About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Halo 3 Review

Daniel Weissenberger's picture

Halo 3 Artwork - Click here for more

Is it fair to judge a game based on its advertising? I believe so. Although the dedicated gamer will tend to seek out information about upcoming titles through any media available to them, it's the advertising campaign that defines the mainstream's pre-purchasing experience with a game. Indeed, it often defines whether there will be a purchasing experience at all. With that in mind, and so much money flowing in and out of the videogame industry these days ("Bigger than Hollywood", they exclaim!) it's surprising that so few videogame advertisements break out of the same tired formula of A) Setup for comedy sketch, B) Ten seconds of game footage, C) Punchline of comedy sketch. Sure, Sony jumped out of the box with the launch of PS3, offering ads that likened playing the console to living in an insane asylum with an evil doll, but for the most part the Halo 3 campaign stands alone, both conceptually and in effectiveness.

Set roughly fifty years after the end of Halo 3, the ads are concerned with a large diorama depicting a particularly unpleasant battle between the humans and the Covenant. Shot in a sombre, respectful fashion, the ads attempt to add gravity and resonance, along with a sense of history to the proceedings, perhaps reminding viewers of similar dioramas they've seen at their local World War II museum. The ads promise an epic tale of tragedy, sacrifice, and heroism that Halo 3 really had no hope in hell of ever delivering. More troubling, however, is the fact that after playing the game, I can suggest with some certainty that they promised a game that Bungie didn't even bother trying to produce.

A first-person shooter (FPS) set in the far-flung future, Halo 3 picks up where the last game left off, hopefully satisfying fans who waited years to see the plot resolved. My memories of Halo 2 are a little on the fuzzy side, but if I remember the ad campaign correctly, the battle depicted in that game didn't need a hero, it needed a savior. Well, it seems that cyborg space Jesus screwed up, because humanity is in pretty bad shape when the game opens, down to its last few spaceships, fighting against extinction in the heart of Africa.

And gosh, is there a lot of fighting. From the opening seconds battling aliens along a riverbed, right up until the tense chase over an ice spire that finishes the game, no more than 30 seconds goes by between battles. This is a blastfest in the simplest form imaginable—no stealth, minimal inventory management, and plenty of big guns. Everything encourages the player to wade head-first into combat, trusting their weaponry to handle the enemies and the recharging shield bar to keep them safe.

Halo 3 Screenshot

Those skirmishes are resolved in a single manner: by shooting, or, occasionally, bludgeoning aliens to death. For a game which features nothing but shooting, it's important that the shooting be entertaining, and at this Halo 3 succeeds beyond all expectations. That's partially because of the fantastic job the developers have done at balancing the weapons. Once again Bungie has found a way to give each of the game's nearly 20 weapons a specific character, ensuring that each one has a place and time where it's the most valuable thing imaginable. Even more than the weapons, though, credit for keeping the game's battles fun goes to Bungie's custom auto-aim. This feature (which can't be turned off) ensures that the player's crosshairs have just the slightest bit of help locking on and sticking to opponents. Not so much that control is ever perceptibly taken away, just enough to make the player feel like they're really great shots. I will admit to appreciating the help more often than not, but every now and then I was being condescended to considering the truly shocking number of headshots I was pulling off.

The one place where the game breaks away from this restrictive formula is in the vehicle-intensive levels. Whenever the Master Chief gets a hold of a jeep or tank the game transforms into a continuous, frenetic battle, with the player racing to dodge incoming projectiles while their gunner struggles to keep a gatling gun trained on an army of foes. Just like in Halo, I longed for the moments I got a hold of a vehicle—I only wish the partner AI had been a little better, so I would have had a chance to operate the Jeep's gun as well as drive. Avoiding enemy fire is a vital part of the driving sequences, and the computer's nasty habit of running into walls and stopping for no reason got me killed more than a few times. Luckily, thanks to the great controls and vehicle physics, driving is every bit as fun as shooting, and by the end of the game I found myself wishing that Bungie would just give up this whole Halo thing and make a car combat game.

Halo 3 also shines in its much-lauded multiplayer combat mode. There are a wealth of maps and game modes to play on, and the matchmaking system is great at fixing players up based on their skill level, ensuring that most players should be able to get right into the action without any trouble. The only niggling problem when using the matchmaking system is players have very little say in what type of game they'll be playing and if they choose to start a custom game, all the players have to be invited. This forces gamers to choose between losing control or becoming social. Regardless, the multiplayer game plays fantastically. Halo 3's uncomplicated running and gunning style fits the deathmatch concept perfectly. Almost as if the controls were designed with the multiplayer in mind, as opposed to the single.

The best way to describe Halo 3's gameplay is solid. It gets in and does its job exactly as it should, but it has absolutely nothing new to offer. A two-weapon carry limit and progressive health felt revolutionary six years ago, but now it's hard to find a game that they're not featured in. For some reason all the other advancements that have been made to the FPS genre over the past half-decade seem to have left Halo behind. I'm shocked to see a game in this day and age that doesn't offer any sort of a cover mechanic, or quick dodge moves. While my enemies bound lightly around the levels, diving to the side or spinning out of the way of grenades, my only evasive option is a big, floaty leap into the air—where I'm no more a difficult target than I was on the ground.

Halo 3 Screenshot

Speaking of the Master Chief's agile foes, Halo 3 has some of the most unbalanced AI I've seen in years. While Covenant troops of all shapes and sizes behave with a wonderful cunning, using cover and seeming to support each other in a semblance of tactical thinking, the human partner AI is woefully idiotic. I can't count the number of times I watched a tiny human rush up to a brute, ineffectually peppering it with small arms fire before being crushed by a single punch. At first it's an effective way of establishing what terrifying entities the foes are, but after a little while I just started wishing they'd learn to back up so they could be of some use to me.

Halo 3 also has the strange distinction of being the ugliest beautiful game I've ever seen. Nearly everything is rendered in beautiful detail, the explosions and particle effects are fantastic... it's a triumph of graphic engineering and a testament to what the 360 is capable of. My problem, though, is just how the ugly the actual things being rendered are. Back when Halo was being made, I understand that the Master Chief had to be blocky, and all the Covenant vehicles had to be smooth and featureless, and all the graphical design problems were covered up with a layer of shine and glow. Now that the developers are working with exponentially more powerful technology, I don't understand why all those ugly designs have to remain. It's not like there's a failure of imagination or talent—the two new Brute vehicles are fantastic. Full moving parts, they seem to have been jerry-rigged together from scraps. They're fascinating to look at, fun to drive, and impressive to blow up. I only wish that the minds behind them had been unleashed a little more freely throughout the rest of the game.

Then there's the bizarrely awful graphics that appear in the game's cut-scenes. Every time there's a shot of a spaceship flying somewhere, it's rendered as a good-looking 3D model flying in front of an inexplicably low-resolution 2D image of a landscape or planet. As if they ran out of time and just dropped the concept art in as a backdrop. Suddenly the game goes from beautifully-rendered real-time graphics to the 21st century equivalent of a detailed practical model dangling in front of a cheap, out of focus matte painting. I have no idea how something that looked this awful made it into the final game.

The only classic element that was overhauled for the better is the Flood. A twisted parasite that acts like a hybrid of John Carpenter's The Thing and Shodan from System Shock 2, the Flood infects other life forms and transforms them into vicious monstrosities that outright defy the law of conservation of matter. The Flood look amazing, hideous fleshy H.P. Lovecraft creatures that spray slime everywhere and attack in overwhelming numbers. While there's nothing new about the concept, they look better here then they ever have before, and prove that a visual update can add immeasurably to the experience.

Halo 3 Screenshot

Sadly, while the Flood's appearance has been improved, their presence in the game is just as awkward and unpleasant as ever. Even with a few new forms and the fantastic new look, they haven't gotten any smarter, and don't understand any tactic more complex than running straight at the player, attacking wildly. This can be scary in small doses, but it just winds up being tedious after a little while. I've never met anyone who actually liked the Flood portions of Halo 1 and 2, so the decision to include two lengthy Flood levels back to back in Halo 3 is something of a puzzler. Whatever momentum the game had going stops dead for over an hour of having slimy things running in a straight line, with the player stuck in hallways too narrow to just walk around them.

It's not just the Flood that get repetitive, though. The level design suffers from similar problems. There's an old joke about Halo's maps: Any hallway worth walking down is worth walking down three times. While the developers do their best to pepper old areas with new enemies, it's impossible to escape the fact that six separate levels in a nine level game feature significant amounts of backtracking. If going back over the same areas wasn't bad enough, the lack of an in-game map was just inexcusable. I can't count the number of times I got lost, and had to wait for the game to take pity on me and put a directional arrow on my HUD. It's the year 2007, and my phone can tell me exactly where on the Earth I am. Does Bungie really expect me to believe that there's nothing in that helmet of the Master Chief's that tells him where to go next?

Just as problematic as the backtracking is how rigidly formulaic the game's maps are. After the initial impressiveness of the graphics wears off, it's impossible to to not notice the game's obvious structure. Each level consists of a few large, open areas, linked by narrow hallways. As a rule, the hallways are devoid of life, and every large room holds somewhere between 12 and 16 enemies. To the game's credit, it does a pretty good job of making the large area gunfights memorable through the creative use of architecture and enemy placement, but it's difficult not to tire of the carbon-copy design fairly quickly. This problem is only compounded by the fact that nearly every weapon and enemy has made an appearance by the end of level two, leaving the rest of the game devoid of surprises. Sure, most of these weapons and monsters had already appeared up in Halo 2, so it's possible that Bungie didn't want to keep people waiting for things they'd already seen, but more care should have been taken in this game's pacing, and the lack of consideration shows.

There's one place where the pacing really works. In an early level the player gets a glimpse of a Scarabe, one of the Covenant's a giant walking tanks. The entire first half of the level is a build-up to the confrontation with the tank, which is impervious to weapons fire. While dodging its attacks, the player must attack its legs until they break temporarily, forcing down so that the Master Chief can climb about, sabotaging its engine, causing it to explode. If this sounds like an FPS version of Shadow of the Colossus, it's because that's exactly what it plays like, and it's every bit as unreservedly great as the comparison suggests. What Bungie accomplishes here is a truly exceptional, creating an epic encounter, putting me up against incredible odds, and then demanding that I overcome them. So each time I watched a Scarab explode in a blinding flash of blue light, I felt a sense of true achievement. It's just too bad that's the only time the game manages to create such a feeling.

Halo 3 Screenshot

That's right, Halo 3's biggest flaw is that at it never rises to the level of epic storytelling or gameplay that the premise suggests, even demands. Although I was told time and again there was a war for humanity's fate going on, I certainly never saw any evidence of it. Great stakes are discussed, but never established. I'm supposed to be horrified that the Flood overrun a city, or that most of Africa needs to be bombed to prevent their spread, but since no one actually seems to live there, why should I care? No reference to civilian casualties, or even civilian existence, is ever made, so there's no tragedy in the "glassing" of Africa, just the mild satisfaction that comes from having survived it. It's a little ridiculous seeing what should be the game's climactic encounter being waged on such a small scale. When I besieged the Prophet of Truth's final stronghold, the only resistance I found was six vehicles and eight soldiers, for a grand total of fourteen opposing troops. Between vehicles and Marines, I had ten on my side. This is supposed to be the deciding battle for the fate of the galaxy, and it involves less than 25 people?

This problematic lack of scope extends into the game's plot, which is one of the most simplistic stories I've ever seen referred to as being "deep." It attempts to add resonance by placing the central conflict in a religious context: The villain is called a "Prophet", the Elites, aliens who have abandoned the Covenant to team up with humans, are called "Heretics" by the other Covenant troops. Unfortunately, the story doesn't have any of the depth or grey areas that actual religious schisms manifest. In fact, the main conflict of the game is an entirely secular one. Beyond the simple question of whether the Master Chief can stop the Prophet of Truth from destroying the galaxy (spoiler alert: according to the ad campaign, he can), there's no depth or complexity to this conflict. What the Covenant wants is so outlandishly bad that it can't be seen as anything but madness, and the humans have a completely good solution available to them, which, if successful would result in the complete destruction of all their foes and a completely happy ending. There's no hard decisions to be made here, no possibility of being forced to accept the existence of, or even making an agreement with, the Flood. No, all the bad guys are clearly evil, and all of them can be easily defeated in one fell swoop.

Compare this storytelling to one of gaming's actual high points, 1992's Star Control 2. The game's plot centered around a dogmatic disagreement within an extremely powerful alien race, the Ur-Quan. After millennia of enslavement by a terrible parasite, they managed to win their freedom. They decided that they would never again be victims—just how to accomplish this was the cause of some disagreement. One group, the Kzer-Ka, believed that the solution was to freeze the evolution of all other sentient races by destroying their ability to travel through space and containing their planets within protective spheres. The other group, called the Kor-Ah, thought that it was best to just play it safe and just destroy all other life in the galaxy. There's no good side in this conflict—both are evil, even though their actions and motivations are completely understandable. The player's role isn't to choose a side, but merely to prevent either of them from acquiring a weapon that would allow them total domination over the galaxy. To accomplish this task, the player is actually forced to team up with a Dynnari, the last remaining member of the race of slavers who caused all the problems in the first place—a character far more evil than either of the game's villains. It's a masterpiece of complex motivations and hard choices that makes Halo 3 look like a simplistic trifle in comparison.

Halo 3 Screenshot

The storytelling is crippled further by huge tonal problems in the presentation. Despite the gravity with which the story is presented, and the clear pretensions the game has of being a legitimate work of fiction, the story is hamstrung by the insane decision to place endless comedy quips throughout the game's combat. Every time I fought alongside human troops I was faced with an onslaught of anachronistic comments that serve no purpose but to destroy any sense of immersion the game might have otherwise created. I'm not saying I can categorically state what kind of language soldiers are going to be using in the 26th century, but I can pretty safely state that they're not going to refer to killing an enemy as "owning" them. Nor will they be referencing the film Full Metal Jacket, or turn of the century recruitment slogans. That's right, one of the marines refers to himself as an "Army of One". That reference is embarrassingly dated today, so what on earth are people doing using it in the far-flung future? More importantly, how can I be expected to take a game seriously when every time the characters open their mouths it descends into self-parody?

But all of these problems pale next to the ending of the game. If it seemed like the cliffhanger that ended Halo 2 was bad, it pales next to the wrap-up of Halo 3. I'm not going divulge the details here, but the ham-handedness in which it goes from trying to generate tension through unbelievably stupid writing to attempting to create tragedy out of a completely non-tragic situation is jaw-droppingly inept. A combination of bad writing and editing serve to just cripple whatever effect they were hoping to create.

There's some discussion in the entertainment industry as to whether the marketing budget should be included when discussing how much it costs to make a film. The fear is that with budgets growing every year, people are shocked enough by how expensive movies are to make—finding out that another nearly half that amount is spent informing the public about those same films would just seem excessive. Halo 3 is the first game to feature utterly inescapable advertising. The fact is that if a person came within ten feet of a radio, television, or flat surface during August and September 2007, they were aware of Halo 3. I have no doubt that the game's marketing budget was far higher than the cost of actually making the game. It's a pity, then, that Halo 3 just isn't deserving of the kind of attention it's already received. While certainly a technically adept game, it has little new to offer beyond the crisp, attractive presentation. It's not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a great example of a developer and a series refusing to grow and change with the times. There's almost nothing here that I didn't play five years ago in the first Halo, it's just a little more visually polished. It's a good game to be sure, but not a great one, and by no means is it the genre-defining experience that we were promised. Rating: 7.0 out of 10.

According to ESRB, this game contains: Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence

Parents, I know you're not going to take the M rating seriously—to quote The Simpsons, denying your children this game is like not letting them watch the moon landing. The gory, blood-soaked moon landing. Please, though, just promise me that you'll take a little time to play it with them so that you can explain the difference between fantasy and reality, and that they shouldn't go around shooting people in real life. Also, don't let them cackle when gunning down cowardly foes running away from them. That isn't one of the fifteen signs that someone is going to be a serial killer or anything, but it certainly doesn't bode well for their ethical development.

Halo fans, sure, you've played this all before, but if you liked it then, there's no reason you won't like it now, especially since it's 50 percent shinier than before.

Multiplayer gamers, your grail has arrived. The simple fact is that this is what most people are going to be playing for the next two years (at least), so if you want to deathmatch online at all, you have no excuse for not buying it. In addition to great gameplay, Halo 3 offers an elaborate replay feature that allows you to recreate matches and film them at any angle or speed (other than rewind, for some reason), then upload the resultant videos and screenshots to the internet. Bungie obviously cares about building a community around Halo, and they're doing a great job of supporting it.

Co-op gamers are also in for a treat, as the game allows players to enjoy the entire campaign with up to three friends. The one drawback is that because the difficulty isn't scaled up for co-op mode, the game is very easy with four competent players, even on the Legendary difficulty setting.

Michael Wincott fans be warned - he does not appear in this game. Halo 2's Prophet of Truth has been replaced by Terrence Stamp, of General Zod fame. I don't know what the explanation for this change is, but it's very disappointing.

Deaf and Hard of Hearing gamers are going to have some problems. While the levels are simple enough in design that just walking forward will generally get players to their next objectives, there are all sorts of gameplay tips conveyed through in-game dialogue, none of which are subtitled. All of the cut-scenes have subtitles, so at least the story will be accessible, but deaf gamers won't hear anything Cortana or the Gravemind have to say, which will make the way the game stops dead to allow them to speak something of a bewildering experience. Sadly, gameplay is affected more than normal—the lack of a decent radar makes hearing all the more important in spotting enemies, and although arrows appear onscreen to tell the player where enemy fire is coming from, on the higher difficulty levels many Covenant weapons are one-shot kills, so the inability to hear the Fuel-Rod gun's distinctive report will likely prove fatal on a number of occasions.

Category Tags
Platform(s): Xbox 360  
Developer(s): Bungie  
Publisher: Microsoft  
Series: Halo  
Genre(s): Shooting   Online/Multiplayer  
ESRB Rating: Mature (17+)  
Articles: Game Reviews   Best Work  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't know what the hype is about

Halo 1 was a nice game for a short time. Singleplayer was quite fun and MP had it's moments - on the X-Box. On the PC Halo was below average. It was lame, literally lame. The combination of slow movement speed, inaccurate automatic weapons and mouse usage made the pistol to the most powerfull weapen. Headshooting a sniper from across the map with a pistol was no problem.
Halo 2 for X-Box was a medicore experiance for me. More of the same. Compared to PC games of the time Halo 2 was outdated. When it finally came for the PC it was a total disaster.
Living in Germany, I missed the advertising. Halo isn't so big here anyway. Perhaps because more then 50 percent of all sold videogames are for the PC.

FYI the marketing budget

FYI the marketing budget for the game was $10 million. The development costs were about $60 million.

BTW there is a cover mechanic in the game. It's called ducking for cover. :-)

Bah gawd! 7/10! Hrrrghrgrgrgrgrgrgrrr!!!!!

Just kidding. Thank you for the honest review.

In the mean time, other critics on other sites, DON'T SUGARCOAT YOUR DAMN SCORES.

Who the hell lets him write "pro" reviews?

The author makes a lot of factual errors, includes spoilers and generally doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He generally sounds like he is out to prove that Halo 3 is not as good as every one else says that it is, just to be different. This is sad. Who is letting him write professional game reviews?

To the guy that said that Halo was not a good PC game:
I never owned an XBox and only got into Halo when it came out for PC. I loved it and it quickly became my second favorite sci-fi FPS, right after Half-Life. So, speak for yourself, buddy.

why this review exists

First of all, I have been a consistent Halo player since Halo 1 six years ago, and Have beaten each one at least 5 times, and have played nearly 3000 games of multiplayer split between Halos 1 and 2. I have beaten Halo 3 now almost twice and have played or seen played another 150 games online, and have most likely a far more important opinion than someone who seems to have something against a game of this caliber.

First critique of this critique being that you cannot take into consideration when reviewing a game its budget or marketing campaign. Just because Halos 1 and 2 were so well received that Halo 3 was able to have an enormous ad campaign does not mean that you can take points off for it maybe not living up to your impossibly high expectations. The fact of the matter remains; the Halo franchise is the game that created those tactics that you said were good six years ago, and it pays homage to the saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." The Halo games are the most solid and brilliantly crafted games on both Xbox and Xbox 360 and no game on any console has been even close.

The second thing...the story line was amazingly creative and incredibly deep. Between the religious implications and the awe-inspiring compassion and drive that the main character displays is something that only the Half-life series has been able to create. All of this from a main character that you never even get to see his face. That just goes to show that Bungie does its work better than any company out there, and should be rewarded immensely for Hals's success.

The multiplayer portion of the game is just beyond comprehension of how good it actually is. The fact that it just gets better with time just goes to show that it is supreme. And to say that the multiplayer is worse because you don't have as many options as some of the other big-name games is ludicrous. Not having as many choices is a good thing, so that people don't get to just play their favorites and boost their stats. So saying that is just stupid.

And, I have now almost played through the campaign several times like I said, and I don't remember any backtracking. You never have to retrace your steps, and the environments are so expansive that you never are in need of backtracking. The only way you would have to retrace your steps is if you suck and can't figure out the easy directions that you are supposed to be following.

And, in closing, I will simply say that this review has no merit whatsoever. All of the things that were said are basically wrong, and it just seems like this guy has a bias toward Halo and good games. This is easily the best game to hit the 360, and it should be considered as such. Please don't bring down the average rating with your crappy reviews.

There is some backtracking.

There is some backtracking. The second level, Crow's Nest, has been once referred to as the level that redefines backtracking. You have to double back to the same room twice.

The Floodgate level has some backtracking in the beginning area. You have to walk back through the warehouses while fighting the Flood. However the level eventually branches off.

I don't think Dan has bias against the Halo series. Although I do disagree with him in some of his points, this guy has played a lot of Halo 3. He's the only guy I know who has almost all of the achievements in the game.

An accurate and realistic review.

Glad to read a review that didn't soil itself with fanaticism. Halo 3 is a perfectly respectable shooter but with the quality of games coming out recently - i.e. Bioshock, GRAW2, Rainbow 6, Clive Barker's Jericho - it just doesn't match up.

I was also disappointed by the difference between the top notch advertising campaign and the lacklustre game. I was expecting total epic warfare not standard run and gun fare. I certainly agree with Mr. Weissenberger's,

"More troubling, however, is the fact that after playing the game, I can suggest with some certainty that they promised a game that Bungie didn't even bother trying to produce."

That'll teach me to be roped in by advertising.

Anons.

Anonymous 2 - Who am I to review the game? Someone who puts their name and picture along with their opinion. Who are you?

Anonymous 3 - Seriously? No backtracking? I know that you complained about spoilers in the review, but avoiding excessive spoilers is why I didn't list all the backtracking specifically - which I'm going to do now, so please, if you don't want to have the game spoiled, skip down to the next response;

(SPOILER)

Level 2 - You walk from the control room to the hangar, back to the control room, through the motor pool, out to the landing pad, back to the motor pool, back to the control room, back out to the hangar.

Level 4 - You walk through some rooms out to a giant gun.
Level 5 - You walk back from the gun, through the same rooms you walked through in level 4.

Level 6 - Drive all the way from a base out to the end of a dirt road to get a tank, then drive the tank all the way to the base.

Level 7 - Drive a jeep up a long road to a tower, fight your way up the tower, then back down again, then drive back down the road. Fly over to a second tower - which has the exact same layout as the first one, and fight your way back down again.

Level 8 - Fight your way to to the middle of the Flood ship, then fight your way back out again following essentially the same route.

(END OF SPOILER)

That's six levels worth of backtracking and repetition - and the only time it isn't egregious is in level six, because at least then you've got a tank for the second half.

Oh, and Anon 3 - if you love the game, that's fine - what do you care about the average score?

Huh?

Wow, just wow. I guess everyone has the right to their opinion. Heck, some people just want to be different. I thought 8 out of 10 was a low score but 7, come on. When did you start playing video games, yesterday I guess. Bioshock was a wonderful game but does not have much replay value. I have replayed Halo 3 campaign 3 times so far, maybe that does not mean much to you, douche bag.

I understand the "hype".

The series is the best game series available. Bioshock doesn't stand a chance, Far Cry wasn't better, Crysis might be, Stranglehold already lost anyhow, The Darkness didn't do it either.

I started playing Halo 1 on PC a couple years ago, bought Halo 2 on PC and found out: "Oh my god. I'm not gonna wait another three years until they convert Halo 3 to PC, I'm getting the Xbox 360!"
So, I just go my 360 and beat the game in a matter of hours and can only say: owned. I don't know what makes the game so good, it's just fun to play. It might be the badass Master Chief, the awesome weapons (design!) or the grunt slaughtering but every 360 owner needs this game. Even if they don't really like it...

review this

Worst Game Review EVER!

Revierwer: Check yourself before you wreck yourself

I've never been to a review site where the reviewer called out people who disagreed with their review. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If you stand by your review, then stand by it, don't try to act tough and call out people who disagreed with your review. I assume that you get paid to play games for free and give your opinions on your experiences. Well the other 99.9 percent of the rest of us have to purchase the games that you get for free. So, in closing don't respond to posts that disagree with yours. You lose all credibility and look foolish.

follow-up

BTW, where in the world did Daniel Weissenberger get the numbers on production costs and advertising costs? Um, was he too lazy to try and Google it or was he too busy googling himself?

Word of advise for Daniel Weissenberger, don't quit your day job. Just in case this is your day job, don't quit it! If your bosses are not smart enough to fire you then enjoy getting paychecks you don't earn. I won't be back to Gamecritics to really care one way or another!

Kevbo

I understand where you're coming from - everyone's entitled to their opinions - but when someone accuses me of putting factually incorrect information in a review, naturally I have to respond, lest other readers think I haven't actually played the game enough to comment on it.

Oh, and yes, you're correct, I was calling anyone that posts insults anonymously a coward, but again, that's just a statement of fact, so I'm not seeing the controversy.

BTW - about not knowing how to respond? You should probably laugh, because, after all, that is the best medicine. But if you feel like you need to cry, don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

Daniel, get over yourself.

Daniel, get over yourself. Nobody cares that you take pride in being a contradictory asshole. 7/10? Are you kidding me? Have you ever played a quality game before in your life? If Halo 3 had absolutely no hype going in and you never heard of it before, you'd say it was amazing, which it is. But you let hype and politics get to you, so you get off to saying it's "overhyped," which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Halo 3 didn't smash all entertainment records in history ($170 million first 24 hours) because everyone felt like buying an "overhyped" game.

