: Because a character in a franchise had a particular visual identity in one
: area, it's wrong for them to have another identity later down the road? To
: show growth/development? That doesn't ever benefit a franchise or
: character development?

I haven't read anything from the EU since 343I took over, but did they ever have a scene in the books or comics depicting the Arbiter giving up his rank and armor? If not, then this is just showing him with a new suit of armor just because someone thought he could use a redesign, and thus would have nothing to do with character development or growth. It's simply "Hey. Here's how the Arbiter looks now. Enjoy our new artistic vision!" Given what I've seen over the past couple of years, I think it's the latter case.

Take the Chief. He was in cryo for years in the rear half of a wrecked, barely functioning ship. There was no opportunity for him to get a new suit of armor. 343I's art department wanted to redesign him for no other reason that because they wanted to. Some utterly nonsensical throwaway excuses were offered, but those were just half-assed attempts to placate those who don't like the fact that the franchise is being treated so cavalierly in terms of visuals. It still didn't explain why the Dawn suddenly changed ship classes (its wreckage as shown in Halo 4 is a supersized version of the rear half of the new Strident-class frigate) or why the physiology of the Grunts and especially the Jackals was so radically altered. The Chief's armor, the Dawn, and all those other changes had fuck all to do with character development or moving the plot forward. It was just change for the sake of change. I somehow doubt the Arbiter's new armor is any different.