Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

We thought it was myth...

*Jaws theme*

We thought it was never coming...

*Continuing Jaws*

We all thought that Reach was it...

*Continuing with Jaws still*

Reach was it...

*Dramatic part to Jaws*

... For Bungie.


Microsoft has teased the heck out of our brains with a new Teaser Trailer!



Will the series be concluded here? Will there be more to the trilogy? Will we finally meet the ring-builders?!

I'll continue making updates as they come, so stay tuned!

i got all the halo games that was made for the 360, i will be getting this

I just got an update by watching more of E3! Halo IV will be the start of a new trilogy in the Halo Franchise!

I can't wait!

They won't stop Halo until nobody is playing it anymore. Considering how large the player base is, that won't be for awhile.

#Sideways# wrote:Will we finally meet the ring-builders?!

Nope. Most of the Forerunners died in the war with the Flood, the rest died activating the Halo Array to stop the Flood. Guilty Spark actually tells you this.

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:Will we finally meet the ring-builders?!

Nope. Most of the Forerunners died in the war with the Flood, the rest died activating the Halo Array to stop the Flood. Guilty Spark actually tells you this.

Ah, Guilty Spark (A.K.A. "Tinker Bell" to Johnson.) tells you that they're all dead? Darn. That would have made a good game too.

I am really peaking my mind out in Computing Power trying to find out what the new enemy is!! They already wrapped things up with the Covenant and the Flood[?], and on their Home Page for the game, it states that Master Chief will face a new and more dangerous enemy, so it wouldn't be anything known.

Or would it?

This could be an enemy from one of the Alternate Spin-Offs, and not really mentioned in the games themselves...

Oh. Bingo. It's V'Ger from Star Trek!



Is it me, or does Guilty Spark sound like C-3PO?

Twitchythe3rd wrote:They won't stop Halo until nobody is playing it anymore. Considering how large the player base is, that won't be for awhile.

Especially the multiplayer

#Sideways# wrote:This could be an enemy from one of the Alternate Spin-Offs, and not really mentioned in the games themselves...

Except the only enemies in the spinoffs are the Covenant, the Flood, and the Sentinels.

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:This could be an enemy from one of the Alternate Spin-Offs, and not really mentioned in the games themselves...

Except the only enemies in the spinoffs are the Covenant, the Flood, and the Sentinels.

OK, so figuring this out is improbable. Did you hear the're remastering the first game?

#Sideways# wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:This could be an enemy from one of the Alternate Spin-Offs, and not really mentioned in the games themselves...

Except the only enemies in the spinoffs are the Covenant, the Flood, and the Sentinels.

OK, so figuring this out is improbable. Did you hear the're remastering the first game?

Yeah, and the screens I saw all looked really nice.

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:This could be an enemy from one of the Alternate Spin-Offs, and not really mentioned in the games themselves...

Except the only enemies in the spinoffs are the Covenant, the Flood, and the Sentinels.

OK, so figuring this out is improbable. Did you hear the're remastering the first game?

Yeah, and the screens I saw all looked really nice.

I'm looking forward to it, but I kind of don't like how they made Master Chief's colors so dark from what I've seen.

Who cares right? A Halo is a Halo.

I am excited even if it's just a trailer. With the remake and Halo IV I think I will satisfy my Halo fix.

More of this nonsense? Played Halo 3 and I found the Metroid Prime trilogy to be far superior.

Treetop Maximus wrote:More of this nonsense? Played Halo 3 and I found the Metroid Prime trilogy to be far superior.

Because Microsoft realized that a new Halo game is money in the bank, considering how well the rest of the franchise sold. (It's sold nearly twice as many copies as the Metroid series has despite only having about half the games)

Shadowman wrote:

Treetop Maximus wrote:More of this nonsense? Played Halo 3 and I found the Metroid Prime trilogy to be far superior.

Because Microsoft realized that a new Halo game is money in the bank, considering how well the rest of the franchise sold. (It's sold nearly twice as many copies as the Metroid series has despite only having about half the games)

Sales =/= quality, just in case you're implying that they do.

