Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: halo 3 should have been the last halo
  • Subject: halo 3 should have been the last halo
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: halo 3 should have been the last halo

I run Skirmish!!!


Posted by: iTz Hermione
Reach ruined it. 343 is fixing it with the glorious new trilogy.

but if no new halo games after Halo 3 were made i'd be cool with that. Too bad this terrible thing called Reach had to mess things up ...


i couldn't agree more, reach left a sour taste in my mouth for future halos and now im skeptical about the next halo...

  • 10.19.2011 2:26 PM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: II gaped II

Posted by: iTz Hermione
Reach ruined it. 343 is fixing it with the glorious new trilogy.

but if no new halo games after Halo 3 were made i'd be cool with that. Too bad this terrible thing called Reach had to mess things up ...


i couldn't agree more, reach left a sour taste in my mouth for future halos and now im skeptical about the next halo...


Er... why? Bungie made Reach, 343 is a completely different company. You have no reason to be nervous about Halo 4 on the basis that Bungie bollocked up Reach.

  • 10.19.2011 2:32 PM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

I'm not so worried about Halo 4, but Anniversary......meh. The multiplayer looks exactly like Reach, which means no competetive play. The campaign doesn't look bad, but I'm pretty sure I've played it before.....oh yeah, it's on the Halo: CE disc I've got lying RIGHT NEXT TO ME. It's a pretty awesome deal for those who never played CE, though.

  • 10.19.2011 3:33 PM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: swvjdirector
I'm not so worried about Halo 4, but Anniversary......meh. The multiplayer looks exactly like Reach, which means no competetive play. The campaign doesn't look bad, but I'm pretty sure I've played it before.....oh yeah, it's on the Halo: CE disc I've got lying RIGHT NEXT TO ME. It's a pretty awesome deal for those who never played CE, though.


You realise that the multiplayer IS Reach's, right? They're just putting in DLC maps for Reach because they don't want the population to stagnate by introducing XBL MM for CEA and then have that disrupted by Halo 4 next year.

If you don't want to buy CEA, then don't. Whining about how it's the same game isn't going to change the minds of anyone here, for a HD remake it has done more than any other.
- 20 Terminals
- New Skulls
- Remastered audio
- Remastered graphics
- Kinect functionality (not particularly interested in it, but what they've done is very impressive)
- 3D (again, not interested in, but still a very impressive feature)
- 13 maps in total

There is absolutely nothing wrong about CEA. You can argue that you already have CE as much as you like, yet people still willingly got CE and Halo 2 for PC and Vista when they were released when they already had it for Xbox. it's an invalid argument, especially since I'm getting CEA for 25 quid.

  • 10.20.2011 8:32 AM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: ajw34307
Anyone with half a brain should know that Halo 3 offered absolutely no closure at all and set the stage for Halo 4 as the story progressed.

  • 10.20.2011 8:56 AM PDT

I'm out.


Posted by: ajw34307
Anyone with half a brain should know that Halo 3 offered absolutely no closure at all and set the stage for Halo 4 as the story progressed.


Are you being serious or are you trolling? Because I'm pretty sure nobody can be this stupid.

  • 10.20.2011 9:25 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: Gig4t3ch

Posted by: ajw34307
Anyone with half a brain should know that Halo 3 offered absolutely no closure at all and set the stage for Halo 4 as the story progressed.


Are you being serious or are you trolling? Because I'm pretty sure nobody can be this stupid.


I might ask you the same question. So you really think that Halo 3 offered closure when we're left with:
- Mendicant Bias telling John he's sending him to the Forerunners.
- Cortana descending into rampancy.
- The Legendary Planet.
- The inevitable return of the Forerunners.
- The fact Gravemind says that the destruction of Halo will not be the end of him.
- Flood still on other installations.
- Portal artefact still active and drawing power from somewhere under the Earth.
(etc)

Yeah, what a great end to a story, really ties everything up, right!

No. -_- Bungie even intended to do Halo 4 before deciding to do Reach, they even had Isaac Hannaford draw up concept art for the Forerunners, meaning that they had the story idea roughly decided because the concept stage comes after the story stage.

  • 10.20.2011 9:48 AM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."


Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: swvjdirector
I'm not so worried about Halo 4, but Anniversary......meh. The multiplayer looks exactly like Reach, which means no competetive play. The campaign doesn't look bad, but I'm pretty sure I've played it before.....oh yeah, it's on the Halo: CE disc I've got lying RIGHT NEXT TO ME. It's a pretty awesome deal for those who never played CE, though.


You realise that the multiplayer IS Reach's, right? They're just putting in DLC maps for Reach because they don't want the population to stagnate by introducing XBL MM for CEA and then have that disrupted by Halo 4 next year.

