Support NeoGAF

[Trasher]

:lol yea but you would think after all that time these kids would be good hahahaha I know I would be.

But regardless of what the different rule sets may be and how they're different. It is easier for a player to go into CoD matchmaking and get results. That's why I believe CoD is sooo popular.

To be fair, it's much more fun/rewarding going in to CoD by yourself compared to Reach. Reach is an awful game to play by yourself. So I guess it's popularity is well-earned then eh?

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Bro, I used to play CS. And I got my shit pushed in all day in that game. I'm not a fuckin idiot. I think though, as far as console shooters are concerned, CoD is a much easier game than Halo. You know what? There's no fucking argument, it is an easier game. You can't convince me otherwise. I go in that game with a low ass rank and shit on kids with multiple prestiges.

Yea but you would also think Halo players with higher rank would be good too but many here have played with people that have ranked up who totally suck ass. So a time based rank really at the end of the day don't mean a damn thing for either game.

 

[Slightly Live]

To be fair, it's much more fun/rewarding going in to CoD by yourself compared to Reach. Reach is an awful game to play by yourself. So I guess it's popularity is well-earned then eh?

So is Halo the better team game then?

 

[Ramirez]

To be fair, it's much more fun/rewarding going in to CoD by yourself compared to Reach. Reach is an awful game to play by yourself. So I guess it's popularity is well-earned then eh?

I think this is just a sad state of affairs for games in general. Your average player is so stupid that they can't even work together in a team environment. BF, Halo, & Gears all suck by yourself...

 

[Trasher]

So is Halo the better team game then?

In my opinion, yes. But I have no idea what the competitive scene of CoD games are like.

 

[Booshka]

In my opinion, yes. But I have no idea what the competitive scene of CoD games are like.

This is the real problem with trying to compare them, if there was an equivalent to the MLG playlist in CoD where you played against the same 1500 tryhards that played all day, the opinions on its competitive merit might be a little different

 

[Tashi]

To be fair, it's much more fun/rewarding going in to CoD by yourself compared to Reach. Reach is an awful game to play by yourself. So I guess it's popularity is well-earned then eh?

That's also true. Also part of the reason I haven't played much Halo since the MLG event. No more team to play MLG with, I just lost that fire to play. I know that I'll get on, get shitty teammates in a playlist with no rank, get frustrated and shut my box off in the middle of like the 2nd game.

edit: Just went to IGN and noticed the main ad there is for BF3. Same day CoD comes out :lol

 

[Kuroyume]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

 

[Ramirez]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

Halo 3 was more fun for me than Reach, by a mile, suck it. The only thing Reach has over it for me is netcode, and it's a huge difference.

 

[Slightly Live]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

*Proudly wears his Halo 3 Defence Force Badge*

 

[Tashi]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

You've either been trolling for however long you've been a part of HaloGAF or you're completely delusional.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

*Proudly wears his Halo 3 Defense Force Badge*

*Stands proudly beside him while wearing his too*

 

[Rickenslacker]

Halo 3 was more fun for me than Reach, by a mile, suck it. The only thing Reach has over it for me is netcode, and it's a huge difference.

I'm not even so sure on why the netcode of Reach gets touted as much, is it the hitscan weapons creating a placebo or something? I still feel like Reach gets about as janky as any of the older games. I'm probably overlooking something.

 

[Slightly Live]

I'm not even so sure on why the netcode of Reach gets touted as much, is it the hitscan weapons creating a placebo or something? I still feel like Reach gets about as janky as any of the older games. I'm probably overlooking something.

You are overlooking.... everything.

The netcode improvement from Halo 3 to Reach is pretty damm impressive. As a non-American player it is easily Reach's greatest achievement and has the biggest impact for me.

I love Halo 3 to bits, morose than Reach by any measurement but I found it hard to go back just because of the difference in the quality and performance of the netcode.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

Those are some lovely rose tinted specs. Where can I grab a pair? =)

I get the love for Halo 2, I really do but your entire post is riddled with your own sense of disappointment with Halo 3 - which wasn't shared by the majority of players.

You claim Halo 3 failed to capture players in the long run and praise COD4 for ushering in a new style of FPS. This is absurd though. Halo 4 performed exceptionally well in face of COD4 - I remember reading the Live activity charts each month and seeing COD4 and Halo 3 seesaw back and forth for the top position.

