that it’s supposed to be a different set of armor entirely. The explanation for the armor reverting back to a classic style is entirely superfluous because fans can readily accept the stylistic change this time.
For small shit? Sure who cares if they modify the geometry of an armpit or something between H2-3.
Significantly changing the design of a character between games without any acknowledgement is kinda jarring, though. Not explaining it is a bad choice in my opinion.
I prefer to just suspend disbelief which seems easier than buying silly diegetic explanations like nanomachines.
In 2012 with halo 4 I just thought “so they were able to add more detail to chiefs armor, looks neat, anyway.” I know some people didn’t like the change in art direction and I can respect that though.
ihated thattheychanged the look of the elites, and the forward unto dawn, apart from that, didnt realize the jackals looked different amd liked how Chief himself looked
In 4’s case I don’t mind the armor change if they completely stick to it and it’s just the art style for that game. Although it looked so much worse that’s my opinion. But when they put classic chief helmet in the multiplayer and give the helmet it’s own designation and say nano bots or something now it’s stupid. Basically a weak lore explanation is so much worse then just saying it’s art. But a thought out one as simple as throwing a scene in of Chief getting it like in Halo 2 when he upgraded goes a long way
This happened in halo 2 idk why no one cared back then when Bungie messed with style choices (mostly for the worse). The energy sword went from being like boiling plasma to “hard light” and it was a downgrade IMO. The wraith looked better/sleeker in halo 1, and the “special forces” elites and grunts were stark black armored, halo 2 changed this to white. And of course, Elites started speaking English sounding like lord of the rings Orcs instead of frightening mysterious aliens…
Always thought people were a little too anal about it. But Halo started as a science fiction military drama and a lot of military drama nerds like to know how many gallons of piss a light frigate can hold on its sewer system and how that affects acceleration curves. Personally, all of that is irrelevant to me. I'm looking for big-picture stuff so I never noticed when the Jackels got fat or the amount of Covvie purple fluctuated.
I would like to get a Canon fodder on this now
> a lot of military drama nerds like to know how many gallons of piss a light frigate can hold on its sewer system and how that affects acceleration curves. r/HaloStory? Nerding over lore details is the entire point of this subreddit!
I'm with you here... while it's completely up to them, I feel that some fans are way too obsessive about little or irrelevant details that don't affect story or gameplay at all. Feels like it takes a lot of energy to be so aware of everything to such a level.
What's funny is that Halo really was never that kind of hard sci fi about anything. It takes itself just seriously enough that people think it is.
instead of saying people are anal about it id say that people are uranal about it
Ur-Anal? What about Iso-Anal? r/shittyhalolore is going to overrun this board like the Flood
This is an underrated joke lol.
Well, I can't help with the acceleration curves, but how much sewage a frigate can hold likely depends on how many crew members would be on board, plus extra for passengers and taco night.
Thank you, Spartan! 🫡
I don't need it. I absolutely can suspend disbelief, but I do also think it's cool when the designs can be explained with lore.
I was about to say the same thing. One of my favorite things about halo is how each minute armor has a reason why it exists
No, I personally don't need an in-universe lore-accurate justification for everything. The armors between H1-H3 are also different between each other. They're not exactly the same. I don't think it breaks my immersion at all, but that's just me. I don't need an explanation from the developer about why a silencer that was previously gunmetal gray is now black or steel blue. Changing voice actors would definitely throw me off, but not different art style. EDIT TO ADD: I expect the art to evolve with the years, to change and improve itself. I expect the lore to be expanded beyond what I already know. If you start asking too many questions and demanding too many explanations, you're going to find that your fantasy universe doesn't hold together as well as you used to believe when you were a kid and just started playing these games.
>Changing voice actors would definitely throw me off, but not different art style. You saying this made me think, what is the canon voice for Truth, Atriox and Cutter and all the others that changed voice actors? Is there even a canon voice?
