> 2533274795098161;12:
> Is it alive though? Halo is first and foremost supposed to be a AAA multiplayer killer-application for the Xbox brand, and yet H5 was around place 25 for most of it’s life-span. It dropped below 30 around six (?) months back too… R6S and GTA5o are in the top ten since release however, just by comparison. So yeah, it might not be dead, but “coma” is the description I would go for in this situation. Situation - I’m still sure about this - the franchise wouldn’t be in if Halo 4 would have been a classic Halo title in MP, more open spaces and AI focused SP and supported by a better art style.
I guess that depends on your definition of “alive”. But I do have to ask: are all games less popular than Halo 5 “in coma”?
In any case, it’s all just imprecise, loaded terminology. Assigning Halo a figurative status of consciousness tells more about your feelings than about the present state of the game itself. Halo has undeniably become less popular than it used to be. However, at the same time, there are many developers, even developers of triple-A games, who’d consider having a community as active as that of Halo 5 a great success. Everyone is free to decide how they want to feel about these two facts.
To be honest, apart from thinking that pronouncing a game with hundreds of thousands of active players “dead” is a bit absurd, I don’t actually have major issues with people who think Halo is already dead and have learned to live with that. They at least have a consistent opinion. But the people who perpetually shift the goal posts by saying “if [the next Halo] isn’t like I want, then Halo is dead” but never dare to commit to anything are just fearmongering, and presumably believe it’s a good tactic for getting people on their side.
The popularity of Halo has always been a secondary concern to me. After all, if I don’t like the game, it doesn’t matter how popular the game is, so for me it’s much more important to have a game I enjoy than one that is popular. That’s why I’ve learned to detach my preferences from my thoughts on what the game needs to do to be popular and not fool myself into thinking that the two must correlate. As far as those thoughts go, i’ve never seen a reason why classic Halo wouldn’t work in this day in contrary to what some people say. However, unlike other people who broadly share my preferences, I also don’t see a reason why classic gameplay would be the saving grace of Halo. There simply isn’t evidence to support either of the two extreme theories about the impact of classic gameplay on the popularity of Halo.
> 2533274795098161;12:
> And yes, I said H4 and I also claim the downfall started seven years ago and not with Reach. I might be biased about this, but Reach was a prequel and somewhat of a spin-off. You accept huge changes more in such cases. And yet Reach manages to add new things in a more “Halo” manner than the next main chapter did and also felt a lot less “off the rails” than H4 all together.
>
> That’s a big “IMHO” of course, but the moment Halo dipped into the Call of Duty waters it went downhill, fast.
If you want to give a personal pass to Reach, you’re free to do so. However, that doesn’t really affect what I said. Many people did say that Halo 4 was 343i’s one and only chance. Of course it’s useful to keep in mind that many people did share your spin-off attitude, so there was a lot of expectation prior to the gameplay reveal that Halo 4 would be a gameplay sequel to Halo 3. But as we know, Halo 4 was instead a gameplay sequel to Reach, and 343i is still making Halo games.