By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

NightDragon83 on 04 July 2012

Well that "Halo killer" turned out to be COD. Halo was the #1 FPS franchise until the first Modern Warfare came out. Since then it's been all COD ever since, and honestly I prefer it that way since I find Halo's gameplay dated compared to most other shooters. The pace is slow, it plays like a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with regenerative health, and you can unload entire clips of ammo into your enemies or opponents and they won't die, but punch them in the face with the butt-end of your rifle and they go down quicker than a $5 hooker.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
spenderzz on 04 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
I remember when Darksiders was hailed as the "Zelda killer."


The only thing Darksiders killed is my happiness for the entire time I tried to play it.



NightDragon83 on 04 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Good grief. I'm so tired of people complaining that something is too popular. What does it really hurt you that other people enjoy a game series so much. If you don't care for something I suggest you stop giving a crap about it and move on. I don't play sports games, they come out every year, but I don't give enough of a crap about sports to care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned the entire sports genre doesn't exist. It has no baring on my life.

Halo is super popular and so is COD. But there are literally so many non-FPS games that there's too many to play. I have a stack of games, most of which aren't FPS games, that are backlogs waiting for me to play. I love Halo and enjoy COD, but don't play multiplayer, so I'm very much looking forward to Halo 4 and Black Ops 2. But I also can't wait for Tomb Raider, Bioshok Infinite, Aliens CM, Forza Horizon, RE6, Metal Gear Rising, and more. That's on top of all the games that have come out that I haven't picked up yet, like Witcher 2, Spec Ops The Line, Max Payne 3, Asura's Wrath, Armored Core 5, and so many more I doubt I'll even get to play them all.

We, as gamers, are spoiled for choice right now. There are just too many games and there are so many different genres today that nobody is getting left out in the cold.

What exactly is so bad about Halo and COD being so popular? I mean what game isn't being made because of Halo and COD? As far as I'm concerned the popularity of a game or even a genre doesn't limit the popularity of another. Take for instance JRPGs. The only thing slowing down JRPG production is it's own stagnation and consumer apathy. It's not Halo and COD's fault that so few people are interested in JRPGs. It is the JRPG developers fault for relying on overused tropes and archaic gameplay.
If you don't want to play Halo and COD, that's perfectly fine, but please stop complaining that I and other do.

Now that's speaking truth to power, my friend!  I bet the same folks who can't stand COD and complain about its gameplay (even though they don't play it) are the same ones who run out and snatch up the latest cookie cutter JRPG and then come on here and tell everyone how amazing it is and that we all suck for not making JRPGs as popular they believe they should be.

And the best is they'll start shitting on WRPGs shortly after that for the same reason they shit on COD... because they are popular and outsell their favorite franchises by a mile as more and more developers are putting out WRPG style games.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

ironmanDX on 04 July 2012
NightDragon83 said:
Well that "Halo killer" turned out to be COD. Halo was the #1 FPS franchise until the first Modern Warfare came out. Since then it's been all COD ever since, and honestly I prefer it that way since I find Halo's gameplay dated compared to most other shooters. The pace is slow, it plays like a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with regenerative health, and you can unload entire clips of ammo into your enemies or opponents and they won't die, but punch them in the face with the butt-end of your rifle and they go down quicker than a $5 hooker.


Did you play the campaign? Ever tiped a tank and had to get masterchief to flip it? He can flip a tank, let him hit you in the face and see how you "go down"

 

400,000 pre-orders and it's just under half a year away... Halo isn't dead. It just boggles me how people say so. The numbers clearly say otherwise.



NightDragon83 on 04 July 2012
ironmanDX said:
NightDragon83 said:
Well that "Halo killer" turned out to be COD. Halo was the #1 FPS franchise until the first Modern Warfare came out. Since then it's been all COD ever since, and honestly I prefer it that way since I find Halo's gameplay dated compared to most other shooters. The pace is slow, it plays like a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with regenerative health, and you can unload entire clips of ammo into your enemies or opponents and they won't die, but punch them in the face with the butt-end of your rifle and they go down quicker than a $5 hooker.


Did you play the campaign? Ever tiped a tank and had to get masterchief to flip it? He can flip a tank, let him hit you in the face and see how you "go down"

 

400,000 pre-orders and it's just under half a year away... Halo isn't dead. It just boggles me how people say so. The numbers clearly say otherwise.