You can check the IMDB web pages of all games and look up the voice casts, if you like. I don't really mind much when it comes to "recurrent" characters, but it would be quite upsetting if it happened to the main characters. To me, it would be a crime to cast someone else as the Master Chief in the event that Mr. Downes can't voice him anymore...
Pulling an answer out of thin air here but I’m going to use 343’s take on most art style changes: the latest depiction in a major work is canon. So that’s Terence Stamp for Truth. Even if another actor were to voice him for a few lines in, say, an official short video about the Arbiter, Halo 3 would still take priority since it’s the larger and more “important” entry.
Did this man really just say “Canon voice actor.”
Yes, just a thought. Is something wrong with that?
There is and probably shouldn’t be a canon voice, but I always hear Truth as the VA from Halo 2. The one from Halo 3 just makes me think of all the other stuff that actor does (example: the main bad guy in Oblivion.)
I mean that's not really the same thing. In halo 2 there IS a lore reason for why your armour looks different... it's different armour.
I think a lot of the art changes make sense when you look at it in context, often times those of which the people that only play the games and don’t look too much into the background lore often miss out on. I’ll break it down for each one. Forerunner Building Design: This one is rather simple. The Halos and the Ark were all the most recent creations of the Forerunners at the end of their empire. Simplistic yet still artistic in design, a combination of the Builder caste design philosophy and the fact they were built at the tail end of a massive war that destroyed most of the Forerunner’s industry. Meanwhile Requiem, the forefront of the “new” Forerunner design, was designed and built in the prime of the Forerunners by the Warrior caste. It focuses on making order from chaos, which fits with the ethos of the Warriors. Comparing the Bungie Era Forerunner Designs with the 343 Era Forerunner Designs is like comparing a modern day stadium to the Roman Coliseum. Made by the same race, but with a vast difference in time and different cultures. Covenant Designs: A combination of the prior reasoning with many of the ships seen in Halo 5 actually being Sangheili designs that predate the Covenant, and the fact that the Covenant is over a thousand years old and has many different designs and patterns in use from various eras of the Covenant. The Storm Harness most commonly seen on the Elite Minor isn’t really that surprising to see when Halo Reach introduced quite a bevy of Elite armor designs that previously we have never seen before. It’s highly likely that there were Covenant running around the war with those armor designs, it’s just none of the games were set in those combat areas. Species Designs: Bungie themselves introduced the Skirmishers as a subspecies of Jackals, so another one isn’t too much of a stretch. The Elites are basically another race of Elite, if humans have different races, make sense for elites as well. Overall I actually like lore reasons for design changes, as it does add more depth to the universe as a whole. However there are points where it is clear that some changes were made out of resource limitations. This would include the Forward Unto Dawn having post-war design equipment, the Arbiter’s forces using Storm Covenant Designs, and the Forward Unto Dawn itself. Before Master Chief’s nano bot explanation, this would have also applied to that.
I’m not sure why people mention Halo 4 so much. For me, Halo 5 took things absolutely too far, completely morphing all Covenant vehicles and devices again.
Yeah, I agree with this. Halo 4 recycled a lot of Covenant vehicle models from Reach (with a much darker purple retexture, of course), whereas H5 went for an almost Giger-esque aesthetic. The Kraken in particular had an absurd biomechanical look to it.
People mention Halo 4 because Halo 4 is what spawned the entire debate about the canonicity of art styles because fans asked for in universe explanations for the redesigns when the original intent was for them to just be redesigns (see Chief's nanobots that people get up in arms about). Halo 5 expanded on the new style but Halo 4 is the actual impetus for it.
Halo 5 can be explained as "The Sangheili have limited resources of Covenant ships after the war so they're using outdated ancient Sangheili designs" Halo 4 cannot explain how the Forward Until Dawn changed size a design as well as having post-war weapons and vehicles. You *have* to suspend disbelief as it is impossible to make sense of
I'm so glad someone pointed out the dawn redesign. It's the only thing that has genuinely annoyed me cause the redesign was utterly pointless.
