: That was all we had to know about the Covenant. Fall of Reach teaches us of
: an obvious hierarchy, and of the fearsome power of the Covenant. In Halo,
: we actually see the Covenant fight. What do we know about the Covenant,
: though? Very little. We never actually experience "their side."
: I prefer it that way. I prefer the mystique, the open-ended story that lets
: the theorizers go crazy. I like looking at my enemy and wondering what
: they're thinking, not knowing . Dietz' book completely defeats that
: concept, letting you into the Covenant world by giving you the story of a
: "clever grunt." What the hell, I say!
That's certainly one way to tell a story. You could argue that it adds a lot in potential speculation and mystery. Nonetheless, there are some fine examples of showing the viewpoints of both sides that develop excellent stories. Warcraft III, for instance, lets you play as all the factions and experience all their sides, rather than having them be faceless villains that you gradually came to know more about.
I think that the Covenant's social structure as shown in The Flood actually raises more questions than it does answers. Why do the Grunts continue to be a part of the Covenant if all it gets them is grief? What relation did the Forerunner have to the Prophets? Having a villain that just attacks things with little or no reason is silly. You want to see inside their motivations. Directly revealing them is actually the best way to do that.
