Halo 3 Recon - 3 Hour Campaign?

[Evil Avatar]

Joystiq is reporting (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/11/12/game-informer-halo-3-recon-3-to-5-hours-earn-recon-armor/) that the new issue of Game Informer magazine has some news on the upcoming Halo 3 Recon expansion pack, including word that the single player game will only be 3 to 6 hours and that you can earn Bungie's 'Recon Armor' through some 0-Point Achievements.

http://www.evilavatar.com/images/thumbs/halo3recon_logo.jpg

Hardly worth a $60.00 price tag. Or even a $40 price tag. Meh.

[Demo_Boy]

Wait until you see what happens in the first 15 minutes before you say its not worth the money.

[Roc Ingersol]

Usually I stick with the argument that quality is better than quantity. Particular with regards to shooters. I'd rather play 5 hours of CoD4 than 15 hours of Black Site.

But three hours may be a touch extreme.
Sounds like this just became a renter.

[Johan]

The weather started getting rough?
The tiny ship was tossed?
If not for the courage of the fearless crew,
the Minnow would be lost?

It's pretty short, but it could turn into so much more, given syndication. :D

[Lutheran]

What happens in the first 15 minutes that makes up for it being half a game for full game price? Not that I mind a 3 or 4 hour game but damn make it 39.99 instead of 60 bucks. This could be DLC instead of a retail product. This is just my opinion as I don't play much multiplayer and will only play the SP part of the game. Ill wait till it drops in price.

[Johan]

It won't be a $60 game. (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/929/929686p1.html?RSSwhen2008-11-13_022600&RSSid=929686)

Who knows what price it actually WILL be, however.

[Venkman]

Bungie's games look less and less appealing as Left 4 Dead approaches release. but then again, so does everything else. ;)

I hope they change the gameplay experience drastically, because I don't need another Halo. I hope it's more stealth or squad based, something, anything to change up the old Halo gameplay. it's still solid, but just not fresh anymore.

[Zetsuei]

Wait until you see what happens in the first 15 minutes before you say its not worth the money.

It could be the best 3 hours ever in the history of gaming. It's still not going to be worth 60 bucks. Probably not even 50 bucks. Portal was an incredible experience, but valve realized that you can't charge out the ass for a game that doesn't last longer than 2-3 hours.

[lost]

The Halo 3 campaign was really short. This wouldn't surprise me.

[riposte101]

They have already said it will not be a $60 game. It is an expansion pack and will be priced as such.

[Gott]

It's not $60 dummy! Ummm...the article says

"As we saw in Tokyo, the boys at Bungie are downplaying the game's length, insisting it's not "a $60 game" and is more like "a three to five-hour expansion pack.""

So are you now reduced to sensationalizing headlines to get traffic to the website Evil Avatar? I expect it of Destructiod and Koktaku...but not you. I'm very disapppointed, get it together.

[Syl]

3-4 hours seems about right for an expansion pack.

I still suspect that it will have 3-4 new weapons, maybe 10 new textures and 2 new enemies, everything else will be recycled exactly from halo 3.

[Evil Avatar]

It's not $60 dummy! Ummm...the article says

"As we saw in Tokyo, the boys at Bungie are downplaying the game's length, insisting it's not "a $60 game" and is more like "a three to five-hour expansion pack.""

So are you now reduced to sensationalizing headlines to get traffic to the website Evil Avatar? I expect it of Destructiod and Koktaku...but not you. I'm very disapppointed, get it together.

You might want to read the article yourself. No one knows how much the game will cost, it hasn't been announced yet. And the Headline is referencing the 3-hour campaign which is 100% accurate.

Are you just trying to bust my balls or are you really this dense?

[drakkarim]

i highly doubt they'll be asking 60 for it, probably 30 or 40. either way, sounds like a used ebay buy for me.

[Gott]

I'll agree that no one knows for sure...but that doesn't stop you from announcing that it's not worth $60.

One would think you would make a less definite statement when the facts are yet to be determined.

Your call though...just like it was everyone else's call to jump all over your mistake. I wasn't the only one to call you out.

[Gott]

Are you just trying to bust my balls or are you really this dense?

