- What Is This1
- |
- Fabled Member
Posted by: JohnyRL
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?
It is true a lot of people got an xbox 360 for Halo 3, but a lot of people did play CoD 4 since CoD 4 came out the same year Halo 3 did. Though even with CoD 4, WaW, and MW2 Halo 3 still held its ground without much of an immense population decrease. Simply put if you want to compare the Halos on population alone Halo 4 and Reach lose completely compared to Halo 2 and Halo 3. As for if Halo 4 were to be like Halo 3 it wouldn't do well I disagree. The thing that Halo lost with Reach and Halo 4 is it uniqueness. To copy another franchise instead of create your own thing is what will cause a game to fail. People don't want to buy a reskinned version of something they already have. Look at all the CoD clones and games like SWToR that attempted to be something they had no chance of winning against. Then in order to judge games you do so on a variety of things such as gameplay, plot, environment, graphics, and replaybility among other things. Population isn't a good guideline at all simply because there are a lot of great single player games such as Skyrim, Bioshock, Fallout, RDR, ect. that using your method would be rated as crap.