SPOILERS AHEAD.

First of, let me make it sufficiently clear that I was very excited to for the role Locke was supposed to play in the plot to Halo 5. The trailers and the general advertising showed, or at least indicated that master chief would be branded as a traitor in the midst of a galactic catastrophe, and then you have this new guy, Locke, swoop in to become the hunter for the old hero we all knew and love.

Locke seemed, or at the very least, was presented to be a shady guy himself, which is exactly what made the new plot-line for Halo so interesting. It presented an opportunity to create a new layer in the Halo universe, since the only villains you'd be facing as the master chief would no longer be external forces, such as the Covenant or the Forerunners. Since no one wanted to ruin and already well established character, such as Buck, they introduced Locke to play the role of this shady protagonist.

Unfortunately, they completely mucked it up. That's not to say that the story had no merit but NONE of the opportunities presented by this dual perspective was utilised. First of all, there was no feeling of Hunter Vs Prey, despite the heavy advertising that that's what the writers were going for. Literally, throughout the whole game, you have a bland soldier with a deep voice chasing master chief, and by the end of it they kind of become buddies.

There was literally no mention of Oni soiling Johns name for the sake of their organization nor was there any indication that Locke was anything but a typical soldier. (And don't get me started on the missed opportunity of having a boss fight with the Chief himself)

So I ask you, what is the point of Locke? What did he add that didn't exist in the Halo universe before? The same role could have been played by Bucke, only it would have been more logical since he's an already established character who clearly holds more presence within the lore. Plus, it would have probably be more fun having Nathan fillion as the main protagonist.

Don't get me wrong, I was very excited to see what he'd add. It's exactly the very fact that his presence didn't amount to anything that kind of pisses me off.

I know all too well how you feel.

Honestly? You wanna know what I really think? I think that initially, Locke's purpose was exactly as it is depicted in the marketing. However, I'll fucking bet anything that some Destiny-level "we can't get our shit together" shit went down at 343. Between how heavy the marketing pushed the Chief vs Locke aspect and the fact the fact that major parts of the campaign (the non-combat "missions" and recycled Warden fights to name a few) feel either incomplete or downright lazy, I just simply cannot fathom that what we got is what they originally intended. I refuse to believe it unless we get some hard evidence that says otherwise.

I imagine the Locke we ended up with is their attempt to throw together a more relatable character for the audience (seeing as how Osiris are all "normal" people), but well...if that truly is the case, we can all probably agree they failed.