{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Halo Archive
6/18/2015 4:36:25 AM
1
Since Sir Lore of Admirals isn't here I will try my best to help you if he doesn't mind. My personal opinion is that 343 wanted us to battle a familiar enemy, along with the ability to add whatever they want to them. A forerunner race can have unlimited potential but the covenant is just a friendly face we are used to for the last 6 Halo games. It wouldn't really feel like Halo if we weren't fighting the alien races we know and love. So I think 343 wanted to still keep that Halo theme.
English
-
I didn't say that the Covenant should have been removed from the game, in saying that Chiefs line in that particular scene was wrong. He should have said "I thought we had a truce with the Elites" not a truce with the Covenant. Chief was still fighting the covenant before the end of Halo 3. Also even now, there is no truce with the covenant. Only the Elites are even somewhat our allies. So why did Chief have an incorrect line?
-
The covenant and humans agreed to a truce after the war ended but the covenant have broken that
-
Again, how could Chief have known this? When the Forward Unto Dawn was sliced in half, the Elites were the only ones that Allied with humanity.
-
He's asking how is it possible that chief would've known that
