Played some 5 for the first time since the beta, only did multi. I am digging it so far but a couple questions:
So the vast majority of cards are temp use, and in Warzone only? Only customization stuff is permanent?
Did they change the scattershot? I was getting merked with it but could not do the same to others.
How do I highlight/Mark an enemy?
How do I do the ground slam?
Played some 5 for the first time since the beta, only did multi. I am digging it so far but a couple questions:
So the vast majority of cards are temp use, and in Warzone only? Only customization stuff is permanent?
Did they change the scattershot? I was getting merked with it but could not do the same to others.
How do I highlight/Mark an enemy?
How do I do the ground slam?
Most REQ cards are single use, and cannot be used in the Arena (where there's more than enough power weapons on most maps to go around anyway).
Customization stuff, emblems, stances, assassinations, can be used in both.
The scattershot is weird. If you're using it in Warzone there's three or four of them and the latter ones are much more powerful than the basic one. The vanilla one kind of sucks. The version you pick up off downed AI is the basic one AFAIK.
No way to highlight/Mark an enemy afaik. The callouts are automatic.
Ground slam should be jump plus hold down whatever your melee button is. You'll see a reticle/landing marker and you can target a spot to attack. The higher you are the more damage you deal. It does *not* OHK outside of a direct hit on a full shields guy most of the time.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Did they change the scattershot? I was getting merked with it but could not do the same to others.
Most of the Forerunner weapons have a degree of shot tracking now, pretty sure the Scattershot also ricochets off walls and you can tighten the spread by aiming. The Suppressor is awesome now though, hits a lot harder than it did in 4.
If the enemy is 10 feet away or so, just aim at the ground; the scattershot will bounce and hit them (if you aim well) and you'll actually do more damage than firing straight at them.
Halo 5 is the middle game of a trilogy so it can't fully resolve things. There are few middle-of-trilogy stories with good/strong stories since they really just exist to set up the final conflict.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Halo 5 is the middle game of a trilogy so it can't fully resolve things. There are few middle-of-trilogy stories with good/strong stories since they really just exist to set up the final conflict.
Hello Halo thread. I don't play 5, but I did receive some sort of code thingy as part of my December loot crate. Figured I'd post it here, first come and all.
Next up, game types. We know many of you are looking forward to jumping into new Halo 5 game types, and the team is hard at work on a wide variety of modes – ranging from competitive modes to Grifball to Fiesta to more. These are currently being slated into future Halo 5 updates, and although final timelines aren’t set just yet, things are going through engineering, test and polish, and we thought we’d give you a sneak peek at an old bit of game type concept art to wet your whistle:
Halo 5 will be getting new gametypes... eventually.
I've been playing through Halo 4 for the first time, so I can finally play the campaign in 5. I'm only on level 4 and I feel so confused with what's going on.
Is it supposed to be confusing this early in the game?
I've been playing through Halo 4 for the first time, so I can finally play the campaign in 5. I'm only on level 4 and I feel so confused with what's going on.
Is it supposed to be confusing this early in the game?
What's confusing?
There is a lot of secondary media between Halo 3 and Halo 4, so confusion is to be expected. Sort of like TFA. :P
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I've been playing through Halo 4 for the first time, so I can finally play the campaign in 5. I'm only on level 4 and I feel so confused with what's going on.
Is it supposed to be confusing this early in the game?
Yeah most of Halo 4 is awfully written and expects you to read their EU stuff or hunt down their terminals to get the real details of what's happening
Don't expect the game to become any less confusing as it goes on
I've been playing through Halo 4 for the first time, so I can finally play the campaign in 5. I'm only on level 4 and I feel so confused with what's going on.
Is it supposed to be confusing this early in the game?
There's an angry Forerunner guy who has been stuck in a ball for 100,000 years and wants to kill all humans.
That's the gist of it. For everything else confusing, just shrug and move on. 343i's bad at stories.
I guess I can just play it on mute and read up on it later. I'm having a lot of fun with the gameplay and I do enjoy that Chief seems to talk more, but I'm just not invested in what's actually happening.
I played Halo 3 after Halo 4 so when I discovered Halo 3's terminals talked about the Forerunners that would eventually be in Halo 4, it suddenly made sense to me why 343 didn't see anything wrong with Halo 4's story beforehand.
