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

Forums - Gaming - Rumors: Microsoft Wants to Annualize Halo, Leaks Controlled Because of Low January Numbers

KingdomHeartsFan on 03 February 2014
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


No...just no

Yes...just yes.  Only need 1 game a year for an annualized series.  

Based on YOUR and only YOUR definition of an annualized "serie" (love how you changed from game to serie by the way, I start to see pattern here, keep going).

What?  That doesn't even make any sense.  Halo Wars and Reach both came out in the same year so based on your or my defintion the release of Wars is irrelavent cause you only need 1 game a year for a series to be annualized. 

I'm done with this, whatever please you. Good night lol

Okay...I don't see how you thought that only fit my definition of an annalized series when it obviously is irrelavent for both since Reach came out in the same year anyway.


My reason for saying "No...just no" is that Reach and Halo Wars weren't the same year

Mb its ODST and Wars is the same year, my point still stands though.



Around the Network
jlmurph2 on 03 February 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


No...just no

Yes...just yes.  Only need 1 game a year for an annualized series.  

Based on YOUR and only YOUR definition of an annualized "serie" (love how you changed from game to serie by the way, I start to see pattern here, keep going).

What?  That doesn't even make any sense.  Halo Wars and Reach both came out in the same year so based on your or my defintion the release of Wars is irrelavent cause you only need 1 game a year for a series to be annualized. 

I'm done with this, whatever please you. Good night lol

Okay...I don't see how you thought that only fit my definition of an annalized series when it obviously is irrelavent for both since Reach came out in the same year anyway.


My reason for saying "No...just no" is that Reach and Halo Wars weren't the same year

Mb its ODST and Wars is the same year, my point still stands though.


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.



KingdomHeartsFan on 03 February 2014
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Imaginedvl said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


No...just no

Yes...just yes.  Only need 1 game a year for an annualized series.  

Based on YOUR and only YOUR definition of an annualized "serie" (love how you changed from game to serie by the way, I start to see pattern here, keep going).

What?  That doesn't even make any sense.  Halo Wars and Reach both came out in the same year so based on your or my defintion the release of Wars is irrelavent cause you only need 1 game a year for a series to be annualized. 

I'm done with this, whatever please you. Good night lol

Okay...I don't see how you thought that only fit my definition of an annalized series when it obviously is irrelavent for both since Reach came out in the same year anyway.


My reason for saying "No...just no" is that Reach and Halo Wars weren't the same year

Mb its ODST and Wars is the same year, my point still stands though.


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.



jlmurph2 on 03 February 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.



KingdomHeartsFan on 03 February 2014
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.

Okay but they still count in the series.  When you look at the Cod series do you only include the games made by one developer?  No you include them all.



Around the Network
jlmurph2 on 03 February 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.

Okay but they still count in the series.  When you look at the Cod series do you only include the games made by one developer?  No you include them all.


No I include the big marketing releases with their own multiplayer. If they aren't either one of those two then I don't consider it a main game. Like that one god awful Vita game, it may have had its own multiplayer(not sure) but for a COD game it didn't have a big release or high marketing.



KingdomHeartsFan on 03 February 2014
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.

Okay but they still count in the series.  When you look at the Cod series do you only include the games made by one developer?  No you include them all.


No I include the big marketing releases with their own multiplayer. If they aren't either one of those two then I don't consider it a main game. Like that one god awful Vita game, it may have had its own multiplayer(not sure) but for a COD game it didn't have a big release or high marketing.

Very selective requirements there lol.  Even so ODST had firefight which was its own multiplayer so by your criteria you still include it.



jlmurph2 on 03 February 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.

Okay but they still count in the series.  When you look at the Cod series do you only include the games made by one developer?  No you include them all.


No I include the big marketing releases with their own multiplayer. If they aren't either one of those two then I don't consider it a main game. Like that one god awful Vita game, it may have had its own multiplayer(not sure) but for a COD game it didn't have a big release or high marketing.

Very selective requirements there lol.  Even so ODST had firefight which was its own multiplayer so by your criteria you still include it.

That's Co-op, every Halo has Co-op.



KingdomHeartsFan on 03 February 2014
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:


Neither one was a major game, both spin offs. Hell ODST even had Halo 3's multiplayer.

They were both big AAA games in the Halo series, just cause they don't have a number in the name doesn't mean they don't count in the series.


1 wasnt developed by Bungie and the other has Halo 3's multiplayer, I don't consider them "big games" for 2009.

Okay but they still count in the series.  When you look at the Cod series do you only include the games made by one developer?  No you include them all.


No I include the big marketing releases with their own multiplayer. If they aren't either one of those two then I don't consider it a main game. Like that one god awful Vita game, it may have had its own multiplayer(not sure) but for a COD game it didn't have a big release or high marketing.

Very selective requirements there lol.  Even so ODST had firefight which was its own multiplayer so by your criteria you still include it.

That's Co-op, every Halo has Co-op.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/multiplayer



jlmurph2 on 03 February 2014
KingdomHeartsFan said:
jlmurph2 said:

That's Co-op, every Halo has Co-op.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/multiplayer

Ok, you pulled up the oxford dictionary definition of multiplayer lol doesn't change what I said. 

Without that Halo 3 multiplayer disc that had all the DLC on it, the game would have been worth $29.99.