Why I believe Halo 4 will be a great game.

[brainslurper]

It seems like bungie intended for halo to end at reach, but microsoft wouldn't give up their sweet money that easily.

Actually they didn't intend to end. Just saying as the legendary ending of Halo 3, showed Sigma 7, the planet in Halo 4. Originally Halo Reach was supposed to be Halo 4, but they didn't want to make 4 as they wanted to move onto another project. Not because they don't like Halo, but because it was time for some new hands on it.

Basically Halo 4 was always going to come.

Everything you said here is true. But bungie definetly wanted to move on, and microsoft owning everything they made wasn't encouraging them to stay either. I seriously doubt 4 will reach the quality of halo games bungie makes.

 

[repeating integers]

Wait, how on earth are the Halo games "sandbox". Yes, they don't funnel you through a series of chest-high walls, but they are still very linear.

What he means is, the gameplay isn't a series of tightly-scripted set pieces like Call of Duty or Battlefield 3 (where you can die for completing an objective too quickly). Halo basically takes a big, open area, adds some terrain to it, adds a load of enemies, and then chucks you into it (possibly + a vehicle) to see what happens. A series of these situations = a Halo level. It was misleadingly worded, but I like the style of gameplay.

 

[Korten12]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Because when a developer tells us his game will be the greatest thing ever, highly innovative and will do new and sparkly things, we know that it will be so.

Right, Peter?

Most developers say these for FPS:

"We're going to beat CoD!"

"We're taking influences from other Modern Shooters..."

The fact that they said none of that, makes it already above what many trying to do. At least they said they're taking risks. Sure they could say all of this and the game sucks, but honestly, just from them not trying to take down CoD gives them props.

Yeah, you keep right on telling yourself that.

Quoting one of the game's developers saying, "Oh yeah, it's gonna be great" doesn't do much to convince me. Halo 4 is being made entirely because good ol' Microsoft knows people will still buy it. That's it. No other reason.

I must admit, I do find the idea of Cortana going Durandal to be interesting though.

Skyrim was made because good ol' Betheseda kniows people will still buy it. That's it. No other reason.

Sorry, but your arguement could be aplied to, well, about every game ever made that is a sequel.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Maybe there is, but I can't say it will be interesting without feeling either a retread, a dissapointment, or an @$$ pull. Take the things that happened after the ending to Star Wars. They kept had to bring stupidly bigger threats out of no where on a regular basis. The emporer was brought back to life SEVERAL times, build Star Destroyers with the Death Star's cannon, brought along a race of forceless being from another Galaxy, and built about three hundred billion things that made the Death Star look as threatening as a toothpick.

And how will it still be "Halo" when the super ultra Halo that controls them all is destroyed?

 

[Korten12]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Maybe there is, but I can't say it will be interesting without feeling either a retread, a dissapointment, or an @$$ pull. Take the things that happened after the ending to Star Wars. They kept had to bring stupidly bigger threats out of no where on a regular basis. The emporer was brought back to life SEVERAL times, build Star Destroyers with the Death Star's cannon, brought along a race of forceless being from another Galaxy, and built about three hundred billion things that made the Death Star look as threatening as a toothpick.

And how will it still be "Halo" when the super ultra Halo that controls them all is destroyed?

The argument: How can it be Halo without the rings, is a bad arguement. Halo's are the cause for EVERYTHING that has happened in the universe after they fired. Thus, even if it isn't directly about the rings, they will always have some involvement. Plus, we're already starting to see hints of the villian in the book and it isn't something just pulled out of there asses.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Maybe there is, but I can't say it will be interesting without feeling either a retread, a dissapointment, or an @$$ pull. Take the things that happened after the ending to Star Wars. They kept had to bring stupidly bigger threats out of no where on a regular basis. The emporer was brought back to life SEVERAL times, build Star Destroyers with the Death Star's cannon, brought along a race of forceless being from another Galaxy, and built about three hundred billion things that made the Death Star look as threatening as a toothpick.

And how will it still be "Halo" when the super ultra Halo that controls them all is destroyed?

The argument: How can it be Halo without the rings, is a bad arguement. Halo's are the cause for EVERYTHING that has happened in the universe after they fired. Thus, even if it isn't directly about the rings, they will always have some involvement. Plus, we're already starting to see hints of the villian in the book and it isn't something just pulled out of there asses.

Ok, but that is from the books, and for the people that only played the games (which you got to admit is most of them) it will feel incrediably contrived. Their was an mcguffin that appeared in Buffy the vampire slayer that solved all that season's problems in the last episode. It had appeared in the Spin-off Angel, it's powers and abilities very well explained and it was entirely flushed out. But it just felt stupid because it wasn't explained in the series it was used in.

And why are you so determined to defend a game that has yet to come out yet?

Many games from great series have turned out bad after the original story was completed (Bioshock 2), or after it was given to a different company (Duke Nukem Forever), or just after enough time (Rachet and Clank 4 for all).

A little bit of spectitism is healthy at avoiding dissapointment.

