@killered3: The popular notion that the more data there is, and the greater its rate of increase, analysis becomes objective, accurate, and reliable information previously impossible is a mythology. Therefore, we can figure out things about Halo from a single entry that are objective, accurate, and reliable without depending on any of the other franchise entries as it is the beginning of the story. Having said that, another part of your response that should be addressed is your position on practicality. As existentialism is a real philosophy utilized throughout the world and has been for hundreds of years, and Master Chief is a fictional character in a science fiction game, I think that talking about how Master Chief conforms to reality makes more sense, is a better argument, and is more reliable than having reality conform to Halo. In particular, I refer to the notion that there can be a living human being without a personality or your other rebuttals about things that I mentioned, and other parts that I think you misunderstood. The popular misnomer that anyone can is probably the progressive result of viewing little personality as a trifle.

This is a serious argument. Please think about it for a while, and inform me if your views have not changed.

That is not all that I said, but I think it is in part about humanity's assertion of the right to life in the game. I said that I think that the story of Halo: Combat Evolved involves humanity's struggle for survival because of the general ideas of a war against a more technologically advanced adversary in the case of Halo. The evidence for this is heard when Captain Keyes discusses with Master Chief the importance of not letting the Covenant gain control of their onboard artificial intelligence, Cortana, as such an event would cause the destruction of Earth. The evidence for greater technological achievement is the presence of personal weaponized flight craft, hovering land and sea vehicles, their weaponry, and shield technology. Furthermore, Covenant ships defeated the Pillar of Autumn by causing her crash landing on Halo. Therefore, if this event is a symptom of the greater underdog story, then humanity is probably as I said.

Master Chief barely spoke in Halo CE. But nothing he said or did hint us that he's an existentialist. He had a mission to do and that's all he cared about. Remembering a quote from 343 Guilty Spark as he confronted Cortana who encased herself into Halo's control room with the activation index,

"The last time, you asked me... Were it my decision, would I do it?"

That offered us incite that the Master Chief felt like he had no other choice but the mission he was given. He was trapped. The closest sense of comradeship was with Cortana. The ship's AI who at the time was also only following her directive.

Master Chief infrequently speaks in Halo: Combat Evolved, but if you study his character beyond his words and look at his actions, you can see that there is a sense of autonomy. However, we may look at his words as well. When Master Chief saves Captain Keyes and fellow marines during the level called Truth and Reconciliation, the screen reads "Shut up and get behind me...Sir." If we assume this is Master Chief's internal dialogue, then that is a sign of his character, a trait of a being with free will. As Cortana has personality while being an artificial intelligence, Master Chief has a mind of his own while being a marine. This assumes that free will exists, so for the sake of brevity, I am explicitly saying that I think free will exists and may be referenced when understanding the character of the role players in the game.

Furthermore, the notion that Master Chief is trapped by 343 Guilty Spark at that point in the game is found untrue moments after that level begins and Master Chief defeats the sentinels. Besides that, I am more focused on the results of Master Chief's actions rather than the results of his feelings.

When the covenant stupidly uncovered the Flood, Master Chief and Cortana didn't just flee. They had to find a way neutralize the greater threat before the Monitor of Installation 04 were to activate Halo. And the best way to do that was to destroy Halo.

343 Guilty Spark was only following his directive. The sole purpose for his existence. But his directive went against Cortana's. Conflict of interest. If you look at it objectively, Cortana was pulling the Chief's strings.

Yes, they do not flee immediately. I did not say that they do so in that way. However, Master Chief does flee from self-destruction. This is something that I think is what mortals do when faced with the truth of the weakness of the flesh. Further, in Master Chief's case, it is for the continued service to humanity. Therefore, I think that he flees because of his belief in his mission to his people is something that he is doing of his own free will. This is a physical weakness, but it is a sign of ethical character. Hence, that is why I mentioned that I think he might an existentialist.

