Why you should Shut up about Halo being a stale franchise

  I've been a Halo fan since CE. I didnt own an xbox, and i didnt even know it came out for a few months. But once i played it, i was hooked. Lan parties whenever, wherever. I played that campaign like 60 times.  I bought it on computer, and learned to play on keyboard because i couldn't afford a pc controller.
When Halo 2 came out, i actually split the price with my friend who owned an xbox. We played split screen and online all the time. I owned a 360 controller before i owned a 360. 
 And when 3 came out, i bought a 360 the day before it was released. I resisted the urge to purchase a copy a day early out of fear of being banned from online play. I played every night with my friends over live for hours. And we did the same for ODST.and Wars. And Reach.  And while some of my friends have given up on the franchise, im playing right now.
 
   I tell you all of this so that there are no allusions. I am a hardcore halo fan. I have played them all, and i probably will play the rest as they come.
 im writing this to address the seemingly infinite number of times ive seen people say "Halo never changes" or "the franchise is getting stale".  
 
 Like most franchises, Halo is based off of the actions and events that took place in the first game. A super soldier fought off aliens. Like most games now days, it was designed to continue. So my question is: how is it different than any other popular franchise?
  Mario has ALWAYS been about a plumber jumping on things to save a princes or a kingdom. Even when extra powers and 3d mechanics and ride-able dinosaurs were added, that was always the core of the franchise.  Why isnt that stale?

 Assassins Creed is about assassinating people. its been the same on multiple consoles and hand helds. A guy with wrist blades and a hood tries to save whoever from whoever by assassinating key people. 
 
The COD franchise has been about war. The only real changes from game to game have been the timelines and the gun names. But if you break them down to nothing but controls and combat, they are all roughly the same.
 
 Why arent these games getting the gruff that Halo is getting?
 
 The easy and true answer is that Halo is bigger. The biggest name always gets the biggest target pained on their backs, and Halo is it. 
   
 To the point, if you dont think Halo is still a relevant franchise... just move on. Facts are Halo was still selling for 30-40 dollars 3 years after its release. Halo 2 had record numbers its last week, and didnt go down until days after it was intended... 6 years after its release. 
  Every installment of Halo adds something new to the franchise. Graphically. Thematically. Gameplay and story wise. It has yet to be the exact same game as the last. Even Multiplayer, which has for the most part stayed the same, still added completely new weapons, vehicles, and damage modifications to each game. 
 
If Halo isnt for you, it isnt for you. But there is nothing wrong with the franchise.
 
 
thanks for reading, and check me out on COMICVINE.

62 Comments
63 Comments
  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Sevan

  I've been a Halo fan since CE. I didnt own an xbox, and i didnt even know it came out for a few months. But once i played it, i was hooked. Lan parties whenever, wherever. I played that campaign like 60 times.  I bought it on computer, and learned to play on keyboard because i couldn't afford a pc controller.
When Halo 2 came out, i actually split the price with my friend who owned an xbox. We played split screen and online all the time. I owned a 360 controller before i owned a 360. 
 And when 3 came out, i bought a 360 the day before it was released. I resisted the urge to purchase a copy a day early out of fear of being banned from online play. I played every night with my friends over live for hours. And we did the same for ODST.and Wars. And Reach.  And while some of my friends have given up on the franchise, im playing right now.
 
   I tell you all of this so that there are no allusions. I am a hardcore halo fan. I have played them all, and i probably will play the rest as they come.
 im writing this to address the seemingly infinite number of times ive seen people say "Halo never changes" or "the franchise is getting stale".  
 
 Like most franchises, Halo is based off of the actions and events that took place in the first game. A super soldier fought off aliens. Like most games now days, it was designed to continue. So my question is: how is it different than any other popular franchise?
  Mario has ALWAYS been about a plumber jumping on things to save a princes or a kingdom. Even when extra powers and 3d mechanics and ride-able dinosaurs were added, that was always the core of the franchise.  Why isnt that stale?

 Assassins Creed is about assassinating people. its been the same on multiple consoles and hand helds. A guy with wrist blades and a hood tries to save whoever from whoever by assassinating key people. 
 