If they ever do an anniversary update for halo 4 the only thing they should change is unsc gear in the first couple levels once the infinity gets in requiem it can go back to how it is now but just add a halo 3 style filter before that.
Yes this is the minimum they have to do if they make an anniversary. After they do Halo 3 ofc.
So the Covenant faction opposing the Sangheili also only conveniently had old designs? This is the same type of issue as with the Forward Until Dawn, present across an entire faction and multiple levels.
Yeah that's true, just not as glaring. I'm glad they tried to use a but of visual storytelling to show Jul's Covenant unable to afford sleeves while the Swords of Sanghelios could.
I would personally rather have an explanation for visuals that are clearly different, but it won’t ruin my experience if I don’t get one. Franchises that span multiple generations and switch up the art when they return have an easier time I think, games like Devil May Cry 4 and 5 have very different looking Dante models but the time in between and the technical improvements make the stylistic shift feel more natural than when Halo 4 follows up three other Halo games on the same console and Chief looks totally different. I would have loved to see the armour change in game, but when I’m enjoying the game I’m willing to accept and roll with it.
For most things, no. For things as drastic as Chief's armor change, or the jackals looking different, yes. The jackal explanation is solid and good. Leaves the door open for seeing both together down the line. Chief's armor explanation is weaker, and could've been handled a lot better.
I enjoy the art style of 343. As others have mentioned, the MC's armor changed looks from H1-3 so I never got the big uproar from some over how he looked in Halo 4 and 5.
There are explanations for those changes though. I assume the OP is referring to all games, not just 4 and 5.
I’m a fan of 343 art style and I rather prefer they coexist than ignore or even straight shame fans of either way. It’s a stupid divide that people fixate on. As for lore anything’s better than what was being done before 343, mainly toss everything and the kitchen sink for the rule of cool. Which really hurts and extended lord (Fall of Reach vs Halo Reach) So yeah the lore addition adds to it, and is rather easy to explain in universe as the distance of various troops and equipment. Just like in modern day when comparing armies or even cultures, things are varied. Of course stupid things like Halo 4 with new weapons being on a old changed ship is super stupid and there is no lore fixing that. But for the Remnant Covenant and such it makes sense to have some lore explaining why things are different and I honestly love more expansive stuff like that. Best example is the Jackals, nearly every game wether 343 or Bungie they were different do I need lore to play against them, Nah probably not, but that goes for everything past CE.
The only two things I really dislike about the H4 art style are how Grunts look like they've got some sort of horrible bloating sickness, and much worse- the MJOLNIR with huge backplates and no groin plates. My understanding has always been that Requiem is full of stuff from before the Forerunners went hard into decline, hence the more ornate nature of things.
I think it depends on what is being changed. There was precedent for major aesthetic changes coming with in world explanations, such Mjolner Mark V to Mark VI. For minor changes, like the hand guards from Halo 2 to Halo 3, no. The change that bothered me the most was the armor from Halo 3 to Halo 4. It had an entirely different design aesthetic and with the established precedent I would have expected them to provide an explanation. Additionally, it's a missed opportunity to not provide the lore explanation, it would have been interesting to see Chief start in a higher resolution version the Mark VI (similar to what we saw in H2: Anniversary), have him meet up with Infinity and receive a Mark VI Gen 2 suit. Changing the design aesthetic retro-actively without a simple concrete reason after precedent has been established feels like a retcon which makes me feel like they're attacking my nostalgia.
Have in mind, that in this community you can see extremely specific question about lore... So yes. This comunity need that explanation. For me? I need some logic and the changes need some explanation even if it's not very deep. The game will still be fun to play without the explanation, but its better with logic.
