Although I somewhat agree with your post, I'm going to come to H4's defense. (Note: I've been itching to have a discussion about this, so sorry if this response seems like overkill.) H4 is 343i's first game. Ever. That being said, it's an incredible game. It's still fun to play. Maybe the multiplayer is not as fun as H3, or the Campaign is not as good as Reach's (In my opinion), but for a first debut? Wow. I recently had seen a video on YouTube that was titled "Halo 4 is bad". Obviously, I came to 343's defense and said that 343 did a great job for their first time. Someone, who shall remain anonymous, replied with "We don't want a Halo game by 343, we want one by Bungie." This astonished me, because I couldn't believe how selfish this person was being. To my knowledge, Bungie wanted to start a fresh, new franchise at the end of H3. When MS said no, Bungie agreed to do 2 more games (ODST and Reach). After that, their contract expired and they began working on Destiny (or continued working on it). So, basically, Bungie wanted to stop making Halo after 3. Which makes sense, I would too. But instead of letting Bungie make a new franchise that would flourish with passion, this person wanted Bungie to slave over a franchise that would likely be getting progressively worse with each title. And we have seen this progression from H2 to Reach (H3 wasn't bad, but we can all agree H2 was better). So I guess my question is: do a lot of people think this way? Am I overreacting?