The COD franchise has been about war. The only real changes from game to game have been the timelines and the gun names. But if you break them down to nothing but controls and combat, they are all roughly the same.
 
 Why arent these games getting the gruff that Halo is getting?
 
 The easy and true answer is that Halo is bigger. The biggest name always gets the biggest target pained on their backs, and Halo is it. 
   
 To the point, if you dont think Halo is still a relevant franchise... just move on. Facts are Halo was still selling for 30-40 dollars 3 years after its release. Halo 2 had record numbers its last week, and didnt go down until days after it was intended... 6 years after its release. 
  Every installment of Halo adds something new to the franchise. Graphically. Thematically. Gameplay and story wise. It has yet to be the exact same game as the last. Even Multiplayer, which has for the most part stayed the same, still added completely new weapons, vehicles, and damage modifications to each game. 
 
If Halo isnt for you, it isnt for you. But there is nothing wrong with the franchise.
 
 
thanks for reading, and check me out on COMICVINE.

Posted by Herocide

While I used to love Halo and my adoration for it has diminished to a mere liking of the game, I have to agree. Almost every franchise out there is designed to give the players of the game more of what they want, with a little more to keep them happy. Every franchise is doomed to becoming stale for a certain audience, but after a certain period of time, those people should move on and let the new audience have their turn. Much like how you still see Pokemon games being made almost identically over and over again. People grow up, and new kids take their place. The new kids haven't grown up with it their entire lives, so they have no sense of entitlement. I think Halo and any other franchise should be thought of in the same way.

Edited by NickL

Mario gameplay is stale. (Classic sidescroller, they are doing interesting things with 3d mario, but even that is becoming more stale with every iteration.)

Assassin's creed hasn't been around long enough to become stale.

COD is stale.

Halo is still stale.

All big franchises are stale, I don't come to them for innovation (and get pleasantly surprised sometimes when they do innovate) I come to them because they are fun to play.

Edit: Halo has always been about humans fighting to stay alive. Oh look, I can oversimplify franchises too.

Edited by MattyFTM

Call of Duty is getting slated for being stale much much more than Halo. When people complain about Halo it's generally people that have criticized it since it's inception. In some cases it's simply because they don't like the game, in others it's for more fanboyish reasons. Either way, they're generally not complaining that it's stale. CoD is the series that's being criticized for that more than any other.

Moderator
Posted by Sevan
@NickL said:

Mario gameplay is stale. (Classic sidescroller, they are doing interesting things with 3d mario, but even that is becoming more stale with every iteration.)

Assassin's creed hasn't been around long enough to become stale.

COD is stale.

Halo is still stale.

All big franchises are stale, I don't come to them for innovation (and get pleasantly surprised sometimes when they do innovate) I come to them because they are fun to play.

Edit: Halo has always been about humans fighting to stay alive. Oh look, I can oversimplify franchises too.

Stale kind of entails that it is no longer fun to play. 
 Assasins Creed has like 6 instalments in half the time, and it has had less changes altogether than any two consecutive halo game.
Posted by Gamer_152

I am a really big Halo fan as well, I've got all the games, read all the books from Fall of Reach to The Cole Protocol, and I've put hundreds of edits in on the Halo wiki. Firstly, I think the staleness of many of the franchises you're talking about has little to do with the thematic content, games at their core are gameplay experiences and it is the change in the game design itself which really defines how derivative or non-derivative a game is. Secondly, I still love Halo but do I think it's getting a little stale? Yes I do. If 343 can do things the way Bungie did I'll really enjoy Halo 4 but I might enjoy it a whole lot more if they actually went out of their way to switch up the formula and innovate a little.

As far as the staleness of Mario goes, yes, I do think the Nintendo franchises could please me more if they made some changes, but it's a somewhat different set of circumstances with Nintendo's titles often deliberately trying to call back to a specific kind of gaming nostalgia by reinventing the same few games repeatedly. With Assassin's Creed I'd really like to see them jump from Brotherhood to III because I'm worried the series will start to get stale if they don't, but we must also remember that there are currently only five main AC games thought to come out as opposed to the nine potential Halo FPSs. You're right that Halo gets a lot of the flak it does because it's a big game but it's definitely not bigger than Call of Duty, and in fact Call of Duty takes more of a punishment for becoming an increasingly stale series, not just because it's big and they keep bringing out the same kinds of games, but also because they do it on a more regular basis than other franchises.