Halo 3's map packs also sold amazing well too - I remember a claim from an Microsoft dude that said that one of the DLC packs was still selling hundreds of copies per day a year after it was released (something along those lines). That's a testament to the muscle Halo 3 had at retainer players and maintaining it's online population.

What damaged Halo 3 was the Mythic fiasco. Without getting into details, the fragmented and delayed release of the Mythic maps starved Halo 3's online population of fresh content for over an entire year. It lost momentum in this post release stage because of the content drought - in contrast the COD franchise thundered onward with WAW and MW2.

Halo Wars and ODST saw the eventual injection of Halo 3's final DLC but by then it was too late as Halo 3 was in the shadow of Reach. At this point in any game's lifespan the population is expected to start reducing and when you consider the torrent of COD games, GOW2 and the starvation of content, well everyone knew how things stood.

Halo 3 was solid in every regard. Sales. Population numbers over time. Popular DLC releases. Mistakes were made and lessons were learned.

So get your head out of your ass if you think Halo 3 under performed. You may have liked Halo 2's multiplayer better and that's your own preference. Saying Halo 3 disappointed fans is just stupid.

Your list of "lessons learned" are a joke. Clearly they must be. =P

1) Halo was the natural and logical progression of the Halo sandbox and a perfect conclusion to momentum started in CE. The sandbox of the trilogy is almost a perfect example of logical gameplay improvements that, for the most part, function really well and reflect the growth of the franchise.

Reach however, in my opinion, utterly disrupted the sandbox. I think this was an intentional designed choice but one I think simply didn't work.

I think even the most ardent Halo 2 fan would take Halo 3's sandbox over the sandbox presented in Reach any day of the week.

2) Halo should never offer a yearly product no matter how consistent. Never.

3) I agree about Reach's marketing not being up to the scale of Halo 3 but I do not think it's fair to base Halo 4's marketing expectations on what we got with Reach.

Halo. Master Chief. Galaxy Spanning Adventure. Halo 4 will be an event, not a launch. Just like Halo 2 and 3 before it. Mark my words.

Offended much? They were just his thoughts. Anyway, I agree with most of what AwesomeBarlow said. I think Halo3 did under-perform if we're talking about total potential. The majority of players that you aren't taking into account are the players who stopped playing because of their disappointment in Halo3. But we'll never know those numbers, because there is no way to track new versus old players. And he never said anything about Halo needing a yearly release. But you cannot deny that the consistency of the COD games has kept fans rather than alienate them like successive halo games have done. I was disappointed in Halo3. I've always been disappointed in that game, just not as much as Reach, sadly. So no: lessons not learned

 

[Trasher]

I feel like the slower pace of Halo is what makes it more popular as a competitive FPS game. CoD is just too fast you know? I can't see it being very exciting as far as spectating goes.

 

[kylej]

Offended much? They were just his thoughts.

That post is going to be another reference on that guy's Bungie application.

 

[Reagan's BR]

Nothing personal Dani. I just think you read into what I was saying a bit too much. No need to get offended buddy! We are all here for the same reason. We love Halo. I'm not trashing anything, just critiquing what I see to be things that are detrimental to the series we all love.

Those are some lovely rose tinted specs. Where can I grab a pair? =)

I get the love for Halo 2, I really do but your entire post is riddled with your own sense of disappointment with Halo 3 - which wasn't shared by the majority of players.

Haha, yeah, I fondly remember Halo 2 and view might be skewed. That said, I am not hating on Halo 3, just saying it was underwhelming compared to Halo 2. ie map design, broken br, poorly implemented dual weilding

You claim Halo 3 failed to capture players in the long run and praise COD4 for ushering in a new style of FPS. This is absurd though. Halo 4 performed exceptionally well in face of COD4 - I remember reading the Live activity charts each month and seeing COD4 and Halo 3 seesaw back and forth for the top position.

Exactly, I am saying that Halo 3 failed to hold on as MW2 came out and COD got more popular. COD 4 got this ball rolling. I realize they were in the top spots fighting it out for a while. MW2 ended that quickly though.

Halo 3's map packs also sold amazing well too - I remember a claim from an Microsoft dude that said that one of the DLC packs was still selling hundreds of copies per day a year after it was released (something along those lines). That's a testament to the muscle Halo 3 had at retainer players and maintaining it's online population.

I agree, initially DLC for Halo 3 was handled well but as you put it here:

What damaged Halo 3 was the Mythic fiasco. Without getting into details, the fragmented and delayed release of the Mythic maps starved Halo 3's online population of fresh content for over an entire year. It lost momentum in this post release stage because of the content drought - in contrast the COD franchise thundered onward with WAW and MW2.

