- Your MOM is MC
- |
- Noble Legendary Member
The name's Ian, Game Designer at Whisper Game Studios, very off-and-on Bungie.net visitor and avid Bungie fan overall. Message me if you wish.
Posted by: Loaja343
Looks like Microsoft have realised that just slapping the name "Halo" onto anything and everything is one sure-fire way to get money.
If Bungie stays true to the canon established by the book, then there are no Halos in the game, nor were there any in Contact Harvest, Cole Protocol, Ghosts of Onyx, etc. so the purpose of the name is just to make kids think, 'I liked Halo 3, I haven't got a clue what Reach is but I'll buy the game anyway 'cause it's Halo!'
Even Halo 3 should have been called 'The Ark' or 'Halo: Rebuilt' as the Halo that had a brief appearance at the end was the same one as from the first game.
I reckon calling this upcoming game 'The Fall of Reach' would sound much more epic and grand in scale, and be more in keeping with the truth.
THANK YOU! I tried making people understand this in a previous thread of mine but it got shot down by millions of freakin' flaming arrows! Nobody even payed any attention to the actual point of what I was getting to!
They should be calling it something else. They said they were done with the trilogy... Well, this game is most likely gonna involve the chief, so that totally makes no sense ending a trilogy and then feeling like rebirthing it while making a game about a book when they SHOULD be working on a Halo 4 of sorts!
EDIT: On second thought, I actually get what you mean now and uh, sir... Going with the same plot that master chief was in and not calling it part of the trilogy is stupid, I thought you were talking about that, but why the hell would you wanna call a game involving any spartans something other than Halo?
[Edited on 07.18.2009 8:37 AM PDT]