If people are being hypocritical or fanboyish then no, it's not fair, but I don't think anyone is pretending that franchises apart from Halo are getting stale as well and from that perspective, nobody should shut up about Halo being a stale franchise if that's truly their opinion.

Moderator
Posted by sixghost

b-b-b-b--b-b-b-but look at all those other franchises that are stale!

Posted by Stonyman65

You forgot the part where Halo was never really good in the first place.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go play Quake 3..

Posted by TaliciaDragonsong

I agree with your overall statement.
 
I see people go "Ugh, not another Halo" while the same people can't wait for CoD, BF, Final Fantasy 45, Mario Party 9 or whatever.
Live and let live people, I have no heart for FF or CoD but they can go make players happy and I won't be affected in any way.
 
Long as they got CoD, I want my Halo, different people, different tastes.

Posted by The_Laughing_Man

Can not help but notice the OP is a massive Halo Fan. Its a bit hard to take this post super serious when his background/avatar/page photo is all halo related. 

Posted by Niall_Sg1

I stop reading when I saw your avatar was Master Chief.

Posted by pweidman

A franchise like the halo series, that sees no significant gameplay changes in 10 years, is gonna be blamed for getting stale tc.

Was and is the gameplay great? Hell yes, but for someone like me who played them all to death it's tired...fatiguing...or 'stale' to some degree(quite a lot for me). Recently, an old XBL friend asked me to play some matchmaking FF, after I hadn't touched Reach in months and months. I could only hold out for a few matches before that been there done that feeling set in, but I have to say it was a nice reminder of how fucking buttery smooth the controls are in that game :). Sorry for the digression.

It was a winning formula for Bungie so I totally get why only minor things were tweaked over the course of the 5 games, but now maybe 343 can bring something significantly different and fresh for the franchise to Halo 4. Will they actually innovate? I highly doubt it, but I hope they are bold enough to try. Will I get and play Halo 4? Hell to the yes, it's MC! Gotta play it for that alone :p.

Posted by Zippedbinders

I've had a pretty torrid affair with the Halo franchise as a whole, Halo 1 was ok, Halo 2 is where I most enjoyed the campaign, and I detest Halo Reach with a burning passion because of its piss poor AI and retarded checkpoint system. But I don't think I'd argue its stale or what have you, its got a dedicated fanbase and all that really matters is if those people are happy. 

Posted by Twitchey
@Sevan: Assassin's Creed has 3. Assassin's Creed isn't stale because every game has added new mechanics. AC: 2 added more weapons, an open world, boats, the economic side quest, Assassin's Tombs, and a few Desmond free running side missions. AC: Brotherhood added Borgia towers, Asssassin recruits, multiplayer (Which is great), Leonardo side missions, new weapons, new tools, and an entire training program for free running, combat, and stealth.
 
AC: Revelations has even more in it.
 
So from what you have said about Halo, Assassin's Creed isn't stale because of the constant addition of new things.
 
(I didn't add the two handhelds because I never played them, and most people play the console games)
Posted by Matt

@Sevan: Nice post but I disagree with Halo being the biggest name. It definitely was for a time but Call of Duty is by far the biggest at the moment.

Posted by ryanwho

People have opinions on Halo, you're gonna have to deal with that. Get therapy I guess.

Edited by Meowshi

Those other games you mentioned significantly improved their gameplay and added many new mechanics. 
 
People's complaints with Halo aren't that "it's just another soldier vs. alien" story.  It's that's it's just another Halo game, in every way possible.  It's not drastically changing the feel of the weapons or tone of the story.  It's not adding new mechanics and triggers that completely change the experience. 
 
Compare something like the latest Super Mario Galaxy to the original Mario Brothers.  
 
Compare the leap in the quality of Assassins Creed to Brotherhood.
 
Now compare Halo: CE with Halo Reach. 
 
