The Book Club gives their verdict on Larry Niven’s RingworldEugene Powers/Alamy It was quite an experience, moving from the technicolour magical realism of Michel Nieva’s wild dystopia, Dengue Boy, to Larry Niven’s slice of classic science fiction, Ringworld, first published in 1970 and very much redolent of the sci-fi writing of that era. Not a wholly bad experience, mind, but quite a jolting change of pace for the New Scientist Book Club. I was a teenager when I last read Ringworld, and a hugely uncritical sort of teenager at that, so I was keen to return to a novel I remembered fondly and see how it stood up to the test of time – and my somewhat more critical eye. The first thing to say is that many of the things I loved about Ringworld were very much still there. This is, for me, a novel that inspires awe – with the vastness of its imagination, the size of its megastructures, the distance it travels in space. I was reminded of that awe early on, when our protagonist Louis Wu (more on him later) recalls standing at the edge of Mount Lookitthat on a distant planet. “The Long Fall River, on that world, ends in the tallest waterfall in known space. Louis’s eyes had followed it down as far as they could penetrate the void mist. The featureless white of the void itself had grasped at his mind, and Louis Wu, half hypnotized, had sworn to live forever. How else could he see all there was to see?” Advertisement That hugeness, that desire for exploration and knowledge and discovery, is one of the main reasons why I love science fiction. What else is out there, and what can we find out about it? From that field of murderous sunflowers on the Ringworld – what a scene! – to Niven’s image of our crew in space, looking at the bottom of the Ringworld and the huge bulge of a deep ocean protruding towards them, Ringworld has this in spades, and I lapped it up. “A man can lose his soul among the white stars… They call it the far look. It is dangerous.” I also very much enjoyed how Niven makes us pick up the breadcrumbs of where we are in time and in technological developments; at one point, Freeman Dyson, he of the Dyson spheres that inspired the Ringworld, is described as “one of the ancient natural philosophers, pre-Belt, almost pre-atomic”. I find that sort of thing delightful, and I was also (largely) amused by Niven’s aliens, from the cowering terror of the Puppeteers to the brilliantly named Speaker-To-Animals (we, the aliens, are the animals). I pictured Speaker as a huge version of our large ginger cat, and rather liked him. As I wrote earlier, though, this is a piece of writing that feels very much of its time, in terms of the somewhat plodding prose and sexist overtones, even if it succeeds (for me) in the wonderful, star-spanning maths and physics of it all. Niven’s characters are pretty one-dimensional. Louis Wu is quite annoying. There could be so much more to Teela, our token woman. And once the crew are on the Ringworld, it all feels a bit “then they went here, then they went there”, rather than being tightly plotted. Join us in reading and discussing the best new science and science fiction books Sign up to newsletter There has been some intense discussion about this novel on our Facebook page, and many of you felt similarly. “While I enjoyed it very much, I kept getting pulled out of the interesting scientific aspects of the story as well as the rollicking adventure by the sexist, boys club aspects. It’s a little sad that Larry Niven’s view of the distant future didn’t involve any advancement in men’s views of women,” said Jennifer Marano. “It reminds me of early spy movies. Beautiful woman who hasn’t sense enough to not be enamored by less than interesting or intelligent male with pretty huge ego,” said Eliza Rose. Alan Perrett was even less impressed with Louis Wu’s behaviour: “I have to admit to finding Louis Wu absolutely creepy. He treats the woman that he professes to love with contempt. He laughs finding out that she’s the result of a eugenics experiment and then, when looking at her, sees her dismay and then keeps laughing. I hope when I’m 200 years old I’ve learned a little more empathy than that.” Gosia Furmanik grew up reading science fiction from Niven’s era because that was what was available – but “eventually, the sexism and lack of female/diverse protagonists put me off sci-fi for a good 15 years”. She only got back into sci-fi when she discovered “that nowadays it’s easy to find books of this genre written by non-white non-men that don’t have this pitfall”. “Ringworld brought me back, not in a good way,” Gosia writes. “While not as blatant as in some of its contemporaries, cringy sexism nevertheless seeps out of this book.” It’s definitely true that Teela’s character arc was the biggest issue for most of us with this book. “I loathed the ending of Teela’s story and the explanation of how her luck led her to come on the mission. It seems a woman can’t have a meaningful existence without a man!” wrote Samatha Lane. Samantha also makes a great point about how “the male human is the most perceptive creature in the universe” created by Niven. “This arrogance about the sheer cleverness of humans stems from traditional humanism which puts humans at the centre of everything – as rational, special, superior beings. Combine that with the recent conquest of space (man landed on the moon the year before) and it’s like a bonfire of the collective ego,” she writes. New Scientist book club