Things quickly fell apart.

Halo Wars and ODST saw the eventual injection of Halo 3's final DLC but by then it was too late as Halo 3 was in the shadow of Reach. At this point in any game's lifespan the population is expected to start reducing and when you consider the torrent of COD games, GOW2 and the starvation of content, well everyone knew how things stood.

Very true, DLC is essential. Regardless, a good game can live for years without support, (see COD4 or many of the popular PC shooters). DLC is definitely helpful and regularly timed releases are key. You just have to be sure not to release too much in a short time span. Halo 2 handled DLC well as did Halo 3 initially.

Halo 3 was solid in every regard. Sales. Population numbers over time. Popular DLC releases. Mistakes were made and lessons were learned.

I agree it did well, but it could have done better. Halo 2's population stayed strong in comparison despite big milestones like GOW and the release of a new console. Halo 3 didn't do as well when faced with MW2 and the like.

So get your head out of your ass if you think Halo 3 under performed. You may have liked Halo 2's multiplayer better and that's your own preference. Saying Halo 3 disappointed fans is just stupid.

Halo 3 did not under-perform sales wise, but it's failure to capture the replay-ability of Halo 2 set up subsequent titles for failure.

Your list of "lessons learned" are a joke. Clearly they must be. =P

1) Halo was the natural and logical progression of the Halo sandbox and a perfect conclusion to momentum started in CE. The sandbox of the trilogy is almost a perfect example of logical gameplay improvements that, for the most part, function really well and reflect the growth of the franchise.

I loved Halo 3's sandbox for the most part. Everything fit in well. The problems I was addressing were how instead of just expanding and tweaking the sandbox we got things that disrupted the standard Halo style of play like equipment. Plus there is no way you can say that Halo 3's map design was better than Halo 2's.

Reach however, in my opinion, utterly disrupted the sandbox. I think this was an intentional designed choice but one I think simply didn't work.

Agreed. They tried to make Halo into something it isn't. Armor abilities, bloom, and the way other Halo weapons were tweaked. Honestly dual-wielding should have stayed in. While useless in Halo 3,It didn't hurt it. Dual-wielding was implemented well in Halo 2.

I think even the most ardent Halo 2 fan would take Halo 3's sandbox over the sandbox presented in Reach any day of the week.

No arguments there.

2) Halo should never offer a yearly product no matter how consistent. Never.

That wasn't my point. My point was consistency. Keep to the formula. Give us full Halo games. Don't release expansions at full price. Don't pull a Reach and give us a different game entirely.

3) I agree about Reach's marketing not being up to the scale of Halo 3 but I do not think it's fair to base Halo 4's marketing expectations on what we got with Reach.

I certainly hope not. And I agree, I bet that MS will throw tons of money and effort into this.

Halo. Master Chief. Galaxy Spanning Adventure. Halo 4 will be an event, not a launch. Just like Halo 2 and 3 before it. Mark my words.

Hopefully so! I want to see some Halo 2, 3, and MW level hype here.


I was just saying that while fun Halo 2 had a magic about it that kept people a bit more engrossed than Halo 3 did. Halo 3 did a lot right but failed to keep people satisfied in the long run, if it had people would have come out for Reach after playing 3 like they did for 3 after playing 2. I want to see Halo 4 capture some of the magic that kept Halo 2 going. Not only that, but I want to see Halo 4 have a huge launch. Like you I want to see regular and quality DLC releases. I want to see a product that keeps people really engrossed for 3 years. Something that obliterates the competition. In short, I want to see Halo. I want that Halo 2 and pre-2009 Halo 3 to come back. A lot of people I am friends with were so pumped about 2 and 3 and lined up for the games but didn't even buy Reach. I don't want to see that anymore. I want to see Halo return to the number one spot on Live. The place it should be.

You and I want the same thing. We both want to say Halo 4 become the premier game on the xbox.

Offended much? They were just his thoughts. Anyway, I agree with most of what AwesomeBarlow said. I think Halo3 did under-perform if we're talking about total potential. The majority of players that you aren't taking into account are the players who stopped playing because of their disappointment in Halo3. But we'll never know those numbers, because there is no way to track new versus old players. And he never said anything about Halo needing a yearly release. But you cannot deny that the consistency of the COD games has kept fans rather than alienate them like successive halo games have done. I was disappointed in Halo3. I've always been disappointed in that game, just not as much as Reach, sadly. So no: lessons not learned

Exactly. I think a lot of people were done after Halo 3. They got tired and left. Also yes to the consistency. COD has released major titles subsequently. No expansions, no big changes to the core mechanics of the game. Halo hasn't done that. I mean, the last few titles in our series are: Reach, ODST, and Wars. Not exactly your typical Halo titles there.