Admit you low-balled your score just to go against the grain, and get over yourself.

See, this is what I mean-

With people just putting incorrect information out there. Yes, the line about 'far exceeding' the budget was hyperbole, but the widely-reported 10 million number is just a small facet of the budget - what it cost to put those TV commercials on in prime time in North America. Microsoft has been understandably tight-lipped about what the rest of the omni-media-blitz is costing them.

Oh, and PS - if you want to know why a game got a certain score, read the review, generally the logic will become clear. If you're still confused, and suspicious of their motives, take a look at the writer's other reviews and see if you can find evidence to back your theory up. Then, if you believe you've found some kind of a trend worth exposing, go public with it, revealing the awful truth to the public at large.

And if you don't find anything, don't worry - it's not a waste of time. As I understand it, research is good for the soul.

listen... I'm not a total

listen... I'm not a total fanboy and thought the campaign was short and not entirely "epic"

but that being said... the overall software package you get for 60 bucks is the best value ever, bar none.

you get multiplayer which is pure perfection and will be played for years... and so many tiny little details that all other games lack...

the worst part of playign halo games is going back to regular games and realizing that most companies make games purely for money... bungie's games are a labor of love and they really want them to be perfect.

you sir, are an idiot because i would have rated the game a 98 out of 100... that would be a fair unbiased rating...

"The captain....no"

Oh younglings, let's face it. Dr. Daniel's verbose review was a little much for your minds to grasp. In reality, all his words sum up as "Halo 3 sucks." He's just being nice and even proving himself, which is relatively unnecessary. Even his responses are polite, which you fail to realize means he's reasonable and sure in his position.

Halo Tray is the second bloated, short-campaigned sequel to an otherwise great beginning. Halo 1 is still worth playing, I do sometimes. Bungie admitted Halo 2 was an unmitigated disaster, both the ending and all things multi-player. I bought it, and it turned out to be one of the biggest letdowns of all time. When teamkilling gets old, because the lag and sword make everything suck, it's not a great game, kids.

No saving changes for this, the 3rd game, so it's not rocket science. Admit you jumped on the bandwagon, then get off, skin your newbie knees and wait for the next GTA or something, lollersk8s hahahahahaha

Haters need to grow the fuck up

Your entire conception of criticism has been warped by an irredeemable gaming press completely beholden to publishers and spittle-flecked fanboys. Only in gaming is a 7/10 considered average.

3/4 of the review was comprised of unqualified praise. Halo 3 (like its predecessors) is fun, polished, well crafted escapist entertainment--and the author says as much!

But it's not Tolstoy. Hell, it's not even fuckin' Asimov. It's derivative sci-fi pulp with a paper-thin veneer of religious pretense.
That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it for what it is!
A game doesn't have to be art to warrant playing.

You want narrative depth? Read Ursula Le Guin. Read Frank Herbert. Read Neil Gaiman. Don't look for narrative depth in a game who's protagonist has spent the last three months on a Mountain Dew can. Stop deluding yourselves.

You criticize microsoft's

You criticize microsoft's advertisement campaign, yet I fail to see how giving halo 3 a score as low as 7 being anything but trying to advertise for your site. You criticize halo 3 because of it's hype, which is highly illogical and your review contains spoilers without warnings. You seem to try and find every single flaw with the game and attack everything the game doesn't do. If you pointed out all these things with every game you reviewed, everything would have preposterously low scores. Your review is obviously influenced by your expectations and it is highly unprofessional to let that get in the way of writing a serious review. Halo 3 is a fantastic game. Congratulations on getting attention.

hm...

Yes, it's a simplistic story and far less epic than its setting and advertising would suggest. But that's just the singleplayer. How the hell can you review Halo 3 without mentioning multiplayer features like saved films and forge mode? Besides, I've always thought Halo was more about the multiplayer...so what's with the focus on everything else?

Also, including an entire paragraph of information about a game from 1992 to flesh out a point you've already made entirely clear is just unprofessional writing. I have no idea why anyone except diehard fans of that game (which the writer clearly is) would want or need to read all of that.

You're out of your fucking mind!!

Since you contradict yourself many times, I have no choice but to go with the way you make it seem your opinion is going. If you have a problem with this, get over it, you douche bag.

In the opening paragraph you say that it is fair to judge a game based on its advertising. That is the worst fucking thought anyone has EVER expressed. Now, of course, this is my opinion, but I doubt anyone disagrees with me (other than your dumbass self). Gears of War had terrible advertising and that was a great game. In that one paragraph, you set your self up for saying that the game is entirely bad. Guess what? YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

Paragraph 2. Here you make the single stupidest statement ever.

Quote:

More troubling, however, is the fact that after playing the game, I can suggest with some certainty that they promised a game that Bungie didn't even bother trying to produce.

If you can stop thinking out of your ass and pay attention for one measly minute, you'll know that the ads had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY LINE. Since you're a dumbass, I'll explain this: this means that that was never supposed to advertise what was in the game.

Unbalanced AI? It's supposed to be that way. The humans are trying nearly anything to help save our beloved home from these butt-fugly aliens, so they do that. The Brutes are supposed make it seem unbalanced. They are fucking strong, and they need to show it off every once in a while.

Awful graphics? ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND?! Gouge your eyes out. Now. Seriously, do it. You don't deserve to use them anymore.

Since you are obviously fucking retarded, I'll explain something to you about Halo's back story. The planet Earth became over populated, so humanity started colonizing other worlds. Basically, Africa isn't the hellhole that no one cares about that you mention. There are are many people on the planet, and it isn't too hard to realize that by just paying attention.

After reading the whole thing, it's obvious that you're a terrible liar, a douche bag, and that you need to commit suicide before you even read this.

-------

Laughter is the greatest medicine? Since when has laughter ever cured cancer, AIDs, or Polio?

-------

A picture proves that you're not a coward? You're a fucking nerd and you never leave you're computer. If you're going to openly call someone a coward, you have to show some balls and tell them why; not because they don't have a picture of themself, douche bag.

This game reviewer is

This game reviewer is CRAP.

And is made of FAIL and AIDS.

Daniel' you're an idiot

i have so much shit to say about you right now,but to sum everything up, i wanna say Daniel,you suck !

halo 3 maybe a little bit overhyped and underdelivered but it means 9/10 not 7/10.

you see now Danny boy,everyone hates you.if you try to make an effort to make a name for yourself by doing this,you failed.what? you think just because you gave a great game lousy score just because the game does not live up to ''your'' expectations though the game is still very good which is true, you will get invited to G4,larry king or oprah:the most judgmental reviewer in the world wooo..

you can deny anyone comments about your pathetic BS but no one will buy your nonsense.i have not read your review yet but i know your review is unfair to the game(who would read,there's spoiler).If you say there's a logic and system to justify your score,i don't believe ,because you are bogus,or maybe the system sucks and you need to review games in a new way.

go and check gamerankings.com and you will find the lowest score after you is 8/10 by new york times,which very very judgmental and it is billions times more famous then you.you are the only one that gave halo 3 7/10.if the game is really 7/10 bad,why did most reviewers gave it 9 and above.see you are bogus.because of your little stupid review, the average score for halo 3 had been marked down significantly.''thank you very much''!

some advises:replay the game thoroughly,stop your bogus and give the score the game it deserves and i mean it deserves not the score your bogus mind wanna give.or else some halo fanatics will burn your house down and kill your family(just kidding)

halo 3 is not as bad as 7/10

seriously,the only thing i will complain about halo 3 is its visual does not live up to the halo standards.but the game still look far superior to any other game on the platform with the exception of gears of war and bioshock,but may i remind you:gears of war and bioshock do not have maps nearly half the size in halo 3.

Ranting About Rants

I disagree with the reviewer's score (I mostly ignored the advertisements and hype after being severely disappointed with Halo 2) and definitely get the impression his review is either an attempt to stand out against the grain, or gain attention to himself or this website (which has worked beautifully, by the way). That said, I have to say he does make some very valid points. I think he places too much weight on the deficiencies of the story to the point where it feels like he's nitpicking, but his thoughts are well presented and well thought out, which is more than what I can say for most of the comments listed here.

Seriously, it feels like the reviewer's being scolded by a bunch of 12 year-olds with thesauruses by their sides, trying to use big words in an attempt to sound more mature and intelligent than they actually are. Their true colors show when they make the most basic of grammatical mistakes, say the reviewer "suXx0rz," or proclaim ludicrous statements like, "Halo 3 is the most complete package EVAR!" or "A 98/100 would be a more accurate, unbiased score..."

While I think the game deserved a better score (I can't think of a game that does raw, visceral gunplay and vehicle combat action better than Halo 3) and I initially said, "oh no you di-int" when I saw the 7/10 score, I actually sat down and read through the review with an open mind and found myself agreeing with a lot the author had to say... which is more than can be said for most of you little punks.

So... trying to generate

So... trying to generate some traffic to this site, huh?

Wow, does Dannyboy suck ass

I couldn't believe the score he gave this great game. Then I read the comments. The reaction was very cool. I have never saw a reviewer repeatedly feel the need to respond as much as this a-hole did. Then he bragged about how he posted his picture, as if it were a portrait of courage. Hello dumb ass, your the only one that gets to put up your butt ugly photo.

Anyway, I only linked here through gamerankings to read why such a piece of crap would review the game so low. Then I read that same piece of crap attacking his detractors. What a douche! This will most likely be the last time I link to this rag of an e-mag!

Congrats on taking the most popular game to date and making your website the most hated by its fans. May I just take a moment to quote you and use your words against you. (My)"trying to generate tension through unbelievably stupid writing to attempting to create tragedy out of a completely non-tragic situation is jaw-droppingly inept." That is so fitting for you, Danny-boy! I am sorry for calling you a douche though. At least a douche has a reason to exist

I agree with the reviewer

I agree with the reviewer here. I dont understand what the hype is all about. The game is the exact same as Halo 1 with better gfx. Weapons and enemies are the exact same! Multiplayer is retarded. You cant even choose what type of game mode you want to play. Instead the game choose for you and puts a bunch of random players into a random game mode. Come on Bungie, you can do better than that! I seriously think this game is way overhyped! Bioshock is so much better than this. I would give it 7/10 as well and I've been telling all my friends the same thing.

Can you back this up?

I just wanted to know if your statement, "I have no doubt that the game's marketing budget was far higher than the cost of actually making the game" is just your obnoxious opinion or is it based in fact?

Anonymous wrote: Daniel,

Anonymous wrote:

Daniel, get over yourself. Nobody cares that you take pride in being a contradictory asshole. 7/10? Are you kidding me? Have you ever played a quality game before in your life? If Halo 3 had absolutely no hype going in and you never heard of it before, you'd say it was amazing, which it is. But you let hype and politics get to you, so you get off to saying it's "overhyped," which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Halo 3 didn't smash all entertainment records in history ($170 million first 24 hours) because everyone felt like buying an "overhyped" game.

Admit you low-balled your score just to go against the grain, and get over yourself.

A little advice....Everyone has there own opinion, learn to accept that, NOT cry like a little 12 year old girl. The reviewer wrote what he feels concerning the game, thats his opinion...Not everyone likes it because you like it, You my friend need to get over YOUR self and suck it up, It got a 7/10.

BTW, quit trying to sound smart, doesn't suit a misinformed child.

You complain about halo's

You complain about halo's storyline not being perfect, yet most FPS have a garbage story line that does not even come near the complexity of halo's. Look at gears, the story line is practically non-existent, yet you probably would not give gears a 7/10. Halo has an amazing complex and interesting story line and you still find a way to complain about stupid little things like not mentioning civilians on Africa? You really need them to tell you people live on earth?

Anonymous wrote: Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Daniel, get over yourself. Nobody cares that you take pride in being a contradictory asshole. 7/10? Are you kidding me? Have you ever played a quality game before in your life? If Halo 3 had absolutely no hype going in and you never heard of it before, you'd say it was amazing, which it is. But you let hype and politics get to you, so you get off to saying it's "overhyped," which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Halo 3 didn't smash all entertainment records in history ($170 million first 24 hours) because everyone felt like buying an "overhyped" game.

Admit you low-balled your score just to go against the grain, and get over yourself.

A little advice....Everyone has there own opinion, learn to accept that, NOT cry like a little 12 year old girl. The reviewer wrote what he feels concerning the game, thats his opinion...Not everyone likes it because you like it, You my friend need to get over YOUR self and suck it up, It got a 7/10.

BTW, quit trying to sound smart, doesn't suit a misinformed child.

reviews have become more than a persons opinion. It's the responsibility of the review to review a game thinking of what the gamer wants, not what he wants. Personally, I hate the GTA series. If I were to review GTA IV, I would not give my personal opinion, I would write a review in response to whether or not I think that people that like GTA will enjoy it. It's simply unprofessional to give your personal opinion like this on a respected internet site. I suppose this site must suck then.

easy now

Out of all the comments I have to agree with puff, It seems the reviewer made a decision before playing the game, as in "NO I will not give this game a chance!" This being my first halo game due to swearing by PC, I was suprised at its amazingly innovative multiplayer. I actually have the same gripes he does with the campaign, but this review basically ignores all of the multiplayer features it has.....which is, IMO, why so many people bought this game. Where's the mention of smooth multi, free-roaming replays, four player co-op, map and movie sharing, and most of all FORGE? Haven't seen that stuff with any other console game really, and the reviewer kind of just ignored it and decided to not comment on them. Would've made a difference, don't you think?

Decent review, moronic comments

As I finished up the review of Halo 3, I felt that while the reviewer was nit-picking on certain aspects of the game and probably was not right in trying to review the game with the hype of the game in the back of his mind, he did raise several valid points of critique for Halo 3. Points that a large majority of video game "reviewers" completely missed. While some of these points are no doubt subject to personal opinion, these points are VALID nonetheless.

But enough of the reviewer and more about the problem with the idiots who responded to this article, who can easily be seen as a representation of a significant problem that many video game fans have.

Rather than posting why they felt the reviewer was wrong with his stance, most people who commented felt the need to not only insult the review for stating his view, but also ridiculed him for having an opinion that was different from a large majority of reviewers and fans. Both of these "arguments" are logical fallacies and display the lack of maturity and foolishness of the people who posted them. Dan had every right to defend himself from the childish comments that people made about him and his review.

Nothing is wrong with disagreeing with the review, but acting like a 12 year old and making BASELESS comments about how the reviewer is wrong is idiotic.

It's too bad that a large majority of commentators (and video games fans as a whole) are too concerned with the score a reviewer gives a game, rather than what he has to say about it.

Great review, although I see

Great review, although I see that you did not address all the problems but you & this site got my complete respect.

Ignore all people saying your review is baised or bad. They are crybabies when they love something they see it perfect. I swear if zelda, metroid, MGS, heavenly sword or finalfantasy game had the problems halo3 got ( bad level design, stupid AI,bad graphics with slowdown,non existent music except for the openinng & so on, the reviewers would have never give these games even a 6 or even 5 or 4.

I used to like halo but after halo3... NO. they are not going to fool me with bought reviews & zombie like fans. I have the special edition & the lgendary ed. is coming soon. I will sell it as soon as possible.

Anonymous wrote: To the guy

Anonymous wrote:

To the guy that said that Halo was not a good PC game:
I never owned an XBox and only got into Halo when it came out for PC. I loved it and it quickly became my second favorite sci-fi FPS, right after Half-Life. So, speak for yourself, buddy.

I just thought this was amusing.

To disprove someone else's statement, a person says that he liked the game. OMG LOGIC CANNOT COMPUTE.

In all honesty, I'm sort of torn between the two camps that seem to be waging a war with each other. On one hand, I do think that 7/10 is a low score and it isn't really paying attention to the huge amount of functionality that Halo 3 offers, with its Forge and Theater modes. No other console FPS has done this.

But on the other hand, the fanboy nature of 90 percent of the comments basically reaffirms my sentiment: The only thing that sucks about gaming is gamers. Calling Halo 3's story deep and engaging is like calling the movie 300 a deep political declaration on the state of the world. While Halo 3's multiplayer is some of the most engaging multiplayer on consoles, calling it something akin to the second coming of Jesus is a bit unnecessary.

This basically makes yet another case for the removal of number scores in reviews. I can say with much certainty that many of the people who commented on the review probably scrolled straight down to the bottom, highlighted the 7.0 out of 10 and went "omfg low score" and THEN read the review. It's not about whether the reviewer agrees with you -- it's about whether you agree with the reviewer.

I spy with my little

I spy with my little eye...

A bunch of butthurt Halo fanboys. OH NOES! Your game didn't score a perfect 10! Better BAWWWWWWWW some more. You idiots are just as bad as the Zelda fanboys when TP got an 8.8.

Fair review

My only complaint was with the graphics and I agree with what you (Dan) said about them. Why take all that detail and obvious beauty and filter it through that low res, jaggie mess in the final release? I saw one of those ships on the 2d background you mentioned. It looked like it was from an old 640x480 game from the 90's. I really love all the comparisons of Halo 3 to Halo 2 also. That game came out in 2004 and was running on hardware released in 2000, 2001?? Try comapring the game to one of its current competition; Oblivion, COD3, GOW, and Resistance on the PS3 (from last year!!). To be unfair, what about all the current, gorgeous pc titles (Quake Wars, HL2-EP2 in a few days)? I don't know what Bungie was thinking with the graphics not to mention we now know its not even running in 720p but 640p. I wouldn't even be compelled to write things like this but theres no way I can take the game back and get a refund (piracy). The software industry has a real coup going on with that. Now, don't get me wrong. I am a fan of video games but not a "fanboy". I criticize because I want the best product the devs can produce on all platforms and all systems.

Oh, I forgot to mention...

Oh, I forgot to mention... after reading some of the comments here and what has been posted on Bungie's forums you fanboys are a scary bunch of Nazis.

Daniel Weissenberger

Daniel Weissenberger wrote:

Anonymous 2 - Who am I to review the game? Someone who puts their name and picture along with their opinion. Who are you?

Name and picture, eh? If these are all the qualifications required to be a professional game reviewer these days, than it all makes sense now.

I can't believe that you have wasted an entire large paragraph re-telling the plot of a classic space adventure game in order to gain momentum for your petty nitpicking on Halo 3's plot and setting throughout the following paragraph. I hope you don't get paid per word. "OMG! The game doesn't take itself seriously all the time and the characters don't speak like they are really from the 25th century! How could they?" Please! This is not an RPG or adventure game and even so, the plot, characters and setting are a lot richer and fully realized than they are in something like Gears of War or even Half-Life 2.

This review reads like one large series of nitpicks intended to justify your personal bias against the Halo series. Even when you do describe the many positive aspects of game, they always get understated; while the petty nitpicks get grossly blown out of proportion. Way to stick it to The Man and his ignorant masses of fans! Right…

I've played this BS before

After playing Halo 3 i have come to one conclusion the first one was the best. This game is good but not the best. I have played way better FPS. This game only is getting high scores because of the name. This is the only review that really tells the truth about the game. The ending blows more dick than a bus station skank and not to mention the whole fuckin story does for that matter. The game last for like two fuckinn seconds and the multiplayer options on how to find games to play in are gayer than brokeback mountain and Omar from The Wire. Overall halo is average at best with games like GR2, R6LV, and soon to be COD4. Fuck bungie for this overhyped bullshit but hey is a great hustle Im out u fuckin Gaylo 3 faggots.

P.S. Get Master Chief's dick out you mouths for 1 second and be real with youeselves about the game.

Mr. Weissenberger, thank

Mr. Weissenberger, thank you. Anyone who accuses you of wanting to stand out by giving this game a mixed review forgets that giving it a glowing review would be just following the crowd. You chose masochism over cowardice, which, if nothing else, is more of an adventure. My hat is off to you.

Besides, why people take 7 out of 10 to be damnation is beyond me; the meaning behind the reviewers' numbers has been lost in video games (check out metacritic.com and compare it to other forms of entertainment - the lauded 7th Harry Potter book brought in a whopping 83, while few albums and movies even get to 80). 10 out of 10 should mean perfection - something NO game can ever achieve. A 7 out of 10 is a solid, average game - either no big flaws or some flaws and some merits. Halo 3 is just that: the single player is fun but contrived, full of empty religious pretense, and overall, not as ingeniously-designed as some games 10 years old (most Halo fans were suckling at their mothers' teats when the first Jedi Knight came out I guess); the multiplayer is all the fans wanted but that only makes it perfect for THEM. You are all entitled to your opinion; you should only be entitled to voice your opinion if you can do so WITHOUT insults and WITH some actual reasons to back it up. And "it's fun" is not a reason - I quite seriously think Tetris is more fun than Halo, but that's because I LIKE Tetris (for 20 minutes a year), not because it's actually better.

By the way, if you think Halo 3 has good graphics and story, please play Bioshock - it's not a perfect game either (also undeserving of the perfect scores it has received), in fact, the gameplay gets repetitive and the story comes to a rather weak conclusion, but there are bits of the narrative, themes, and images in that game that are truly first rate; if you don't see them, then you aren't qualified to speak on the subject of video game reviews for the very reason why people who only eat at McDonalds can't be judges on Iron Chef.

And by the way, Portal (from the soon-to-be-released Orange Box) will only be 3 hours long, but it will show more conceptual brilliance and innovation than anything in the Halo series; ironicly, shooting isn't the only thing that makes a shooter.

My God, these comments...

My God, these comments... it's like reading idiocracy script.

If you get offended enough over a 7/10 (which isn't even a bad score!) that you come over here, behave like an 8 year old, and generally make a silly ass out of yourself, then there is something seriously fucking *wrong* with you.

Go home, there's nothing to see here. Behaving like a bunch of lunatics *isn't* going to help your cause.

Have you forgotten how FUN Halo was? Well Halo 3 is just as fun!

This is a poor review.

It is wholly inappropriate to mark a game down for not meeting expectations. I have not seen *any* Halo 3 adverts, nor kept up to date with previews and beta developments, so I would say my opinion of this game is less prejudiced in this regards, being less-tainted with preconceptions and expectations, going only on the basis and experience of the first two installments in the Halo series.

Case in point: Scope of the game, for which pointed criticism is made in this review - it didn't even occur to me that having 16 foes on the map at the same time was unusually thin. I was having too much fun trying to defeat them!

Also, much criticism is made of a simplistic storyline, but only in comparison to a game made over 15 years ago. A game does not necessarily have to involve a 'deep' storyline to be great. What about all the other great games of the last 15 years (Ocarina of Time, FF7, Half-Life, Halo1 etc etc) with their equally simplistic good vs evil storylines?

Games are reviewed and rated in order to provide gameplayers better-information in their purchasing decisions. The fact that Halo3 is not genre-defining is of extremely little relevance in this context - people buy games to be entertained.

The unparalleled gunplay which made the first Halo so great, and is as-yet unmatched by anything else, is still there and vastly improved upon. Add to that the best cinematics, epic pacing and atmospherics (what a soundtrack!) in a game ever, awesome multiplayer options, and you have basically a memorably intensive and hugely satisfying gamePLAY experience.

Yes this game is damned FUN, and for that I give it 9/10, marked down by a single point for the fact that graphics could be slightly better.

BTW: I love the flood levels - reminds me of Aliens - the whole point of the flood is that they are not supposed to have any tactical intelligence!

Pathetic Fanboys

Thanks for a realistic, unbiased, and ACCURATE review. Please ignore the fanboys who think every game their mom buys them should get a 10/10 score.

And to the fanboys...

How can a game you've beaten several times since its release a few days ago be "epic" or even interesting? ADD sure is rough, eh?

By the way... I am an American. And I have played Halo 1 (given to me free) and Halo 2 (purchased used). Based on this review I see I don't need to rush out and buy this chunk.

Sprinkles!

Review is too nitpicky - not of journalistic quality

Well if you didn't like Halo 1 or 2, then you probably won't like Halo 3 either as the core game mechanics are identical to the first two.

In fact that's probably the best way to summarize this game. If you have loved the first two, you'll love this one. If you thought it only worthy of rental, then the likelihood is that you'll probably feel the same way about this.

The audio has greatly improved however, and the graphics can be be very beautiful in places although not cutting edge.

D.A - you don't know what you're talking about!

How can a game you've beaten several times since its release a few days ago be "epic" or even interesting? ADD sure is rough, eh?

Pray tell - How does a game become less epic the more you play it? Does Lord of The Rings become less epic in it's own right the more you read it?

ADD has nothing to do with it. Yes, epicness is subjective, but it is a standalone quality that should not change over time.

Also, given that the author was probably not in an ideal candidate to review this game, having been subjected to preconceptions, hype and over-expectation, I would not base your purchasing decision too strongly on this review.

First rule of thumb, don't diss it on hearsay until you've tried it. Otherwise your mentality is no better than that of follow-the-herd fanboys.

My advice: As someone wrote above, if you liked the first two Halos, you'll like this one too. If not, then stay away.

At Last!!

Well done the reviewer for not falling into the trap that the hype and PR created. Halo 3 is OK, no more and no less. Seems there are a few here who cant accept that nothing is perfect and that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ignore them. Good Review.

All of you that agree with Daniel are douches just like him.

I love how you all jack this guy off by saying that just because he gave a critically acclaimed game a piss-poor score of 7/10 that makes it fair and unbiased. Who the fuck do you guys think you're kidding? If a game is averaging severely high scores and another reviewer agrees that a game is of that quality, he is biased and unfair?

In that case, all Zelda, Mario, Metal Gear, Half-Life, and other big-named titles all get 7/10's from now on. That way we're not buying into the hype and submitting unfair and biased reviews!!!

C'MON EVERYONE! LET'S GO AGAINST THE CROWD BECAUSE WE HAVE SMALL DICKS AND WE NEED TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT!

Halo 3 is a fucking amazing game. Highest quality entertainment I've ever played, and I have no problem admitting that, but others have too much fucking pride and beat off to themselves because they call a legendary game "overhyped."

Jesus some of the people

Jesus some of the people commenting are either generally stupid, or really wound up in dumb fanboyism.

While I do think 7 is a harsh score Halo 3 defitnaly deserves a 9, a 8 at the minumum.

