Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

I know how Master Chief looks like

OP SectionUnity

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
I mean its not a mystery, has to be pretty obvious by now. 343iʻs character designs are in resemblance of their voice actors. For example, Edward Buck looks like Nathon Fillion. Jameson Locke as Ike Amadi. Osiris looks like their characters. And ect..

Its about now that Master Chief, John 117, looks like Steve Downes.
Doesn't the Halo 4 legendary ending use Steve Downe's face (I'm not sure if its live action or not but it looks CG) for Chief? It looks quite like him, he does look whiter then Steve though, but they could have just edited that on purpose to make Chief look more like how he has been described in the past. Edit: I just compared an image of Chief in the legendary ending of Halo 4 to Steve Downes, it actually looks quite abit like him imo.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
To be fair, it's a bit harder to project yourself into the form of someone you know is quite clearly male when you're female. So I guess it ruins it less or not at all for female players? idk
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
It's hard for anyone to imagine a face of any created person. We arent God. I think it's best for Master Chief to look like his voice actor.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
To be fair, it's a bit harder to project yourself into the form of someone you know is quite clearly male when you're female. So I guess it ruins it less or not at all for female players? idk
If Chief were created today as a completely new character, I wonder if the voice would be more androgynous. But personally I don't care either way.

I would ask female gamers about their experience playing as Chief. Tbh my guess would be that most still see themselves through his character, because he's much more defined by the fact that he's a leader and a hero than by the fact that he's male, and being primarily defined by hero/leader/savior of Earth makes him very accessible and relatable as a character that you lose yourself in.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
a lot of that came after the original H1-H3 span. I'm not saying the backstory they developed for him isn't interesting, but I think it could have been presented differently to preserve the "player vessel" construct. Games are about escapism, and the more I can lose myself in the character, the better. Game developers put a lot of effort into making the main playable character/protagonist be broadly appealing to the most people possible (to sell the most games), what better way than to fully imagine yourself as Chief as opposed to a very specific character (like in other franchises) that you have to find ways to relate to? Just my thoughts.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
a lot of that came after the original H1-H3 span. I'm not saying the backstory they developed for him isn't interesting, but I think it could have been presented differently to preserve the "player vessel" construct. Games are about escapism, and the more I can lose myself in the character, the better. Game developers put a lot of effort into making the main playable character/protagonist be broadly appealing to the most people possible (to sell the most games), what better way than to fully imagine yourself as Chief as opposed to a very specific character (like in other franchises) that you have to find ways to relate to? Just my thoughts
Fall of Reach, The Flood, and First Strike were either before or during the Halo 1 through Halo 3 span. This isn't after the fact characterization.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
a lot of that came after the original H1-H3 span. I'm not saying the backstory they developed for him isn't interesting, but I think it could have been presented differently to preserve the "player vessel" construct. Games are about escapism, and the more I can lose myself in the character, the better. Game developers put a lot of effort into making the main playable character/protagonist be broadly appealing to the most people possible (to sell the most games), what better way than to fully imagine yourself as Chief as opposed to a very specific character (like in other franchises) that you have to find ways to relate to? Just my thoughts
Fall of Reach, The Flood, and First Strike were either before or during the Halo 1 through Halo 3 span. This isn't after the fact characterization.
I think he's talking about the games only here .
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
a lot of that came after the original H1-H3 span. I'm not saying the backstory they developed for him isn't interesting, but I think it could have been presented differently to preserve the "player vessel" construct. Games are about escapism, and the more I can lose myself in the character, the better. Game developers put a lot of effort into making the main playable character/protagonist be broadly appealing to the most people possible (to sell the most games), what better way than to fully imagine yourself as Chief as opposed to a very specific character (like in other franchises) that you have to find ways to relate to? Just my thoughts
Fall of Reach, The Flood, and First Strike were either before or during the Halo 1 through Halo 3 span. This isn't after the fact characterization.
I think he's talking about the games only here .
I'm going on the assumption he thinks the backstory came later when it's always been there. If I'm mistaken them my bad, but either way this stuff can't be ignored.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
To be fair, it's a bit harder to project yourself into the form of someone you know is quite clearly male when you're female. So I guess it ruins it less or not at all for female players? idk
If Chief were created today as a completely new character, I wonder if the voice would be more androgynous. But personally I don't care either way.

I would ask female gamers about their experience playing as Chief. Tbh my guess would be that most still see themselves through his character, because he's much more defined by the fact that he's a leader and a hero than by the fact that he's male, and being primarily defined by hero/leader/savior of Earth makes him very accessible and relatable as a character that you lose yourself in.
I mean, as a female who has played as Chief quite a bit, I personally don't care that he's male because I like him as a character. But I don't really project myself onto him, I just enjoy being him because he's interesting.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
To be fair, it's a bit harder to project yourself into the form of someone you know is quite clearly male when you're female. So I guess it ruins it less or not at all for female players? idk
If Chief were created today as a completely new character, I wonder if the voice would be more androgynous. But personally I don't care either way.