 

[Rickenslacker]

You are overlooking.... everything.

The netcode improvement from Halo 3 to Reach is pretty damm impressive. As a non-American player it is easily Reach's greatest achievement and has the biggest impact for me.

I love Halo 3 to bits, morose than Reach by any measurement but I found it hard to go back just because of the difference in the quality and performance of the netcode.

Can you elaborate? For instance, Halo PC has shit netcode because you have to lead melees, with explosions and vehicles warping constantly among other things. What hitches does Halo 3 have in netcode that Reach has fixed?

 

[Reagan's BR]

That post is going to be another reference on that guy's Bungie application.

Huh?

 

[Steelyuhas]

CoD's core gameplay is very unremarkable in every way. It's the leveling, upgrades, RPG-like components, and constant rewarding of the player that keeps people coming back. It's addicting.

I think you gotta at least recognize COD's very fast paced, every to pick up and play, drop in drop out gameplay as a factor that attracts a lot of players, even if it doesn't appeal to you. I do agree though that COD4 took the concept of a player investment system and knocked it out of the park 50 times over again (and has been improved on since then).

Halo has a lot to learn from the systems that COD and Battlefield have in place, even if a lot of the stuff doesn't directly translate over to Halo. One of the main things is letting the player know that you are rewarding him for his actions. Reach gives players CR for different actions and ties them to medals and commendations, but it hides them in the corner and doesn't display what actions they did and what points they got for them.

This had more to do with the awful ranking system than the population. I couldn't even find a game by myself in SB when I hit 40, the entire population was like 1-20, this is why people are crazy for wanting that system back in its exact Halo 3 form.

Why can't Halo have all of the stuff CoD has? There's really no reason they can't add stuff like gun skins, custom tags, etc.

See above and I'm in the boat of having no desire to see 1-50 gridlock again.

You guys see the rumor about the next Xbox coming out next year? Thoughts?

I find it hard to believe they'd release a new console with Halo 4 coming out in the same time frame. Especially since Mattrick was quick to point out Halo 4 was the start of a new trilogy on the 360. I guess there could always be a Twilight Princess scenario, but I don't see what MS gains by launching Halo 4 on 360 and not taking advantage of their new consoles power with a port, not to mention Halo 4 would make people buy the next one immediately.

Whatever the case, I'm ready for something new, these consoles are way past their prime at this point.

I don't see it being remotely possible that a new Xbox hits next year. 2013 is a good bet I think.

Halo 4 we know to be coming next fall, and we know that GTA 5 pretty much has to come out next year for the current consoles as well.

Not as big of a game has Halo and GTA in terms of sales (although it's fucking incredible), Bioshock Infinite is coming to current consoles sometime next year, assumed in the fall.

Based on the release schedule that we already know about, Fall/Winter of 2012 seems to be a great year for the final big release window for the 360, so it makes sense to release a new console in 2013.


Finally, a response to Dani's post about Halo 3. I agree with most of what your post consisted of (despite being very vocal at times about my disappointment/dislike for H3), but I wanted to point out your comment about "lessons being learned from DLC mistakes of H3". I have to disagree with you there. After H3 had tons of DLC, but no way to actually implement it into matchmaking well except for lock out playlists, no good way to filter DLC was in Reach and after two DLC packs, DLC support disappeared and we've seen a pretty sharp decline in online population in the last few months (lack of DLC is probably a significant contributing factor to that).

 

[feel]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

 

[heckfu]

I love watching my roommate buy MW3 day one and watching his PS3 fail. It's LITERALLY giggle-inducing fun every time he gets worked up about a game and PSN boinks out on him.

 

[PNut]

Let's not talk about H3 anymore. Anyone who says anything positive about that game is just trolling.

*adds Colonel, Grade 3 to ignore list*

Halo 3 was more fun for me than Reach, by a mile, suck it. The only thing Reach has over it for me is netcode, and it's a huge difference.

Yes. That and the UI.

