i have no problem with more halo games, as long as there not like ODST, that was terrible, reach and 3 were awesome i think, just make more like that.
Should Halo 4 be the last Halo?
- Thread starter Swifty714
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, maybe you shouldn't judge something before you even play it. You know another name for pre-judgement? RACISM
In all seriousness, why not just wait and see how it is?
In all seriousness, why not just wait and see how it is?
First 3 Halos: (I'm only omitting Reach and ODST because I haven't played them, also, they are not involved in the Master Chief series)
They were actually witty, well-made, tight shooters. They had good dialogue, a drive, however simple, and a clear enemy that (realistically) became muddier throughout the series as political ties were made.
The Halo games are actually quite good as story-based games. The idea of being a man in a suit with a shield is simple, and elevates you barely above other soldiers, but you know you're unique by effectiveness. I never saw a problem with them.
As far as a sequel is concerned, as long as it has:
1) A reasonable story, not a re-hash of separate/neglected ideas.
2) A whole, complete conclusion that leaves room for no more action from Spartan 117.
3) A real enemy with a minimum of ret-con.
4) If it's a prequel, really consider if that's what the people want, or if it's needed for the series as a whole.
*The following is, undoubtedly my own opinion. Do not confuse this post as a message of fact. If in doubt, after any criminal sentence, slap an "in my opinion" after it. I do understand people can disagree, or shooters aren't everyone's style, but I don't really get the hate.*
They were actually witty, well-made, tight shooters. They had good dialogue, a drive, however simple, and a clear enemy that (realistically) became muddier throughout the series as political ties were made.
The Halo games are actually quite good as story-based games. The idea of being a man in a suit with a shield is simple, and elevates you barely above other soldiers, but you know you're unique by effectiveness. I never saw a problem with them.
As far as a sequel is concerned, as long as it has:
1) A reasonable story, not a re-hash of separate/neglected ideas.
2) A whole, complete conclusion that leaves room for no more action from Spartan 117.
3) A real enemy with a minimum of ret-con.
4) If it's a prequel, really consider if that's what the people want, or if it's needed for the series as a whole.
*The following is, undoubtedly my own opinion. Do not confuse this post as a message of fact. If in doubt, after any criminal sentence, slap an "in my opinion" after it. I do understand people can disagree, or shooters aren't everyone's style, but I don't really get the hate.*
I love playing through all of the halo games, but unless 343 can mix up the gameplay enough and make the story interesting, then it looks like it's going to be a repetitive, half-assed knock off of a decent game series. I hope I'm proved wrong.
If they do something completely different with the series it could be refreshing... but they'll probably be safe with the series and make it about a steely eyed space marine who's fighting aliens and portrays no emotional involvement in what is happening around him. I imagine Modern Warfare: Space Marine will be the next installment basically. In the end it'll be fine and sell lots of copies make tons of money and won't be remembered as a game changer. Yahtzee will probably accurately add it to his list of samey action shooter games... that's my prediction.
BUT yes i do think there should be Halo 4. I saw the intro to Halo: Legends and it makes me want to play the series till i die.
BUT yes i do think there should be Halo 4. I saw the intro to Halo: Legends and it makes me want to play the series till i die.
Halo 3 should have been the last Halo game. Then maybe they could've made a movie to tie up loose ends if fans started getting annoying with all of their questions.Swifty714 said:
It's getting stupid now with all of the Halo games that are being milked to the last drop of concentrated, liquefied money.
Granted, Halo: Reach was a pretty good game, but I still think we could have done without it.
Only if they do a good storyline that they devote most of their resources to rather than the multiplayer.
Or, you know, get rid of the multiplayer entirely. *puts up flameshield*
But then, Hell will freeze over before either of those things happen...
Or, you know, get rid of the multiplayer entirely. *puts up flameshield*
But then, Hell will freeze over before either of those things happen...
I thought that Star Wars was the Star Wars of the Video Game medium? They have more than 20 SW games I believe.Jake Hardy said:
No. It's a planned trilogy.
And there's no good reason no to. It has a developer that was created solely for it, production won't make a dent in Microsoft's budget, the people who want more Halo will get it and the people who don't never have to pay attention to it, and 343 might possibly do something good for the series.
And there's no good reason no to. It has a developer that was created solely for it, production won't make a dent in Microsoft's budget, the people who want more Halo will get it and the people who don't never have to pay attention to it, and 343 might possibly do something good for the series.
Halo 3 should've been the last Halo. Remember that whole "Finish the fight" sales campaign? Yeah, they were LIES! Bungie sold their soul, and I'm not just saying that because they're successful. I'm saying it because everything after Halo 3 has sucked. Halo 3 would've done just fine with that cliffhanger ending.Swifty714 said:
Also, new Cortana looks worse than she did in Halo: Combat Evolved. Pitiful.
I was only joking about the racism thing. The comment was more directed at everyone who implied that Halo 4 would be bad, even though the only released press is a cinematic trailerSwifty714 said:
