Halo 3:ODST is now a full game

It's funny how they start calling it a full game when MS jacked up the price to $60.

SpinoRaptor24

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

How can it have Halo 3 in the title and not be considered an Expansion Pack?

Ross_the_B0SS

So the title makes the game an expansion?

Exactly, just like CoD:WaW is an expansion of CoD:4MW :roll:.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

How can it have Halo 3 in the title and not be considered an Expansion Pack?

Ross_the_B0SS

So the title makes the game an expansion?

It does actually. Halo 3 : Recon implies it's an extension of the halo 3 timeframe. Aside from that as there been any changes to gameplay other than the open world thing? Like a bit of reliance on stealth etc? Bungie has alot of options and it would be a shame to see them waste it.

[QUOTE="Ross_the_B0SS"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

How can it have Halo 3 in the title and not be considered an Expansion Pack?

Matt_1337

So the title makes the game an expansion?

Exactly, just like CoD:WaW is an expansion of CoD:4MW :roll:.

why did you leave out the 5 from waw?

[QUOTE="Matt_1337"]

[QUOTE="Ross_the_B0SS"]

So the title makes the game an expansion?

Espada12

Exactly, just like CoD:WaW is an expansion of CoD:4MW :roll:.

why did you leave out the 5 from waw?

Because it's not in the title, and I think most people know that it's the 5th game anyway.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Matt_1337"]

Exactly, just like CoD:WaW is an expansion of CoD:4MW :roll:.

Matt_1337

why did you leave out the 5 from waw?

Because it's not in the title, and I think most people know that it's the 5th game anyway.

True, but if you saw something called call of duty 4 modern warfare: urban assault, wouldn't you think it was just an expansion of the game rather than a sequel?

[QUOTE="Matt_1337"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

why did you leave out the 5 from waw?

Espada12

Because it's not in the title, and I think most people know that it's the 5th game anyway.

True, but if you saw something called call of duty 4 modern warfare: urban assault, wouldn't you think it was just an expansion of the game rather than a sequel?

If the games looked really similair than maybe, but it's kind of like Cears of War 1 and 2 and Halo 1, 2 and 3, just because it was a sequel doesn't make it an exapnsion.

The games that I think are most like expansion packs are EA Sports games, they just change the graphics a bit update transfers, and maybe add a few new animations and physics, then sell it as a full game.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Matt_1337"]

Because it's not in the title, and I think most people know that it's the 5th game anyway.

Matt_1337

True, but if you saw something called call of duty 4 modern warfare: urban assault, wouldn't you think it was just an expansion of the game rather than a sequel?

If the games looked really similair than maybe, but it's kind of like Cears of War 1 and 2 and Halo 1, 2 and 3, just because it was a sequel doesn't make it an exapnsion.

The games that I think are most like expansion packs are EA Sports games, they just change the graphics a bit update transfers, and maybe add a few new animations and physics, then sell it as a full game.

..and yet, no one whines about them. There are many games that have less content, there are many sequels that use the same game engine and art assets and are still regarded sequels! If Bungie had not announced this as Halo 3 in the first place then this discussion wouldn't be going on.

Not an expansion if...

Campaign on its own matches other recognised full games!

You do not need previous games to play it!

Guys, its really that simple. You walk into a shop and you're buying a 'new' 'full' game!!! I mean is it possible for developers to change their plans, add more content and allow the game to develop into a full game? Without it automatically being a ploy? I mean I could be wrong and I'll eat my words if I am wrong but it seems to me some of you are holding on to the 'title' of the game in a vain attempt for it to be something less than it is?

If Gears of War 2 had shipped at $60 with just a new campaign and Horde, but contained the original Gears of War multiplayer completely unchanged, I would fault it just the same. Halo 3: ODST is relying on content from the original Halo 3 (not just small assets; the entire multiplayer!) to justify its price tag. Not going to fly with me. For someone who already owns Halo 3, it is most certainly an overpriced standalone expansion.

xDimMaK

I'm just curious how you would classify games like Bioshock, games that hve no multiplayer at all or games where the multiplayer is just tacked on? What if this game had no multiplayer at all, would that make it a game in its own right like Bioshock?

I didn't spend $60 on Bioshock either. I bought it for $40 on the PC. It's no coincidence that's the same price I'm willing to spend on Halo 3: ODST.

xDimMaK

Ok well whether the game is worth buying or not is a different debate and I respect that you have personal tastes. My argument is with people dismissing it as an expansion and a rip off purely because it was originally announced as an expansion and now its grown into a full game.

(I'm giving Bungie benefit of the doubt here and assuming a full length campaign, if its short like an expansion then I'm just plain wrong)

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Yup. It's well worth my $60. A day one purchase. The campaign looks great and unique.

ReaperV7

You see, it was a minigame before.

