Was anyone else disappointed in the length of Halo 3?

[Red_F]

I finished it on the normal level in about 8 hours. The first two games were much longer and were more intense. This one seemed like it was longer but was hacked to make it fit on the disk. It seemed like sections were missing. The story was kind of choppy.

I loved the graphics and the game play but just wished it wasn't so darn short. It was at least a third shorter than the previous two.

Anyone else feel this way?

 

[hungry hippo]

I havent played halo 3 yet, but it doesnt really matter that much for me how long it is. First of all I enjoy games that don't go on forever. I will probably just play through it one night and then continue to the real purpose of Halo 3; multiplayer.

 

[Emil A]

No, haven't played Halo 3 yet. But how is the first Halo. Is it worth buying, and do they have a Mac version

 

[MannPower]

Though it was noticibly shorter than Halo 2, I felt that it fit in a satisfactory amount of storytelling. The length of the previous two were compounded by the fact that a lot of the architecture in the maps were repeated, and some sections of the game were just tediously too long (A particular stretch of identical flood-filled corridors that took forever in the first Halo comes to mind). These repetitive sections were done away with in Halo 3, making every map and room unique and - thusly - more fun and less frustrating.

The campaing may have been shorter, but I felt it had much more quality overall. I actually got more fun out of the gameplay as a result, where-as some levels in Halo 2 felt more like a chore to play between cutscenes. The Flood in that game were particularly aggrevating.

So, overall, no - I wasn't disappointed. I felt that it packed everything necessary in without wasting the player's time with tedium.