Wasn’t Halo 3 finish the fight? Microsoft seems to be milking this franchise somewhat annoyingly at this point. It should have been left at Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, then the prequel Halo Reach. That was perfect, but they had to milk it like a cow.
it’ll be like star wars all over again
It was more of you finished the fight with the flood.
Did you really ever doubt the Halo 4: Start a New Fight trailer?
Bungie were the ones who left it open to a sequel, just saying
The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
> It was more of you finished the fight with the flood.
Actually, it was an end to the Halo ring, it was destroyed. They just added a new ring, and added prometheans to “Halo 4” to mess up the story.
> It was more of you finished the fight with the flood.
Not quite… That battle was merely a prelude to what we will soon face…
> The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
Definitely should have named “Halo 4” something else then. The Halo ring was destroyed in Halo 3, so naming future Halo games with the word “Halo” is stupid. Freakin’ adding another ring in Halo 4 as an excuse is just painful.
> > It was more of you finished the fight with the flood.
>
> Actually, it was an end to the Halo ring, it was destroyed. They just added a new ring, and added prometheans to “Halo 4” to mess up the story.
You also destroyed a Halo Ring in the first game yet they continued the fight.
> > The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
>
> Definitely should have named “Halo 4” something else then. <mark>The Halo ring was destroyed in Halo 3,</mark> so naming future Halo games with the word “Halo” is stupid. Freakin’ adding another ring in Halo 4 as an excuse is just painful.
The franchise is called Halo how would calling Halo 4, “Halo 4” be stupid? There are more rings than the one in Halo 1 and 3 dude, infact you go to a different ring in Halo 2…
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
> > The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
>
> Definitely should have named “Halo 4” something else then. The Halo ring was destroyed in Halo 3, so naming future Halo games with the word “Halo” is stupid. Freakin’ adding another ring in Halo 4 as an excuse is just painful.
You know there are more rings than the ones we saw in the original trilogy, right?
“Finish the Fight” with the Covenant. Stop their onslaught of exterminating humanity and lighting the rings. Halo 4 picks up with the return of a Forerunner and a sect of Covenant wishing to find Forerunner tech.
If Bungie wanted Master Chief’s story to end with Halo 3…
… they wouldn’t have shown the Forward Unto Dawn drifting toward Requiem in the Halo 3 Legendary ending.
Don’t complain about more Halo. There are still a ton of other story elements to explore. At least the franchise isn’t being milked as badly as Call of Duty.
> If Bungie wanted Master Chief’s story to end with Halo 3…
> … they wouldn’t have shown the Forward Unto Dawn drifting toward Requiem in the Halo 3 Legendary ending.
It was originally intended to be ONYX though I believe, this is one of the many reasons I wish Bungie didn’t leave Halo, the story they were going with seemed much more interesting.
@Halojunky
Some would argue that it is.
> > If Bungie wanted Master Chief’s story to end with Halo 3…
> > … they wouldn’t have shown the Forward Unto Dawn drifting toward Requiem in the Halo 3 Legendary ending.
>
> It was originally intended to be ONYX though I believe, this is one of the many reasons I wish Bungie didn’t leave Halo, the story they were going with seemed much more interesting.
>
>
> @Halojunky
>
> Some would argue that it is.
How could it have been Onyx, though? The Sentinels that were its foundation separated, effectively disassembling the entire world. Did they think it was the Dyson’s Sphere?
> > The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
>
> Definitely should have named “Halo 4” something else then. The Halo ring was destroyed in Halo 3, so naming future Halo games with the word “Halo” is stupid. Freakin’ adding another ring in Halo 4 as an excuse is just painful.
You do know there are more Halo rings right? There always has been, read up on it dude http://www.halopedia.org/Halo_Array
You must be new to Halo, it has been established since CE that there is more Halo rings, Spark out right says “Greetings. I am the Monitor of Installation 04. I am 343 Guilty Spark”
You can also see holograms of the seven rings in Halo 3: http://www.halopedia.org/images/c/c2/72804140-Medium.jpg
> > > If Bungie wanted Master Chief’s story to end with Halo 3…
> > > … they wouldn’t have shown the Forward Unto Dawn drifting toward Requiem in the Halo 3 Legendary ending.
> >
> > It was originally intended to be ONYX though I believe, this is one of the many reasons I wish Bungie didn’t leave Halo, the story they were going with seemed much more interesting.
> >
> >
> > @Halojunky
> >
> > Some would argue that it is.
>
> How could it have been Onyx, though? The Sentinels that were its foundation separated, effectively disassembling the entire world. Did they think it was the Dyson’s Sphere?
There would’ve been no point to go to Onyx though, everything that was done there was done.
Just like Hollywood, just making sequels of sucussful movies, so is the video game industry… not that I mind in a sense. Still hyped about the Halo franchise although I mostly likly won’t get the xbox one.
> > The fight never finished though, Bungie shouldn’t have left it open to a sequel if they truly wanted their franchise to end.
>
> Definitely should have named “Halo 4” something else then. The Halo ring was destroyed in Halo 3, so naming future Halo games with the word “Halo” is stupid. Freakin’ adding another ring in Halo 4 as an excuse is just painful.
You are aware that there is, was and always will be 7 Halo installations in the galaxy (until MC blows them up), right? The Halo in CE was called Installation 04. It was the plan for a whole decade. So 343i has 6 Halos left to work with. And, no, the name shouldn’t change just because it doesn’t include a Halo. That is just stupid. Do you really think it would have been taken well if Halo 4 was called some -Yoink- like Requiem, or Reclaimer. People would not buy that. The name sells the game. And this is a sequel to Halo 3, I see no reason why not to call it Halo 4.
Is this series milked? Well, these days no successful series dies. The games keep shooting out. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it but get out of the way of the people that still enjoy it.