Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Flood in Halo: Infinite

OP Raven3990

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. ...
  7. 6
BANGHART wrote:
BANGHART wrote:
to me this isnt even up for discussion.

without the flood you dont have Halo.

them being omitted from 4/5 was pure incompetence and shows you they really had no idea what they were doing as far as the storyline goes.
Halo 4 took place on a shield world, they wouldn’t have flood there for fairly obvious reasons. Halo 5 simply didn’t take us to any locations likely to contain the flood.
Nice excuses.

4/5 might aswell have taken place in disneyworld for all I care.

The flood are 100% integral to Halos storyline. The fact they were omitted is more likely due to them aiming for a T esrb rating more than anything. That and like I said before a bunch of people working on the game that "dont even like Halo" and pure incompetence. defend that if you want all day Idc, any old school Halo fan knows this was a massive mistake.
I think the biggest reason why they were omitted is due to Chief defeating the Gravemind at the end of H3. While I do enjoy the flood for their mystery and terror, I would concede that reintroducing them in a meaningful way post H3 would only cheapen the finale. Similar to how Cortana's resurrection in H5 cheapens H4's ending. The flood could very well return, but probably not in the galaxy devouring way that they appeared in the original trilogy.
But it's too late. They ar e already back in HW2.
Look. It's not too late to have the Flood return. The Flood will definitely return in Halo Infinite.
This would be great with the new engine. Hopefully they are a part of the story and have their own mode, like a flood firefight.
I want them to reinvent that feeling of mystery and fear running around 343 Guilty Spark for the first time terrified, lost, being chased by flood that won't die, and running out of shotgun ammo.
BANGHART wrote:
Nice excuses.

4/5 might aswell have taken place in disneyworld for all I care.

The flood are 100% integral to Halos storyline. The fact they were omitted is more likely due to them aiming for a T esrb rating more than anything. That and like I said before a bunch of people working on the game that "dont even like Halo" and pure incompetence. defend that if you want all day Idc, any old school Halo fan knows this was a massive mistake.
While certainly an easily recognizable part of Halo and an important facet, the Flood shouldn't be shoehorned into the games when not appropriate. Halo: Reach and Halo 3: ODST did not include the Flood and it was understandable. The same applies to Halo 4 and Halo 5 where the central conflict of those games didn't include the Flood.
343i has been slowly building up the return of the Flood, and I wouldn't be surprised if they make their return in Infinite.

As an aside, the "we hired people who hated Halo" quote was written as;
Quote:
"We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X,'" says O'Connor. "But what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team."
Take from that quote what you will, but the quote itself doesn't just end at "...hated Halo."
You guys are gonna love what Zeta Halo has in store for you if you like the Flood.
tL Armada wrote:
BANGHART wrote:
Nice excuses.

4/5 might aswell have taken place in disneyworld for all I care.

The flood are 100% integral to Halos storyline. The fact they were omitted is more likely due to them aiming for a T esrb rating more than anything. That and like I said before a bunch of people working on the game that "dont even like Halo" and pure incompetence. defend that if you want all day Idc, any old school Halo fan knows this was a massive mistake.
While certainly an easily recognizable part of Halo and an important facet, the Flood shouldn't be shoehorned into the games when not appropriate. Halo: Reach and Halo 3: ODST did not include the Flood and it was understandable. The same applies to Halo 4 and Halo 5 where the central conflict of those games didn't include the Flood.
343i has been slowly building up the return of the Flood, and I wouldn't be surprised if they make their return in Infinite.

As an aside, the "we hired people who hated Halo" quote was written as;
Quote:
"We had people who we hired who hated Halo because of 'X,'" says O'Connor. "But what that really meant was, 'I feel like this game could be awesome because of 'Y input' that I'm going to bring into it. I want to prove it, and I'm passionate about proving it.' So we ended up with a bunch of people who were genuinely passionate about the product. That is a huge advantage, and that helped in hiring and forming our team."
Take from that quote what you will, but the quote itself doesn't just end at "...hated Halo."
Notice how both of those games you mentioned are spinoffs from the main trilogy. The main storyline IS about the flood. Thats what the entire story of Halo is built upon. Why do you think Halos even exist??? Because they are pretty??

I could understand if it was just one game where the flood took a back seat, but it was BOTH of the games that were supposed to be the main storyline for Halo, not having the flood in them. Thats absurd, and anybody defending this is just in denial.
BANGHART wrote:
Notice how both of those games you mentioned are spinoffs from the main trilogy. The main storyline IS about the flood. Thats what the entire story of Halo is built upon. Why do you think Halos even exist??? Because they are pretty??