Love reading? Come and join our friendly group of fellow book lovers. Every six weeks, we delve into an exciting new title, with members given free access to extracts from our books, articles from our authors and video interviews. Sign up Onto the positives, however: Niall Leighton “enjoyed the sheer scale of the novel” and thinks it hasn’t “dated as badly as much science fiction of this era”, while for Andy Feest, “the science was probably the most interesting thing” (he found the characters “unenjoyable” and the chauvinism “a bit jarring”). Some readers approved of Niven’s heavy hand with the maths – it “definitely added to my enjoyment”, wrote Linda Jones, while Darren Rumbold “especially liked” the Klemperer rosettes. It didn’t work for all of you, though: Phil Gurski “was excited to read this classic sci-fi novel and really, really wanted to enjoy it but the technobabble kept getting in the way. I found it hard to keep up.” Overall, I think the book club found it an interesting exercise to dig into this science fiction classic and hold it up to the light of today. I think we’ll do another classic soon enough, and I’m listening to suggestions from readers who have tipped books by Ursula K. Le Guin, N. K. Jemisin and Joanna Russ as possible palate cleansers. Next up, though, is something a little more modern: Kaliane Bradley’s bestselling time travel novel, The Ministry of Time. Yes, it has a woman as its protagonist, and yes, it passes the Bechdel test. You can read a piece by Kaliane here in which she explains why (and how) she wrote a novel about time travel, and you can check out this fun opener to the book here. Come and read along with us and tell us what you think on our Facebook page. Topics:

MarcosBrXD Member Aug 28, 2024 1,692 I wonder if this pursuit of this in the Halo franchise has enough demand, did fans really want Halo to become a Destiny like? Did the story (or lore) make Halo Halo or was it the Multiplayer that propelled the Series to its peak in Reach...   JigglesBunny Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 36,107 Chicago 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service.   Forerunner Resetufologist The Fallen Oct 30, 2017 18,793 H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach).  Pancracio17 ▲ Legend ▲ Avenger Oct 29, 2017 21,730 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Pretty much. You could go on and on about specific problems like Infinites first year of support, the dropping of plotlines after every game, Halo 5s story, etc. But it all comes down to that.   colorboy Member Apr 5, 2025 174 The definitive death for me was Halo Infinite: - not having coop campaign - nonsense open world - no game on disc These 3 combined absolutely destroyed this series and I am so sad since I loved all 4 first entries  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Halo 2 and 3 were already dipping their toes into the live service model with paid for map packs and post launch updates. I think it was pretty natural for Halo to keep going in that direction. I don't think Halo fans exactly dislike the live service model in theory because it means a game they like can continue to get new content for years and years. Putting aside people's opinions about the campaigns, in terms of multiplayer, the 343 games were lacking a lot of the content fans had come to expect at launch. This hurt each game's momentum out of the gate. I think many fans would say that Halo Infinite currently has a ton of content but think a lot of that should have been available at launch and not take this long to get expected features back into the game.  zoodoo Member Oct 26, 2017 14,540 Montreal MS has problems evolving their franchises. Sony on the other either retire them or completely change them (God of War). Gears has the same problem. The games are great but more of the same. They timidly try to incorporate new stuff like larger areas but the changes are not drastic enough. Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres  wwm0nkey Member Oct 25, 2017 16,795 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The fact Infinite launched without Forge was possibly the dumbest thing. Like they had it, they had a Halo with great gunplay with Infinite finally but didn't have the content to support it, had they had Forge the community could have at least done some heavy lifting for awhile.   Transistor The Walnut King Administrator Oct 25, 2017 41,639 Washington, D.C. 343 caused it's downfall.   PucePikmin Member Apr 26, 2018 5,346 I don't think there's any great mystery about Halo's decline. Bungie left and the games stopped coming as often or being as good.   SoftTaur Member Oct 25, 2017 671 Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since.   BloodHound Member Oct 27, 2017 11,247 This forums playbook is blame everything on live service and AI. Zero critical thinking skills required.  Derbel McDillet ▲ Legend ▲ Member Nov 23, 2022 24,332 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean, it's a lot of freaking modes at this point. Halo 3 has more modes than we'll ask of any shooter except Halo.   Detective Member Oct 27, 2017 3,886 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go.   Ascenion Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 13,105 Mecklenburg-Strelitz 343 was a poorly led and managed studio. It remains to be seen if Halo Studios is just more of the same but 343 just sucked at management. And Halo Infinite is a fundamental failure at understanding what a live service requires.   