Do You Think We'll See "Halo 4" On Xbox 360?

Or will Microsoft wait until the next Xbox console to release the game? Microsoft did say Xbox 360 will last for another 5 years or so.

Probally.Halo 4 is most likely in production right now.343 have been hiring lately for a new untitles Halo game and they have hinted many times with Halo 4.

I'd prefer to see it next gen. But ya never know...

ugh i don't even want to think about another Halo right now

I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

Nope, it will be a launch title for the next Xbox, like Halo CE was for the Xbox 1.

If they did, it would be milked up to much for one gen.
BTW HellJumper, its Probably.....

No way.

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

Hes now a mindless PS3 fantard, You must too also join the cult NOAW!
:whip: <<< Sony

Teckno wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

Hes now a mindless PS3 fantard, You must too also join the cult NOAW!
:whip: <<< Sony

There's your answer, solid.

No, the real reason is that I lost interest. I loved Halo for its gameplay/multiplayer, and it was drastically changed in Reach. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Reach beta, but it didn't feel like a genuine Halo game. Reach isn't bad, it's just not a real Halo game in terms of gameplay and there are better shooters coming out this year.

oh. it looks more like a battlefield game IMO

TRF wrote:

Teckno wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

Hes now a mindless PS3 fantard, You must too also join the cult NOAW!
:whip: <<< Sony

There's your answer, solid.

No, the real reason is that I lost interest. I loved Halo for its gameplay/multiplayer, and it was drastically changed in Reach. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Reach beta, but it didn't feel like a genuine Halo game. Reach isn't bad, it's just not a real Halo game in terms of gameplay and there are better shooters coming out this year.

I loved Reach.If they kept the multiplayer pretty much the same as Halo 3 I would have lost it.Halo 3's gameplay was getting a bit stale.It was the exact same as Halo Ce's and Halo 2"s.Boring.But now with the new gameplay its fresh again.It actually makes me want to play it(Halo 3 never did that for me).

BTW,ODST was not crap.A close to AAA score game isnt crap sorry to say.If it was crap,it wouldnt have gotten those scores.and I loves ODST.ODST imo had one of the best Halo campaigns,much better than Halo 3's.

HellJumper wrote:

TRF wrote:

Teckno wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

Hes now a mindless PS3 fantard, You must too also join the cult NOAW!
:whip: <<< Sony

There's your answer, solid.

No, the real reason is that I lost interest. I loved Halo for its gameplay/multiplayer, and it was drastically changed in Reach. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Reach beta, but it didn't feel like a genuine Halo game. Reach isn't bad, it's just not a real Halo game in terms of gameplay and there are better shooters coming out this year.

I loved Reach.If they kept the multiplayer pretty much the same as Halo 3 I would have lost it.Halo 3's gameplay was getting a bit stale.It was the exact same as Halo Ce's and Halo 2"s.Boring.But now with the new gameplay its fresh again.It actually makes me want to play it(Halo 3 never did that for me).

BTW,ODST was not crap.A close to AAA score game isnt crap sorry to say.If it was crap,it wouldnt have gotten those scores.and I loves ODST.ODST imo had one of the best Halo campaigns,much better than Halo 3's.

Its cause Halo ODST was the same thing as Halo 3 except different story and firefight. It brought nothing new to the table. Its a Halo game which justifies it an AA or higher. Halo itself is a great game (Which gives it AA automatically), the reason it didn't get AAA like other Halo titles is cause nothing was new!

Teckno wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

TRF wrote:

Teckno wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:

solidstudios wrote:

TRF wrote:I'm getting kinda sick of Halo now TBH. ODST was crap, and Reach looks like it will be decent, but uninspired. Halo's just losing the magic it once had. If 343 can bring Halo back to the way it was (meaning Halo 3-like multiplayer), then I'll give it a shot.

i thought you were psyched for Halo: Reach?

I was, but now I couldn't care less. I doubt I'll buy the game.

O_O oh....what made you not care anymore?

Hes now a mindless PS3 fantard, You must too also join the cult NOAW!
:whip: <<< Sony

There's your answer, solid.

No, the real reason is that I lost interest. I loved Halo for its gameplay/multiplayer, and it was drastically changed in Reach. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Reach beta, but it didn't feel like a genuine Halo game. Reach isn't bad, it's just not a real Halo game in terms of gameplay and there are better shooters coming out this year.

I loved Reach.If they kept the multiplayer pretty much the same as Halo 3 I would have lost it.Halo 3's gameplay was getting a bit stale.It was the exact same as Halo Ce's and Halo 2"s.Boring.But now with the new gameplay its fresh again.It actually makes me want to play it(Halo 3 never did that for me).

