First of all, hooray, moar Moviebob! Now all they need to do is port over 'The Game Overthinker'
Now to the actual rev...discussion:
(I'll make my disclaimer here that I'm a fan of Halo. Caveat: I detest multiplayer against anyone except my friends. So yes, I'm one of the mythical few who play for the campaign)
Point 1: Despite my disagreement with Moviebob on a lot of his main arguments in this video (see below), I'm gonna have to agree that Reach was very meh in terms of characterisation. I actually knew who Kat and Carter were before playing (they feature in 'Ghosts of Onyx'), and I still had zero interest in the characters. The whole 'Jorge is like Chief, so he thinks Halsey is his mum' interactions were handled clumsily etc. This is coming from someone who religiously follows the background, reads all those pulp fiction add-ons to the universe, comics etc so I can quote worse examples (the whole 'token space time distortion alien artifact' in First Strike springs to mind). Also, Reach's relentless focus on these bland and uninteresting characters, when they could've had maybe a handful of Covenant cutscences (Halo Wars did this ok, yes I know it sucked) to break up the tedium, is especially annoying. Halo 3 moved the series in that direction, Reach completely blacked out the Covenant as having any motive or depth to the reasons for their invasion other than 'we hate humans'. Halo 1 introduced us to the Covies with a lot of mystery, Halo 2 actually developed things from their perspective, then Halo 3 and Reach take us back to square 1. What gives?
Point 2: The accusation of 'multi-cultural cooperative vs lily-white fascists' charge levelled against Halo is a complete misrepresentation of the background. If you're going to make broad sweeping statements about themes and subtexts, at least know the game universe well enough to qualify it. And, though this does sound weird, a playthrough of the games (especially Reach, which is the weakest story-line wise) doesn't really give you that. Its the novels and comics that can (not always, there is chaff out there) elevate the background from 'mildly interesting' to 'wow thats pretty interesting and deep'. Halo 3 is especially guilty of this, as it does jack-all to bring in the more interesting elements of the background (its one of the blandest videogames I've ever played, and its supposed to be the big finale!).
In-game, there is a variety of accents you hear from allies (and weirdly, always at least one Australian), although I will concede most of the main cast are white, with one notable exception. Sergeant Avery Johnson is black, he's pretty much equal to Chief in terms of bad-assery, and he plays an important role in the events of the game universe (everything from his weird resistance to the Flood, to his first contact with the Covies on Harvest, to him aiding the Chief and Arbiter at critical junctures in the plot). His death in Halo 3 is to provide closure for the character (I wish they'd done the same for Chief), and it's a lot better handled then, and I quote Yahtzee, ' the most epic death competition' of Reach.
So, I think it's grossly unfair to present the UNSC as being white supremacists. Lets take a look at the Covenant by comparison.
The Prophets, who are deceitful, cunning and manipulative, rule the Covenant in a nominal alliance with the Elites (I'm using game nicknames here, cos the actual 'alienspeak' names would be too obscure to most). The Prophets are the ones with an affinity for technology and knowledge, while the Elites are smart, tough, capable warriors (whose entire culture is very similar to Spartans). Below them exist the conquered. The Jackals are pirates and scavengers, who aren't as good fighters but more numerous than Elites and less skittish than Grunts (thus performing as auxiliary support, snipers etc). Grunts are the cannon fodder, who get bullied and pushed around by everyone else, because they are by and large stupid and easily intimidated. Hunters are worm conglomerates who are too simple (not stupid, just unambitious) to rise up (and they've already been threatened with annihilation once, so they play along). The Brutes are a recent addition, and compete with the Elites in the 'loyal warrior' category (the Elites have the annoying trait of thinking for themselves, whereas the Brutes virtually never question their orders). Drones are hive-mind workers who are only pressed into combat roles unsuited to Grunts, and even then only because of a lack of alternatives.
So, with all this variation, where are the fascist, supremacist overtones? The whole concept of the Great Journey, where those who lack faith (or whatever else is required, as determined by the Prophets) can't join the faithful in paradise. When you realise that the Prophets know from the start that they're trying to unlock a galaxy-wide degreaser (where grease = sentient beings), you see how ruthless and dangerous the Prophets really are. They are going to take only a chosen handful of obedient slaves with them, leaving everyone else to die. The fact the same artifact they're using to do this with is human-built makes them even bigger hypocrites. The justification given to the war with humanity is eerily similar to other ethnic cleansing campaigns from real historical events (ie the enemy is inherently evil cos I say so).
You can look at the treatment of the Grunts, Drones and Jackals. They are all killed with impunity by the Elites and Brutes whenever they displease. They are true slave races, whose only purpose is to fight to advance the cause of the Prophets. Elite commanders expend all three like bullets to wear down an enemy before making surgical strikes with their own, more valued warriors.
You can also look at the complete intolerance for dissent or alternate views. The Prophets want everyone toiling towards their goal, not distracted by other ideas or worse, opposed to them. To be fair, the UNSC is guilty of similar sins (the creation of the Spartans was to put down human rebellions surgically, avoiding all-out wars to bring worlds back into compliance), but at least its not a totalitarian theocracy.
Having said all that, I think the actual games have been uneven in terms of quality (storywise, we could argue all day about gameplay, graphics, AI etc). Halo 2 was kinda the peak for me, cos it actually presented things from the Covenant perspective and shed light on the reasons behind their holy war on humanity. Forcing the player to use the Arbiter in parallel to the Chief was a good idea executed relatively well, and they made sure it wasn't just a gimmick by giving the final boss battle to the Arbiter. Yes, it did leave on a cliffhanger, but any middle part to a trilogy has to do that to be relevant. You start with expectation of the first installment, you develop and build it up more, and you leave things uncertain for the third act to resolve.
Then in Halo 3, he gets relegated to supporting character status, and the focus is back on the 'insert your alter-ego here' Chief. I actually like the Master Chief, but the Arbiter is more fascinating in many ways. While the Spartans are all (essentially) heavily augmented children whose lives are expended by the military, the Arbiter is a failed commander who is given another chance at redemption. It's a pity we only get half a game to explore the Arbiter as a character, as in many ways he's more interesting than Chief. Don't get me wrong, I love the moral ambiguity of stealing children for a secret black-ops unit (so they can be sacrificed for the greater good), but the lack of allusion to that in the games does risk turning the Spartans into generic space marines at times (Reach comes the closest to this).
tl;dr UNSC is more inclusive than you think, the Covenant are racist and totalitarian, Reach did suck storyline-wise, and moar Moviebob = a better tomorrow