 

[Slightly Live]

Offended much? They were just his thoughts. Anyway, I agree with most of what AwesomeBarlow said. I think Halo3 did under-perform if we're talking about total potential. The majority of players that you aren't taking into account are the players who stopped playing because of their disappointment in Halo3. But we'll never know those numbers, because there is no way to track new versus old players. And he never said anything about Halo needing a yearly release. But you cannot deny that the consistency of the COD games has kept fans rather than alienate them like successive halo games have done. I was disappointed in Halo3. I've always been disappointed in that game, just not as much as Reach, sadly. So no: lessons not learned

Not offended one bit. I'm just trying to put out some facts to counter what I see as clear bias which cannot be backed up.

Like your argument here. The players that stopped playing Halo 3 in disappointment. Who are they? How many players are you talking about? I'm sure whatever number you might give, these folks are in a overwhelming minority.

Halo 3 did well. Look at the numbers. Look at the activity charts. Look at the competition. Simply remove any bias about whether the game was "good" or "bad" by your own opnion and look at how other people reacted. This is how we're judging this here.

I have no said anything bad about the COD franchise. Activision has found a formula that works. For now. They could make a mess of it like they did with Guitar Hero if they aren't careful but that's not something I care to comment on much.

We love Halo. I'm not trashing anything, just critiquing what I see to be things that are detrimental to the series we all love.

I was being brash. My apologies. It's certainly nothing personal. I'm not a fan of what I see so often, in my own opinion, of rose-tinted bias.

Haha, yeah, I fondly remember Halo 2 and view might be skewed. That said, I am not hating on Halo 3, just saying it was underwhelming compared to Halo 2. ie map design, broken br, poorly implemented dual weilding

This is all subjective though and makes for a non-argument. Opinions differ. If you're making factual assertions then I'll ask you back them up. The BR wasn't broken in Halo 3. It worked as intended and designed. Heck, technically the Halo 2 was broken thanks to things like the BXR glitch. That's factual and we can compare the two BR implements here easily.

So there's my counter-claim. The Halo 2 BR was broken and didn't perform as intended whereas the Halo 3 BR did and was not broken.

Exactly, I am saying that Halo 3 failed to hold on as MW2 came out and COD got more popular. COD 4 got this ball rolling. I realize they were in the top spots fighting it out for a while. MW2 ended that quickly though.

I have to point out here dude that this claim is absurd. Halo 3 came out in September 2007 and it took MW2 to fully knock it off it's perch. Do you what kind of competition Halo 3 faced over that two year period AFTER it's release?

Two multi-platform COD games with four DLC releases between them.
Gears of War 2
GTA 4
Far Cry 2

And loads of other games competing for player's game time. Halo 3 held it's own pretty well - it was in a far better position at this point in it's lifespan than Reach is currently doing.

Saying that Halo 3 failed to hold on until MW2 came out is wrong.

I agree, initially DLC for Halo 3 was handled well but as you put it here:

Things quickly fell apart.

Considering that the Legendary DLC pack came out seven months after Halo 3 and more than twelve months after that Legendary was still selling hundreds of copies per day over Live there was nothing quick about it.

The Mythic fiasco only hurt Halo 3 two years after it's release. Most games don't even last two months.

Very true, DLC is essential. Regardless, a good game can live for years without support, (see COD4 or many of the popular PC shooters). DLC is definitely helpful and regularly timed releases are key. You just have to be sure not to release too much in a short time span. Halo 2 handled DLC well as did Halo 3 initially.

The console environment isn't the same as the PC environment. Ongoing support is key, even COD titles have a solid slate of DLC releasess.

I can't name any 360 title that's being going strong for years without any post-release support. None.

I agree it did well, but it could have done better. Halo 2's population stayed strong in comparison despite big milestones like GOW and the release of a new console. Halo 3 didn't do as well when faced with MW2 and the like.

New console user adoption is pretty slow and GOW didn't have a fully fledged online component (if I recall). Halo 2 had relatively no competition for it's time and the industry and environment has changed considerably since then. I don't think it's fair to compare them.

Halo 3 did not under-perform sales wise, but it's failure to capture the replay-ability of Halo 2 set up subsequent titles for failure.

OK. That's your opinion. In mine, Halo offered more. A more complete campaign with online co-op with up to four players. Theatre. Forge. And of course multiplayer. I think I could make a convincing case that Halo 3's more robust feature set offered more replayability that the features in Halo 2.

I loved Halo 3's sandbox for the most part. Everything fit in well. The problems I was addressing were how instead of just expanding and tweaking the sandbox we got things that disrupted the standard Halo style of play like equipment. Plus there is no way you can say that Halo 3's map design was better than Halo 2's.