Hmm...Are those my only two options? I'll go with...busting your balls.
Is that the right answer?
;)

[Evil Avatar]

i highly doubt they'll be asking 60 for it, probably 30 or 40. either way, sounds like a used ebay buy for me.

Has Microsoft charged $30 for anything that isn't DLC? I think the lowest they would go will be $40.

[thehardac]

You might want to read the article yourself. No one knows how much the game will cost, it hasn't been announced yet. And the Headline is referencing the 3-hour campaign which is 100% accurate.

Are you just trying to bust my balls or are you really this dense?

Well, you were the one who mentioned "Hardly worth a $60.00 price tag." Yet here, comment that no one knows how much the game will cost. Seems like you need to reevaluate who may be dense.

[Demo_Boy]

I think the comment attached to the story implies that the author knows that the price will be 60. Which is a logical assumption to make for a game centered news site. So the fact that it is most likely not going to be 60 is misrepresented by the front page article. Which deals unprompted criticism to MS/Bungie - which is why the author is getting his balls busted.

Correct the comment?

[pwnophobia]

Could you guys get more bent over an author comment on it "Not being worth $60"? >.<

[E Huntington]

This is all getting a tad ridiculous. The current mantra seems to be quality over quantity, but there's a point where a 6 hour game is still a 6 hour game. I kicked myself after buying Gears of War 2. Sure, the game's good fun, but 8 hours later, I'm done. It's a biit depressing to see that our $60 is getting us less and less. I'm fine with short games, but not anywhere near the current price point. If we were paying $25 a game, then it wouldn't be an issue. It's crazy, to me, to keep paying $60 for these games that are finished in one play session. Halo is a money maker, and I'm sure whatever the price point it'll sell well, but there's no way I can support this direction. Unless of course it's a $10 to $20 game, then I'm all for it.

[GhostSheets]

Not worth the money? Totally agreed.

Will people buy it? Yes.

Why? Because it's Halo.

Bungie and MS aren't charging $60 because they're idiots. They know damn well their sitting on a cash crop.

[Gott]

This is all getting a tad ridiculous. The current mantra seems to be quality over quantity, but there's a point where a 6 hour game is still a 6 hour game. I kicked myself after buying Gears of War 2. Sure, the game's good fun, but 8 hours later, I'm done. It's a biit depressing to see that our $60 is getting us less and less. I'm fine with short games, but not anywhere near the current price point. If we were paying $25 a game, then it wouldn't be an issue. It's crazy, to me, to keep paying $60 for these games that are finished in one play session. Halo is a money maker, and I'm sure whatever the price point it'll sell well, but there's no way I can support this direction. Unless of course it's a $10 to $20 game, then I'm all for it.

Not sure if you are aware of the multiplayer and HORDE!

I'll be playing this game for another few months

[GammaLeak]

It's not fair that games like Fallout 3 have more gameplay hours. Bethesda should have to give Bungie some of its development expertise so that Halo 3 Recon will have more play time. Ya know, spread the wealth around. Everyone benefits from that, right?

[IveGotThatWiperFluid]

I kicked myself after buying Gears of War 2. Sure, the game's good fun, but 8 hours later, I'm done.

By this can I assume you don't play any multiplayer then? The multiplayer in many games such as Gears, Halo, and Call of Duty is an intrinsic part of the $60 price tag. I can't see how you can complain that games are overpriced or too short if you aren't playing the substantially longest (and theoretically endless) part of them.

Hell, I put enough time into Call of Duty 4 to make the price less than $1/hr. If you're really done with GoW2 after 8 hours, then yes, you should be kicking yourself.

[Evil Avatar]

Not sure if you are aware of the multiplayer and HORDE!

I'll be playing this game for another few months

True. I will be playing Gears for a lot more than 40 Hours. I think I have at least 20 hours into it so far just in multiplayer.

[Crashtard]

By this can I assume you don't play any multiplayer then? The multiplayer in many games such as Gears, Halo, and Call of Duty is an intrinsic part of the $60 price tag. I can't see how you can complain that games are overpriced or too short if you aren't playing the substantially longest (and theoretically endless) part of them.

Completely this. When I bought Halo 2, 60 was a nobrainer since I knew I would put an incredible amount of time into the multiplayer aspect. This is also the reason I used Gamefly for Fable II and for GoW II. My internet isn't great and I can't really play online. I'd be upset at 60 for just the campaign too, but you can't expect that to be the entire experience.

[DarkDaY]

3 hours...5 hours. If its good ill buy it, hell ill probably buy just because.

Why? Cause I can, moneys relative.
Is it too much, probably but what isn't, I spend that much on a couple drinks nightly that just end up coming out leaving a bad feeling.:)

[Crashtard]

I spend that much on a couple drinks nightly that just end up coming out leaving a bad feeling.:)

One of my friends went to see Blade 3 drunk and came home swearing it was the best movie he'd ever seen. He bought it when it came out and got that same feeling.

(This has nothing to do with the topic. It's just funny)

[E Huntington]

I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.

[pwnophobia]

I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.

Lol, I didn't read your whole paragraph and started typing my reply then realized that you said "out of touch" which is what I was going to say :x

The multiplayer aspect of games is what makes them GREAT! I have way more fun with a bunch of EvAvers or friends playing any online game than I do alone :D


Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4

All great multiplayer games!

[RMan]

I think 3 hours is an excellent length for a game. The price is the only potential negative IMO.

[DarkDaY]

One of my friends went to see Blade 3 drunk and came home swearing it was the best movie he'd ever seen. He bought it when it came out and got that same feeling.

(This has nothing to do with the topic. It's just funny)

lol, fuk man, I dont know why but that made me laugh hard.
Heres one for random kickass posts.
cheers

[IveGotThatWiperFluid]

Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out.

I think it does balance out. We've got great multiplayer games like CoD, GoW, and Halo but we also get games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fallout, and Fable (coop here can be disregarded). Of the few games that ship entirely without a singleplayer component- the exact opposite end of the spectrum- I can't think of any that did well commercially.

[Furious Wang]

I don't think Halo 3 Recon is worth a $10,000 price tag. Bleh.

[LikeTheRazor]

One of my friends went to see Blade 3 drunk and came home swearing it was the best movie he'd ever seen. He bought it when it came out and got that same feeling.

(This has nothing to do with the topic. It's just funny)
Blade 3 is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I wish I had seen it drunk.

/continue the derail

[FearTheReaper]

Blade 3 is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I wish I had seen it drunk.

/continue the derail

Ugh, that's two hours of my life I'd like back.

[ElfShotTheFood]

I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.

I barely play multiplayer; I still prefer a good single-player experience, which is why I haven't bought games like Call of Duty 4, because supposedly the single-player campaign in that is only a few hours long. I'm not paying $40 for a game I can finish in one sitting. Sure, the MP in that game is supposedly really good, which would make it more worthwhile for people who are into MP gaming. But for someone who isn't into multiplayer, it's not really good value.

[Wyrm]

I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.

Gaming has always been a social hobby for me, so I don't really understand this mode of thinking. Games like Gears of War, especially, that are designed from the ground up to be played with another person, even in the single player campaign, should not be experienced alone. The experience is not the same.

With a good friend along for the ride, an average campaign becomes an above average way to spend the day. Shit, the only reason I played Halo so much was because it had co-op. The latest one meant that all four of us could play through the campaign together, and it was infinitely more fun that way.

[Wyrm]

I barely play multiplayer; I still prefer a good single-player experience, which is why I haven't bought games like Call of Duty 4, because supposedly the single-player campaign in that is only a few hours long. I'm not paying $40 for a game I can finish in one sitting. Sure, the MP in that game is supposedly really good, which would make it more worthwhile for people who are into MP gaming. But for someone who isn't into multiplayer, it's not really good value.

Even if you don't buy Call of Duty 4, because multiplayer doesn't float your boat (and you should really try the CoD4 multi before you say that), you should definitely rent it and play through the campaign. It's one of the better single player experiences of recent memory, and it is short, but it never ceases to be compelling.

[Primus]

It will be awesome, and I doubt the price will be a full 60 bucks.

