Is 'Halo' Doomed?

Recently, the video game web site GameDaily produced a 12-slide article entitled "Flood of Problems: Signs that Halo is Trouble". In it, the staff lays out a dozen or so reasons why they feel that the series may be doomed. Dreary, worrisome talk, to be sure. But it seems video game press get a special dispensation to perform the equivalent function of being the apocalypse-preaching sign carriers. Halo, in essence, is cool to hate: it's easier to act contrary and criticize the games, which have sold in excess of 25 million copies thus far, of poor storytelling, poor gameplay, et al, and act like you are one of the distinguishing few. But there is something beyond that, as well; franchises seem to be open to such criticism, and there is at least a gem of truth hidden in some of the venomous retorts. Let's examine GameDaily's criticism and then extrapolate: is the Halo series really doomed?

#1: Stiff Online Competition
GameDaily says that competition from other first person shooters such as the Call of Duty series and Gears of War 2, which offer "better AI and better graphics", are... well, they actually don't say much or make a point here that the series is doomed. Halo is no longer the only great console shooter out there; back in 2001 when Halo: Combat Evolved arrived on the scene, it perfected FPS controls. Now everyone has either copied or improved the formula Halo successfully implemented, and there are many great games out there vying for people's attention. But Halo 3 remains one of the top games on Xbox Live (consistently in the top 5, at least) more than 18 months since its release; that's a longevity that not many games have. More than 1 billion online matches have been played, and the game continues to outperform even newer games (like Gears of War 2 and Left for Dead, which GameDaily insinuates are causing trouble for Halo.) As we can tell from the charts, this is not the case. GameDaily goes on to say that inaccurate weaponry due to network issues is causing problems, but this hasn't been reflected in play charts, has it? Argument strength: weak.

#2: Cancellations
GameDaily says that the cancellation of the Halo game for the Nintendo DS is a sign of trouble. But really, no one knows enough about this to say anything for sure. Perhaps Microsoft wanted to keep Halo its Xbox-only cash cow, which is perfectly understandable.

The cancellation of the Halo film adaptation is not a sign of trouble, either, and in fact may have done the series a favor. The script was written in 2005, rewritten in 2006, and the film was planned for 2008; Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) was to be executive producer, and Neil Blomkamp as director. Thing is, Blomkamp's vision for the film was a gritty, handheld war diary that is nowhere to be found in the Halo series' clean and bright science fiction setting; such a film would have alienated fans much more than it would have entranced viewers.

In the end, the film was declared "dead" by people involved in mid 2007. Reports of Microsoft asking too much money abounded, and perhaps there was a good reason for the cancellation, but if it was worry that the Halo series was over, it was proven wrong by Halo 3's launch, making $170 million in the first 24 hours and becoming the biggest entertainment debut seen up until that point. It didn't get the Halo movie back on its feet true, but if you examine the long and sordid production histories of comparable films, this isn't surprising. Iron Man was in the works for 16 years from movie rights to the start of production, and look how it turned out. Argument strength: weak.

#3: The Spinoffs
GameDaily sees the release of the RTS Halo Wars and the upcoming Halo 3 expansion, Halo 3: ODST, as not the big next steps seen for the series. Which is true, they aren't; in fact they're both prequels: Wars takes place 20 years before Halo: Combat Evolved, while ODST relates what happens during Halo 2 while the Master Chief is off blasting aliens on an ancient ring across the galaxy. ...So they were never intended to be the next great leap. While you can criticize Microsoft or Bungie or Ensemble for not making that step, criticizing the products themselves is a bit too much after the fact. Argument strength: decent.

#4: No more Bungie involvement
Bungie has been pretty adamant recently that they are wrapping things up for Halo. The next Halo spinoff, Chronicles, in being done by Peter Jackson. Halo Wars was done with Bungie providing only consultation, no support. Halo is shifting to full control and dissemination by Microsoft. Which can be seen as a bad thing: historically, when games move from their original developers the game quality deteriorates: witness Insomniac leaving the Spyro the Dragon series after the third installment in 2000, which ended up being the last great Spyro game. Like Insomniac, Bungie wants to move on to new intellectual property, and since they split from Microsoft in 2007, they are finally able to do something besides commit everything to a Halo game. So who can blame them for paving new ground? Believe it or not, they made groundbreaking games before Halo--see Marathon, Myth, and Oni--so it's likely they'll do so in the future, with or without Halo.

Of course, what is good for Bungie may not be good for Halo. Halo Wars, though well-received so far, is not the critical success of the other games (and likely not the commercial success as well, but that's to be expected for a more niche genre like RTS.) So it's possible that the game quality will deteriorate and the franchise will lose its legs, but whether this actually happens remains to be seen. Argument strength: strong.

#5: Too much time between DLC
The next round of downloadable content, the Mythic Map Pack, is due sometime in the next few months (its already out for those who buy a limited edition of Halo Wars.) GameDaily says that's not enough. Aside from small map pack updates, (a total of 7 new maps) in the past year and a half, that's all (not including the three new ones in the Mythic Pack.)

But to say "that's all" is both disingenuous and unfortunate. First off, Bungie constantly updates matchmaking hoppers, adding support for new, sometimes fan-created variants, and trimming or altering old ones in response to the community. Secondly, do we really want a constant stream of DLC? Sure, that will keep more people interested in the game, but it takes a while to create these new maps: I, for one, would much prefer new and exciting games over constant expansions (that often cost extra). There's only so much one development team can do: and why isn't there a similar hubbub over how long it took Rockstar to produce their first DLC for Grand Theft Auto IV (9 months, in comparison to the less than three months for Halo 3's new maps.) Sure, that's episodic content instead of just a new multiplayer offering, but the point still stands that perhaps people are expecting too much from their developers. Argument strength: weak.

In short: the Halo series isn't dead, and won't be for a while. The latest Halo novel has been a New York Times, USA Today and Publishers Weekly bestseller. Two new comic series are planned to complement the previous high-selling graphic novels. Microsoft has hinted that players haven't seen the last of the Master Chief. And with the coming games, the story is continuing. For a franchise to crumble seems inevitable--see Star Wars, Star Trek, or the like. But as to when, I'd say: don't hold your breath.