BTW,ODST was not crap.A close to AAA score game isnt crap sorry to say.If it was crap,it wouldnt have gotten those scores.and I loves ODST.ODST imo had one of the best Halo campaigns,much better than Halo 3's.

Its cause Halo ODST was the same thing as Halo 3 except different story and firefight. It brought nothing new to the table. Its a Halo game which justifies it an AA or higher. Halo itself is a great game (Which gives it AA automatically), the reason it didn't get AAA like other Halo titles is cause nothing was new!

No the reason it didn't get AAA was because it's really a 4.5/10, but reviewers were generous. >.<

A little too quote happy?

ODST sucked compared to all the Other Halos. This is undeniable.

Some people might have liked it, majority of real GAMERS didn't. You can't base games off of reviewers. That's stupid. It's like basing Deadly Premonition from the reviews. LMFAO.

Zillah wrote:A little too quote happy?

ODST sucked compared to all the Other Halos. This is undeniable.

Some people might have liked it, majority of real GAMERS didn't. You can't base games off of reviewers. That's stupid. It's like basing Deadly Premonition from the reviews. LMFAO.

Exactly. Deadly Premonition is an awesome game.

Actually,many gamers liked it.The story and campaign was really fun,and firefight was epic.But no matter how much you deny it,it is still a great game.If it wasnt it wouldnt have gotten those reviews.And zillah,you can base games off reviews.Reviews are the only logical factor in game debates,everything else is oppinion.

Oh and ODST was an expansion .That was why it was called Halo 3 ODST.So of course it doesnt measure up to full Halo games,but it does make Halo 3 a helluva lot better.ODST's campaign was so much better than Halo 3's

Overall,ODST was a great game,you might not like it,but you cant logicaly call it bad.

HellJumper wrote:Actually,Halo fanboys liked it.The story and campaign was really fun,and firefight was epic.But no matter how much you deny it,it is still a game that was given the score because it is Halo.If it wasnt it wouldnt have gotten those reviews.And zillah,you can base games off reviews.Reviews are the only logical factor in game debates,everything else is oppinion.

Oh and ODST was an expansion .That was why it was called Halo 3 ODST.So of course it doesnt measure up to full Halo games,but it does make Halo 3 a helluva lot better.ODST's campaign was so much better than Halo 3's

Overall,ODST was a great game,you might not like it,but you cant logicaly call it bad.

Reviews are opinions too.



It sure wasn't priced as an expansion

Sonji wrote:

HellJumper wrote:Actually,Halo fanboys liked it.The story and campaign was really fun,and firefight was epic.But no matter how much you deny it,it is still a game that was given the score because it is Halo.If it wasnt it wouldnt have gotten those reviews.And zillah,you can base games off reviews.Reviews are the only logical factor in game debates,everything else is oppinion.

Oh and ODST was an expansion .That was why it was called Halo 3 ODST.So of course it doesnt measure up to full Halo games,but it does make Halo 3 a helluva lot better.ODST's campaign was so much better than Halo 3's

Overall,ODST was a great game,you might not like it,but you cant logicaly call it bad.

Reviews are opinions too.

Not really.If a reviewer just said "I didnt like ODST's story and ODST was boring imo" then it would just be an oppinion.But reviewers Review every aspect of the game. You know,thats why its called an review,not an impression or oppinion.....

But some reviewers may view the game differently. For example. A reviewer might say ODST looked beautiful and give it a review of 100/100. Another can say it looked horrid and give it a review of 40/100. Reviews are opinions. Another might say the controls are clunky, while another says they are perfect. It is all preference. If you fail to see that, you are blind.

Sonji wrote:But some reviewers may view the game differently. For example. A reviewer might say ODST looked beautiful and give it a review of 100/100. Another can say it looked horrid and give it a review of 40/100. Reviews are opinions.

lol name me a game that uffered like that?If a game has shit graphics,then im pretty sure all reviewers will say "bad graphics".If a game had great graphics,then all the reviewers will say "great graphics".Sometimes there will be a bad reviewer,but most of the time its not like that.Most of the time the game reviews are close to the same.

Overall,reviews hold weight in debates.If me and you were debating,and I said killzone was pure shit,your only defense is the reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ds/battlesofprinceofpersia?q=Prince%20of%20Persia

Look at how the reviews drop. Look at how much they differ. From an 85 to a 40.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halo3odst?q=Halo%203:%20ODST

Look at how the reviews drop.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/toystory3

Look at how the reviews dropped. And that's a film