That's not true. Halo 3 came out in 2007, but Wars and ODST both came out in 2009. Also, ODST used the same Halo 3 multiplayer; it wasn't replaced until Reach came out in 2010, three years after Halo 3. And Halo 4 didn't come out until late this year, which is two years after Reach. We had three years to enjoy Halo 3, and two years to enjoy Reach.
One of the big reasons COD's multiplayer is so drab is because a new game replaces the old one each year, and it's the main reason people keep saying that each COD is the same just with different guns and different maps. This applies to a bunch of other games too (Madden, Assassin's Creed, Dragon Ball, etc). The core mechanic is left the same, while only superficial changes are made to give the appearance of a different game.
There are two problems with this. First, it doesn't give the developers the time to work on their core model. So much work is put into the campaign and into minor tweaks between games that the core of the game proper will remain the same; for that reason, COD is already the second coming of Street Fighter 2. Second, we won't have time to enjoy each game. What's the point of racking up decent stats and unlocking all the armor when the next game will just be out in a year? Why even bother?
And so, that's where my comment comes in. Why worry about being banned when the next game comes out in just a year anyway? It's one thing if you're console banned. But for simple game bans (especially the temp-bans I keep hearing people getting scared about) it doesn't make sense to worry.
On that note, if the next Halo does come out next year, I'll probably get it used for the campaign and then return it once I've beaten it, then use that money to buy a game I plan on playing longer.















Reply With Quote