 

[A3Bf72rVWE5hA]

I personally won't be getting it, but that's because they inexplicably gave Master Chief a jetpack. Where did it come from? Why is this the first time we see him using it? I think someone just wanted to copy Reach's armor abilities.

 

[Erttheking]

I am cautiously optimistic, optimistic that they plan to change things up, cautious because of other things.

 

[Korten12]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Maybe there is, but I can't say it will be interesting without feeling either a retread, a dissapointment, or an @$$ pull. Take the things that happened after the ending to Star Wars. They kept had to bring stupidly bigger threats out of no where on a regular basis. The emporer was brought back to life SEVERAL times, build Star Destroyers with the Death Star's cannon, brought along a race of forceless being from another Galaxy, and built about three hundred billion things that made the Death Star look as threatening as a toothpick.

And how will it still be "Halo" when the super ultra Halo that controls them all is destroyed?

The argument: How can it be Halo without the rings, is a bad arguement. Halo's are the cause for EVERYTHING that has happened in the universe after they fired. Thus, even if it isn't directly about the rings, they will always have some involvement. Plus, we're already starting to see hints of the villian in the book and it isn't something just pulled out of there asses.

Ok, but that is from the books, and for the people that only played the games (which you got to admit is most of them) it will feel incrediably contrived. Their was an mcguffin that appeared in Buffy the vampire slayer that solved all that season's problems in the last episode. It had appeared in the Spin-off Angel, it's powers and abilities very well explained and it was entirely flushed out. But it just felt stupid because it wasn't explained in the series it was used in.

And why are you so determined to defend a game that has yet to come out yet?

Many games from great series have turned out bad after the original story was completed (Bioshock 2), or after it was given to a different company (Duke Nukem Forever), or just after enough time (Rachet and Clank 4 for all).

A little bit of spectitism is healthy at avoiding dissapointment.

Don't misjudge me, I am still a bit skeptical, just less so then others.

I am also defending the game, for the same reason that so many will hate on the game before it came out.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

My counter argument.

The Halo story line has been gone through. We have gone from the fall of Reach, to the destruction of the first ring, to the alliance with the Elite's, to the destruction of the device that controls ALL the Halos.

What is their left to do?

The Story has gone it's path, it has done it's arc.

Any new threat is just going to feel contrived when you destroyed the one machine that could kill all life everywhere, where are they going to go after that?

Either it is going to be much less of a threat and a disapointment, or it is going to be something bigger and stronger, where it will feel like an @$$ pull.

Lots and Lots to do, if you read the extended Universe, it shows that there is ltos left in the universe left unexplored.

Maybe there is, but I can't say it will be interesting without feeling either a retread, a dissapointment, or an @$$ pull. Take the things that happened after the ending to Star Wars. They kept had to bring stupidly bigger threats out of no where on a regular basis. The emporer was brought back to life SEVERAL times, build Star Destroyers with the Death Star's cannon, brought along a race of forceless being from another Galaxy, and built about three hundred billion things that made the Death Star look as threatening as a toothpick.

And how will it still be "Halo" when the super ultra Halo that controls them all is destroyed?

The argument: How can it be Halo without the rings, is a bad arguement. Halo's are the cause for EVERYTHING that has happened in the universe after they fired. Thus, even if it isn't directly about the rings, they will always have some involvement. Plus, we're already starting to see hints of the villian in the book and it isn't something just pulled out of there asses.

Ok, but that is from the books, and for the people that only played the games (which you got to admit is most of them) it will feel incrediably contrived. Their was an mcguffin that appeared in Buffy the vampire slayer that solved all that season's problems in the last episode. It had appeared in the Spin-off Angel, it's powers and abilities very well explained and it was entirely flushed out. But it just felt stupid because it wasn't explained in the series it was used in.

And why are you so determined to defend a game that has yet to come out yet?

Many games from great series have turned out bad after the original story was completed (Bioshock 2), or after it was given to a different company (Duke Nukem Forever), or just after enough time (Rachet and Clank 4 for all).

A little bit of spectitism is healthy at avoiding dissapointment.

Don't misjudge me, I am still a bit skeptical, just less so then others.

I am also defending the game, for the same reason that so many will hate on the game before it came out.

I don't hate the game, I don't love the game, how can I, it has yet to come out. I just think in all likely hood, it is a very least, not going to be good as the last games in the series we have had thus far.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I have yet to see a good game series stay good up to Number 4... especially when the series was supposed to end with #3...

While I am not a big player of the Halo series, I do have doubts over this game... At least for the single-player campaign anyway

 

[Korten12]

I have yet to see a good game series stay good up to Number 4... especially when the series was supposed to end with #3...

While I am not a big player of the Halo series, I do have doubts over this game... At least for the single-player campaign anyway

It was never supposed to end! This is such a large misconception that ever says.

Halo 3, ended with a cliffhanger for Halo 4 if you beat it on Legendary.

I don't hate the game, I don't love the game, how can I, it has yet to come out. I just think in all likely hood, it is a very least, not going to be good as the last games in the series we have had thus far.

