By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo 3, the truth about the games length!

madskillz on 24 September 2007

It's roughly 10-11 hours on easy and normal, close to 14 on Heroic and Lengendary. Co-op is cool, but the main problem I have is with having a safe area for your buddy to respawn. If you are taking fire, your friend can't respond. That kinda sucks ...

I wasn't too thrilled about the map loading on the multiplayer maps. Some maps load very fast - maybe 30 seconds, and others ... dang, I went to the bathroom and came back and it was about to load ... SMH on that one ...

Glad to see they are allowing online stuff now over Live. I unlocked 45 gamer points Saturday but as of Sunday evening, it still didn't show up on my gamertag on Xbox.com ... said 'No gamer points, no achievements' ... hmmm ...



Around the Network
madskillz on 24 September 2007

Update - here's what it shows on Xbox.com as far as my gamer score -

Halo 3
Last Played Online: 9/23/2007
45 of 1000
3 of 49 Achievements

But it doesn't state which achievements - one is the 'Fear the Pink Mist' achievement by killing 5 folks with a Spiker.



CTifer on 24 September 2007
HappySqurriel said:

I don't know if it was my imagination or not, but back in the N64/Playstation generation it seemed like most of the best games tended to have single player campaigns in the 25 - 40 hour range, in the last generationg (PS2/XBox/Gamecube) that seemed to drop to 15 to 30 hours, and now it seems to be in the 8 to 15 hour range.

How many people think games are getting shorter because they're getting too expensive to develop and how many people think they're getting shorter because developers are cutting out more 'crap'?


I think it has more to do with the fact that there's a multiplayer component built into most games as well now.

Personally, I don't want 30+ hour games. I want something that I have a chance of finishing relatively quickly.



fooflexible on 24 September 2007

People complaining about the length, I don't get why they are ignoring the online component. Games like Bioshock and Heavenly Sword better be longer, they don't offer any online options.

Halo 3 is better short, I know I'm going to want to replay it in co-op, and I'm glad it's short enough to do that, I'm also going to get into the whole online experience, which offers an insane amount of hours of gameplay, plus the Forge which sounds awesome.

Plus another reason single player games are getting shorter in general, is not just because of expense, technical development, and online components, but also the common gamer is now older and has more going on in life. I'm at a point in my life where two things are happening. 1. I don't have as much time as I used to for playing games. And I have more money then ever before to buy games. That's common now that the average gamer is older. I personally want my games short so I can have the satisfaction of beating them all. I've put 13 hours into Metroid Prime, and I'm still not done with it, and I'm quite annoyed because tommorrow I'll be getting Halo 3 and in the back of my head I'll know I didn't beat the last game I bought yet. The same happens for pretty much every other game I buy. It killed me to finish Zelda: TP in 40 hours, that's like every gaming hour I had for 2 solid months. that game could have easily had two less dungeons and just made more parts of the game optional.

I think shorter single player games with more optional gameplay elements woud suite the industry better.



kn on 24 September 2007
leo-j said:
@finalsquall

LMAO 1080p on dvd?? hahahaha!!

On topic: If the game were to be 1080p and 60fps the length would drop from 9 hours to 6 hours, 1080p takes nearly double the space that 720p does. 9 hours isnt short in my opinion.

Leo... You don't really have any idea how rendered graphics work, do you? Higher resolution pre-rendered stuff takes more space... If cut scenes and such are rendered on the fly, there really isn't much difference in the amount of space on disk a "1080P" and a "720P" game take up. I don't know how much pre-rendered CGI there is in Halo but I'm guessing it is about zero... Go do a little reading on texture mapping, polygons, and rendering of vector graphics in general and you might feel compelled to come back and edit this post.

 

Oh, and about the length... I'm a "casual" for the most part.  I tend to take my time, I'm careful about rushing into each new area without surveying the area, looking for cover, places to snipe from, etc., and hence I tend to take a LOT longer to finish games than the pro reviewers do...  It took me about twice as long, for instance, to finish Halo 2 as the reviews said it would and I just played on normal...  If the reviews tell me it is going to take 10 hours to finish, I know I can just about double that for the single player campaign.  After about 20 hours of the same campaign, I'm ready to move on....



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

Around the Network
starcraft on 24 September 2007
leo-j said:
@finalsquall

LMAO 1080p on dvd?? hahahaha!!

On topic: If the game were to be 1080p and 60fps the length would drop from 9 hours to 6 hours, 1080p takes nearly double the space that 720p does. 9 hours isnt short in my opinion.

 Um, NBA Street was Native 1080p, among others



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

starcraft on 24 September 2007
Zyzomys said:
And ppl complain about HS being short
Could you refresh my memory on how great the multi player aspect of HS is or did you have to return your 8-hour rental before you had a chance to play on line?

 According to rocketpig, 5h 16m rental thankyou very much 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

nintendo_fanboy on 24 September 2007
CTifer said:
HappySqurriel said:

I don't know if it was my imagination or not, but back in the N64/Playstation generation it seemed like most of the best games tended to have single player campaigns in the 25 - 40 hour range, in the last generationg (PS2/XBox/Gamecube) that seemed to drop to 15 to 30 hours, and now it seems to be in the 8 to 15 hour range.

How many people think games are getting shorter because they're getting too expensive to develop and how many people think they're getting shorter because developers are cutting out more 'crap'?


I think it has more to do with the fact that there's a multiplayer component built into most games as well now.

Personally, I don't want 30+ hour games. I want something that I have a chance of finishing relatively quickly.


I don't want every game to be longer than 30 hours, but from top-tier games like Halo I expect more than just fun for a couple of hours. At least I would be very disappointed if Mario Galaxy were shorter than 20 hours, and even that would be quite short for the game.



Currently Playing: Skies of Arcadia Legends (GC), Dragon Quest IV (DS)

Last Game beaten: The Rub Rabbits(DS)

Golvellius on 24 September 2007
nintendo_fanboy said:
CTifer said:
HappySqurriel said:

I don't know if it was my imagination or not, but back in the N64/Playstation generation it seemed like most of the best games tended to have single player campaigns in the 25 - 40 hour range, in the last generationg (PS2/XBox/Gamecube) that seemed to drop to 15 to 30 hours, and now it seems to be in the 8 to 15 hour range.

How many people think games are getting shorter because they're getting too expensive to develop and how many people think they're getting shorter because developers are cutting out more 'crap'?


I think it has more to do with the fact that there's a multiplayer component built into most games as well now.

Personally, I don't want 30+ hour games. I want something that I have a chance of finishing relatively quickly.


I don't want every game to be longer than 30 hours, but from top-tier games like Halo I expect more than just fun for a couple of hours. At least I would be very disappointed if Mario Galaxy were shorter than 20 hours, and even that would be quite short for the game.


Do you seriously expect Mario Galaxy to take longer than 10 hours?

I mean how long did it take to finish Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario World?

I remember Super Mario Land 2 on Game Boy which took less than 5 hours if I remember correctly. And no, I don't think these games were too short. 



madskillz on 24 September 2007

FYI ... it's Needler, not Spiker ...