60$ though is a rip tojkfyr

Not sure whether to say your ignorance or pride is showing here, but, I'll just leave that as a blanket... The simple fact that ambiguous terms convey meaning every day in speech outright refutes your claim concerning things like that not being language. Are you worried about looking bad in the forum or something? You're wrong often enough that I wouldn't imagine that would be an issue. Do you just not understand that people use terms which are ambiguous every day which are ambiguous, and they convey meaning... But if you were to put those terms under scrutiny, you'd quickly find that the meaning isn't absolutely clear - IE, has a degree of ambiguity about it?Shafftehr

The idea is ambiguous, obviously, since the term is thrown around so often in so many different contexts. The idea will vary from situation to situation, person to person, and while a meaning is conveyed (an ambiguous one), you won't get a firm definition. And why are you telling ME to give you a firm definition? You're the one who refuses to admit a fact of every day communication - that people *frequently* use terms that don't have a firm definition. And what's more, THIS is one of them, as is evidenced by the inconsistent acceptance of its usage. You trying to apply adefinition where there IS none is nonsense... And asking the person who's revealing to you the fact that it's an ambiguous term to give you a clear definition is just idiotic

If you're talking clear traits, then Baldur's Gate II has as much right to be called "expansion pack" as Colonization. But here's the catch - it wasn't, it never was, and no-one ever recognized it as such. You patently ignore this *fact* trying to cram your square-peg definition into a round hole. It'll never work. Nor will your outright false idea that ambiguous terms convey nothing, which is again, refuted by millions of people every day.

Actually, I'm saying that the ramifications of your definition is that a sequel isn't a sequel. Your definition has no authority... Decades of convention has a lot. You ignore the latter and say "MY definition is the rightest of them all!" while blatantly ignoring facts about the term "expansion pack" and its usage... Mainly because you have some backwards idea that an ambiguous term has no meaning and is gibberish. Again, pie-in-the-sky - the fact that I could walk up to anyone on the street and say that "Christianity is a pie in the sky idea!" and have them generally understand what I mean pretty much shows that your whole line of reasoning there is missing a few core components and is, as a result of that, pretty much outright false.

If Gears of War 2 had shipped at $60 with just a new campaign and Horde, but contained the original Gears of War multiplayer completely unchanged, I would fault it just the same. Halo 3: ODST is relying on content from the original Halo 3 (not just small assets; the entire multiplayer!) to justify its price tag. Not going to fly with me. For someone who already owns Halo 3, it is most certainly an overpriced standalone expansion.

xDimMaK

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]They can pretend is not an expansion all day long, it is an expansion.Halo__Reach

[QUOTE="Halo__Reach"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]They can pretend is not an expansion all day long, it is an expansion.Vandalvideo

Expansion pack refers nothing more than to price.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Expansion pack refers nothing more than to price.Jandurin

Jandurin, I don't know how you do it, but you have a keen ability to make people look stupid.

Maybe it's your whole cbf badditude lol

normative theory.Vandalvideo

badditude

FrozenLiquid

Don't kid yourself guys. This is exactly the game Bungie set out to do. A short sp and a new co-op mode. The game didn't magically got any bigger.

The thing is M$ saw they're 09 lineup dwindeling and tought that people will still buy it if they sell it at full price.

I repeat, this is now about Megan Fox.

It does actually. Halo 3 : Recon implies it's an extension of the halo 3 timeframe.Espada12

What I cant understand is why people can't just play it or not. I mean it is very simple either it appeals to you or it does not, either it is worth the 60 bucks or it is not. Enough with whether it is an expansion or not. Who cares what is it is, just the play the damn thing or pass on it.

[QUOTE="tojkfyr"]60$ though is a rip Nedemis

Wow this is stupid...All right so lets get this straight if ODST is just an expansion than so is pretty much all of the CoD series after the second one. CoD WaW and Modern Warfare 2 are obviosuly expansion packs not full games. CoD4 was a whole 5h long and so was WaW. That is not the length of a full priced game.

^trols am cry

[QUOTE="Halo__Reach"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]They can pretend is not an expansion all day long, it is an expansion.Vandalvideo

Why do you need a absolute definition? There is no strict legal definition therefore its open to interpretation, and as the video game industry is a dynamic and fast evolving industry, so the term has been stretched and evolves with it. 20-30 years ago, an expansion pack would specifically require a carrier in which to play it. The idea of an expansion pack not requiring the original game in order to use it was an alien concept back then. Looking back further still to the days of D&D, the concept of expansion packs were far far removed from the stand-alone games which people attribute the term today

The point is, the boundaries are nebulous; the term is open to the interpretation of developers and players alike. Which ever way you dress it up ODST is a game that does not require reference to any of Halo's previous incarnations and can be enjoyed as a stand-alone product. If we take the term expansion pack as it was original coined, ODST would not be given that label. How you wish to categorise that game is up to you and if you wish to dismiss it because of a category you personally place it in, well, that's your call.

Why do we keep having these threads, we knew it was a full game since the beginning of the year. And to me this games single player looks to be better then Halo 3. SAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]Why do we keep having these threads, we knew it was a full game since the beginning of the year. And to me this games single player looks to be better then Halo 3. II-FBIsniper-II

Don't kid yourself guys. This is exactly the game Bungie set out to do. A short sp and a new co-op mode. The game didn't magically got any bigger.

The thing is M$ saw they're 09 lineup dwindeling and tought that people will still buy it if they sell it at full price.

DarkyC

and get slammed in the ratings?? It goes against what Bungie have done previously. Some of you are being far too cynical. If this was EA or Ubisoft then maybe but lets atleast give Bungie the benefit of the doubt here. If they say more content has been added to the extent that its now a full retail game and no so much an expansion then I will atleast take their word for it.

I'm always willing to change my opinion of a given developer but until they give me reason to then I won't.