He can't because he got the information from his uncle.~

well thats clearly nice of him to share ^^ anyways you guys remember the reach image leak xDDDDD microsoft went craaaaazy
the web of this age......its only a matter of time until microsoft has full control

I just had a scary thought for most of us..

You know how Bungie has stated that they are keeping Reach Multiplayer in the Halo CE Remake (derp) because they want to keep the Reach Fanbase? Well, what does this mean for Halo 4, 5, and 6?

First off, things from my point of view. Halo 1, 2, and 3 were what I'd like to call each a unique experience that used the same formula and art design to deliver a farmiller feel. Now, Reach came in and changed this, adding new and often unnessacary aspects to the gameplay itself, as well as the art style, ect, in an attempt to create a new experience. And sure, a crapload of people play it. But as with all games, when a new title in a series is released, people flock to the newer game, because that it is where the new updates and community content (Machinima ect) are going to be taking place.

Now onto my point. 343 has used Reach's multiplayer for the Halo CE remake. This scares me. Why? Because it makes me feel that they are not confident enough with themselves to make completely original content for Halo 4. And what is the most recent Halo game with a large player base they could copy off of?


... Yeah.
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

They have to put more effort into Halo 4 than into a remake of the first one. They have 5 months, so do you really think that they can fix and polish everything and make a qhole new multiplayer setup for the game? They will more than likely make a new one for Halo 4, its just that HCE remake is just a remake, and reach has only been out for 9 months, so one would be completely abandoned.

This isn't a question of effort I am rasing here, it is a question of gameplay mechanics. Namely, will Halo 4 be a carbon copy of a previous Halo title, if so which one, or will it be totally on it's own as a new game. (New game as in one that follows the style of either reach or 1-3) And for all we know, the Halo CE remake could have been in the works for over a year by now; more than enough time to set up a multiplayer system that works for everyone. Bungie stated that the main reason they were keeping the Reach engine's multiplayer was to drag people over from Reach. They never said anything about re-working Halo CE's multiplayer being that big of an issue.

Now that I think about it, it's not so much what engine they are using for Multiplayer as much as how they will use it. If it's just a carbon copy of Reach, then I will really start to worry.
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 10, 2011 at 12:15 AM

The new Master chief is so ugly. it doesnt make any sense,how the hell he got the "new armor"?! what,he evolved like a pokemon in teh cryo tube?!

anyway,the whole idea is really cool... finaly halo 4 :D
i just hate 343i`s design :S
too bad bungie is done with halo ):

Yeah, at least it's Bungie, except not Bungie.
343 is on the right track. I just really hope they will actually end it well, unlike Bungie.
*glares at Bungie*

The amount of misinformation in this threat amazes me.

Firstly, the supposed leaked plot has been confirmed as "bullshirt" by Frank O'Connor. (actual quotation, look it up) As for the trailer, it was produced by third parties contracted by Microsoft. One could say that the design was given by 343 Industries... but who knows. Their designs of the Grunts in Halo Legends did end up being in Halo: Reach...

Secondly, Halo: Anniversary is produced by 343 Industries and not Bungie. Bungie stopped doing anything in relations to the Halo franchise after Noble Map Pack was released (2010). As of right now, they're handing over all the statistics data and management to 343 Industries' Waypoint website, and working on another project.

Also in my opinion, the reason why 343 Industries did not create a multiplayer component using Anniversary's engine is because they do not want the multiplayer community separated; they want everyone to keep using Reach's multiplayer content. Consider Halo: Anniversary as a marketing product to attract people to buy Halo: Reach, assuming they have not.

Thirdly, 343 Industries does not have much former Bungie employees; a significant number of employees are actually from EA.

I actually supported Bungie leaving. Bungie had only joined up with Microsoft to gain some bussiness opportunities(e.g being one of the first x-box games, getting new technology). After all these years, their contract has expired and Bungie has finally decided that "Okay, this is enough. We are finally ready to be independent. No one is going to boss us around anymore" and so they did.

Sure, they may be partnering with Activision but before that, they were totally under Microsoft's rule. You won't be expecting a PC/Mac port from Microsoft.
-Zekilk
Edited by cyboryxmen on Jun 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM

As long as they don't use their stupid-as-hell Novel Writers we saw at PAX(?) that included Greg Bear where none of them had actually played the games, then I'll support them.

