Halo 5: Guardians Review (XB1) 

  Halo 5: Guardians is a lot like Halo 2 in a plethora of ways. There are some easy comparisons: you control two separate protagonists during the campaign, it ends on a cliffhanger, it's the second attempt at the franchise by the developers (in this case 343 Industries)... These similarities are both good and bad, and the new strengths as well as problems are numerous; I've been playing the game for three weeks as I write this and am still waiting for Forge, Big Team Battle, and missing maps and modes, but I try to play it every day because it's fucking badass.

  The advertising for Halo 5 has come under some scrutiny for being “misleading”; the E3 reveal depicted the Master Chief in a desert as a giant robot thing emerged from the sand, leading some to believe the game would be open world. It's not. There was a web miniseries starring Jameson Locke, and some people took the new focus on telling personal stories to mean the new entry would be character driven and narrative heavy. It's not. There were two seasons of a podcast (Hunt the Truth) that heavily hinted toward an epic confrontation between Locke and Chief and the civilian perception of the series' hero. It's not in the game. Personally, after seeing some preview footage of squad commands and reading that you'd always be accompanied by a fireteam and knowing of the ties to some key Star Wars: Republic Commando personnel I thought it would be strategy and team heavy. It's not that, either. This may disappoint some, but in the end it's just bullshit advertising like any other, and what we actually get is fine. It's not the strongest Halo campaign, but it's certainly not the worst, either.

  I finished the campaign solo on Heroic (as is customary) in about eight hours. It's a good introduction to the new Spartan abilities, the cutscenes are really good, and the overarching story is compelling if confusing. In other words: it's a fairly standard Halo campaign. One thing that did strike me as odd was it felt more like a shooting gallery than the previous games.  Yeah, you can use clambering and thrusting to your advantage and get overwatch positions on your enemies, but they aren't particuarly aggressive and the sandbox/puzzle elements of the older games feels largely absent. You are joined by three AI companions that you can give rudimentary commands to, but they're complete ass for the most part. They'll regularly pig pile their dead bodies on top of yours as they try to revive you, succumbing to the same melee boss that took you down to begin with. They seem scared to provide any true fire support, often letting enemies' shields recharge if you don't quickly take them out yourself. Bad AI in a Halo game is jarring and unexpected, but it's pretty blatant here and it's frustrating.

  As for the story itself... I don't know. Shit happens, you shoot dudes, the end. Most of the time you control Locke and his team, but it doesn't really matter. Aside from some slight HUD changes, it's a first person game so you won't be able to tell the difference. Your team makeup is different depending on if you're controlling Locke or Chief, but during gameplay there's nothing really notable to differentiate between squad members so whatever. This doesn't mean the campaign is bad or not worth playing. It's certainly an enjoyable little rollercoaster ride of set pieces and skirmishes, but going back to the Halo 2 comparison: it completely rolled off me and was forgotten once it was over. I started playing again on Legendary (solo) and plan to complete that eventually, but let's be honest: it's just a distraction and an addition to the outstanding multiplayer.

  At first glance the multiplayer suite may look a little light; you choose from either Arena or Warzone playlists from the main menu. Arena has half a dozen or so playlists to choose from, and Warzone just has two. In practice the first option, Team Arena, should be the goto mode: it randomly chooses from a handful of objective based matches or straight up Team Slayer. These are fairly standard battles: Capture the Flag, Domination (called Strongholds), or Breakout, the new fast paced Swat-lite, one life affair that has it's own playlist. I'll admit that I historically have not been a fan of objective modes like CTF, but the small maps they are presented on in Halo 5 go a long way in making them fun to play. Swat is suspiciously absent from the rotation, otherwise I'd just pick this playlist and let it roll. Next is Team Slayer, which has been the standard 4v4 Halo staple since Halo 2, and it still holds up as the best overall experience in my opinion. Pure skill and teamwork to control and effectively use the power weapons is the only thing that matters, and the simple nature of it is timeless. The solo variation of Slayer is a blast as well, allowing for more chaos and the “tactic” of jacking other players kills. Breakout is new but welcome. Two teams of four fly into a stripped down, VR arena with no shields and try to flank/pull off some lucky shots to either eliminate the opposing team or capture a central flag. You have one life per round, and the first team to take five rounds wins. Swat is a breakneck mainstay with instant respawns and one headshot kills. You have to enter a Zen state and rely just on your twitch reflexes to pop your enemies in the face before they can react. There's also another, rotating sixth playlist that awards double XP for participation. So far Shotty/Snipers and Team Doubles have been featured.