As for COD...why even bring that up?  People are much more negative about MW3 than they are about Halo 4.  

Posted by GunslingerPanda

@Sevan: It seems like you're quite passionate about Halo, so maybe you should just continue to enjoy it and not worry what other people think of it? You don't need a group of people to validate your opinion.

Have fun when the game launches, buddy! I'll probably pick it up, was a big fan of the original trilogy though I'm not too keen on what's come since. Looking forward to see the Chief fighting on some new enemy, though.

Edited by Sevan
@The_Laughing_Man said:

Can not help but notice the OP is a massive Halo Fan. Its a bit hard to take this post super serious when his background/avatar/page photo is all halo related. 

 I put that in the first paragraph so there would be no allusions. But in the past 3 months i've played more Crysis 2, Cod (black Ops and MW2) and God of War than i have Halo. IO just started playing Reach again a couple weeks ago. 
 im a person who enjoys the universe more than the games. But I still love the games, and it pisses me off when people go into long rants about how Halo should just die. Especially when most franchises share the same ailments Halo does, but even more blatant.
 ...and my profile pic is more about my love for the og Power Rangers. :)
 
@Stonyman65 said:

You forgot the part where Halo was never really good in the first place.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go play Quake 3..


lol. your opinion is trumped by sales numbers. I'm pretty sure every itteration of Bungie Halo outsold Quake 3. But it was a damn good game.
 
@Zippedbinders said:

I've had a pretty torrid affair with the Halo franchise as a whole, Halo 1 was ok, Halo 2 is where I most enjoyed the campaign, and I detest Halo Reach with a burning passion because of its piss poor AI and retarded checkpoint system. But I don't think I'd argue its stale or what have you, its got a dedicated fanbase and all that really matters is if those people are happy. 


this
 
@Meowshi
More vehicles. More weapons. Armor abilities. Game Types. 
 and with each new thig, the entirety of the damage tables and physics engines have to be revisited so each weapon dominates in its own prominent situation. The level of detail alone between 1 and reach blows most games out of the water. Very few things actually feel the same between 1 and 3 and reach, its just the familiarity of the story and the world that makes it seem so. But if weapons damage, character speeds, enemy classifications, and vehicle handling all change drastically in each story and it still feels right? thats kudos in my opinion.
 
@Matt said:

@Sevan: Nice post but I disagree with Halo being the biggest name. It definitely was for a time but Call of Duty is by far the biggest at the moment.


i always deem Halo the bigger game becuase its only a hair beneath the COD which is multi-platform. If the only reason you are being outsold is because half the gaming community doesnt have an xbox, your winning..... imo
Posted by Wolverine

@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.

Posted by mnzy

I'll take your stale and raise it a mediocre.

Posted by TekZero

It's not just Halo.  The entire FPS genre has been stale for about 5 years now.

Posted by phish09

You should read my thread called; "Why you should shut up and not tell people what games to enjoy or not enjoy and just play whatever games you like k?" 
 
It's actually not a thread.  It's just a post.  It's this post in fact.  Read it, learn it, love it.
 
BTW...I'm a fan of the Halo games, but whatever, don't be a douchebag.

Posted by l4wd0g

2009: Halo ODST

2010: Halo Reach

2011: Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

2012: Halo 4

Yeah, that maybe a supersaturation of the Halo market. I love Halo, but giving the game a few years to breath is also kind of nice.

Posted by wewantsthering

Generally games with too many frequent sequels get stale. I personally find that Valve, outside of their multiplayer games, tend to shake things up each time. Just look at the difference between Portal 1 and 2. I liked Halo 3 single player and Call of Duty MW2 multiplayer, but I am sick of both franchises now. I am much more interested in Bungies next project. I like that teams like TeamMeat, are not going to just make another Super Meat Boy, they are going to make a brand new IP.