I played Halo 3 after Halo 4 so when I discovered Halo 3's terminals talked about the Forerunners that would eventually be in Halo 4, it suddenly made sense to me why 343 didn't see anything wrong with Halo 4's story beforehand.
I played them in order, but after the weirdness of 3, nothing really surprised me. Then again, I kind of think that the praise for "good Halo plots" has much to do with nostalgia than anything else--did Halo ever have good writing? As far as I can tell...not really?
Then again, I played 2 very shortly after it came out, so I remember how lividly pissed people were at the plot switching between the Master Chief and Keith David (sorry, the Arbiter), and how disjointed that felt, especially towards the end of the game.
Also you don't really need to play Halo 4 to play Halo 5 because they throw out pretty much every plot thread from 4
Except for the most important one.
?
I sort of think we're in the safe zone for spoilers, but I'll err on the side of caution anyway? 4 and 5 spoilers inbound.
I'm referring to the fact that the UNSC Navy planned to decommission Cortana because she was way, way beyond her normal lifespan and pretty blatantly into rampancy (she might've been pushing that back in 3, courtesy of her long conversations with Gravemind--in at least one book, it's mentioned a past Gravemind pulled a similar trick with other, more advanced military AI), and the Chief's ensuing "Fuck no you don't" response to the brass, thereby getting ONI involved--as I understand it.
In 5, Cortana is very, very pissed off at the entire UNSC, though pretty obviously the military too.
Likewise, in 5, Cortana assumes a sort of Godlike status (at least in her own mind) when she claims she was cured of her rampancy in 4 via the Forerunner Domain, something she began at the very end of the game.
There's also the whole issue the Promothean "wakeup"--which I think was still directly triggered by the their arrival on Requiem, in effect the Promothean headquarters world. By 5, the Promotheans have graduated into a normal military threat, like pirates or the different factions of the Covenant.
So, basically three major plot points in 4 are direct issues in 5, unless I'm mistaken. This is not to say that I somehow think 5 has an amazing story (I don't feel that way about 4, or for that matter, 1 through 3--which people had no problem laughing at when they came out but suddenly treat as sacred nowadays), but I when I played 5 I was constantly thinking of callbacks to 4, like "Oooh--so that's what the fuck happened at 4 with Cortana. Shit, it didn't make sense at the time, but at least it makes a little more sense. Huh."
343i may not be able to write, but honestly, I don't think Bungie could either (both companies are much better at worldbuilding). Sure, it may not be Killzone or Call of Duty: Holy Shit Here Come the Russians, but it's not exactly Dostoyevsky either.
I played Halo 3 after Halo 4 so when I discovered Halo 3's terminals talked about the Forerunners that would eventually be in Halo 4, it suddenly made sense to me why 343 didn't see anything wrong with Halo 4's story beforehand.
I played them in order, but after the weirdness of 3, nothing really surprised me. Then again, I kind of think that the praise for "good Halo plots" has much to do with nostalgia than anything else--did Halo ever have good writing? As far as I can tell...not really?
Then again, I played 2 very shortly after it came out, so I remember how lividly pissed people were at the plot switching between the Master Chief and Keith David (sorry, the Arbiter), and how disjointed that felt, especially towards the end of the game.
Yeah, I think this is more a battle of nostalgia and Bungie vs. 343i than... the quality of storytelling in Halo. :P
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I think I do like Bungie's better. There's not a whole lot of story there, and what's there is just okay to good, but I feel like 343's is actually bad, even if it is trying more.
Been trying to get into this, playing Warzone and some arena on and off. Not too bad but the gunplay feels a bit weird compared to Destiny. Still not bad but it takes getting used to. Also, Warzone is awesome.
3DS Code - 5370-0463-9307 Wii U - 'Nocero' XBox ID - therealmasume PS4 ID - realmasume
There was always more context to be had from books and comics in the Bungie games, but I never was confused as to what the action at hand was or why I was going where I was. Especially in 3 and Reach the motivation is pretty clear. Cut to Halo 4 and I have no goddamn clue why I did any of the things I did or where the plot ended up.
There was always more context to be had from books and comics in the Bungie games, but I never was confused as to what the action at hand was or why I was going where I was. Especially in 3 and Reach the motivation is pretty clear. Cut to Halo 4 and I have no goddamn clue why I did any of the things I did or where the plot ended up.
