Forums / Games / Halo: Reach and Legacy Halo

why halo 3 do not have a anniversary

OP DarklusterX 05

I was hoping H3 is gonna get a special treatment or legendary gift for the halo gamers and fans but nothing has been release.
Eh i guess they're putting all efforts into Halo 6.
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
fizzy14 wrote:
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
That IS what a remaster is. All remasters - Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, they are all nothing more than games being re-released at a higher resolution, often 1920x1080 (1080p) and where possible, 60fps.

You are thinking of the Anniversary treatment where they added an extra graphics engine over the game. That is not what a remaster is and is unique to Halo CEA and H2A. That also costs time and money to do, not to mention additional server costs and further segregation of the player base. Halo 3 does not need 'Anniversary' treatment, it needs its remaster (MCC) to be fixed with players often referencing the hit detection issues as a result of the change to 60fps.
fizzy14 wrote:
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
That IS what a remaster is. All remasters - Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, they are all nothing more than games being re-released at a higher resolution, often 1920x1080 (1080p) and where possible, 60fps.

You are thinking of the Anniversary treatment where they added an extra graphics engine over the game. That is not what a remaster is and is unique to Halo CEA and H2A. That also costs time and money to do, not to mention additional server costs and further segregation of the player base. Halo 3 does not need 'Anniversary' treatment, it needs its remaster (MCC) to be fixed with players often referencing the hit detection issues as a result of the change to 60fps.
In the context of Halo, h3 in mcc is not a remaster.
fizzy14 wrote:
fizzy14 wrote:
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
That IS what a remaster is. All remasters - Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, they are all nothing more than games being re-released at a higher resolution, often 1920x1080 (1080p) and where possible, 60fps.

You are thinking of the Anniversary treatment where they added an extra graphics engine over the game. That is not what a remaster is and is unique to Halo CEA and H2A. That also costs time and money to do, not to mention additional server costs and further segregation of the player base. Halo 3 does not need 'Anniversary' treatment, it needs its remaster (MCC) to be fixed with players often referencing the hit detection issues as a result of the change to 60fps.
In the context of Halo, h3 in mcc is not a remaster.
You can't change the definitions because it's Halo. Halo 3 in MCC is a remaster, end of story.
fizzy14 wrote:
fizzy14 wrote:
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
That IS what a remaster is. All remasters - Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, they are all nothing more than games being re-released at a higher resolution, often 1920x1080 (1080p) and where possible, 60fps.

You are thinking of the Anniversary treatment where they added an extra graphics engine over the game. That is not what a remaster is and is unique to Halo CEA and H2A. That also costs time and money to do, not to mention additional server costs and further segregation of the player base. Halo 3 does not need 'Anniversary' treatment, it needs its remaster (MCC) to be fixed with players often referencing the hit detection issues as a result of the change to 60fps.
In the context of Halo, h3 in mcc is not a remaster.
You can't change the definitions because it's Halo. Halo 3 in MCC is a remaster, end of story.
You do realize that there's no definition here to change? To you it may just mean improving the graphical fidelity to any extent, but there's nothing wrong with thinking that it should entail something more than that. This is especially understandable in the context of Halo, since CEA kind of defined what remastering means for Halo games, and Halo 3 didn't get that same treatment.

At the end of the day, you know what fizzy14 meant. Insisting that they're wrong because you don't like how they use a certain word is besides the point: Halo 3 didn't get the same treatment as Halo CE and 2.
I honestly believe they'll remaster Halo 3 eventually. We'll just have to wait a while. I do believe that a Halo 3 remaster could have been here sooner though if the launch of MCC didn't suck so bad. More players would still be playing and pushing for it.
tsassi wrote:
fizzy14 wrote:
fizzy14 wrote:
Halo 3 has been remastered. It's part of the MCC. Same with Halo 4.

That, and Halo 3 is still active on Xbox 360 and Xbox One via BC. Halo CE and Halo 2 made sense to remaster because both games got additional features that were not available on consoles (Halo CE only had online on PC, Halo 2's multiplayer was offline until MCC). Halo 3 is still playable and perfectly fine.
Thats not necessarily a "remaster", its just a re-release in 1080p and 60fps.
That IS what a remaster is. All remasters - Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, they are all nothing more than games being re-released at a higher resolution, often 1920x1080 (1080p) and where possible, 60fps.

You are thinking of the Anniversary treatment where they added an extra graphics engine over the game. That is not what a remaster is and is unique to Halo CEA and H2A. That also costs time and money to do, not to mention additional server costs and further segregation of the player base. Halo 3 does not need 'Anniversary' treatment, it needs its remaster (MCC) to be fixed with players often referencing the hit detection issues as a result of the change to 60fps.
In the context of Halo, h3 in mcc is not a remaster.
You can't change the definitions because it's Halo. Halo 3 in MCC is a remaster, end of story.
You do realize that there's no definition here to change? To you it may just mean improving the graphical fidelity to any extent, but there's nothing wrong with thinking that it should entail something more than that. This is especially understandable in the context of Halo, since CEA kind of defined what remastering means for Halo games, and Halo 3 didn't get that same treatment.