Stat Member Oct 25, 2017 6,360 I think the other thing is that arena shooters have really dried up. The idea of a standalone arena shooter just isn't a genre that a lot of people like too and people just expect these games with live service battle passes and seasons. Which is a shame.   chickenandrofls Member Oct 27, 2017 667 People will blame 343 but COD4 changed multiplayer tastes and Halo never recovered. Reach fell off quick compared to H3 and by the time H4 came around and tried to ape COD it just came off half ass. I love halo MP to this day but it was wild seeing my entire crew and casual gaming friends all move over to COD.  MasterYoshi Member Oct 27, 2017 12,224 I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Halo should have moved to become something like Battlefront where you could play as virtually any infantry from the game's history. All of the Covenant races, the Flood, all sorts of UNSC ranks. That's what I believe would have been a major success at reinventing Halo's wheel.  Gavalanche Prophet of Regret Member Oct 21, 2021 25,900 I think CoD contributed more to it than anything else. Halo used to be the big multiplayer shooter on console. It revolutionised that area. And then Modern Warfare came along and ate its lunch, and bit by bit the goal shifted. Exclusivity probably didn't help either; it is not a coincidence that Halos woes and console selling woes are hand in hand; now that could be simply because Halo has that big an influence that a bad Halo means that many people buy less xboes. But it also means the potential playerbase isn't as big, especially since most Halo weren't on PC at that time. Meanwhile CoD wasn't exclusive and just grew and grew and grew.   Akira86 Member Oct 25, 2017 21,203 I was content being an all Halo and No-Call of Duty ever player, and lots of people were. They fucked up. Plain and simple. Plenty of people loved Reach(the hate was vocal and online as fuck) and just wanted a similar MP experience out of H4, but it wasn't similar. at all. People accused them of kowtowing to the COD type of game play. All they had to do was fix it in Halo 5 and release it on PC with plenty of maps and great MP. that didn't happen, Shake.  VariantX Member Oct 25, 2017 18,026 Columbia, SC SoftTaur said: Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Spartan customization was also part of progression, whether its just getting to a certain rank, playing on certain difficulties, skulls, or doing specific tasks, you did the stuff to get the customization you wanted and it kept a part of the audience playing. If you take stuff away or put it behind a monetization scheme, then you have to replace it with something else in the hopes that would keep people coming back and they frankly didn't have any thing to replace what was lost.  Kill3r7 Member Oct 25, 2017 29,044 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... .  inkblot Member Mar 27, 2024 1,090 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... first comment  bionic77 Member Oct 25, 2017 33,370 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... Thats how I remember it. COD changed the game. Even on 360 that was THE multiplayer shooter for that generation.   kowhite Member May 14, 2019 7,473 I couldn't tell you what caused the downfall of Halo. Granted I barely played 5 but I liked Infinite.   Multievolution Member Jun 5, 2018 4,179 I still maintain reach was a good game, I put a fair bit of time into it, and enjoyed its lifespan. I think what finished the series off was one part a lack of direction story wise, and one part not knowing how to keep halo both relevant and unique. To the former, I enjoyed 4's story well enough, but learning where they went next put me off ever seeing it. And to the latter, halo needs to just do what it does best, avoid trying to make it into a battle royal as an example. FPS's in general haven't been interesting to me in at least a decade.  MYeager Member Oct 30, 2017 960 I don't get the op. Four wasn't a live service title and 5 wasn't either thought it had some elements. Infinite I wouldn't consider a downfall as it's the most time I've played a Halo title ever, and 3 was my second highest. Live service or not the issue is it exists at a time where arena shooters aren't the mainstream.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 zoodoo said: Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres Click to expand... Click to shrink... To be blunt, I don't really buy into the idea of Halo as a universe that really supports much more than an FPS (which I guessed they could've cribbed from Destiny, but I dunno. It'd tick off the old heads who just want arena, and I don't think it'd pull folks away from destiny or their live service of choice). We as fans can get uber excited about a Halo RPG or a Flood horror game, but the vast majority of the playerbase didn't read the Nylund Books or whatever. They hear Halo and don't think of a vast and rich tapestry of a sci-fi universe, they think a shooter where you kill helium space munchkins. MasterYoshi said: I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Playerbase dropped off a cliff well over a year before they dropped those cutscenes (game launched late 2021, cutscenes were dropped June 2023). and nobody gave a fuck about the MP story until they axed it.  