"Halo 4: I Get a Woman!" - Sgt. Mjr. A.J. Johnson, RIP

Quote:

---

But with Halo 4 intended to be the beginning of a new trilogy based on the continuing story of Master Chief, the vision is a long-term one. Frank O'Connor, 343 Industries' franchise development director, says Halo can -- and ideally will -- last 20 more years.

---

:gonk:

Quote:

---

The Halo 4 audio team visited wildlife reserves in Tasmania, recording animal sounds to use as the basis for alien grunts, groans and screams. The samples they recorded include enraged Tasmanian devils and a pair of tigers having sex,

---

I fail to see the problem with them using animal sounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

I fail to see the problem with them using animal sounds.

---

Would you really like the Elites sounding like tigers getting their act on?

Back in the day, they simply applied effects to the original Marine sounds.

Did you know the elites knew how to say, "Worthless piece of crap" in the first game?

I'm still curious to how the weapon unlocks are going to work. Is it going to be like CoD with different categories like Assault Rifles? (MA5C, BR, DMR, MA5K Plasma Repeater?) Side arms? What are they going to do there besides the Magnum and the Plasma Pistol? Does the Mauler return as a side arm (it technically is for the brutes.) I'm so curious as to how Halo puts itself into this formula, especially with such a small weapon base. Will the reach AR return with a ridiculously high rate of fire compared to the MA5C? Will the M45 Shotgun come back and have more range than the M90?

WHAT DO 343 WHAT DO!? D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Would you really like the Elites sounding like tigers getting their act on?

---

Well they're obviously going to modify the sounds as they've always had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Well they're obviously going to modify the sounds as they've always had.

---

I'm sure Johnson would love to hear two elites getting their groove on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Yes, it runs at a native 720p, and I believe Reach was at something like 640.

---

Hopefully it's a little better optimized than Reach was. Reach ran like garbage on my 360, even by the standards of a Halo game.

I personally dont see any of this as truly being Halo, and not becuase its being developed by 343, simply becuase it dosent even resemble Halo 1-3 in any real way. Even the environments are totally different (for example, the ship). I dont see why game designers/artists have to go and change everything, games like this should have a consistent look, even if they do change somewhat throughout the series...

My biggest concern atm though is the covenant characters, and while they do look detailed and cool looking, they also:

a) are not consistent with the last 3 games which all had the same basic over view and design, why would the covenant change this
b) why would the covenant change this so the grunts have less armor and elites in some areas as well
c) change the overall style of the armor to something that dosent even look covenant alien anymore, rather locust from gears of war.

also, alot of things simply have to much detail (GREEBLEEE) which could be simplified while still retaining a very awesome look.

Grunts look fucking disgusting now. They used to look cute in Halo 1 and 2 and then Halo 3 gave them creepy little mouthes, but that could be overlooked. Then they started looking more and more like shit I want to stomp on quick instead of fuck around with for the lulz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalcyon

Did you know the elites knew how to say, "Worthless piece of crap" in the first game?

---

The elites actually talked in English. It was just very hard to hear :p Look at the original audio files in guerrilla, its actually pretty cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Higuy

I personally dont see any of this as truly being Halo, and not becuase its being developed by 343, simply becuase it dosent even resemble Halo 1-3 in any real way. Even the environments are totally different (for example, the ship). I dont see why game designers/artists have to go and change everything, games like this should have a consistent look, even if they do change somewhat throughout the series...

My biggest concern atm though is the covenant characters, and while they do look detailed and cool looking, they also:

a) are not consistent with the last 3 games which all had the same basic over view and design, why would the covenant change this
b) why would the covenant change this so the grunts have less armor and elites in some areas as well
c) change the overall style of the armor to something that dosent even look covenant alien anymore, rather locust from gears of war.

also, alot of things simply have to much detail (GREEBLEEE) which could be simplified while still retaining a very awesome look.

---

That can all be explained with the idea that the new artists and visual designers didn't want to copy Bungie's Halo, but wanted to make their own Halo. Yes, the stuff Bungie made was great and all, but it started to get a tad stale after 10 years. Now, when I'll pop un Halo 4 six months from now, I'll see a game that's fresh and exciting in its art style and design, while still having everything in the game being recognizable. Those Covenant characters weren't meant to be consistent with the ones in the past, they're meant to be consistent with what's to come in the new trilogy.

