Why is it called Halo "4"?

Games Other Halo
1

After playing through Halo 4’s campaign and multiplayer, something has occured to me. Why is this game called Halo “4”? The name of the game would imply that it is the direct sequel to Halo 3, but I don’t feel it is. Other than Cortana and Chief, there are no other returning characters from the past games and the story line of Halo 4 has almost nothing to do with Halo CE-3. As far as multiplayer goes, it is definitely not the sequel to Halo 3, if it was, maybe a larger percent of the 400,000+ people who played it the first week would still be playing it.

In terms of the campaign, I would almost say Halo 4’s campaign belongs in the spin-off category, maybe it should have been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something that doesn’t directly imply that Halo 3’s story would influence it. Because other than the FUD being stranded in space, nearly nothing else from Halo 3’s campaign influenced Halo 4’s campaign.

In terms of the multiplayer, I think its a fairly accurate statement to say that Halo 4 is a sequel to Halo Reach. Loadouts were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that. Armor abilities were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that, and the list goes on.

I seriously think this is why some people are angry with Halo 4. They thought, based off of the name, that they were getting a sequel to Halo 3, so they thought they would get a game that played and felt like Halo 3. But what they got was a game that starred Master Chief, but other than that had almost no connections to previous Halo games. They also got a MP experience that is built off of what Reach did, not Halo 3.

tl;dr: Halo 4, in my opinion, is a misleading title to what the game actually is. I believe had it been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something to that extent, people wouldn’t have been dissapointed by the fact Halo 4 doesn’t build off of Halo 3.

What do you think, is Halo 4 an appropriate title for this game, or is it misleading?

2

It directly follows the events of Halo 3, from the Chief’s perspective. Halo 3 ended with Forward Unto Dawn tumbling towards a strange planet, and Halo 4 started with Cortana waking Chief up in reaction to that.

But you are right that there may have been some misunderstandings about what the game would be like. Halo 4 does not continue the story, since Halo 3 finished the fight – perhaps they should include “The Reclaimer Saga” in the title.

3

> After playing through Halo 4’s campaign and multiplayer, something has occured to me. Why is this game called Halo “4”? The name of the game would imply that it is the direct sequel to Halo 3, but I don’t feel it is. Other than Cortana and Chief, there are no other returning characters from the past games and the story line of Halo 4 has almost nothing to do with Halo CE-3. As far as multiplayer goes, it is definitely not the sequel to Halo 3, if it was, maybe a larger percent of the 400,000+ people who played it the first week would still be playing it.
>
> In terms of the campaign, I would almost say Halo 4’s campaign belongs in the spin-off category, maybe it should have been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something that doesn’t directly imply that Halo 3’s story would influence it. Because other than the FUD being stranded in space, nearly nothing else from Halo 3’s campaign influenced Halo 4’s campaign.
>
> In terms of the multiplayer, I think its a fairly accurate statement to say that Halo 4 is a sequel to Halo Reach. Loadouts were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that. Armor abilities were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that, and the list goes on.
>
> I seriously think this is why some people are angry with Halo 4. They thought, based off of the name, that they were getting a sequel to Halo 3, so they thought they would get a game that played and felt like Halo 3. But what they got was a game that starred Master Chief, but other than that had almost no connections to previous Halo games. They also got a MP experience that is built off of what Reach did, not Halo 3.
>
> tl;dr: Halo 4, in my opinion, is a misleading title to what the game actually is. I believe had it been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something to that extent, people wouldn’t have been dissapointed by the fact Halo 4 doesn’t build off of Halo 3.
>
> What do you think, is Halo 4 an appropriate title for this game, or is it misleading?

The way I see it, it’s set in the same universe and only 4 years after the events of Halo 3. It follows the main character from the previous 3 “main” Halos and is still considered a direct sequel from the third one. It’s basically a continuation of Master Chief’s saga. As for no returning characters, they may make an appearance in the upcoming Halos. Just keep in mind, MC was stuck on a faraway Forerunner planet this game so chances of him running into anyone he knew was very slim. That’s just my take on it although I do agree about the multiplayer gameplay. I enjoy it but it is quite different from the usual Halo formula besides Reach.

