GameBanshee Forums

Are you getting halo 3 when it comes out?? if so what do u thinkk of it
????

Probably not. At least, not at first. Honestly, I don't think very highly of the Halo series in general. It's a decent FPS, and it's multiplayer can occassionally be entertaining, but...

If I do get it, it wont be until I've got the cash burning a hole in my pocket and my friends are pestering me too hard. Right now I've got my cash saved for Mass Effect, Hellgate: London, and NeverWinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer. :X

Considering that I don't count FPS games as real games in my book, and the fact that the Halo series is made by a company that I loathe, I doubt I'm ever going to invest money in any of there games.

Oh, and the reason I don't count FPS games as real games is not because they lack something but rather they're all so boring, it's like a lot of RPG's, same exact thing with a few new graphics is all.

I'm not a fan of HALO, so, no. I'm not getting HALO 3, even if there is a PC version.

Simply beacuse I saw three Pagan answers in a row...(JK guys) I will be getting Halo 3 / have already gotten it I happen to enjoy the Halo series, and will be enjoy sending hundreds of online players into oblivion..

P.S. @ Siberys What do FPS's lack...? I happen to enjoy them from time to time, it's a nice refresher from my Scottish Empire in Medival Total War 2 or my Mage on Wow or RDD on NWN... Just wondering why you disliked them so much.

I also enjoy the Halo series. The first one was probably my favourite FPS of all time. I have to admit I haven't had much chance to play it since I got it and didn't actually finish the second Halo game so am a bit lost as to what happened but I do love the storyline.

I'm more an RPG and Strategy fan compared to a FPS fan and am not too happy that you tend to only get 7-10 hrs worth of gaming on FPS games these days and when you compare that to 80 Hrs with The Witcher it's well .. a little annoying.

Ulfang wrote: I'm more an RPG and Strategy fan compared to a FPS fan and am not too happy that you tend to only get 7-10 hrs worth of gaming on FPS games these days and when you compare that to 80 Hrs with The Witcher it's well .. a little annoying.

You judge a game based on how long it is? Why should a game with longer hours be much better than one which is short? It should be the game itself that is good rather than how long it is, in my honest opinion. As an example, both Call of Duty 1 & 2 are within the 12 hour mark, and yet, they're still good.

DesR85 wrote:You judge a game based on how long it is? Why should a game with longer hours be much better than one which is short? It should be the game itself that is good rather than how long it is, in my honest opinion. As an example, both Call of Duty 1 & 2 are within the 12 hour mark, and yet, they're still good.

Nope I don't judge a game by it's length. As I said I enjoy the Halo series what I am saying is if you compare an FPS to a RPG then obviously the RPG is likely to be better value for money as it is going to entertain you longer. I'm not happy paying £50 for a Xbox360 FPS game that will keep me entertained for 8 hrs when I can spend half the price on a PC game that could keep me entertained for 80 hrs. That's just logic!

I see no reason why they can't make FPS games that last 20+ Hrs. You can finish most FPS games in a day these days that's just crazy! Someone I know finished Jericho in seven hrs ... that's less time than my working day!

Ulfang wrote: I see no reason why they can't make FPS games that last 20+ Hrs. You can finish most FPS games in a day these days that's just crazy! Someone I know finished Jericho in seven hrs ... that's less time than my working day!

There is a good reason why. It will get boring and repetitive if you extend it for too long. In FPSes, all you do is run around shooting bad guys all the time. Try to imagine doing the same thing over and over again for another additional 10+ hours after the usual 15 hour mark. Plus, most FPSes I know come together with multiplayer, so I wouldn't say that it's a total waste of money and actually, I do admit that it does encourage replayability, given how reasonable it is (the length).

One good example I can give is Bioshock. Sure, it got tons of praises from reviewers and players alike, but yet, for me, halfway through the game (15 hours plus), it begins to become more of a slog through the game than an enjoyment. It's basically the same explore the whole area before reaching your goal stuff whenever you enter a new area, shoot some bad guys and frequently pissing off the Big Daddies. Rinse and repeat.

And to be frank, if I buy a highly praised game only to be disappointed, I would consider that a waste of money rather than a good game I enjoy playing from start to finish, no matter how long or short or how expensive or cheap it is.

Well I don't think adding a few more hrs of gameplay would make most FPS repetitive or boring. Too many times have I heard "Good game but far too short". Gears of War for example. I was just getting into it when it ended :laugh: Nope that's not a good enough reason. Maybe an average game would get repetitive and boring if extended but a lot of the qiality games wouldn't.

I don't play MP FPS games as the reason I play games is for a good storyline mainly and playing against other players offers no storyline at all unless you play Co-op I suppose. Playing against another player just to see who is best offers little interest for me.

My friend bought a 360 and Halo 3. I had some friends over and we completed together on normal in ten to twelve hours (we didn't pay to much attention to time). To be honest I don't see why everyone is so excited. We went to another friend's house a few weeks later with the 360 and completed it on legendary. I probably got bored of Halo 3 quickest. If I get a 360 I'll probably get it for multiplayer for if I have friends over. To be frank I'm not too bothered.