Posted by AhmadMetallic
@Twitchey said:
@Sevan: Assassin's Creed has 3. Assassin's Creed isn't stale because every game has added new mechanics. AC: 2 added more weapons, an open world, boats, the economic side quest, Assassin's Tombs, and a few Desmond free running side missions. AC: Brotherhood added Borgia towers, Asssassin recruits, multiplayer (Which is great), Leonardo side missions, new weapons, new tools, and an entire training program for free running, combat, and stealth.  AC: Revelations has even more in it.  So from what you have said about Halo, Assassin's Creed isn't stale because of the constant addition of new things.  (I didn't add the two handhelds because I never played them, and most people play the console games)
man you are FOLLOWED
Posted by ConstantRa1n

I stopped reading when you included 50 paragraphs in your post.

Posted by MariachiMacabre

This thread plus your user image makes me think you may just be an angry fanboy. I love Halo but it is getting stale. Not really sure why you target Assassin's Creed when the two franchises are nothing alike. I agree that CoD is stale. Hell, I got bored of it after MW2. Halo needs to innovate if it wants to survive. Reach was a good start, though.

Posted by delorean99947

Halo CE: First game of the franchise 
Halo 2: Dual wield guns, multiplayer, no health
Halo 3: Shield orbs and some other powers
Halo 3 ODST: Firefight with no matchmaking, took away dual wielding, added health
Halo Reach: Customize character with some armor plates and a new visor, new abilities like running, still no dual wielding
Halo Anniversary: Will be the same as Halo CE with spankin new graphics
Halo 4: Dual wielding (One can hope), Master Chief, and who knows what else

Posted by GoofyGoober

Halo was mediocre in the first place. To this day I don't see how the hell it blew up the way it did.  So yeah Halo is stale, and your long rant has not changed my opinion on that. Halo 4= lol.

Posted by Rawrz

I always thought that Halo gets far more hate then it deserves but it was pretty much the biggest franchise in gaming at the time so it was the cool thing to hate on, kinda like nowadays its Call of Duty that gets all the hate. Only thing I never really understood was how people would always groan at a new Halo game as if the franchise was constantly spitting out games when they were only coming out every few years.

Posted by The_Laughing_Man

@OP again its very hard to take you serious with all the halo pictures and what not you have. Even if you have played alot of crysis 2 as of late

Posted by HAMMERCLAW

It's not a question of stale franchises; it 's a question of jaded gamers, and fanboy fox and grapes syndrome.s Stale goods don't sell well. with certain games, you either like the taste, tire of it or don't care for it at all. Then there's that irrational fanboy thing, but we don't need to go into THAT.

Posted by NickL

@Sevan said:

@NickL said:

Mario gameplay is stale. (Classic sidescroller, they are doing interesting things with 3d mario, but even that is becoming more stale with every iteration.)

Assassin's creed hasn't been around long enough to become stale.

COD is stale.

Halo is still stale.

All big franchises are stale, I don't come to them for innovation (and get pleasantly surprised sometimes when they do innovate) I come to them because they are fun to play.

Edit: Halo has always been about humans fighting to stay alive. Oh look, I can oversimplify franchises too.

Stale kind of entails that it is no longer fun to play. Assasins Creed has like 6 instalments in half the time, and it has had less changes altogether than any two consecutive halo game.

I see stale as being something that has been around for a while without changing much, not necessarily that it isn't fun anymore. (Based off of the idea of stale food, it has been around too long and probably tastes the same but it has that one little texture difference that everyone hates.)

I don't know. If everyone agrees that stale can't be fun anymore then I guess there are almost no franchises that I see as your idea of stale. (The only games I can immediately think of as stale by this definition are hardcore stealth games, maybe I just love games too much to not get enjoyment out of them. =p)

Assassin's Creed only has 3 installments that matter. I haven't played the other "installments" but from what I understand they are basically ports of the games. That would be equivalent to saying the Halo pc port was another installment of the halo franchise.

And in those 3 major installments, there have been countless changes, not to mention an increased level of polish that wasn't present in previous iterations.

Don't get me wrong, I will still play halo games for months every time a new one is released, but it is definitely stale (by my definition of stale).