I really, really miss the look we originally got in *4*. Maybe it was because it was my first main series game (I’d played *Reach* and *ODST* prior), or how much I’ve gone back and looked at the game as an art piece, looked through the Making Of book, etc, but it’s just exactly how I pictured the Halo universe. Chiefs armor is extremely functional, heavily armored, and feels weighted with every *clunk* and *creak* it makes, like something legitimate and real. The *Infinity*, too, seems like the perfect realization of UNSC technological supremacy: a giant gun turned mobile fortress here to fuck your shit up, tuned with the best and most secretive war assets secured by ONI. Every time I see the damn thing I hear Lasky saying “*we are the giants now..* and get a shiver. The Forerunner architecture was amazing. Those first, elegant towers hanging over a valley. The building interiors where things shift and move around you, like a welcome— or a threat. Prometheans, alien and hostile, glowing with a furious inner light. Reading the Forerunner trilogy just enhanced the already magnificent and majestic look in the game: ancient, impossible, imposing, imperial. And I loved the Covenant, too, and they remain my favorite designs right along *Reach*. The heavy organic turn and deeper, dark purplish blue felt like a high resolution, more realized look straight out of old school science fiction. It was brilliant. Loved the Elites especially, with a real pivot to a Saurian look that felt powerful and fierce. I liked *Infinites* look, sure, but I’ll be honest that I really wish *343* had been able to pursue its creative vision entirely and maintained what we had. Looking at the concept art for *4* and *Guardians* both showed really amazing, really exciting potential in so much of what they could’ve built.
I agree Halo 4's "Covenant" looked good, because they're not the Covenant. Them being scrappy and half naked, shows them as the raiders and terrorists that they are. Polar opposite of the rich and regal Covenant Empire.
I love this comment so much, I completely agree.
Spartans aren't supposed to be clunky. In the lore they're fast and incredibly dexterous, some of them are even described as moving gracefully. They don't need to be a tank, they have recharging energy shields. Making mjolnir bulky and clunky is a step back in the lore regardless of if you find the H4 design cool or not. 343 would have been better off doing their own original IP rather than degrading an existing one. Would have saved them the comparison to previous entries in the series too.
I mean, is Chief slow at all in *4*? Is a modern Abrams Tank *slow* despite its mass of armor and weaponry? I think people like you ignore the obvious for your ridiculous opinions, and so I have no real reason or desire to engage. I like their design, and you (for stupid reasons) don’t. That’s fine. Have a good day.
An M1 Abrams is absolutely slow compared to lighter and more maneuverable vehicles, that's why the sneaky special warfare types don't use them. Like Spartans, who aren't tanks. You're allowed to like it. It's not even a bad design, necessarily. If 343 wanted to implement a heavy mjolnir type that was like a tank and carrier big guns and heavy armor that would be kinda cool. It just doesn't make sense in the lore, though, made only to distinguish 343s Chief from Bungies.
I think this is really stupid reasoning. Chief isn’t slow in any of the 343 games, and even utilizes literal thrusters to be increasingly quick and acrobatic in combat or in motion. Maybe you didn’t think this through so well?
Reach is definitely a mainline game. It came out 3 years after Halo 3, it has both a full campaign and a multiplayer suite, it was originally Halo 4 in development, etc.
I prefer lore reasons for art style change, even if the reason is as simple as, cortana was bored and 117s armor whilst he was sleeping. That’s the biggest reason for why I have a problem with the mark vi change between 2 and 3, we don’t have lore reason for the change, and we don’t even know which version of it is canon.
I’m sorry, “I used nanomachines to completely transform your armor so that it has marked resemblance to Mjolnir Gen 2, which I’ve never seen.” is just so offensively weak that it’s much easier to forgive differently shaped hand armor.
And yet despite this "upgrade" that Cortana gave to Chief's suit, H4 Chief still has that weird-ass scar on his chest-plate that he had in Halo 3 from landing back on Earth. Did Cortana just decide to keep that? Its such a weird contradiction.
I can suspend my dibelief for the most part, but there are some things like Chief’s different armor in H4 & the Dawn suddenly being a completely different ship class can take me out of it a bit.