As for the environments, we really can't comment on that much yet since we've barely seen anything asides from a small handful of screenshots. Sure, the inside of the Forward Unto Dawn may not look exactly as it did in Halo 3, but it's very obviously human made.

343 Industries need to distinguish themselves from Bungie, and trying to make their game look exactly like what was done in the past definitely won't help with that.

David Skully (or w/e his name is) did the voices for the elites in H1. They just reversed the lines he did and slowed them down ('wort wort wort' = "go go go"). Vola, el33t sp34k.

Grunts look like shit. Stop trying to make them look "scary" they're Halo grunts goddammit, that's not how they're suppose to look. Also, the elites are looking like shit too. Also also, lol @ the MC's boots.

What the fuck are you doing, 343.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

That can all be explained with the idea that the new artists and visual designers didn't want to copy Bungie's Halo, but wanted to make their own Halo. Yes, the stuff Bungie made was great and all, but it started to get a tad stale after 10 years. Now, when I'll pop un Halo 4 six months from now, I'll see a game that's fresh and exciting in its art style and design, while still having everything in the game being recognizable. Those Covenant characters weren't meant to be consistent with the ones in the past, they're meant to be consistent with what's to come in the new trilogy.

As for the environments, we really can't comment on that much yet since we've barely seen anything asides from a small handful of screenshots. Sure, the inside of the Forward Unto Dawn may not look exactly as it did in Halo 3, but it's very obviously human made.

343 Industries need to distinguish themselves from Bungie, and trying to make their game look exactly like what was done in the past definitely won't help with that.

---

It eventually comes down to opinions, but I personally would rather see something consistent to an entire universe that has had 5 games with a consistent visual style. I dont care if 343 is trying to distinguish themselves, they should be making a game that is consistent with the last 10 years. Then again, I would also rather see Halo dropped as a franchise as a whole, becuase at this point I just see it being a dead cow with farmers trying to milk it still.

They are 343i.

They are not Bungie.

The game is not out yet.

P.S. I welcome the change. If I want Bungie Halo I'll play 1-3+Reach. I bet when the games comes out though you'll probably all embrace the change (or bitch some more because you're stubborn and think you're professional [or are depending on who's posting].)

This was the epitome of Elite design:
http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/17188...----Halo-2.jpg

this is a prime example of the problem developers face with game franchises.

change shit around, it's "lost its roots." keep shit the same, the "developers are lazy."

they can't make everyone happy!

My biggest concern was this elite, which looked great in reach but the visor is waaay to narrow.

http://i.minus.com/imKqssjfJD9Aq.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

this is a prime example of the problem developers face with game franchises.

change shit around, it's "lost its roots." keep shit the same, the "developers are lazy."

they can't make everyone happy!

---

That's because the consumers are dumb-fucked idiots in the gaming industry who are contradicting themselves.

Basically the only thing gamers want to see these days is the exact same game they love with a major graphical overhaul and remake of the environments. I'm okay with that. If BF3 was a clone of BF2 with Frostbite 2's amazing graphics, animation system, etc. + more modern editions, I would buy it. Now Call of Duty, though. You can't fix that no matter how many visual upgrades it gets. Tight, close-quarters combat can't be fixed no matter what way you dress it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

this is a prime example of the problem developers face with game franchises.

change shit around, it's "lost its roots." keep shit the same, the "developers are lazy."

they can't make everyone happy!

---

So stop making sequels, and actually make something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

That's because the consumers are dumb-fucked idiots in the gaming industry who are contradicting themselves.

---

e: Nobody's contradicting themselves. There's just different groups of people that want different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

This was the epitome of Elite design:
http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/17188...----Halo-2.jpg

---

ahh when the elites actually looked like they had high-tech armor and threatening. The new ones looked like they were stolen from some Gears of War concept or some bullshit.

H2 elites looked anything but threatening

I beg your pardon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lARWdNVa0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

this is a prime example of the problem developers face with game franchises.

change shit around, it's "lost its roots." keep shit the same, the "developers are lazy."

they can't make everyone happy!