Yes the Singleplayer is AVERAGE. Yes I said it. Its singleplayer is VERY average. It is KNOWHERE as good as the like of Bioshock and Half Life 2. This review is VERY accurate of Halo 3s SP.

Now the multiplayer and features like Forge and in engine game recording are great. Yes the multiplayer is an evolution of former Halo mp, and the other features have beeen done before many times (on PC), but these make a fantastic package.

It seems asthought Bungie have put so much work into the MP, and the SP turned out to be an average experiece.

And to ALL the FOOLS who say Halo 3 had a good story, great dialouge or compelling charagers (who are not one dimensional) go slap yourself. The only compelling charater from the halo series - the Arbiter, is turned into a freaking lifeless tag along bot. WTF Bungie. Why. Ugh the Story. Dont get me started on the SP. Yes some levels are great - other poor - but average at best.

Some people have to learn that just because its a Halo game, doesent mean it isnt free from harsh critism.

Anonymous wrote: And, in

Anonymous wrote:

And, in closing, I will simply say that this review has no merit whatsoever. All of the things that were said are basically wrong, and it just seems like this guy has a bias toward Halo and good games. This is easily the best game to hit the 360, and it should be considered as such. Please don't bring down the average rating with your crappy reviews.

Despite your so-called credentials, your entire post was made irrelevant by this sentence: "This is easily the best game to hit the 360, and it should be considered as such."

Cripes, talk about no merit. Gamecritics' review made a hell of a lot more sense than what you wrote.

F**K you Daniel

wow ! 7/10 WTF !

you can shoot yourself to death or put poison in your food because it is less painful than being slaughtered by halo fan boy to death.

i really don't understand why your mother wanna give birth to a piece of shit like you and throw you piece of garbage into the community to polute others.

giving a good game like halo 3 low score just because you felt like it ? go to hell

Daniel:what an idiot.

Daniel! yeah you ass hole.

you better watch out when you try to cross the road,cause if you get knock down by a car, no one will even care,no one will even look at you and no one will feel sorry for you because you are an ass hole and your picture says that.you are way too lucky some idiot will actually offer you a job, oh boy! maybe your boss just as stupid as you are.

trying to screw halo 3 with your review, better hire yourself some bodyguards because some fan boys may blow your head off with a gun.

oh, is that really your own photo ? even a cow ass look better than you.i know i am very insulting but you piss me off too much

Hey d.mb .ss

Worst review ever .

what have you done

just see what have you done daniel

you pissed off way too many people big big time.not only you make many people hate you, you actually make the hate the site too.

you certainly help this site gain a lot of popularity,why don't you be a publicist instead of a reviewer? messing with one of the greatest game ever made( i said one of the greatest game not the greatest ok),you really have some guts.

anyway, i'm done with this site.finally i just wanna say rock in hell you god damned america's most hated son of the bitch !

Anonymous wrote: you can

Anonymous wrote:

you can shoot yourself to death or put poison in your food because it is less painful than being slaughtered by halo fan boy to death.

i really don't understand why your mother wanna give birth to a piece of shit like you and throw you piece of garbage into the community to polute others.

giving a good game like halo 3 low score just because you felt like it ? go to hell

Keep the stupid comments coming guys! I usually have to pay for comedy this good!

Honest Review = Bitter Halo fans!!

I’ve played the Halo games from the very beginning so I’d been looking forward to ‘finishing the fight’ for 3 years now and I was very excited to finally sit down with a copy of Halo 3 only to be totally deflated by the anti-climax that is the campaign, the graphics were totally underwhelming and I actually got more enjoyment from COD 3’s campaign than I did from H3’s.
I enjoyed the first 2 Halo games without playing on Xbox Live as I quite frankly don’t enjoy it, when I play MP I like to play with my friends in the same room and I don’t imagine I’m alone in this, so why does Halo 3 get such good marks from other reviewers based solely on the MP experience? Isn’t this unfairly rating the game with respect to people who don’t actually enjoy playing 12 year old kids at ‘Gummi Bears with guns’?

I’d say based on my experience of the game this review is the ONLY review to be entirely honest not only in the review content but also in the review score, I’ve read countless other H3 reviews which are rated much higher than the actual review would suggest it should.

Some really freaky little Halo 3 fanboys out there though.

Nice review Daniel but it might be a good idea to get some facial reconstruction as I now fear your picture will be posted on countless Halo 3 boards, ‘Wanted Dead or Alive’ for crimes against the Holy Halo franchise!

If it it's the score you're worried about, then why...

...are you people hounding on Bioshock? I noticed A LOT of you people are complaining that Halo 3 should never get a 7/10 (BTW, which isn't a bad score to begin with) and say that games like Bioshock aren't as good. But if you check out sites such as gamerankings.com or metacritic.com, you will notice that Halo 3 has averaged a 94% and Bioshock has averaged a 96%. So if it's the scores you people are really worried about in what defines a game, I think some of you need to invest in a new shooter.

Poor Review style

"Is it fair to judge a game based on its advertising?" No, it isn't. Does this mean that a game that is worse than Halo 3 could score higher on your site simply because it hasn't been hyped as much? And by "smart reviews" you mean retarded reviews that will get you hits to your site because they are controversial? I really hope you don't believe this is the way video games should be reviewed.

ZeroPunctuation

Hey, everybody - if you're tired of insulting me, head on over to The Escapist, where Yahtzee has put up a review echoing all my complaints about Halo 3 - all in a concise video format!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3

Ah, who am I kidding, you're not going to tire of insulting me.

Another good point:

"That's right, Halo 3's biggest flaw is that at it never rises to the level of epic storytelling or gameplay that the premise suggests, even demands. Although I was told time and again there was a war for humanity's fate going on, I certainly never saw any evidence of it."

As I get closer and closer to the end of the game I realized that I'm bored with the game. This is probably because I never played the rest of the series and have little interest in playing online. I'm don't feel compelled to pick up Halo or Halo 2. Hell, I don't feel particularly compelled to finish the last mission.

For what was billed as an epic tale of war there's not very much going on. No valiant last stand against the Covenant or anything really interesting.

Fantastic review

This is the best review I have read of Halo 3 and addresses a lot of things that I have been talking about since I first beat the game in 5 hours. It appeared that Bungie never had any intention of finishing the fight especially after the way they ended the game. Give me a conclusion not some ridiculous lost in space cliff hanger. In the end Halo 3 was never about gameplay and story or maybe it was and Microsoft just rushed Bungie out the door with it in hoping to start the holiday season early. Whatever it was that led to this in the end it is obivous that once again other critics have got lost in the hype as they did with Halo 2 and now, after giving that game perfect scores initially, admit that it had major flaws. It seems critics are far more forgiving when it comes to halo then they are with any other game. One critic ripped apart Heavenly sword for being too short but had no problem that Halo was just as short if not shorter. I know, I know, multiplayer, but some people don't play online, can't play online, or choose not to because of all the losers they have to deal with in doing so. This sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially ruin games. When a game as flawed as halo gets such high scores just because of multiplayer then we begin to lose the emphasis on what i think is and always should be the most important part and that is the single player campaign. That is where the adventure, the imagination, the journey, the art is. Bungie has forgotten that and simply made a fun but fatally flawed game that can't hold a candle to the masterpiece that is Bioshock.

Heretics

I feel compelled to point out a few things lacking in this "review," but first, there is some merit to be had in it. The author does in fact make several valid points referencing anachronisms, campy plot devices, and the disconnect between the game and the ad campaign.

I myself loved the Believe campaign, perhaps a bit too much, but when I played the game through and noticed rather casually that there was no poignant diorama-esque moment forthcoming, I sighed, shrugged—and moved on. It is a great game with or without the premise set up in the ad campaign.

Second, the literary deficiencies struck a chord with me, though I have always been a fan of the story, perhaps due to my devotion to earlier games like Marathon where Bungie gave such TLC to the plot and characters. I will admit I am a rarity in the Halo community though: I actually enjoyed the segments of Halo 2 played by the Arbiter, and I really didn't mind the pulpier moments of the trilogy at large because I enjoyed the pure, unadulterated space opera marinated in violence. The plot did enough for me to care, and that was enough for me. In a game like this, it should be enough, and I suppose that's my point.

As a game reviewer, I would hope you're not going to be leveraging serious literary criticism and flinging diction around like "huge tonal problems in the presentation." But you did. And maybe this shouldn't be called a game review because of it. Maybe you should have a separate review for the story, as it would more accurately reflect your views of the gameplay as opposed to the finer workings of plot and character development.

I also feel obliged to point out your qualms about the "necessity" of "bad design" in the first Halo, now made grievous to you by the updated graphics. Games had innovative design of weapons, vehicles, and characters at about the time of Halo's initial release, but Bungie intentionally chose distinctive design elements that would characterize each faction or race you encounter in the game. And it worked, better than just about any other game I've been exposed to. Two releases later, you can still recognize instantly which race or faction a given vehicle, weapon, or character belongs to. Why is this important, you might ask? Think of the pacing of a game like Halo, and you'll see that rarely do you actually appreciate the beauty of a game like this. More likely you'll be looking for your next headshot, but perhaps you wouldn't, because you're too busy listening to your marine buddies using gamer speak, and giving yourself an ulcer over it.

Which brings me to my next point. You did not do justice to the game's audio design or soundtrack, both of which are beyond exceptional. It is nearly a crime in and of itself that you did not concede the vast amount of quality that this game gains from it being a pleasure to listen to as well as to see. The quips from your allies that you feel so obliged to be grieved over have always been a part of Halo, and have been a welcome addition to this latest installment as a sort of tongue-in-cheek approach to portraying your less-than-super soldier buddies.

Finally, and I save this for last, I want to wonder in your general direction why on earth you didn't spend much time with multiplayer, forge, or saved films. You gave the throwaway comment about Halo 3's multiplayer that could have been said 3 years ago about Halo 2, but you failed to point out the real labor of love that is Halo 3 on Xbox Live. Though I did chuckle over your comment about gamers losing control or becoming social, I think you did this game a disservice by not really lauding the matchmaking service for what it is: The premier multiplayer experience of any FPS. Many would consider that a controversial comment, but in my experience, Halo is polished chrome where every other game comes across as crude iron. It is so. Very. Easy to boot up your 360 and have fun of 117 flavors between matchmaking, forge, custom games, and saved films. Particularly, I've been drawn to saved films as being a herald of things to come. Watch and see, communities will be built upon the framework Bungie has laid down with this masterpiece of entertainment.

I suppose I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but only how you've chosen to say it. You come across as condescending to those who embrace Halo 3 with open arms as a panacea for their lacking, antisocial lives, but in reality, those people are playing a very different game from you. And that's a good thing. Maybe it's the fans of Halo who really get the game, who honestly know, really know the things you're saying, but don't care. Bungie doesn't make games expressly to have slick production values or a stellar storyline or infectious gameplay. They make games so people will love them, and apparently they've done their job yet again, through a mix of all three.

Matt wrote: I know, I

Matt wrote:

I know, I know, multiplayer, but some people don't play online, can't play online, or choose not to because of all the losers they have to deal with in doing so. This sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially ruin games. When a game as flawed as halo gets such high scores just because of multiplayer then we begin to lose the emphasis on what i think is and always should be the most important part and that is the single player campaign. That is where the adventure, the imagination, the journey, the art is. Bungie has forgotten that and simply made a fun but fatally flawed game that can't hold a candle to the masterpiece that is Bioshock.

I am in complete agreement. Judging by some of the skewed and frothing comments of Halo fans I don't know if I'd even want to play anything with them - even in RL.

It seems to me that Bungie should have saved the time and effort they spent in creating a lacklustre campaign and made a truly spectacular game for multiplayer fans. Then fans of single player games could have spared all this folderoll.

Good review

I agree on most points. Although you also could have compared it with halo 1, the far best in the series. Halo 3 feels a bit forced, there is not much freedom actually. They also did a bad job at rendering yes. The banshee and dropships look terrible from further away. But interesting write-up, finnaly a honest opinion, I got a bit mad when I read all the major reviews. They selled out, or are just blind..?

You Xbox360 fanboys are the

You Xbox360 fanboys are the worst type of people ever. I am glad I don't have an Xbox360, otherwise I would be forced to deal with you muppets on live.

Maybe the reviewer was upset that M$ did not bribe him, like they did with the majority of the other reviewers.....

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7262&Itemid=53

Or more likely, he took all the free gear and kept it, but still thought the game was "OK" and only deserved a 7. His review is not swayed by the mighty dollar, get over it.....

Just wanted to thank David

Just wanted to thank David for a thoughtful and sober review of the review. You managed to point out and praise many things that Daniel overlooked, including the distinctive character designs of the enemies to the music and its synchronization with the on-screen action.

It was definitely a breath of fresh air after all these death threats...

So I wanted to purchase the

So I wanted to purchase the game and came across your review. At first glance I respected your review, You didn't fall into the norm of giving halo 3 a good rating, so I respected it. Then I decide to call up some friends who avidly play games, and asked them give me the, "heads up," on what they thought of the game... In conclusion you're review was hugely under critic because quiet frankly you're not a good reviewer on games. The question I have is since you greatly moved from the games norm, isn't some kind of person or supervisor that can verify you're rating is concise and accurate? Either you wrongly reviewed this game or ethically you are doing this for purposes that are beneficial to you. Either way I believe you need to be fired or suspended for putting this rating up as it completely is false. You're supposed to be someone people look upon for questions on weather their going to buy the game or not. Seriously, please take a moment, and ask you're self this question, "Do I really wanna help people, and be a game reviewer, or perhaps do something else with my life?".

Like Miyamoto said....

What's wrong with simplistic gameplay (not that I imply that H3's gameplay is simplistic like Weaselberger would lead you to believe)? It all comes down to fun factor, and the fact is that Halo 3 just like the rest of the series is extremely fun to play.

You know a so-called "critic" has an agenda when the focus of his review is to minimize or downplay the given game title.

Halo has reached the mainstream, so have Halo-Haters.
They're now found in journalism....
We don't need fanboy game critics!

After playing through the

After playing through the game this is what I thought most reviews would be like, specifically gamspot cause their usually harsh about the same formulas being pumped out over and over again, at least a few reviewers have the balls to get over the hype. 7 seems a little low but that's my opinion i'd say 8, but still, sweet review, thanks for having some balls.

Alright...you said that this

Alright...you said that this game is what we had five years ago in the original Halo.

So...why is that bad?

Am I really the only gamer who just likes to have fun? I mean, seriously, doing things on Halo was fun. The only real flaw I felt was that after a few times I could memorize the levels and there would be no more challenge. So when a new game comes out that gives the same fun in new areas, why should I not be happy? And if it should look prettier and offer some new ways to do things I used to, well, that's even better. I've always felt that just expanding games that were fun is more important then revolutionizing...

I also sometimes wonder how well the real casual gamer can take any review, good or bad....because reviewers are -not- like the normal person, the ones who generate the money in this industry, because a normal person does not have fifty games they play each year, they have five. So you can say that this was completely derivative of some more obscure series that came out...and sure, maybe it was, but the people who haven't played every game in existence will not feel this, and since that's our majority....

I'm sure forge and 4 player

I'm sure forge and 4 player co-op is nice but guess what no custom matchmaking, so its the same hand full of maps and modes. Halo 3 is Halo 2 with slightly better graphics and few multiplayer maps.

Hmmm...

Well, I suppose everybody is entitled to their opinion. Even if their opinion is rendered meaningless by an inability to comprehend the subject matter.

Why does your opinion exist

To the guy who beat each installment of Halo 1 and 2 at least five times and will with no doubt do the same with Halo 3:

YOU DO NOT HAVE A FAR MORE IMPORTANT OPINION.

YOU SIMPLY DON'T.

YOUR OPINION IS EXACTLY WORTH THE SAME AS THE REVIEWER'S OR ANY ONE ELSE'S.

You know why that is? Because it's a matter of personal impressions. The last time I checked, God was still in his heaven, so you can't be him/her. So.. your opinion is not absolute or any more true than, say, mine for example.

You say you remember no backtracking? Good for you. But that doesn't even mean that there is no such thing in this game, see. Only that you didn't notice it or didn't mind it. If someone can identify himself with your point of view, great. But if I think I have the same taste as the reviewer, then why do I *have* to believe you? Just because you played through the games time and time again...? I think not. I think you're quite full of it, since you made defending that game your personal crusade. And you're doing quite the worst job, just telling everybody how the reviewer is not entitled to a personal opinion.

Most videogaming people in this world play many, many different games, and each time they play a new one, it creates a unique experience. What you're doing is essentially saying that this game *is* good in absolute terms, and that's not a great argument. If I want to know what to expect from a game, I read the personal impressions of someone who played it, and try to identify with it, and not to look for some ultimate truth of excellence or fail that obviously only a learned "Halo-Player" can detect.

And about the review: Great job, man. I dig your style and I think you have the same taste as I do.

Finally, someone gets reviewing Halo 3 right.

Yay! Someone actually reviews Halo 3 with a score that's less than an 8!

Anyway, yeah, I'm a gigantic storyline fan, and this game just made me sad. When compared to the "epicness" of the ads, and even when compared to the other two games, it just doesn't hold up.

I've read, in some of the other comments, that people are protesting this review, saying that the storyline is deep and whatnot, and I have this to say: Before Halo 3, the storyline WAS deep. It seemed to have taken a little from other well-known sci-fis, but even after acknowledging that, I couldn't help but love the series. Now... I don't really know. I just hope that somehow the crappy "ending", if it can even be called that, will be extended upon. I'm probably going to be disappointed.

Also, let me revisit the ad campaign: When I saw the John-117 Monument, my heart stood still for a few minutes as I took in the diorama in all of its beauty, in all of its gravity. I expected my heart to stop again when I got into the campaign. I was sadly disappointed. Now, I don't know what to "Believe".

Thank you, Mr.Weissenberger, for this review. Finally, someone gets reviewing Halo 3 right.

Incredibly accurate.

I managed to defeat Halo 3 with a friend in the space of five hours, and I have to say that Mr. Daniel here is pretty much dead-on in every word he writes. Halo 3 fell terribly short of what was supposed to be an intensely epic instant classic; after the amazing foundation that was the original Halo and the near-perfect storyline expansion in Halo 2, the last of the trilogy set the bar high -- way too high for itself, in fact.

But I digress. No one is reading this for a summary of the review; so, essentially, it's nice to see that people like Mr. Daniel and the above commenter "CD_117" (as well as all the other disappointed campaign fans -- rock on!) managed to see through the horribly hollow marketing that was thrown at the gamers.

Comments here have been extremely hostile, but I must make a point. For those that are getting all bent out of shape because of Mr. Daniel's personal opinion: grow some balls. Or, if you're a woman, get thicker skin. Different people have different opinions -- please make a note of it.

Good Review

Whew! For a while there I thought it was just me: After being battered with constant advertisements telling me to "believe", very well-done advertisements touting an epic, heartfelt and deep storyline, I was totally disappointed by the popcorn action-flick story.
Daniel, you're right. The game was entirely falsely advertised, and that should count against it. I understand playing a game and accepting it for what it's worth, as I already have fully embraced Halo 3's stellar multiplayer features. However, The single-player is an immense disappointment.
Short, shallow, and completely without feeling (save for Master Chief and Cortana's very well-handled relationship, which I've always loved), Halo 3 couldn't show the breadth or nuance of the latest Die Hard: jumping from one hectic firefight to another, it almost seemed that Bungie was just in a hurry to get things over with and finish the franchise. I was promised a heart-wrenching and completely satisfying conclusion to a beloved franchise that I have been loyally following since the beginning, and all I got was ham-fisted writing and LOTS of explosions. With every turn and twist telegraphed from a mile away (SPOILER: Did anyone actually not expect Guilty Spark to turn on you again? END SPOILER), the campaign was uniformly uninteresting. Ugh.
So all of those people who call Daniel an idiot for stating what to me is perfectly clear, the storyline must not matter much to you guys in comparison to the multiplayer. However, the single player being a resounding disappointment is more than enough reason to knock it down to the ranking of Advent Rising (a game which averaged at around 7.0 yet is still endearing to me for specific reasons). Halo 3 is by no stretch of the imagination a bad game. It's a fairly rounded package, full of enough good times to pick it up at full price, but it's not a 9 out of 10. Not by a longshot.
When The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess came out and GameRevolution.com gave it a B+ (for some very valid reasons), the reviewer got death threats. Seriously, is there really a need to call a reviewer a douche bag just for giving a game a score you didn't like? I love Coen Brothers movies, but I won't go on RottenTomatoes.com searching down every man who gave Fargo a bad review and flaming him.

Halo 1 = 9.5 Halo 2 + Halo

Halo 1 = 9.5
Halo 2 + Halo 3 = a swift kick in the junk to Halo fans.

Keep trying to make Halo 3 great, fanboys, just try a little harder. Oh, we've got Forge! That must be 9 points! LOL

Just not very intelligent...

I love how some people get upset when Halo 3 doesn't live up to their asinine expectations.

If this game was an average-joe, under the radar type of shooter and it was exactly as good? Yah, all you people would crap your pants with amazement.

Sure, you because the first two were so great, it is expected to be better, and it most definitely is.

finally a review that got it somewhat right

I agree with the score but not the points to how it became a 7/10, but I really don't care I am just happy somebody was not influenced by the big $$$$ or Halo's many addicts and described this as the normal fps fare it is...H3 is not a terrible game, but definitely not the best ever, and to be honest, really doesn't revolutionize anything (unfortunately most "733t gamers" have only been playing since introduced to the first Halo)... H3 does not even come in the top 10 games the 360 has to offer as far as I'm concerned...a nice rental, and always fun to play in a room full of friends (but what game isn't?), but overall, just an expansion to Halo 1 for $60

BS

halo fanboys:blablah........

daniel's puppies:blahblah............

bottomline:halo 3 is overhyped and underdelivered but still deserve at least an 8 or 9 out of ten.and daniel is and idiotic game reviewer.

Wow Comments!

Fanboys tend to be very brave with their opinions under the veil of anonymity.

Thank you

Mr. Weissenberger,

Although a majority of the rants levied against your review primarily consist of your emphasis on Halo 3's story, I applaud the fact that you take the time to point out the flaws in the shallow, stereotypical, derivative, space-marine-saves-the-universe...again plot. The majority of mainstream gaming reviews focusing on H3's multiplayer aspect points out how reviewers have written off authentic gamers who grew up with milestones that depended on plot and story to create a memorable gaming experience (e.g. Fallout 1 and 2, Deus Ex, Half-Life, and ANY Lucasarts adventure game produced during the late '80s and 90's).

Your review highlights a disturbing trend among gaming review sites and their inclination to grovel at flashy and overhyped franchises. Your honest, detailed analysis of Halo 3 breaks the tradition of performing a tremendous disservice to intelligent, mature individuals who play video games and look to review sites to make informed decisions about not only purchasing a game, but also playing it through because it is worth the time to surrender to the experience game developers have produced.

I am one of a handful of individuals who has had the privilege of playing amazing games MOST of the time because I count on reviews to let me know whether or not I should be spending the next couple of hours/days/weeks sitting around pressing buttons to ultimately have a unique and satisfying experience. That being said, your decision to break ranks and keep quiet about Halo 3's multiplayer is a welcome change of pace from the obsequious legions of so-called "professional" game reviewers who are willing to forgive a company for delivering a substandard single-player experience in order to stay in a company's good graces.

Perhaps I am merely a curmudgeon longing for days past when the single-player game was the only type of video game available and developers understood that character development and story was required to attract an audience. Perhaps I am the last of a dying breed of gamers who have become spoiled by games with notable stories (complete with characters like SHODAN, Cloud Strife, and Guybrush Threepwood) whom the industry has grown tired of courting because the money is in impressing uncultured adolescents with bright colors and explosions. In either case, thank you for your review as it calmly justifies my demand for better writing and plot development that some people know video games are capable of.

When your review gets lost in a sea of unjustified praise for this mediocre shooter, please keep in mind that there are a select few out there who expect a game critic to actually critique a game in an objective, unbiased manner. In other words, thank you for doing your job.

lol

Why I hate Halo by Daniel Toolbagger

Wow, talk about a heated

Wow, talk about a heated debate...
I for one am glad to see someone not afraid to speak their honest opinion about a game. With that in mind, everyone who is directly attacking the writer of this review needs to focus on the word "opinion". If you can't handle what is said about Halo 3 in this review, then read another one. While I personally love the entire Halo series, I do not disagree with everything the writer has said.

Heh, the comments are comedy

Heh, the comments are comedy gold.
Halo fanboys are SO predictable!

Anyway: Since when 7/10 is 'fucking unbelievably low score'? That's way above average. I didn't play Halo 3 myself and don’t plan to, but why...
Oh yea, I forgot:
Game rankings begin from 9 nowadays. Anything lower then 9 is absolute crap that should not be touched, right.

And 'do not judge the game based on it's advertising' is total crap.
Imagine, that you are buying, say, a car.
It's said than it's fastest, most beautiful and comfortable EVAR!
You buy it. Yea, it's fast enough - but about as fast as other sports cars.
It's comfortable - but nowhere as comfortable as some other cars out there.
Etc.
I'd say you would be disappointed, right? Yea, it's a joy to ride and it's far from bad... if we are to judge ANY objectively, it would get 8 marks at the very least. Because '10 marks' can only awarded to a game that lacks ANY flaws whatsoever.
And being sucky in areas that were supposed to be it's strongest points is NOT a small flaw.
And if you didn't play ANY OTHER game but Halo 1 2 and 3, and THREREFORE Halo has the best plot EVAR (well, stands to reason - you didn't see any other) - glad for you.
Come to think of it, Tetris also has best plot, provided you played nothing else. :P

Well done

What Lawrence M said above ^ ^ ^.

Bravo

Mr. Lawrence M, you took the words right out of my mouth. I sometimes feel like I'm part of that dying breed.
If the single player experience isn't to have much bearing on the quality of the overall product, why include it all? One could say, "Well, it adds a nice extra level to the overall Halo 3 package." Well, if some of us point out the flaws of that single player experience, does that REALLY Warrant death threats?!?!?!!!

There are still some of us left that look for more than just the shining lights and explosions on the surface of a Single Player Campaign. If there's nothing deeper there, we take it into consideration along with everything else - including the multiplayer- and form an OPINION.

Let that marinate awhile - AN OPINION
Not a dirty bomb detonated in the middle of a city-Just AN OPINION.