I was never confused in either 3 or 4 (my only point of confusion in 4 was immediately answered in 5, to the point that I can see it was deliberate).
On the other hand, 2 and Reach had no shortage of additional plot lines awkwardly jammed into the story because Bungie wanted to try something, particularly Reach. They weren't confusing, they were just poorly executed and there was no effort to hide it in the overall plot ("Oh, so I'm going underground again? Thanks, I love fighting in boring underground spaces!"). And I say that as someone who really likes 2. I'm happy they were there--but were they well written? Haha, no.
Halo 1 was a nice story due to how simple it was. Its honestly hard to mess up something so simple, that's the beauty of it.
Halo 2 and 3 got kinda crazy with the whole Forerunner and Flood thing, as I felt the main thread of the series lore and it's number 1 attraction was the Covenant versus Humanity. Also as it tries more it clearly outpaced the writers abilities.
Wars suffers from to much same problems of 2 and 3.
I'd say Reach and ODST were the only two Halo that told good stories. Not to be held up for praise, but they were compatent, well written, fun, and has some nice twists and turns (expect that one part in Reach when the rest of the Covenant Fleet shows up, that kinda left my head scratching due to their perfect timing. Was that supposed to mean something?). They show up, get the job done, and leave the audience happy.
4 was... Odd. I really felt like it relied too much on the Extended Universe (most of which I felt was garbage). It's like 343 was made up of to many Halo fans who wanted really obscure things to take center stage and where to close to the franchise to realize it's flaws or limits. Then there's the weird Cheif-Cortana ship that came out of left field.
From what I read of 5, it's even more Forerunner junk and focus of the EU than 5, with silly twists that happen cause they can. They, like a Call of Duty game, want to make Epic Moments happen with out much though behind why they happen, or what it means for the universe. Expect when Call of Duty blows up the world they can always change the setting and voila, new world to blow up.
Or maybe Mass Effect would be a better analogy, where so much time and effort is spent building up a universe only for the story to take a path so destructive, so dramatic, it leaves the writers painted in a corner with no where for the story to go.
Oh, right, Halo.
Anyways, I don't think it's a coincidence my favorite (and judging from the posts I've seen here, many of yours as well) stories from this universe are the more personal ones, where the grand scale of the war is a setting rather than a quest to be resolved. Where the Forerunners are and important aspect off in the distance. Where we get a feeling of what it's like to truly live in that universe.
Yeah, Reach tried something very different--and good on them for doing so--but well-written? The glaring holes and pretty obviously unfinished plot-lines (YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR THE STORY OF EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF NOBLE TEAM, SOLDIER, AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!) say no. Maybe if they actually had enough time, but the game dragged on as it was towards the end, you could tell they were trying to figure out how to get rid of the other characters as promptly as they could.
I'm glad for them for trying that overall, but well-written? No. To each their own.
That sort of brings me something that confuses me about the reception of 5...
A common complaint of the writing in 4 was an unwillingness on 343i's part to take many risks, even with the introduction of the Promotheans. Then 5 comes, sees a very radical realignment of Cortana as an antagonist, something that's been building for a minimum 2 games--and a few people literally cry, "No, that's too much! It undoes everything we fought for in the previous games!"
:?
Which isn't to say it doesn't have issues. Reach and ODST have them too, though in ODST, it's clearly a thematic choice that you'll either like or dislike (I actually don't think it's bad, it's just not impressive or substantive), and I'd say it's saved pretty much by the acting chemistry (which is great) between the squad (unlike Reach, which sort of falls on its face with this quickly) because what you're actually doing...isn't terribly interesting and towards the end just comes off as weird. Why are we here? For the engineer? Because....you said so? Okay.
In other words, similar problems to the other games. Bungie aren't great writers, even ODST reminds me of that--there's a reason people didn't go "SEE! THIS IS AMAZING WRITING!" when they came out either.
The Chief/Cortana relationship has always seemed to be more familial. will have to watch a supercut of the cutscenes in Halo 4 to refresh my memory, but their relationship there didn't seem squeemish based off their entire history and such.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
The Chief/Cortana relationship has always seemed to be more familial. will have to watch a supercut of the cutscenes in Halo 4 to refresh my memory, but their relationship there didn't seem squeemish based off their entire history and such.
