Halo 3: ODST Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
  • Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TLPkronos
Halo is a trilogy. yes. now shush. Bungie said that they would not CONTINUE the trilogy. If you want to say prequels count as adding a game, then fine, but they are not CONTINUING the trilogy. Continuation would be after, not before.


Who said anything about continuing the trilogy? I said adding to.

  • 07.01.2009 3:15 PM PDT

Posted by: Church92
Posted by: Luke35120

Trilogy means 3 in a series. How many Halos do we have? 3. Storyline of that, over.


I understand that Bungie Stated Halo was a trilogy but why can't that change? It's not like it's a law. I hate when people say that Halo 4 won't happen because Halo is a trilogy. That's not really a legitimate reason.


Replying both to this and your post about Reach, Halo 4 would be a terrible adition to the series. The was is over, Master Chief is god knows where, the flood are dead, the covenant has disintegrated, and there s no way to continue the story.
Reach was a good move because it would actually show how MC came to be, and it will allow you to play the massive battles from the book.

  • 07.01.2009 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yes, shame on Bungie for making Halo games they want to make. Bunch of selfish pricks. I mean what could possibly be exciting about playing as an ODST or an entire game set on Reach? Nevermind those were some of the things that the community wanted. Bungie should just make a Halo 4! Yeah that makes perfect sense! Screw creativity, lets just make Bungie milk Master Chief's story. /sarcasm

  • 07.01.2009 3:21 PM PDT
Subject: Oh Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No need to get all defensive. Your little rant doesn't make sense.

[Edited on 07.01.2009 3:25 PM PDT]

  • 07.01.2009 3:24 PM PDT

this is to give us more knowledge to whats actually happening. i love how they are doing this. It wont be called halo 4 it will be called somethihg else. maybe Master chief: the game haha. a story involving just master chief.

  • 07.01.2009 3:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
No need to get all defensive.

No need to bash games you haven't even played yet while accusing Bungie of milking Halo all the while feverishly jacking off in anticipation to play as Master Chief even though he really has no more fights to fight.

  • 07.01.2009 3:26 PM PDT

Posted by: Church92
Posted by: longhorn10
Posted by: Church92
Posted by: Zekkalkan
Facepalm.
Halo was a trilogy. Tri. Thrreeeee.
Reach and ODST aren't spin-offs, ODST is a mid game. Reach is a prequel. They're different periods of the story.


Can you say countradictory. I like how you say Halo is a trilogy but then you add Reach is a prequel. Meaning it's still part of the same series. Plus all your useless information was already pointlessly stated above.


Prequels aren't part of the same series. Think Star Wars.


Wrong. A prequel is set chronologically before its predecessor. Therfore it is set prior to the first game, which is intended to be part of the same series.

Then why are the original three Star Wars movies still known as the Star Wars Trilogy if there were three movies that happen before them? Also notice that there aren't any movies set after the end of the trilogy. The entire point of a trilogy is to bring closure. The last item in a trilogy closes all the plot lines and brings the story to a close (and the reason for leaving MC floating through space is to keep the players' imaginations running).

  • 07.01.2009 3:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Go Vader
Posted by: Church92
No need to get all defensive.

No need to bash games you haven't even played yet while accusing Bungie of milking Halo all the while feverishly jacking off in anticipation to play as Master Chief even though he really has no more fights to fight.


Having a Halo game without the Master Chief is like having a Zelda game without Link or a Metroid Prime game without Samus. Why don't you realize that?

  • 07.01.2009 3:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
Posted by: Go Vader
Posted by: Church92
No need to get all defensive.

No need to bash games you haven't even played yet while accusing Bungie of milking Halo all the while feverishly jacking off in anticipation to play as Master Chief even though he really has no more fights to fight.


Having a Halo game without the Master Chief is like having a Zelda game without Link or a Metroid Prime game without Samus. Why don't you realize that?

Yes, because playing as a guy who is in a cryo tube out in space will be fun. Halo doesn't need Master Chief in it. Those Halo books worked fine without him. You do not know how ODST and Reach will be, Reach might be *gasp* better than Halo 3.

  • 07.01.2009 3:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You don't know how they will be either so your point is mute.

  • 07.01.2009 3:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
You don't know how they will be either so your point is mute.

Notice how I said might be better than Halo3, you just assumed it will be bad. You never had a point.

  • 07.01.2009 3:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
Posted by: Go Vader
Posted by: Church92
No need to get all defensive.

No need to bash games you haven't even played yet while accusing Bungie of milking Halo all the while feverishly jacking off in anticipation to play as Master Chief even though he really has no more fights to fight.


Having a Halo game without the Master Chief is like having a Zelda game without Link or a Metroid Prime game without Samus. Why don't you realize that?