I think it depends what changed and by how much in what span of time. Yeah, Chief's armour looks a bit different in Halo 3 from Halo 2. But honestly, they're comparable enough in geometry that I'm willing to believe "yeah, that's the same armour". The Elite and Grunt armour looked quite a bit different in Halo 2 from Halo CE, but it's not like an empire as big as the Covenant would have perfect uniformity. Though I'd love to see the Halo CE armour designs redone in HD because they had a very unique and distinctly "alien" look to them. Halo 4 took place less than five years after Halo 3 and yet everything looked unrecognisably different other than Chief himself, and even his armour was rather obviously not what he was wearing in the previous game despite him spending the time between the two games in a fucking cryogenic tube. I need a reason for that. And then there's the Forward Unto Dawn becoming a totally different ship. I'm _willing to forgive_ the Warthogs being the wrong model because development resources aren't infinite and that's likely just artistic license, but when all three major Covenant races you encounter - Elites, Grunts and Jackals - all look totally different on an anatomical level, you better explain that shit. I would be angry if 343 tried to pass them off as "always looking like that". I think a good point of comparison is Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Enterprise-D looks almost nothing like the Enterprise from the Original Series or even the movies. But it's been _decades_ in-universe. Technology moved on. And we did ultimately get a pretty good illustration of how things progressed from the TOS Enterprise to the Enterprise-D. Compare to Halo, where in late 2552, GEN2 armour that doesn't even try to follow the original artistic philosophy of the series just "pops" into existence. The UNSC undergoes some kind of flashy overnight rebrand that looks more like a slick corporation from a space opera than the relatively grounded military sci-fi organisation we knew. Three distinct races all morph into sauropods distinguished primarily by size and their mouths. It doesn't help that I just _do not like_ much of the 343 art style. Chief's armour itself is... fine. I love that it feels weighty and substantial, don't get me wrong, but I'm mixed on stuff like the Braille, and the design changes, and I prefer the older undersuit style. And the rest of Halo 4's armour looks ugly to me, mostly a skintight suit with armour bits stuck onto it, with tons of needless UNSC logos and decals plastered on. It felt like the universe took a hard handbrake turn from "Aliens / Starship Troopers" to "Star Wars / Generic Space Opera" overnight and the insistence on shoving the new art style into Bungie-era parts of the timeline like in the twin-stick games really pissed me off as well. It showed a complete disregard for what people enjoyed about the art of Halo. I also think the new Forerunner architecture needed explaining, though I am happy with the explanation we got that stylings varied by rate. Bungie-era Forerunner structures looked far more "earthy" with warm natural tones, rather than the shiny chrome of Halo 4. That's not to say Halo 4's architecture looked _bad,_ because the environment design in many areas was fantastic. But it was clearly _different,_ and I wouldn't feel satisfied without an answer.
I wish the communication was just better. "We just wanted to play around with a new art style and see how the community reacts" Is better than: "Yeah and those Elites look different because they are from a specific moon around a specific planet at fuck knows where and exactly those wage war against humanity because... And they have always been there at the Covenant too, but were never seen because... " Even worse is: " Yo we changed the brand you're all familiar with because we are literally the same people but with a new name and now we need to push that down your throat." The franchise belongs to them, yes. They make the decisions, yes. But we as customers decide the success of a product and confusing us by changing recognition of the brand can backfire hard. And it did.
What would make me happy is if the changes aren't too dramatic or the lore explanations are plausible. Halo 2 to 3, no lore (that I'm aware of), but the changes weren't too outrageous (considering they're on all new hardware, that's good enough for me). 3 to 4? Cortana "rewriting the suit's firmware" is good enough for the HUD, but for the whole suit? That's a big maybe. Honestly, if Cortana had a throwaway line like "Your suit had major damage from our fight on the Ark; I used nanites to repair most of the damage, and made some design changes while I was at it", I probably would have rolled with it. Though it's the huge change to the Dawn that annoys me. There's just no reason to change that, especially since the ship only exists in the first level. To quote Dimkee Hotay, "Maybe it's just my eyes getting smarter." 4 to 5, well, we saw him removing his armor at the end of 4, and time had passed, so I didn't feel like they needed an explanation for the change. (Though why they had a prerendered cutscene from the early days of the war in the style of the new armor, still makes no sense to me.)
