Not saying that it will but if it does, and by that i mean half the community leaves after 6 months, and halo drops 4+ ranks on the XBL activity charts sooo like maybe #8 or 9? Do you think we would see Halo 5 being more like Halo CE or 2?
Reach was different, but it was still fun.
Haters gonna hate
Maybe.
The devs would probably just think “oh! It wasn’t CoDish enough!” So no, OP. No.
what are you talking about? CE was great!
Well if the game did indeed end up hitting all the same nerves it did with Halo: Reach…
-(Even though I enjoyed it, barring the Campaign)-
…you can expect a painful outburst of Extreme Rage again too…
…And if that were indeed to happen, seeing as they have already decided to make Halo 5 and 6, you can imagine they’d do some drastic overhauling for the Mechanics in the next installment to try and make up for their mistakes…
…Though ofcourse this is all assuming that they even screw up in the first place, which with any luck, they won’t…
As they said in the Pod cast, they are looking at halo CE and Halo 3 for guidance.
So it must be good.
Sadly not so much Halo 2.
> The devs would probably just think “oh! It wasn’t CoDish enough!” So no, OP. No.
yehh i guess right? Im just so tired of these AAs, we had them in reach cant we just move on?
> Reach was different, but it was still fun.
>
> Haters gonna hate
lol how was I hating? what made reach different dethroned halo which up to that point was neck and neck with COD.
reach was a failed experiment…that we seem to want to do again lol
Of course we won’t. They’ll add other meaningless stuff in the illusion that people aren’t playing it because of the lack of mechanics.
CoD 4 was neck and neck with H3.
COD got ahead with MW2.
That was in 2009, before Reach was released.
Halo 3 lost to CoD, not Reach.
Halo 3 was a great game, but stop saying that Reach caused Halo to fail.
You cannot blame Halo’s dethroning on a single game.
It was CoD’s newness and addictiveness that caused it to take the throne, it wasn’t any specific Halo game’s fault.
It wasn’t H3, or Reach’s fault. It was CoD’s success.
CoD 4 was a new, fast-paced game with an almost endless ranking system.
The original Halos (1-3) had been out for 8 years, a lot people wanted something new, and CoD was their answer.
They would have to try and ruin the series at this point.
I’ll hold my breath until release date.
halo 4 just better not fail. then we don’t have to worry about any problems
> As they said in the Pod cast, they are looking at halo CE and Halo 3 for guidance.
> So it must be good.
> Sadly not so much Halo 2.
Well at least they’re being somewhat more communicative now…granted not all that much, but they’re giving us a bit more insight into what it is they’re trying to do…
…Ofcourse still not knowing quite enough about Spartan Ops is slowly making me more and more Enraged…but hey, with any luck, come E3 they’ll just come out and showcase it fully…
> CoD 4 was neck and neck with H3.
>
> COD got ahead with MW2.
>
> That was in 2009, before Reach was released.
>
> Halo 3 lost to CoD, not Reach.
>
> Halo 3 was a great game, but stop saying that Reach caused Halo to fail.
>
> You cannot blame Halo’s dethroning on a single game.
>
> It was CoD’s newness and addictiveness that caused it to take the throne, it wasn’t any specific Halo game’s fault.
>
> It wasn’t H3, or Reach’s fault. It was CoD’s success.
>
> CoD 4 was a new, fast-paced game with an almost endless ranking system.
>
> The original Halos (1-3) had been out for 8 years, a lot people wanted something new, and CoD was their answer.
That’s the thing though. COD was more addicting yes but it has retained one thing that Halo used to have; fast paced gameplay and this is what keeps people around. Not slow gameplay, become bored with that.
As we have it now, it’s slow, but skillful gameplay and this needs to turn around for Halo 4. Fast but skillful gameplay that’s put COD to shame once more, not merely live it’s shadow and cater to a small niche group that would see series become irrelevant and eventually stop selling.
That’s what CE had. That’s what Halo 2 had, got slower in 3 but it still had floaty and strafes but Reach? Reach is slow, jumps are low, kill times are increased by game mechanics and strafing isn’t what it used to be.
> The devs would probably just think “oh! It wasn’t CoDish enough!” So no, OP. No.
you mean, like they’re doing to halo 4 right now?
> CoD 4 was neck and neck with H3.
> <mark>no H3 eventally beat cod 4</mark>
> http://www.vgchartz.com/article/5536/xbox-live-activity-for-week-of-october-5th/
>
> COD got ahead with MW2.
>
> That was in 2009, before Reach was released.
>
> Halo 3 lost to CoD, not Reach.
> <mark>no halo 3 was #2 to mw2, still neck and neck considering H3 was already 2 years old</mark>
> <mark>source</mark>
> http://majornelson.com/2009/12/15/live-activity-for-week-of/
> <mark>H3 despite being 2 years old stayed #2 until failo reach was released</mark>
> LIVE Activity for week of Aug 2 – Gamergeddon
> <mark>source</mark>
> Halo 3 was a great game, but stop saying that Reach caused Halo to fail.