I'd have to say I agree

This review has distilled a few of the gripes I have with the game and makes a lot of salient points that are difficult to argue with if you've played the game.

Let me qualify what follows by saying that I love Halo: CE. I love sci-fi and the game was pitched perfectly. It offered hints of a wider conflict and the promise of an epic story. The gameplay was intelligent and exciting. Overall it was leagues ahead of any other game out there.

There's no denying that Halo 3 is a great package in terms of the multiplayer it offers but the campaign just isn't up to scratch. For all its religious overtones the motives of the Covenant are incredibly simplistic for a supposedly technically advanced group of alien races - are we meant to buy that?

The simple fact is the trilogy hasn't even matched up to a lot of the fiction written in the expanded universe.

There's no denying there's lots of backtracking, many of the levels are very short (the last level amounts to a walk up some steps and through a couple of doors) Also when I saw later in the game a Banshee flying past a very blocky 2D background the game screamed out that corners had been cut - I'm glad Daniel noticed this as well. It was like something from a SNES.

And even with their more tactical bias the Flood simply aren't an engaging enemy - the AI is just too simplistic.

I've been waiting for Halo 3 for years but I don't think unqualified praise for a game and 10/10 scores do favours for any gamers. This isn't a perfect game. It's great fun, sure. But it has flaws and the job of a reviewer is to point them out.

That way, we all get a better deal in the future as developers strive to get things right.

Great Review

I agree with this review on the whole. Once the novelty of the graphically update had worn off, I was pretty underwhelmed. The graphics are inconsistent as well, and at their best nothing new: I was experiencing graphics like this playing Doom 3 on a Gforce 6800 back in 2004.

I don't understand why some people are so hostile to a review that gives 7/10; it is like they take it personally or something. I, for one, am shocked by the generally high reviews. Yes, Halo is a GOOD game - not amazing though. It pretty much is Halo '2.5'. Better graphics not much else.

I played the game with a friend for 6 hours straight yesterday and whilst doing so I had 2 main qualms: firstly the lack of a covering mechanic; secondly, the lack of a map. Both of us got repeatedly lost on a later flood level. Another thought: how about different visual filters so you could play a night level? The flashlight doesn't really cut it for me when you consider the supposed techological prowess of master chief. I did enjoy the introduction of the new accessories such as deployable shields etc. A good move by Bungie.

One thing that frustrated me: I was using an energy sword. It was empty, so I went to exchange for another one. It wouldn't let me pick it up because I already had the weapon. So, I had to exchange my used energy sword for a pistol, then run back to exchange for a fresh energy sword. That is a bad gamplay mechanic which should have been ironed out; this for me epitomises the problem with the gameplay, it isn't fresh.

Remember this game is meant to be a DEFINING FPS. This necessitates progress. I think it is fair to say that the gameplay hasn't evolved enough after 3 years. This is especially of concern when the game is dubbed 'Halo: Combat Evolved'..... no, it hasn't.

Fool

Daniel Weissenberger wrote:

Hey, everybody - if you're tired of insulting me, head on over to The Escapist, where Yahtzee has put up a review echoing all my complaints about Halo 3 - all in a concise video format!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3

Ah, who am I kidding, you're not going to tire of insulting me.

Heavens boy, did you just crawl out of the fallout shelter yonder? You are either an idiot or a contrarian (look it up). I will be nice and assume you reviewd the game the way you did to generate site traffic and a "name" for yourself. I will make the assumption that you are a contrarian.

Since 1 other person reviewed the game poorly and agreed with you that makes you somehow justified? Soooooo what about the plethora of scores of over 80% by ALL other reviewers? So are they all wrong and you TWO reviewers are the voice of reason in a sea of uninformed professionals (I guarantee 90% of them have FAR better credentials than "Someone who puts their name and picture along with their opinion.")?

A couple of tidbits for you Danny; 1) Professional reviewers don't include spoilers....ever. 2) Professional reviewers don't argue with people and defend thier reviews in the comments section. 3) If you are going to include a picture of yourself to classify yourself as a "Professional Reviewer" make sure you don't look like an emaciated AIDS victim in it.

As far as posting anonymously, it is not a matter of not wanting to be known so much as it is not registering to a site that would allow such an obviously poorly written and biased revew to be put up. I assure that I will never return here after I tire of seeing your foolishness get flamed.

Feel free to respond in the comments to Cifaldi or e-mail my junk mail account at cifaldi@ohiohills.com, your take will be right at home amongst the other garbage I get at that account.

Never mind my original comments about assuming you are a contrarian Danny, I revise that statement, you ARE an idiot.

Underwhelmed?

Robin JJ wrote:

Once the novelty of the graphically update had worn off, I was pretty underwhelmed.

I played the game with a friend for 6 hours straight yesterday

I like to play all underwhelming games for six hours straight too.....

Danny's Bio

This quote is straight from our beloved Danny's bio (click on his picture to read); "There aren't too many things that Daniel takes seriously, and videogames are at the top of that list."

Well that is certainly apparant based on your score of Halo 3!

You might want to edit the bio Danny. Shame on an author such as yourself for letting that slip through. It was probably an editor's fault wasn't it? I am sure you did not write the bio... sarcasm intended here.

Where did you get those numbers?!

$60 Million for development!!!!! I've read talk of Killzone 2 development coming between 20 and 40 million, and I was under the impression that that was a rather high number in game development(not the highest, just high). But $60,000,000 for Halo 3? Where did you get those numbers?

Where is the score?

Sorry if I'm being totally blind here but where is the actual score for this game? Everyone is saying it's scored a 7 but where the hell is the score being shown??

Well written review

Well written review, good criticism.

What does Halo 3 change over 2?

Good review if anybody reads it as you make your points well and I feel the 7/10 is fully justified based on your statements.

I haven't made it through all the campaign yet and while I am loving it, it is basically new maps for Halo 2. I don't like this "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. If that continues it may lead to yearly Halo updates like it's FIFA or something!

It's the innovative parts of games that make them great rather than just really good. Gears of War has the cover system and chainsaw, Metal Gear adds in new ingenious ways of taking down enemies with each subsequent release, Zelda added improved controls and numerous new elements, GTA gave us a sandbox to explore and cause mayhem in etc.

What does Halo 3 add? It finishes the plot. Graphics are better than Halo 2. Couple of new weapons. Online is same as Halo 2 but new maps and slightly tweeked modes. 4 player Co-op is new it's more like an additional mode than a feature of the game as many people may never even come across it. Controls are the same as Halo 2 bar the equipment button. Equipment is new but it's more like a new power up than a feature.

Maybe with the trilogy complete they can let loose in Halo 4 with a rake of new vehicles, new enemies, intelligent AI and make a truly great game.

Although all this arguing is superfluous as Daniel never said he was god and his opinion was law, if you disagree say so and back up your statements but you're not going to change his opinion or anyone else's of their experience of the game.

Hey, don't cry about the

Hey, don't cry about the score you all pieces of crap, stfu if you dont like the review keep ur mouth shut, whats done its done, and its well done. So please , once again, stfu cause this game isnt perfect, its far from it, and just amediocre game.

Good job Daniel!!

Keep up the good work and ignore this stupid ignorant people.

daniel not dead yet ?

is daniel weisebegerer still alive ?

seriously, just remove the god dam review and pretend it never happen before,before some one burn your house down.

like simon cowell said,daniel you are useless.

Anonymous wrote: This game

Anonymous wrote:

This game reviewer is CRAP.

And is made of FAIL and AIDS.

Am I the only person who found this particular comment to be obscenely abhorrent? Halo 3 is a VIDEO GAME, for crying out loud! In the grand scheme of things, it isn't that important. Like Hary Potter or Dan Brown's next effort, the franchise is so big and popular that it doesn't matter what the critics say, because the game was always going to be a massive financial and marketing success. So this particular reviewer expressed his honest opinions? So what? If you disagree, fine. But why stoop so low as to resort to crude and offensive profanities?

For the record, in campaign mode, I was a little disappointed with Halo 3 (I can't comment on multiplayer, am not into online gaming). It's too short, for one thing. The graphics aren't enough of a step forward either, in my opinion. The gameplay is as fun as ever, but it's not a very cerebral experience. Flaws from the other games are still present. Anyone who says there's no repetition or backtracking is deluded - the reviewer correctly highlights the extent of this. Also, there's too many occasions where the checkpointing system is inconsistent - sometimes you can just run through areas, other times you have to kill large numbers of heavily armed enemies in order to progress. I actually hate The Flood as a foe, especially as their environments are usually dim and hard to navigate. I wish Bungie would concentrate on the Covenant, but the overall story arc demands significant Flood emphasis.

So, it's a flawed game, but I still find it great fun. It's not perfect - there is no such thing as a perfect game - and I wish the zealots would realise this. It's more of the same, yet it still succeeds because I still find the Halo experience, on whatever console - to be the most enjoyable FPS gaming ever. Want more? Hell, yeah!

So much for an above average game....

Halo 3 is at the top of Japan's best seller list.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7385&Itemid=2

I wonder why!?
Is it the hype? Wait! This is Japan for God's sake so you Halo-Haters can't pin the sales on hype.
The game is actually good.
Better than good, it's great.
Dope sells itself.... (A little marketing doesn't hurt)

See Halo-Haters, the reason why Halo fans are pissed off over this review is that Halo 3 is a masterpiece. It's up their with the Zelda's, Metroid's, and Mario's. For someone to come out and say that these games are a little better than average is just BS and I they can smell it a mile away.
I think the criticism is valid here.
If you disagree then it's probably because
you're a Halo-Hater yourself.

And I understand, well sort of.
After all, not every man is into women....

Seriously, it's just a review...

So he gave it a 7. Who cares? The game was overhyped to death anyway and all that does is make you think the game is better than it really is. I'm not saying Halo is a bad series, but it does have a lacking campaign, but it has a robust multiplayer mode. The game just doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, it isn't a bad game, but it sure wasn't what I was expecting. Halo is only a slightly above average series and doesn't deserve these over-scored reviews.

Typical scape goat....

Anonymous wrote:

So he gave it a 7. Who cares? The game was overhyped to death anyway and all that does is make you think the game is better than it really is. I'm not saying Halo is a bad series, but it does have a lacking campaign, but it has a robust multiplayer mode. The game just doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, it isn't a bad game, but it sure wasn't what I was expecting. Halo is only a slightly above average series and doesn't deserve these over-scored reviews.

That's what every Halo-Hater says, the campaign mode isn't good blah blah. When in fact polls show that a large majority of Halo players prefer the campaign over online multiplayer.
But I bet you and other Halo detractors didn't know that right?

So you guys can stop using the "weak campaign mode" scape goat!
It's a cliche that's gotten old very quick.
The irony of that is that Halo's campaign modes are excellent.
So good to the point that if any other FPS title were as good and didn't offer any online modes, you guys would be praising the said game(s).

You Halo detractors are so predictable....

where is the score for this

where is the score for this review.cant find it anywhere.

Meh

Spot on about the storyline. It's retarded. If you don't think it is retarded - wait a few years, guys. You'll be looking back on it one day and say to yourself "what the hell?"
Halo 1 had a pretty good story. I loved it all the way through. Halo 2 turned it all into a lame comic book. Halo 3 is just an extension of that. This never felt like a war let alone an epic struggle for the continued existance of all life in the universe. Meh^2.

But, I do think that 7/10 is too harsh a review. Halo 3 is still a great game. It's intensely polished, has great moment-to-moment gameplay, has extra-fine set piece battles. It is also extremely replayable and is just chock-full of cool extras - namely the theatre, forge, and the fun online play and ranking system. It is definitely one of the better games of this generation. I think of it as a decent hollywood-style blockbuster. All shine - no brains, but fun enough that I'm willing to go along for the ride.

p.s. Extra points for giving proper respect to Star Control 2. All hail Fred Ford and Paul Reiche 3.

Great review

Your review was spot-on. It is funny how a little criticism can spark so much fuss. It is not like you are bashing the game. You are simply stating the obvious flaws in the game. 7/10 is a good score. Other sites that pointed out the same flaws still slapped a 10 on the game.

¿So, you're calling someone

¿So, you're calling someone an idiot because they gave a score to a game different than the the one you would have given to it? Not to mention your are putting it over some gaming masterpieces, which are far better (both FPS and other genres).

Somehow your statement about 98/100 being unbiased is hardly believable.

Thanks for the laughs!

Wow, just, wow. You Halo fangirls are a bitter bunch aren't you? So Dan didn't see the game through rose-tinted glasses. He wasn't swayed by swag or the ridiculous hype machine - anyone who thinks the hype and ad campaign had nothing to do with it's success must be either deluded or a rabid...oh wait..

This review was well written, informative and most of all HONEST. That's all I'm looking for when reading review's. I don't want a bias fangirls sku'd view of how the game is. I want a real level headed gamers point of view.

7/10 sounds about right to me. The game is not doing anything that I haven't being doing on my pc for years. There is nothing groundbreaking here. Fangirls can scream 'Omg but on teh consolez this iz teh best fps evah made!!11!!!121!' I really don't care, as a gamer, I want the best experiences no matter what the platform. And I just had the feeling this game wasn't all it was being made out to be.

Thank you Dan for keeping it real! You're doing a great job here and have just won the site a new fan :)

And to the Fangirls: Thanks for the laughs, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for reacting the way you have. Defending this game like it's your lifes work just makes you look sad and pathetic. If you're happy with average games, good for you. There are some of us however who are not. Dan represents us.

Keep up the good work

I've been reading gc.com for years know and i keep enjoying the high standard of honest, thorough reviews you put out there. I thought it might be worth mentioning know that you get this s**tstorm of angry fanboy-comments just because you didn't like their new favourite game, Daniel.

Personally i cannot really judge the game, have not played it, but from what i know about halo 1 and 2, the story is really just the simplistic, mediocre fare you get in most games.

6 Hours Straight!!!

What's wrong with that "anon'? Just because i was 'underwhelmed' doesn't mean that i didn't want to play it through- to see if the game improves/worsens etc. AFTER 6 hours of playing I felt underwhelmed. Do you have anything less inane and more constructive yourself to say? Do you have a name? It's really cowardly and low to use anonymous sarcasm. Have you played the game through? Did it take you the whole of 5 minutes to make a decision?

review of the reviewer

I think the journalistic quality of this review is poor. I'm not talking about the opinion itself, but the actual content. It is incomplete and unbalanced; it has a mere paragraph on multiplayer, compared to perhaps ten on single player, with no mention of forge or theater mode. It is inaccurate; it makes a statement about the size of the marketing budget being much larger than the development budget, which is factually wrong. Also, I find the organization of this review to be lacking, or, if I loved bombastic adverbs as much as the reviewer, 'jaw-droppingly', 'unbelievably' lacking. Why the author wastes an entire opening paragraph on the marketing campaign, and another full paragraph on a game from 1992, is beyond me, especially when the review misses discussing rather important aspects of the game.

I also find some of his comments to be unfair, naive, or both. It seems unfair to criticize the game for a lack of enemies (before meeting Truth), when that is almost surely due to hardware limitations. It seems unfair to criticize the lack of change to the character designs, when in fact that would constitute a disruption in continuity. It seems unfair to criticize Halo 3, specifically, for a 'restrictive' style of gameplay, when almost all FPS's have the same style.

The reviewer also does something a little sneaky. He says in the review that there are six levels of significant backtracking. Then, on his response, I assumed he realized that there were five levels with _any_ backtracking (level 4 has none), so he adds to the qualification of 'repetition' to make the number six. Also, he dismisses his statement about the cost of the marketing campaign as mere 'hyperbole.' It isn't hyperbole, it is inaccurate, and something he as a journalist should get right.

Finally, the reviewer chooses to flame some of the commmenters, which reeks of a lack of professionalism. I think 'unprofessional' is the dominant impression that I get, overall.

The Metacritic USER score

The Metacritic USER score for this game is currently at 7.8

So it is possible that 7/10 is a more accurate rating, closer to how players actually feel about this game, then the ratings given by other "professional" game critics.

This review was honest and went into great detail about why it was rated as it was. So what's with the mindless personal insults?

It's free country.If you like the game play it, if you don't don't. For me this review just confirmed what I already know.

There should be an age

There should be an age requirement for forums to prevent anyone under 18 from spamming them with their inane chatter(I.e. the math question ain't workin). The internet would be a much more civilized place if the adults were left to have the conversations.

I'm sure there are a few 12 years olds out there with the cognizant ability to have normal conversations that aren't full of personal slander and unsubstantiated exclamations, but to the rest of you please wait until your brains have developed! They will develop! and when they do you'll realize, hopefully, that people are entitled to their own opinions. Not everyone likes the games that you like!

Perception

Not a 1
Not a 2
Not a 3
Not a 4
Not a 5
Not a 6
But a 'low' score of 7...
Need I say more?

I will say more

True, a score of 7/10 (or 70/100) on an absolute scale is above average. However, if you look at the distribution of 57 scores on metacritic.com, this score is far below the average (of 9.4). It is the lowest score, and it is the only score below 8.0. Simply, this score stands out.

Looking at the reviews, I think the scores can be categorized as follows.
95-100: Loved every aspect of the game, including single player.
80-94 : Found the single-player lacking, but thought the multiplayer (including co-op, forge, and theater) was outstanding. Giving equal weight to the two components gives a total score of 80-94.
70 (this review) : Reviewed the single-player substantially, found it lacking, and gave little notice to multiplayer.

My view is that this review actually does not differ much in its judgement of the game from the reviews in the 80-94 range, except that it failed to review the multiplayer aspects. For this and other reasons, I feel that this review was done poorly.

The reason that I made a comment is that some of the responses here has hailed this review as being the honest/good/nonhyped review, which means by implication that the other 56 reviews with scores of 80-100 as being dishonest/bad/hyped. In fact, another article on this site has implied exactly that. I feel that this does a disservice to other reviewers, and therefore, I present an alternative explanation; instead of finding fault with the other reviews, perhaps we should inspect the quality of this review.

Please tell me you're like 8

Please tell me you're like 8 years old 'cause the story was retarded

I think the fact that 7/10

I think the fact that 7/10 is closer the actual USER ratings of this game is perhaps a sign that the official game critics scores were too high.

What's the problem with rating a game based on the single player experience? It is supposed to be a single player game. Microsoft advertising insisted it would be an epic experience no less. There were many reviewers out there faulted flaws with the single player experience and then gave the game an extremely high review because of multiplayer. So why can't there be a review for those people that aren't into multiplayer, but would like an interesting single player experience. Is 60 bucks for 7 hours really worth it? Sure if you're playing something engaging like Bioshock that has an interesting environment and storyline. But 7 hours for a rehash of a 6 year old premise?

7/10 is about right.

You got this so wrong! I'm

You got this so wrong! I'm no fanboy so Im not about to start raving about Halo 3 but I do know a good quality game when I see it. You on the other hand seem to have made up your mind before you powered it up. I have played games all my life and by the looks of your pic, I was playing them whilst you were still in nappies. Perhaps you should go back and play The Da Vinci Code which you decided to give 7.5. Better than Halo 3 right? Grow up Daniel.

You can't blame the reviewer

You can't blame the reviewer for giving the game a controversially low score - it generates LOTS of traffic to their site. How many of you would actually have read this review if they gave it a 9-10? Not many. I blame sites like gamerankings.com and would suggest that they should remove the links to the lowest reviews, that would prevent sites like this from self promoting at the expense of a great game.

And those complaining about how this guy gets paid to write this crap - he doesn't. This is an amateur site ie. anyone with a typewriter can contribute..

then label it review of first person only

There is nothing wrong with only reviewing the single-player aspect of the game, but I really feel a review should be labelled as such. In fact, several reviewers had separate reviews for single and multiplayer. Here is a quote from another reviewer, Tracy Erickson from Digital Entertainment News: 'The purpose of any review--whether it be for a video game, movie, or some sort of product--is to advise consumers on what to spend their money.' I completely agree with this sentiment. The reviewer had an obligation to consider _all_ aspects of the game so that the consumer can make a more informed decision. Think of it this way: what if a consumer had heard about the new online elements (co-op, forge, and theater), and was basing part of his or her decision on reviews of those elements. Not the existence of those elements, but how well they worked. Did he or she get any information from this review?

I'll agree with you that 7 is not an unreasonable score for the single-player. As I indicated above, several reviews probably would have had such a score for the single-player. I also agree with you that generally speaking the user score is another good indicator of a game's quality. However, I question whether Halo falls into that category. If you look at the comments, it is clear that a large subpopulation chose to give a score of 3 or less for...less than rational reasons, and not as an assessment of the game, per se. Halo is not the normal video game, nor is the reaction. I would compare it to hating the Yankees or Manchester United, simply because they are prominent, rich, and successful (I hate the Yankees, btw). I would like to see the distribution for the user scores, because I would guess that distribution is not normal, but has two distinct peaks, one at 9.5 and another at 1.5. In this one case, I think the reviewer scores might be better indicators, because ostensibly they should be (that is, they are paid to be) more unbiased.

an honest review

halo 3 reminds me very much of the legend of zelda : twilight princess.

95% of the game is marred with woefully bad dialog, tedious backtracking, poorly written story, and rehashed gameplay.

just like twilight princess, halo 3 rarely shines. twilight excited me during the bridge battle with link and epona fighting a giant goblin and a boar, halo 3 excited me during the first scarab battle in a very similar way...

other than that, there really just isn't a reason to play either title.

like zelda, the halo franchise was once a pioneer, with incredible controls, inventory management(2 weapons, 2 grenades), pacing (recharging shield), it just hasn't evolved enough to be worth playing.

the lack of cover system is painfully obvious, not so much with the smaller enemies like the jackals or grunts, and not so much with the larger enemies like the hunters, but especially noticeably missing with the brutes.

such a mobile enemy certainly would seek cover, rather than walking in circles again and again, but they don't.

honestly, for all the bs hype about AI improvements in this game nothing has improved.

the brutes act just like elites did in halo 1. they drive vehicles, run around in circles while shooting you, and they charge you when they are damage...

marines are even worse at piloting vehicles then they were in halo 2... it's odd to see that go downhill given games usually improve with time and technology...

it almost seems like bungie was simply running out of ideas, betraying some of the strengths of the franchise...

you now have 4 grenades, which means you never have any clue which type of grenade you are throwing, and there's also the addition of equipment...

it seems like the 'improvements' they actually made were just lobbing more crap at the player.

none of the new weapons will surprise you in any way, as you've seen them all a million times in other games, the best addition likely being the gravity hammer, but then again, that weapon was already working in the exact same way during the final boss fight in halo 2...

the new vehicles function just like the old ones...

the spectre is back, but is faster, the brute chopper is basically a more powerful ghost, the mongoose was supposed to be in halo 2, and the human aircraft is slow and hovers just like the banshee...

really, nothing substantial has been added to the formula.

the forge is great, a stripped down level editor that you can actually play with as you build, and the ability to watch saved films is fun, but chronological navigation rather restricted.

i think 7/10 is the right score for this game, and i'm glad someone had the balls to say it.

Anonymous wrote: The

Anonymous wrote:

The Metacritic USER score for this game is currently at 7.8

So it is possible that 7/10 is a more accurate rating, closer to how players actually feel about this game, then the ratings given by other "professional" game critics.

This review was honest and went into great detail about why it was rated as it was. So what's with the mindless personal insults?

It's free country.If you like the game play it, if you don't don't. For me this review just confirmed what I already know.

The USER score doesn't mean anything. Anybody who dislikes the name "Halo" because it's exclusive to the 360 can just give it a 0/10. You have people that actually try to reveiw the game giving it decent scores, and then you have the people giving it a 0/10 or 10/10. The fact that Halo is such a huge franchise, how could anyone not hate Halo that doesn't play/like Xbox 360? Not to mention, you only bring up the user reviews at Metacritic.com. This huge controvery right here just shows how polarized this debate is.

Quote:

That's what every Halo-Hater says, the campaign mode isn't good blah blah. When in fact polls show that a large majority of Halo players prefer the campaign over online multiplayer.
But I bet you and other Halo detractors didn't know that right?

So you guys can stop using the "weak campaign mode" scape goat!
It's a cliche that's gotten old very quick.
The irony of that is that Halo's campaign modes are excellent.
So good to the point that if any other FPS title were as good and didn't offer any online modes, you guys would be praising the said game(s).

You Halo detractors are so predictable....

Exactly. I am one of the many that think that Halo's campaign (you can't really call it single player because so many people play co-op) is the best part of Halo. The story is very deep, good enough to generate 5 novels in the Halo universe. Most of it, however, goes right over most people's heads. If you don't know the background to Halo, many little details will come across as useless. The story is amazing. I have read all of the books and I have to say that I have never been this drawn to a video game story that wasn't an RPG. For a FPS, the story is top notch. Daniel, just because you like huge RPGs with an immense story doesn't mean that you can't give credit to Halo. Really, few FPS stand out as having good stories. I'd take the Halo story anyday. Add to that the near perfect multiplayer, and you have a masterpiece that is the Halo franchise.

Most of the "flaws" that you bring out in Halo 3 are a result of your ignorance:

"A two-weapon carry limit and progressive health felt revolutionary six years ago, but now it's hard to find a game that they're not featured in."

-This is the concept that Bungie developed SIX years ago. Saying that is just ridiculous. Nearly every FPS after Halo copied everything that it did revolutionary. It's hard to find a game without these features because Halo made them successful to begin with. The fact that it feels "old" might be because every other game used the exact same controls and methods that Bungie used.

"Speaking of the Master Chief's agile foes, Halo 3 has some of the most unbalanced AI I've seen in years. While Covenant troops of all shapes and sizes behave with a wonderful cunning, using cover and seeming to support each other in a semblance of tactical thinking, the human partner AI is woefully idiotic. I can't count the number of times I watched a tiny human rush up to a brute, ineffectually peppering it with small arms fire before being crushed by a single punch. At first it's an effective way of establishing what terrifying entities the foes are, but after a little while I just started wishing they'd learn to back up so they could be of some use to me."

-The enemy AI is supposed to be better than the human AI. Bungie is trying to create the feeling that Master Chief is the last hope for mankind. If the marines were superbadasses, there'd be no need for the Chief. There is supposed to be a feeling that the humans are outpowered, outgunned, and on their last legs for survival.

"Flood's appearance has been improved, their presence in the game is just as awkward and unpleasant as ever. Even with a few new forms and the fantastic new look, they haven't gotten any smarter, and don't understand any tactic more complex than running straight at the player, attacking wildly."