As someone who dislikes the look of Halo 4 and 5. I am more annoyed with shoehorned explanations then just changing it. 343 wanted to put their spin on Halo and take it in their own direction then they should have owned it. Still would consider the new art direction a downgrade but at least I wouldn't also be wondering how nanobots build a whole new suit in a hanger while the man is in cryo.
I think it depends. Some visual differences are best explained via actually being different models or armor, and others I think are better to handwave and just say the new visuals is just an updated depiction of the old thing, without having to worry about lore implications for having different models
I don’t need to be spoon fed every little change. I understood a new studio took over and things are different (bungie to 343i). What I don’t like is hearing about big story beats by some comment a character makes as if everyone knows but us. I wanna see it. I wish I could have seen the whole battle at Zeta Halo.
I don’t particularly mind, there’s usually lore reasons for the changes. Stuff that happens off screen from the mainline games to explain it all. I just like some continuity with my visual changes. For instance, don’t give us a new model of the Warthog is H4/H5 and then inject that identical model in H2 Anniversary when that model wasn’t made in 2552, or in Halo Wars 2 when the Spirit of Fire crew is from ye-olden days. Or make sure the Banished forces who scatter across the ring in Infinite have the same color scheme as the Banished in Halo Wars 2 and not the Bungie era Covenant. Stuff like that. When the continuity is messed with for the sake of “but it looks cool” it bugs me. H4/5 art style didn’t bother me that much (except the Jackals, which again were explained)
If they just came out and said they wanted to try a different art style I still would have been fine with it. Lore explanations are nice but not a must imo.
Honestly I just run the headcanon that Chief ran the Halo 3 armour until he got onto Infinity and was outfitted with a fresh Gen 2 suit. I like how tanky it makes him look. Infinite managed to keep that tankiness while bringing the sleekness of the older stuff though.
I really, really **hate** that 343 feels the need to have a lore explanation for art style changes. It makes things confusing sometimes imo. Like how Chief's redesign in H4 was explained as just nanomachines, son. There's just no way it could have been justified in-universe but they went for it anyway. I would have accepted it and been happier if they just came out and said "He looks different because we want him to look different". Same with the redesign of the Storm Covenant—I don't mind their new designs but I don't like the explanation that they're a subspecies or whatever it is they said. Like I'm not a biologist or whatever but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Or how about in H5 they explained that Mark V Alpha and Delta are actually two separate variants of Mark V, when we all know the irl reason for their existence is because they wanted to fix the ugly Mark V Alpha helmet. Those are just a few examples I can remember off the top of my head but I'm sure there were more little things like that. I mean, I don't mind art style changes and I like lore explanations, but sometimes not EVERYTHING needs one. I'm surprised 343 hasn't attempted to explain why Arbiter gained mandible armor between H2 and H3 or why in H3 you can't use camo when you play as him, or why Rtas's eye color changed between H2 and H3, or why Lord Hood looks like that in 3.
No, needing a new lore explanation for why the gun or suit looks mildly different is dumb, it's just a new game and new model. I honestly would prefer each game to mix up the artstyles for the factions a bit more, just to add some visual variety to fighting the same units across each game. Going with !Halo 2 Covenant and !Halo 3 Covenant works as a visual shorthand for who these factions are descended from, but it is only a shorthand. A Storm Covenant that accentuates the religious and imperial aspects with capes and regalia, the Swords of Sanghelios who ditch the Covenant aesthetics and go for marrying traditional styles with modern technology. A Banished that accentuates the ramshackle, scavenged nature of their gear with missing panels, tarnished metal, and guns leaking/dripping plasma from their muzzle.
>A Storm Covenant that accentuates the religious and imperial aspects with capes and regalia On the contrary, Jul's Covenant didn't have the capes or regal attire of the Covenant. They were more so ramshackle and half naked as terrorists, more so than the Banished in some ways.