Did you read my post at all?  Where did I say Halo was dead?  When I said COD was the "Halo killer", it doesn't mean it killed off the franchise, it means it took the top FPS crown away from Halo.  Same way that Sonic was a "Mario killer" back in the 16-bit days... he outsold Mario for awhile and took the platforming crown for a couple of years (at least here in the US), but in no way did he kill Mario as a franchise off.

And yes, I've played the campaigns for every major game in the series (never played Halo Wars and never will).  The first and second games were the pinnacle of FPS on consoles (though honestly I give the edge to Timesplitters 2 and 3 for multiplayer), but by the time 3 came out it was basically the same stuff with HD graphics, and when COD4 hit the scene just 2 months later, it made me and many of my friends almost completely forget about the Halo franchise.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
ironmanDX on 04 July 2012
NightDragon83 said:
ironmanDX said:
NightDragon83 said:
Well that "Halo killer" turned out to be COD. Halo was the #1 FPS franchise until the first Modern Warfare came out. Since then it's been all COD ever since, and honestly I prefer it that way since I find Halo's gameplay dated compared to most other shooters. The pace is slow, it plays like a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with regenerative health, and you can unload entire clips of ammo into your enemies or opponents and they won't die, but punch them in the face with the butt-end of your rifle and they go down quicker than a $5 hooker.


Did you play the campaign? Ever tiped a tank and had to get masterchief to flip it? He can flip a tank, let him hit you in the face and see how you "go down"

 

400,000 pre-orders and it's just under half a year away... Halo isn't dead. It just boggles me how people say so. The numbers clearly say otherwise.

Did you read my post at all?  Where did I say Halo was dead?  When I said COD was the "Halo killer", it doesn't mean it killed off the franchise, it means it took the top FPS crown away from Halo.  Same way that Sonic was a "Mario killer" back in the 16-bit days... he outsold Mario for awhile and took the platforming crown for a couple of years (at least here in the US), but in no way did he kill Mario as a franchise off.

And yes, I've played the campaigns for every major game in the series (never played Halo Wars and never will).  The first and second games were the pinnacle of FPS on consoles (though honestly I give the edge to Timesplitters 2 and 3 for multiplayer), but by the time 3 came out it was basically the same stuff with HD graphics, and when COD4 hit the scene just 2 months later, it made me and many of my friends almost completely forget about the Halo franchise.


Did you read mine at all? The first sentence was a direct reply to you, the second was just a general statement, that is why the 2 sentences weren't connected and I said, "Halo isn't dead. It just boggles me how people say so" not "Halo isn't dead. It just boggles me how you say so".



blkfish92 on 04 July 2012
ironmanDX said:
blkfish92 said:
sethnintendo said:
blkfish92 said:
They both a bother, I miss the days when the RPG genre was King.


When was that?  The PS1 era?


Ya lol, when I first started gaming when I was a kid, ps1/n64 pretty much, mainly ps1 for the golden age of rpgs


Ps1 the golden age of rpg's?? Delete the comment now while you still have a chance!! Run!!! RUN!!!!!


Um no, it's the truth, rpgs were "It" back then.



           

oniyide on 04 July 2012
ironmanDX said:
blkfish92 said:
sethnintendo said:
blkfish92 said:
They both a bother, I miss the days when the RPG genre was King.


When was that?  The PS1 era?


Ya lol, when I first started gaming when I was a kid, ps1/n64 pretty much, mainly ps1 for the golden age of rpgs


Ps1 the golden age of rpg's?? Delete the comment now while you still have a chance!! Run!!! RUN!!!!!

its pretty much a fact. At least in terms of JRPGS, never before or since did a console, get SO many JRPGs of such varying quality and this is the time FF hit its peak



sales2099 on 05 July 2012
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. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Ajescent on 05 July 2012
sales2099 said:
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. 

Not sure if I should be offended by that but whatever.

There's nothing wrong with wanting "everyone to have fun" the world having fun bares no outcome to me exactly the same way the world wollowing in the misery of my victory.

I see no reason to "feel good about myself" when others aren't "winning". That's just creepy in my opinion but really. Whatever.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?