-The flood are supposed to be mindless organisms that attack you without stop. Hence the name "Flood." Nobody likes to play against the Flood because they are difficult to defeat (on Heroic and Legendary, I don't know what difficulty you played on) and always create this sense of desperation and hopelessness when playing against them.

"it's impossible to escape the fact that six separate levels in a nine level game feature significant amounts of backtracking. If going back over the same areas wasn't bad enough, the lack of an in-game map was just inexcusable. I can't count the number of times I got lost, and had to wait for the game to take pity on me and put a directional arrow on my HUD."

-The backtracking does offer a bit of realism. What would you prefer? To warp back to the point you started from? This tactic tries to make the player feel discouraged. After you worked so hard to battle your way through the level to reach your objective, the thought of climbing back down only to face more enemies is heart-wrenching. That is what most people don't like about the backtracking, not the "repetitiveness." Some people don't even realize that they're "backtracking" because each situation is different. As for you getting "lost," that is just pathetic (especially if you were playing on Easy or Normal).

"It's a little ridiculous seeing what should be the game's climactic encounter being waged on such a small scale. When I besieged the Prophet of Truth's final stronghold, the only resistance I found was six vehicles and eight soliders, for a grand total of fourteen opposing troops. Between vehicles and Marines, I had ten on my side. This is supposed to be the deciding battle for the fate of the galaxy, and it involves less than 25 people?"

-This truly shows your ignorance. If you truly knew the background and story of Halo, you would know that the main battle is fought in space. The covenant use their ships to overpower the weaker human vessels and, thus, have no need to make any major invasion. The covenant don't invade, they destroy. The few ground troops that the Covenant have are meant to hold key locations. Therefore, Master Chief is sent in to create opportunities for human forces to gain the upper hand. This deciding battle involves billions of people, whether they're stationed with the Chief or not.

"It attempts to add resonance by placing the central conflict in a religious context: The villain is called a "Prophet", the Elites, aliens who have abandoned the Covenant to team up with humans, are called "Heretics" by the other Covenant troops. Unfortunately, the story doesn't have any of the depth or grey areas that actual religious schisms manifest. In fact, the main conflict of the game is an entirely secular one. Beyond the simple question of whether the Master Chief can stop the Prophet of Truth from destroying the galaxy (spoiler alert: according to the ad campaign, he can), there's no depth or complexity to this conflict. What the Covenant wants is so outlandishly bad that it can't be seen as anything but madness, and the humans have a completely good solution available to them, which, if successful would result in the complete destruction of all their foes and a completely happy ending. There's no hard decisions to be made here, no possibility of being forced to accept the existence of, or even making an agreement with, the Flood. No, all the bad guys are clearly evil, and all of them can be easily defeated in one fell swoop."

-This quote is very ignorant. It makes me wonder why you are qualified to even review games. You make claims that have no backing. The Covenant are out to destroy the humans because they believe that it is part of their religious prophecy. There wasn't any attempt for making an agreement with the Covenant because these tactics have been tried countless times. The Covenant don't want to make treaties with us, they want to destroy us. It is part of their prophecy. They are definately not easily defeated. No form of traditional military tactics could prevail against the Covenant. Mankind had to take a drastic measure by relying on Master Chief. In slipspace where the Ark and the first Halo were located, the majority of the Covenant Armada was stationed there to protect the prophet and to use the Ark. The fact that Master Chief had to detonate the Halo ring to destroy the Covenant forces should show just how desperate the human race was.

-As for saying that the story was a wrap-up, the end of Halo 3 was a big cliff-hanger. If you beat the game on Legendary, then you know what I'm talking about. If I just beat the game on Normal (probably like you), then I would be pretty upset with the "wrap-up" as well. However, the fact is that the end to Halo 3 is not a wrap-up, it is another cliff-hanger for the inevitable Halo 4 or whatever Bungie chooses to call it.

Coach Bombay wrote: "Is it

Coach Bombay wrote:

"Is it fair to judge a game based on its advertising?" No, it isn't. Does this mean that a game that is worse than Halo 3 could score higher on your site simply because it hasn't been hyped as much? And by "smart reviews" you mean retarded reviews that will get you hits to your site because they are controversial? I really hope you don't believe this is the way video games should be reviewed.

If you purposely generate an unachievable amount of hype. You have to live with the consequences.

Anonymous wrote: halo

Anonymous wrote:

halo fanboys:blablah........

daniel's puppies:blahblah............

bottomline:halo 3 is overhyped and underdelivered but still deserve at least an 8 or 9 out of ten.and daniel is and idiotic game reviewer.

Pretty much.

Anonymous wrote: The

Anonymous wrote:

The Metacritic USER score for this game is currently at 7.8

So it is possible that 7/10 is a more accurate rating, closer to how players actually feel about this game, then the ratings given by other "professional" game critics.

No, I've seen tons of user reviews for games that are just. I've never played this but I heard it sucks. 0/10.

You should never trust a user average unless you can actually look through all the scores and disregard the unjustified ones.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. I

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. I am one of the many that think that Halo's campaign (you can't really call it single player because so many people play co-op) is the best part of Halo. The story is very deep, good enough to generate 5 novels in the Halo universe. Most of it, however, goes right over most people's heads. If you don't know the background to Halo, many little details will come across as useless. The story is amazing.

If the story and writing were amazing you wouldn't have to play the other games or read the books to get most of the effect. It would be good on it's own.

Anonymous wrote:

-The enemy AI is supposed to be better than the human AI. Bungie is trying to create the feeling that Master Chief is the last hope for mankind. If the marines were superbadasses, there'd be no need for the Chief. There is supposed to be a feeling that the humans are outpowered, outgunned, and on their last legs for survival.

There are ways to do that without making stupid AI.

Anonymous wrote:

The backtracking does offer a bit of realism.

Stupidest justification of backtracking I've ever read.

Anonymous wrote:

This deciding battle involves billions of people, whether they're stationed with the Chief or not.

Saying that something is going on that you can't see doesn't make the game more exciting.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people that have posted comments are posting either shit or hyperbole.

Anonymous wrote: Halo 3

Anonymous wrote:

Halo 3 didn't smash all entertainment records in history ($170 million first 24 hours) because everyone felt like buying an "overhyped" game.

Imagine that, a game made the most money. It costs significantly more than a movie ticket (especially legendary). Give me sales records and you've got a credible comment.

Also just because people rush out to see/buy a sequel to something they liked doesn't make it good.

Your stupid. The multiplayer

Your stupid. The multiplayer gameplay is the best multiplayer experience you can find on a console.

Publicity Trick

I read this review, mostly because on Gamerankings I saw this as the lowest score and I wanted to see what the guys points were. Now, I agree with some of his points - but what I don't agree with his his shameless attempt to be the low guy on the rankings to generate more hits on his website. Reading his review I'm thinking he'd give it a B+, not a C-.

I just won't plan on coming to this site anymore - look how good a job they do at reviewing games for the consumer:

    Lost Planet: Extreme Condition 85%
    Gears of War 80%
    X-Men Legends II 80%
    ChromeHounds 75%
    Halo 3 70%

uh, yeah right. What a gimmick. I'll trade you your Halo 3 for my chromehounds anytime.

Amen!

Matt wrote:

This is the best review I have read of Halo 3. When a game as flawed as halo gets such high scores just because of multiplayer then we begin to lose the emphasis on what i think is and always should be the most important part and that is the single player campaign. That is where the adventure, the imagination, the journey, the art is. Bungie has forgotten that and simply made a fun but fatally flawed game that can't hold a candle to the masterpiece that is Bioshock.

Amen brother. I thought this was one of the most accurate reviews of Halo 3 that I have read to date. Good game, but NEVER deserving of the 9 and 10 scores it has been getting. It's an 8/10 at best imho.

Not even in the same league as Gears or Bioshock!

This review is full of WIN

This review is full of WIN and you haters are full of AIDS.

No Credibility

This is a lame attempt by a second-rate site to generate hits.

My review

Lets start by saying that the only reason I've completed Halo 2 and Halo 3 is because of the co-op.
It's pretty much the only thing that separate Halo's from most other games these days.
I've now played Halo 3's campaing through almost twice and I doubt I'll finish the second time because of unchallenging gameplay.
The first time I played the campaing was with a friend and the difficulty was heroic.
Well the heroic was pretty easy.
It took one night to finish the campaign.
Then we decided to ask a couple of friends to join us for the second run using system link and with a legendary difficulty.
It soon became clear that with 4 players the game was simply boring.
Almost everytime someone died, he respawned almost immediately and continued rushing.
Rushing, rushinh and more rushing.
You could basicly just chat with your friends and not even thinking about the game because there were no challenge.
What is the point of instant respawning?
One guy could just stand away from enemies and everytime someone dies, it doesn't really even matter.
Challenge to me is one of the most important aspects of the game and for the third time Halo failed to deliver it when playing co-operatively.
This is the single biggest problem I've always had with Halos.
Oh well.. atleast the vehicles are always fun to drive.
There's a lot more flaws in this game and it's definitely is one of the most overrated games out there.

Sir, regarding your review… I take umbrage!!!

Dear Sir, while perusing the travesty that is the world wide web, I had the unfortunate experience of stumbling across your particularly nasty “review.” I have been an avid listener of radio, records, phonographic cylinders and even the occasional electromagnetic tape cassette these past several decades of my life and after reading your article Sir, it is my assertion that you know next to NOTHING about Bill Haley or his Comets! You spend a significant amount of print undermining the virtue of Mr. Haley’s “graphics” (which I can only assume is some kind of veiled attack on his choice of spit-curl hair style) but where Sir, I ask you, is any reference to such cherished hits as Rock Around the Clock and the classic See You Later Alligator. No one ever “said you was high class” Sir, but if they did it would be “just a lie” I assure you. As for all this talk of shooting and guns, I am guessing you’re some form of lunatic like that unpleasant Manson fellow who blamed his anti-social behaviour on the Beatles records. Shake, Rattle and Roll is not a call to arms you latter day John Dillinger, it is an anthem of fun loving youth everywhere, something your “review” fails to acknowledge. And another thing… What’s That? It’s not a review about Bill Haley and His Comets? Halo 3? What the hell is Halo 3? What do you mean who’s Bill Haley? He’s only one of the biggest rockers of the 1950’s. Ah you people can all go jump into a big lake made of “fail and aids.”

Halo 3: What Plants Crave

JGraw wrote:

My God, these comments... it's like reading idiocracy script.

I only bothered to read through the first dozen infantile responses to Daniel's review, but I completely agree with the Idiocracy reference.

In a recent Penny Arcade post, Tycho mentioned getting over his scorn of Halo vis. annoyance with its semi-literate fratboy fanbase. I think his triumph is commendable, even if I find it personally untenable.

I'm still enjoying Halo 3, though I agree with the reasoned criticisms Daniel makes, especially when he points to the glaring omission of the epic backdrop promised by the ending of Halo 2.

An honest review

Halo 3 is the same game as Halo 2. I don't want to do the same thing I did 3 years ago with only slightly better graphics.

I played Halo 2 every night from release for months. halo 3 couldn't last a few days because it is the same thing. Halo (3 years ago).

Stupid Review and Stupid

Stupid Review and Stupid Site

statistical analysis of this reviewer: evidence of lowballing

Here are this reviewer's and the average metacritic scores for the last 5 games this reviewer has done:

game_______________________Weissenberger___metacritic score
Halo 3_______________________70______________94
Touch the Dead_______________45______________55
Medal of Honor: Vanguard______30______________56
Def Jam Icon_________________45______________69
Transformers the Game________30______________55

The scores tend to be much lower than the average. You might think that this could be just by chance. I did some statistics over all the metacritic scores, and even giving the reviewer a slight break in the analysis, the odds of these results being by chance are 2.07% (or about 1 in 50). Usually we say that anything less than 1 in 20 is evidence that it didn't happen by chance.

So, we have evidence that this reviewer tends to score much lower than the average, and that this is not by chance. Curiously, this seems to be a recent pattern, as the scores before these five do not seem to show this pattern. It seems that reviewer has changed his approach to reviewing recently; for the reasons why, we can only speculate. :/

Oh,man...........

After reading the entire review,and scanning over most of these comments,quite frankly,this has reached the point of overextension.Ok so you read the review,and now you start ranting about the author and the overall review.WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO?If you don't like the review,then fine:go on with your life,and don't act so stupid and give the author a hard time.Fine,the score of 7/10 was shocking for a moment,just think:the graphics had their good times and bad alike,the storyline was scattered,whereas you had to just keep playing without considering it until a cutscene,where you would dismiss that thought from your head anyway.As for the ending,everyone probably anticipated it anyway.I won't go into detail for the sake of readers that haven't beat the game yet,but really...did anyone think that something like else would happen at the end?Possibly,but in my opinion,no.Overall,just let it go,relax,quit ranting,and keep your opinions to yourselves unless you have proof to back your opinion up.

Your statistical analysis

Ib- Great work on the number-crunching. One question though - did you take into account the fact that gamecritics.com actually uses the entire review scale, from 10 (Shadow of the Colossus) all the way down to 1 (Land of the Dead)? Actually, we've had a couple of 0.5s, but to get them, you've got to be really bad. Fantavision bad.

And what does it mean that many of the websites and magazines that gave Halo 3 a higher score than I did also gave Touch the Dead a lower score than I did?

The problem with using a statistical analysis to examine something like this is that it can make you draw conclusions based on just a tiny fraction of the available information. If you're trying to figure out why a certain game got a certain score, a good way to find out is by reading the review.

Oh, and thank you for mathematically proving that I don't have a bias against a Halo 3, and haven't given it a low score to draw attention. Good work there.

on analysis

Mr. Weissenberger,

One question though - did you take into account the fact that gamecritics.com actually uses the entire review scale, from 10 (Shadow of the Colossus) all the way down to 1 (Land of the Dead)?

That is actually a good point. Of course, such an analysis would be pretty time-consuming, but I might consider it. Most would assume that such distributions of scores would incorporate the entire scale, but it is unknown (unless you can point me to a reference). If the other sites do indeed only use the upper part of the scale, then that would explain why your score is lower, while describing the same perceived quality of the game. I would just like to point out, however, that your own statement that other sites had lower scores for 'Touch of Dead' argues against this.

Respectfully, I am trying to establish why your score is the lowest on metacritic. Again respectfully, my opinion is that your review is unfair. The statistical analysis indicates that your reviews have lately been significantly lower than the average score. In my mind, this analysis suggests that lately you are biased to give lower scores, and this calls into question whether your scores are fair (not only for Halo 3, but the other 4 games).

Aside from the statistics, I did read your review thoroughly. As noted in an earlier comment, I also found aspects of your review to be unfair. If you would like to comment on that, please do.

You're probably right

I wouldn't know, I stopped playing Halo when I saw the first purple gun.

The average Metacritic

The average Metacritic review score is made up almost exclusively of scores given by hacks, fanboys, idiots, PR proxies, and honest-enough fellas who face pressure from their superiors and have to make political compromises to keep their jobs. If a reviewer's scores are NOT usually lower than the Metacritic average, the best that can generally be said of him is that he's a generous man or that he has a family to feed.

Review

ibshimo2 wrote:

Here is a quote from another reviewer, Tracy Erickson from Digital Entertainment News: 'The purpose of any review--whether it be for a video game, movie, or some sort of product--is to advise consumers on what to spend their money.' I completely agree with this sentiment.

That's your right, of course, but I happen to believe, and this has long been the policy of gamecritics.com, that reviews are meant to offer much more than simply consumer advice. Now that's not to say that consumer information isn't very important - that's why we write a Consumer Guide for every single game, including information useful to parents and the hard of hearing - but saying that's it's the only, or even the first duty of the reviewer is a blinkered view. More to the point, if this were the only way people responded to review, then why would anyone read a review after they'd purchased the game?

As far as the review numbers go, I'm not offering any concrete reasons on why my numbers might be out of whack with the averages, just suggesting that there are any number of explanations for a perceived statistical anomaly.

Oh, and as for your the mistakes you mention - Yes, I counted both level 4 and 5 as forcing me to backtrack. They made me walk through the same level twice, so I counted it twice. The advertising budget figure is not factually incorrect, because I never mention facts. To quote me for a second: "I have no doubt that the game's marketing budget was far higher than the cost of actually making the game." I'm talking about the overwhelming advertising as opposed to the underwhelming gameplay, not monetary amounts. And of course the small scale of the final battle was due to technological constraints - that's my point. Don't promise me an epic experience if you can't deliver one. Don't tell an epic story if you can't put it on the screen.

fair enough

Mr. Weissenberger,

I appreciate that you took the time to answer my concerns, and I find your responses to be civil, thoughtful and enlightening, especially the viewpoint of gamecritics.com . I honestly hope that readers make it this far through the comments to read your statement. I feel that I have expressed my view, and you have responded. At this point, I am going to 'agree to disagree', and leave it at that.

Cheers,
ibshimo2

pfft

haha to all the people that said halo 3 lacked any epicness to it and that they passed the game in 5 hours. try not playing coop on easy. try single player legendary. then you will enjoy. and bioshock? haha all that game is is the one two punch maneuver. i wouldnt even classify it as a fps, therefore wouldnt relate and compare it to halo.

and daniel if u forgot the tough badass image you were trying to create in writing this review and actually took the time to enjoy the game, maybe you wouldnt have an army of people after you

Your Halo 3 review

I've not played the game yet as I was away on hols for it's release and although have bought it are waiting for the right time to play it ie A free weekend.

I say bravo to your review. You were complimentary about the game in many places yet criticised it for the campaign. I don't go on-line and hence its the story and how that plays which interests me. Not delivering on the advert is the same as Bungie did last time with Halo 2. Then it was the final fight is on Earth and you then saw very little of it.

Rather than being concerned about the 7 that you gave it real gamers should be more concerned about reviews that talk negatively or at the least disappointedly about the campaign then still give it a 9.5 because of the multiplayer and because they don't want to damage exclusivity deals with Microsoft.

It bugs me that so many studios, including Bungie, are prepared to cobble together a game and then rely on the multiplayer to save them some credibility. From a creative view it's the weakest form of gameplay and continued reliance on it to salvage a weak game bodes badly for the future of gaming.

For me the hysterical fanboy attacks on you alarm me more at their utter blind faith. If they can't comment, or allow others to, when something disappoints them how can their praise have any validity?

You American kids are so

You American kids are so blind a and brainwashed that it scares me. Halo 1 had couple of new ideas and great controls, but tons of backtracking and i would NEVER EVER called it a best game ever as many bribed reviewers did (including Edge). Then again, Microsoft gives reviewers 800$ worth bribe (special edition Xbox, Helmet and other bullshit) and everyone gives the game 10/10 score (including EDGE that i am not going to purchase anymore for that). Only one person who dares to point to the negative sides of the game (and i just dont get how any rebviewer could not see them) he is attacked by little zombie brainwashed kids. This review is not BAD, other reviews are bribed with free merchandise and you just dont see it. Its just sad.

my opinion

Thanks for writing this review, I really enjoyed it. I was very much looking forward to a great story after all the setups they put into the last game and was fairly disappointed. And the AI for the arbiter was unacceptable. I expected the marines to be worthless, but if you won't let me play as the arbiter, then he'd better be badass.

I will say that the multiplayer is very good and I'll probably be playing it for quite some time. I just don't think this game is the 'perfect ten' that people are making it out to be. When you throw money at, and hype something, as much as this game, then it had better deliver on EVERY level, not just multiplayer. They should have just gone the same route as Shadowrun if they didn't want to put the effort into the campaign that it deserved.

Ya'll need to stop attacking this guy like a bunch of kids. He's responding very eloquently and that's alot considering the youtube level of these replies.

This is what he wanted

I'm on the road so much, I did not really see all the media "hype". I'm also a little behind on the halo series (only been playing 1 and 2 for a few months)

This reviewer wants attention, and thats what he's getting......bottom line. Do I agree with the review?.....uh....not at all.

This game has more replay value than ANY other game I
have ever played.(I have every system that has ever been released)

It's just sad to see a great game get degraded so much, just because someone wants to cause a stir.

Ah...it is official that my hobby has been hijacked by children

First, I want to address the marketing flare up. It is ABSOLUTELY reasonable and within common sense to take into account marketing and advertising. I am a professional programmer (as opposed to the professional children that are clogging up this thread) and I can assure you without exception that if someone, anyone, tells anyone else, "Project X will deliver Y" and project X does anything but deliver 100% of Y, you have issues.

These marketers are not some rogue group, they are part of the company. And if noone within that company has the balls, common sense or intelligence to reign them in, then the entire development aparatus comes into question.

If a company says, "We will give you X and a bag of chips" and they jip you on the chips, this is an absolutely crucial factor in developing your opinion of that product.

Second, the story...hahahahahah...children. It is obvious that 98% of the detractors here grew up on Dragon Ball Z and Power Rangers. For anyone to claim that Halo has any kind of 'deep' or challenging story is just amuzing. It is like watching my 5 year old tell me why the sun is yellow, I can't stop from giggling.

Third, scoring. Uh...kiddies of the "gimme" generation, a 7 out of 10 is not "horrible" or "outrageous". Hell, it isn't even "average". Here's a little math that will likely rock your entire universe: in a range of 1 to 10, 5 is generally accepted as the "average". But just by people who actually back up their thoughts with logic and reason. Just because every other author out there is inflating the entire scoring process by throwing out a 10 for every game that happen to like does not change math. Grow up, pretend you have something sort of resembling common sense and just...nevermind, forgot my audience for a minute.

Lastly, I am no Halo hater. Not at all. Halo was what finally got me BACK into videogaming. (Anyone that doesn't know what a C64 is or is not intimately familiar with Beach Head or Summer Games should automatically be dimissed from the conversation in my elitist mind...but that's just me). Halo knocked me solidly and squarely right on my keester. It rocked my world and made me appreciate what gaming in the modern age could be.

I pre-ordered Halo 2 8 months before ship. I stood in line outside EB games for 2.5 hours to get it as close to midnight as I possibly could. And I was devastated by the game. Just as Halo had opened my eyes to modern gaming, Halo 2 opened my eyes to the modern gaming industry. Immediately I wished I could work for an organization that delivered 60-70% of plan. Wow, what a life. It was a nice enough shooter, but it was not anything close to what the devs and their evil marketers said they were going to deliver.

(I refused to buy 3, made my kids save up their own money if they wanted it. Have played about half of the campaign and maybe 50 multis with the neighborhood gang)

...and I guess it opened my eyes to the modern gamer as well. I just did not...nor do I yet...comprehend how people could be so deluded to call it "great" and "the best". Even the DEVELOPERS OF THE GAME came out and said that it was pretty bad. Yet the kiddies still foam and froth from the mouth.

Hats off to the author. I still believe that 7 is high. I think another thing to take into consideration is other similar products in the marketplace. Comparing Halo 3 to other current games and a 5 sounds right and a 6 is pushing it.

So, go ahead and froth and foam kiddies. I have not made any declaration against god or country. I have not molested or murdered anyone...nor has the author of this review. But you are so completely deluded that you seem to feel he has.

Halo 3, an alright shooter. Simple enough.

assholes and opinions, we all got them

Great review, i just completed the game today. Bored of reviewers giving it 9/10 etc for the 'whole package'

the single player is 7/10 - short and fun but very forgetable.

Great review and thanks for the honest opinion

Sick of Fanboys & Groupies

Awesome review Daniel. It's so rare these days to see a game being reviewed by a real critic. Most of them are reviewed by video game groupies. Since they enjoy video games so much (especially hardcore games), they usually grade games they like higher. That's why kid's games are ranked so low, they're not kids anymore, so they don't give a shit about these games. The Star Control 2 reference is dead on. I remember destroying the Sa-Matra battle plaform and it felt epic. However, most of the fanboys who are trashing you probably never played this excellent game since they weren't gamers in 1992. And for Christ's sake, where are the epic battles in Halo 3? In most WWII shooters showcasing the Battle of Normandy on D-Day, you can feel how epic this battle must of been, with hundred of soldiers on the screen screaming for their lives. Why can't Halo 3 gives us this?

He gave thorough examples of

He gave thorough examples of backtracking that some claimed wasn't there. How does that make him lose credibility? Maybe replying to someone's comment on the review wasn't the classiest thing to do, but at least he backed his claims up...

What's wrong with halo2

I read some disparaging remarks about Halo2. I haven't taken it out of my xBox since I bought it, and find it a great game and enjoyable. I play against my brother sometimes, and find the head to head action challenging.

What's wrong with halo2?

Where is the Outrage Over Sixteen Perfect Reviews?

Well, I am a little confused by the comments about this review. It seems that Mr. Weissenberger told us what he liked about Halo 3 and what he did not like. Nobody can dispute that after a very long wait, this game is basically Halo 2 with upgraded graphics, the same dubious AI, and plenty of backtracking. Yet I found sixteen perfect reviews for the game on Metacritic. Now lets be objective here, where is the outrage over the sixteen perfect reviews? If you think this is a perfect game, you either don’t shave yet, or you work for Bungie.

Confused wrote: Now lets

Confused wrote:

Now lets be objective here, where is the outrage over the sixteen perfect reviews? If you think this is a perfect game, you either don’t shave yet, or you work for Bungie.

Remember that many sites use a 5 star system, or .5 increments, or at times, full point increments. 5 stars doesn't really equate to perfection, yet metacritic will render it as 100%.

So lets forget the 16 perfect scores (bungie employees, right?) and do what seems prudent and look at the metascore.... hmmm.... 94 out of 100? That is what you would have rated the game right?

It is very clear that Halo3 is an outstanding game. While the review on this site my accurately express the authors opinion of the game, the low score raises some valid questions about the reviewers success in tapping into what gamers in general would think of the game. His score is so low it stick out like an act of bias.

I personally think that his "mistake" is in allowing advertising to so gravely affect his opinion of a game. That seems a very poor standard to judge a game by. Games are developed over several years while advertising comes into play at the end of development. All the stuff about bungie not delivering on what was promised is well, stupid in its own way.

Wow!

I have to agree with the reviewer that Halo 3 was over advertised. Personally, I feel Bungie and Microsoft should have taken a clue from Cliffy B. and his cohorts with Gears or War.

