A few weeks ago Bungie released stats on all the Halo games. Looking at that picture you can see Halo 3 was by far the most played, and people played it the longest of any title. It trumped Halo: Reach in every one of the categories.
Yet, 343 is going out and making a continuation of what Reach was. Do you expect to have a successful game, and for people to play it if you’re doing the same exact thing as a previous flop?
I think if 343 really wanted to make a good game, they would return to Halo’s roots and make multiplayer game that was a true sequel to Halo 2 and 3. With the crap that we have been fed, Halo 4 looks to be god awful.
Halo 2 and 3 kept the formula simple, you had ranked matches where a number defined you, and you played and got better to increase that number. There were no Armor Abilities, everyone had the same loadout, and it was up to them to find weapons around the map. These weapons were put on a timer, and you got better as a team by controlling these weapons. Everyone at the beginning of a match started the same way, and there were no advantages or disadvantages based on a loadout, because there were none. Purely based on skill.
Now we jump forward to Halo 4, where everyone starts out with a different loadout, armor abilities play a huge role, and you can look through walls. There is no strategic weapon placement to control, it seems as if we have stepped into COD where everyone has juggernaut.
As a fan of the Halo series, I don’t write this post condoning 343, I just ask them to take a step back and see what made Halo multiplayer good in the first place.
they’re trying to put the nail in the coffin clearly
> A few weeks ago Bungie released stats on all the Halo games. Looking at that picture you can see Halo 3 was by far the most played, and people played it the longest of any title. It trumped Halo: Reach in every one of the categories.
>
> Yet, 343 is going out and making a continuation of what Reach was. Do you expect to have a successful game, and for people to play it if you’re doing the same exact thing as a previous flop?
>
> I think if 343 really wanted to make a good game, they would return to Halo’s roots and make multiplayer game that was a true sequel to Halo 2 and 3. With the crap that we have been fed, Halo 4 looks to be god awful.
>
> Halo 2 and 3 kept the formula simple, you had ranked matches where a number defined you, and you played and got better to increase that number. There were no Armor Abilities, everyone had the same loadout, and it was up to them to find weapons around the map. These weapons were put on a timer, and you got better as a team by controlling these weapons. Everyone at the beginning of a match started the same way, and there were no advantages or disadvantages based on a loadout, because there were none. Purely based on skill.
>
> Now we jump forward to Halo 4, where everyone starts out with a different loadout, armor abilities play a huge role, and you can look through walls. There is no strategic weapon placement to control, it seems as if we have stepped into COD where everyone has juggernaut.
>
> As a fan of the Halo series, I don’t write this post condoning 343, I just ask them to take a step back and see what made Halo multiplayer good in the first place.
If you want HALO 3, go play it. I loved reach and hope that HALO evovles into something great.
You loved Reach, most people didn’t. Yes, I did play it a lot, but I ultimately felt Reach wasn’t the game Halo deserved multiplayer wise. Why wouldn’t 343 want to create a game that had huge success? Yes, Halo:Reach probably had more sales but that’s only because it was a halo title and more people were introduced to it. If you look at the stats, halo 3 was far more played, even though less people bought it.
Reach didn’t make the Halo series popular, Halo 2 did. Cod 4, was a huge success, and you know what the developers did when they made the next games? They kept the formula the same, and it’s sales are astronomical. If 343 really wanted the success of this game, they would return to it’s roots and build the game off of what made it good.
Halo 3 and ODST had more over all games played in the 77 months the number account for, but Halo Reach had more games per month in 15 months. Even if we look at just over all games played, we are comparing a game that has 77 months under its belt to a title that was around for 15. See the problem with comparing those numbers?
In addition, Halo 3’s biggest competition was COD4, and Halo 2 had virtually no competition for the majority of is main run. Reach has had far more to compete with, not the least of which is the current COD juggernaut.
> You loved Reach, most people didn’t. Yes, I did play it a lot, but I ultimately felt Reach wasn’t the game Halo deserved multiplayer wise. Why wouldn’t 343 want to create a game that had huge success? Yes, Halo:Reach probably had more sales but that’s only because it was a halo title and more people were introduced to it. If you look at the stats, halo 3 was far more played, even though less people bought it.
>
> Reach didn’t make the Halo series popular, Halo 2 did. Cod 4, was a huge success, and you know what the developers did when they made the next games? They kept the formula the same, and it’s sales are astronomical. If 343 really wanted the success of this game, they would return to it’s roots and build the game off of what made it good.
Last time I checked “most people” were on Reach, and Halo 3’s player count is pathetically low. You’re delusional is you think you’re the majority. You and everyone on this forum are nothing but a vocal minority.
Of course Halo 3’s stats show more games and more kills. It’s been out much longer.
> Halo 3 and ODST had more over all games played in the 77 months the number account for, but Halo Reach had more games per month in 15 months. Even if we look at just over all games played, we are comparing a game that has 77 months under its belt to a title that was around for 15. See the problem with comparing those numbers?
>
> In addition, Halo 3’s biggest competition was COD4, and Halo 2 had virtually no competition for the majority of is main run. Reach has had far more to compete with, not the least of which is the current COD juggernaut.
When I looked at the stats, I remember thinking that Reach was the most popular. Yes, H3 had it beat in many categories but Reach was right behind, and Reach has been out significantly less time.
Reach hasn’t been out near as long as Halo 3 has and the stats actually say that reach has a higher average games per month than 3. I don’t see why everyone thinks reach is bad. It’s actually my favorite halo All halo games are going to be different. Of course they are going to try some new stuff. I also think they should take our feedback though. The best thing we can do is keep posting our thoughts on the forums without getting out of hand. tell them what you think. The one i really want them to change is bringing elites back. i love playing as an elite. The machinima world will also suffer from this. How are arby n the cheif gonna be made?