Sordid Plebeian Member Oct 26, 2017 19,835 It all comes down to 343i never knowing what to do with Halo. The only reason Infinite played it so safe is because they burned all their time chasing ideas no one wanted. Don't have much faith in Halo Studios.   T0kenAussie Member Jan 15, 2020 6,019 Halos lore was never strong in game. If you just watch the cutscenes they are clearly vehicles to get to the next level and that's about it. Halos EU especially the books did a lot of the heavy lifting that people are nostalgically remembering as Bungie lore imo I think halo has done an OK job of doing halo things. H1->3 were always reinventing the wheel and adding new things to each game. But overall I'd argue that everyone remembers the sweaty LAN weekends with your mates in the garage doing a system link on blood gulch and sidewinder over the single player story. At least that's the core halo memory I have  Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 6,879 No, the strategy was good, the sheer incompetence of 343i is what caused its downfall.   LilScooby77 Member Dec 11, 2019 12,280 Campaign/co op mode/multiplayer/theater/forge/custom games. Halo Reach will die as the last to launch complete.  Josh5890 I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 26,480 I've always been on the outside looking in, but it always felt like things went downhill after Bungie handed off the franchise to 343.   Bishop89 What Are Ya' Selling? Member Oct 25, 2017 42,741 Melbourne, Australia JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This.   Richietto One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 26,029 North Carolina 343 were just not ready to step into Bungies shoes. They were not at all as skilled as Bungie was. And in the case of Infinite? They released it too soon. It took a year to get 2 maps. That's insane. The game was not going to recover. They are not good at decision making.   Letters Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 5,199 Portugal To me it was the chasing of all kinds of trends instead of leaning into all the things in the gameplay what made it special and unique. Counter-Strike or Street Fighter would also be irrelevant today if they had done the same.   Razgriz-Specter Member Oct 25, 2017 34,486 Detective said: 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3..  Gunman Member Aug 19, 2020 2,220 Agree with the COD factor. Halo already felt old with 3.   Green Marine Member Oct 25, 2017 450 El Paso Transistor said: 343 caused it's downfall. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. For multiplayer, they had already lost the team death match crowd to Call of Duty back in 2007. That leaves you with objective modes, where nobody communicates or plays the objectives. I think they missed an enormous opportunity not being "first to market" with a Helldivers II style persistent PvE mode (could have literally called it "Helljumpers"). Instead they've spent fifteen years getting their ass kicked by Call of Duty and Counter-Strike. As for the campaigns and story telling, this is an even bigger mess. Halo Reach through Halo 3 (including ODST) was five campaigns that told a very cohesive, if vaguely unoriginal story. It often came off as a mixture of Starhammer, Ringworld, and The Flood being a dumb ripoff of the The Many in System Shock 2, but it mostly worked. There 343i games were a mess. They had a great opportunity to break away from the events of the Bungie era, but they decided only four years could pass, because Cortana's story was super important, and couldn't be an aspect of what went on between games. Hilarious, considering this is precisely what they did with Halo Infinite. Then you have a really bad story with Halo 5 (The Covenant knew where to scan and dig for the Portal for the Ark, but had no idea a Forerunner super weapon was buried beneath the Elite home world the whole time? That could have won them the way). The Banished were supposedly welcoming of humans, until they're retreating the the same threat of using the Halo Array to kill everyone. Eight years passed since the Prophet of Regret was murdered, but none of the the other alien factions know it's insta kill for anyone not on a shield world or outside of the Milky Way on The Ark? Zero explanation as to why Atriox's own high ranking soldiers think he died. The Endless are worse than The Flood… for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And this is before getting in to AI a level design issues. They couldn't mimic what GTA IV did in 2008 with an AI driving you around? You could have chosen between a scenic route where you noticed high value targets, or skip to the destination to get back the story after. Outside of "The Road", the last four levels were horrible (more gondola rides… a level that so thoroughly seemed like firefight maps and two boss fights stitched together that you eventually got those levels in Firefight events). They should have focused on human factions resurfacing pre-Covenant conflicts. UNSC were essentially the bad guys before Harvest. The Banished could have been an actual "mercenary" force that worked for humans that paid them, rather than just being a drop in replacement for the Covenant. Just one missed opportunity after another. I still like firefight, but that's the only mode I play in Infinite multiplayer. I hope they turn things around, but I'm not optimistic.  