Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: So... is this basically Halo 4?
  • Subject: So... is this basically Halo 4?
Subject: So... is this basically Halo 4?

I realize it's a prequel, don't get me wrong. But if Bungie is making a completely new multiplayer system, then Halo 3 will soon be obsolete and all online activity will soon shift to their new game.

I guess my main question is why Bungie would remove focus from their main game so quickly after releasing ODST and finally having all their map packs out? I don't personally feel like Halo 3 needs to be retired anytime soon.

What do you think?

  • 06.03.2009 8:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Basically, it's looking that way. But it's not going to happen for another 2 years so it will be in line with a new halo game coming out about every 3 years.

  • 06.03.2009 9:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Mizzou 2009-2010 Starting Line-up

Point Guard: Zaire Taylor (Senior)
Guard: J.T. Tiller (Senior)
Forward: Kim English (Sophomore)
Forward: Laurence (Junior)
Forward: Keith Ramsey (Senior)

Prequels don't continue a series, so they are named something else (unless you're like Star Wars and start with number 4). Also, different stories in the Halo universe besides the human-covenant war (such as Master Chief's story) would be starting a new series, and wouldn't be named Halo 4. Reach is a prequel. And by your logic, this would be Halo 5 (remember Halo Wars).

  • 06.03.2009 9:02 PM PDT

(;3=

NO ya dumb -blam!-. its a prequel (search bar next time buddy plus read a book)

  • 06.03.2009 9:04 PM PDT

I miss Halo. Maybe Halo 4 will change that.

Edit: Lol nope

Halo: Reach = Halo 0
Halo = Halo 1
Halo 2 = Halo 2
Halo 3: ODST = Halo 2.5
Halo 3 = Halo 3

  • 06.03.2009 9:21 PM PDT

A new Halo game comes out every three years.
Halo CE - 2001
Halo 2 - 2004
Halo 3 - 2007
Halo: Reach - 2010

  • 06.03.2009 9:23 PM PDT

Naw, this is like Halo -2.

  • 06.03.2009 9:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You might have to think of ODST as like an appetizer of Halo. The campaign will probably be finished with in like a day or two and the survival gameplay option will only keep us satisfied for a few months, eventually we will want some new multiplayer, which is wat Reach will instill on us. Reach will also probably have a longer Campaign

  • 06.03.2009 9:29 PM PDT

For the sake of the story.......No. If it were Halo 4 then we could assume it was a continuation of the story from where Halo 3 left us.

  • 06.03.2009 9:33 PM PDT

Posted by: Josephson
NO ya dumb -blam!-. its a prequel (search bar next time buddy plus read a book)


Do you intentionally pollute every thread with your desire to put everyone down and promote your ability to read?


Edit: sorry about the double post!

[Edited on 06.03.2009 9:36 PM PDT]

  • 06.03.2009 9:36 PM PDT

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered
automatic weapons."
-General Douglas MacArthur

Posted by: t3h KEG
I realize it's a prequel, don't get me wrong. But if Bungie is making a completely new multiplayer system, then Halo 3 will soon be obsolete and all online activity will soon shift to their new game.

I guess my main question is why Bungie would remove focus from their main game so quickly after releasing ODST and finally having all their map packs out? I don't personally feel like Halo 3 needs to be retired anytime soon.

What do you think?
Bungie is a developer, they make money releasing content. They make a lot of money releasing new games. Halo 3 has been out for a long time, and is probably the most popular console game of this generation so far. However, Halo 3: ODST is not a full game, it is a Halo 3 expansion, and it will have been out for a full year by the release of Halo: Reach.

Being that Halo 3 has been out since 2007 and it is now 2009, I think Bungie sees the need for a new and improved game to compete with the newer competitors that are coming out.

  • 06.03.2009 9:41 PM PDT

Posted by: Destroyer 12101
Posted by: t3h KEG
I realize it's a prequel, don't get me wrong. But if Bungie is making a completely new multiplayer system, then Halo 3 will soon be obsolete and all online activity will soon shift to their new game.

I guess my main question is why Bungie would remove focus from their main game so quickly after releasing ODST and finally having all their map packs out? I don't personally feel like Halo 3 needs to be retired anytime soon.

What do you think?
Bungie is a developer, they make money releasing content. They make a lot of money releasing new games. Halo 3 has been out for a long time, and is probably the most popular console game of this generation so far. However, Halo 3: ODST is not a full game, it is a Halo 3 expansion, and it will have been out for a full year by the release of Halo: Reach.

Being that Halo 3 has been out since 2007 and it is now 2009, I think Bungie sees the need for a new and improved game to compete with the newer competitors that are coming out.

Thank you for actually reading my post and not just the thread's title. I had a feeling people would be thrown off by that. I've read Fall of Reach and I'm perfectly aware that this game is going to be a prequel. I wasn't interested in where the game fell in the Halo timeline, I wanted to know whether or not you thought that the game would be replacing Halo 3 as far as Bungie's spotlight went.

And a Halo game every 3 years? Yeah, that does sound about right. Okay thanks.

  • 06.04.2009 1:06 AM PDT