According to Forbes June 2008 article using NPD sales figures, the best selling video games of all-time in the United States since 1989 (when NPD began tracking video games) are:

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004) - 9.4 million
Guitar Hero III: Legends Of Rock (2007) - 8.2 million
Madden NFL 07 (2006) - 7.7 million
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) - 7.3 million
Madden NFL 06 (2005) - 6.65 million[1]
Halo 2 (2004) - 6.61 million
Madden NFL 08 (2007) - 6.6 million
Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) - 6.25 million
Grand Theft Auto 3 (2001) - 6.2 million
Madden NFL 2005 (2004) - 6.1 million

Do these seriously look like the best games available? Yeah, COD4 is good, but not one of the best games.

Now, back to Halo 3.

Here are games that I have found to be FAR superior to Halo 3:
Every single game in the Metroid series (except for Other M, because I haven't played it yet)
SSBM
SSBB
Animal Crossing series
Non-spinoff Pokemon games
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2
Baja 1000
GOD HAND (mind-blowingly fantastic game; mega super alpha recommended)
Muramasa: The Demon Blade
MX Unleashed
Star Wars Rogue Squadron 3D
Frogger
Frogger 2
Every Fire Emblem game I've played
No More Heroes
Madworld
BIT.TRIP.BEAT
Castle of Shikigami III
Bike Banditz (totally awesome game; highly recommended)
Patriot Dark
COD4 (can't believe I liked that game)
New Super Mario Bros.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Galerians: ASH
Mercenaries
Katamari Damacy
We Love Katamari
DBZBT2
DBZBT3
Bosconian
Touhou 7 (You read that right)
Eden's Aegis
Blue Wish Resurrection
Warning Forever
Wii Sports
Startropics
R-Type
Gradius
Armored Core 3
Minecraft
Team Fortress 2
Solitaire
Minesweeper
Excitebike
Balloon Fighter
Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Plus
Plants Vs. Zombies
Trauma Center: Under the Knife
Warioware: Touched!
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
Kirby: Canvas Curse
Super Mario Advance 2
Astro Boy: Omega Factor
Car Battler Joe
Gadget Racers

Okay, this list is getting too long. I've made my point. Though, I admit that Halo 3's multiplayer is somewhat fun. It's a decent game.

EDIT: I'd be an idiot if I didn't mention Pac-Man as a game that qualifies for the list.

I didn't read that wall of text, but quality =/= important, especially in the face of the Universal Language. (Here's a hint, it's green, flat, and you buy stuff with it)

I actually thought the games I played were fantastic. (Which, mind you, was the first 3) Best ever? Probably not. But they were a series of fantastic FPS games.

Shadowman wrote:I didn't read that wall of text, but quality =/= important, especially in the face of the Universal Language. (Here's a hint, it's green, flat, and you buy stuff with it)

I actually thought the games I played were fantastic. (Which, mind you, was the first 3) Best ever? Probably not. But they were a series of fantastic FPS games.

Well, yes, quality and important are obviously two different things. However, quality is important. Maybe not to big companies. However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

Treetop Maximus wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I didn't read that wall of text, but quality =/= important, especially in the face of the Universal Language. (Here's a hint, it's green, flat, and you buy stuff with it)

I actually thought the games I played were fantastic. (Which, mind you, was the first 3) Best ever? Probably not. But they were a series of fantastic FPS games.

Well, yes, quality and important are obviously two different things. However, quality is important. Maybe not to big companies.

Exactly. Halo makes money, Halo gets sequel. Psychonauts makes no money, Psychonauts 2 is still in the "maybe" area. Quality is irrelevant here, though I think both games had an abundance of it.

Treetop Maximus wrote:However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

And you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying Sales = Quality, and I'm not saying you should buy a game just because it's sold well. I'm saying sales figures are what determine which games get sequels and which games don't. It has nothing to do with what some people (note that Halo games receive exceptionally high critical praise, and many reviews say the second 50 Cent game is actually pretty decent) think of a game.

Why is this even a surprise? Bungie said during interviews about Reach that originally they were gonna do Halo IV but decided to do Reach instead and wanted to leave Halo IV for 343 industries. Can't wait to see the complaints about Halo Anniversary not having the same gameplay by idiots not knowing that the game engine is the same only with a new graphics engine over the top. Looking forward to Halo IV though can't wait to see if 343 can match Bungie.

WHOA!!!

This is my own thread and I wasn't even notified!? Whatisthisidon'teven!?