I always saw Halo CE's story, in and of itself as more like a chessboard. There are two powerful characters in work here that control the opposing forces. Both artificial intelligence. 343 Guilty Spark and Cortana. Their word has the most influence above everything. This was obviously before Bungie continued the story with more Halo games. Then they fleshed out everything around Halo's universe. Cortana's most powerful pawn here, the Master Chief is why 343 Guilty Spark loss. Cortana's place in the Pillar of Autumn was more than just for intel but for making major decisions in dire times of stress in combat so everyone can be safe even if the captain were to go histerical. And the Monitor's place was to safeguard Halo and fire it if the Flood were to awaken.

I think that I should say something about this. If it were like a chessboard, then all the pawns would have the same capabilities. Master Chief would be closer in power to the queen. Having said that, influence is not authority as evidenced when Captain Keyes stays on board the Pillar of Autumn and pilots her to Halo when Cortana recommends that he abandon ship for his survival. Therefore, your argument might be valid, but it is not true.

@suicidesn0wman: Fortunately for me, you have done little towards proving any of your accusations about my comments in this thread. It would be one thing to say that I have not proved anything with my comment, but you took your critique a step further and stated that I am doing something. Now, you are prompted to prove your statements as more than opinions. Good luck.

By the way, your attitude is terrible.

@killered3: Please understand that this analysis is not composed of all Halo products, but as stated in the opening post, this is only about the original Halo: Combat Evolved story as if it were a story in and of itself. Playing through the original trilogy and reading books, there is more that may be said from my perspective, but I focused on that original title for a reflection on the first narrative. Thanks for understanding.

Over the past couple months, for at most a couple hours in a session, I played through the campaign of the remastered version of Halo until completion, and I think there are ethical and moral concepts that may be derived from it for discussion. During those times, my primary concentration remained on the story. As humanity struggles in a war against a more technologically advanced set of vassal nations who call themselves the Covenant, the chief of chiefs is beckoned for the purpose of destroying the Covenant of evil nations. The war continues on the ring world, Halo, even after a more important threat rises against both humanity and the Covenant in the form of a parasitic entity called the Flood that, simply put, seeks food by controlling the bodies of its hosts so that it can spread.

The concept of a war of humanity against the war is an ancient one. For example, the writings of the Hebrew Patriarchs may be dated from approximately 2000 to 1600 B.C. They describe the Creator of heaven and earth as having declared that humanity should subdue the rest of the world and bring righteous order to the world. This may be interpreted as humanity having a special place in creation, and human life should be preserved when doing right in the world. In contemporary times, we have prohibitions on a human on human crimes outside of the rules of warfare and more recently prohibitions called crimes against humanity that is more direct reasoning meant for harm. Having said that, I think that the position of humanity in Halo is that of a group asserting the right to life. It may be taken at that syllogism, and be expressed as a fight for survival. Rather than the American Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the only thing that humanity in Halo speaks of is the right to life. I think that the gameplay of Halo emphasizes this towards the conclusion of its campaign with the introduction of the Flood to the increasing struggle of being swarmed by legions of parasite-controlled forces that eventually climaxes with a basic fleeing away from destruction by the best warrior that humanity has in the game.

Although Master Chief is thought of by some as the greatest warrior ever, it is interesting that even he must flee for survival against a great threat. Therefore, while his story is one epic tale of galactic proportions, I think that important to remember is that the faith that mankind has is more important than flesh or technology. For Master Chief, I think that it is his training, his comrades, and his people. Therefore, Master Chief may be an existentialist who believes in people rather than divine support. Having said that, we must remember that this is a game, something that Johan Huizinga called a part of reality partitioned for an illusion, so existentialism remains a philosophy rather than a scientific discipline.

@PETERAKO: I appreciate your service for this community in doing this. Your thread has been stickied to Games Discussion.

Guys, let's keep it civil. If you have an opinion or assertion about something, then you may say your piece. Remember that should be done with honor.

There has been hardly any activity in the past several lounges, so there are no plans for another one for the foreseeable future.

-BranKetra

Alright folks. Laughter can be good, and I hope that it nurtures the heart in this terrible situation.

My point was that domestic crime could possibly be resolved by utilizing the NYPD's policy. It could be addressed the same way, internationally. Choosing silence in the face of injustice is not an American value.

We could debate the merits and faults of interventionism elsewhere, but I think it should be clear that my original comment has a focus on domestic issues.

Please stay on topic.