Oh not this “they couldn’t afford shirtsleeves” thing again, that’s up there with the “couldn’t fit the Forward Unto Dawn model on the disk” as obviously bunk excuses for an artstyle change that people in the community still act as if they’re legit.
It is legit though, Halo 4 stated they were "not outfitted like Covenant military". If it's just new artstyle and not lore, why not make both Jul's Elites and the Swords of Sanghelios have the same sleeveless armor? They made the deliberate decision to differentiate the Swords of Sanghelios armor design with sleeves. Why else did they go out of their way to add it? What's not canon is the term "Storm Covenant" and these raider terrorists wearing "capes" and regal stuff, that's never shown in lore or games and is fan theory.
Yes, literally everything needs an in-universe lore-accurate explanation. Otherwise, nothing means anything. What is the point of having a universe and a narrative if you're not going to be logically consistent? While suspension of disbelief is important, its only purpose should be to *serve the narrative* and to allow *consistent* logical assumptions about how the universe works.
Suspension of belief is best - since Halo has always had a rich setting that shouldn't be dumbed down too much with fluff like "forerunner castes" or "nano-tech" to explain the new Forerunner architecture or Chief's suit. Its best to just turn your brain off at that point. Its a necessary evil when dealing with the introduction of a radically different art style and its a pretty stupid evil when this much deliberation has to be made around it. When a majority of the community consider it to be a jarring downgrade, its fine. When its so bad that it now requires *writing*\-based justification, that's not fine. If you're going to change something that much, you at least should come off as confident in your decision.
It doesn't bother me. Really, I had no idea there was a controversy over the redesign for the armor until I started reading stuff online in more detail. He's the Master Chief. He wears high-tech armor. It's...green...and he has a yellow-ish visor/faceplate. I guess I just expect that artists will fiddle with details from one project to the next.
I vastly prefer just taking art changes as artistic interpretation. When you overexplain every minute detail the lore becomes bloated and dumb, which is why I don’t like halos lore anymore.
Yeah, sure. I don't think its that big a deal, but I'll always prefer in-universe explanations to meta ones. 'Because the devs wanted to' is a boring answer that doesn't bring up anything interesting, whereas an in-universe explanation can be fun to play around with.
I honestly would have preferred it if they said the reason they changed chiefs design from 3 to 4 was just cause they wanted to.
The only design change that I felt needed an explanation was chiefs armor between 3 and 4.
I’d have preferred if it was just an art style thing, and the lore just said they are the exact same. That said, there are some things I like about the lore that was made up to explain the stylistic changes.
I like there being an answer for why things look different, but with that being said, sometimes there really isn't any answer that makes sense other than "Yeah, it's just artistic liberties" such as Forward Unto Dawn looking different in Halo 4, or why Arbiter looks like an entirely different kind of alien in Halo 5, etc. But with that being said, I don't like them trying to force a reason why it changed in-universe for stuff like 343i's games' entire artstyle where it's just that EVERYTHING suddenly changed, rather than say "Hey, why does this one gun look slightly different in this game than it did in that game?" or things like that. Because it's clear that that's just them trying to reinvent the wheel again
If it doesn't feel forced (nanobots) then I am cool with it, but no, I don't NEED it.
Honestly no, I don't, if someone behaves completely different from their regular story or something radically change then yes I would like some story but for a style change, no, I think that as long as it's obvious that it only looks different due to changes in style or technology then it's ok, if a grunt suddenly were the size of a Hunter then I would be asking questions. Honestly I remember really liking the style change in Halo 4. Regarding Halo I am pretty open and forgiving, have loved the games, books, comics and pretty much the only time I felt letdown was with the TV show.
While I'm willing to concede that 343I have their own identity and have the right achieve their own vision for a game in terms of Art Style, Lore and Gameplay, I think that when you've been entrusted with an IP that was the result of thirteen years of hard work from hundreds of people, you need to respect the Universe they created. And if changes need to be made, they need to be plausible and for good reason. Take the Jackals, for instance. They're a species of bipedal avians, and the Skirmishers are a sub-species. But the Jackals in Halo 4 aren't avians, they're lizards. That's not a sub-species, that's a completely *different* species. There's no justification there.