Posted by Sevan
@Rawrz said:
I always thought that Halo gets far more hate then it deserves but it was pretty much the biggest franchise in gaming at the time so it was the cool thing to hate on, kinda like nowadays its Call of Duty that gets all the hate. Only thing I never really understood was how people would always groan at a new Halo game as if the franchise was constantly spitting out games when they were only coming out every few years.

agreed. 343 is going to drive the nail into the coffin now by letting Microsoft dictate the pace in which games are made, but Bungie was doing things at a reasonable pace and yet people booed it as they bought their yearly CoD title.
 
@MariachiMacabre said:

This thread plus your user image makes me think you may just be an angry fanboy. I love Halo but it is getting stale. Not really sure why you target Assassin's Creed when the two franchises are nothing alike. I agree that CoD is stale. Hell, I got bored of it after MW2. Halo needs to innovate if it wants to survive. Reach was a good start, though.


i wasnt comparing them on any basis but the number to come out. People were bitching about halo when 3 was announced. But they've had what? 6 games in 10 years? verses AC's 4 in 4. I was simply pointing out the biased opinions. The halo franchise is overdoing it making a 4 (or 7 depending on which you count ) from 3 different developers over 11 years, but AS is the same group, and Cod is 2 alternating yearly.  But Halo is the one over doing it?
 
@ConstantRa1n said:
I stopped reading when you included 50 paragraphs in your post.

im sorry. People tend to get sick of reading when every line in a blog is too close to one another, or if the paragraphs look to long.
 seriously, there are longer magazine articles. I'm assuming from the comments that most of the people here did what the staggered-type was intended for and skimmed it if they didnt want to read. So maybe my post isnt actually the problem.
 
But i really am sorry. Next time i'll put some pictures in between the smaller than most books paragraphs for you. :) 
 
@wewantsthering
yeah. 4 will tell me if im a huge Halo fan or a huge Bungie fan. Im hyped for whatever they are doing too.
Posted by Casey25

This conversation will be held to the end of time because different people have different opinions about change in video game franchises.  

  Someone like delorean above might only bring forth how out how halo reach added some armor abilities and character customizations and say it's boring and didn't innovate enough (that's not necessarily what you mean delorean, just an example). 
Some one like me will say that they changed TOO MUCH in Reach because they added incremental non-driver-based health to vehicles and buffed weapon damage to vehicles.  The most interesting part of halo multiplayer to me - other than it's special "something in the movement, controls, and pacing - was the well-designed and balanced implementation of vehicles.  In halo 3 and before, vehicles were power weapons, an advantage over other players that generally required some strategy or tool to defeat (also, warthogs and tanks are badass).  But in Reach, all it takes is a couple of people with DMRs (which they SPAWN with) a few sniper shots, or pretty much anything to destroy a TANK.  Vehicles are essentially nerfed, as their counter is as accessible as spamming focus fire from your spawning weapon. 
 
This has COMPLETELY changed the game for me and friends i play with, to the point where I don't play Reach as much as i used to play other halo titles.   Also, different people get more or less out of a game depending on their skill level and how much they put into the game, bla bla bla l2p bla bla bla noob bla bla bla.  Okay /rant 
  

My point is that different people will always see gameplay changes in sequels to franchises differently, and thus there will always be people who criticize and complain about them.  Some people want vast sweeping changes, maybe even a completely different game but with the same storyline, or the opposite.  Other people want it to be the same core experience but with a few tweaks here and there.  Still others just want the same game but with better graphics.   
  
The opinion of whether a franchise is "stale" or "ruined" will differ from person to person.  All aspects of opinions on the internet apply.  Some people shouldn't shut up because they think it's stale, they should shut up because they're being an internet asshat.   
 
(IMO)

Posted by PixelPrinny
@phish09 said:
You should read my thread called; "Why you should shut up and not tell people what games to enjoy or not enjoy and just play whatever games you like k?"   It's actually not a thread.  It's just a post.  It's this post in fact.  Read it, learn it, love it.  BTW...I'm a fan of the Halo games, but whatever, don't be a douchebag.
I lol'd.
Posted by Brendan

It's important to remember, and compare, the level of abstraction and malleability in a franchise like Halo as compared to games like Mario and even Assassin's Creed.