At the end of the day, you know what fizzy14 meant. Insisting that they're wrong because you don't like how they use a certain word is besides the point: Halo 3 didn't get the same treatment as Halo CE and 2.
He is saying that Halo 3 is not remastered. I said it has been remastered, which is correct. It is not a matter of how a certain word has been used, a remaster by all examples in the industry is taking a game and improving the resolution and where applicable the framerate for a subsequent re-release on a newer iteration of a console. There is no discussion regarding this. You can try to spin it as much as you like but the fact remains the same - No other game other than Halo CE and Halo 2 in this industry has had any sort of 'Anniversary treatment'. I never once said that there is anything wrong with an Anniversary edition of Halo, nor is he not entitled to want more, rather that what he said is a re-release being not a remaster is incorrect.

You have Remasters and Remakes, those are the standard. Halo CE and Halo 2 are unique in that they kept the game the same but invested in a new graphics engine to run on top of the game at the same time, so as to not change the gameplay whilst at the same time as stated in my earlier post, they provided additional functionality that was not available in Halo CE (online gameplay was only on PC) or returned functionality that was lost (Halo 2 Xbox Live). No other example in the industry has done this. To say that Halo 3, which has been remastered in the MCC to run at 1920x1080@60fps is not a remaster shows a lack of understanding on the topic.

I gave examples to back this up. For discussion, I even gave examples as to why Halo 3 does not need the 'Anniversary treatment' from a business perspective. It is not as simple as saying it should be done because some fans want it. Equally, I even justified why Halo CE and Halo 2 deserved it. H3A would take more resources to build for the graphics engine, more servers to allow for online gameplay, further segregate the fanbase across more Halo FPS titles on the current generation and possibly impact Halo 6's release. Right now, it is not feasible. By all accounts, if the 'Halo fanbase' does not accept a remaster to be a remaster because it's not go the 'Anniversary treatment' then where does this end? It is the only fanbase I'm aware of personally based on these forums that is expecting all of the Halo games to receive the same treatment. If anything, Reach is the only game in the franchise that has not had any sort of remaster, so that one could be justified and perhaps added to MCC but only after the game is fixed.

Quite simply, giving Halo 3 the 'Anniversary treatment' raises a number of issues. For the fans, yes, H2A's art style is better than H5 and it would be nice to see but IF it was to be done, then it would make sense to do it to Halo 3's remaster in the MCC. The context is irrelevant because a remaster is a remaster, no matter how people would like to try to spin it. I respect you trying to defend him but it does not change facts - Halo 3 in MCC is a remastered version of Halo 3.
He is saying that Halo 3 is not remastered. I said it has been remastered, which is correct. It is not a matter of how a certain word has been used, a remaster by all examples in the industry is taking a game and improving the resolution and where applicable the framerate for a subsequent re-release on a newer iteration of a console. There is no discussion regarding this. You can try to spin it as much as you like but the fact remains the same - No other game other than Halo CE and Halo 2 in this industry has had any sort of 'Anniversary treatment'. I never once said that there is anything wrong with an Anniversary edition of Halo, nor is he not entitled to want more, rather that what he said is a re-release being not a remaster is incorrect.

You have Remasters and Remakes, those are the standard. Halo CE and Halo 2 are unique in that they kept the game the same but invested in a new graphics engine to run on top of the game at the same time, so as to not change the gameplay whilst at the same time as stated in my earlier post, they provided additional functionality that was not available in Halo CE (online gameplay was only on PC) or returned functionality that was lost (Halo 2 Xbox Live). No other example in the industry has done this. To say that Halo 3, which has been remastered in the MCC to run at 1920x1080@60fps is not a remaster shows a lack of understanding on the topic.

I gave examples to back this up. For discussion, I even gave examples as to why Halo 3 does not need the 'Anniversary treatment' from a business perspective. It is not as simple as saying it should be done because some fans want it. Equally, I even justified why Halo CE and Halo 2 deserved it. H3A would take more resources to build for the graphics engine, more servers to allow for online gameplay, further segregate the fanbase across more Halo FPS titles on the current generation and possibly impact Halo 6's release. Right now, it is not feasible. By all accounts, if the 'Halo fanbase' does not accept a remaster to be a remaster because it's not go the 'Anniversary treatment' then where does this end? It is the only fanbase I'm aware of personally based on these forums that is expecting all of the Halo games to receive the same treatment. If anything, Reach is the only game in the franchise that has not had any sort of remaster, so that one could be justified and perhaps added to MCC but only after the game is fixed.