I liked equipment. They were timed pick up items like any other object on the map that offered an advantage worth fighting over. Some were duds, like the Flare, others were up to abuse like regen and the bubble but I though they fitted into the sandbox quite nicely. Compare equipment with Armour Abilities if we're going to talk about upsetting the sandbox.

Halo 3 has my favourite maps so I'm pretty biased - particularly with my limited time with Halo 2's maps. I will say most folks prefer Halo 2' maps overall compared with 3's offerings but I thinks there's gems and turds in both selections.

That wasn't my point. My point was consistency. Keep to the formula. Give us full Halo games. Don't release expansions at full price. Don't pull a Reach and give us a different game entirely.

I think Microsoft learned some important lessons with ODST, specially in regards to content and pricing as evidenced by CEA.

I do think there is room in the Halo franchise for games outside of the main series. Halo Wars, in my opinion, doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'd happily take a sequel or something similar any time it's offered.

Hopefully so! I want to see some Halo 2, 3, and MW level hype here.

I was so underwhelmed by Reach's marketing compared with Halo 3. Can't wait to see what's planned for the next year with Halo 4.

I was just saying that while fun Halo 2 had a magic about it that kept people a bit more engrossed than Halo 3 did. Halo 3 did a lot right but failed to keep people satisfied in the long run, if it had people would have come out for Reach after playing 3 like they did for 3 after playing 2. I want to see Halo 4 capture some of the magic that kept Halo 2 going. Not only that, but I want to see Halo 4 have a huge launch. Like you I want to see regular and quality DLC releases. I want to see a product that keeps people really engrossed for 3 years. Something that obliterates the competition. In short, I want to see Halo. I want that Halo 2 and pre-2009 Halo 3 to come back. A lot of people I am friends with were so pumped about 2 and 3 and lined up for the games but didn't even buy Reach. I don't want to see that anymore. I want to see Halo return to the number one spot on Live. The place it should be.

I and I disagree. I think you're making broad statements which reflect only your own bias and not a true reflection of the larger Halo fanbase, something I think can be backed up by the evidence out there.

I think you're underselling Halo 3 in retrospect just because it didn't live up to your own expectations. You're entitled to say what you think about it just as I am. It's my favourite Halo easily. But I don't think the fanbase was disappointed with Halo 3 in any significant or measurable way. I think the evidence says the opposite.

But yeah dude. I think we both do want the same for Halo 4. We disagree about Halo 3 and that's cool. I'm happy to argue about my favourite Halo game until I'm blue in the face.

You and I want the same thing. We both want to say Halo 4 become the premier game on the xbox.

Damm right. More players playing means more good times for everyone.

Exactly. I think a lot of people were done after Halo 3. They got tired and left. Also yes to the consistency. COD has released major titles subsequently. No expansions, no big changes to the core mechanics of the game. Halo hasn't done that. I mean, the last few titles in our series are: Reach, ODST, and Wars. Not exactly your typical Halo titles there.

I think you have a point with Wars, ODST and Reach. It's something I've talked about before. But hopefully Halo 4 will overcome some of the setbacks and competition.

Wars, Reach and ODST didn't have the Master Chief. I think a lot of people care more about Master Chief and his adventures more than they care about the franchise or setting or the universe or the fiction or anything else. And I hope Halo 4 proves this.

 

[Steelyuhas]

The Halo 2 BR was broken and didn't perform as intended whereas the Halo 3 BR did and was not broken.

You believe this outside of BXR? Because if so, we have about as big of a disagreement as possible.

 

[Slightly Live]

You believe this outside of BXR? Because if so, we have about as big of a disagreement as possible.

There is no Halo 2* BR outside of BXR. BXR is why it is broken.

*(Ignoring Vista if that version fixed it - I dunno).

 

[Stinkles]

Not offended one bit. I'm just trying to put out some facts to counter what I see as clear bias which cannot be backed up.

Like your argument here. The players that stopped playing Halo 3 in disappointment. Who are they? How many players are you talking about? I'm sure whatever number you might give, these folks are in a overwhelming minority.

Halo 3 did well. Look at the numbers. Look at the activity charts. Look at the competition. Simply remove any bias about whether the game was "good" or "bad" by your own opnion and look at how other people reacted. This is how we're judging this here.

I have no said anything bad about the COD franchise. Activision has found a formula that works. For now. They could make a mess of it like they did with Guitar Hero if they aren't careful but that's not something I care to comment on much.