---

Exactly! People say CoD sucks because it barely changes, but then they say Halo 4 is going to suck because it's not Halo 3 with a few small changes! Dumb people are dumb...

That is less frightening than this... Go to 2:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ez7iNjoVg&feature=relmfu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Exactly! People say CoD sucks because it barely changes, but then they say Halo 4 is going to suck because it's not Halo 3 with a few small changes! Dumb people are dumb...

---

Ignorant people are ignorant.
CoD doesn't have any kind of unique art style.
All Call of duty is, is real life weapons in generally real life locations, the characters are designed to look like genuine people, there is no unique art to it.
Halo, that has it's own style, you can tell a Covenant by looking at it, you can tell forerunner by looking at it, Even human tech is easily recognizable.
Quit the bitching about people wanting Halo to look like Halo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

CoD doesn't have any kind of unique art style.

---

Putting way too damn much specularity of every object in the game.

That's just bad design, not an art style. :v:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Putting way too damn much specularity of every object in the game.

---

You mean like Masterz with his fetish for demented chrome everything?

I'm sure this has already been said but I don't have time to go through 74 pages. I think that the title of this topic should read Halo 3, still isn't on PC. As for my opinion for this game the animation is crap and will likely disappoint. Sad most of all the good devs are gone.

Nothing before Halo4, that hasn't already, is ever going to get ported to the PC. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Exactly! People say CoD sucks because it barely changes, but then they say Halo 4 is going to suck because it's not Halo 3 with a few small changes! Dumb people are dumb...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

e: Nobody's contradicting themselves. There's just different groups of people that want different things.

---

.

You have to realize that video games are being marketed to a much wider audience than they were when we were kids. Such a diverse range of customers means it's impossible to please everyone. I'd rather see a game go all in and stick to its own principles than try to please everyone and fail on all counts (Reach).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Exactly! People say CoD sucks because it barely changes, but then they say Halo 4 is going to suck because it's not Halo 3 with a few small changes! Dumb people are dumb...

---

COD and Halo are totally different. Halo as a unique style that people identify things and that look pretty damn good. I wouldn't be that bitchy about it if they actually somewhat resembled traditional Halo then GoW or Resistance. They look nothing like covenant without sleek, high-tech armor.

And no its not dumb people, its their opinions and your ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amit

Basically the only thing gamers want to see these days is the exact same game they love with a major graphical overhaul and remake of the environments. I'm okay with that. If BF3 was a clone of BF2 with Frostbite 2's amazing graphics, animation system, etc. + more modern editions, I would buy it. Now Call of Duty, though. You can't fix that no matter how many visual upgrades it gets. Tight, close-quarters combat can't be fixed no matter what way you dress it up.

---

Personally Id rather see new and creative games that are unique compared to remakes and continuing of series that have already had a history of ten years. You do what you do tell the story you set out to tell. Anything after that is milking a good product (if it is good), no matter how good or bad it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

e: Nobody's contradicting themselves. There's just different groups of people that want different things.

---

Stop right there. What I mean is that a mass of gamers are saying they want change in a video game (like Halo, ala the same old thing), but those same gamers are playing a game like CoD that doesn't change at all. I'm thinking gamers today lack the concept of being rewarded for their kills or completing objectives. Everything is demanded to be so fast now. Whatever happened to checkmates when playing? Sure, the games may take skill, but it's rather skill in button mashing and hand-eye-coordination than strategic thinking. You know how I know Halo Reach isn't broken/stupid like CoD? I can still use strategy and tactics interchangeably to win. CoD misses the need for strategy, which makes it a dull-ass game with no gameplay quality in the end. I'm only using CoD as an example because it's the latest trend in what most consumers want, hence why Halo 4 has to resort to the faster gameplay style.

Reach wasn't a failure because it lacked quality. It failed because the market is filled with the desire for games like CoD and BF3. Quantity over Quality in terms of points. A shallow reward from gameplay isn't a reward at all in my book. Reach at least offered the quality pointmaking we saw in previous Halo games: it just suffered from a lack of external support (the gamers who spoke up and wanted change wanted arena-style maps or hashes of old maps that wouldn't work with the game's design) and a devolving sense of balance because of the opinions brought forth by a increasing wayward playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Stop right there. What I mean is that a mass of gamers are saying they want change in a video game (like Halo, ala the same old thing), but those same gamers are playing a game like CoD that doesn't change at all.