And that's fine, but there is many on here, the Escapist, who already hate Halo 4 despite us having seen only 2 trailers for it, one being CGI, the other concept art and so far no gameplay videos.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

It seems like bungie intended for halo to end at reach, but microsoft wouldn't give up their sweet money that easily.

I second this. My feeling playing the Halo trilogy was that Bungie always meant for it to end (chronologically) with three, and Reach was basically Halo Zero, designed to give more context to the trilogy (particularly 1 and 2, as "Reach" is a major talking point during the exposition of those games).

When I saw the announcement for Halo 4, my first thought was, "...really?"

The story just felt FINISHED after 3 and Reach. But of course, a valuable IP isn't something a company will just let go. This a major problem in the video game and comic book industries (and to a lesser extent the film industry): not allowing things to come to a natural end, but continuing to drag them out so that money can continue to be made.

 

[Korten12]

It seems like bungie intended for halo to end at reach, but microsoft wouldn't give up their sweet money that easily.

I second this. My feeling playing the Halo trilogy was that Bungie always meant for it to end (chronologically) with three, and Reach was basically Halo Zero, designed to give more context to the trilogy (particularly 1 and 2, as "Reach" is a major talking point during the exposition of those games).

When I saw the announcement for Halo 4, my first thought was, "...really?"

The story just felt FINISHED after 3 and Reach. But of course, a valuable IP isn't something a company will just let go. This a major problem in the video game and comic book industries (and to a lesser extent the film industry): not allowing things to come to a natural end, but continuing to drag them out so that money can continue to be made.

No, the story NEVER FINISHED... People spout this lie, when it is never true!


This is the legendary ending of Halo 3...

Then the trailer for Halo 4:

 

[Scrythe]

I for one, can get behind the idea walking through the same map twice. I also love hour-long corridors and inaccurate weapons. I think this really captures the spirit of Halo.

I am a bit confused as to what all this "sandbox" talk is all about. I don't want any of this "sandboxing" in my run-and-gun spess mehreen FPS.

 

[repeating integers]

It seems like bungie intended for halo to end at reach, but microsoft wouldn't give up their sweet money that easily.

I second this. My feeling playing the Halo trilogy was that Bungie always meant for it to end (chronologically) with three, and Reach was basically Halo Zero, designed to give more context to the trilogy (particularly 1 and 2, as "Reach" is a major talking point during the exposition of those games).

When I saw the announcement for Halo 4, my first thought was, "...really?"

The story just felt FINISHED after 3 and Reach. But of course, a valuable IP isn't something a company will just let go. This a major problem in the video game and comic book industries (and to a lesser extent the film industry): not allowing things to come to a natural end, but continuing to drag them out so that money can continue to be made.

No, the story NEVER FINISHED... People spout this lie, when it is never true!


This is the legendary ending of Halo 3...

Then the trailer for Halo 4:

I'll be honest, I'd like them to have left it on that mini-cliffhanger. It didn't feel like it was saying "what's going to happen in the next sequel?" to me - more like "life goes on for John-117, even when the war is over". Halo 3 felt really final, especially the pre-credits ending cutscene.

 

[Korten12]

It seems like bungie intended for halo to end at reach, but microsoft wouldn't give up their sweet money that easily.

I second this. My feeling playing the Halo trilogy was that Bungie always meant for it to end (chronologically) with three, and Reach was basically Halo Zero, designed to give more context to the trilogy (particularly 1 and 2, as "Reach" is a major talking point during the exposition of those games).

When I saw the announcement for Halo 4, my first thought was, "...really?"

The story just felt FINISHED after 3 and Reach. But of course, a valuable IP isn't something a company will just let go. This a major problem in the video game and comic book industries (and to a lesser extent the film industry): not allowing things to come to a natural end, but continuing to drag them out so that money can continue to be made.

No, the story NEVER FINISHED... People spout this lie, when it is never true!


This is the legendary ending of Halo 3...

Then the trailer for Halo 4:

I'll be honest, I'd like them to have left it on that mini-cliffhanger. It didn't feel like it was saying "what's going to happen in the next sequel?" to me - more like "life goes on for John-117, even when the war is over". Halo 3 felt really final, especially the pre-credits ending cutscene.

But it wasn't. In fact before they even decided to make Halo: Reach, they began working on Halo 4. But really Halo 3 couldn't be the ending, too much was left unasnwered, too much needing answers.

 

[repeating integers]

*Snip-117*

But it wasn't. In fact before they even decided to make Halo: Reach, they began working on Halo 4. But really Halo 3 couldn't be the ending, too much was left unasnwered, too much needing answers.

Wait, I'm a bit confused. Did 343 industries start working on Halo 4 the moment Halo 3 was finished?

And out of interest, what was glaringly left unanswered? I can't think of much that was essential (though it is somewhat late right now).

This is giving me nostalgia. I think I'm gonna keep on looking through the game's multiplayer maps tomorrow.