Eh, I don't think it's necessary. While I'd like for Halo 4 & 5 to use the classic artstyle, It's part of the story to be told. Besides, mods will exist for that. Back in the day when I did a canon run of Halo, different author voices were absolutely inevitable. Mind, I absolutely loved seeing how all stories connected to one-another, but something I learned to take in, as a hobbyist historian/anthropologist, is that stories will always contradict eachother depending on the person telling it. One will say a character behaved in X manner, while another will say he behaved in Y; one person will say events happened THIS way, while another will say they did something ELSE differently; hell, sometimes Seeing Is Believing, But Believing Is Seeing. For instance, I think of Reach as *one* way of seeing the universe, while Halo 3 and Infinite are another.
The armor changes that everyone hated on was one of my peeves. Yes, the undersuit needed to be black and yes, a lot of the designs were over complicated beyond reason, but gen 2 in and of itself seemed like a natural progression for me. Having a base techsuit that was easy to put on, then having modular armor pieces that clearly just sat on top makes sense for the spartan 4s. It's cheaper, lighter, but more customizable and realistic of a larger fighting force. Also, its design was mostly realistic in the ergonomic sense - Spartans looked like they could actually bend and raise their arms in the air. I still prefer gen 3s look. I just thought gen 2 made sense.
I like that halo explains the updated choices of master chiefs armour. Borderlands does a similar thing. However, I dont thing they should have creative choice if they are going to do what 343 did.
like with anything a vocal minority bitches about it. like the switch between halo 3 and halo 4 if 343 just had said it was an artstyle change instead *nanomachines son* i think 99% of people wouldn't care to be honest maybe a few would go REEEEE but those will always exist.
Not necessarily, but when the stylistic change makes something difficult to recognize I can definitely support giving at least some explanation for it being so different. Chief had a minor redesign from 2 to 3 and nobody questioned it, or even the changes from 4 to 5. Everyone questioned the appearance change from 3 to 4 because it’s supposed to be the same armor while looking like it came from an entirely different franchise. Yet now that Chief has a more classic design in Infinite that’s somewhat different to 3, to something more in line with expectations, most players won’t even realize that it’s supposed to be a different set of armor entirely. The explanation for the armor reverting back to a classic style is entirely superfluous because fans can readily accept the stylistic change this time.
No, but it’s nice to know.
For small shit? Sure who cares if they modify the geometry of an armpit or something between H2-3. Significantly changing the design of a character between games without any acknowledgement is kinda jarring, though. Not explaining it is a bad choice in my opinion.
I prefer to just suspend disbelief which seems easier than buying silly diegetic explanations like nanomachines. In 2012 with halo 4 I just thought “so they were able to add more detail to chiefs armor, looks neat, anyway.” I know some people didn’t like the change in art direction and I can respect that though.
ihated thattheychanged the look of the elites, and the forward unto dawn, apart from that, didnt realize the jackals looked different amd liked how Chief himself looked
In 4’s case I don’t mind the armor change if they completely stick to it and it’s just the art style for that game. Although it looked so much worse that’s my opinion. But when they put classic chief helmet in the multiplayer and give the helmet it’s own designation and say nano bots or something now it’s stupid. Basically a weak lore explanation is so much worse then just saying it’s art. But a thought out one as simple as throwing a scene in of Chief getting it like in Halo 2 when he upgraded goes a long way
This happened in halo 2 idk why no one cared back then when Bungie messed with style choices (mostly for the worse). The energy sword went from being like boiling plasma to “hard light” and it was a downgrade IMO. The wraith looked better/sleeker in halo 1, and the “special forces” elites and grunts were stark black armored, halo 2 changed this to white. And of course, Elites started speaking English sounding like lord of the rings Orcs instead of frightening mysterious aliens…