Now, that being said, Halo 3 does have flaws, but every game I have played does. The difference is that Bungie will release updates and patches in order to fix said flaws. The campaign was excellent and the graphics were great. I have played the campaign through nearly 5 times, on Legendary now, and still haven't gotten bored with it. The matchmaking is even better, and far passes Halo 2. There are bugs, sure, but all ready today Bungie released an update to address some of those.

I could go on and on, but I really would like to get to my whole reason for posting. Any professional reviewer that posts spoilers and allows his "biased" view to be obscured by a company's advertising (i.e. Microsoft) does not deserve to review anything. Any amount of advertising should never sway a critic review, and in this case the reviewer expected too much, and was thus let down. I personally expected less. I was astonished to see the reviewer even spell out one of the final battles. That would never cut it in any magazine I read.

This a review I think every

This a review I think every Halo fan boy should watch. After playing the game I agree with it entirely.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3

The only thing that Halo 3 does better then most games is it perfects simple multiplayer and opens it up for everybody to play (especially those high school football jocks who used to beat the majority of you up throughout high school. GG.)

Now consider back to when you played through the Halo 3 campaign (and the Halo 2 campaign for that matter.) Do you remember it being invigorating? And "high quality"? Because I sure don't remember that. I remember a piss poor campaign, that I almost blinked and missed...

Now I will admit that Halo does multi player well. It always has, but it has not done single player well since Halo 1. Its like the developers only developed half a game.

If you were to go to Olive garden, ordered a plate of delicious pasta, and they gave you the most tender sausage and delectable sauce you've ever eaten. But then they gave you worms for noodles... Would you eat this wonderful... half finished meal? Would you give your full compliments to the chef? Of course not.

What you are doing when you give Halo 3 a perfect or near perfect score is you are giving a game that was only developed halfway a perfect or near perfect score. You are eating delicious meat but as soon as you turn on single player, its not unlike devouring worms.

So the fanboys can hang up their insults for Daniel. Because in all honesty if they give this game a high score they really are fanboys, and they probably need to learn what a true masterpiece of a game really is.

And in pre-response to anybody who writes another review about this game that insults those that agree with Daniel. I highly suggest you actually talk about THE GAME. Rather then insult those who agree with him. Because we are talking about the GAME. Nobody gives a damn what you think about us.

About these spoilers-

So a couple of people have stated that I included spoilers, but I'm not exactly clear what they're supposed to have been. What part of the game's story was spoiled by my comments? That the flood appeared? That the biggest battle was disappointingly small? That the good guys win at the end?

not impressed with the review

my my, this review has received a 2 star or 40% rating, even lower than the game itself!

i have to say i disagree strongly with the reviewer. as much of a halo fan as i am, i was disappointed with the campaign of halo 2. to me, it didn't have that magic of the first game, and certain levels i felt bungie was trying a little too hard to come out of the shadow of halo 1. i also hated that halo 2 didn't have the assault rifle and instead was replaced by the wimpy dual-wielding friendly sub-machine gun. i also hated playing as the arbiter. i usually ended up shooting aliens on "my side" cause i couldn't tell which was which. also, i hated the fact they changed it in co-op legendary where if one person died, so did the other and you could respawn. basically they changed certain elements which i thought was fantastic in halo 1, and the gameplay suffered for it.

however, i thought halo 3 was a return to glory. they fixed all these mistakes and brought back the assault rifle. but surprisingly enough, the campaign was as good and arguably better than halo 1. all the favorites scenarios and types of gameplay were back, but the new vehicles were amazing. i loved being on the chopper, or the mongoose, and especially the prowler. the only thing i missed on the campaign was flying the banshee, though that is in multiplayer and i guess they wanted to introduce the hornet, which was cool as well.

i thought bungie did a fantastic job in alternating the gameplay so nothing got stale, as well many fps games. just an excellent job on halo 3.

about the so-called "back-tracking", my response is so fucking what?! practically every fps game has some sort of back-tracking, and halo 3 has a lot less compared to halo 1, even though i didn't really mind it too much in halo 1. have you played bioshock? don't tell me there's no back-tracking in that game, and so freaking what?! bioshock is amazing!

also, i wonder why the reviewer didn't mention the multiplayer. that is a huge aspect of halo 3, if not the whole franchise! even halo 1, which came out before xbox live, had a fantastic system link game. but halo 3 really excels in mp, eclipsing even halo 2. i simply cannot stop playing it. and the finding games is incredibly fast, unless your router isn't set up right (nat turned on), and it still pretty fast. if you're going to do a proper game review, you have to review the whole game and not be lazy and just talk about one aspect.

halo 3 has so many new things, i haven't even had time to try out the forge aspect of the game, which a lot of my friends say is their favorite thing to do. actually being able to somewhat customize levels on a console game is pretty cool. i watched some demo movies online of people making games (one dude did a level which was like super mario bros. which was hilarious!) and its sweet. what i have been able to try is the films option which is really cool. sure, it's a bit like replay in sports games, but the halo 3 films can be over an hour long! that's ridiculous, and cool if you had a smoking run on a level to be able to re-watch what you did, not to mention have total control of the camera.

these are little bonuses that i think affect how a game should be reviewed. while they are not the main feature, they are certainly nice little added features that add a lot more replay value to a game.

seriously, i respect anyone having any opinion, but as the job of the reviewer, you have to back it up. and i think you did a far from credible job in doing so. sadly, i have to agree with most of the commenters here that this low score is just some sort of publicity stunt. personally, i think a reviewer is entitled to his opinion, and if someone wanted to give "citizen kane" a thumbs down, by all means do it. but back up your review; otherwise, you instantly lose credibility as a reviewer.

also, one final point, it is absolutely rubbish to judge any work of art based on its advertising. by doing so, you are doing a disservice to not only the artist(s), but also the public. i can tell you weren't formally educated in art criticism for you to make such a naive mistake. not saying you need to be properly educated to write a review, but having some sort of understanding of ethics and also a grasp of the english language might serve you well. at the very least, the general public might expect someone who knows to "never judge a book by its cover".

Haha.

Wow, some of us remember GOOD games from years long past. They didn't get into games through the means of Halo. Most of us have been playing since the days of 8-bit-- and I know alot have been playing since the prehistoric era of Atari/Commodore64/etc.

You need to check out Goldeneye if you want an FPS that's actually fun and worth the playing time.

Just another publicity stunt to drive website traffic

Not GameCritics again? Halo 3 a 7/10? Not a surprising score for these bunch of cunts. They gave two reviews for Crackdown, one was a 5.5/10 and the other was a 3/10. They trashed Bioshock, too. Anyone taking these clowns seriously need to get their head checked.

What's hilarious is that their scores for these games are even lower than the ones given out by SonyDefenseForce.com, which is a satirical site taking the piss out of PS3 fanboys. These "GameCritics" rejects actually take themselves seriously.

Read any of their reviews and you realize these shitheads have no business reviewing games. They admittedly don't even finish any of the games before writing the review, and another reviewer had the audacity to write in a comment defending his crap with "why do I have to power up to access powers, why can't I have them in the beginning?" These dumbfucks are not gamers, just a bunch of cunts that wish they were doing something else. Unfortunately, as you can tell from reading their reviews, they're not particularly capable or even passable as writers, and even in the videogame reviewing world, don't expect to ever see these cunts in any proper gaming publications. They just wouldn't be able to hack it.

The only reason why anyone of us are on this site is because Gamerankings.com, which GameCritics themselves submit links to. The only way anyone would visit this garbage Z-list site is out of curiosity because without a doubt, the lowest score on any AAA game given would be from GameCritics.com. Coincidence? Obviously not, these spineless twats give out scores not based on the merits of any game, but purely for shock value to drive traffic to the site and to gain notoriety.

Even Edge Magazine UK, which famously gives out lower-than-norm scores, are able to back up their reviews. Most recently, they scored Bioshock a 8/10, the lowest score on any review (other than GameCritics, which review was such an obvious trite piece of shit that it was rejected for inclusion on GameRankings.com). However, they had the sense to give Halo 3 a 10/10, one of only a handful of times they have given that score in the over ten years they have been in publication, based on the game's merits (and not on its advertising campaign, unlike this GameCritics cunt).

Fact is, these GameCritics pricks are the laughing stock of the industry. And unlike actual respectable gaming journalists in real publications, you won't see any of these pricks writing gaming reviews in five years time.

Foul mouthed nutters!

An eloquent response from Ted Reed the rather obvious Halo fanboy, no normal human being would get so upset over a GAME review!

The one consistently obvious thing that can be gathered from most of the folk hating on this review is they are obviously 'new gamers' and have no knowledge of how games used to be reviewed.

I've been gaming since the days of the Atari 2600 and subsequently the C64, Amiga etc. Back in the Commodore days when games were reviewed I fail to remember ANY games getting 10/10 and very few getting 9, people seem have lost all concept of the award scale, as has been mentioned before a 7 or 8 score is a very good score, it's only modern reviewers who dish out 9/10's willy nilly who have devalued these ratings and in my opinion gamecritics.com are one of the few review sites actually using the scale as they should be.

Partial - Incomplete

I have read every comment posted to this point and have to say I agree and disagree at the same time. I believe some valid points are raised but I also believe some were not. The review was very biased to campaign (or the lack thereof).

I have been playing games for over 20 years and I must say that Halo is one of my favorites as far as FPS games are concerned. But, reviews must be complete to be accurate. When I purchased my copy of Halo 3, I didn't just purchase the Halo 3 campaign, I purchased everything that is and makes up Halo 3 which includes Forge, Multiplayer, Ranked and social play lists, saved films and replay theater, 4 player co-op, file/map/game/film sharing, stat tracking, HD screenshot downloadable straight to my PC, content specific downloads chosen from my PC straight to my console and so much more. I purchased an experience. This experience makes up the complete package that is Halo 3 and is what this review is lacking.

As a complete package, Halo 3 deserves a rating between 9 and 10 out of 10. But again, I like the Halo series so people may say my perception is skewed. Although, I agree with the reviewer and his comments on the campaign, I can not agree with his score because it is not a complete review. If the only thing being reviewed and graded was the campaign then 7 would be about right. Thus, I have a problem understanding why such a biased and incomplete review was performed or even allowed for that matter.

Oh well, I really don't need or care to understand why this was done. I just wanted to make it known that if you feel this is the best review to date, I might agree with you but only in reference to the campaign. I felt the reviewer was very complete in his approach and did a fairly good job explaining his side or view of the campaign. But why, why is it a partial review? How can you score a game when you have only covered a third or a fifth of what it is that make up the game? I do not understand how the review can be taken seriously when it is not complete. Can you explain this for me?

~Cheers

Why can't people accept that

Why can't people accept that this game wasn't as good as it was hyped to be? It's great, yeah, but it could have been better. The plot was so crappy it blew my mind. The reviewer dude is right and if you people can't respect his opinion and stop saying things like "LET'S GO AGAINST THE CROWD BECAUSE WE HAVE SMALL DICKS AND WE NEED TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT!"

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

Forge, 4 Player Co Op, Scoring....

It is obvious you are just trying to stand out with your review, why is it that you never managed to mention saved films, forge, 4 player online co op, or the campaign scoring? I knew your review as going to be garbage right after you said that its ok to judge a game based off of its advertising. The game cost at least 5 times what was spent on advertisement. Also, the only level that is actually noticeably repetitive is cross nest, honesty just because you go threw the same room dosn't qualify as repetitive. The fact that you based your review so much around the campaigns story (even though you chose to leave out key facts such as scoring and the 4 player online co op)is insane. You obviously wanted attention, and congratulations you got mine.

laugh at this reviewer

all i gotta say is this guy is a retard... and im serious.. your saying the story line has no "depth"? COMMMONN!!! have you read the books?? didnt think so because if you did... you would have way different things to say.. also i noticed you had some problems with spelling correctly?? how did you become a reviewer in the first place?? this game is amazing. halo is unique in many ways and bungie is keeping that way. another thing that got me was you said you didnt like how there was no dodging moves of that sort. well lets see bungie has every button on the controller set to some specific right?? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY GONNA USE FOR DODGING?!?! like common you play games where one button does two things and it just ends up pissing you off because it messes up alot. PLUS your master chief you dont need to be a little panzy :) i could go on and on about stupid stuff you wrote but i'll just end it here

haha!

The reviewer seriously pissed me off and the guy above me sums it up- The slogan for Gamecritics.com is "smart reviews for serious gamers," yet this review is hardly smart at all. This guy just presents one side of the game, and hardly shows the opposing viewpoint (the good points). This includes Forge and multiplayer, the new additions to the game, etc. which he fails to adress entirely. Who cares if the game is overhyped?? if someone bought into all that crap and bought halo 3 just because of the commercials and products, that person is a complete dumbass, like our fellow reviewer Danny. maybe he's drank too many fucking Game Fuels after watching all the damn commercials. Because he commented his own article just to attack other commentors shows even more that he is a real pussbag. I'll rely on other sites for now on, thank you.

for the Lit major...

Jordan wrote:

all i gotta say is this guy is a retard... and im serious.. your saying the story line has no "depth"? COMMMONN!!! have you read the books?? didnt think so because if you did... you would have way different things to say..

If I may be so bold as to translate:

"I am another zombie who got suckered into shelling out money for extra video game paraphernalia and feel I deserve to act elitist about a review that critiques the shallowness of said video game since I spent some extra time reading novels that barely qualify as passable sci-fi literature. I can see how some would mistake me for having a PhD in literature from a prestigious university like Cornell or Oxford, since I seem to know SO much about how good stories are constructed to comment on certain aspects of narratives like "depth". I may not have the best understanding of grammar or even a relatively firm grasp on the construction of a cohesive English sentence. Hell, I may have not even read the likes Faulkner, Steinbeck, Cather, Lawrence, Bradbury, Vonnegut, Hemingway, Pynchon, or even Melville! But, I have gathered enough knowledge from Halo novels and pamphlets about chlamydia to understand what "depth" is, and you know what? The Halo series has depth! Sure, I may sound pretentious, but trust me when I say my experience with literature MORE than qualifies me to make comments about what a good story is."

To Halo fans...

Thank you SO much for being who you are. Truth be told, your posts play an incredible role in brightening the lives of others. I know for a fact that whenever you post one of your diatribes about this review, many breathe a sigh of relief that they are not one of the socially inept, uncouth, ignorant, 16-year old slugs who love to wallow in their own stupidity. For those of us who embrace critical thinking and intellectualism, you Halo fanboys serve as constant reminders of why the general public does not take videogames seriously as a medium and pushes us to write, create, program, or finance games that intend to push the envelope and move games forward even if it means alienating you by expecting more from the few individuals who do not buy into flashy marketing.

In closing, I would like to take the time to express my gratitude for what you are doing on this forum and to ask you to please keep sending your rabid, immature, uninformed posts because finding motivation to reach for greatness can sometimes be more difficult than most would have you believe. So, please, keep reminding the rest of us of how smart we are so we do not get discouraged when having to deal with the fact that you represent the masses.

A 7.0 is unjustified

I had completed Halo 3 on legendary earlier this week. It was an incredible experience. The balance and playability made the hardest setting challenging and enjoyable. I never played it on normal or easy, but I have heard that these modes were "dumbed down" for casual gamers. If people had played the game on the easy settings then maybe they have a right to claim it was an over hyped breeze simply due to their own skill settings and Bungies overly kind low skill levels. Others that have played through the game in co-op in legendary there are some simple tricks to complete the game as well. I personally believe that co-op is a competitive bonus and should not be used unless the players are all noobs.

Other complaints I have heard involve the foul mouthed 12 year olds playing on Live. I have to somewhat agree with this in one aspect. My eight year old son completed the campaign mode on heroic. I have taken him on live and the stuff people say is horrible. We love to play against other people but I have been forced to keep the headset away from him due to the comments from others. They cannot stand the fact they they were beaten by an 8 year old. The comments spoken are the worst I have ever heard. I have been forced to turn off the voices of players that I don't know.

Now I don't believe Bungie or MS are to blame for the "free" speech that people utter, but I do think it takes a little enjoyment away from the experience. I guess it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. At least there is an option to play the death matches without hearing the racist and vulgar words of others. That being said, I also believe that many who hate playing the multi-player parts may just hate getting slaughtered by 12 year olds. Each time I hear an adult complain about it I think they must not have enough skill. Most of the times I play it people quit or form a team after a match. Those who stay to complain or brag can be avoided only to get a potential new set of idiots.

Now the review of Halo 3 is way off base. Even the back-tracking is complained about. These moments hardly feel like you just did it. They are almost always complicated by new events and enemies. Maybe I'm just to focused on the enemies to care about what is behind them. After all I am playing the game on a harder skill level. This reviewer may have beaten the game on a low skill setting. It does make a world of difference.

A 7 out of 10 score is unjustified! It shows a lack of game experience by the reviewer. To this day he is the only critic to give it a score between 7 and 8. I don't know why he he rated it so low. My guess is that he wanted to be the one to pan it. I have played through it on Heroic and Legendary and I loved it both times. I will be playing it on Live again when I have more free time. This is one of the greatest games I have ever played. I hope that people will disregard this review as nothing more than a person with a grudge!

Orange Box is better deal

Orange Box is better deal

well then anonymous i think

well then anonymous i think you really need to get a life then don't you if that all you have done in the last 6 years is play halo. how sad for you. i really do hope you get a life.

I see there are some

I see there are some extremely irate bunnies in regards to the Halo3 review ... cmon guys this review is probably the only honest critique i have seen of the game , never trust Gamespot , IGN etc.. they give 9/10 and 10/10 scores like theres some kind of entry in the Guiness Book or records they are aiming for!! I am an Halo fan , there from the beginning and recently 'finished the fight' (ahem)
But jeez this game was overhyped to the heavens and boy did we get sucked into it all!! like the reviewer said this game does not re-invent the wheel it just mimics stuff that came before .. and yes i think the programmers etc just got fat and lazy. Did i have a blast playing the game (you bet ur ass i did) , Did i have real OMG moments (ditto on that!!) , and isnt that the main reason for a game being classed as great ? Well Yes and No. These guys at Bungie have been working within this Halo universe for a good few years now .... and at the end we got Halo 3 , im sorry that just aint good enough!!! If they were a new production house just stepping into the market , i could probably expect .... the decidely average writing right at the end of the game (no spoilers) , the constant backtracking in 80% of the levels , the god awful quality in cut-scenes , the sloppy graphics in other areas (jaggies etc..) , cmon Bungie u are working with a triple-core processor and high-end graphics card for christs sake!! .. the list goes on. Now to wrap up i enjoyed the game , i really did (no i really did) , but guys and girls it is not .. i repeat not, the revolutionary game, 360 Game of the Year , Game of the Decade , No1 Game of all Time that we were promised !! Not one bit .. Bungie got a little bit lazy towards the end , Microsoft pimped this baby to the world and we bought it (as we always do!!) Adios!!!

Good review

Despite what the fanboys may say, this is an accurate and excellent review that tells it like it is. Halo is a good game and an enjoyable one, but it has a load of flaws that are hard to overlook. Some of the scores given to it by other reviewers (97%, 96%, 95% etc) are absolutely ludicrous.

Finally, someone who didn't

Finally, someone who didn't succumb to the hype. It's a sad world when some of the world's most elite reviewers give gold-encrusted scores to one of the world's most generic games. Halo is outdated, obnoxious and average. Its story was written on the back of a napkin, the single-player a tedious joke, and the multiplayer (the only reason Halo managed to get a sequel, nevermind a trilogy) is distinctly unfun. In most FPS, when you fire a gun you feel like you're firing a gun. In Halo, you feel like you're using a water pistol. And the effect on your enemies is rather the same. There's not even a cover system. So much for Combat Evolved.

And this shows why it got such high scores. Because no reviewer would dare criticise it, for fear of getting harassed by misguided Microsoft fanboys.

On the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

The author makes a lot of factual errors, includes spoilers and generally doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He generally sounds like he is out to prove that Halo 3 is not as good as every one else says that it is, just to be different. This is sad. Who is letting him write professional game reviews?

To the guy that said that Halo was not a good PC game:
I never owned an XBox and only got into Halo when it came out for PC. I loved it and it quickly became my second favorite sci-fi FPS, right after Half-Life. So, speak for yourself, buddy.

Do other reviews not include spoilers as factual errors? The only thing I happen to see wrong with this review is that of the existance of even the slightest mercy to such a lame waste of money. I've never been able to beat a game on it's hardest difficulty in less than 3 hours of buying the damn thing! The Halo series started strong, to say the least, but ended in a less than desirable game with only one good feature, multiplayer. Which even then was a drag. The story ended much the same as having sex with Margaret Thatcher. The only enjoyment I've had out of playing this game was to see how many adhominims were out there saying "HALO 3 pwns all games, ur all n00bs" and "Halo 3 is holy grale of teh games industrae." without any supporting info.

This review pretty much nailed it!

WOW

Anonymous wrote:

I love how you all jack this guy off by saying that just because he gave a critically acclaimed game a piss-poor score of 7/10 that makes it fair and unbiased. Who the fuck do you guys think you're kidding? If a game is averaging severely high scores and another reviewer agrees that a game is of that quality, he is biased and unfair?

In that case, all Zelda, Mario, Metal Gear, Half-Life, and other big-named titles all get 7/10's from now on. That way we're not buying into the hype and submitting unfair and biased reviews!!!

C'MON EVERYONE! LET'S GO AGAINST THE CROWD BECAUSE WE HAVE SMALL DICKS AND WE NEED TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT!

Halo 3 is a fucking amazing game. Highest quality entertainment I've ever played, and I have no problem admitting that, but others have too much fucking pride and beat off to themselves because they call a legendary game "overhyped."

What's with the Halo 3 "fagboys" getting all butt hurt over someone with a different and less biased opinion? All the reviews saying "Halo 3 is a legend" just wanted to say what everyone wanted to hear.

I would rather read a review that didn't slide from one side to the other. Dan published a very solid review containing supporting facts and reason behind each concern and opinion.

Dan, you sir are a genius. The Bill O' Reilly making a no spin review on a genuinely terrible videogame!

PS- That Anon who put "adhominim" down. You have successfully described each and every one of the Halo 3 fans. Including the one I quoted.

When are you going to review the rest of the game?

We all have opinions and I understand that and my opinion is that this review is a steaming turd of an excuse for a "professional" review. Your review basically covers the Campaign playing by yourself. That's the impression I get. And so you give that a 7 out of 10. Okay, I disagree, but you have the right to give that portion of the game a 7 if you want. But what about online co-op? Did you try that? If not, why not? I did, and it's awesome. It's certainly a great new feature that the first 2 Halo games lacked. What did you give those games, a 6 out of 10? I see barely any mention of multiplayer in this review. Basically, you say it's more of the same. More of the same of the best (at least one of the best) multiplayer game ever. What's wrong with that? But the new equipment and weapons make it not exactly just more of the same, anyway. Did you even play multiplayer at all? If not, then don't give a review until you do. You should take this review back and publish a new one when you've actually taken a closer look at everythint the game has to offer.

Then there's the fact that you didn't even mention the new Saved Films and Forge features. You talk about an incomplete review! How could you not even mention those awesome new features? Watching saved films of Campaign and multiplayer and saving video clips and screenshots from any angle is a lot of fun. But it doesn't seem like you even tried those features. How can you not even cover those? What a joke. Also, no mention of the new equipment at all. No mention of the cool new weapons like the Gravity Hammer and Spartan Laser. No mention of the sweet new Hornet aircraft. Bungie crammed so much cool stuff in this package and you don't even cover half of what the game has to offer. You are not qualified to be a game reviewer any more than my 4-year old son. So you and other incompetent reviewers who are probably PS3 fans try to take down Halo 3's average ranking on gamerankings.com just so it's not the highest ranked game. Wow, congratulations. A game like BioShock is certainly awesome. I don't really care if you think the single player of BioShock is better than Halo 3. It's not a farfetched possibility. But Halo 3's multiplayer is unmatched. You can't give it a review just based on single player or occasionally disappointing graphics. Most of the game's graphics are great, though. Do you ever actually have any fun playing games with the way you nitpick them? This review is amateur at best. Have a nice day.

Im sorry sir but your review

Im sorry sir but your review is dum, stupid, ignorant and flasely placed due to lack of intelligence on the game or just pure lacking of smarts.

You sir are dum because you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what Halo is about and you seem to not have a clue of how to play Halo in general, the reason they dont keep a f.ucking gps in Masterchiefs helmet is because Bungie assumes that dum people like you will stick with the Wii and pretend to bowl with a remote not go on their game and act retarted, "oh lame, i dont know where to go" jesus dude you go UP thats all you have to do, IF YOU WOULD HAVE JUST LOOKED UP YOU WOULD SEE THE PATH!!! O.O

The level itself isnt that bad, I cant help it if your attention span is low and I cant help the fact that you dont get into the game enough to realize that your actually in this detesting, colorful membrany gross ship to SAVE SOMEONE, good god, your trying to save Cortana here, if you cant get into Halo enough to feel this than you are a plain Ig.no.ra.mous! Good Day.

It's absolutely hilarious

It's absolutely hilarious how pathetic you sound; you're practically making shit up just because you have some intrinsic hatred for the halo series and want to make a big name for yourself.

Jesus, go get hit by a bus or something.

'DUM' Halo fanboys!

Anonymous wrote:

Im sorry sir but your review is dum, stupid, ignorant and flasely placed due to lack of intelligence on the game or just pure lacking of smarts.

You sir are dum because you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what Halo is about and you seem to not have a clue of how to play Halo in general, the reason they dont keep a f.ucking gps in Masterchiefs helmet is because Bungie assumes that dum people like you will stick with the Wii and pretend to bowl with a remote not go on their game and act retarted, "oh lame, i dont know where to go" jesus dude you go UP thats all you have to do, IF YOU WOULD HAVE JUST LOOKED UP YOU WOULD SEE THE PATH!!! O.O

The level itself isnt that bad, I cant help it if your attention span is low and I cant help the fact that you dont get into the game enough to realize that your actually in this detesting, colorful membrany gross ship to SAVE SOMEONE, good god, your trying to save Cortana here, if you cant get into Halo enough to feel this than you are a plain Ig.no.ra.mous! Good Day.

This is hilarious, can you believe someone this thick trying to call anyone who agrees with the review 'dum' & 'retarted' funny, funny, funny sh*t! I'd maybe have let him away with the typo on 'dum' if the DUMB barsteward hadn't written it half a dozen times!