I agree entirely, and that's actually thought what they did in 5 was 1) a pretty daring choice and 2) a good one. Halo embeds itself in the whole mythos of "Everything, everywhere, down to the last drop of blood for the cause"--that is literally the creed of the Spartans. And that's inseparable from the whole "savior of humanity"--but then you take the notion that this contract with the saviors, giant hulking mechanical messiahs, was made under false pretenses and at a perverse cost, you chip away at that. What happened between John and Cortana is the personal, individualized version of that, and was honestly long overdue--they've always hinted that, gun to his head, if it became a choice between Cortana and the "the Corps", John would chose Cortana every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It was only the fact that Cortana truly turned a line, and threatened everything, that he overcame that decision.
If anything, this kind of gets to one of my complaints about 5--it takes a good idea, and doesn't push it far enough. We've dwelled on just how fucked up ONI is for ages, particularly in the additional materials but in the games as a whole. I get why John has to side with the entire human species and perhaps all life everywhere instead of Cortana, but part of me thinks a violent break with at least ONI, if not the entire USNC military, is long overdue as part of that unending tragedy, but the game stopped a little short of that.
Of course, 5 has some other notable issues all around it, but as far as I was concerned, that particular decision was a sound one one. And I say this as someone who really, really likes the character of Cortana herself. It should hurt, even if the characters have always had hokey writing like something out of Star Wars or a James Cameron film, at the very least it's established why it would hurt.
With 24 players, dozens of the enemy and friendly AI and a multitude of vehicles and weaponry available to the player, Warzone is one of the most ambitious and, from a performance perspective, insane features Halo has ever seen. At launch, the garbage collection setting for weapons in Warzone was set to 5 seconds. A frequent bit of feedback from within our studio walls and without is a desire to have your dropped weapons stick around a little bit longer. After extensive testing in the studio we’re happy to announce that starting with “Infinity’s Armory,” we’ve increased the weapon despawn timer across all of Warzone from 5 to 20 seconds without impacting framerate. Now you’ll have more time to track down that weapon you dropped after getting bullseyed by a steely-eyed sniper, and perhaps, you’ll get the opportunity to experiment with other tools of destruction delivered by the vanquished bodies of your enemies.
So... maybe now you'll see people using those fancy rare or better weapons more?
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Yeah, Reach tried something very different--and good on them for doing so--but well-written? The glaring holes and pretty obviously unfinished plot-lines (YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR THE STORY OF EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF NOBLE TEAM, SOLDIER, AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!) say no. Maybe if they actually had enough time, but the game dragged on as it was towards the end, you could tell they were trying to figure out how to get rid of the other characters as promptly as they could.
I'm glad for them for trying that overall, but well-written? No. To each their own.
That sort of brings me something that confuses me about the reception of 5...
A common complaint of the writing in 4 was an unwillingness on 343i's part to take many risks, even with the introduction of the Promotheans. Then 5 comes, sees a very radical realignment of Cortana as an antagonist, something that's been building for a minimum 2 games--and a few people literally cry, "No, that's too much! It undoes everything we fought for in the previous games!"
:?
Which isn't to say it doesn't have issues. Reach and ODST have them too, though in ODST, it's clearly a thematic choice that you'll either like or dislike (I actually don't think it's bad, it's just not impressive or substantive), and I'd say it's saved pretty much by the acting chemistry (which is great) between the squad (unlike Reach, which sort of falls on its face with this quickly) because what you're actually doing...isn't terribly interesting and towards the end just comes off as weird. Why are we here? For the engineer? Because....you said so? Okay.
In other words, similar problems to the other games. Bungie aren't great writers, even ODST reminds me of that--there's a reason people didn't go "SEE! THIS IS AMAZING WRITING!" when they came out either.
No, ODST is competent writing. (Well, okay, I'd say the radio drama was really damn good, but that's as far as I'd go.)
Bungie can write a general story where you go "Hey, this is fine. This does not distract me from shooting aliens and keeps the flow going without being aggressively dumb." with occasional moments of "Holy fuck, that's... that's actually good!"
Meanwhile, 343's writing is actively bad. There's a difference.
Posts
Maaaan and was all excited for this one
So the vast majority of cards are temp use, and in Warzone only? Only customization stuff is permanent?
