Yah I'm no the best either, there is a whole community where people get paid a lot of money to play.
It is actually classified as "action-rts" and I don't see how it is an rpg, it shares no elements of an rpg, no story, no continuity, etc... It is solely a multiplayer game that relies heavily on strategy. One hero is better against another hero, throwing items into the mix provides some flexibility.
I used to play a ton of SC2, but haven't really had the time to keep up with it. I played WC3 back in the day all the time and loved it, and I played Dota pretty much through it's whole life cycle. As to the genre of Dota, it's its own genre. There's an actual dota genre at this point. I play HoN on occasion which I think is the best dota-type game out right now.
The game I mainly play is BF3 on xbox, and even that I only get time on the weekends mostly. But I do have over 10 days of play time racked up there -_- Maybe a bit much but eh, it's a fun game.
As for D3, that game was a huge disappointment. Blizzard really let greed ruin the game.
Necro-ing this thread. Please forgive, but I didn't want to create a second thread for the same topic /shrug.
Anywho, I just beat the campaign yesterday and I've got to say it's the best Halo campaign yet. I used to always agree that Halo CE had the best, but this trumps it. 343 did awesome with it, and made MC seem like more of a bad ass while giving him emotion at the same time.
Multiplayer is definitely awesome as well. I was skeptical about this because of the changes they made, but they are good changes. I have no complaints about the weapons, vehicles are actually not hard to take care of like I was worried they might be, there is a good variety of weapons throughout the map still, and one of the modes (dominion) is by far the coolest mode that a Halo game has had, IMO. If anyone was debating whether or not to shell out 60 USD for this game, I recommend doing it.
I think argument that because a game has a short campaign it isn't worth the money is dated.
There's a huge population playing console games online now as oppose to, say, ten years ago. It's fair to say that, in a lot of cases, the campaign isn't the primary part of the game any more. I'd say this is true of Halo. Although the story is relatively rich and interesting, a lot of people buy it for the multiplayer alone. The same can be said of CoD and the like.
I got my copy of Black Ops 2 yesterday. First thing I did was jump right into multiplayer. I probably won't even touch the campaign. In fact, if the campaign was amazing and the multiplayer was lacklustre, then I'd maybe think that the game isn't worth the money.
I'm rambling, but my point is that you're not paying $60 (or £40) for the campaign mode. You're paying for the game as a package. With games like Halo, a good amount of time and money is devoted to the multiplayer experience and we're passed the point where multiplayer is an additional extra to the single player game. My guess is that ResidentBiscuit will probably play Halo multiplayer for quite a while, which surely counts towards the game's value.
It's hard to look at a game for $60 with a label on the box "pay $20 now for the 5 downloadable content coming in the next 6 months!". In some cases that dlc is already on the disc. In most cases you need to shell out the money or be cut out from the full experience of the multiplayer. Guess one of the reasons I don't play anymore along with the bogus $60 / year now ? Remember when it use to be $20? on the original and they jacked up the price for the 360. Now every couple years they keep adding on to the cost for apparently features like live TV, facebook, we don't actually need on a gaming console. Anyway, I might pick it up in a few months when the legendary edition costs $60. Been the same price pattern since Halo 3.
buddy and i have a long tradition of caining it in one session, it was fun, very point click next bad guy, the way around the price was to join love film, at 5£ a month you get one game at a time and a 20£ amazon voucher!!
@resident biscuit i lived and breathed bf3 you ever been shot down by 'bunnington levy'?
Don't forget that if you're playing on XBox Live you're paying another $60 every year. Also, don't assume that everyone plays multiplayer. Sure, for the people that do, it might be worth the full cost of the game, but those of us that don't are paying the same cost.
Yeah, I used to play online all the time (Metal Gear Online, COD MW, BFBC1 and 2), but here lately I just can't seem to bring myself to playing online. In regards to the trophy/achievement system they have, I truly hate games that lock getting the ultimate trophy to online methods.
