00:00
00:00
KupaMan
I like to draw and complain about stuff.

Male

US

Joined on 10/20/02

Level:
44
Exp Points:
20,533 / 21,490
Exp Rank:
890
Vote Power:
8.46 votes
Rank:
Police Lieutenant
Global Rank:
4,595
Blams:
799
Saves:
1,139
B/P Bonus:
14%
Whistle:
Bronze
Trophies:
18
Medals:
524
Supporter:
7y 26d
Gear:
9

Halo 3 - Master Chief finished early

Posted by KupaMan - September 26th, 2007


So obviously Halo 3 has arrived. I was one of those douche bags who stood in line last night, ready to "Finish the Fight" even though I'm not really too big a fan of the games (they're overrated up the yang). I was hoping to play a cool campaign mode, and then shove this game away forever. Unfortunately, 5 hours into the game, it ends. While this wasn't some erotic sex of a game, it finished before I was ready. The campaign was pretty much more of the same as it has been -- it was fun and addictive, though lacking original frills -- but it's incredibly short. Halo 2 felt longer than this, and it may have been. The story wasn't bad or anything, and what was there felt finished, unlike the last game, but there just wasn't enough of it. Once again, so much of their energy spent on the online mode made for an under-produced unexciting campaign. Thanks, Bungie.

Also, the graphics were surprisingly bad. I was hoping it would be close to Gears, but it was more like an updated Halo 2.


Comments

Yeah, I never thought much of the "Halo" series anyway, I could care less about Halo 3, don't know why its "The best game ever". I've seen NEWS ARTICLES on that games release, and to be honest, it's not all that impressive, just a boring, badly made FPS.

"it's not all that impressive, just a boring, badly made FPS."

sounds like someone who's never played it. It may be generic and feel almost exactly like Quake, but badly made it is not.

It seems most 3d games these days that don't fall into the categories of "adventure" "platform" or "rpg" are all grotesquely short.

When was the last time you played a first person shooter that was long? It's been years I bet. It takes so long for developers to make things these days, due to all the copious amounts of time spent on 3d graphics and physics, that little time seems to be left over to make a long rewarding game.

I'd wish things could go back to simpler 3d or 2d again, but now even 2d games are getting shorter. New Super Mario Bros. for the DS, while wonderful, was way way too short. Like 1/4th of the length of Mario bros 3.

Part of me wonders sometimes if it isn't done on purpose you know? to make people want more and thus buy more. Keep them only slightly satisfied but always hungry. It makes me sad.

I miss when games had 30+ levels. Then 3d hit and now I miss games that had 8+ worlds to explore.

I fear a future where a whole game will be one single continuous level of only mild fun that costs 70 dollars to buy.

oh well. campaign mode on halo is better with co-op anyway.

There's only a few developers that still make long, rewarding games with all-around production greatness. Valve did an amazing job with Half-Life 2. It was both amazingly designed and a long game. Likewise, Square does a fantastic job with their Final Fantasy games (not the spin-offs). FFXII had a good 100 hours into it, and it was a $50 game.

Halo 3 is pretty fun, and the campaign with friends would be better, but a first play through alone taking 5 hours aggravates me. $70 for 5 hours versus $50 for 100? I'd take the latter any day.

I don't really think that all the time on physics, graphics, and design is what pulls away from the length nowadays, as much as it is the turn-over rate on the game becomes much faster and therefor make more money. And why make a longer game when people will buy it either way? It seems to be a popular mentality, which is a little sad.

"too long to write" sounds like someone who played it TOO much :P