Did they change the scattershot? I was getting merked with it but could not do the same to others.
How do I highlight/Mark an enemy?
How do I do the ground slam?
Most REQ cards are single use, and cannot be used in the Arena (where there's more than enough power weapons on most maps to go around anyway).
Customization stuff, emblems, stances, assassinations, can be used in both.
The scattershot is weird. If you're using it in Warzone there's three or four of them and the latter ones are much more powerful than the basic one. The vanilla one kind of sucks. The version you pick up off downed AI is the basic one AFAIK.
No way to highlight/Mark an enemy afaik. The callouts are automatic.
Ground slam should be jump plus hold down whatever your melee button is. You'll see a reticle/landing marker and you can target a spot to attack. The higher you are the more damage you deal. It does *not* OHK outside of a direct hit on a full shields guy most of the time.
Most of the Forerunner weapons have a degree of shot tracking now, pretty sure the Scattershot also ricochets off walls and you can tighten the spread by aiming. The Suppressor is awesome now though, hits a lot harder than it did in 4.
I'm surprised you don't see too many people running around with the explosive bullet SAW though.
Supply Req Pack
7F6RV-DRHYX-V2CPQ-DX3FH-T6GRZ
Enjoy
Halo 5 will be getting new gametypes... eventually.
H7VMD-9XCDY-GPK2M-37GYV-XMQVZ
Is it supposed to be confusing this early in the game?
Twitter
What's confusing?
There is a lot of secondary media between Halo 3 and Halo 4, so confusion is to be expected. Sort of like TFA. :P
Yeah most of Halo 4 is awfully written and expects you to read their EU stuff or hunt down their terminals to get the real details of what's happening
Don't expect the game to become any less confusing as it goes on
There's an angry Forerunner guy who has been stuck in a ball for 100,000 years and wants to kill all humans.
That's the gist of it. For everything else confusing, just shrug and move on. 343i's bad at stories.
Twitter
Except for the most important one.
I played them in order, but after the weirdness of 3, nothing really surprised me. Then again, I kind of think that the praise for "good Halo plots" has much to do with nostalgia than anything else--did Halo ever have good writing? As far as I can tell...not really?
Then again, I played 2 very shortly after it came out, so I remember how lividly pissed people were at the plot switching between the Master Chief and Keith David (sorry, the Arbiter), and how disjointed that felt, especially towards the end of the game.
I sort of think we're in the safe zone for spoilers, but I'll err on the side of caution anyway? 4 and 5 spoilers inbound.
In 5, Cortana is very, very pissed off at the entire UNSC, though pretty obviously the military too.
Likewise, in 5, Cortana assumes a sort of Godlike status (at least in her own mind) when she claims she was cured of her rampancy in 4 via the Forerunner Domain, something she began at the very end of the game.
There's also the whole issue the Promothean "wakeup"--which I think was still directly triggered by the their arrival on Requiem, in effect the Promothean headquarters world. By 5, the Promotheans have graduated into a normal military threat, like pirates or the different factions of the Covenant.
So, basically three major plot points in 4 are direct issues in 5, unless I'm mistaken. This is not to say that I somehow think 5 has an amazing story (I don't feel that way about 4, or for that matter, 1 through 3--which people had no problem laughing at when they came out but suddenly treat as sacred nowadays), but I when I played 5 I was constantly thinking of callbacks to 4, like "Oooh--so that's what the fuck happened at 4 with Cortana. Shit, it didn't make sense at the time, but at least it makes a little more sense. Huh."
343i may not be able to write, but honestly, I don't think Bungie could either (both companies are much better at worldbuilding). Sure, it may not be Killzone or Call of Duty: Holy Shit Here Come the Russians, but it's not exactly Dostoyevsky either.
Yeah, I think this is more a battle of nostalgia and Bungie vs. 343i than... the quality of storytelling in Halo. :P
Wii U - 'Nocero'
XBox ID - therealmasume
PS4 ID - realmasume
Yeah, but that headline makes poor clickbait, doesn't it?
Just like, "343i follows up on bad plot lines better than Bungie."
I was never confused in either 3 or 4 (my only point of confusion in 4 was immediately answered in 5, to the point that I can see it was deliberate).
