Releasing a halo game every 3 years now is not a good idea because…with halo ce and halo 2…what else was there? What competition did halo have? Sure there were other games, but what other online multiplayer was like halo??
There wasn’t any, so when someone finished the campaign or story of some other game, they would go back to halo, because it was the only game with replay value. Same goes for halo 3, until call of duty came out. Now that halo has competition, and lots of it, it has to keep players reeled in, and frankly even an unreal game that comes out once every 3 years can’t keep up with a not as unreal but good game that comes out every year.
I’m sure you all have much hate for me, but I speak a little bit of truth…just think about it.
… wait the only thing Halo suffer from 3 year interval is a down in population. Other than that both Halo fan and dev’ actually benefit from a longer wait before the next game.
I don’t think so, I think 343i would get frustrated making another Halo game for every other year. 343i should take it’s time between games,and let the people get rest with a single Halo game release. Also,to bring back the people, just release map packs with a campaign section in it along with multiplayer maps.
I did think about it and heres why i disagree. Do note i am not going to be mean here.
I think that if we get an over-saturation of Halo games at one time (either 2 year or annual), people WILL suffer Halo fatigue regardless what 343 introduces to Halos sandbox. Burned out players will more likely move on to a different game and NOT play Halo.
Less players means less population. Less population means the trueskill systems can’t do it’s job as it’s not forced to pick the best possible pairings in a limited player pool (think Halo Reach).
The wait for Halo 5 is going to be long, just so you know. It’s going to be for next Gen consoles…
I don’t think there should be a numbered game every year, I like the 3 yr cycle, it allows for a better game. But that being said I think to keep up with other titles, it would be nice to get smaller side games like ODST in between.
I do agree once a year might be a little much (even though its not really that much) that once every two years is a much better option than annually, or every three years. Let’s be real, if you are 20 , then halo 6 will come out when you’re 26/27, so essentially you’ll be playing 3 games per decade at that rate…that doesn’t seem like over saturation
…why would you be mean in the first place? only losers are mean
> I don’t think there should be a numbered game every year, I like the 3 yr cycle, it allows for a better game. But that being said I think to keep up with other titles, it would be nice to get smaller side games like ODST in between.
by the way, I can almost personally guarantee that its going to be a launch title for the new xbox, if not halo 6 will be, but it will be one of the first games release for the next gen console. I have a feeling a new console is coming out in 2014, which will be a 1.5-2 year wait for the next halo…
> I do agree once a year might be a little much (even though its not really that much) that once every two years is a much better option than annually, or every three years. Let’s be real, if you are 20 , then halo 6 will come out when you’re 26/27, so essentially you’ll be playing 3 games per decade at that rate…that doesn’t seem like over saturation
>
> …why would you be mean in the first place? only losers are mean
I mean not just in games. Now you realize Halo releases more than just game content correct?
Now imagine the games released every two or each year WITH comics, toys, books etc. This is what i failed to mention in my previous post but a combination of these things can send negative ripples in the gaming community and Halo would be likened to COD. Too much of a good thing can be bad.
For Halo games to maintain a high quality, it has to have the three year cycle. A three year cycle preferable than the series losing it’s soul or delays because making good Halo game in a year will be stressful for dev teams (which would lead to delays).
I am not totally against the ideas of side games but there needs to be balance IMO.
> > I don’t think there should be a numbered game every year, I like the 3 yr cycle, it allows for a better game. But that being said I think to keep up with other titles, it would be nice to get smaller side games like ODST in between.
>
> Or a Halo Wars sequel/spiritual successor.
I think every main Halo title (i.e. 4,5,6) should have a 3 year development plan, but between each one maybe have a spin-off game (potentially Spartan 4/ODST games). In today’s climate, 1 game every 3 years isn’t viable for people’s stupidly short-attention spans, you have to “keep the oven hot”, so to speak. As long as there isn’t a Halo game forced out annually, I’m cool with it.
> > I do agree once a year might be a little much (even though its not really that much) that once every two years is a much better option than annually, or every three years. Let’s be real, if you are 20 , then halo 6 will come out when you’re 26/27, so essentially you’ll be playing 3 games per decade at that rate…that doesn’t seem like over saturation
> >
> > …why would you be mean in the first place? only losers are mean
>
> I mean not just in games. Now you realize Halo releases more than just game content correct?
>
> Now imagine the games released every two or each year WITH comics, toys, books etc. This is what i failed to mention in my previous post but a combination of these things can send negative ripples in the gaming community and Halo would be likened to COD. Too much of a good thing can be bad.
>
> For Halo games to maintain a high quality, it has to have the three year cycle. A three year cycle preferable than the series losing it’s soul or delays because making good Halo game in a year will be stressful for dev teams (which would lead to delays).
>
> I am not totally against the ideas of side games but there needs to be balance IMO.
i agree with this, but the core is the game, and if the game is being release every 2 years, then they can tone it down on the books and comics and other things. Can’t they?
The thing is, we don’t want them to rush the games. A game every three years gives 343 Industries the time to make a nice quality product that people will enjoy for a long time. Rushing through the development will give us a campaign that’s too short, a ton of scrapped ideas that should have made it in, an underdeveloped multiplayer and a ton of bugs and glitches.
Take a look at Mass Effect 3. While being an amazing game, it was most definitely rushed in the two years they took to make it. Had they spent an extra year on it, it would have given Bioware time to fix the glitches that appear far too often as well as add in stuff that the game sorely needed.
Or how about Halo 2? That game was made in a few months, more or less, and it really shows. While I love the game, multiplayer had too many glitches in it (BxR, 4-shot, etc.) that suffered from being finished too quickly. And have you seen the list of features that were scrapped? So many great things that we could have seen in there. Thankfully, Halo 2 being rushed lead to the creation of Halo 3 and beyond, but still…
Point is, games should follow the rule of quality over quantity. I would much rather see a great game every three years that has some fun DLC to fill in the waiting time rather than a game that’s just good every two years.
> > > I do agree once a year might be a little much (even though its not really that much) that once every two years is a much better option than annually, or every three years. Let’s be real, if you are 20 , then halo 6 will come out when you’re 26/27, so essentially you’ll be playing 3 games per decade at that rate…that doesn’t seem like over saturation
> > >
> > > …why would you be mean in the first place? only losers are mean
> >
> > I mean not just in games. Now you realize Halo releases more than just game content correct?
> >
> > Now imagine the games released every two or each year WITH comics, toys, books etc. This is what i failed to mention in my previous post but a combination of these things can send negative ripples in the gaming community and Halo would be likened to COD. Too much of a good thing can be bad.
> >
> > For Halo games to maintain a high quality, it has to have the three year cycle. A three year cycle preferable than the series losing it’s soul or delays because making good Halo game in a year will be stressful for dev teams (which would lead to delays).
> >
> > I am not totally against the ideas of side games but there needs to be balance IMO.
>
> i agree with this, but the core is the game, and if the game is being release every 2 years, then they can tone it down on the books and comics and other things. Can’t they?
Perhaps but the universe fans are have particularly gluttonous appetite for any kind of Halo fiction. Putting them on hold wouldn’t be viable IMO. The books are just as important, even more so that 343 (unlike Bungie) is going to tie the fiction to the games.
Also, there are plenty who collect the toys and mega blocks as funny as that sounds xD I am not into though…hey don’t look me like that…xD
I think the way things are going now is smooth, no reason to deviate from that if the quality would suffer. It may not sell as much as COD but Halo games sell like hotcakes anyways. Of course while i play both games, Halo has always been the game that maintained quality and enjoyment (even Reach in some cases).