By Master_Prophet 1 Comments
It's not an easy question to swallow at this point, but for the last ten years, every Halo game released has become the staple point of Microsoft's console. So when Halo: Reach was released last September, I assumed that it would have a high life expectancy on Xbox Live. Then a little game called Call of Duty: Black Ops was released, crushing literally every online game in its path.
Reach went from having an average of 500,000 users online, to an average of 150,000, and even lower numbers during the weekdays and weeknights. Since playing Black Ops, I've seen it clock in over a million, and an average around 550,000 whenever I've played. Yes, I've enjoyed the multiplayer, and I do feel that Black Ops offers the most redefined multiplayer of the Call of Duty series to this date, but lately I've been feeling some Halo itch...as I'm sure a few other gamers here have.
For kicks, I loaded up Halo 3 the other night. Halo 3 is a multiplayer game I came back to over and over again for the course of the three years (before the release of Reach), and is probably the greatest multiplayer FPS I've ever played. There are about 5,000 kids still playing online, and I was able to get a few matches with little to no problems. Then I popped in Reach. Reach sported about 100,000 people online, and yes I got in a few matches, but the question is simple: what is wrong with Reach?
Surely kids have not forgotten about Halo? Well for starters, perhaps it's the nerfed weapons offered in Reach. The chaingun has an insane cool down time, not to mention it's effectiveness is complete garbage. Other weapons, such as the Spartan Laser, have become way too powerful. Grenades no longer justify that cool, easy kill after popping a few rounds into an enemy. Instead it's become more then one grenade to kill an enemy.
So with the inevitable announcement of a Halo remake coming this fall, the question remains simple: should the Halo remake have a multiplayer component?