  On the flip side of the controlled, extremely balanced 4v4 Arena modes is Warzone. These are large scale 12v12 battles that allow for the use of Requisition Cards to summon better weapons, vehicles, and powerups. You earn Requisition Cards by spending Requisition Points, which you earn by playing the game (or spending real money if you're rich and shitty). As you play a Warzone game your personal level rises depending on how well you perform. Better cards require higher levels, and you have to wait for a cooldown period before your earned levels recharge. The system may sound a bit convoluted, but in practice it's honestly fairly simple: doing better allows for better cards to be played. It's an addictive and enjoyable/risky layer of gameplay, even if it has the unfortunate effect of games snowballing one way or the other as better play equals higher levels which equals better cards at your disposal... again, this isn't a balanced mode, nor was it meant to be.

  I look at Warzone as an RPG of sorts; you're essentially playing for the sake of progression, be it on a match-by-match basis or just earning more cards. I've heard it's similar to a MOBA, and maybe it is a little but MOBAs are pretty gay. The main objective is to outscore the other team. Killing a human player nets you one point, and there are AI “bosses” that range in difficulty and value. These can be simple Elites that you can take out on your own with little difficulty and point gain, to game changing epic bosses that require some serious focused firepower. The concept of battling bosses is great, but I'm not a big fan of how the points are awarded. Only the last hit matters, so your entire team can spend multiple minutes whittling away a boss only to have an enemy sniper finish him off and steal the points. Yep, this isn't a gametype to really give an honest shit about winning or losing, but it feels cheap and makes me wonder why they couldn't give the team that did the most amount of damage the majority of the points and the “last hit” team a smaller portion. You can also capture bases, though these just allow your team to spawn in/around them and don't award any points. If one team manages to capture all three bases they can advance on the enemy's home base and have a chance to destroy their power core and instantly win the match, but I've rarely seen this happen. I can't stress enough how casual a gametype this is, but it's not without it's merits as a change of pace and it's worth occasionally screwing around in, anyway.

  A variation on standard Warzone is Warzone Assault, which is more or less Rush from Battlefield. One team defends a base while the other tries to attack and hold it for a set amount of time. If the attackers are successful they push toward another base and eventually the enemy core. Requisition Cards are in effect here as well, but the rounds are short enough that pulling out anything particularly crazy doesn't happen very often. Assault is slightly more skill based than the bigger marquee Warzone, but the fairly random spawns and necessity for hiding in bases still keep it light and questionable as anything more than a mode to dick around in to blow off steam from Arena.

  None of these modes are bad. In fact, they're all quite fun in their own ways. What's especially notable is how extremely different each playlist is from each other, and it really does present a wide berth of content for just about anyone. All of it is held together by the incredible core Halo 5 gameplay mechanics, so even if the rules themselves are wildly different your skills are transferable on the macro level. I've spent hundreds of hours in Halo 5's multiplayer already, and this is most likely going to continue to be my online staple for years to come. It's rewarding, addicting, and polished as all hell.

  Halo 5: Guardians is a must buy. The campaign is slightly underwhelming, but it's designed to be replayable and it's a worthy ride. I'm still waiting on Forge, but the undeniable star here is the multiplayer. Wether you're drawn toward the high skill cap, ranked Arena mode or the casual but epic Warzone anything I've played since has seemed slow and antiquated. This is the new standard bearer for online multiplayer, and it's beautiful.