Sevan, more than stale it's the fanbase that was getting stale over the years. Half of those people are mere kids (I'm not talking about you in particular so don't take offense, but when Halo 3 came out it was quite insane) that spout nonsense. People have been laughing at these series because it formed what it's called "my first FPS", not because the game was bad (it is not) but because lots of people truly, in a non-troll way believed this was the first FPS to even matter at all. It also invented a concept that doesn't just work well with some team based games: regenerating health. This generated approval from new players, disapproval from old players. Map strategy was displaced, Halo wasn't really that much affected by such feature (although Halo 3 on legendary is a constant "hide behind things, die 300 times trying to shoot something and go forward"), but other games were. Other games that do not take these mechanics the right way. So basically all the hate is based on the fact that Halo changed some FPS franchises to work in different ways. 

There were other things back then that put some people away. Halo games are twitch shooters, but they're not basically the best at it. When this term became popular enough, there were already lots of fast paced shooters. Halo multiplayer, sadly, is not what people would call a fast paced shooter at all. It's floaty, walk speeds are really slow, and overall didn't help that it was being developed mainly for consoles. This changed things.

Call of Duty does not have nearly as many changes as every Halo game does, and I'd say it's being milked at a faster rate. The problem is, Call of Duty is based off those "neat" new features. Which does not work very well. Some people want a twitch shooter to be a twitch shooter, instead of something that pretends to be a serious experience and it's not. It's the same with realistic FPS games. It's a game that it's in between those, and isn't good at any. Doesn't help the fact that the Call of Duty series are running under modified quake 3 engine versions, over and over until they stop selling.

Look, overall Halo series aren't bad. More than half of the extremist fanbase is, lots of new players are, and some mechanics are.

Your avatar and green name make it a bit difficult to take your post seriously. Also, I dare say that CoD is currently the biggest and most successful franchise, not Halo. And CoD, like Halo, gets tonnes of shit for its failure to truly innovate. However, like Halo, its fans keep buying the games, despite all their bitching and moaning. 
 
And each AC brings significant new innovations to the table. From slight tweaks to existing mechanics, to entirely new mechanics that completely change the way you approach missions, combat and exploration.

Cool bro story. And even if you don't realize it, Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty receive a lot of hate. I myself dislike Call of Duty because they never improve the campaign.

@Sevan: Okay, well firstly I didn't say I preferred CoD, I said I preferred Halo and you've yet to address that issue, but to get to the real point "elephants fly to mars and snort its red dirt" is an objective statement, "Halo is good" is a subjective statement. Likewise if I gave you the objective statement that "chalk is a solid" I could put a piece of chalk in front of you to convince you of my argument, the evidence would show you that it's a solid, but if I gave you the subjective statement that "World of Warcraft is a far better multiplayer experience than Halo: Reach" based on numbers of people who played the multiplayer, it doesn't matter how much WoW I make you play you'd still be able to disagree with me and it would be an entirely valid disagreement. Sales figures aren't a "this is how good this game is" meter, they only indicate how many people were of the opinion that a game was worth the money they paid for it at the time of purchase. The opinion of the majority does not invalidate the opinion of the minority, that's what we have niche games and indie games that are critically acclaimed but don't necessarily sell well.

Sevan, more than stale it's the fanbase that was getting stale over the years. Half of those people are mere kids (I'm not talking about you in particular so don't take offense, but when Halo 3 came out it was quite insane) that spout nonsense. People have been laughing at these series because it formed what it's called "my first FPS", not because the game was bad (it is not) but because lots of people truly, in a non-troll way believed this was the first FPS to even matter at all. It also invented a concept that doesn't just work well with some team based games: regenerating health. This generated approval from new players, disapproval from old players. Map strategy was displaced, Halo wasn't really that much affected by such feature (although Halo 3 on legendary is a constant "hide behind things, die 300 times trying to shoot something and go forward"), but other games were. Other games that do not take these mechanics the right way. So basically all the hate is based on the fact that Halo changed some FPS franchises to work in different ways. 

There were other things back then that put some people away. Halo games are twitch shooters, but they're not basically the best at it. When this term became popular enough, there were already lots of fast paced shooters. Halo multiplayer, sadly, is not what people would call a fast paced shooter at all. It's floaty, walk speeds are really slow, and overall didn't help that it was being developed mainly for consoles. This changed things.

Call of Duty does not have nearly as many changes as every Halo game does, and I'd say it's being milked at a faster rate. The problem is, Call of Duty is based off those "neat" new features. Which does not work very well. Some people want a twitch shooter to be a twitch shooter, instead of something that pretends to be a serious experience and it's not. It's the same with realistic FPS games. It's a game that it's in between those, and isn't good at any. Doesn't help the fact that the Call of Duty series are running under modified quake 3 engine versions, over and over until they stop selling.

Look, overall Halo series aren't bad. More than half of the extremist fanbase is, lots of new players are, and some mechanics are.

@Sevan: That's kind of what I was saying, opinions are subjective. I don't think it's generally perceived that the statement "[Blank] is good" or "[Blank] is bad" applies to general opinion instead of personal opinion though. I can't really imagine the following situation happening:  Guy 1: CoD is good. Guy 2: So you like CoD? Guy 1: What? No. I didn't say anything like that.