---

How do you know it's the same gamers saying all these different things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Halo Reach isn't broken/stupid

---

Stop right there.

http://i.imgur.com/0KJc1.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Reach wasn't a failure because it lacked quality.

---

Yes it was. What it didn't lack was production value. And how did you get into some Halo vs. CoD rant that has nothing to do with what I said, anyway?

Oh you silly Reach haters you ;3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

How do you know it's the same gamers saying all these different things?

Yes it was. What it didn't lack was production value. And how did you get into some Halo vs. CoD rant that has nothing to do with what I said, anyway?

---

It was the most notorious example I could think of and I know because I spent 3 years on Bungie forums listening to the same complaints relative to this subject. It has a lot to do with what you said because franchises like CoD are what the majority of FPS gamers are playing. All I see is contradiction with these gamers: "We want changes to Halo's traditional gameplay because we're tired of the same thing! We also want more Call of Duty!"

It's these kinds of players that I see on forums who ruin nice design concepts. These players go under the guise of being "Competitive" and "Pro," both of which consist of two major groups that consist of the Halo player base. When the kinds of players that correspond to the quotation aforementioned make mass complaints to the caring developers on the developers' forums, it makes a statement for two large groups, which is a complete logical fallacy considering that these participants hardly count as a fraction of the actual player base. I hate referring to the Reach Beta, but Bungie had the design for most of their shit done right the first time. The DMR was balanced, the Pistol was balanced, and they understood the problem with the grenades and slight weakness of the AR, both of which were relatively fixed afterwards.
Then the players I keep mentioning show up and complain because Halo isn't CoD, thus we have the issues with Reach we have now.

tl;dr
The contradictory players call for gameplay-ruining design elements because the games they play (like CoD) have no sense of quality. Reach had quality, just no the kind for these players. I blame them. Get it now?

And the quotation goes:

Quote:

---

Reach isn't broken/stupid like CoD.

---

Don't take my words out of context, especially when there is more meaning to them just two words more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Don't take my words out of context, especially when there is more meaning to them just two words more.

---

How does adding "like CoD" to the end of it make a big difference? It's broken and stupid. Whether other games are also broken and stupid is irrelevant.

As for CoD, I've seen just as many people if not more complaining about it so I really don't see what your point is. Different kinds of people want different things.

Really, I thought it had great production value. I thought it wasn't a good game because it wasn't a very good game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

How does adding "like CoD" to the end of it make a big difference? It's broken and stupid. Whether other games are also broken and stupid is irrelevant.

---

It's relevant because these are the kind of games the market has asked for since 2008/9. Halo 4 has to adapt to these new changes and demands (whether or not that is detrimental to the series' integrity) to keep the Halo series alive in this market.

Halo Reach was broken/stupid in a different, less traumatic sense than CoD. It suffered from developers dazed by attempting to please a crowd that didn't know what it wanted half of the time when speaking and the other half didn't have much of a say at all. Intentions were well, but implemented wrong (Hemorrhage and DMR's OP distance against other weapons/players). Some weapons were nerfed (Plasma Repeater) that were supposed to be powerful and intimidating. Some assets were hardly implemented (Splazer/Grav Hammer) into competitive play and map designs were condensed instead of expanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

H2 elites looked anything but threatening

---

Go play reach and then Halo 1, or 2 then come back and tell me that. For example, I was actually scared to death going through the halls of the underwater part of delta halo and facing all of those honor guards. I was not scared at all, or intiminated by anything in reach.

I'm sorry but this is still more frightening.

Go to 2:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ez7iNjoVg&feature=relmfu

Quote:

---

Reach failed

---

too bad it made more money than any other halo game so far!!! jeez totally a failure!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

It's relevant because these are the kind of games the market has asked for since 2008/9. Halo 4 has to adapt to these new changes and demands (whether or not that is detrimental to the series' integrity) to keep the Halo series alive in this market.

