data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/82cba/82cbae66ea436a0fe652c7f61b8c2cfec40df745" alt="Talking Point: Halo 3 Fans Question Whether An 'Anniversary' Remaster Is Necessary"
Back in 2011, we were treated to Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary on Xbox 360, updating the original Halo from 10 years earlier with a visual overhaul, a bunch of multiplayer improvements, and various other bonus features.
This was followed up with Halo 2: Anniversary as part of Halo: The Master Chief Collection in 2014, which again served as a significantly updated take on the original 2004 game. Halo 3 never ended up receiving the same kind treatment though, with its 10-year anniversary passing in 2017 without any kind of remastered release.
We've seen plenty of calls for Halo 3: Anniversary in the years since, and the Halo community on Reddit have been debating this once again over the past few days, questioning whether a remastered version is necessary or not.
Here are some of the most interesting comments we've come across from this latest discussion:
In general, it feels like most Halo fans definitely would like a Halo 3: Anniversary release (which comes as no surprise) but there are mixed opinions about whether it's just the cutscenes that need a touch-up, or whether it's the whole game.
There's no telling what 343 Industries has in store for Halo 3 in the future, but if there was to be a Halo 3: Anniversary remaster, we'd probably end up getting it in 2027 - as that will mark the 20th anniversary of the game's original launch.
What are your thoughts on this? Is Halo 3: Anniversary necessary in your opinion? Tell us down below.
Is Halo 3: Anniversary Necessary? (111 votes)
- Yes, I think it's necessary!
- It's not necessary, but I do want it
- I'd prefer if they focused on other things
Comments 11
Microsoft has avoided the "Remaster" train for a while now - and I find it refreshing.
I know we had Gears of War Ultimate, Fable Anniversary Edition, and the Anniversary Editions of Halo/Halo 2, but that is about all that really comes to mind from Microsoft's front.
I consider all the effort Microsoft put in the backwards compatibility program to be Microsoft' way of "remastering" older titles.
Newer Microsoft games may not be resonating with people like Nintendo and Sony titles, but at least Microsoft is trying to put out new titles rather than recycle old games with a new coat of paint.
Next anniversary game released by Microsoft Xbox what ever there are planning to be should be a gears anniversary no doubt about that
It’ll be great on Switch and PlayStation!
@GamingFan4Lyf I think there's some truth to this, but I also their business models and history / back catalogue are different, what works for one may not work for the other. i.e.
1) Nintendo & Sony have far more legacy first party titles and more nostalgia to lean into. Their remasters sell exceedingly well on the whole, there is clearly a vibrant market for them. I think Microsoft remaster most of theirs that would fill that bracket.
2) Game Pass thrives more on NEW games than old ones. While a remaster of an older title might be played a lot I don't think it's AS likely to get people excited or to subscribe as new ones.
TLDR: I think each company is doing what is right for them.
@themightyant My whole issue is that if the game can still be played on the platform, a remaster isn't necessary.
Sony has been notorious for this with all the "Director's Cuts" and "Remasters" of PS4 games - Sony has literally resold almost it's entire PS4 exclusive catalog back to people as PS5 games. Sure, it's optional, but I feel it wastes resources for new games - plus, it's the mentality of maximum profit with minimal effort that also bothers me.
Nintendo did a lot of "Deluxe" games on Switch, but the Wii U was a total flop - and for that reason only, I will give them a pass as I am sure Nintendo just wanted to recoup some costs of developing those games that didn't sell well due to the Wii U's paltry userbase.
Halo MCC is perfectly playable on Xbox Series consoles.
I guess there isn't necessarily anything wrong with doing the "Anniversary Edition" update to Halo 3 like Microsoft did with H1/H2 as an add-on to Halo MCC, I just don't want to see this slippery slope of remasters when the resolution boost, FPS Boost, and AutoHDR improvements already exist via backwards compatibility.
@GamingFan4Lyf That hinges on what you deem "necessary". Video games are entertainment, none of it is really necessary. Regardless they sell an absolute shed load of Director's Cuts/Remasters. There is clearly a large market for them.
I can also understand thinking this is just about the "mentality for maximum profit" but I don't think it's that simple - nor do I think you could call many of Sony's remasters "minimum effort". Remasters solve a LOT of problems for studios. Amongst other things they help keep people employed and keep cashflow going between major releases that may be 5+ years apart. They also allow you to train junior staff on your tools and make upgrades to those tools before a sequel.
Re: jobs: In the past after a studio released a game they would usually have to fire a lot of staff, or they would have them on temporary contracts until the game released, as they couldn't justify keeping everyone employed who wasn't actively working on a project. At the beginning of production usually only a small core team of your most talented devs are needed. Remasters solve that, keeping people employed, while also bringing in money, keeping up cashflow and potentially increasing the size and scope of your next game. It also makes it less likely one 'failed' game will ruin your studio. It elegantly solves many real problems all at once.
Re: wasting resources We know the cost of many of Sony's remasters from the Insomniac leak. Most are less than $30 million vs around $300 million for a new game. So you can get around 5 - 10 remasters for one new AAA game. But it's also not that simple, the staff needed to make a remaster are usually far less experienced/skilled than the ones needed to make a new top rated game. It's not like you could just reallocate those remaster team members to making a new game and expect a top-tier result. It's a false equivalency.
I get the frustration from the perception that there are too many remasters, not enough new games, and that they eat up resources, but I genuinely believe remasters solve more problems than they cause. Their impact on new games is far less than most think.
As much as I love in-engine cinematics, bring back Blur to do them and I'd be sold.
They can work on a remaster. They technically will be anyway for PS and nintendo
Doesn't need a remaster, MCC does the job well. A PC/console port of Fireteam Raven, a console port of Spartan Strike and a PC release of Halo 5 + Halo Wars 2 on Steam would be of more use.
If Microsoft does go fully multiplatform, a MCC port for PS5/Switch would be a lot more useful than a Halo 3 remaster. Take advantage of the opportunity to add in the rest of the Halo Online maps to MCC.
It's never NECESSARY to remaster a game but damn does Microsoft do a fantastic job and has literally set the benchmark for what a remaster should be
@Savage_Joe have you ever played a halo remaster? It's the same exact game with better visuals.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...