I would ask female gamers about their experience playing as Chief. Tbh my guess would be that most still see themselves through his character, because he's much more defined by the fact that he's a leader and a hero than by the fact that he's male, and being primarily defined by hero/leader/savior of Earth makes him very accessible and relatable as a character that you lose yourself in.
I mean, as a female who has played as Chief quite a bit, I personally don't care that he's male because I like him as a character. But I don't really project myself onto him, I just enjoy being him because he's interesting.
I'm in the exact same boat, well, i'm not female but you get what i mean.
a real shame, imo, that they showed his eyes/face/whatever in h4 legendary ending. chief is a vessel for the player so that the player can imagine themselves as the chief. any specificity as to what his identity ruins that, again imo
Except he is also an actual character with a backstory, personality, and development.
Hear hear. Master Chief may have started off as a "pair of empty boots to fill" starting in CE, but he's since evolved to be so much more than that. Reading about his upbringing in the SPARTAN-II program, and speculating about the long term effects of that, has been fascinating.

And to be honest, I've seen the "empty boots" trope used a lot in games over the years. Halo and Master Chief can be forgiven because they did this all the way back in 2001, but in my opinion this trope is old and overused. There are a lot of games were the player and main character are supposed to be one and the same, but there are no moral or dialogue choices, so they just leave them silent.
Locke was modelled after Mike Colter, Ike Amadi just did the voice. Also I think H5 is the only game in the franchise where the characters faces were modelled after the voice actors faces, except Nathan Fillion in ODST. So I don't think that means Chief looks like Steve Downes.
I mean its not a mystery, has to be pretty obvious by now. 343iʻs character designs are in resemblance of their voice actors. For example, Edward Buck looks like Nathon Fillion. Jameson Locke as Ike Amadi. Osiris looks like their characters. And ect..

Its about now that Master Chief, John 117, looks like Steve Downes.
Not only is this logic incredibly flawed to the point that I'm wondering if it's a joke, but the grammar (or lack thereof) in the title is excruciating.
I think we've already seen his face.

In one of the first trailers for Halo Reach, the one which is the games opening cut-scene, dialogue is different, and the most noticeable difference is Carter. He looks completely different from Carter in the final game. He also says the line "Spartans never die Jorge, they're just missing in action.".

1. I don't think Bungie would let anyone else be the first to show his face. Even though Reach takes place before the other games, this was Bungie's last opportunity to somehow show Chiefs face, so the trailer was a good place, as a subtle easter egg for fans.

2. The reveal of Carter and the line he says seems quite significant. I think the line is said for the benefit of the audience, in that they just finished Halo 3 and in-fiction Earth thinks Chief is dead, but he is literally MIA.

3. In the surrounding fiction when we've seen the Chiefs face it matches up really well with the face Carter had in the trailer. Halo 4, Fall of Reach movie. Those younger visuals of Chief match well with Bungies "proto-Carter" in the trailer.

I think this trailer is still on youtube and should still be available to download on Xbox 360.
I mean its not a mystery, has to be pretty obvious by now. 343iʻs character designs are in resemblance of their voice actors. For example, Edward Buck looks like Nathon Fillion. Jameson Locke as Ike Amadi. Osiris looks like their characters. And ect..

Its about now that Master Chief, John 117, looks like Steve Downes.
Not only is this logic incredibly flawed to the point that I'm wondering if it's a joke, but the grammar (or lack thereof) in the title is excruciating.
...Im not trying to be grammar critical in this forum. But sure enough this isnʻt supposed to be taken so seriously unlike that others are with their own subject. But I think it should be common sense that Steve Downes is literally the face of Master Chief.
I think we've already seen his face.

In one of the first trailers for Halo Reach, the one which is the games opening cut-scene, dialogue is different, and the most noticeable difference is Carter. He looks completely different from Carter in the final game. He also says the line "Spartans never die Jorge, they're just missing in action.".

1. I don't think Bungie would let anyone else be the first to show his face. Even though Reach takes place before the other games, this was Bungie's last opportunity to somehow show Chiefs face, so the trailer was a good place, as a subtle easter egg for fans.

2. The reveal of Carter and the line he says seems quite significant. I think the line is said for the benefit of the audience, in that they just finished Halo 3 and in-fiction Earth thinks Chief is dead, but he is literally MIA.

3. In the surrounding fiction when we've seen the Chiefs face it matches up really well with the face Carter had in the trailer. Halo 4, Fall of Reach movie. Those younger visuals of Chief match well with Bungies "proto-Carter" in the trailer.

I think this trailer is still on youtube and should still be available to download on Xbox 360.
Its a good analysis and ive seen the trailer. But I think its one of those beta versions trailers of the game before the final release. The whole game after launch had nothing to do with Chief and Bungie didnʻt seem to acknowledge what you said to be true. So, I really donʻt its that complex.
Chief is still faceless to me. The voice and the helmets have completely merged in my mind by now.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2