That's like saying that you need Vader to have Star Wars. As long as you have a reference to the Human-Covenant War and the Forerunner/Flood, than it's Halo.

  • 07.01.2009 3:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

In reply to: Go Vader

I never said I had a point. I am just simply expressing an opinion.

[Edited on 07.01.2009 3:43 PM PDT]

  • 07.01.2009 3:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
I never said I had a point. I am just simply expressing an opinion.

I'm calling bull on that. You said they will suck, not they might suck. Thats a statement, not an opinion. But I guess fanboyism blinds you.

  • 07.01.2009 3:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Where on earth have I said they will suck? Your just making crap up. Get your facts straight.

And by the way, saying "they might suck" is also a statement. An opinion is a statement. It will never be anything else.

[Edited on 07.01.2009 3:49 PM PDT]

  • 07.01.2009 3:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
I just don't understand, you say you aren't going to do any more Halo games and that you were going "to move on to bigger and better things." But somehow you manage to do all these little pointless spin-offs . Don't get me wrong, I love Halo and Halo is my favorite game and I was really looking forward to Halo 4. But instead you put all this effort into 2 other Halo games that will not even come close to selling more than Halo 4 would have combined . Sure I'm greatful that you guys are still working on the Halo franchise but I don't get it. And plus, don't you think your milking Halo with all these spin-offs?


Not saying they are bad or will suck my ass.

  • 07.01.2009 3:49 PM PDT
Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....

"Spartans never die Jorge, they're just missing in action"

Halo Reach will be Bungies last Halo game. Microsoft is building a studio just for the Halo Franchise. Microsoft willcarry on the Halo name. SO any other Halo games after REACH microsfot will be handling.

  • 07.01.2009 3:51 PM PDT
Subject: Oh Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm not saying they are bad because it's pretty blatant that I couldn't possibly know that.

  • 07.01.2009 3:52 PM PDT
Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....

I'm fine with Halo as long as Microsoft doesn't make Bungie milk it too much, but I would really love to see what Bungie can do outside of the Halo universe...

  • 07.01.2009 3:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Raptor 100
Halo Reach will be Bungies last Halo game. Microsoft is building a studio just for the Halo Franchise. Microsoft willcarry on the Halo name. SO any other Halo games after REACH microsfot will be handling.

And that is why Reach will most likely be my final Halo game. Not my last Halo-related merchandise as I love the books, but my last Halo-related game. I'll probably move onto Bungie's new IP after Reach comes out.

  • 07.01.2009 3:55 PM PDT
Subject: Oh Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Church92
I'm not saying they are bad because it's pretty blatant that I couldn't possibly know that.

Oh but you seem to know that they could NEVER sell as well as Halo 4 and are pointless.

  • 07.01.2009 3:57 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

Lurking since before halo 2 :)
Posted by: Timtaztix
Why don't you level 50's out there, when you finally decide to apply for colleges...why don't you put that you were a level 50 on your application. And put it on your job resume, too. See how much it matters, and how much people care.

Posted by: Church92
You don't know how they will be either so your point is mute.


the word you are looking for is moot. not mute.


and i think you are completely wrong in your OP.
i think ODST was a great move. it is focused towards the real fans of the halo story, not the people who only play halo for the gameplay and care -blam!- all about story*cough* mlg *cough*

and Reach is something i've heard people wanting for a long time.
i think both of these games will sell more then a halo 4.

if they used halo 4, it would fun no doubt and id be happy for more story, but it would also no doubt feel stale. i personally would rather another book by nylund or staten to continue Mater chiefs ARC

  • 07.01.2009 3:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Go Vader
Posted by: Church92
I'm not saying they are bad because it's pretty blatant that I couldn't possibly know that.

Oh but you seem to know that they could NEVER sell as well as Halo 4 and are pointless.


I'll say it again, that is my opinion. I never said the word never. And if you can't tell what an opinion is, then obviously I'm wasting my time.

  • 07.01.2009 4:02 PM PDT

Being a noob since 2007.

Just reading this made me laugh; the lack of knowing what a trilogy is and lack of knowledge of the term story arc.
Personally I think expanding the universe and adding more depth is great.
Before you were some kind of God in Master Chief, but it's interesting to know what was going on in the ground wars.
It's not part of the Trilogy, it's not all about making money, it's giving fans extra content in story depth and new gameplay which will be fun and entertaining.
Stop -blam!-ing about someone trying to give fans what they want.

  • 07.01.2009 4:03 PM PDT
Subject: Bungie, Bungie, Bungie....

they are currently making 3 games; Reach, ODST and one other product with a brand new IP.

  • 07.01.2009 4:05 PM PDT