4

It takes place after Halo 3 so yeah, I think Halo 4 is the perfect name for it.

5

I’ve always thought they should have called the game Halo: Infinity. Then people might not have set their expectations so high and might have even been a little more forgiving about any changes.

6

We have a covenant that is still looking for Forerunner artifacts, the UNSC that would benefit greatly from a war against said c, the 2 main characters carrying over from previous story, all taking place on the planet that their ship was floating to, and was teased at their audience when you beat the game.

…i think this is a sequal and deserves the 4 at the end. At least in terms of storytelling.
Y’all can go nuts over gameplay.

7

> It takes place after Halo 3 so yeah, I think Halo 4 is the perfect name for it.

That’s kind of a shallow way of looking at it.

8

> After playing through Halo 4’s campaign and multiplayer, something has occured to me. Why is this game called Halo “4”? The name of the game would imply that it is the direct sequel to Halo 3, but I don’t feel it is. <mark>Other than Cortana and Chief, there are no other returning characters from the past games and the story line of Halo 4 has almost nothing to do with Halo CE-3.</mark> As far as multiplayer goes, it is definitely not the sequel to Halo 3, if it was, maybe a larger percent of the 400,000+ people who played it the first week would still be playing it.
>
> In terms of the campaign, I would almost say Halo 4’s campaign belongs in the spin-off category, maybe it should have been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something that doesn’t directly imply that Halo 3’s story would influence it. Because other than the FUD being stranded in space, nearly nothing else from Halo 3’s campaign influenced Halo 4’s campaign.
>
> In terms of the multiplayer, I think its a fairly accurate statement to say that Halo 4 is a sequel to Halo Reach. Loadouts were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that. Armor abilities were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that, and the list goes on.
>
> I seriously think this is why some people are angry with Halo 4. They thought, based off of the name, that they were getting a sequel to Halo 3, so they thought they would get a game that played and felt like Halo 3. But what they got was a game that starred Master Chief, but other than that had almost no connections to previous Halo games. They also got a MP experience that is built off of what Reach did, not Halo 3.
>
> tl;dr: Halo 4, in my opinion, is a misleading title to what the game actually is. I believe had it been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something to that extent, people wouldn’t have been dissapointed by the fact Halo 4 doesn’t build off of Halo 3.
>
> What do you think, is Halo 4 an appropriate title for this game, or is it misleading?

That would be because most of them died. All but the Arbiter and Hood.

9

Well Installation 03 is on the mission scene " Comþoser " and the classic monk singing from Halo CEA menu screen during the fly by view of Halo Ring 03 is reason enough to call it Halo 4.

10

How else would they sell the game?

11

> > After playing through Halo 4’s campaign and multiplayer, something has occured to me. Why is this game called Halo “4”? The name of the game would imply that it is the direct sequel to Halo 3, but I don’t feel it is. <mark>Other than Cortana and Chief, there are no other returning characters from the past games and the story line of Halo 4 has almost nothing to do with Halo CE-3.</mark> As far as multiplayer goes, it is definitely not the sequel to Halo 3, if it was, maybe a larger percent of the 400,000+ people who played it the first week would still be playing it.
> >
> > In terms of the campaign, I would almost say Halo 4’s campaign belongs in the spin-off category, maybe it should have been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something that doesn’t directly imply that Halo 3’s story would influence it. Because other than the FUD being stranded in space, nearly nothing else from Halo 3’s campaign influenced Halo 4’s campaign.
> >
> > In terms of the multiplayer, I think its a fairly accurate statement to say that Halo 4 is a sequel to Halo Reach. Loadouts were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that. Armor abilities were introduced in Reach, 4 built off of that, and the list goes on.
> >
> > I seriously think this is why some people are angry with Halo 4. They thought, based off of the name, that they were getting a sequel to Halo 3, so they thought they would get a game that played and felt like Halo 3. But what they got was a game that starred Master Chief, but other than that had almost no connections to previous Halo games. They also got a MP experience that is built off of what Reach did, not Halo 3.
> >
> > tl;dr: Halo 4, in my opinion, is a misleading title to what the game actually is. I believe had it been called Halo: Reclaimer, or something to that extent, people wouldn’t have been dissapointed by the fact Halo 4 doesn’t build off of Halo 3.
> >
> > What do you think, is Halo 4 an appropriate title for this game, or is it misleading?
>
> That would be because most of them died. All but the Arbiter and Hood.