Mario is abstract enough that even though the series has been around forever, it has gone in so many directions while maintaining quality that it's difficult to accuse it of being stale. Putting aside even the enormous improvements and changes between the different "core" Mario games we still have Mario RPG, Paper Mario, Mario Party, and Mario Kart. These are all top notch titles and yet are completely different from each other. Compare that to the Halo franchise; it has been largely similar among all the titles it's put out, aside from one RTS that was only fairly received and largely forgotten. This is not a crime. The Halo games have been quite good, and there tightly wound and coherent story and universe have thus far necessitated games that follow a similar formula. It is therefore much less abstract than Mario, and so it is difficult to compare them.

Assassin's Creed is very malleable due to it's nature as an action adventure franchise and it's story that allows it the freedom to make large amendments to the gameplay. Weapons, actions, mission types, and mission structure can vary widely between games because open world action games are like empty frames that can be filled with different pieces, or mixed in a different way. It's story also allows it to be placed in different times, with different technology, different characters, and different environments to the point where gameplay can feel fresh in between titles. It must be noted, however, that this franchise is not above being called stale: It is relatively young and is just finishing an arc that began with the second core game. Time will tell if it become rote and predictable or not. Halo is mostly an FPS, and this genre is the most difficult to change while keeping it's core conceits intact. It has also, thus far, had a storyline that has focused on one cast of characters over multiple games, in a period where FPS have started to flood the market and cause people to become tired of the genre in general.

COD is widely regarded as stale, and people are eagerly waiting to see it change and become something different. Or, if they're bitter internet people, they wish only for it's downfall so they can dance on it's corpse.

I am a huge Halo fan as well, and I have most of the games sitting on a shelf next to my console. I am noting this to try and avoid responses tinted with the assumption that I have something against the franchise, so that I can have discussion based only on intellectual principle. I thought it important to note the inherent differences in the above mentioned franchises, because internet people tend to have very one dimensional views on things. For example, the OP sees Mario and AC games come out the seem similar, and therefore are directly comparable to Halo. That is not looking at the larger picture, and I felt it important to note that. Finally, I apologize for my grammar and spelling, as I am sure it is atrocious.

Posted by Afroman269

Halo is a stale franchise. Get at me, bro.

Posted by The_Grindilow

I've never thought halo was particularly exciting to begin with. The multiplayer in 3 was pretty cool granted, but I've had to give up on reach. Armour lock, what!?

Posted by big_jon

I don't really like the title to this at all.

Online
Posted by TorMasturba

@Sevan said:

@NickL said:

Mario gameplay is stale. (Classic sidescroller, they are doing interesting things with 3d mario, but even that is becoming more stale with every iteration.)

Assassin's creed hasn't been around long enough to become stale.

COD is stale.

Halo is still stale.

All big franchises are stale, I don't come to them for innovation (and get pleasantly surprised sometimes when they do innovate) I come to them because they are fun to play.

Edit: Halo has always been about humans fighting to stay alive. Oh look, I can oversimplify franchises too.

Stale kind of entails that it is no longer fun to play. Assasins Creed has like 6 instalments in half the time, and it has had less changes altogether than any two consecutive halo game.

I'm probably wrong, in fact I very often am, but imo the change from AC1 to AC2 was extremely dramtic. AC1 was stale out of the gate, the game did a great job of exuding staleness, it was so stale it stank. AC2 was young and fresh and knew all the right people... Maybe I'm going off topic. My original point being that AC1 and AC2 are very different in gameplay design, and whilst AC1 was an innovative in concept it sucked bulls and dragged it's rotting carcass for miles. AC2 was well balanced and could accurately kee us paying attention the whole way through. Major difference in my eyes.

P.S. Sorry that I got lost a bit there.

Posted by TorMasturba

@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.

