Halo: Reach – Can Halo 4 Succeed without Bungie?

Coming out of e3, one thing was for certain, the Halo franchise is here to stay with or without Bungie at the helm. Join us as Adriaan Noordzij examines if the Halo-franchise can thrive without Bungie at the wheel.

 

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Nathan Donarum says:

    Interesting analysis.

    First, running away is definitely good strategy. I need to adopt that.

    As for your other questions… I don’t know whether 343i can actually live up to the Halo franchise. Is it true that they’re comprised of former Bungie employees? Yes. But the main difference, as I see it, is how integrated into Microsoft they are. Bungie was never as integrated with them as 343i seems to be. And honestly, Microsoft has a bad history with acquiring companies in such a way (there’s a reason so many people feared their acquisition of Skype). Aside from which, as a development team of their own, 343i is not Bungie. They’re untested, and until they’ve proven themselves with at least a couple games, I’ll stay skeptical of whether they can deliver or not.

    Should more Halo games be made, and is it milking the franchise? Short answers? No, and yes, respectively. Technically, there have been 5 Halo games, so Halo 4 is really Halo 6. With that in mind, it makes a brand new trilogy seem a lot less appealing. After the new trilogy, we’ll have gotten 8 Halo games (and I’m not counting Halo Wars, since it’s not FPS). 8? Really? Granted, many, many series have gone through 8 iterations, and more. But Halo, as I’ve experienced it, has not changed to such a degree as to keep itself fresh over a whole 8 games. I’ll admit to not being a big FPS fan, but Halo was one of the few FPS I truly enjoyed – I used to have those Halo parties in high school, loved playing my own copy on PC multiplayer – and even I think it’s getting a little tired. Am I fundamentally opposed to new Halo games? No. I’m more opposed to new Halo games so soon.

    Which brings me to my opinion that it’s definitely milking the franchise. You can’t blame Microsoft. It’s their main and most major first-party series. Without it, what the hell do they have? But forgiving them for being obvious aside, it’s clear that even if the games are adequate, or even good, it’s still milking the franchise. Microsoft wants money, and wants to keep their precious franchise alive. Halo sells millions, and it has diehard, devoted fans who will buy the games regardless of whether or not they’re actually fresh, or good. Microsoft understands this, and so the decision is simple. What I find interesting is their confidence (or perhaps arrogance) at announcing not just one new game, but three. That locks them in place to make them whether they’re really that good or popular.

  2. Orange says:

    If Call of Duty can survive without Infinity Ward then so can Halo. Halo is a brand name game it will sell just because of the word Halo slapped on to it. The baseline is already their they just have to build upon that and they are good.

    • admin says:

      I guess the difference has been that CoD has always had the split development. ITs not like we had Modern Warfare and then Modern Warfare 2, there was always Treyarch games there.

      I think a better… comparison is probably Metroid since Nintendo hasn’t developed one internally in like 20 years, but franchises keeps on trucking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *