McMad Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 We all know that the lifespan of Halo 3 has been criminally overlooked by the gaming press. It hasn't been overlooked, the campaign has a great amount of replay value to it e.g. Co-op, different difficulties, going after the skulls, the score game. Nobody seems to penalize StarFox games for being very short in length (bar adventures which wasn't a conventional StarFox game), that's because they have a lot of replay value to them too.
Tellyn Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 To be honest Mario and Halo are completely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Metroid and Halo I can understand, not Mario.
barbapapa Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Actually, I always thought Metroid and Halo was a weird comparison, too. :P
Noodleman Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I would love someone to finish Halo 3 on Legendary in 6-7 hours. I doubt you could do it on Heroic tbh. Once again its people finishing it on normal, a difficulty that Bungie themselves have said is for people who havent played a Halo game before.
MunKy Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Actually, I always thought Metroid and Halo was a weird comparison, too. :P Thats because Metroid is good.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 30, 2007 Author Posted September 30, 2007 To be honest Mario and Halo are completely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Metroid and Halo I can understand, not Mario. ...But they are both fruit :p - and Halo and Mario are both games.
Hero-of-Time Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I would love someone to finish Halo 3 on Legendary in 6-7 hours. I doubt you could do it on Heroic tbh. Me and Caris did with the help of a few others on here in co-op mode.
Noodleman Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Me and Caris did with the help of a few others on here in co-op mode. Yeah I meant on your own not in co-op
Calza Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I would rather have a short 6 hours with tons of memorable events than if Bungie had tried to fill stuff. The fact that you can replay it with friends and have scoring and modifers makes it much more than a 6 hour story.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I can't see how so many people have missed some points here, that a) a lot of casual gamers won't be playing online. None of my friends who have purchased a next gen console have gone online with it. There are still a hell of a lot of gamers out there who buy games for the single player quest and don't go online. b) The gaming press have ignored the short lifespan of the single player game. Instead they've all rushed online and enjoyed it but have forgotten about those games that don;t simply devote their lives to online gaming. c) The gaming press is much harsher on Nintendo games. If a game doesn't come in HD it gets treated like a lesser product.
Cube Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 c) The gaming press is much harsher on Nintendo games. If a game doesn't come in HD it gets treated like a lesser product. But Halo 3 doesn't come in HD.
Noku Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Let's rephrase point number three then to: "If a game doesn't come on a HD console it gets treated like a lesser product." Still a valid statement if you ask me.
Patch Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 c) The gaming press is much harsher on Nintendo games. If a game doesn't come in HD it gets treated like a lesser product. Very true. I think there are two other reasons why they are overly critical of Nintendo games. 1. Nintendo have franchises that have been around for decades. It's rare that say, a film franchise, can go beyond a fifth film and still gain critical acclaim. We'd probably start casting more criticism on Halo if it was Halo 6. Really, Halo 3 and Mario Galaxy are in different time periods. It would probably make more sense (what little there is) to compare Halo 3 to SMB3. 2. Nintendo games are the best games in the world. They grab attention and they grab attention-seekers.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 2. Nintendo games are the best games in the world. They grab attention and they grab attention-seekers. Quoted for truth on all counts! The sad thing is, people use quality Nintendo titles to raise their own profiles by giving out bad scores.
Noodleman Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I dont agree with either of those points, i'm at work and cant be arsed to type a proper argument i'll do it tonight though you lucky people.
Hero-of-Time Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 b) The gaming press have ignored the short lifespan of the single player game. Instead they've all rushed online and enjoyed it but have forgotten about those games that don;t simply devote their lives to online gaming. What about Wii Sports and Wii play? Both games are great for a little while by yourself but are mainly for multiplayer purposes, same goes for Wario Ware and these games dont get marked down for it.
McMad Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 b) The gaming press have ignored the short lifespan of the single player game. Instead they've all rushed online and enjoyed it but have forgotten about those games that don;t simply devote their lives to online gaming. Did you intentionally ignore my earlier post?
jammy2211 Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I think some of the gaming press discriminate on the Wii, because it's shaking up the industry and changing the way they have to perceive games and do their job, and they're not prepared to do that. 360 and PS3 allow them to treat, play and review games in the same way they've been used to for their entire careers, and now the Wii demands them to try and perceive a game from different opinions for different types of people, and they're not all up to that. I think GameSpot's review of Metroid Prime 3 is the best example, despite all it's new gameplay features, revolutionary controls, extensive single player blalh blah. They'll still find area's to criticize it which other games seem to have ignored. They ranted on about how the game feels the same as the first two, but don't mention this when reviewing games like GTA, Halo, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry and the rest. I'm not really sure what is going to happen, I think IGN do a good job of trying to adjust to the new demands of reviewing Wii content, just my opinion though. I don't see the press ever really adjusting to it, at least not the gaming press.
