is this game set just before or during halo 3?! What happened to your vision for halo chief’s armor and the design choices and reason for your mjolnir armor in 4 and 5. I remember the vidoc explaining why these choices were made. More militaristic design. Tank like architecture. Little details like 117 in Braille. A visor that picked up the elements in the room. Etc etc.
now chief looks like a stiff sluggish wood board. That pelican scene is proof. This armor is so stiff it be better used as a ladder.
i hope these cinematics are all just deflection till gameplay and real story comes into play. Or all I see is a catering to cry babies who didn’t put time and hard work into halo 4 and 5. Or else what was the point Bonnie Ross?! What happened to the reclaimer trilogy? Do those games matter or is this truly a hard reboot that asks players to forget your first two iterations?
Infinite is set after the events of Halo 5. To note, its not "Halo Chiefs armor." Its "Master Chiefs armor." Me being judgmental, tells me a lot on your knowledge of the Halo universe, possibly as well as to how long you've been with it, considering if you've been with it since CE, you'd already know what he's called. As for the 4 and 5 armor? Well something that would make sense, is the EMPs that were used by the large Promethean ships disabled everything. Tell me, do you know what "EMP" stands for? And what it does? Simply put, if Mjolnir armors were more sophisticated in software than hardware, a simple EMP, or such a scale that was used, would render the armors essentially useless. So older models, like Mjolnir Mk 4 (the classic armor) was needed. Both armors showed in Halo 4 (some) and armors in Halo 3, along with 2 and CE, were naturally militaristic, just a different... taste... in design choices (by the way, this is only speculation to a possible lore design, something I think HiddenXperia talked about a while ago... or was it Late Night Gaming?).
Now you go on to say he looks like a "stiff sluggish wood board." So what is that supposed to mean? I don't get that terminology, and the use of words give no definition of what you're trying to imply. Stiff? Maybe? Last I checked, Chief was just fine with the armor in the first place, seemingly not hindering his movements or capabilities. Granted, that is only our perspective that it does, and theirs (say the NPCs, or the Spartans, that it was not much of a hindrance). What of the "pelican scene" being proof that Chief is now a "still sluggish wood board?" I'm assuming you're talking about the recent trailer release... so please, how does this prove your point? What's the big issue? I seriously don't get what you're problem is with the old armor design. As for stating that the classic armor could be better used as a ladder, again... I don't get where you're getting all this from... I look at the design, and... I don't see any reference of a "ladder" anywhere on the armor. Bulky maybe? Think about it... versions 1-3 were essentially the power loaders you'd see in the movies and games of Alien(s)… ones with Ripley and such? However, MK 4 being the first after MK 3, is the one Chief wore in Combat Evolved. Yes, it was a bulky exo-skeleton, but it was far smaller, stronger, and better than the MK 3 variant. MK 5? Its highly similar compared to the MK IV, but the differences is that its outright better in software and design with little to no negatives in comparison… the armor if I recall, is worn in Halo 2 (I may be wrong). Was it bulky? Yes, because the design hardly changed from 4 to 5 from the original MK 3. As for MK 6? Now I think about it, is the armor that is given to us in Halo 2, and we continued into Halo 3. The MK 6 obviously, was better than the previous, given how MK 4 was the first variant to have shield generators (though very weak) and MK 6 made a technological advancement in that said field for protection. Again, it hardly changed from the original 5 and 4, from the original MK 3. Regardless, all the variants were bulky and costly, possibly more than the MK 6 variants. The major differences between MK 4, 5, and 6 from the 7, is that the 7 is more advanced in software, and downgraded in hardware. Sure, it has a few added bells and whistles with thrusters… but with what it lacks in armor, it gains in mobility and intelligence... smarter and better AI's, sophisticated programs, etc.. MK 7 are designed for Spartans who had volunteered for the program, and were not subjugated to the effect of the Spartan II program. So given that, because people did not need as much genetic change, the change in armor was also needed, considering the only reason to even wear a MK 4, 5, or 6, is to be someone who went through the Spartan II program. Sure, they have had redesigns with the old armors to allow integration with the new, as it could be shown in Reach, Halo 4 and 5. Design choices are by all means, intentional, by a decision making choice and lore. So, given that, if the speculation in the first paragraph is correct, the MK 7 armors were rendered useless after the EMPs, thus older versions that don't have as much software, or less reliant on them, survived. Also given the fact that the MK 4, 5, and 6 were designed in the middle of the Human-Covenant war, so naturally, they'd already be superior to newer MK 7 models, but lacked in software (as I said numerous times). So back to the point, the armors are bulky, but seemingly, Spartan II's are unaffected by the size of the armor, as you never see a Spartan II complain that the armor he/she was wearing was too big (there may be... if so, do point and source please?).
As for your last comment... I do hope you are a mature adult, and were really angry when you made that last paragraph, because oh boy, it reeks of a fanboy (I mean that as you're acting like a child, throwing a tantrum). However, I'm going to assume you are a decent human being, and move on... if this is a deflection on 343's part, well... look at how Halo 4 and 5 ended up... Halo 4 only got the sales it did due to Halo 3's popularity, but Halo 5 selling less than Halo 4? Maybe even Halo 3? It says a lot, when someone or a community is lied to. If this is a deflection made by 343, you bet that 343 are going to get a LOT of heat, and their publicity goes down, as do the sales. Either you take tens or twenty million players who thoroughly enjoy the game, or a few thousand after a few months of release. Where you see it "catering" to "cry-babies" seriously? Is that literally the word choice you are choosing to use? If you don't like it, don't buy it... same can be said with the other millions of "cry babies" you so call them. And to tell you the truth, I'd bet a LOT of those "cry babies" DID put a lot of work into Halo 4, which is probably why they are so angry, and why most of them never purchased Halo 5! With that said, I really hope you've played the original Halo titles, because that statement either makes you look deluded, or someone who is shouting at a mirror.
On another note, what about Bonnie Ross? As for the Reclaimer trilogy... from what I noticed, it kind of dumbed down in Halo 4, and... seemingly died off in Halo 5... so I don't get what your point is here. As for your last question, it would be unfortunate if Halo was going through a complete reboot, simply because Halo 4 and 5 sucked... so to see a entire trilogy die off because 343 decided to change the story, and rewrite it all would just be a waste of talent.