Very stereotypical of the average Halo supporter on this thread and there is a definite trend towards the smarter posters not really getting Halo 3 quite as much as the mentally challenged! LMAO

Halo 3 is the new Legend of Dragoon

All of these comments reminds me of the kind of "feedback" we got over our review of The Legend of Dragoon. We took so much grief over it that it was compiled into one of our best articles here: The Legend of Dragoon: A Game Critic's Nightmare

I think the ZeroPunctuation

I think the ZeroPunctuation critic really hit the nail on the head when he said you can't give a perfect score to something that's only half a game. In most of the replies to this review I've seen, people say that Daniel is doing the game injustice by giving it a seven out of ten when the multiplayer is so good. Didn't you guys see the positive words on the multiplayer in the review? And even if you didn't, if the multiplayer is great and the singleplayer is a major disappointment, that seems like something worth a 7 to me (it should be a 5 seeing that only half of the game is really good).
Now, having said that, there's something I have to get off my chest: All you guys beating each other off over how amazing Halo 3 is and railing on this one dude for having a different opinion from you, you're all INSANE!

Well said.

Agree wholeheartedly with the majority of your statements. Being a "halo hater" when halo ce was first released to becoming a halo fanatic over the past 5 years I was relieved this was the end, but sad that is was done in such a poor fashion. You have to commend bungie on the halo machine they created with the hype, the constant updates, and their ego stroking on their weekly updates but what was it all for? The answer is "the money". Eric Nylund did a great job in his halo books in writing some recaps and some entertaining adolescent like novels, but it seems as if these were ignored when the final story in halo 3 was told. My biggest issue with the story was that you fight for three games to prevent firing a halo, then you are fighting to fire the dang thing. Then when it is just about to fire, camera cuts away to a shoddy interaction between an AI and master chief. Lame. Also, this is a battle for the "galaxy" battles should be on a galactic scale. No battles came close to making me a bit freaked out besides for the "colon-esque" scenes when you are in the cortana levels. Also Lord Hood was a sissy. Too many other things to nitpick complain about, but for expecting such an epic achievement on Bungie's part and getting this package is a testament to over promising and under delivering.

I disagree with you people

I disagree with you people who claim Halo's score shouldn't be affected by its advertising. If so many unsusupecting people buy a game only based on its advertising and the hype train, then the public should at least know the game doesn't do justice to the even half of the greatness implied by the commercials. And you also say he seems to be deliberately trying to prove Halo 3's inadeptness. You hit the nail on the head. While most reviews of this game spend almost all the time glorifying the game and giving examples of how its many successes outweigh its supposedly few flaws, this one review does just the opposite. The author is worthy because he recognizes most other review are further advertisements for Halo 3. If your're one of those people who only reads reviews of game they bought to hear it being harped on and praised by a fellow fandoy reviewer, get over yourself. Remember, intelligent debate is crucial here and is basically the premise behind this site. Yes, I had a lot of fun playing this game. Yes, the multiplayer is amazing in its sheer fun factor and the graphics are great. No, Halo 3 as a product is not deserving of prestige.

A poor review by an elitest gamer.

I once pointed out there is a lot of hate for the Halo franchise because it's so big. Its out there... there are books, comics, drinks, shirts, and general amount of hooplah for this game that makes beyond the normal games out there.

However this review stems from what I call an elitist gamer. He sees a lot of ads, a lot of glitz, and is offended that his hobby of choice has made it mainstream. "How dare other people like my hobby?" he says? So he naturally dislikes the game on principle alone.

Usually these types of gamers have played a lot of games. Star Control 2? That’s a heck of a reference, a game from back in the day. It’s game that hardly anybody has heard of... besides me and the small community of gamers surrounding it. I've played it. In context... the comparison falls flat. Star control is not a big action sci-fi blow them up kind of game with a huge budget. It’s a game of slow combat, deep choices, and long drawn out gameplay.

In other words... your comparison falls flat. Pull out a classic and compare it a new game of a different genre? It’s just silly Dan.

I could go on to knock down your points, but I won't... because that would be nitpicking and that’s what you did on the review. You tried to pull all the stops so you could justify your review and continue your elitist point of view. However uninformed it is. I’ll just attack what you didn’t cover or research.

Your review is not a review of the game; it’s a review of what the game should have given you based on the ad campaign. You don’t care about the characters or plot? Fine, but do some research before making your point sound laughable in front of the informed. The ad campaign was created by a third party company... with no knowledge into the game's plot. The marketing campaign cost 10 million. Its questionable if the price included the air spots on prime time television, but I don't know and neither do you. That makes any point you try to make on the amount spent empty because you have no base to stand on.

As for the multiplayer options? There is plenty. You just glazed over them to further your idea that the game is lacking.

The reason why you aren’t allowed to select your game during ranked matches is that the designers didn’t want the host to skew games in their favor… especially in team based games. It’s like most professional sports: a governing body sets up the rules, and the players play by them. One person or team doesn’t dictate the game or the rules: that makes it lopsided for one side, thus making an uneven playfield.

You want to play your own custom ‘pick-up’ game of Halo multiplayer? That is what a custom game is for. You just left this out to push your point forward. Not to mention Forge makes the concept of pick-up games better, players will be able to play this game for years to come which is unprecedented in a console game.

The game is excellent. I admit there are some flaws… but this review stinks of elitist gamer crying that the cool school yard cool kids are playing with the toys you love. I know you did this to prove a point that your opinion matters- as does the opinion of other gamers like you... but the game is far from as flawed as you would make it seem. Basing a review off an advertising campaign is just silly.

I hope you enjoyed the traffic.

wtf?

Craig K. wrote:

Worst Game Review EVER!

This site is to review games, not reveiws. (what a tard)

HAHAHA, you get over yourself.

This is a review that he writes its what he thinks about the game not what you want to hear.

MDB wrote: This is a review

MDB wrote:

This is a review that he writes its what he thinks about the game not what you want to hear.

Oops I meant: This is a review, he writes its what he thinks about the game not what you want to hear.

This review is a joke.

This review is just pathetic. It's clear to me that (a) the reviewer is a serious PC gamer, who finds fault in any game they cant play on a mouse/keyboard, or (b) is not a fan of first person shooters in general.

Any normal gamer who enjoys this type of game could not find a reason to not love Halo 3. It offers so much bang for your buck, that there is not a chance another console game will match it for years. Reviewers that fail to notice an amazing package like this shouldn't be writing reviews in the first place.

Try the Orange box you FOOL!!!

"It offers so much bang for your buck, that there is not a chance another console game will match it for years."

How about the Orange Box which has been released only a month later and is better than Halo 3 in every category?
In my opinion it's the best gaming package ever released whereas Halo 3 is only a good value to people who want to delude themselves into thinking that it will make them cool and that they actually have friends by playing computer games on the internet. From the way Halo 3 has polarised opinion it is quite clear there is a massive proportion of the gaming community who don't enjoy online play and would much rather play games in the same room as their friends when they feel like it.

I'm beginning to believe that the people who play Halo 3 and still think it's the 'greatest game ever' haven't played anything except Halo 1 & 2!! There are numerous games better than Halo 3, I've played Xbox 1 games that I enjoyed far more than I did 'finishing the fight'(and Halo:CE is one of them).

Well, to be honest I think

Well, to be honest I think reading the comments on this site for free is more fun than playing the actual game :P (zero punctuation link, hehe)

I played Halo, and Halo 2, and Halo 3 they're all certainly not bad games. Halo was brilliant when it came out, admittedly one of the best games, if not the best game for the Xbox then. Halo 2... pretty much failed, but it was still good in a few ways.

Halo 3: It's more of the same, I for one like new ideas and it seems like Halo 3 is still the same gameplay. You could say it's an homage to the old gameplay but a few new features would be nice. The multiplayer is definately good but if you're rating a game that has both multi and singleplayer you have to rate it accordingly - otherwise you could also critizise football manager '0x for not having super great match presentation - it's not what the game is about.

Even though multiplayer is good the single player is bad. Really bad. And the graphics on this thing are bad too. Oh, of course it shows what the Xbox 360 can do and technologically it's great - but the design is bad.. Now compare this to Bioshock where the maps were designed well, they were different and there was a whole atmosphere in that game. Halo 3 has equal technology, maybe better but they're not using it right.

Now I really had to laugh about the statements '98/100 would be a fair unbiased rating' I mean seriously, 7/10 means that the game does quite a lot of things right, but also a few things wrong and you really can't deny it does nothing wrong. And don't dare say 'the multiplayer excuses it' - it might do, but that's just an opinion (although shared by a lot of people) and the reviewer also states the multiplayer is one of the + points of this game.

Just a little support, if people still care :P

I liked the game!

I am an experienced gamer from the 8-bit days and really enjoyed Halo 3. I'd give it a 9/10.

I agree with the points in the review, but overall they did not detract substantially from the huge amounts of enjoyment I derived, and still derive, from the playing experience.

Whether this makes me a 'fanboy' or not is your label and your judgement. My view is that just as people are entitled to dislike the game, people are also entitled to like it. Different strokes for different folks, so the saying goes.

What is this faggotry?

Dude I don't know whether you were born before they invented books or before they found out humans can think, but that was probably the most pathetic thing i've ever wasted my time reading, you obviously are a little douche who doesn't read and watches I Love New York, or any other TV show since 90% of them are mindless bull. I'm not even a Halo fanboy I much prefer games like Team Fortress 2 or Bioshock, even Gears of War is better, but I DO like the Halo story line, it's very different then the generic bull that pops out of 10 out of 11 video games. Like I stated before, if you had ever picked up a book perhaps you'd realize that flameing a game that had the most entertainment sales in history was probably retarted. 99% of Halo 3 players highly enjoy the game. The reason I brought up books is the HALO books, perhaps if you read them you might understand. Instead of being a whiney jackass about AI and how bad they drive why don't man up and drive the AI has better aim then you ever could any way. Wanna shoot the Machine gun in the back of the Warthog? Why not try multiplayer? Next time think before you show your dumbass to the world.

This is the the worst review

This is the the worst review ever, this reviewer sucks ass and should be fired. This is the best game i have ever played. it stands head and shoulders above any other FPS out there. I'm dissappointed there are people like this out there who seem to want to dissuade people from playing a truly great game.

TommyNooka wrote: "It

TommyNooka wrote:

"It offers so much bang for your buck, that there is not a chance another console game will match it for years."

How about the Orange Box which has been released only a month later and is better than Halo 3 in every category?
In my opinion it's the best gaming package ever released whereas Halo 3 is only a good value to people who want to delude themselves into thinking that it will make them cool and that they actually have friends by playing computer games on the internet. From the way Halo 3 has polarised opinion it is quite clear there is a massive proportion of the gaming community who don't enjoy online play and would much rather play games in the same room as their friends when they feel like it.

I'm beginning to believe that the people who play Halo 3 and still think it's the 'greatest game ever' haven't played anything except Halo 1 & 2!! There are numerous games better than Halo 3, I've played Xbox 1 games that I enjoyed far more than I did 'finishing the fight'(and Halo:CE is one of them).

Go and play Halo CE now you nerd, I thinks you'll find Halo 3 has come a hell of a long way since then. If you don't LIKE playing online you really are shit.

Desperate for ad-revenue traffic, eh?

I love this! GameCritics.com have quickly become the laughing stock of the online gaming community! It's brilliant how they willingly sacrifice credibility for a little of that notoriety from writing crappy, pretentious BS reviews. Starved for a little ad-revenue money, eh? I can only imagine the memos being sent down from the parents' basement office of the "editor" to the reviewers imploring them to give as low of scores to fantastic games as possible, while scoring 100% marks to shite like "Lair" so they may make a name for themselves and inspire so-called "debate"!

The real beauty of this facade is, of course, money. The more hits from their dishonest reviews they receive, the more they can try to increase their ad revenue. So in the end, their "reviewers" are just a bunch of editor-controlled whores writing whatever crap their basement lords ask them too.

"Smart reviews for serious gamers"?!! More like "BS reviews to generate more ad-revenue"!

Wow... I Its amazing how

Wow... I Its amazing how many people have gotten upset and angry just because Daniel doesn't like a game you like...

I think Halo 3 is a great game, its not my favorite, but i respect that the reviewer has a different opinion, some of the points he mentioned i feel the same about, others i feel differently, but am i here saying stuff like "hey you suck" and giving an essay on why i think halo is good..? No.

I suggest that a lot of you take your cock out of your xbox and realise that people in the world do think differently to you.

Oh and call me as many names as you like, threaten me.. What ever makes you feel hard over the net, but i won't be reading your replies.

Oh sweet irony!

Anonymous wrote:
TommyNooka wrote:

"It offers so much bang for your buck, that there is not a chance another console game will match it for years."

How about the Orange Box which has been released only a month later and is better than Halo 3 in every category?
In my opinion it's the best gaming package ever released whereas Halo 3 is only a good value to people who want to delude themselves into thinking that it will make them cool and that they actually have friends by playing computer games on the internet. From the way Halo 3 has polarised opinion it is quite clear there is a massive proportion of the gaming community who don't enjoy online play and would much rather play games in the same room as their friends when they feel like it.

I'm beginning to believe that the people who play Halo 3 and still think it's the 'greatest game ever' haven't played anything except Halo 1 & 2!! There are numerous games better than Halo 3, I've played Xbox 1 games that I enjoyed far more than I did 'finishing the fight'(and Halo:CE is one of them).

Go and play Halo CE now you nerd, I thinks you'll find Halo 3 has come a hell of a long way since then. If you don't LIKE playing online you really are shit.

Do you people actually digest anything you read or are you all illiterate?

Why would I play the original 6 year old Halo: CE when I can just play Halo 3 and I am essentially playing the same game but lacking the same wow factor because it is now old hat??

You people just don't get it with your sad wee 'Xbox live' lives, gaming is a hobby of mine which I love but I have a girlfriend and REAL friends I spend time with(imagine that actually going to a bar for a night out or actaully inviting your friends round for a game??) rather than sitting in my house playing the same game over and over with other immature virgins. I think you'll find the majority of nerds on Xbox live and I'd bet a large proportion of them are the thickest human specimens on this planet.

Online gaming wears very thin for me very quickly, I was brought up with games that you played on your own that not only challenged you but also told you a story and they were a really just an entertaining substitute for a book. Now games are dumbed down to cater for people like you and your Xbox live chums, it's a lot easier to make a game where a lot of people just run about like a cross between Taz and the gummy bears shooting the crap out of one another than it is to actually create something with a story and elements that stimulate your brain(if you have one), such as the Half Life games, but people like you will never understand that because it is beyond your comprehension.

It must be a largely American thing to support Halo so vehemently as most of the people I know who have played it think it is a big let down and can't really see what all the fuss was about, maybe that's because we aren't teenagers with attitude problems!!

No no no, they bitched at

No no no, they bitched at sites that gave it below NINE POINT FIVE.

These children are stealing my breathing air, and they're ruining video game review websites. Gametrailers is so scared now to give anything a low score. They bashed the living hell out of NBA 2k8 and had almost nothing good to say about it, and gave it an 8.0. What was the complaint in the comments? "HOMG 8.0 HOW DARE U" These stupid pre-teen punks will never be satisfied unless it's 9.5 or higher, and even THAT is tentative. A year ago, 8.8 meant, "great game." Now it means, "worst game ever made," thanks to these spoiled little turds. They're pondscum.

Well, I have had Halo 3 for

Well, I have had Halo 3 for a while now and I have poured a lot of time into it. As a college student with a part-time job and a girlfriend, I don't have as much time as I would like to play games, I have definitely found at least a half hour a day to relax with a beer and play some Halo 3. Having beaten the Campaign at least four times on varying difficulties, getting every achievement in the game, pouring hours into multiplayer, getting the rank of Colonel and hitting 46 in FFA, I can honestly say my opinion has been shaped and formed into a valid one from the experience I have had with the game.

That being said, Halo 3 is the best game I have ever played and this review is a very poor attempt to criticize one of modern gaming's masterworks. The problem is that this reviewer seems to avoid describing the multiplayer aspects of the game. As a core game, Halo 3 is nothing exceptional. It's a very straightforward FPS with a lot of hackneyed themes, a trite storyline, typical characters, some bland AI, some poor level design (backtracking), and the typical sci-fi repertoire of weapons. Nonetheless, as a WHOLE PACKAGE, Bungie has perfected the STRAIGHTFORWARD FIRST-PERSON SHOOTER. Don't compare his game to tactical FPSs or atmospheric ones a la Vegas or Half-Life 2. Halo 3's core gameplay is damn-near perfect. Everything from the weapon balance to map design to control screams perfect. I play a good deal of FPSs and have been since the days of Doom and Marathon; I still play a lot of 1.6, DOD, and the occasional BF2 game. Nevertheless, Halo 3 outclasses all of these games in terms of pure balance. Each weapon has its pros and cons that balance it out and each weapon is germane for certain situations. Map placement is given huge importance in Halo 3 as well. I could go on and on about how Halo 3 is amazing, but then I would be labeled a fanboy.

People who refuse to acknowledge what exactly Halo 3 is doing for this generation of console gaming are very ignorant. Halo 3 is offering console gamers what PC gamers have had for years: a great outlet for online community interaction. I haven't spent this much time playing with my friends online, swapping vids, messing with my appearance, and playing team matches in a very long time. Gameplay-wise, Halo 3 is nothing revolutionary and does indeed do what its predecessors did before it. However, with the inclusion of a map editor, saved films, deep online multiplayer, 4-person online coop, and the most polish I've experienced in a game, Halo 3 is very revolutionary.

If you were to judge the campaign, it might only get an 8 (7 still does it an injustice). But with the slew of other features Bungie implemented into the package, it is the best $60 you can spend on a game this generation, hands down. I have NEVER spent this much time on a console game and the only other game I probably have spent more time with is 1.6. And to bash the graphics is stupidity. Halo 3 looks phenomenal. Seeing this game in motion, with its beautifully smooth colors, great HDR lighting, blur effect, and great textures makes a subtly amazing game to behold. And don't even get me started on the marvelous audio and soundtrack of the game.

I could go ON AND ON AND ON about how Halo 3 does NOT deserve a 7 out of 10 and is more deserving of a 9.5 or higher, but I'm not. Just realize, Halo 3 is the best game of this generation not due to its core gameplay, which is straightforward and simplistc; rather, Bungie has perfect a modern masterpiece with so many features that are just going to keep getting better and better as the months roll by. Halo 3 needs to be reviewed as such, and not as a commentary on whether or not it lived up to its marketing hype. Halo 3 is a rare game that shouldn't be reviewed typically and should be appreciated as a whole, even with its flaws.

I use to game a lot. Unfortunately, after Half-Life 2 came out, I sort of gave up on gaming. I worked through high school so I figured I would get a 360 when Gears of War came out and I didn't really play that many games until Halo 3 came out. Sure, I liked Vegas; sure, I liked GRAW; sure, Oblivion was great. But nothing has made me feel like a kid again, huddled over a mouse and keyboard playing some CS with my pals at 3 AM at a friend's house than my experience thus far with Halo 3. Take it as you will, but Halo 3 DOES NOT deserve a 7/10.

Really?

scorch117 wrote:

In the opening paragraph you say that it is fair to judge a game based on its advertising. That is the worst fucking thought anyone has EVER expressed. Now, of course, this is my opinion, but I doubt anyone disagrees with me (other than your dumbass self). Gears of War had terrible advertising and that was a great game. In that one paragraph, you set your self up for saying that the game is entirely bad. Guess what? YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

It is fair to judge a game based on its advertising. If a game is advertised everywhere as Halo 3 was to be the end-all, be-all of shooters, and that it would simultaneously cure world hunger and AIDs, I tend to be let down when it is a relatively mediocre experience. Everywhere I looked and everything I read said that the game was going to be the most epic shooter ever created, and it wasn't even close.

You bring up Gears of War, but bad advertising it completely different from misleading advertising. Gears of War had a stupid marketing campaign, but it never promised that the game was going to be the best game ever released. All it did was show a character running around and shooting things to a bad song. It made no promises about the game. Halo 3, on the other hand, made dozens of promises and it ended up keeping very few of them.

scorch117 wrote:

Unbalanced AI? It's supposed to be that way. The humans are trying nearly anything to help save our beloved home from these butt-fugly aliens, so they do that. The Brutes are supposed make it seem unbalanced. They are fucking strong, and they need to show it off every once in a while.

Unbalanced AI is different from bad AI. It's all well and good if the aliens in the Covenant are smarter than humans, but at the same time our best Marines shouldn't be damned idiots. They do stupid things all the time. They drive vehicles straight into walls, they shoot rockets at objects three feet away, they run straight at stronger enemies with stronger weapons when they are holding a pea-shooter. It's pathetic, really, especially considering that the Halo series has a reputation for having such great AI. You'd think Bungie would infuse some of that AI into the people fighting alongside you so they don't feel like a burden most of the time.

scorch117 wrote:

Since you are obviously fucking retarded, I'll explain something to you about Halo's back story. The planet Earth became over populated, so humanity started colonizing other worlds. Basically, Africa isn't the hellhole that no one cares about that you mention. There are are many people on the planet, and it isn't too hard to realize that by just paying attention.

If you read the review carefully, you'll not that he doesn't say there aren't people in Africa. He says that the game never shows you people in Africa. There's a big difference between the two. And he's right. Never do we get a sense that Africa is a populated place filled with people that are going to die because of this war. Really, the whole Earth portion of the campaign seems barren, as we never see any civilians or any actual consequences of the war.

scorch117 wrote:

After reading the whole thing, it's obvious that you're a terrible liar, a douche bag, and that you need to commit suicide before you even read this.

You, sir, take things far too seriously. It's a fucking game review. It's also a series that is pretty mediocre, and it's only because the game was released on consoles (which were starved for any shooters at all) that it ended up being successful, and now most reviewers are scared to give any game in the series a bad score because toolbox fanboys like yourself will come in and threaten to kill them for insulting your coveted game. Seriously, it's a fucking game. His opinion differs from yours. Fucking deal with it.

scorch117 wrote:

Laughter is the greatest medicine? Since when has laughter ever cured cancer, AIDs, or Polio?

And you're stupid too, huh? That was clearly a sarcastic comment when he made it, and obviously you've got your stupid fanboy blinders on or you would have noticed.

God, the idiocy of some people on the internet is astounding.

And kudos to the writer of this review. It's nice to see there is someone out there who is willing to give an average game an average score. Anyone calling this game epic clearly has never played an epic game. It's not a bad game, but it's not deep, the enemies are cartoon charicatures in their villainy ("I must destroy humanity...MUAH HAHA!"), and the ending is about as un-epic as a finale to a trilogy can possibly be.

The mutli-player is fun, yes, but good multi-player does not excuse half-assed, lack-luster single-player, especially given that Bungie had a pretty much unlimited budget to work with. If I had that kind of money and a presumably talented development team, I would have actually hired a writer so that all of my dialogue didn't end up sounding like cliche bullshit.

Brian wrote: scorch117

Brian wrote:
scorch117 wrote:

In the opening paragraph you say that it is fair to judge a game based on its advertising. That is the worst fucking thought anyone has EVER expressed. Now, of course, this is my opinion, but I doubt anyone disagrees with me (other than your dumbass self). Gears of War had terrible advertising and that was a great game. In that one paragraph, you set your self up for saying that the game is entirely bad. Guess what? YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

It is fair to judge a game based on its advertising. If a game is advertised everywhere as Halo 3 was to be the end-all, be-all of shooters, and that it would simultaneously cure world hunger and AIDs, I tend to be let down when it is a relatively mediocre experience. Everywhere I looked and everything I read said that the game was going to be the most epic shooter ever created, and it wasn't even close.

You bring up Gears of War, but bad advertising it completely different from misleading advertising. Gears of War had a stupid marketing campaign, but it never promised that the game was going to be the best game ever released. All it did was show a character running around and shooting things to a bad song. It made no promises about the game. Halo 3, on the other hand, made dozens of promises and it ended up keeping very few of them.

scorch117 wrote:

Unbalanced AI? It's supposed to be that way. The humans are trying nearly anything to help save our beloved home from these butt-fugly aliens, so they do that. The Brutes are supposed make it seem unbalanced. They are fucking strong, and they need to show it off every once in a while.

Unbalanced AI is different from bad AI. It's all well and good if the aliens in the Covenant are smarter than humans, but at the same time our best Marines shouldn't be damned idiots. They do stupid things all the time. They drive vehicles straight into walls, they shoot rockets at objects three feet away, they run straight at stronger enemies with stronger weapons when they are holding a pea-shooter. It's pathetic, really, especially considering that the Halo series has a reputation for having such great AI. You'd think Bungie would infuse some of that AI into the people fighting alongside you so they don't feel like a burden most of the time.

scorch117 wrote:

Since you are obviously fucking retarded, I'll explain something to you about Halo's back story. The planet Earth became over populated, so humanity started colonizing other worlds. Basically, Africa isn't the hellhole that no one cares about that you mention. There are are many people on the planet, and it isn't too hard to realize that by just paying attention.

If you read the review carefully, you'll not that he doesn't say there aren't people in Africa. He says that the game never shows you people in Africa. There's a big difference between the two. And he's right. Never do we get a sense that Africa is a populated place filled with people that are going to die because of this war. Really, the whole Earth portion of the campaign seems barren, as we never see any civilians or any actual consequences of the war.

scorch117 wrote:

After reading the whole thing, it's obvious that you're a terrible liar, a douche bag, and that you need to commit suicide before you even read this.

You, sir, take things far too seriously. It's a fucking game review. It's also a series that is pretty mediocre, and it's only because the game was released on consoles (which were starved for any shooters at all) that it ended up being successful, and now most reviewers are scared to give any game in the series a bad score because toolbox fanboys like yourself will come in and threaten to kill them for insulting your coveted game. Seriously, it's a fucking game. His opinion differs from yours. Fucking deal with it.

scorch117 wrote:

Laughter is the greatest medicine? Since when has laughter ever cured cancer, AIDs, or Polio?

And you're stupid too, huh? That was clearly a sarcastic comment when he made it, and obviously you've got your stupid fanboy blinders on or you would have noticed.

God, the idiocy of some people on the internet is astounding.

And kudos to the writer of this review. It's nice to see there is someone out there who is willing to give an average game an average score. Anyone calling this game epic clearly has never played an epic game. It's not a bad game, but it's not deep, the enemies are cartoon charicatures in their villainy ("I must destroy humanity...MUAH HAHA!"), and the ending is about as un-epic as a finale to a trilogy can possibly be.