Halo Reach was broken/stupid in a different, less traumatic sense than CoD. It suffered from developers dazed by attempting to please a crowd that didn't know what it wanted half of the time when speaking and the other half didn't have much of a say at all. Intentions were well, but implemented wrong (Hemorrhage and DMR's OP distance against other weapons/players). Some weapons were nerfed (Plasma Repeater) that were supposed to be powerful and intimidating. Some assets were hardly implemented (Splazer/Grav Hammer) into competitive play and map designs were condensed instead of expanded.

---

Ok, fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

too bad it made more money than any other halo game so far!!! jeez totally a failure!!!

---

It's also been getting totally demolished in popularity by every CoD game released since MW2.

http://www.inquisitr.com/177649/xbox...games-of-2011/

Quote:

---

Xbox 360 Top LIVE Titles

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops
2. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
3. Modern Warfare 2
4. Halo: Reach
5. Battlefield 3
6. Skyrim
7. Gears of War 3
8. FIFA 12
9. FIFA Soccer 11
10. Madden NFL 12
11. GTA IV

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Ok, fair enough.



It's also been getting totally demolished in popularity by every CoD game released since MW2.

http://www.inquisitr.com/177649/xbox...games-of-2011/
[/LIST]

---

Hahahaha, because that totally means its a failure xD

Pooky, I'm glad you now know why I think this is all incredibly sad. :shake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

I'm sorry but this is still more frightening.

Go to 2:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ez7iNjoVg&feature=relmfu

---

Yeah I saw it. Is there anything like that actually in the game? No. Not that I recall of.

I found Elites to be as formidable as they were in Halo 2, if not more aggressive. I try to steer clear of the Generals simply because they kick so much ass.

In my original post I was actually addressing the Halo 2 elites with the Halo 4 elites. Halo 2 elites just look like the perfect advanced-kickass alien. Theyre armor is also very sharp and the Halo Reaches elites arent bad, but I didnt like the design personally. The armor is a lot more smoother and rounded, but you can still tell its the covenant elite. Halo 4's just looks over-done, it looks ancient and it looks like they worked way to hard to give it a reptile look. It looks nothing like it should be IMO

The only problem I have with Halo Reach's Elites is that they look kind of cartoonish as the proportions of the body become more exaggerated outwards (the feet and other appendages are kind of bulbous now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

It's also been getting totally demolished in popularity by every CoD game released since MW2.

http://www.inquisitr.com/177649/xbox...games-of-2011/

---

HOLY FUCK IT'S #4 WHAT A FUCKING FAILURE THEY SHOULD JUST FUCKING QUIT!!

I'll go ahead and say it now, H2's flood levels were bar far the scariest things I had ever played at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

I'll go ahead and say it now, H2's flood levels were bar far the scariest things I had ever played at the time.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Pooky, I'm glad you now know why I think this is all incredibly sad. :shake:

---

I think it's sad that Reach had the potential to be the best Halo game but failed due to some really dumb decisions. As for the beta being better, I don't know. I quit out of the beta before it even finished due to how atrociously broken the vehicle combat was. The guy who promoted increasing the ammo count for the DMR did so for the right reasons, it's just that the same philosophy should have been applied to all the weapons. More ammo, more damage, more versatility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

HOLY FUCK IT'S #4 WHAT A FUCKING FAILURE THEY SHOULD JUST FUCKING QUIT!!

---

Chill out dude. I never (directly) said it was a failure. But considering Halo 3 and Halo 2 both dominated XBL for most of their respective life spans, I think it's fair to call Reach a low point for the series. It's being beaten by three separate CoD games. I mean come on, Modern Warfare 2 is older than Reach and it's still beating it.

oh really

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

.
I'd rather see a game go all in and stick to its own principles than try to please everyone and fail on all counts (Reach).

---

no mad bro all chill!

There's a difference between gameplay failure (which is opinion) and commercial failure. I assumed you were talking about the latter, since you mentioned money and all.

Im pretty sure that Modern Warfare 2 dominated Halo 3 from the day it was released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

There's a difference between gameplay failure (which is opinion) and commercial failure. I assumed you were talking about the latter, since you mentioned money and all.

