Quote:Such a trend CLEARLY demonstrates something is wrong with the game, and i think we all know thats true.
My hypothesis as to this decline is H4 was made to appeal to the CoD playerbase, and come the release of CoD Black Ops 2, they all left. ( As seen on the graph)
This left the Halo playerbase with effectively a hybrid Halo/CoD game, that didn't fit in with EITHER of the playerbases. The result is what we see, a AAA title with 75% of its population gone in a month after launch.
Please share your ideas as to why this is happening in the thread below.
Which is unsupportable given the current data because you can't infer opinions from a graph. You can merely describe behavior in this case which may have a lot of different underlying causes, the most important of which I would say is merely "I'm tired with the game." Your null hypothesis (Halo 4 is fine) is unrealistic because it assumes a good game will have precisely (or nearly) the same number of people playing it at any point after release as at release. That again is bonkers, especially considering the bent of the community towards more social interests given past population differences between ranked and social. You simply can't expect people to take Halo 4 as a career complete with a contract to dedicate themselves to this one game. They've got other things to do, other interests to pursue, and Halo is only one item in their busy (or not so busy) lives that is more and more likely to be dropped off completely as people become more and more accustomed (ie. bored) with Halo.
should be the expected norm of reaction (interest is an inverse function of time, play time is directly dependent on interest) which a declining population over time (at a glance, you need to do stats against a control to say for certain) is in accordance with. The key is then to demonstrate that the current curve is greater than expected for that one condition of Halo fatigue and without a baseline (Ie. a game identical to Halo 4 in all terms except that it's unequivocably
good) you can't make that.
And comparisons with COD simply can't be made. If you want to develop a proper taxonomy of video game design you'll have to go back to the Rainbow Six's, Ghost Recons, or earlier to find the features that Halo is supposedly aping from COD. That is merely a derivative work made with the fodder the genre is providing it. It's not the founding member of any clade (besides perhaps a subspecies of -Yoink- military games.)
Nor with that it mind can you suppose that COD features are a detriment to Halo. Looking at the problem objectively you merely have two branches of shooters which have certainly traded genes before (COD: guns, grenades, melee, regenerating health, vehicles. Halo: -Yoink- military jargon spackled into the campaign.) Each item needs to be taken according to an independent value of fitness, according to it's own environmental circumstances. IE. reasonably, cause and effect, (ex. the DMR reduces gameplay by oversimplifying mid-long ranged combat via an overpowered, scoped semi-automatic weapon set against the rest of the sandbox.) But then again that's all to do with how each gameplay feature opperates in Halo
. It doesn't matter one bit if it's in another game too (selection only opperates [in direct terms] according to immediate physical circumstances.)
So, nice phrasing in the scientific method, but you need to follow through with its application.