Poll: Why do people think halo 4 is just a stunt by microsoft to make more money

[gigastrike]

It's a stunt to make more money because the developer that made Halo is done with the series, but Microsoft decided to keep it going anyway by giving it to someone else (yes, I know 343 is partially Bungie. It's still a different company).

Anyway, it's not going to suck. My question is "why do people always think that 'average"'means 'sucks'?"

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Yes, Microsoft are releasing Halo 4 to make money.
That shouldn't be a surprise to you.
Still, I think the game will be good.
Most likely not at a Bungie level of quality, but still competent.

 

[OrokuSaki]

Because I never liked Halo as a series and I was happy to hear that it was over. Think for a minute about all the things that were "Officially Ended" and then continued by popular demand. Like Scrubs Season 9 or Supernatural Season 6. It's just a cash-in to take $60 from loyal fans who are going to convince themselves that they like it regardless of how bad it is.

 

[Sephychu]

Because Halo 3 wrapped up the story. That was supposed to be the end of it.

Erm.. No.
It ends with a cliffhanger.

It's not necessarily a cliffhanger. Not every ending has to wrap up every character's story and leave them at home awaiting daily life just sitting around.

Frozen in stasis travelling just about nowhere seems like a fairly solid ending to me. I thought it was quite clearly stated that there was very little, if anything at all for him to run into.

If you played it on legendary, you get an extra ending where you can see the wreckage falling into a unknown planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybS1C-4CAk

While that makes more sense, the trailer somewhat contradicts that, no?
This leads me to believe this stinger might just have been a plug to keep people hankering for a sequel.

Well that's undoubtably true. But there are still people who would like to see a new Halo, like me. After all, Halo 1,2,3 and Reach were all solid games, and now when there is more coming, "YES PLEASE! I say!
Although, the ODST was a little disappointment.

I'm with you on Halo 1 and Reach, but 2 and 3 were not my cup of tea.

 

[Nomanslander]

Honestly, Halo has always been mediocre for me. This title will just be a little less than that. Below average, but not in the suck category just yet, and that's my 2cents.

 

[Frotality]

well trilogies usually consist of 3 things and not 6. when someone half-connected to the trilogy announces they are going to be making more despite the original plan of a trilogy and nothing more, the result is often a very obvious attempt to bank in on the brand name one last time. if bungie/its employees at 343 wanted to make more halo games, were prepared to make more halo games....they wouldnt have said halo 3 was the end.

AND theres that little bit where they announced its a new trilogy instead of just announcing #4; thats incredibly presumptuous and really feels like a pathetic PR move, not to mention bringing back bitter memories of the star wars prequels.

they've not only gone back on the trilogy idea, but decided before even any bloody information is released on the 4th game to announce the 5th and 6th. these are AAA video games, not a syndicated TV series; if this isnt the most obvious publisher mandate in gaming...well there probably are more obvious ones, but this is up there. i didnt care for anything past #2, but microsoft is confident their customers are stupid enough to buy 3 more halo games without a second glance. theyre probably right, but i for one wont be falling for it. everything in the halo series was old news by #3, and theyve done nothing to rekindle my interest in the series since then: why would this publisher mandate suddenly change that?

 

[Magicman10893]

If you played it on legendary, you get an extra ending where you can see the wreckage falling into a unknown planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybS1C-4CAk

This guy nailed it. The planet that the ship is falling to in the trailer is what you see at the end of Halo 3. Bungie left the door open for more sequels in case they changed their minds. I am a little skeptical because it is a new studio with no previous game making experience (I know there are a lot of ex-Bungie employees), so it could go either way. I know I'll probably end up getting it somehow. I wasn't planning on getting Reach, but that Microsoft testing program gave me a free copy anyway!

 

[Thimblefoot]

Oh well, I don't know, maybe...BECAUSE IT IS?

 

[JPArbiter]

I think the thread title is a little loaded. the goal for ANY game is to make money, yes you hope that the team that makes the game loves the process of game making, but the publisher still wants to get paid.

The reason I am apprehensive about Halo 4(not hate mind you, just apprehensive) is that I think it is the wrong direction for the halo franchise. anyone who has paid moderate attention to the single player campaign of Halo knows that its story is deeply rooted in various mythologies. the ending of Halo 3 is rooted in Arthurian Legend.

