What is the statute of limitations on a data point like franchise record sales and population where they can "easily" be dismissed wholesale?There is no "statute of limitations" obviously. It's not a binary thing. It's just that a single data point becomes less and less useful as you try to extrapolate from it further and further into the future. This is just a general thing about data in any kind of system where the time evolution of the data isn't known beforehand. You can go look at stock market data 13 years ago and observe that it's a very poor predictor of stock market data today. You can look at what web pages were popular in 2007 and observe the same thing.
What you're essentially trying to do is take the popularity numbers of Halo 3 (and possibly Halo CE and 2), try to fit some family of curves on them, and argue that the curves that bend upwards or stay constant after Halo 3 are somehow more likely than ones that bend downwards.But that kind of assumption without justification is very easy to dismiss, because it's just an assumption.
In order to use the Halo 3 data as evidence, you're implicitly proposing a model of how the popularity of classic Halo evolves over time. But because you're not putting any evidence forward to support that model (because you probably didn't even know you need/have a model), we can dismiss the model out of hand. And because we can dismiss the model, we can dismiss the data.
The problem with using the age of the data point as a detractor is that it is also the last data point we can actually have before they actually stopped making classic Halo games. No one can demonstrate they still enjoy a particular "webpage" if they stop updating said webpage, but that is beside the point.
I am not using Halo 3 as evidence that the curve will stay the same or curve upward, but to point out that there isn't any evidence that it has plummeted into irrelevance. Mainly because the data doesn't more or less trail off for Halo 3 until Reach released in September 2010 with Halo 3 still going strong well into the CoD era. Again, its not irrefutable proof of classic Halo's potential, but it is more worthy of discussion than some the alternatives that other's have tried to point to.
Could things have changed in the following 10 years? Sure, of course its possible, but the possibility of change is not itself evidence there will be meaningful change.
If we get to ignore one of the few solid data points we actually do have access to what on Earth are we actually supposed discuss in a supposed "evidence" based discussion?As I said before (more or less): the strongest evidence for classic Halo is that there is no evidence against it. There is no reason to expect classic Halo would perform substantially better than modern Halo, but there is also no reason to expect it to perform worse.
An evidence based discussion doesn't have to be about confirming a claim. Sometimes all you can do is observe that the evidence doesn't contradict the claim.
The point isn't that the data we have regarding Halo 3 is perfect predictor of future success, but it is an actual data point related to this franchise specifically relevant historical context. Simply pointing to the number of games with sprint says nothing about Halo or its potential success. All it tells us is that in 2020 sprint was a common mechanic, in many but not all continuously played games.
That is in fact not my default belief(really?), my issue is with specific behaviors such as trying to tell us to deny both the objective reality of Halo 3's commercial success and our own lived experiences playing and enjoying classic Halo and telling us that "well actually you didn't really enjoy Halo that much there just wasn't any 'competition'" or some other garbage to that effect.I don't know. When somebody says "Halo needs sprint because all games have it" or "Halo 3 didn't have competition", do you assume they're saying it in bad faith? Because that's kind of what I got out of your post. Like, I see people being ignorant or unable to entertain ideas that conflict with their beliefs and agendas. But that's just part of being a human. It's usually not malice.
Personally I don't expect a "serious" discussion to any meaningful degree, not even to the degree that anyone could expect a "serious" discussion on a gaming forum. I just don't care to entertain bad faith or otherwise just ignorant behavior cosplaying as a discussion.
I don't know what your idea of "serious" is, but I've had plenty of discussions here I'd describe as "serious". And when I reflect back on my past discussions, the thing that always comes up is "yeah, I should've been more empathetic". Even if the other person was being a jerk, I don't gain anything from just blaming them on everything and moving on, because that's not actionable insight.
Whether its ignorance or malice is irrelevant seeing as I can't read their minds, but the end result is the same as both those arguments rely on us denying lived experience and the little data we do have when you boil it down. Empathy is a two way street, I don't gain anything by "being the bigger person" for entertaining arguments that ask me to deny my own lived reality. I've always accepted the fact that fans of sprint genuinely enjoy sprint, they are not alone, and that at the end of the day they just want to play a Halo game that matches their taste and that's valid. All I'm asking is that they extend the same courtesy.
P.S Yes, I do believe that the data around Halo 3 is a much stronger(relatively speaking) case for classic Halo potential success(though not necessarily record breaking success mind you), than simply pointing to the number of popular games with sprint in 2020 because 1.) There are already obvious successful exceptions regarding sprint and arguably even more basic abilities like the ability to jump. 2.) The success of other games with sprint does not actually say anything about Halo's ability to succeed without sprint.
Again, I'm not
saying its 100% ironclad proof that a classic Halo will
succeed in 202X, but that the actual data we have regarding Halo 3's success next to "modern" shooters is fundamentally more solid ground to stand on speculating based on common sprint is alone.
If you want to think of it as little more than a tiny island in the middle of the ocean that's fine, but I maintain that it is still fundamentally more solid ground to stand on than the alternatives I've been given.