---

it's too bad the majority of people's opinions is what got reach up into #4 then isn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Im pretty sure that Modern Warfare 2 dominated Halo 3 from the day it was released.

---

Nah, they were close, but neither one actually had supremacy over the other until the late days when both had exhausted their playability. I think a lot of Halo player diverted to other games and CoD was the default for players who didn't always play.

Halo Reach had a silent majority which is why it suffered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

it's too bad the majority of people's opinions is what got reach up into #4 then isn't it.

---

I was more so pointing to the fact that Halo is no longer on top (not only that, it's losing to 3 Call of Duty games). Games in general have gotten more popular, while Halo is relatively less so than it's ever been.

So now you want Halo to be super popular and cater to the masses..?

No, they already tried that. I think what I said is that it would be a better game if it stuck to a set of principles and didn't try to please everybody. It might be more popular then too. I'm obviously not the only person who didn't like it, or Halo would still be topping the charts.

CoD is a perfect example of a game that sticks to its principles. CoD doesn't even try to be taken seriously as a game, it's content to sit in casual land and get thrown out every year when the new version comes along.

That's what I found sad: that consumers/players prefer games like CoD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

I'll go ahead and say it now, H2's flood levels were bar far the scariest things I had ever played at the time.

---

:p

Halo 1's 343 GS still freaks me out, along with the Library at times... But yeah, Halo 2. High Charity. :ohdear:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Higuy

:p

Halo 1's 343 GS still freaks me out, along with the Library at times... But yeah, Halo 2. High Charity. :ohdear:

---

I found the Library to be very freaky too. I also thought High Charity and Oracle were terrifying for a while. Then I started poking around High Charity. Now it's one of my favorite levels.

Sentinel Walls or whatever was also really scary. Something about robots and flood both trying to kill you says something. I forgot the ingame level name though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Higuy

Sentinel Walls or whatever was also really scary. Something about robots and flood both trying to kill you says something. I forgot the ingame level name though.

---

Sacred Icon and Quarantine Zone. And yes, both of them were very creepy. The music still gives me chills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Im pretty sure that Modern Warfare 2 dominated Halo 3 from the day it was released.

---

Well it also came out 2 years after Halo 3 did.

I don't think it's a case of halo sucking any more as much as it is other franchises making their ways up!

But what do I know, I don't have a 50 in H3!

Well, Halo 3 isn't the same as Reach. And I'd buy that if Reach wasn't getting beaten by every CoD to come out in the last 3 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Well, Halo 3 isn't the same as Reach. And I'd buy that if Reach wasn't getting beaten by every CoD to come out in the last 3 years.

---

Every game that has come out in the last 3 years is being beaten by CoD games. Reach had a larger player base online for months after it came out than any of the CoD games, same with H3. But, as their respective popularities slowly dwindled, and the new CoD game was released, be it MW3 or MW2, more players moved to the new CoD, it really has no bearing on just how good each game is comparatively.

You do realize MW2 is older than Reach right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

You do realize MW2 is older than Reach right?

---

He does have a point though. Halo Reach isn't the only XBL game to be beaten by CoD, which is something to take into account. If Halo 3 was so perfect, then why isn't it still competing with MW2? From last I heard, MW2 isn't really supported or changed much anymore, kind of like Halo 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

You do realize MW2 is older than Reach right?

---

Reach is an older game than BF3, yet its 360 Online population is higher :P Same deal, in the end it really isn't relevant whether one is older than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Reach is an older game than BF3, yet its 360 Online population is higher :P Same deal, in the end it really isn't relevant whether one is older than the other.

---

BF3 seems to mainly be a big deal on PC though. Reach's player base isn't split between multiple platforms. I get what you're saying though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

He does have a point though. Halo Reach isn't the only XBL game to be beaten by CoD, which is something to take into account. If Halo 3 was so perfect, then why isn't it still competing with MW2? From last I heard, MW2 isn't really supported or changed much anymore, kind of like Halo 3.

---

Um, I never said Halo 3 was perfect, not even slightly

It has its flaws but I still find it an enjoyable game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Um, I never said Halo 3 was perfect, not even slightly

It has its flaws but I still find it an enjoyable game.