I could understand if it was just one game where the flood took a back seat, but it was BOTH of the games that were supposed to be the main storyline for Halo, not having the flood in them. Thats absurd, and anybody defending this is just in denial.
Reach was a prequel, not a spin off.

There's also no inherent quota that the Flood must be in every mainline game. The Flood were a part of the central conflict of the first three games, but that doesn't mean they have to be in every game afterwards. Halo 4 and Halo 5 didn't have them because both games didn't focus on the same aspect of the original trilogy, that is to say the firing of the Halos.
Halo 4 was exploring the completely new world of Requiem and trying to stop the Didact and save Cortana; no room for Flood.
Halo 5 was reaching Chief and figuring out who's awakening all the Guardians. (It certainly could have played out better, but simply having the Flood would not have been the answer)

Halo Infinite being set on a ring (especially this ring) again certainly opens the doors for the Floods return.
tL Armada wrote:
BANGHART wrote:
Notice how both of those games you mentioned are spinoffs from the main trilogy. The main storyline IS about the flood. Thats what the entire story of Halo is built upon. Why do you think Halos even exist??? Because they are pretty??

I could understand if it was just one game where the flood took a back seat, but it was BOTH of the games that were supposed to be the main storyline for Halo, not having the flood in them. Thats absurd, and anybody defending this is just in denial.
Reach was a prequel, not a spin off.

There's also no inherent quota that the Flood must be in every mainline game. The Flood were a part of the central conflict of the first three games, but that doesn't mean they have to be in every game afterwards. Halo 4 and Halo 5 didn't have them because both games didn't focus on the same aspect of the original trilogy, that is to say the firing of the Halos.
Halo 4 was exploring the completely new world of Requiem and trying to stop the Didact and save Cortana; no room for Flood.
Halo 5 was reaching Chief and figuring out who's awakening all the Guardians. (It certainly could have played out better, but simply having the Flood would not have been the answer)

Halo Infinite being set on a ring (especially this ring) again certainly opens the doors for the Floods return.
Reach was a prequel, and a spinoff.

noun
noun: spinoff
  1. a by-product or incidental result of a larger project.
In media, a spin-off[1] (or spinoff[2]) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from already existing works that focus on more details and different aspects from the original work (e.g. particular topics, characters or events).

Quote:
There's also no inherent quota that the Flood must be in every mainline game.
Yes there is. Thats like making a Jaws movie without any sharks. Or a star wars movie without any Sith. Or a Game of Thrones Series without any White Walkers. I could go on and on. I dont know what you new fans are smoking. There is nothing good about Halo 4 or 5's storyline. They both were absolute trash.
BANGHART wrote:
tL Armada wrote:
Reach was a prequel, and a spinoff.

noun
noun: spinoff
  1. a by-product or incidental result of a larger project.
In media, a spin-off[1] (or spinoff[2]) is a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from already existing works that focus on more details and different aspects from the original work (e.g. particular topics, characters or events).
This is perhaps a game of semantics, but I do not consider Reach a spin off as the events of Reach directly precipitated the events of Halo: CE. A spin off, to me, is akin to ODST where the events aren't directly linked to the main games.
I hold sequels and prequels to the same standard.

BANGHART wrote:
Yes there is. Thats like making a Jaws movie without any sharks. Or a star wars movie without any Sith. Or a Game of Thrones Series without any White Walkers. I could go on and on.
Kind of a flimsy argument. Jaws sole premise is around the shark. Star Wars' premise is around Light vs Dark. It's funny you mention GoT and always needing White Walkers with how this last season is shaping up. Halo's premise has been humanity's desperate fight for survival against a superior alien conglomerate with Space Zombies being added on the side. The Flood were the reason for the Halos, and they pose a serious threat throughout the OG trilogy, but the main focus is stopping the Covenant. I mean, you defeat them first in Halo 3.

You also seem to have ignored where I said that the Flood are indeed an important part of Halo. They're integral to Halo's narrative, but because they were side antagonists in the first three games doesn't mean they have to be tacked on for every successive game.
Having the Flood return as the main antagonist (as it may be in Infinite), sounds much better than bringing them back immediately after their big defeat in Halo 3. It just undermines what was accomplished. People felt the same way about the Covenant in Halo 4. Do you think adding the Flood as well would have made things any better?
Quote:
This is perhaps a game of semantics, but I do not consider Reach a spin off as the events of Reach directly precipitated the events of Halo: CE. A spin off, to me, is akin to ODST where the events aren't directly linked to the main games.
Its not a game of semantics dude, reach is a spinoff. Thats what it is. Same as odst.