Indeed. Quality than quantity. :)

I think what bothers me the most about this trailer (aside from the fact that it exists) is that suddenly chief has this completely unjustifiable jetpack. If the mark 6 has had a jetpack this entire time, why was I unable to use it in halo 2 or halo 3?

Someone mentioned it was a thruster pack of sorts used for high action sequences only in the CGI to keep the urgency of the situation and build suspense. I don't think it's a big deal really. I like Jetpacks, so I'm not entirely mad. I do think it's a bad way to introduce a new game.

It amuses me that people treat older game series' like they would a dying animal or something.

"OH GOD THIS HAS GONE ON FOR LONG ENOUGH PUT IT OUT OF IT'S MISERY."

Sorry if this was a bad example for anyone.



Also ICEE, I think that Jetpack was more of a "Space only" thing; something he had that he could use in space to push himself around in a tight situation, but not nearly strong enough to break the gravitational pull of a planet and lift him off of the ground.

Personally, I'm hoping they just forget the whole thing. I can't handle another Halo game with AA's.



EDIT: Does anybody know if 343 will be getting a Website/Has one that I can't find? I'm going to start a campaign against AA's on their forums. :V
Edited by DieHard Bob on Jun 10, 2011 at 06:08 PM

Yes, the Mark 6 does have a jetpack and he's had it in Halo 2 and 3 (those prongs that stick up just over his shoulder on either side of his head are the tips of the jetpack). The fact that Bungie decided not to let you use it isn't 343's problem, so don't blame them for following canon when Bungie left it out.

Halo wasn't made for jetpacks and on-demand invincibility.. It was made to be fun and simple. (Not simple as in easy, simple as in not having to worry about whether this guy you were about to ambush was going to dissapear. Or end up being a hologram. Or decide to just up and fly away.)

That's not the point, the point is that you can't blame them for including something in the trailer that was in the story already.

Oh, no, I can't blame them for showing off some kind of jetpack in the CGI trailer. I could care less if they had grunts flying around, for that matter. What I do care about is what they actually put in the game.

It was mentioned in one of the books as an upgrade to the Mk. VI armor, but only useful as a zero-G propulsion system. Not powerful enough to lift the suit in normal gravity.

I actually like the Armour Abilities. They really add some additional gameplay that gives Reach a unique flavour. Albeit, I do agree with you that they are usually misused. Hope they set out some limits to them this time.

Whatever, I am a sucker that will buy any game with the word Halo slapped onto it anyway(with the exception of Halo Anniversary).
-Zekilk

I agree here. I enjoy having the ability to use a jetpack, turn invisible for a small duration to fool enemies, create a defensive barrier for cover, and run at a decent pace on demand. I guess it's all about how it's done.

One of my favorite abilities was hologram. You could mess with the opponents minds. :P
Guess what my other favorite is?
That's right.
Armor Lock!

Let me ask all of you this; You like some or all of the AA's. But what did you all like more; Halo Reach, or Halo 3?

I was going to say something else here as well, but I forget. :P

I like Halo 3's gameplay, but I like Reach's weapon selection. I also like Reach's Invasion, but I like how Halo 3's vehicles are set up.

halo 3, cause the smg was beastly

Halo 3 multiplayer was just slow. Halo Reach's multiplayer just added gimmicky abilities that suck. Halo 2's multiplayer though is god tier.

I've never been too attracted to any Halo multiplayer because they all involve Spartans dying which is a huge turnoff for me. Reach's multiplayer is a bit more acceptable because they're Spartan 3s ;D

halo 2 was nothing but dual wielding tryhards and battle rifle fights, it sucked

I would give a list, but it's so difficult for me to numerically rate MP just because mine is based off of what I feel like playing. I enjoy all Halo SP (and MP too) and because each one brings something different, yet keeps the game similar, I really can't say I have a favorite game in particular. I enjoy Halo 3 CTF, Halo Reach Invasion, Halo 1 Slayer (for the lolz), and Halo 2 BTB though.

1.MW2
2.COD 4
3.Reach

Casual!

yeah i know cause all the noobs would use it and it was an easy kill with dmr :)

Yeah. I really liked the new vehicle boarding and homing rockets. Everything was kind of balanced, aside from those dual wield needlers. It was fun. I don't know anyone who didn't like a little team play on Halo 2, whether it be Slayer or CTF. And SWAT BRs/Zombies was awesome.

yet all the recent cods are still horrible, not depending on either developer