---

The point is that if traditional Halo would achieve top ranking on XBL, then why isn't it doing that right now? Of course you could say it's because of Halo Reach being the newer game, but isn't this concept disproved by CoD's example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

The point is that if traditional Halo would achieve top ranking on XBL, then why isn't it doing that right now?

---

Well, first of all I didn't say traditional Halo. I said a Halo that doesn't try to please everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Of course you could say it's because of Halo Reach being the newer game, but isn't this concept disproved by CoD's example?

---

Casual players don't care about good gameplay, they just want to play with their friends. That means playing the latest release. And new players don't know or care about the older games. As for CoD, it doesn't disprove anything. It just shows how vastly more popular the CoD series is than Halo right now.

The thing is that CoD is vastly more popular than any game, including Halo. It always has a higher player base, excluding the times right after a release. That fact though really has no bearing on the actual quality of the game itself, especially compared to Halo.

And yet, the most I ever see in REACH (it's been this consistent since 2010) is 100,000 at most, and less than 1000 at minimum.
And when H3 was popular it had more than that for years, and sustained it even after new CoD games came out.
The best answer to this is that Halo's popularity in general is falling, so we'd better hope that 4 isn't a pile of shit. :downs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuttyyayap

And yet, the most I ever see in REACH (it's been this consistent since 2010) is 100,000 at most, and less than 1000 at minimum.
And when H3 was popular it had more than that for years, and sustained it even after new CoD games came out.
The best answer to this is that Halo's popularity in general is falling, so we'd better hope that 4 isn't a pile of shit. :downs:

---

Actually, this far in H3 had a similar, sometimes smaller daily player count. Reach has around 300K daily, while at this point in its life H3 had between 250 and 300K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Actually, this far in H3 had a similar, sometimes smaller daily player count. Reach has around 300K daily, while at this point in its life H3 had between 250 and 300K.

---

This. People don't realize that Halo 3's player counter was the daily amount of player and not the real-time counter we have in Reach.

Also, I have never seen Reach be at less than 1000 players... The lowest it goes nowadays is around 40 000 players online, but that's at around 2am or in the middle of a weekday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

The lowest it goes nowadays is around 40 000 players online, but that's at around 2am or in the middle of a weekday.

---

Where exactly are you getting that number? Bungie doesn't host stats anymore, and I don't recall a global player count in-game. If it's Waypoint, well, I can't stand that sluggish bag of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Where exactly are you getting that number? Bungie doesn't host stats anymore, and I don't recall a global player count in-game. If it's Waypoint, well, I can't stand that sluggish bag of shit.

---

Just judging from the numbers I see when I play the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Where exactly are you getting that number? Bungie doesn't host stats anymore, and I don't recall a global player count in-game. If it's Waypoint, well, I can't stand that sluggish bag of shit.

---

Shows player count under playlist selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Shows player count under playlist selection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

... I don't recall a global player count in-game...

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

.

---

SELECTION.
you know that bar on the main multiplayer screen.
not the list of playlists but the actual bar denoting which playlist you selected.
L2R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

SELECTION.
L2R

---

L2 be descriptive. I can't L2ReadMinds. Especially when they think in schmuck.

Selection implies something, an item of some sort, that you actually select. You don't select the title bar in Reach. It updates based on your selection. There are also two numbers that are displayed within it. The total (ie, global) number of players is on the right, playlist on the left.

Translation to verbose English, from schmuck: "Shows global player count in in the MP title bar, along with the selected playlist's local number".

Korn, I think they're just going through each section and adding them all together to reach (ha!) the total number of players online.

Stating the obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Stating the obvious?

---

Intentionally I suppose.

Yay Halo 4

still isn't on pee see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackalStomper

still isn't on pee see

---

And most likely never will be.

Fuck that Kony bullshit, Halo 4 PC 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Fuck that Kony bullshit, Halo 4 PC 2012!

---

We must rayz awairness.

Am I the only one who'd settle happily for a H3PC with fully featured editing kit and dedicated servers?

Would work for me.

As long as it actually worked, unlike H2v, I'd be down.