Quite simply, giving Halo 3 the 'Anniversary treatment' raises a number of issues. For the fans, yes, H2A's art style is better than H5 and it would be nice to see but IF it was to be done, then it would make sense to do it to Halo 3's remaster in the MCC. The context is irrelevant because a remaster is a remaster, no matter how people would like to try to spin it. I respect you trying to defend him but it does not change facts - Halo 3 in MCC is a remastered version of Halo 3.
The issue here is your insistance that there's only one way, and that it's your way. Words often have multiple meanings, and the meaning varies based on the context. There's nothing wrong with not considering something a remaster if there has been no other changes than the resolution and framerate. Which is not to say that anyone should go to a God of War fan and insist that the God of War Collection is not a remaster, because that's just being intentionally confusing, and lacks any awareness of context. However, going to a thread about a Halo 3 Anniversary, and saying that Halo 3 has been remastered is equally context-blind, since we all know that when Halo fans talk about remastering Halo games, they mean giving it completely upgraded graphics, because that's how it has traditionally worked with Halo, so that's how people interpret it in the Halo community.

Also, out of curiosity, I checked some of the games you listed. Ratchet & Clank and Resident Evil, definitely look like more than "games being re-released at a higher resolution".
tsassi wrote:
He is saying that Halo 3 is not remastered. I said it has been remastered, which is correct. It is not a matter of how a certain word has been used, a remaster by all examples in the industry is taking a game and improving the resolution and where applicable the framerate for a subsequent re-release on a newer iteration of a console. There is no discussion regarding this. You can try to spin it as much as you like but the fact remains the same - No other game other than Halo CE and Halo 2 in this industry has had any sort of 'Anniversary treatment'. I never once said that there is anything wrong with an Anniversary edition of Halo, nor is he not entitled to want more, rather that what he said is a re-release being not a remaster is incorrect.

You have Remasters and Remakes, those are the standard. Halo CE and Halo 2 are unique in that they kept the game the same but invested in a new graphics engine to run on top of the game at the same time, so as to not change the gameplay whilst at the same time as stated in my earlier post, they provided additional functionality that was not available in Halo CE (online gameplay was only on PC) or returned functionality that was lost (Halo 2 Xbox Live). No other example in the industry has done this. To say that Halo 3, which has been remastered in the MCC to run at 1920x1080@60fps is not a remaster shows a lack of understanding on the topic.

I gave examples to back this up. For discussion, I even gave examples as to why Halo 3 does not need the 'Anniversary treatment' from a business perspective. It is not as simple as saying it should be done because some fans want it. Equally, I even justified why Halo CE and Halo 2 deserved it. H3A would take more resources to build for the graphics engine, more servers to allow for online gameplay, further segregate the fanbase across more Halo FPS titles on the current generation and possibly impact Halo 6's release. Right now, it is not feasible. By all accounts, if the 'Halo fanbase' does not accept a remaster to be a remaster because it's not go the 'Anniversary treatment' then where does this end? It is the only fanbase I'm aware of personally based on these forums that is expecting all of the Halo games to receive the same treatment. If anything, Reach is the only game in the franchise that has not had any sort of remaster, so that one could be justified and perhaps added to MCC but only after the game is fixed.

Quite simply, giving Halo 3 the 'Anniversary treatment' raises a number of issues. For the fans, yes, H2A's art style is better than H5 and it would be nice to see but IF it was to be done, then it would make sense to do it to Halo 3's remaster in the MCC. The context is irrelevant because a remaster is a remaster, no matter how people would like to try to spin it. I respect you trying to defend him but it does not change facts - Halo 3 in MCC is a remastered version of Halo 3.
The issue here is your insistance that there's only one way, and that it's your way. Words often have multiple meanings, and the meaning varies based on the context. There's nothing wrong with not considering something a remaster if there has been no other changes than the resolution and framerate. Which is not to say that anyone should go to a God of War fan and insist that the God of War Collection is not a remaster, because that's just being intentionally confusing, and lacks any awareness of context. However, going to a thread about a Halo 3 Anniversary, and saying that Halo 3 has been remastered is equally context-blind, since we all know that when Halo fans talk about remastering Halo games, they mean giving it completely upgraded graphics, because that's how it has traditionally worked with Halo, so that's how people interpret it in the Halo community.

Also, out of curiosity, I checked some of the games you listed. Ratchet & Clank and Resident Evil, definitely look like more than "games being re-released at a higher resolution".
For reference, Resident Evil I was referring to the version released on Xbox One and PS4, which was a remaster of the Gamecube Remake. Ratchet and Clank I was referring to the HD Trilogy, not the Remake of the original released on PS4, which it even states in the Ratchet and Clank link you provided ‘Remake’. That I will accept I should have been more clear with.

Is it not equally as foolish to assume that all Halo fans assume a remaster is an Anniversary edition? There are people here who are fully aware of the difference so it is wrong to say because they’re Halo fans they will only know a remaster to be an ‘Anniversary edition’. We can agree to disagree on this topic.
We all know how Halo 6 will be unfortunately, so atleast give us H3A