Halo 4 is a Bad Game

I love the Halo games. The first lacked polish and was greatly improved when it’s remastered edition was released. The second succeeded in doing something different in the face of endless WW2 shooters. The third was an elegant, if mildly absurd thrill ride. ODST was a practise run for something better, while Reach was that something better, blending slick gunplay, over the mechanics and solid and emotive plot. I remember plot points from all of them, and can trace the layout of some of the Halo 3 multiplayer maps in my memory.

h4_005-4f9cdb0532ac44beb85976cd4369531eHalo 4 though – the first game following the breakaway of original series developer Bungie from Microsoft – leaves me cold. I had to look up my Xbox achievements to see if I’d actually finished it, its that forgettable.

The Halo series has never been one to avoid tropes, which can be a sign of bad in itself. Since Halo 3, the games have also been pretty reliant on collectable items, some of which can be missed, to both tell the story and give background and insight into the Forerunners, the race that built the eponymous ring structures. Well used, this can be an effective story-telling tool, rewarding that that are interested in collecting digital trinkets or want to learn more about the setting, but done badly and you end up with games like Assassin’s Creed Unity, where the player is overwhelmed with pointless map icons that are only there for the sake of ticking off a rewardless checklist.

h4_002-f3df874bc11f452d91133674a13f033cHalo 4 does have these tipbits, and they are used to tell a story. Unfortunately in this case, the main enemy, the Diadact, is first named in a missable movie. When he later appears, the AI character Cortana, who provides instructions to the player character, immediately starts using its name with no name and little way of any explanation or exploration of what the enemy is. Halo often had Go There, Do That instructions, and at their best, they using saving entire planets or making a heroic last stand against overwhelming odds. But without any explanation of why the enemy is the enemy, who they are, what they are, its hard to care about why you are fighting onwards. Just being told something wants to destroy you doesn’t make for compelling storytelling and hiding information that provides crucial understanding of the plot and provides motivation is not just poor writing, but poor game design.

Maybe I’m reading too much into Halo 4. In terms of design, there are a number of design elements which have become as token as a beach assault in a WW2 game or breach and clearing an office building in Call of Duty : the a level with wide open spaces and plenty of Warthogs and Ghosts, a level with a pitched battle fought across a bridge, a level set in badlands and lots of soaring spires and light-bridges. The real meat of the other games, excluding the story focused ODST, is the multiplayer. I haven’t tried Halo 4’s multiplayer, after letting my Xbox Live Gold subscription expire, but I put more hours than I care to remember into Halo 3 and Reach with friends from Glasgow. The fast, arcade style shooting, jet packs and squabbles as a complete stranger repeatedly drives a tank into a cliff-face and brilliant hilarious fun, and presumably remain so. But if that’s the main selling point, then why bother with a story-based campaign at all when greater resources can be deployed to increase the number of maps, or improve other aspects of the game. The success of Bungie with the multiplayer only Destiny certainly suggests that this is a viable business model.

Images courtesy of Microsoft and 343 Industries.