I'd 100% agree about the Xbox Live overhead. Yep, it's another $60/£40 and yep, it's unnecessary. I also believe that the service is slow of late, the dashboard is clunky and the general ethos has changed for the worse. Hate the idea of apps for a games console, it's just unnecessary. Perhaps it's the reason they feel they can charge, though.
Unfortunately with Halo there's little alternative if you want to play multiplayer. That said, I bought Black Ops 2 on Xbox. The main reason for this is that everyone I play with has it for Xbox.
My point there being that I agree, the cost of XBL is poor and the service is bad. But to get the level of enjoyment out of what I'm playing (i.e. - to be able to play with my friends), it's a necessary evil.
I wasn't implying that everyone plays multiplayer, though. My point is that console multiplayer has grown exponentially since its inception. Given that a large portion of console gamers now play online due to the simplicity of it (you could argue that connecting a console to a router is simpler than playing a PC game online to the non-savvy), it's expected that time and money, that may have previously been spent on single-player endeavours, would go towards online play.
So, whether people play online or not, the $60/£40 price tag has to be indicative of the product as a whole, not just the campaign. Sure, if someone doesn't play online then the game is going to take a significant drop in value for money. The sensible prerogative there would be to wait until the game drops to a suitable price.
Perhaps a better model would be one where you could buy single player and multiplayer modes separately. I believe there was a Worms game on PSN that did something like this recently. Starhawk might have done something similar too (bad example, though; the single-player is, more or less, a multiplayer tutorial with bots).
I'd like to see such a model implemented. I think it would be interesting. I think developers would be reluctant, though. It's a better model for the consumer but not for the developer.
@devon, not that I recall. But I tend to not remember names unless they kill me a ton, or it's an interesting name. You play on live?
The cost of XBL is not that bad for what it provides. I've played the free service of PS for about a year and can say I'd rather pay the $5 a month for XBL. Compare to something like wow, $15 dollars a month so you can play a single outdated game. That's 180 dollars a year.
About the SP/MP ratio, we're talking about FPSs. Even in the days of no online multiplayer, the SP was always relatively short. It's the nature of the genre. I remember Doom, Goldeneye, Halo CE, Black, etc all took no more than 8 to beat.
Actually games seem to be moving in that direction; kind of like what Valve did with the Half-Life 2 "episodic content" (except it didn't really work out that well for them). I don't really like the idea, though, because, among other things, it means that a game developer could release the first one or two levels of a game, and then give up or go out of business and not make the rest. At least with the current model they release whole games so that you don't get stuck waiting for them to wrap up the story (again, it didn't really work out that way with episode 2, although they are releasing episode 3, just not as an episode, it's going to be Half-Life 3 instead).
I'm actually really pleased with the direction Valve is taking. For example, did you know that there's a closed beta for Steam and TF2 on Linux now? It only works on Ubuntu at the moment, but it'd be literally an hour of work to port the .deb package it comes in to another distro, so even if Valve doesn't do it, the community could. If Valve focuses their games towards the Linux market, they could do something amazing. It works for them, because what with Linux being free, the less their customers are spending on operating systems and office software, the more they have to spend on games. They're also releasing their own games console, which I'm guessing will probably run a modified version of Linux.
Yeah, I see what you're saying with Half-Life, but I was thinking of a less episodic approach. I was thinking of a model where players could by the single player mode or the multiplayer mode at separate, (optimistically) reasonable prices. Perhaps with a discount for buying both.
I remember hearing about the Valve console a while back but nothing much since. That would be interesting. I personally think Steam is the key to getting rid of the horrendous high street retailers. If I had my way, we'd do away with physical media altogether. We have the capable speeds and storage for downloads, so why not.
Also, have you seen the Ouya console? Again, something I heard of a while back but it's faded into the background a little. I think it's still expected for April 2013, though. I think it's an interesting concept. Not sure it will work as a console, but the boldness is admirable and interesting.