Justin Iacobellis Member Oct 27, 2017 2,446 United States I think Call of Duty 4 and onwards were definitely a factor in Halo's demise. On console (360 and PS3), CoD was one of the only multiplayer-focused shooters that offered a virtually consistent 60 FPS experience without overtly compromising elsewhere. On top of that, the range of ways to earn XP and relatively brisk rate at which you would join a new match created a flow that was difficult to remove yourself from, similarly to the "just one more run" mentality of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. While technical reasons prevented Halo from going beyond a 30 FPS limit for the remainder of that console generation, 343 and Bungie attempted to replicate some of the Call of Duty experience with the introductions of armor abilities, loadouts, and the like. These changes are where I personally felt the series was beginning to lose its identity. If you are going to gradually incorporate the key elements of your competitors, why would I not just continue playing those instead?  TechnoSyndro Member May 15, 2019 3,310 Their inability to actually support a live service game is why their live service game died. Halo Infinite had a ton of players at launch but they fumbled the ball immediately.   hydruxo ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 22,716 I don't think that was the problem. I think it's more so that 343 didn't have the juice to keep people interested in Halo. Bungie was just better in every way.   callamp Member Oct 27, 2017 1,641 Trends change over time and the Halo franchise was slow to adapt to that. Industry trends were already changing when Halo 3 was at its apex, with Modern Warfare changing the game. More recently we've had the shift towards battle royale (Fortnite, PUGB, Apex) and Destiny-likes. Halo is still largely operating in the same space it did 20 years ago (although Infinite's single player tried to branch out unsuccessfully). The reality is that Microsoft and 343 were too cautious with the franchise. They delivered games that were typically fine - despite some of the hyperbole that gets thrown about - and you could legitimately argue that mechanically Infinite is the best multiplayer in the franchise. But if trends have changed and gamers aren't as enamoured with arena shooters, then that's ultimately not good enough. From Halo 1 to 3, the series was the trend setter and then after that it became a follower. In an ideal world, Bungie would have kept the franchise and it would have evolved to be similar to what they created with Destiny. Perhaps they would have noted PUGB success and pivoted into the battle royale genre. But none of that happened and so year-after-year the franchise just became a little less prominent.  daegan #REFANTAZIO SWEEP Member Oct 27, 2017 3,304 For SP: Too long between games and they got way way WAY overwritten, simultaneously pulling from deep lore but not giving you reasons to care in the games themselves. 4, 5, Infinite all basically being reboots and supposed to keep going forever and then just not having a great hook to keep people playing. 5 also just being an absolute dogshit campaign that has no business being with the rest of the series, even when the plot points could be interesting. For Multi: The larger audience they chase for multiplayer has splintered and spread out across games that more focus on what each kind of player likes and I don't know how you get that back. What itch does a future Halo scratch that nothing else does and is it an itch millions of people still have who also have the free time to plunge into it?  dotpatrick Member Oct 28, 2017 400 Definitely agree with the people referencing Call of Duty. That was the big turning point and I'm not sure anything there is anything 343 could've done short of figuring out the next big turn for the competitive multiplayer shooter. By the time even Reach came out, CoD had already supplanted it as THE console shooter. I still remember when Xbox used to post how many folks were playing a particular title on Xbox Live for a given week and Call of Duty 4 would beat or be just behind Halo 3.  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Razgriz-Specter said: I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3.. Click to expand... Click to shrink... 3 years as the gap between Halo 1 and 2 and from 2 to 3. So Reach coming 3 years after Halo 3 isn't all that surprising. Also, as part of their agreement to split from Microsoft, they were obligated to produce two more Halo games after 3. One was Halo 3: ODST and the other was Reach. So they were fulfilling their contractual obligation to become independent and go off to create Destiny.  De Amigo Member Dec 19, 2017 550 Halo Reach was a fine enough game but it did feel like the beginning of the franchise releases going from major events to "expect another installment every couple of years no matter what". I wonder if them doing Halo 3 then taking a break until Halo 4 as like an Xbox One launch game could've kept the franchise's event status intact.   saruboss Member Jan 26, 2025 93 If i am not wrong, didn't you make the same thread with "is halo infinite now considered a failure?" a couple of months ago.   Gestault Member Oct 26, 2017 14,690 This is admittedly myopic, but from my perspective, their big public assertion about having learned the lesson from Halo 5 that they need split-screen, effectively (literally?) promising it for future games, then totally omitting it from Infinite made clear the game wasn't being planned by serious people. I say this as someone who had a blast with Infinite overall.