>
> You cannot blame Halo’s dethroning on a single game.
> <mark>1 year and 2 months later…</mark>
> http://majornelson.com/2011/11/30/live-activity-for-week-of-november-21st/
>
> It was CoD’s newness and addictiveness that caused it to take the throne, it wasn’t any specific Halo game’s fault.
>
> It wasn’t H3, or Reach’s fault. It was CoD’s success.
> <mark>yes it was cods success but also halo reach was a dissapoinment to most halo fans. it simply was not halo in comparison to ce,2,3</mark>
>
> CoD 4 was a new, fast-paced game with an almost endless ranking system.
>
> The original Halos (1-3) had been out for 8 years, a lot people wanted something new, and CoD was their answer.
> CoD 4 was neck and neck with H3.
>
> COD got ahead with MW2.
>
> That was in 2009, before Reach was released.
>
> Halo 3 lost to CoD, not Reach.
>
> Halo 3 was a great game, but stop saying that Reach caused Halo to fail.
>
> You cannot blame Halo’s dethroning on a single game.
>
> It was CoD’s newness and addictiveness that caused it to take the throne, it wasn’t any specific Halo game’s fault.
>
> It wasn’t H3, or Reach’s fault. It was CoD’s success.
>
> CoD 4 was a new, fast-paced game with an almost endless ranking system.
>
> The original Halos (1-3) had been out for 8 years, a lot people wanted something new, and CoD was their answer.
^ This. Its easy for “true halo fans” to place the blame on Reach…but the truth is that people’s attention spans are getting smaller and smaller through the years. We, as a whole, can’t seem to focus on one thing for too long and CoD 4 was the new answer. People want instant gratification; which CoD gives in spades (anyone can pick up and get kills). But even history is starting to repeat itself…even CoD hardcores are starting to notice a trend with the newer CoD games.
Atleast Bungie tried something new. When I bought Reach…it was more than a $60 map pack. Which is more than I can say for most game nowadays.
An example is all the crying people did for ZB in Reach and all the updates…yet the original game mode has most of the Reach player base through the days. I would almost guarantee that if Halo CE came out with full fledged MP…it still wouldn’t have the numbers that the try hards are claiming. Of course, this is my opinion…but i’d be willing to place money one it.
> > CoD 4 was neck and neck with H3.
> >
> > COD got ahead with MW2.
> >
> > That was in 2009, before Reach was released.
> >
> > Halo 3 lost to CoD, not Reach.
> >
> > Halo 3 was a great game, but stop saying that Reach caused Halo to fail.
> >
> > You cannot blame Halo’s dethroning on a single game.
> >
> > It was CoD’s newness and addictiveness that caused it to take the throne, it wasn’t any specific Halo game’s fault.
> >
> > It wasn’t H3, or Reach’s fault. It was CoD’s success.
> >
> > CoD 4 was a new, fast-paced game with an almost endless ranking system.
> >
> > The original Halos (1-3) had been out for 8 years, a lot people wanted something new, and CoD was their answer.
>
> ^ This. Its easy for “true halo fans” to place the blame on Reach…but the truth is that people’s attention spans are getting smaller and smaller through the years <mark>Please cite your scientific source for this BS you spew.</mark> We, as a whole, can’t seem to focus on one thing for too long and CoD 4 was the new answer. People want instant gratification; which CoD gives in spades (anyone can pick up and get kills) yeh like CE or H2? <mark>so why did we go with longer killtimes in reach and the more complications with H4?</mark>. But even history is starting to repeat itself…even CoD hardcores are starting to notice a trend with the newer CoD games.
>
> Atleast Bungie tried something new. Why would you by a sequal for something new? <mark>why wouldnt you just but a different franchise? We want new but not to toss the baby out with the bathwater.</mark> When I bought Reach…it was more than a $60 map pack. <mark>Yeh I know it was a shadowrun remake in the halo universe</mark>Which is more than I can say for most game nowadays.
>
> An example is all the crying people did for ZB in Reach and all the updates…<mark>yeh lets make ZB slayer with AAs as pick ups and 110or 120 move/jump and rename it “Team Slayer” and then call the former TS playlist Reach Slayer and shove it at the bototm of the playlis options. lets see what happens then.</mark> yet the original game mode has most of the Reach player base through the days. I would almost guarantee that if Halo CE came out with full fledged MP…it still wouldn’t have the numbers that the try hards are claiming. <mark>lol pure guessing</mark> Of course, this is my opinion…but i’d be willing to place money one it.
Halo 4 will be on the top 3 list for about 1-1.8 years, And they wouldn’t change it, too much change.