I was being brash. My apologies. It's certainly nothing personal. I'm not a fan of what I see so often, in my own opinion, of rose-tinted bias.



This is all subjective though and makes for a non-argument. Opinions differ. If you're making factual assertions then I'll ask you back them up. The BR wasn't broken in Halo 3. It worked as intended and designed. Heck, technically the Halo 2 was broken thanks to things like the BXR glitch. That's factual and we can compare the two BR implements here easily.

So there's my counter-claim. The Halo 2 BR was broken and didn't perform as intended whereas the Halo 3 BR did and was not broken.



I have to point out here dude that this claim is absurd. Halo 3 came out in September 2007 and it took MW2 to fully knock it off it's perch. Do you what kind of competition Halo 3 faced over that two year period AFTER it's release?

Two multi-platform COD games with four DLC releases between them.
Gears of War 2
GTA 4
Far Cry 2

And loads of other games competing for player's game time. Halo 3 held it's own pretty well - it was in a far better position at this point in it's lifespan than Reach is currently doing.

Saying that Halo 3 failed to hold on until MW2 came out is wrong.



Considering that the Legendary DLC pack came out seven months after Halo 3 and more than twelve months after that Legendary was still selling hundreds of copies per day over Live there was nothing quick about it.

The Mythic fiasco only hurt Halo 3 two years after it's release. Most games don't even last two months.



The console environment isn't the same as the PC environment. Ongoing support is key, even COD titles have a solid slate of DLC releasess.

I can't name any 360 title that's being going strong for years without any post-release support. None.



New console user adoption is pretty slow and GOW didn't have a fully fledged online component (if I recall). Halo 2 had relatively no competition for it's time and the industry and environment has changed considerably since then. I don't think it's fair to compare them.



OK. That's your opinion. In mine, Halo offered more. A more complete campaign with online co-op with up to four players. Theatre. Forge. And of course multiplayer. I think I could make a convincing case that Halo 3's more robust feature set offered more replayability that the features in Halo 2.



I liked equipment. They were timed pick up items like any other object on the map that offered an advantage worth fighting over. Some were duds, like the Flare, others were up to abuse like regen and the bubble but I though they fitted into the sandbox quite nicely. Compare equipment with Armour Abilities if we're going to talk about upsetting the sandbox.

Halo 3 has my favourite maps so I'm pretty biased - particularly with my limited time with Halo 2's maps. I will say most folks prefer Halo 2' maps overall compared with 3's offerings but I thinks there's gems and turds in both selections.



I think Microsoft learned some important lessons with ODST, specially in regards to content and pricing as evidenced by CEA.

I do think there is room in the Halo franchise for games outside of the main series. Halo Wars, in my opinion, doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'd happily take a sequel or something similar any time it's offered.



I was so underwhelmed by Reach's marketing compared with Halo 3. Can't wait to see what's planned for the next year with Halo 4.



I and I disagree. I think you're making broad statements which reflect only your own bias and not a true reflection of the larger Halo fanbase, something I think can be backed up by the evidence out there.

I think you're underselling Halo 3 in retrospect just because it didn't live up to your own expectations. You're entitled to say what you think about it just as I am. It's my favourite Halo easily. But I don't think the fanbase was disappointed with Halo 3 in any significant or measurable way. I think the evidence says the opposite.

But yeah dude. I think we both do want the same for Halo 4. We disagree about Halo 3 and that's cool. I'm happy to argue about my favourite Halo game until I'm blue in the face.



Damm right. More players playing means more good times for everyone.



I think you have a point with Wars, ODST and Reach. It's something I've talked about before. But hopefully Halo 4 will overcome some of the setbacks and competition.

Wars, Reach and ODST didn't have the Master Chief. I think a lot of people care more about Master Chief and his adventures more than they care about the franchise or setting or the universe or the fiction or anything else. And I hope Halo 4 proves this.

Many Brothans died to bring us this wall of text.

 

[Steelyuhas]

There is no Halo 2* BR outside of BXR. BXR is why it is broken.

*(Ignoring Vista if that version fixed it - I dunno).

But the shooting and netcode of H3 makes the H3 BR broken.

 

[Slightly Live]

 

[Trasher]

But the shooting and netcode of H3 makes the H3 BR broken.

This.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

There is no Halo 2* BR outside of BXR. BXR is why it is broken.

*(Ignoring Vista if that version fixed it - I dunno).