Posted by Gamer_152
@Sevan said:
@Stonyman65 said:

You forgot the part where Halo was never really good in the first place.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go play Quake 3..


lol. your opinion is trumped by sales numbers. I'm pretty sure every itteration of Bungie Halo outsold Quake 3. But it was a damn good game.
Yes, I agree there was probably a less rude way of saying what he said but there are at least two problems with your response. One, the sales figures of Quake 3 and Halo cannot be directly compared fairly, the market for video games has grown massively since the time of Quake. Two, sales numbers don't "trump" opinions. His opinion is no less valid because a lot of other people have chose to buy the game, likewise I prefer Halo to CoD and my opinion is in no way trumped by the fact that CoD is selling more units than Halo, you're trying to compare the objective with the subjective.
Moderator
Posted by Sevan
@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.
Posted by TheDudeOfGaming

Fanboyism is not good mmmmmkay? Unless its PC fanboyism, then you's cool.

Posted by Sevan
@Gamer_152 said:
@Sevan said:
@Stonyman65 said:

You forgot the part where Halo was never really good in the first place.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go play Quake 3..


lol. your opinion is trumped by sales numbers. I'm pretty sure every itteration of Bungie Halo outsold Quake 3. But it was a damn good game.
Yes, I agree there was probably a less rude way of saying what he said but there are at least two problems with your response. One, the sales figures of Quake 3 and Halo cannot be directly compared fairly, the market for video games has grown massively since the time of Quake. Two, sales numbers don't "trump" opinions. His opinion is no less valid because a lot of other people have chose to buy the game, likewise I prefer Halo to CoD and my opinion is in no way trumped by the fact that CoD is selling more units than Halo, you're trying to compare the objective with the subjective.
 You dont need to directly compare them. Halo dominated the market at a time when PS2 was the top dog in the industry. Even if you did all the math to  make it equal, Halo would still trump Quake sales. Quake had a massive cult following, but not massive sales.  Halo, much like many of Nintendo's games, went from cult to mainstream over a few months. 
  and Halo 1 also was presented before the market changed. the games were two years apart, and Xbox was no more popular than the other systems at the time (Ps2 was dominating the market, as i said). You can argue the comparison of 360/PS3 games, since the Wiii and Blu Ray catapulted this generations consoles into popularity, but back then the numbers hadnt changed so much that it couldnyt be done.

   and sales do trump the opinion of Halo never being a good game. If it does uber well and changes its genre, it was a good game, and an opinion that it was a bad game (as opposed to just not a game you liked) is actually trumped by PHYSICAL evidence and actual mathematics. Duke Nukem Forever? bad game. Halo? great game. no matter what your personal preference or opinion is, those things will always be accurate truths as proved by the collective unit sales, money made, reviews, and consistent demand. 
 
as an example, you said you prefer COD, and that statement is factual. Me saying "elephants fly to mars and snort its red dirt" is not factual. fact has proven that Halo was a good game. end line.
Posted by Sevan
@Rawrz said:
I always thought that Halo gets far more hate then it deserves but it was pretty much the biggest franchise in gaming at the time so it was the cool thing to hate on, kinda like nowadays its Call of Duty that gets all the hate. Only thing I never really understood was how people would always groan at a new Halo game as if the franchise was constantly spitting out games when they were only coming out every few years.
right? I dont understand how people do this though. I didnt like World AT War, so i didnt play it. I told people i hated it if the conversation arose, but i didnt go chasing down internet threads to bitch about it. I didnt tell people buying and playing the game that their taste was shit. And i never bought the game and played it for weeks telling everyone who was listtening that their game sucks. I just let it be. 
  But yeah,  Bungie has 5 halo games in 10 years, and its not even every two years. 
 I just dont understand how people can hate and bitch about things that they could easily remove from their lives. Unless your neighbor is the type of hardcore fan to tackle you every morning in full halo armor and t-bag you, i dont really see why you cant ignore it.
Posted by DystopiaX

Since when is Halo>CoD? Also I don't think your argument holds merit. People DO bitch about CoD, and AC series has consistently been improving, refining and innovating.

And if you couldn't tell by my avatar, I'm a pretty big Halo fan.

Posted by Vodun

@Sevan said:

no matter what your personal preference or opinion is, those things will always be accurate truths as proved by the collective unit sales, money made, reviews, and consistent demand.

So CSI is a better show than the Wire? Avatar is a better movie than Citizen Kane? By your thinking Halo isn't really that good at all. It has come nowhere near the figures of the other games you mentioned as being poorer in your original post.

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2