If you don't want to buy CEA, then don't. Whining about how it's the same game isn't going to change the minds of anyone here, for a HD remake it has done more than any other.
- 20 Terminals
- New Skulls
- Remastered audio
- Remastered graphics
- Kinect functionality (not particularly interested in it, but what they've done is very impressive)
- 3D (again, not interested in, but still a very impressive feature)
- 13 maps in total

There is absolutely nothing wrong about CEA. You can argue that you already have CE as much as you like, yet people still willingly got CE and Halo 2 for PC and Vista when they were released when they already had it for Xbox. it's an invalid argument, especially since I'm getting CEA for 25 quid.


Actually, no, I had no idea it was Reach's multiplayer, though that doesn't bolster my confidence. However, I think you may have misunderstood me: I don't think there's anything *wrong* with CEA; you're correct, it's a great deal and offers a ton of new content. However, it is also a remake, which means that the campaing probably won't be any different. Usually, when I buy a new game, I like to get some completely new content instead of a rehashed idea (like COD). The idea to run CEA on Reach's stuff is a great one, considering that they have another upcoming game in the near future. I'm not sure that I agree that because it's a different company means it will be a different game; if you look at Infinity Ward and Treyarch, they made very similar games because they were in the same series. I'm also not trying to change the mind of anyone else here on whether or not they should buy the game; I'm merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else. Hey, if it gets great reviews, I may still choose to pick it up! The 3D and Kinect features are nice, though, like you, that doesn't interest me very much, but it's still a great perk for those who are. Lastly, I have no idea how much 25 quid is worth (I'm from the US).

  • 10.20.2011 9:55 AM PDT

Posted by: ElementalRunner

Posted by: Commander Stroll
Still using a pump-action shotgun over 500 years in the future I see.

omg not realistic stop game production plz


Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: F4C3 0F D34TH
I agree that the main story arc of Halo should have ended with the trilogy. Now it will be milked bone-dry for every last penny it's worth.


You were doing good up until this bit...

The Human-Covenant war is just a small part of a much larger story, in fact it was caused because of what we're told happened in the backstory. I don't care if Halo is milked so long as the products are of a good quality, feel like Halo and deliver a good story.


People use the word "milked" too much nowadays....COD is genuinely milked because Activision is releasing every money-making scheme they have; constand DLC, COD Elite, a game every year guaranteed, etc...

Whereas delivering quality material that ISN'T bleeding the fans dry in terms of money is not milking. Halo is this.

Currently, 343i are releasing a remastered Halo: CE which has both old and new graphics, Terminals full of backstory, a Library analyse mode for additional fiction, and a Reach multiplayer additive that doesn't even require someone to have Reach. All this for $40/£25.

Plus, Waypoint is free, and so is that tactical ATLAS live map that 343i will have for Halo Reach and Halo 4 onwards, which will make gameplay feel VERY tactical.

  • 10.20.2011 10:00 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: swvjdirector

Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: swvjdirector
I'm not so worried about Halo 4, but Anniversary......meh. The multiplayer looks exactly like Reach, which means no competetive play. The campaign doesn't look bad, but I'm pretty sure I've played it before.....oh yeah, it's on the Halo: CE disc I've got lying RIGHT NEXT TO ME. It's a pretty awesome deal for those who never played CE, though.


You realise that the multiplayer IS Reach's, right? They're just putting in DLC maps for Reach because they don't want the population to stagnate by introducing XBL MM for CEA and then have that disrupted by Halo 4 next year.

If you don't want to buy CEA, then don't. Whining about how it's the same game isn't going to change the minds of anyone here, for a HD remake it has done more than any other.
- 20 Terminals
- New Skulls
- Remastered audio
- Remastered graphics
- Kinect functionality (not particularly interested in it, but what they've done is very impressive)
- 3D (again, not interested in, but still a very impressive feature)
- 13 maps in total

There is absolutely nothing wrong about CEA. You can argue that you already have CE as much as you like, yet people still willingly got CE and Halo 2 for PC and Vista when they were released when they already had it for Xbox. it's an invalid argument, especially since I'm getting CEA for 25 quid.


Actually, no, I had no idea it was Reach's multiplayer, though that doesn't bolster my confidence. However, I think you may have misunderstood me: I don't think there's anything *wrong* with CEA; you're correct, it's a great deal and offers a ton of new content. However, it is also a remake, which means that the campaing probably won't be any different. Usually, when I buy a new game, I like to get some completely new content instead of a rehashed idea (like COD). The idea to run CEA on Reach's stuff is a great one, considering that they have another upcoming game in the near future. I'm not sure that I agree that because it's a different company means it will be a different game; if you look at Infinity Ward and Treyarch, they made very similar games because they were in the same series. I'm also not trying to change the mind of anyone else here on whether or not they should buy the game; I'm merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else. Hey, if it gets great reviews, I may still choose to pick it up! The 3D and Kinect features are nice, though, like you, that doesn't interest me very much, but it's still a great perk for those who are. Lastly, I have no idea how much 25 quid is worth (I'm from the US).