Nope. All Bugs were in PC version too except the super bounce which was fixed. It was pretty much a straight up port otherwise with obvious changes to the online set up to accommodate the PC userbase and of course the texture pop in was fixed to thanks to loading screens being put in between levels like it should have had. Other then that it is Halo 2 as we knew it.

Hell even the insane auto aim is still there when using the 360 controller. That's why it's pretty much a must to use the controller to compete on it. Course the online while alive is very much dead user wise. Shame really.

 

[Reagan's BR]

Plans to the Death Star

Fair enough. Haha. Wish you'd had more time with Halo 2, then you'd see the light. Just playing. Haha.

I'm just ready for 4. One more year.

 

[Trasher]

I see no plans to a Death Star there.

 

[Slightly Live]

Fair enough. Haha. Wish you'd had more time with Halo 2, then you'd see the light. Just playing. Haha.

I'm just ready for 4. One more year.

You know, I wish I had the chance to play Halo 2 online in it's prime.

356+ more sleeps

I see no plans to a Death Star there.

Hidden within the hologram of the ship. Bothans are as sneaky as they are disposable.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

You know, I wish I had the chance to play Halo 2 online in it's prime.

356+ more sleeps

Shame you didn't. Even with all the shit wrong with it, the game was still fun as hell.

 

[Reagan's BR]

You know, I wish I had the chance to play Halo 2 online in it's prime.

356+ more sleeps

Me too, for your sake! Fun times!

I see no plans to a Death Star there.

Commander, tear this thread apart until you find those plans!


Edit: I'm a member now! Yay!

 

[Steelyuhas]

Shame you didn't. Even with all the shit wrong with it, the game was still fun as hell.

Ah probably the best way to describe H2 in comparison to H3 and Reach, it's just fucking fun.

 

[Ramirez]

You know, I wish I had the chance to play Halo 2 online in it's prime.

356+ more sleeps



Hidden within the hologram of the ship. Bothans are as sneaky as they are disposable.

Why didn't you play Halo 2?

 

[Slightly Live]

Why didn't you play Halo 2?

No internet back then. By the time I got the net, I got myself a 360 Halo 3 was just about to drop.

Played it and CE offline and with LANS though.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

How sad. All this talk about Halo 2 versus the others made me log in to see how dead the online is now.

25 people spread out amongst about 8 to 10 servers. The rest were all empty. The way the game was handled on PC was just awful.

Ironically Halo 1 for the PC has 55 people online. Keep in mind this is generic Halo PC and not Custom Edition numbers.

 

[FyreWulff]

There is no Halo 2* BR outside of BXR. BXR is why it is broken.

*(Ignoring Vista if that version fixed it - I dunno).

Vista didn't fix it. They didn't fix any animation bug


The only big bug Halo 2 Vista fixed was superbouncing.

 

[Trasher]

Hidden within the hologram of the ship. Bothans are as sneaky as they are disposable.

Looks like a Lego to me.

 

[wwm0nkey]

How sad. All this talk about Halo 2 versus the others made me log in to see how dead the online is now.

25 people spread out amongst about 8 to 10 servers. The rest were all empty. The way the game was handled on PC was just awful.

Ironically Halo 1 for the PC has 55 people online. Keep in mind this is generic Halo PC and not Custom Edition numbers.

What is even worse is that they had a chance and actually still do have a chance to bring back Halo 2 PC but its not going to happen.

 

[Retro]

Why didn't you play Halo 2?

Too busy bullseye'ing womp rats in his T-16.

 

[Slightly Live]

Looks like a Lego to me.

Really? It looks like a jpg of a Lego from my view.

 

[Retro]

Really? It looks like a jpg of a Lego from my view.

That's no jpeg... it's a Space Station...

 

[ElRenoRaven]

What is even worse is that they had a chance and actually still do have a chance to bring back Halo 2 PC but its not going to happen.

Yup. They really do but sadly the way 343 talks I don't see any proper support of the Halo games on PC coming. Hell Microsoft didn't even bother to put the others on PC after 2. Someday I really hope that they wise up and release a Halo Collection that includes all the games for the PC. Sadly I doubt it. MS really hasn't been serious about PC gaming for years and 343 doesn't seem to even know the PC Halo games exist. lol

 

[Ramirez]

Too busy bullseye'ing womp rats in his T-16.

Halo 2 ain't like dusting crops boy.

 

[Retro]

Halo 2 ain't like dusting crops boy.

... I love you.