Anyone miss the days when people were trying to find the "Halo killer" and not the "Cod killer"?

[sales2099]

Ajescent said:

sales2099 said:

Ajescent said:

sales2099 said:

Ajescent said:

sales2099 said:
To kill Halo the following criteria must be met:

1. Be a 90+ metacritic score.
2. Can only be a PS3 exclusive (since PS3 is 360s main rival and you can only fight an exclusive with another exclusive).
3. Must match or surpass the sales of the last major Halo release.
4. Gain as much pop culture status or surpass Halo in this regard.

It seems to be that number 3 and 4 are the tricky ones. Hence Halo is still alive and well :).

Why is that a must?

There's grounds to argue that COD took over Halo but that isn't exclusive.

Sure if your talking in pure sales but it isnt the parallel to what Halo is. Halo represents the Xbox brand. So surely its "killer" must represent the competition aka the PS3. 

Depends on who you talk to I guess 

No.

For something to be "killed" it needs to be replaced as either the head of its genre or as you say the head of its brand.

in the case of genres, it can be exclusive to ps3 (but not necessary) in case of brand, it only needs to be ousted by a 360 exclusive and be considered the xbox brand icon.

I put it to you that mario is still "king" of Nintedo land and king of platformers because it has yet to be replaced by another nintendo game or a superior platformer.

There is no "no" as there is no concrete definition. 

Either way, Halo is still king in the exclusive department, and if you include multiplats, you include COD....which sells best on 360 anyway. I can live with either possibility. 

One of the reasons I don't realy enjoy typing with you is that everything always ends up boiling down to a ps3 vs 360 arguement and I really don't like those. Because there's more to gaming than sales, there's more to gaming than which is better, the ps3 or the 360, there's just more.

I agree. Sales is only the reality aspect....aka how the gamers respond to the on-paper quality (metacritic) of games. I am an advocate of both quality and the result of how gamers respond to having access to said quality. Because having a great game or a not so great game sell as they do is so fascinating...because ultimately we decide with our money what is good and desirable. Quality is ultimately subjective. 

But in terms of my 360 vs PS3 mentality.....its just fun making things a competition. Its human nature to be competitive and to have the winner/loser mentality in all things we do. I feel neutral people are like the soccer moms of gaming. Fans make it interesting with competition, while the soccer moms just want everyone to have fun. I cant be a soccer mom in sports and certainly wont be one in video games. Just not fun.