Chironext wrote:Why is this even a surprise? Bungie said during interviews about Reach that originally they were gonna do Halo IV but decided to do Reach instead and wanted to leave Halo IV for 343 industries. Can't wait to see the complaints about Halo Anniversary not having the same gameplay by idiots not knowing that the game engine is the same only with a new graphics engine over the top. Looking forward to Halo IV though can't wait to see if 343 can match Bungie.

They probably cannot, Bungie did a fantastic job with the Halo series, little rough at the end, but a good job.

Lets hope that 343 doesn't ruin this franchise.

Shadowman wrote:

Treetop Maximus wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I didn't read that wall of text, but quality =/= important, especially in the face of the Universal Language. (Here's a hint, it's green, flat, and you buy stuff with it)

I actually thought the games I played were fantastic. (Which, mind you, was the first 3) Best ever? Probably not. But they were a series of fantastic FPS games.

Well, yes, quality and important are obviously two different things. However, quality is important. Maybe not to big companies.

Exactly. Halo makes money, Halo gets sequel. Psychonauts makes no money, Psychonauts 2 is still in the "maybe" area. Quality is irrelevant here, though I think both games had an abundance of it.

Treetop Maximus wrote:However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

And you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying Sales = Quality, and I'm not saying you should buy a game just because it's sold well. I'm saying sales figures are what determine which games get sequels and which games don't. It has nothing to do with what some people (note that Halo games receive exceptionally high critical praise, and many reviews say the second 50 Cent game is actually pretty decent) think of a game.

Shadowman does have a point, you must look at reviews before you look at sales.

For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

So in short, I'm sure the big company who makes the game care enough to make a good story, but they only want to see dollar signs in their eyes in the longterm.

#Sideways# wrote:For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

Treetop Maximus wrote:However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

So you basically just rephrased my words.

#Sideways# wrote:Lets hope that 343 doesn't ruin this franchise.

#Sideways# wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Shadowman does have a point, you must look at reviews before you look at sales.

For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

So in short, I'm sure the big company who makes the game care enough to make a good story, but they only want to see dollar signs in their eyes in the longterm.

That's not my point at all. My point was that sales figures are what determine which games get sequels. I've said, a few times, that quality (Which is all subjective anyway) is irrelevant here.

Nothing I've said had anything to do with a game's actual quality, since I'm not arguing that point.

343 Industries is basically Bungie. Most of the people at Bungie who worked on the Halo series moved over to 343 Industries. 343 is just Microsoft's branch of Halo, because Bungie wants to move on to other things other than Halo.

Blurrz wrote:343 Industries is basically Bungie. Most of the people at Bungie who worked on the Halo series moved over to 343 Industries. 343 is just Microsoft's branch of Halo, because Bungie wants to move on to other things other than Halo.

Whoops, I meant to add that into my post. Seems I got distracted by people not fully understanding the point I'm trying to make.

Oh... THIS IS A DIS-AS-TUUUURR!!!!

Anyway.

Ahem.

*Cough* *Cough*

Shadowman wrote:

Blurrz wrote:343 Industries is basically Bungie. Most of the people at Bungie who worked on the Halo series moved over to 343 Industries. 343 is just Microsoft's branch of Halo, because Bungie wants to move on to other things other than Halo.

Whoops, I meant to add that into my post. Seems I got distracted by people not fully understanding the point I'm trying to make.

As stated before.

THIS IS A DIS-AS-TURRRRR!!!!

Treetop Maximus wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

Treetop Maximus wrote:However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

So you basically just rephrased my words.

Huh.

I thought you said to judge the sales before buying...

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:Lets hope that 343 doesn't ruin this franchise.

Shadowman wrote:

Not Shadowman wrote:Shadowman does have a point, you must look at reviews before you look at sales.

For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

So in short, I'm sure the big company who makes the game care enough to make a good story, but they only want to see dollar signs in their eyes in the longterm.

That's not my point at all. My point was that sales figures are what determine which games get sequels. I've said, a few times, that quality (Which is all subjective anyway) is irrelevant here.

Nothing I've said had anything to do with a game's actual quality, since I'm not arguing that point.

Fixed.

Anyway, that is true, if you make a sequel to a bad game, you get another bad game, causing sales to go down, causing the game creators to go from: to causing the entire series never to be revamped for 13 years, and this causes good games to have new, even better sequels.

Sorry for not understanding before, it only took elaboration!