Quote:
Kind of a flimsy argument. Jaws sole premise is around the shark. Star Wars' premise is around Light vs Dark. It's funny you mention GoT and always needing White Walkers with how this last season is shaping up. Halo's premise has been humanity's desperate fight for survival against a superior alien conglomerate with Space Zombies being added on the side. The Flood were the reason for the Halos, and they pose a serious threat throughout the OG trilogy, but the main focus is stopping the Covenant. I mean, you defeat them first in Halo 3.
Not a flimsy argument at all. GoT is on the final season. They built up all 8 seasons for "winter is coming". The white walkers were the main threat the whole time and in fact people have been criticizing the show for how anticlimactic it was in that regard.

The flood were always the main threat of halo. The story of them and also the forrunners and their ties to humanity are the true story of Halo. 343 completely blundered this. The covenant are nothing but a slave army. We saw back in halo 2 and with arbiter that they can be reasoned with and even freed. The flood are a universal threat to ALL lifeforms. They wiped out forrunner civilization. They are a biblical threat, hence the name FLOOD.

Quote:
Do you think adding the Flood as well would have made things any better?
I think the main story of Halo was done after Halo 3 and everything after that was a soulless cash grab.

Halo 4 and 5 should have never been made. There is a reason bungie made Reach ( a prequel) and then moved on. They were done with the story.

Im all for making more spinoffs and keeping the multiplayer aspect of Halo alive. Anything involving the Master Chief and the main story line is just a cash grab at this point. I was simply pointing out how incompetent the people who control Halo now are with their omitting of the flood. One of countless mistakes that show how out of touch they are with Halo. It is what it is. If you want to defend a soulless corporate cash grab than go right ahead. Ill let you guys be.
Not having the Flood in Halo 4 or Halo 5 isn’t a mark of incompetence, so we can dispense with that nonsense. The Flood did not serve a purpose in those games and I can respect 343 for not throwing them in there for what would amount to fan service.

Calling Halo 4 and Halo 5 soulless cash grabs is also pretty hilarious. Hilariously wrong and needlessly jaded, but hilarious all the same.
BANGHART wrote:
Its not a game of semantics dude, reach is a spinoff. Thats what it is. Same as odst.
I have never seen Reach labeled by Bungie as a spin off. I have only seen them claim it to be a prequel. A prequel with the same importance to the main story as if a sequel was made, which they did not want to do.

You're convinced Reach is a spin off, so be it, but it's not unequivocally so, hence why I say semantics. It's really useless debating spin off vs prequel, as we're going in circles.
BANGHART wrote:
Not a flimsy argument at all. GoT is on the final season. They built up all 8 seasons for "winter is coming". The white walkers were the main threat the whole time and in fact people have been criticizing the show for how anticlimactic it was in that regard.
It was a flimsy argument. Out of 3 examples, 1 had relevance (GoT) with how it correlates to Halo's Flood.
The Flood in the games were used as shock value and secondary antagonists, as I've already explained. They don't show up until half way through CE, are used as filler enemies for Arbiter missions in Halo 2, and only show up in Halo 3 to be more of a nuisance, as they are quickly quarantined on Earth and don't show up until later to interfere with Rtas' assault.
BANGHART wrote:
The flood were always the main threat of halo. The story of them and also the forrunners and their ties to humanity are the true story of Halo. 343 completely blundered this. The covenant are nothing but a slave army. We saw back in halo 2 and with arbiter that they can be reasoned with and even freed. The flood are a universal threat to ALL lifeforms. They wiped out forrunner civilization. They are a biblical threat, hence the name FLOOD.
The Flood in the OG trilogy weren't the main threat. They were used as the reason the Halos existed and as a secondary threat to stop. The entire premise of the OG trilogy is stopping the Covenant from firing the rings. As I already stated, the Flood weren't even stopped first in Halo 3; the major build up of the game is stopping Truth with only a single mission focused on stopping the Flood.

For all your purporting of 343i's blundering, they're the ones that have actually put emphasis on the Flood and their capabilities. They're building up their return to actually be meaningful other than merely filling a check box quota.

But if you're going to be convinced that anything not dealing with the Flood is a soulless cash grab, then I suppose this discussion is done, as nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
buzzsaw135 wrote:
You guys are gonna love what Zeta Halo has in store for you if you like the Flood.
Now you're getting me all excited
Quote:
I have never seen Reach labeled by Bungie as a spin off. I have only seen them claim it to be a prequel. A prequel with the same importance to the main story as if a sequel was made, which they did not want to do.You're convinced Reach is a spin off, so be it, but it's not unequivocally so, hence why I say semantics. It's really useless debating spin off vs prequel, as we're going in circles.
You are dense af. It is litterally a spinoff. Its a prequel aswell. Go cry about it.