Sarge survived the explosion of the Halo ring in CE, I think he could have found a way to survive a measley blast from 343 Guilty Spark. I would have little to no objection to them bringing back Sarge again like they did in Halo 2. Sarge has his ways of living through seemingly impossible to survive situations (totally joking of course, sadly, Sarge is dead and should stay dead).

Had Arbiter been in the campaign at all that would have been awesome and I would not be making this post, same goes for Hood. I really don’t undertand why when Chief was onboard the Infinity no one made any mention of Hood. He was a pretty high up military leader, you’d think Chief would have talked to him at some point once he reunited with the UNSC.

Just the mention of these characters in the game would have done it wonders. Wouldn’t you think once Chief got onboard the Infinity and was surrounded by people with knowledge of the past 4/5 years he would have started asking some questions about everything that went on? I get that there wasn’t much time to get caught up, but something as simple as Chief asking “Where’s the Arbiter?” and then Lasky explains briefly what’s up with Arby. At least then we get some indication as to what happened the last few years and a much needed connection to the past games.

12

> How else would they sell the game?

Exactly. Tacking a 4 onto it was a surefire way to sell copies. Halo 3 sold 11 million, what better way to try to match that then putting 4 on the title and make everyone think it will be as good as Halo 3.

13

Didn’t Master Chief randomly make contact with Infinity after drifting in deep space for years? It might have been too great of a coincidence if there were people Chief knew on the ship unless they were actively looking for him.

14

Everyone was hyped for another game like Halo 3. That’s why pre-orders were so high. What’s the population? Oh, right, we’re losing to FIFA and Minecraft, not to mention COD.

Both games (FIFA/COD), might I add, perfect their formula instead of changing it.

15

> > It takes place after Halo 3 so yeah, I think Halo 4 is the perfect name for it.
>
> That’s kind of a shallow way of looking at it.

And how is the obvious answer a shallow way of looking at it? Halo 3 left the Chief floating in space on the damaged ship with the quote “wake me when you need me”. Halo 4 starts off on the damaged ship with the Chief being awoken cause Cortana needs him.

16

> Everyone was hyped for another game like Halo 3. That’s why pre-orders were so high. What’s the population? Oh, right, we’re losing to FIFA and Minecraft, not to mention COD.
>
> Both games (FIFA/COD), might I add, perfect their formula instead of changing it.

By perfecting their formula you mean never change it, just paste a new skin on previous framework with the same flaws and add 1 or 2 extra in game features. Yeah, thats perfecting it…

17

Oh great, another one of “those” threads that tries to be original by challenging what is painfully obvious.

18

> > It takes place after Halo 3 so yeah, I think Halo 4 is the perfect name for it.
>
> That’s kind of a shallow way of looking at it.

No a shallow way of looking at is thinking that they should name a game with as popular a single player story and as deep a fictional universe as Halo based on the new features in its multiplayer.

19

Why was Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale called a bond movie when many of the previous Bond characters did not make an appearance and only M was there?

If you have the elements and the characters it deserves the name of being a sequel.

20

> By perfecting their formula you mean never change it, just paste a new skin on previous framework with the same flaws and add 1 or 2 extra in game features. Yeah, thats perfecting it…

Yeah because that’s all they do, right?