I believe that the whole point of remaking CEA was that the gameplay was left untouched to demonstrate that this was how the FPS genre on consoles was revolutionised and how well the gameplay has aged over 10 years. Nothing new needs to be added to the gameplay, as nice as it would be to be able to do stuff like boarding vehicles and using the Energy Sword, it would detract from the core idea that nothing needed to be changed.

In the US, I think the game is $40, and a full retail game is $60? In the UK, a full retail price is £40 and I got CEA for £25, which is a rather wide price margin considering the content being offered.

  • 10.20.2011 10:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo and Gears of War...best 2 Franchises in the world!!


Posted by: WillfulAxis650
bungie should never stop halo games


As long as they are good and not just a copy and paste every year, like some games, *cough* COD *cough*

  • 10.20.2011 3:33 PM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."


Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: swvjdirector

Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: swvjdirector
I'm not so worried about Halo 4, but Anniversary......meh. The multiplayer looks exactly like Reach, which means no competetive play. The campaign doesn't look bad, but I'm pretty sure I've played it before.....oh yeah, it's on the Halo: CE disc I've got lying RIGHT NEXT TO ME. It's a pretty awesome deal for those who never played CE, though.


You realise that the multiplayer IS Reach's, right? They're just putting in DLC maps for Reach because they don't want the population to stagnate by introducing XBL MM for CEA and then have that disrupted by Halo 4 next year.

If you don't want to buy CEA, then don't. Whining about how it's the same game isn't going to change the minds of anyone here, for a HD remake it has done more than any other.
- 20 Terminals
- New Skulls
- Remastered audio
- Remastered graphics
- Kinect functionality (not particularly interested in it, but what they've done is very impressive)
- 3D (again, not interested in, but still a very impressive feature)
- 13 maps in total

There is absolutely nothing wrong about CEA. You can argue that you already have CE as much as you like, yet people still willingly got CE and Halo 2 for PC and Vista when they were released when they already had it for Xbox. it's an invalid argument, especially since I'm getting CEA for 25 quid.


Actually, no, I had no idea it was Reach's multiplayer, though that doesn't bolster my confidence. However, I think you may have misunderstood me: I don't think there's anything *wrong* with CEA; you're correct, it's a great deal and offers a ton of new content. However, it is also a remake, which means that the campaing probably won't be any different. Usually, when I buy a new game, I like to get some completely new content instead of a rehashed idea (like COD). The idea to run CEA on Reach's stuff is a great one, considering that they have another upcoming game in the near future. I'm not sure that I agree that because it's a different company means it will be a different game; if you look at Infinity Ward and Treyarch, they made very similar games because they were in the same series. I'm also not trying to change the mind of anyone else here on whether or not they should buy the game; I'm merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else. Hey, if it gets great reviews, I may still choose to pick it up! The 3D and Kinect features are nice, though, like you, that doesn't interest me very much, but it's still a great perk for those who are. Lastly, I have no idea how much 25 quid is worth (I'm from the US).


I believe that the whole point of remaking CEA was that the gameplay was left untouched to demonstrate that this was how the FPS genre on consoles was revolutionised and how well the gameplay has aged over 10 years. Nothing new needs to be added to the gameplay, as nice as it would be to be able to do stuff like boarding vehicles and using the Energy Sword, it would detract from the core idea that nothing needed to be changed.

In the US, I think the game is $40, and a full retail game is $60? In the UK, a full retail price is £40 and I got CEA for £25, which is a rather wide price margin considering the content being offered.


Yes, $60 is full retail here, and I think it is $40 for the game. That is a pretty awesome deal for you, I have to say. Wish I could get the game for that low..... I might just pick up this game for Christmas or something; I won't pretend I don't miss CE's PC maps (I didn't have an Xbox at the time I bought the game, but the online was worth it). :) It's true that the core gamelay doesn't need changing. I'll just have to wait and see I guess, like everyone else. Still, 343 could do something amazing here, regardless of what I think. Remember Rocksteady and Arkham Asylum? The game blew me away, and Rocksteady is probably my favorite developer now.

