Entertainment justifies price tag
Jeremy Harris
Issue date: 1/27/10 Section: Opinion
What determines is a video game is worth its price tag? The one thing I look for in a game is entertainment. I firmly believe that video games are supposed to be fun and if I see a game that will amuse me I will likely purchase it.
One game was released in 2009 that attracted some bad publicity, Halo 3: ODST. The argument against this game is it's not worth the $60 price tag because it is not a new game, but a redone version of something already released. So, are games like Halo 3: ODST truly worth $60?
Halo 3 ODST is a huge offender in terms of price to actual content. I will not deny that. Now the game comes with two discs, one for the ODST campaign and the games new firefight mode, and a second disc containing the complete Halo 3 multiplayer experience that does not require a Halo 3 disc to play. In other words, the second disc contains every set of downloadable content released for Halo 3 since September 2007 and three new maps exclusive to the second disc.
The ODST campaign disc contains the single player campaign and the game's firefight mode, which allows up to four players to take on increasingly difficult waves of enemies.
Overall, the single player campaign takes about four to six hours to complete on the standard difficulty. That is not a long single player mode.
So Halo 3: ODST is a game containing a very short single-player campaign, a new multiplayer mode, and is supported by a second disc containing the full multiplayer mode for Halo 3. Is a game that cannot even be shipped as a standalone experience that has to be supplemented with multiplayer from a different game worth $60?
Yes! I even shocked myself when I came to this conclusion, but allow me to present my argument. Granted the campaign is short, but does length equal quality? Is one source of entertainment more enjoyable than another simply because it lasts longer? I don't immediately think a movie is better than another because one lasts for three hours and another for an hour and a half. So a short single-player mode in a video game is not immediately a bad thing.
I enjoyed ODST's campaign because I thought it told a good story. I was entertained during every moment I played the game. I don't want to spoil any details but the structure of the game's plot is designed to show the main characters in several side plots that slowly tie in to the game's overall story.
I play video games as a means of entertainment and ODST delivered. Therefore, I say it's worth the price tag because I had a good time with the game an that is all I am looking for when it comes to games.
One game was released in 2009 that attracted some bad publicity, Halo 3: ODST. The argument against this game is it's not worth the $60 price tag because it is not a new game, but a redone version of something already released. So, are games like Halo 3: ODST truly worth $60?
Halo 3 ODST is a huge offender in terms of price to actual content. I will not deny that. Now the game comes with two discs, one for the ODST campaign and the games new firefight mode, and a second disc containing the complete Halo 3 multiplayer experience that does not require a Halo 3 disc to play. In other words, the second disc contains every set of downloadable content released for Halo 3 since September 2007 and three new maps exclusive to the second disc.
The ODST campaign disc contains the single player campaign and the game's firefight mode, which allows up to four players to take on increasingly difficult waves of enemies.
Overall, the single player campaign takes about four to six hours to complete on the standard difficulty. That is not a long single player mode.
So Halo 3: ODST is a game containing a very short single-player campaign, a new multiplayer mode, and is supported by a second disc containing the full multiplayer mode for Halo 3. Is a game that cannot even be shipped as a standalone experience that has to be supplemented with multiplayer from a different game worth $60?
Yes! I even shocked myself when I came to this conclusion, but allow me to present my argument. Granted the campaign is short, but does length equal quality? Is one source of entertainment more enjoyable than another simply because it lasts longer? I don't immediately think a movie is better than another because one lasts for three hours and another for an hour and a half. So a short single-player mode in a video game is not immediately a bad thing.
I enjoyed ODST's campaign because I thought it told a good story. I was entertained during every moment I played the game. I don't want to spoil any details but the structure of the game's plot is designed to show the main characters in several side plots that slowly tie in to the game's overall story.
I play video games as a means of entertainment and ODST delivered. Therefore, I say it's worth the price tag because I had a good time with the game an that is all I am looking for when it comes to games.
Be the first to comment on this story