Halo 4 will NOT be released on next-gen Xbox console

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

Teckno wrote:

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

And thats a bad thing? If they keep refreshing the milk its fine by me.

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

And thats a bad thing? If they keep refreshing the milk its fine by me.

Sigh.....

I CLEARLY stated that my definition of milking doesn't mean bad.

Teckno wrote:

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

And thats a bad thing? If they keep refreshing the milk its fine by me.

Sigh.....

I CLEARLY stated that my definition of milking doesn't mean bad.

Then why do you think it should've ended by reach if people only want more halo's.

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

And thats a bad thing? If they keep refreshing the milk its fine by me.

Sigh.....

I CLEARLY stated that my definition of milking doesn't mean bad.

Then why do you think it should've ended by reach if people only want more halo's.

Cause I prefer when a great series doesn't throw out it's title a billion times and suffer a possibly bad reputation. Mario suffered the same fate.

Teckno wrote:

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Old_Spice_Guy wrote:

Teckno wrote:

Calm your pants people. I was referring to Ghost's comment in which he stated stuff about a Halo 5 & 6. You can't deny it wouldn't be milking. Add that to all the spin offs and you got yourself a fleshed out series. I think they should have ended it with Reach, or maybe even Halo 4.

When you say Halo is being "milked," it's very misleading. I don't know about you but whenever I hear a franchise is being "milked," I always think of it as being negative.

Halo 4-6 is going to be:

- a new trilogy
- by a new team,
-on a new engine,
- with new ideas


If MS wanted to milk the Halo franchise, they would have released a reskinned Halo 3 every year since 2007. Instead, they make sure each game is truly unique. For example, you can't say Halo Reach is extremely similar to Halo 3. And even ODST, which was viewed negatively by the Halo community, plays differently than any of the other Halo's. If you consider all of that, then it's not so black and white now is it?

IMO, the next Halo trilogy seems more like a reboot.

Well it depends on your definition of milk. My definition of milking doesn't mean it's bad, but rather a named title being overused. Surely they're is going to be new stuff, but the underlying setting of it all still remains. I mean, take it this way. Let's say after they finished the 2nd trilogy, (halo 4,5,6) then they start a new trilogy, and then another, then another, then another.... Regardless of how much they change it each time, I will find it milking.

And thats a bad thing? If they keep refreshing the milk its fine by me.

Sigh.....

I CLEARLY stated that my definition of milking doesn't mean bad.

Then why do you think it should've ended by reach if people only want more halo's.

Cause I prefer when a great series doesn't throw out it's title a billion times and suffer a possibly bad reputation. Mario suffered the same fate.

Microsoft is slowing Turning Halo into COD with yearly released.

Says Halo isn't milked in a bad way.

Compares it to CoD.

I didn't compare it to COD.

Halo is definitely milked. It doesn't matter how good the games are. Microsoft is putting out games that they know will sell due to Halo's big name.

TRF wrote:

Halo is definitely milked. It doesn't matter how good the games are. Microsoft is putting out games that they know will sell due to Halo's big name.

Agreed. Micorsoft has gone the shitter since like 2009/2010.

So many logical fallacies in peoples arguments. Not even going to bother.

You know that's bad when even I don't want to jump into the debate.

Goddamit alan. Now I feel fucking stupid. Thanks a lot