[Ain Soph Aur]

As a hardcore Halo fan, I feel that I have to defend it somewhat. For one thing, Joe Staten wasn't necessarily saying it is a condemnation of the Bush administration, but instead could have been saying that it will be interpreted that way. Halo was always a story of humanity being attacked by a conglomerate of religiously zealous races, who have slaughtered humankind from the first encounter. The reason that Bungie expanded the story to include the Covenant side was because they want to tell an epic story, not make a political statement, which from everything I've read about them would be completely out of character. They just make games, and Halo was in development for years before Microsoft bought Bungie, which they only did so that they could have Halo for the Xbox. Halo 2 was planned all along, and the story was laid out long before we went to Iraq. The game wasn't written specifically as a condemnation, it's just that Staten admitted that it could be construed as such.

[ThinkDifferent]

The reason that Bungie expanded the story to include the Covenant side was because they want to tell an epic story, not make a political statement, which from everything I've read about them would be completely out of character.

That does seem like the most likely explanation. Bungie did similar things in the Marathon games, where you played on several different sides as the story progressed.