Is the Halo 3 Legendary Edition worth the hefty price tag?

[chaoseverlasting]

70 bucks is a lot of money for a game man. Specially if you can get the same game for 2 bucks. A lot of the time, some of my friends buy the game and after they're done with it, I borrow it off of them. When I buy a game, I lend it to them after I am done with it. It makes spending 70 bucks on a game completely pointless.

I get that companies spend a lot on developing the game. They have to hire people and pay for the computers and yada yada yada. But at the end of the day, the consumer doesn't look at how much it cost the company, the consumer looks at how much its going to cost HIM.

And frankly, if I bought a game for 70 bucks, and my neighbour bought it for 2, I'd feel like a total idiot. Even pirated games have pretty much everything on them. Infact, the only medium where information does get cut out is on DVD's. They remove the extras on multipack DVD's to get as many movies in on one DVD as possible.

 

[ziad1985]

Few years ago, back in school, me and my friend used to buy the games together, to save money.
we were just kids, there was no way for us to be able to pay a lot of money for games.

 

[GTdan]

It's actually $60 for just the game, $70 for the collector's edition, and $130 for the Legendary Edition with Spartan Helmet. May still be a lot of money but at least I know the game is going to be awesome. Unlike many other crap games that are the same price. I'd rather own a game as good as Halo instead of pirate it.

Oh, and yes, Bungie is in charge again. The single player campaign is guaranteed to be good. Luckily, they are having a very long Beta period for multiplayer so hopefully, that won't have the glitches it did in Halo2.

 

[BoredNL]

I think Halo is more hyped up than it is actually good. Don't get me wrong, the game is fun to play, but it really is not nearly as good as people make it seem and I think it could be a LOT better than it is.

Halo 2 had, what, like maybe 10 types of enemy units? A few more weapons and vehicles? (which I think should've been in halo 1 to begin with and was a cheap move not to include). Duel wielding? Halo 2 was really more like an add-on for halo 1, not a whole new game, but priced as a whole new game.

Even with Halo two, you still couldn't make public servers with custom settings and you are PAYING for Xbox Live.. I can do this for free with other games on my PC. You have to somehow amass a bunch of "friends" with strangers online to do this.. How annoying.

I'm a big Halo fan, believe it or not, and I can't wait till Halo 3 comes out, but seriously, let's put things into perspective here. It is not the greatest game ever, it is the most hyped up and advertised game ever. Quake 1 had more innovative design elements in it than Halo, more levels, more creatures, more scary scenes, etc, etc. Aliens vs Predator had more modes of play. Unreal Tournament had novel weapons and expansive levels with much more room for different styles of gameplay. TFC had a lot more replayability. And all of these games came out quite a long time before Halo, so you would think that Halo would've improved upon all of these factors immensely.. and yet.. it didn't. It is fun though, so I'll still buy it.

 

[GTdan]

Well if you are going to talk only about content (weapons, units, etc), yes the game is pretty simplistic. In that perspective, true, it can be considered just an add on or expansion. I think what really sets it apart though is the storyline and gameplay. It may be based on a typical alien invasion theme but the game really plays well through the story. It really sucks you in with every aspect of the game. That's rare these days and that I think is what sets Halo apart. UT was basically all multiplayer. The Doom and Quake series probably rival Halo in terms of story (and others too I guess) which is probably 1 reason why those games did well too.

About multiplayer though: It turns out that they decided the matchmaking system used in halo (and other games) is better on average than the typical PC like multiplayer where you set up a server and make it public. They deliberately chose it this way because it would be easier for people who are not as savvy to just jump into online play (one reason why there are so many stupid kids and cheaters playing) and because they thought that it would be a better experience for people who don't have a lot of online friends (I read all this on the Bungie website I think; or forums, I can't remember). I think it worked. There are ALOT of people on xbox live now.

That said, it's not without its problems. There are more cheaters now and obnoxious kids yelling and screaming and cursing over the headset. You can't just boot them, only mute their mic sometimes. Lag, glitches, etc. They probably should have included the option of having custom public servers like you say instead of having to horde a bunch of unknown people on your friends list.

 

[BoredNL]

I still play the game and I have fun with it. When Halo 2 came out, one of my friends and I bought the game at 1am (right after it was stocked), then spent 16 hours playing co-op and beat the game. It was fun.

This doesn't make it the greatest game in the world though, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's nearly as good as it could be. I don't really let hype affect my way of judging a game for the sake of fun. I judge a game based on it's merits. It's a game that can be fun when you have a bunch of people playing. But then again, the old bomberman game is a lot of fun when playing with 4 people as well..