@Sevan said:

@TorMasturba said:

@Wolverine said:

@Sevan: My problem with Halo is the direction it went down. I was a huge Halo fan in the early days, but Reach destroyed Halo multiplayer for me. The beauty of Halo is that every player starts off exactly equal. With Reach everyone had different special abilities and it just didn't feel like Halo to me.

And do you notice how almost everyone tends to go for the same certain abilities in certain maps?

That map where there's basically 2 walls on a very slim size map that's taller than it is wide, I forget the name. Everybody just ends up using the jetpack ability, me included, because it makes life easier than running up four flights of stairs to reach the action only to die and spawn at the bottom again. The imbalance is what makes these modes suck, if you choose anything other the optimum class for certain maps then you start finding your finger edging towards the on/off button on your console. Imo.

every ability has its unique aspects. You can keep jet packing to the top to get to the action quicker and then just be like everyone else, or you can use sprint and be faster than everyone once you are up there. Or use armor lock and get up there slower and have an added level of security. Every ability has ist unique aspects. You sacrifiice getting there faster for having more options once you get there, or vice versa. You pretty much keep choosing to die faster, and then you get mad because you're dying faster. Embrace the variety and stop being the guy who complains whether a game changes or stays the same. And if you dont like that variety, you can play classic or swat. Both allow you to just run and shoot at the same level as everyone else.

You just said every ability is unique, that is exactly what I'm complaining about. It goes against everything Halo is about. Let's face it, Halo is dead. 303 Industries took over the franchise and the new game will probably have some sort of stupid KInect support. I'll be skipping Halo 4 and playing Bungie's new game in place of it (on PS3 I might add).

@Sevan said:

every ability has its unique aspects. You can keep jet packing to the top to get to the action quicker and then just be like everyone else, or you can use sprint and be faster than everyone once you are up there. Or use armor lock and get up there slower and have an added level of security. Every ability has ist unique aspects. You sacrifiice getting there faster for having more options once you get there, or vice versa. You pretty much keep choosing to die faster, and then you get mad because you're dying faster. Embrace the variety and stop being the guy who complains whether a game changes or stays the same. And if you dont like that variety, you can play classic or swat. Both allow you to just run and shoot at the same level as everyone else.

You just said every ability is unique, that is exactly what I'm complaining about. It goes against everything Halo is about. Let's face it, Halo is dead. 303 Industries took over the franchise and the new game will probably have some sort of stupid KInect support. I'll be skipping Halo 4 and playing Bungie's new game in place of it (on PS3 I might add).

Lot's of games are stale. Calling out other games on why they're stale doesn't mean the game you're defending is any less stale than the others. "Staleness" of a game differs from person to person. It depends on how overexposed to it they are and how much they can tolerate the same without change. The degree of change required to make it seem less stale also is a factor that depends on the person you're speaking to. 
 
For example I find the most fps games out their today to be stale. Why? I've played too many of them over the past couple years. No amount of damage recalculations, extra perk features, etc. can change the fact that it's still the same fucking style of gameplay that I've grown tired of. The only thing that will get me playing an fps now is if it has some huge amount of artistic creative style to it. Now many others will disagree with that, but does that mean it's not stale for me? No. Some kid might be playing Halo Reach and CoD BO as his first fps so everything seems fresh and exciting to him, or some diehard fan might be so into the series that every little calculation change seems like a huge deal. However, that doesn't mean that the series isn't stale for others.
 
Now if you're still curious about why Assassin's Creed isn't hit harder for being stale, I can give you my opinion. Even though it's been coming out frequently, people don't look around and see 5+ low quality knock-offs of it's gameplay every year like you do with fps games. The fps genre is too oversaturated in general, which is why you'll find a lot of people calling fps series stale. I can't think of another game at the moment that tries to do exactly the same thing AC does gameplay wise, but this is just off the top of my head.

people say halo is stale to hide their own cognitive dissonance. the same person who complains that every first person shooter is alike hates halo because of how it's different from every other first person shooter.

people say halo is stale to hide their own cognitive dissonance. the same person who complains that every first person shooter is alike hates halo because of how it's different from every other first person shooter.

Lot's of games are stale. Calling out other games on why they're stale doesn't mean the game you're defending is any less stale than the others. "Staleness" of a game differs from person to person. It depends on how overexposed to it they are and how much they can tolerate the same without change. The degree of change required to make it seem less stale also is a factor that depends on the person you're speaking to.   For example I find the most fps games out their today to be stale. Why? I've played too many of them over the past couple years. No amount of damage recalculations, extra perk features, etc. can change the fact that it's still the same fucking style of gameplay that I've grown tired of. The only thing that will get me playing an fps now is if it has some huge amount of artistic creative style to it. Now many others will disagree with that, but does that mean it's not stale for me? No. Some kid might be playing Halo Reach and CoD BO as his first fps so everything seems fresh and exciting to him, or some diehard fan might be so into the series that every little calculation change seems like a huge deal. However, that doesn't mean that the series isn't stale for others.  Now if you're still curious about why Assassin's Creed isn't hit harder for being stale, I can give you my opinion. Even though it's been coming out frequently, people don't look around and see 5+ low quality knock-offs of it's gameplay every year like you do with fps games. The fps genre is too oversaturated in general, which is why you'll find a lot of people calling fps series stale. I can't think of another game at the moment that tries to do exactly the same thing AC does gameplay wise, but this is just off the top of my head.