Dilli Gee Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 The single player game is short-ish, but it has immense replay value, with four levels of difficulty, AI that makes it a different experience each time, and of-course the co-op (either local or online). There's also the skulls to collect, and other hidden bonuses, like finding the secret weapons/armour or earning the novelty awards. And while it's "short", the levels themselves are incredibly detailed. But of course, the multiplayer is where it's at. I think some of the gaming press discriminate on the Wii, because it's shaking up the industry and changing the way they have to perceive games and do their job, and they're not prepared to do that. Right...
Zechs Merquise Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I think some of the gaming press discriminate on the Wii, because it's shaking up the industry and changing the way they have to perceive games and do their job, and they're not prepared to do that. 360 and PS3 allow them to treat, play and review games in the same way they've been used to for their entire careers, and now the Wii demands them to try and perceive a game from different opinions for different types of people, and they're not all up to that. I think GameSpot's review of Metroid Prime 3 is the best example, despite all it's new gameplay features, revolutionary controls, extensive single player blalh blah. They'll still find area's to criticize it which other games seem to have ignored. They ranted on about how the game feels the same as the first two, but don't mention this when reviewing games like GTA, Halo, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry and the rest. I'm not really sure what is going to happen, I think IGN do a good job of trying to adjust to the new demands of reviewing Wii content, just my opinion though. I don't see the press ever really adjusting to it, at least not the gaming press. Exactly, I agree totally with this. The Wii actually scares some developers because it challenges them, ratehr than than just polishing up last gen's games with a new lick of paint they actually have to improve the gameplay and let players experience these games with a new level of interactivity. What you said about Gamespot's review of Prime 3 is spot on, I couldn't agree more. This game could be nigh-on perfection, but they would have found something. Funny, they complimented Halo 3 for sticking to the winning formula, but not Prime? HMMMM. It hasn't been overlooked, the campaign has a great amount of replay value to it e.g. Co-op, different difficulties, going after the skulls, the score game. Nobody seems to penalize StarFox games for being very short in length (bar adventures which wasn't a conventional StarFox game), that's because they have a lot of replay value to them too. I didn't ignore your post, but people do criticse Starfox for being too short. I still think people are just making excuses when they talk about replayability and the like. That is important,but you still don;t want to have blasted through a game in two or three sittings. If I'd have got Halo 3 on Friday afternoon bets are that it'd have been clocked by Sunday evening. I just think that's a bit short.
Hero-of-Time Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 If I'd have got Halo 3 on Friday afternoon bets are that it'd have been clocked by Sunday evening. I just think that's a bit short. I finished Halo 3 in around 7 hours on my first run through and do I hate it because of that, No. I have no finished the game 6 times and im still going through various levels helping people on Legendary while at the same time trying playing the multiplayer mode. The fact is although Mario and Halo are THE games of these 2 consoles you simply cant compare the 2 as they both offer 2 vastly different gaming experiences. Mario ( the core games not spinoffs ) has and always will be about single player gaming, Halo will always be about both. Also why complain what a game scores in some magazine or website? At the end of the day its what you personally feel about the game not what some random guy does.
jammy2211 Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Right... I have alot of link in the industry and have spoken to people about it and what not. It's just how I and the people I've spoken to feel about it. It's more sites like 1up and Gamespot, when I read some of the stuff they post you can hardly call it unbiased.
AshMat Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I didn't ignore your post, but people do criticse Starfox for being too short. I still think people are just making excuses when they talk about replayability and the like. That is important,but you still don;t want to have blasted through a game in two or three sittings. If I'd have got Halo 3 on Friday afternoon bets are that it'd have been clocked by Sunday evening. I just think that's a bit short. Half of us finished it in a day. But this topic has COMPLETELY changed, it was originally about sales, and turned into "halo is short, prime didn't get good reviews, 1up and gamespot give nintendo bad reviews"
Cube Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Nobody seems to penalize StarFox games for being very short in length. Because it's short enough to be replayed hundreds of times, unlike something that's 5-7 hours long.
AshMat Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 I finished Halo 3 in around 7 hours on my first run through and do I hate it because of that, No. I have no finished the game 6 times and im still going through various levels helping people on Legendary while at the same time trying playing the multiplayer mode. Because it's short enough to be replayed hundreds of times, unlike something that's 5-7 hours long. And i know i've played the single player more than once.
Recommended Posts