Halo 3 had very little competition before COD rose in popularity. When someone got an xbox in 2007-9 it was FOR halo. Primarily. It was the thing of the time. The reason people bought this console. Thats just a fact.
The formula now, however, does not sit well with gamers today and if halo 4 was halo 3 with more halo 2, it wouldnt be were it is now. That much is blatantly obvious. But you claim population is insignificant (or not of primary concern) so how DO we decide the better game? From what perspective?
Posted by: What Is This1
Posted by: JohnyRL
Then if you so wish, disregard that point. Take into account that a month after release, after COD's release Halo 4 is 2nd. Halo reach after black ops's release, was 3rd.
Yes, I know its not about population. But what else can we do to judge the game? Critics ratings? If so halo 4 bests reach (and some of the original trilogy) for that as well.
You are pretty much using popularity to justify the quality of a game. That really isn't how things work unless you need a group of people around you in order to say the game is good. There are tons of great games out there that not many people still play or stopped playing after a while. Sure replayability is important, but it isn't the most important thing when judging a game. As for Halo 4 being better than Halo 3 based off population nope. Halo 3 easily had 200-300k people on almost every day before Reach came out. Halo 4 can'teven manage that for a month while Halo 3 did it for 3 years.