King Arthur (the Chief) is presumed dead after preserving his kingdom (Earth/Humanity/Galaxy) in a crusade searching for the holy artifact (the Ark). His body is laid to rest on a raft (Forward Unto Dawn) guided by the Lady of the Lake (Cortana) to Avalon (the so called Legendary Planet) until his people need him again.

Bingo, Story Done, the King can rest. Microsoft rather has chosen top wake Arthur to fight again, and I wonder if it is needed. I want the Halo Franchise to continue, I really do, but I want to play tales of ODSTs and 4th Generation Spartans and Arbiters of past and present. I want expeditions sent to the 5 other Halo Rings. I want the Franchise to explore arcade style flight sims, and third person platforming adventures, and tactical espionage action.

there are so many avenues of exploration for the franchise that I feel it is a cop out to generate a second trilogy about the Chief and Cortana.

 

[Silentwindofdoom]

Whenever a publisher decides to publish a game they are doing it to make money. It's not a "stunt", it's the way companies operate. Apart from worries concerning declining quality of a sequence of pre/sequels or a fundamental betrayal of the original following the original there is no valid complaint to be leveled against a company deciding to make more of them. They would be stupid not to continue producing sequels and prequels, provided they can keep the quality up.

When a sequel or prequel does not match the quality of the original or preceding game then that is a complaint against the development of that particular game, especially in the case of a backdrop as rich of the Halo universe, making more games does not necessarily equal "milking".

Now, of course most of the people in this thread complaining feel that the new halo games have been worse than the ones preceding it and are erroneously using the nonsensical "milking" argument. As if the decline in quality couldn't possibly be reversed or blamed on anything else but the fact that the original was perfect in each and every way.

 

[Neverhoodian]

When Microsoft creates an in-house development studio for the sole purpose of making more Halo games ("343 Industries?" Oh yeah, REAL subtle) and announces a new TRILOGY of games after people "finished the fight," it's hard NOT to interpret it as shamelessly milking the franchise.

Also, I felt Halo 3's ending was a satisfactory conclusion to the story. All the major threats were taken care of and I liked how the Chief was "retired" from the story (wakes up from cryo-sleep in Halo CE, returns to cryo-sleep in Halo 3). Yes there was the Legendary ending, but I just thought it was non-canon, like the Legendary ending in the first game:
Speaking as a Halo fan, I wish Microsoft had just let the series go when Bungie left. I don't want to see the Halo franchise go the way of Star Wars, where they systematically destroy its integrity for the sake of shamelessly fleecing more money from the fans.

I hope that Halo 4 will prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[franconbean]

The mentality seems to be "If Activision can do it then so sure as hell can we".
Oh sure it won't be bad, the majority of the fanbase will lap it up and they will make more and more untill roman numerals need to be employed to fit the sequel number onto the box.
I forsee a grim future of the originality of videogaming as a whole : /

Then again, i see grim futures for just about everything nowadays.

 

[TheTim]

Not at all, its gonna be awesome, and im excited for a new trilogy

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Like a lot of popular games;

People will hate on it.

It will get called a cash-in.

It will be released.

It will still get played a lot and earn SHITLOADS of money.

It will prompt the developer to make more.

Rinse and repeat until the developer runs the brand into the ground...

 

[Dense_Electric]

I just don't understand why all these fanboys can't face up to the fact that ever since the first Halo game the franchise has been steadily rolling down hill, picking up debris and rabid frat boys as it grows financially larger and larger. Let Halo die, please. And for all you fanboys out there, Half-Life was a much better fps than Halo.

Could it be because they possibly have a different opinion than you? Or maybe because how good an FPS is is not a hard, measurable fact? Or if I disagree with you am I a fanboy?

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

Because Halo 3 wrapped up the story. That was supposed to be the end of it.

Probably shouldn't have had that cliffhanger special ending then.

I'm not excited about it, but it's no different from releasing a new Mario, or a new COD or a new anything really.

 

[Section Crow]

i am actually quite interested by this game, new developers may add a new spin to halo for better or worse

i will try to get this game and NOTHING can shift me from this position.