On the other hand, 2 and Reach had no shortage of additional plot lines awkwardly jammed into the story because Bungie wanted to try something, particularly Reach. They weren't confusing, they were just poorly executed and there was no effort to hide it in the overall plot ("Oh, so I'm going underground again? Thanks, I love fighting in boring underground spaces!"). And I say that as someone who really likes 2. I'm happy they were there--but were they well written? Haha, no.
Halo 2 and 3 got kinda crazy with the whole Forerunner and Flood thing, as I felt the main thread of the series lore and it's number 1 attraction was the Covenant versus Humanity. Also as it tries more it clearly outpaced the writers abilities.
Wars suffers from to much same problems of 2 and 3.
I'd say Reach and ODST were the only two Halo that told good stories. Not to be held up for praise, but they were compatent, well written, fun, and has some nice twists and turns (expect that one part in Reach when the rest of the Covenant Fleet shows up, that kinda left my head scratching due to their perfect timing. Was that supposed to mean something?). They show up, get the job done, and leave the audience happy.
4 was... Odd. I really felt like it relied too much on the Extended Universe (most of which I felt was garbage). It's like 343 was made up of to many Halo fans who wanted really obscure things to take center stage and where to close to the franchise to realize it's flaws or limits. Then there's the weird Cheif-Cortana ship that came out of left field.
From what I read of 5, it's even more Forerunner junk and focus of the EU than 5, with silly twists that happen cause they can. They, like a Call of Duty game, want to make Epic Moments happen with out much though behind why they happen, or what it means for the universe. Expect when Call of Duty blows up the world they can always change the setting and voila, new world to blow up.
Or maybe Mass Effect would be a better analogy, where so much time and effort is spent building up a universe only for the story to take a path so destructive, so dramatic, it leaves the writers painted in a corner with no where for the story to go.
Oh, right, Halo.
Anyways, I don't think it's a coincidence my favorite (and judging from the posts I've seen here, many of yours as well) stories from this universe are the more personal ones, where the grand scale of the war is a setting rather than a quest to be resolved. Where the Forerunners are and important aspect off in the distance. Where we get a feeling of what it's like to truly live in that universe.
I'm glad for them for trying that overall, but well-written? No. To each their own.
That sort of brings me something that confuses me about the reception of 5...
:?
Which isn't to say it doesn't have issues. Reach and ODST have them too, though in ODST, it's clearly a thematic choice that you'll either like or dislike (I actually don't think it's bad, it's just not impressive or substantive), and I'd say it's saved pretty much by the acting chemistry (which is great) between the squad (unlike Reach, which sort of falls on its face with this quickly) because what you're actually doing...isn't terribly interesting and towards the end just comes off as weird. Why are we here? For the engineer? Because....you said so? Okay.
In other words, similar problems to the other games. Bungie aren't great writers, even ODST reminds me of that--there's a reason people didn't go "SEE! THIS IS AMAZING WRITING!" when they came out either.
I agree entirely, and that's actually thought what they did in 5 was 1) a pretty daring choice and 2) a good one. Halo embeds itself in the whole mythos of "Everything, everywhere, down to the last drop of blood for the cause"--that is literally the creed of the Spartans. And that's inseparable from the whole "savior of humanity"--but then you take the notion that this contract with the saviors, giant hulking mechanical messiahs, was made under false pretenses and at a perverse cost, you chip away at that. What happened between John and Cortana is the personal, individualized version of that, and was honestly long overdue--they've always hinted that, gun to his head, if it became a choice between Cortana and the "the Corps", John would chose Cortana every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It was only the fact that Cortana truly turned a line, and threatened everything, that he overcame that decision.
Of course, 5 has some other notable issues all around it, but as far as I was concerned, that particular decision was a sound one one. And I say this as someone who really, really likes the character of Cortana herself. It should hurt, even if the characters have always had hokey writing like something out of Star Wars or a James Cameron film, at the very least it's established why it would hurt.
So... maybe now you'll see people using those fancy rare or better weapons more?
No, ODST is competent writing. (Well, okay, I'd say the radio drama was really damn good, but that's as far as I'd go.)
Bungie can write a general story where you go "Hey, this is fine. This does not distract me from shooting aliens and keeps the flow going without being aggressively dumb." with occasional moments of "Holy fuck, that's... that's actually good!"
Meanwhile, 343's writing is actively bad. There's a difference.
Why I fear the ocean.