naznatips on 22 September 2007
| mrstickball said: ....And you expect a game like Halo to be a game that takes 20+hrs to beat on Singleplayer? Let me ask this: What's better: Going through a 10hr singleplayer game by yourself or going through a 4hr singleplayer game with 3 friends? Heavenly Sword has no multiplayer - which is why the 6-10hrs is so bad. There is no *extra* component to justify a $60 experience like that. Halo3 has the ability to be played by it's gamers for BILLIONS of hours. What made Goldeneye so great? Multiplayer What made RTCW so good? Multiplayer What made CounterStrike so good? Multiplayer What made Half-Life so good? Multiplayer First Person Shooters were made with multiplayer in mind - aside from MMORPGs, they were the first graphically-involved game to feature multiplayer components. FPS aren't mean to be dozens of hours of involved singleplayer. Thats why the Halo series has sold so well: Everyone buys it because the multiplayer is worth hundreds of hours of gaming, not the 5hr singleplayer mode. Now, having said this, I just wonder how long it'd take to beat on Legendary difficulty on Co-Op or SP? So what if it's 3hrs on easy? Have you ever played Gears of War, or any competent FPS on Easy? Goldeneye could be beaten in under an hour on easy (trust me, I did it). |
Going through a 20 hour + single player game is much better to me than a 3 hour co-op... How long before that co-op gets boring? Even if it had enough replay value to play it say 5 times (pushing it right here) that's not going to surpass the majority of good single player games in length... not to mention most of those 20 hour + games at least have SOME degree of replayability. I understand Halo is a primarily Multiplayer game, but it's also $60... 3 hours is inexcusably short.