Quote:
The Flood in the games were used as shock value and secondary antagonists, as I've already explained. They don't show up until half way through CE, are used as filler enemies for Arbiter missions in Halo 2, and only show up in Halo 3 to be more of a nuisance, as they are quickly quarantined on Earth and don't show up until later to interfere with Rtas' assault.
Im not talking about gameplay. Im talking about narrative. The flood are 100% essential to halos narrative. They werent even mentioned in halo 4/5.

Quote:
For all your purporting of 343i's blundering, they're the ones that have actually put emphasis on the Flood and their capabilities. They're building up their return to actually be meaningful other than merely filling a check box quota.
No, they screwed up. This was not some genius move by 343 to build the flood back up. They screwed up, sales tanked and Microsoft stepped in with a soft reboot. Its hilarious to me that you really think this was 343s intention the entire time. Anyways im done with this go ahead and last word me, you clearly are just a blind fanboy looking to defend 343s mistakes.
BANGHART wrote:
You are dense af. It is litterally a spinoff. Its a prequel aswell. Go cry about it.
A spin off is a derivation of the main material. A by-product. You linked the definition yourself. Reach is not a derivation, but part of the main narrative. I'm being called dense here but yet again I need to reiterate that the events of Reach directly precede Halo CE. Would you say Halo 2 is a spin off? Of course not because it ties the events directly from Halo CE into it, hence sequel. The exact same applies to Reach but simply before, therefore prequel, and only that.

I understand 'spin off' and 'prequel' aren't mutually exclusive, but for Reach both do not apply.
BANGHART wrote:
Im not talking about gameplay. Im talking about narrative. The flood are 100% essential to halos narrative. They werent even mentioned in halo 4/5.
Oof. Big oof here. It appears to me that your comments about the lack of Flood are -- more accurately -- thinly veiled attempts at exclaiming 343i's incompetence. Why? Because you say this, yet Halo 4's big reveal is how the Prometheans are actually ancient humans due to the Forerunners mistaking them running from the Flood as acts of aggression and composing them. The Composer and its conception was due to combating the Flood. The terminals show the fear the Forerunners have towards the Flood. The Prometheans were made to fight the Flood. Requiem was made to protect them from the Flood. The lesser known fact that the Didact was made insane by the Flood.

The Flood was still important to the narrative in Halo 4 yet somehow you missed that.
BANGHART wrote:
No, they screwed up. This was not some genius move by 343 to build the flood back up. They screwed up, sales tanked and Microsoft stepped in with a soft reboot. Its hilarious to me that you really think this was 343s intention the entire time. Anyways im done with this go ahead and last word me, you clearly are just a blind fanboy looking to defend 343s mistakes.
Perhaps doing a little research (or paying attention in Halo 4's part) instead of injecting bargain-bin jabs would have been more beneficial in this discussion.
LOL

Quote:
A spin off is a derivation of the main material. A by-product.
You mean like Halo Reach?

Quote:
Because you say this, yet Halo 4's big reveal is how the Prometheans are actually ancient humans due to the Forerunners mistaking them running from the Flood as acts of aggression and composing them. The Composer and its conception was due to combating the Flood. The terminals show the fear the Forerunners have towards the Flood. The Prometheans were made to fight the Flood. Requiem was made to protect them from the Flood. The lesser known fact that the Didact was made insane by the Flood.The Flood was still important to the narrative in Halo 4 yet somehow you missed that.
I missed it because the story was garbage and i didnt care about it. My original point was that the flood werent in the game. I made the single mistake of saying they werent referenced in halo 4 ok good job you got me. The story is still utter garbage. I dont remember a single thing about it because it was cliche sci fi trash. My original points all still stand. You are still defending a trash game. Trust me when i say this, you and the other people that like halo 4 and 5s story and the direction they took are in the extreme minority. This forum is nothing but an echo chamber of the small core group of people that like it. 343 almost destroyed this franchise and if they dont make some serious changes ( aka making halo like it used to be and not like 4/5) this will most likely be the last Halo game, considering sales have been dropping since 343 took over and Micro $ oft is not the type to pump money into a dying franchise. You refuse to accept this reality.
BANGHART wrote:
LOL

Quote:
A spin off is a derivation of the main material. A by-product.
You mean like Halo Reach?