[drakkarim]

I suppose you guys are right. I don't play multiplayer at all really. Coop sometimes, but mainly it's all solo play. Is that the direction games are moving in? Short story with the main focus on multiplayer? I'd always assumed it'd balance out. I felt short changed by Gears, Halo 3, Gears 2 and CoD 4. I guess I just need to re-evaluate. I'd always thought multiplayer was sort of the extra feature, not the draw. Ah well. I still stand by my opinions, but I guess I'm the one who's out of touch.

not out of touch, just 'old fashioned' like me :) i'm in the same boat as you. although i'm a bit older than you, my excuse is that i grew up with solo gaming, i.e. that's all that they had 'back in the day'. the same as with the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller debate. i grew up with the former and its second nature to me. the newer kids are growing up with the controllers being second nature to them.

Gaming has always been a social hobby for me, so I don't really understand this mode of thinking. Games like Gears of War, especially, that are designed from the ground up to be played with another person, even in the single player campaign, should not be experienced alone. The experience is not the same.


per the above, you're young, so gaming has always been a social thing to you. i think for most of us older gamers, gaming has been more about the story/escape factor than the competition/lan thing that it seems to be these days.

granted, i'm sure there are plenty of older gamers that are hardcore lan/coop now, but by and large, i think we still prefer a real good 30+ hour story over a 10 hour action spurt.

that being said, i did enjoy halo3/gears and probably will enjoy gears2 when i unwrap it eventually, but i will never touch the mp/coop of any of them. mostly because there's too many other good games out there for me to want to waste the time playing the same thing over and over and over....

[Mr.Green]

i think for most of us older gamers, gaming has been more about the story/escape factor than the competition/lan thing that it seems to be these days.

Yeah because the stories of Atari 2600's games were so captivating! I'm afraid the argument you're using to make your point works against it. Old games were nothing but a social experience. They all had a high scores list and the whole point was to beat your buddies. These days there are tons of games about deep story telling and immersion.

Oh, and LAN parties were all the rage 10 years ago, by the way.

[Major Dan]

3 hours- $30 max!

Multiplayer is a draw, and for some a big draw, but I can't imagine that it would be worth $30 for multiplay.

Hell I didn't buy Shadowrun even at $30.

I shouldn't have bought Chromehounds, didn't realize how heavy multiplay was needed to get the full amount of that.

[Major Dan]

Yeah because the stories of Atari 2600's games were so captivating! I'm afraid the argument you're using to make your point works against it. Old games were nothing but a social experience. They all had a high scores list and the whole point was to beat your buddies. These days there are tons of games about deep story telling and immersion.

Oh, and LAN parties were all the rage 10 years ago, by the way.

Yea, but ~20 years ago, at least for me computer gaming enabled me to get my game fix, without other people, with out set up, and with out spending tons of money on equipment, Star Fleet Battles at the time was the bomb.

My original gaming consisted of RPGs, Space Sims, and other tactical type games.

[3Suns]

It is not how long it is that matters, it is how many times you have to run back and forth over the same territory. 3 hours can be a lot of gaming, if it is all new. On the other hand, 6 hours with multiple runs over the same geometry is excruciating.

3 times for some levels in Halo 3. Frickin' infuriating. Some of the worst level design of the 21st century, imo. Who told them that running back and forth in a level is "FUN"? Tell me?

[Mr.Green]

It is not how long it is that matters, it is how many times you have to run back and forth over the same territory. 3 hours can be a lot of gaming, if it is all new. On the other hand, 6 hours with multiple runs over the same geometry is excruciating.

3 times for some levels in Halo 3. Frickin' infuriating. Some of the worst level design of the 21st century, imo. Who told them that running back and forth in a level is "FUN"? Tell me?

For fuck's sake. They made 2 sequels after the Library level. A level that took about 15 minutes of your life for crying out loud.

[ResistanceAddict]

After playing Halo 2 AND Halo 3, I don't expect a great game. I'll rent it before I make the mistake of purchasing a Halo game again.

[3Suns]

For fuck's sake. They made 2 sequels after the Library level. A level that took about 15 minutes of your life for crying out loud.

Did I say anything about the Library level or Halo:Combat Evolved?

I was talking about Halo 2 and especially 3 and my criticism was very specific. They make you repeat/run back across the same geometry more than once. In some levels, as many as 3 times. To me, that is unacceptable both in story-telling and gaming. I would rather Bungie simply made the game shorter. I have never, in any forum, complained about the length of a game.