Originally Posted by DarkReign2021
And Population size online doesn't necessarily mean anything. Different people in different time zones play at different times of day. You're talking about players in countries all around the world. 100,000 people at a time might represent a country or two, but that doesn't account for people that are working, sleeping, or otherwise unavailable during the same time on the other end of the planet. And even at only 100,000 players, it's still 4th most active game on Xbox Live. If you go by that standard of judgement, does that mean any game with 100,000 people or less online sucks? So games like Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Far Cry 3, and Mass Effect 3 suck? Not mention offline games that don't even generate an online population like Catherine, Dragon Age, Fallout, Skyrim, etc...? The argument of "Only 100,000 people" has no basis for a game being bad.
That still doesn't explain its steep drop in activity following the weeks after release. Your argument of people being online at different times of the day does not change the notion of Halo 4 perhaps being the worst rendition of the game in the series. I believe player count plays a significant role in whether or not a game is "good" -- if a game (that is multiplayer-heavy) can't hold the attention of a consume for a reasonable amount of time (2-3 months), I would argue that makes the game "bad"; this is compounded further by how embarassingly low Halo 4's online activity has dipped within its three month debut. I remember people saying "oh, wait until the DLC comes out.. they'll flock back!" or "just wait until Christmas, it'll surely correct itself".. nope, nothing -- 343i's lack of a some sort of definable skill system and working playlists absolutely killed this game's multiplayer. It's dull, repetitive and frankly, unrewarding. I sincerely don't blame any player who's put Halo 4 on the shelf and moved to greener pastures.