  • 10.21.2011 8:01 AM PDT

I've just started reading this post. Halo shouldn't have been the last in the series, because then people would be playing Halo over again and there would be no new story. Also, I understand that Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary is coming out in, what November? The first version of that game came out in 2002 (2001 in America) and now it's been 9 years (10) later and now they have made a new version of it. However, what troubles me is that if Halo DID end, then they would make a Halo 2 remake in 2015 and a Halo 3 remake in 2018. I might sound stupid when I say this, so I apologize. Now, I am actually going to correct the people that said there was going to be 5 Halo games. Wrong. There is actually going to be SIX Halo games. The evidence is on Halo Wiki. I also saw a leaked image of the Halo 5 logo. The picture looked crummy and the disc was wonky. It seemed like a fake. But as I was looking through the info. It said 2 things:
1. That E3 presented the games.
2. That Halo 4, 5 and 6 were a series of a different trilogy.
I don't know if this is true or not. If it is, sorry for the spoilers. If it's not, then Halo 6 and 5 should be discarded until the games come out. Also, I would like to say a few things to some users that commented on here:
BreakableNormal: If the ODST storyline was continued, then people would forget about Master Chief being the icon of Halo.
Hayabusam60: It was actually 6 games.
shabbycrowd: I couldn't agree more. If Master Chief was NOT in a Halo game, then it is a side game. In fact, Halo Reach, Wars and ODST were all side games. It was confirmed on Halo Wiki. I believe that if Halo did end, then the ending would be to quick (Halo 3 I mean). Master Chief and Cortana just staying in the remains of the Forward unto Dawn frigate would be too much of a cheery ending. Like they should describe what happened to The Arbiter (or me ;D) when he ordered the Shadow of Intent to leave Earth. What happened on Sangheilos? Maybe the Covenant could've striked the Sangheili home planet and they were at war with the Covenant. Maybe the Flood would be allied with the Covenant to kill the entire human race.
F4C3 0F D34TH: The Legendary ending clearly had the rest of the Dawn cruising (maybe not cruising) into another planet. What if that planet was the home planet of one of the Covenant races? Then there would be one less Covenant race.
ajw34307: When you say Gravemind said Halo wouldn't be the end of him, that could be a new plot that would come in Halo 4. Maybe Gravemind make an Alliance with the Covenant. And also, what's the deal with the fact that you can't play as a Flood or a Covenant race in another campaign? It's always Master Chief being the main character (ODST is the Rookie, Reach is someone I don't know and Wars is nobody but UNSC).
swvjdirector: I, myself, am not interested in any of the new features. The only thing I care about is playing the game, playing multiplayer and having a good time.
CoolCJ24: The only reason Activision gets people to buy every bloody COD game, is because COD always gets GotY. Modern Warfare, MW2, Black Ops and I bet MW3 will all get GotY. No, they have GotY. I bet that the only reason people don't play Halo is because their n00bs on Halo and COD is more ADAPTIVE. I mean, how can a game like COD get game of the year 3 times?! It's practically the same damn story in all the games! Go to war, kill some people, win the game. Halo is art. COD is pure crap. Even then, there's n00bs on Roblox (I don't have it. My friend has it. It's crap) that make Roblox versions of COD. They make Halo versions, but nobody plays them, because the graphics of the armour are crap.
Well that's the end of the shoutout. Now, this is a big arguement I'm making. I'm bound to get lots of replies here on this. And I DO NOT want to argue with anyone on here since this is a brilliant community. But the fact that this single forum has caused many people to post their thoughts on here, made me have to post one on. Also, I would like to make a thing clear about why Halo should keep continuing:
1. Unlike COD, the story is different every game. CE gave the icon of Master Chief. H2 had involved more of the Covenant. H3 involved more about the Flood. ODST involved Orbital Drop Shock Troopers and was the game that brung us the almighty Recon armour (also, I need help getting them. Check my forums for more), Wars brought us a game which was like commanding your own army and Reach told us the first tale in the storyline. What exactly did COD bring us? The same thing. Again and again.
2. Everyone (nearly everyone) that plays Halo is NOT a n00b. Almost the entire COD community are shallow-minded and want to play the same game over and over again.
3. Unlike COD (again) Halo actually had an icon; Master Chief.
Well that's my arguement. Feel free to comment and please DON'T argue.

  • 10.24.2011 9:13 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

...And when i am standing there, watching as the slingshot is cranked back into the shadows, a smile will bestow upon my face as I softly whisper one word..."blam...."


Check out my Youtube Channel!

i agree. it should have been.

  • 10.24.2011 10:28 AM PDT


Posted by: Zig
i agree. it should have been.


Agree to who? Me or the guy that said Halo should've ended?

  • 10.24.2011 10:39 AM PDT

___.............._______/```````````````:::--.
|.==,-.~;. ____:._______ __’__’__’_ _ _\===
|................--:---:--:--‘---:,, ,,, ,,, ,,,:---: /=
`-.,.__._._,,...---:::"
Halo Waypoint Stats

Nope.

  • 10.24.2011 10:46 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2