Quote:
Because you say this, yet Halo 4's big reveal is how the Prometheans are actually ancient humans due to the Forerunners mistaking them running from the Flood as acts of aggression and composing them. The Composer and its conception was due to combating the Flood. The terminals show the fear the Forerunners have towards the Flood. The Prometheans were made to fight the Flood. Requiem was made to protect them from the Flood. The lesser known fact that the Didact was made insane by the Flood.The Flood was still important to the narrative in Halo 4 yet somehow you missed that.
I missed it because the story was garbage and i didnt care about it. My original point was that the flood werent in the game. I made the single mistake of saying they werent referenced in halo 4 ok good job you got me. The story is still utter garbage. I dont remember a single thing about it because it was cliche sci fi trash. My original points all still stand. You are still defending a trash game. Trust me when i say this, you and the other people that like halo 4 and 5s story and the direction they took are in the extreme minority. This forum is nothing but an echo chamber of the small core group of people that like it. 343 almost destroyed this franchise and if they dont make some serious changes ( aka making halo like it used to be and not like 4/5) this will most likely be the last Halo game, considering sales have been dropping since 343 took over and Micro $ oft is not the type to pump money into a dying franchise. You refuse to accept this reality.
Alright just so you know, tL Armada was trying to point out some things here and yet you claim that he’s defending 343i. He had some truth to say. Now I would most certainly agree that the Flood should return in Halo Infinite but you didn’t have to act up here in this discussion just because you didn’t like the direction 343i was going when creating H4 and 5. 343i’s direction wasn’t the best direction that they went with when creating H4 and 5 but then there were some good things they provided in these games. For me, I thought H4 was good and H5 was ok but I still kind of prefer the OT over the RS (at least for now) and people do have their own opinions and that’s ok. On some things, you’re right but other things, you’re wrong and if you throw a fit here and claim everything you said is right, that’s rather plain dumb. If you don’t like where 343i went, it’s fine to make criticism of that but don’t just get too worked up about it because it’s rather too mean and rude to get all triggered about this type of stuff. This is not to defend 343i or be a fanboy of them but you just have calm down and make proper statements instead. I hope you accept the constructive criticism that me and tL Armada were giving.
BANGHART wrote:
You mean like Halo Reach?
I am truly baffled that after explaining multiple times how Reach doesn't fit the description of spin off -- and Bungie themselves never saying it was -- you continue to plug your ears and go "lalalalala it's a spin off lalalalala"
You have yet to counter any of those points and continue to repeat 'spin off' ad nauseam.

BANGHART wrote:
I missed it because the story was garbage and i didnt care about it. My original point was that the flood werent in the game. I made the single mistake of saying they werent referenced in halo 4 ok good job you got me. The story is still utter garbage. I dont remember a single thing about it because it was cliche sci fi trash. My original points all still stand. You are still defending a trash game. Trust me when i say this, you and the other people that like halo 4 and 5s story and the direction they took are in the extreme minority. This forum is nothing but an echo chamber of the small core group of people that like it. 343 almost destroyed this franchise and if they dont make some serious changes ( aka making halo like it used to be and not like 4/5) this will most likely be the last Halo game, considering sales have been dropping since 343 took over and Micro $ oft is not the type to pump money into a dying franchise. You refuse to accept this reality.
Translation: 'I didn't pay attention, made a baseless claim and was corrected. I will now go off on some irrelevant tangent about how the games are trash.'

You specifically said "I'm talking about narrative" and "The Flood weren't even mentioned". That isn't a minor mistake: That's you not paying attention, unwilling to see anything but your own unfounded opinion and getting defensive when called out on it. You go off on a presumptuous tangent about my supposed liking of the games when I never stated anywhere that I did. It's irrelevant if I do or do not, as that's not the point of this discussion.

Your original point was the lack of Flood was a show of incompetence. I refuted that point and gave examples on how they're still relevant. You have yet, yet to counter any of those points, and repeat 'the flood are important', which I've always agreed on.
Raven3990 wrote:
I really hope the Flood return in Halo Infinite. Just imagine what they can do now with the new engine they're using. Also gives them a chance to stay true to the original Flood art design as well!
It would be even better if it was Firefight and the flood was the enemies
Raven3990 wrote:
I really hope the Flood return in Halo Infinite. Just imagine what they can do now with the new engine they're using. Also gives them a chance to stay true to the original Flood art design as well!
It would be even better if it was Firefight and the flood was the enemies
The Flood can still appear in campaign because it would be nice to see that once again in Halo Infinite but fighting against the Flood in Firefight would also be a good idea.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. ...
  7. 6