The mutli-player is fun, yes, but good multi-player does not excuse half-assed, lack-luster single-player, especially given that Bungie had a pretty much unlimited budget to work with. If I had that kind of money and a presumably talented development team, I would have actually hired a writer so that all of my dialogue didn't end up sounding like cliche bullshit.

Daniel, is that you?!

Jesus, it's pretty sad when this site's reviewers and employees need to make fake anonymous comments to defend themselves. What a bunch of tools! This is the most unprofessional site in the history of game reviews, just pathetic.

don't waste your time reading this atrocious writing

what a weak-ass review. reading it just made me about 30 i.q. points dumber. this "reviewer" is so full of shit, it's mind-bloggling. first of all, he complains that the "epic" final battle isn't like it was in the commercials. to illustrate this, he throws in spoilers galore about the phophet of truth fight, even detailing the number of enemies and good guys. only problem is, this wasn't the last fight! in fact, there's a good three levels AFTER this fight! this guy is full of shit! he basically demonstrated he didn't even finish the game, much less know what the fuck he's talking about. what a fucking prick!

having finished the game several times, i can say there are tons of "epic" battles in the game; in fact, i don't know what this idiot is going on about. this whole game is full of "epic" battles! this moron probably played in the easy mode only, that's why he thinks there are no good battles. well no shit asshole, there's absolutely no challenge in easy. try playing in legendary you idiot, and then tell us there are no "epic" battles.

then this retard nitpicks about there being no "civilians" in the game. he talks about how this makes him feel like it's okay for earth to be destroyed, that it doesn't provide him "motivation" to fight because he doesn't see the point without a bunch of civilians tortured and being blown up, the sick fuck. first of all, what a fucking pussy! it's like, this is a freaking video game, not your pathetic life story. you need "motivation" to play a game that you paid $60 for and have fun? dude, you are not a gamer! and secondly, no duh, asshole, the game is fought either in space or in military installations, you retard! i wouldn't expect "civilians" in these places, either.

however, to show what a moron and lying piece of shit this "reviewer" is, he's WRONG on BOTH COUNTS! first, you do see in several parts of the game marines all fucked up in bangages, hobbling around, lying around in stretchers. that's cool that bungie did put that in to show soldiers wounded in combat, so you get a sense of an ongoing battle, though it's not something any real gamer is going to masturbate to unlike the idiot reviewer.

secondly, you DO SEE CIVILIANS!!!! asshole, you forget the whole level where the construction workers are attacked and killed, and then get pissed off and join in with the fight?! oh yeah, you must have forgot, or perhaps the truth is you didn't even play this fucking game! you lying piece of shit! it's unbelievable this dickhead would have the nerve to make such a stupid big deal with such inconsequential details, and then be WRONG about them! like this asshole didn't think anyone would notice or he just assumed some stupid shit for his "arguments" and turned out he was totally up his own ass!

thirdly, so what did you want, you wanted to see civilians in africa, like what, some African women and children getting blown up and tortured by the aliens?! or African innocents that you can shoot and grenade yourself?! you disgusting, racist piece of shit prick! what a fucking sick fuck. not only should this "reviewer" not write reviews, he should be locked up for being a sick, racist fuck!

this "review" fails on so many levels, it's ridiculous. it's like this asshole either never played this game, or rushed through the easy level, but still sucking so bad as to not even finishing the fight, and thinking the 4th to last level is the last one. what an asshole! this piece of shit doesn't even touch upon the game's many features, or talk about all the small little details that went into the game. you would never know from this idiot how much dialogue and banter there is with both the marines and the aliens. you can play this game fully 5 times and still hear new shit that they say. or the details where you zoom in on a distant part of the sky, and there's a full blown epic air battle of about 100 aircraft fighting it out. there's so much shit everywhere, it's ridiculous.

obviously, if you have no imagination as a gamer or you're just trying to rush through the game because you have a deadline and your review came out 3 weeks after everyone's did because you're a failure in life, then of course, you're going to miss all this good stuff. that's why you as a fucking retard prick asshole loser shouldn't be writing anything for anyone to read. seriously, one reads this garbage article and are left with less knowledge about the game than when you went in. truly a sign of piece of shit writing.

now if you want to know how a proper review is written, not only with a good use of english, but with an unbiased point-of-view, and also in detail and knowledge about the game, a piece that actually informs the reader about all the features and interesting details about the game, go no further than:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/821/821911p1.html

the difference between a well-researched and well-written piece of gaming journalism, and the utter amateur piece of shit junk that's on this site is sadly, not even shocking. this retarded fool must be the only person on the planet that thinks he can actually "write". and looking at the quality of this "site", it's so obvious these "reviewers" are total jokes with no professional writing background and in fact, probably don't even get paid, at least not with money. probably they get to keep the game they review, if not just allowed to "borrow" it for a few days. what a bunch of losers!

Sorry, but no.

This site is a joke wrote:

Daniel, is that you?!

Jesus, it's pretty sad when this site's reviewers and employees need to make fake anonymous comments to defend themselves. What a bunch of tools! This is the most unprofessional site in the history of game reviews, just pathetic.

Sadly, no, it wasn't me. I know it's scary that more than one person out there disagrees with you, but that's why god invented security blankets and pacifiers. Seriously, though, whenever I comment I comment under my own name. Except for the guy who said I looked like I had AIDS, that was also me.

Oh, and for anyone who's wondering about how much of the game I played, my Halo 3 Gamerscore is 965/1000. I'll let you figure out for yourselves what I missed.

Let's Take It Easy On Daniel

Guys, I think everyone is being a little too hard on Daniel. I know him well, and fact is, you guys are right, he's not a real gaming critic. He's a wannabe screenwriter, and a failed one at that. He's just doing this to pay the bills, which might explain why he's a little bitter and twisted. Don't worry, it isn't just games, he hates most movies too, because he always thinks the writing sucks and that he could do a better job. Most of us that know him find this a bit ironic since his screenplays are terrible. I mean, they are just awful, but he's a little too blinded by his own ability (or lack of, to be precise) to notice.

There's also a little secret about Daniel that he doesn't like talking about. Early in his critiquing career, he had a very bad experience with one of his reviews, and most of us that know him thinks he's still affected by it, even though he denies it. A few years ago, he reviewed Dragon Ball Z: Budokai 2, and lavished excessive praise on it. Well, it was his opinion, but sadly, as you and I know, that game was a turd, a real nasty slice of dog poo. In fact, most people thought so, and that game garnered a 15% rotten rating on rottentomatoes.com. In fact, it was so universally panned, Daniel's review might have been the only one that was positive. It may well be that Daniel, on his own, rescued the game from achieving an unanimous 0% rating. Well, long story short, Daniel was quite embarrassed by this, even though none of his co-workers ever said anything to him about it, and I don't think anyone in public called him on it. One thing that perhaps saved him is no one reads this site usually. But for Daniel, it became this private shame and ever since that incident, he's been unable to truly express his real opinions for fear of ridicule. More precisely, Daniel has now found the need to trash any game that he reviews, if only because he never wants to be in a situation again where he publicly champions a title that all the other critics hate. In fact, his phobia has gotten so unreasonably out of control that he would now much rather trash a well-liked game and come across as a snooty reviewer, than ever risk that he may be the only critic that actually likes a certain, unlikable game.

So all you people out there that have been offended by his reviews, please don't be. Daniel's not a real critic, and his opinions are of no real significance. There's no point in abusing him any further because he really is not able to control himself. If anything, have a little pity on him, and hope that one day he may be able to free himself from his psychological prison and be a normal, decent human being that the rest of us find so easy to be.

Oh, deepthroat, you spoony bard.

Chances are that those of you who have been following the comments section for the past few weeks may remember my feelings towards anonymity, and the cowards that hide behind it.

However, there's a flip side to the argument, as our friend deepthroat here proves. By putting my real name out there, it's the easiest thing in the world for someone to plug it into Google and get a few factoids about me. I recently won a screenplay competition, so it's a fair bet that I'm a screenwriter. But I don't have any IMDB credits, so I haven't had anything produced. Put those two facts together and you can start extrapolating a storyline - dropping in a guess that I hate all movies for the verite feel it adds.

And seriously, dude, pick up your research skills a little, would you? Nobody goes looking for video game reviews on rottentomatoes, they go to metacritic and gamerankings. If you're going to pull stuff off the net, please at least be professional about it.

I could be wrong, though, and deepthroat here might be someone I actually know. Of course, if that's true, the comment is even more pathetic. Then it goes from a random person trying to back up their irrational hatred with a story that borders on Munchausen-level fabrication to an acquaintance of mine who bears some kind of a long-standing secret grudge, but is too cowardly to actually come out and say it. Instead, they have to bide their time, stewing away, until they see other people flinging insults my way, and take the opportunity to hide among a crowd of woe-wishers. And even then, they're too timid to use their own name.

Really, I suppose that whichever of the two we're dealing with here, it's equally sad, because either way you've got someone too afraid to put their name along with their feelings. Come out of the closet, deepthroat, and let the rest of the world start googling and berating you. It's really not that bad. I mean, we could try and google your name now, but something tells me the results wouldn't be of much use.

Dig Dug wrote:the

Dig Dug wrote:

the difference between a well-researched and well-written piece of gaming journalism, and the utter amateur piece of shit junk that's on this site is sadly, not even shocking. this retarded fool must be the only person on the planet that thinks he can actually "write". and looking at the quality of this "site", it's so obvious these "reviewers" are total jokes with no professional writing background and in fact, probably don't even get paid, at least not with money. probably they get to keep the game they review, if not just allowed to "borrow" it for a few days. what a bunch of losers!

We don't pay any of our writers (as noted in our Contribute and About Us pages) and for those who think we are trying to generate more traffic for ad revenue, we've had to depend on the kindness of strangers for donations to keep the site up over the last several years. So its little ironic that our integrity comes into question when professional paid reviews got this insane duffel bag of free Halo stuff and others were treated to mini-vacations while reviewing the game.

appropriate reviews

Whilst I would not necessarily disagree with the review, on principle, the fact that the opening of this reviewers opinion is clearly stated as being influenced by the game's inability to exactly match its obscure advertising, removes any and all credibility that the soul of this article may have had.

As a loose comparison...the reason jurors are sequestered by law is so that the person being tried and judged can be afforded a judgement that is untainted by hype, or sensationalism.

Any game deserves to be judged purely on its own merit (which the Halo series possesses in abundance) and not tainted by some very hard to decipher advertising and feral hype. The job of the reviewer is to present an unbiased opinion. To state that your assessment of the title is directly related to the hype surrounding it renders the whole opinion useless.

You fucking moron, how the

You shrill little fucking xbot moron, how the fuck could you say his right-on-the-mark review is off, and then link to IG-FUCKING-IGNORANT-N as an example of what to follow? Face it, the majority of those "95%" reviews were bribed for. Fucking X- drones. Grow a brain, and learn to think for yourselves. And for Daniel, thank you for telling the truth.

about the Halo 3

I dont understand all of the fuss concerning this game. my friend invited me over to his house to play the 360 and he suggested we play Halo 3, so wanting to see what the hype was about i agreed. now this is where the story gets red hot... i absolutely... positively... was bored out of my mind.

20 minutes into playing the game i shut it off.

my friend was stunned. i thought it would have been better. there was and is too much hype surrounding this game. it is just a game, dont take it personally people. i see reviews on here cursing and so forth, if it makes you feel better you can curse at me, woo.

this game was lackluster, unimpressive, OK gameplay, OK... not amazing not outstanding. just OK, it is what you should EXPECT to play from a nextgen system, not be surprised by.

ITS NOT JUST ME, my other friend began playing after me and ended up just leaving it on and having a conversation with the ones who werent playing... a CONVERSATION beat Halo 3. you dont have to take my word as gospel, but if you have a friend who happens to let you play this game, play it there, dont buy it, youre better off. trust me. yes trust me. no seriously. personally, i dont like this game. you can say how and why and try to bash me saying i dont know what real games are like. i guarantee within the next 5 years the new nextgen games will make you wonder what you ever saw in Halo, let alone this shabby third installation of the series. i would give this game a lower rating.

although you are right if you think i have a bias. i like good games, sorry. my vote is lower the rating to a 6.5

Amazing

I'm so glad to have read this review. Microsoft deserves to be punished for trying to bribe reviewers. I think it's cool you guys scored the game a 7 just on principle. You probably could have gotten even lower than that, actually. BTW, how come you guys don't review PS3 games? PS3 is the best! Actually, all my PS3 friends now say your site is the best because of the Halo 3 review. Keep it up!

Anonymous wrote: You shrill

Anonymous wrote:

You shrill little fucking xbot moron, how the fuck could you say his right-on-the-mark review is off, and then link to IG-FUCKING-IGNORANT-N as an example of what to follow? Face it, the majority of those "95%" reviews were bribed for. Fucking X- drones. Grow a brain, and learn to think for yourselves. And for Daniel, thank you for telling the truth.

Hey Daniel, is that you again?! LMFAO!!!! Absolutely hilarious these fools have to write in bullshit anonymous comments to defend themselves since nobody else will! And worse yet, exposing themselves to be Sony fanboys! Love the 8 year-old terminology "xbot" and "X- drones"....absolutely brilliant!!!! You would think a so-called reviewer wouldn't be so transparent as to actually implicate themselves as being against an entire platform, but then again, what can you expect from someone braindead enough as to begin a review admitting they let an advertising campaign colour their opinion!

And what's the deal with this site giving Halo 2 a 90% score, but Halo 3 only 70%? Are you seriously trying to tell people that Halo 2 was superior to Halo 3?

While we appreciate your opinion-

Anonymous wrote:

I'm so glad to have read this review. Microsoft deserves to be punished for trying to bribe reviewers. I think it's cool you guys scored the game a 7 just on principle. You probably could have gotten even lower than that, actually. BTW, how come you guys don't review PS3 games? PS3 is the best! Actually, all my PS3 friends now say your site is the best because of the Halo 3 review. Keep it up!

While we appreciate your opinion, it's important to mention here that Halo 3 did not receive a score 'on principle'. It received a 7 because, as games go, it's a 7. I wasn't aware of the alleged 'bribery' when I wrote the review, and it's only been mentioned here in order to suggest that some of the sites that gave it exceptionally high scores might have motives beyond being impressed by the gameplay.

I'd say a 85% at least

Well I did write an elaborate comment on the extremist behavior most of you were protraying for the sake of a video game. But the math question thing decided to eat my other message up, so I'll sum it up. It's a video game rating, please don't have the enthusiasm that one would have to lay their life down for their favorite video game, your priorities in life or anger management need to be dealt with, and it's a number. One number. Nothing more, just not care about it as it will do nothing and if you think it will ... hey look, there's Halo 3 :D let's go play!

Anonymous wrote: And what's

Anonymous wrote:

And what's the deal with this site giving Halo 2 a 90% score, but Halo 3 only 70%? Are you seriously trying to tell people that Halo 2 was superior to Halo 3?

Our Halo 2 review was written by Mike Doolittle. Our reviews at GameCrititcs.com DO NOT represent a collective opinion and each critic is entitled to their own opinion. One of our goals is to present diverse perspectives.

Halo 3 is poor can't wait to

Halo 3 is poor can't wait to trade it in for COD4 on the PS3.

reading this article was

reading this article was like watching someone masturbate.

How Did This Review Get Published?

While I would never call Halo 3 the perfect FPS or the best game to ever be released in the entire history of video gaming, I will say that it's an solid 9.6/10. Going through this review, I was dissapointed to see the writer reviewing based off the trailer portrayals (which there were no actual game trailers until E3 of '07). I feel like this review only weighed in on the story, which I still feel was excellent and fulfilling. And for some reason, I think the writer chose to play through on Easy and sum up that all the battles were ones you can push through without a second thought. Legendary is ridiculous. Strategy and ammo preservation are critical to a level completion (and each level takes roughly 30-45 minutes to complete IF you don't die and move at a reasonable pace).

Halo 3 is also more than the story. The online multiplayer is truly compelling and reinventive on a formula that has already been proven time and time again. The story was big enough, although I kind of wished there was a huge fight for earth, not just 1/2 the game. I felt immersed in the events that were transpiring all around me as I played through. The Scarab fights were outstanding, especially that first encounter.

In the end, Halo 3 was a great game, and I'm sad to see GameCritics release the lowest score out of several dozens of official reviews. The basis for these reviews are weak and incomplete. Don't review a game based solely on the fact that you wanted it to be the most epic thing in your life. The trailers may have hyped it up a lot, but I even had huge expectations for it, and I was still pleased (and I'm not easily pleased). At the very least, Halo 3 deserves an 8.5 at the lowest...this review makes me want to never visit this site again. Or maybe the 7 was meant to be an 8 or a 9...that at least would be forgivable.

Different Review Critics

-"And what's the deal with this site giving Halo 2 a 90% score, but Halo 3 only 70%? Are you seriously trying to tell people that Halo 2 was superior to Halo 3?"

--"Our Halo 2 review was written by Mike Doolittle. Our reviews at GameCrititcs.com DO NOT represent a collective opinion and each critic is entitled to their own opinion. One of our goals is to present diverse perspectives."

And then there was the reason why this review source treads water instead of sitting in a boat with more competent and professional critics. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you find it's ok to allow different review sources to score and publish reviews in different steps of the franchise. Grats on a big whoops there. Halo 2 is unanimously rated as the worst game of the series (while still being a great game). If you're gonna put this stuff out, please be consistent. A 9 on Halo 2 versus a 7 on Halo 3 is just shameful. As I was seriously considering never coming to this website again, the above quote just sealed that fate. GameCritics.com = my web-viewing ban list! w00t.

In Closing

Daniel,
Though I may not completely agree with your review. I will also admit you had your points which I will agree with. You were completely correct in saying that the single player was lackluster and did not live up to the hype. Does this mean the game was bad?...I would say no. Yes I was disappointed there was no diarama style map in the game. However, this did not ruin the game for me. I will also agree with you that there was a lot of backtracking throughout that really added up to wasting time instead of hordes of sentient life. All these add up to a dissappointing single player campaign.
On the flip side of the coin however is the multiplayer. This is were Halo 3 shines. I will openly say that I hate playing with 12 y/o's spending mommy and daddy's hard earned cash. The trick though is meet people you like playing with, and play. Isn't that what games are all about. You play games, to play. Whether in multiplayer or campaign mode with friends talking tactics and watching buddy's bodies fly is always a hoot. Not to mention that when you are done you can go back and take a picture of that grenade stuck to his head, or better yet save the video of you wasting the other team and then send them the video. Talking smack just took a visual turn.

In closing I have some factual information for the masses. If you feel Halo 3 is overhyped and underated, take five minutes and jump on XBL on a Friday or Saturday night and check the number of people playing Halo 3. To date I have seen over 1,000,000 on at one time.

Call me a fanboy, call me what you will. I just play games and enjoy them.

You cannot be serious... How

You cannot be serious... How can you base a review off advertisements? That is just not rational. It just seems that you needed to take an angle that allowed you to give Halo 3 a low as can be score. Did you even play the multiplayer? Do you even like shooters?

Exactly. Thank you so much

Exactly. Thank you so much for writing this review. I am not a big review reader but I will be keeping an eye on your game reviews for now on. You obviously have been a gamer for a long time and understand that a game is good because of its game play. Not because of how many fan boys Microsoft can purchase via caffeinated beverages and false-advertising advertisements.

I wish you would have touched a little bit more into the terrible luck-based multi player that for some reason has people going insane over.

The matchmaking system and ranking system are both excellent and I would like to see them implemented in future games. The customizable avatars are excellent. I am still trying to get the 1000/1000 score for the samurai sword even though I hate the game.

But the actual game play of the versus is astonishingly noob (for lack of a newbier word). The makeup for being good at the multi player is around 25% skill, 25% arsenal, and 50% luck. As a hardcore gamer I still can't get past the fact that you spawn with grenades. It doesn't even feel like a first person shooter. It feels more like an colorful arcade game disguised as a first person shooter. Not to mention the countless glitches in the game due to terrible registration mechanics.

I'm yet to play Halo 3

I'm yet to play Halo 3 (although I thoroughly enjoyed the first 2), but the people complaining should really hush.

Looking at the cries of 'worst review ever' and such make people look very foolish, as regardless of your obviously differing opinion of the game, this is a very well written and well backed up review.

Some people need to keep in mind that reviews are essentially the opinions of professionals (or even non-professionals) who are adept at writing and have a strong interest in the field they write for. If you disagree with the writer slandering him will get you nowhere - this is his view of the game which he presented in a much better manner than the majority of comments seem to.

D.Toune wrote: I'm yet to

D.Toune wrote:

I'm yet to play Halo 3 (although I thoroughly enjoyed the first 2), but the people complaining should really hush.

Looking at the cries of 'worst review ever' and such make people look very foolish, as regardless of your obviously differing opinion of the game, this is a very well written and well backed up review.

Some people need to keep in mind that reviews are essentially the opinions of professionals (or even non-professionals) who are adept at writing and have a strong interest in the field they write for. If you disagree with the writer slandering him will get you nowhere - this is his view of the game which he presented in a much better manner than the majority of comments seem to.

You would make a good point, except the fact that since you haven't played Halo 3, how would you know that the review was "well backed up"?

Obviously you don't because the review is rubbish, and it's not a coincidence that this reviewer is getting rubbished because it's simply a load of shite that he's forced upon the world. As established by this person's own "editor", he is not a "professional" reviewer and the reason is simple; this pretender couldn't get arrested if he committed mass murder.

Now run along or perhaps return to comment ONCE you've played the game. At the moment, your "opinions" about the review's validity is about as shallow as the review itself.

Amazed by the outbursts over a game

I have to admit that I came to this site via gamerankings. This was the lowest score Halo 3 got and I wondered about the review. Personally I would've gave Halo 3 somewhere between 8.5 - 9.0. It was great in some places, but mediocre in others. I have completed it on legendary and collected all the skulls. Co-op is where the most fun at. Multiplayer (team battles) is okay, then it gets boring after a while.
That's probably because I'm not an immature teenager who pores endless hours trying to "own" somebody. I actually have a life. I find it funny (and somewhat amazed) by the huge outbursts over the 7/10 score. The reviewer is entitled to his opinion. We live in a free society where free speech is allowed. This isn't North Korea. Just because you love the game doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet have to agree with you. There are always opinions. Criticism is a good thing because nothing is perfect. Nothing can be perfect. Because perfection means that it has no blemishes, and Halo 3 has its problems. The storyline is quite sub-standard. Any decent sci-fi novel will "own" Halo 3's story. Period. The poster who explained Halo's story (Earth too populated, need to colonise other planets etc); this plot features in probably 90% of sci-fi novels. It is nothing special. Go read some novels, then come back and tell me if Halo's story is epic.
However, I do have to say that the reviewer was a bit too harsh on the game (probably because of the huge hype), yet I do agree with some of his points. What I don't agree with, is the obnoxious children who come here specifically to insult the reviewer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In ten years time, or maybe twenty, these sad little children will grow up and form their own opinions of this world, and they will look back and see how sad and silly they once were, trying to defend a game that is simply a game. If you want to defend something, protect the environment or some other worthwhile thing.
At the end of the day, Halo 3 is just a mindless video game. It's fun for a while, then you forget it and move on. In years to come, other games will arrive and presented as the next best thing, and the Halo trilogy will pale in comparison to these games, and people will look back (you children especially) and realise just how childish you really are. Next.

Somebody, Nobody

Somebody wrote:

I have to admit that I came to this site via gamerankings. This was the lowest score Halo 3 got and I wondered about the review. Personally I would've gave Halo 3 somewhere between 8.5 - 9.0. It was great in some places, but mediocre in others. I have completed it on legendary and collected all the skulls. Co-op is where the most fun at. Multiplayer (team battles) is okay, then it gets boring after a while.
That's probably because I'm not an immature teenager who pores endless hours trying to "own" somebody. I actually have a life. I find it funny (and somewhat amazed) by the huge outbursts over the 7/10 score. The reviewer is entitled to his opinion. We live in a free society where free speech is allowed. This isn't North Korea. Just because you love the game doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet have to agree with you. There are always opinions. Criticism is a good thing because nothing is perfect. Nothing can be perfect. Because perfection means that it has no blemishes, and Halo 3 has its problems. The storyline is quite sub-standard. Any decent sci-fi novel will "own" Halo 3's story. Period. The poster who explained Halo's story (Earth too populated, need to colonise other planets etc); this plot features in probably 90% of sci-fi novels. It is nothing special. Go read some novels, then come back and tell me if Halo's story is epic.
However, I do have to say that the reviewer was a bit too harsh on the game (probably because of the huge hype), yet I do agree with some of his points. What I don't agree with, is the obnoxious children who come here specifically to insult the reviewer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In ten years time, or maybe twenty, these sad little children will grow up and form their own opinions of this world, and they will look back and see how sad and silly they once were, trying to defend a game that is simply a game. If you want to defend something, protect the environment or some other worthwhile thing.
At the end of the day, Halo 3 is just a mindless video game. It's fun for a while, then you forget it and move on. In years to come, other games will arrive and presented as the next best thing, and the Halo trilogy will pale in comparison to these games, and people will look back (you children especially) and realise just how childish you really are. Next.

The irony of your retarded outburst is that you state Halo 3 is "only a game", and yet this is exactly what the reviewer has missed in his folly of a review. The reviewer, whom as been exposed as a wannabe screenwriter poseur (gee, surprise surprise), expects the story to be "War and Peace" when clearly Halo 3 is a videogame, first and foremost, and any "story" is merely a device to propel the action. But don't tell that to this reviewer, or is this you, Daniel, trying to defend yourself by masking as a reader again? Pathetic.

This is all stupid

"Somebody" above was bang on the money. I find it hard to believe people are still harping on about this "terrible" score. The author liked the game and it's quite immature to attack him rather than his points. It's more a review of the single player than anything else and yes it does have it's problems. Game scores have a tendency to be overblown.
I liken this as the game equivalent of Transformers. Just to continue this example have a look at the metacritic scoring for Transformers, 61. I don't see anyone attacking ReelViews or Chicago Reader for their 3/10 score. Now I liked that film and I'm just going to assume most people here did if they saw it as Halo=action as well. The Transformers game which if anybody has played it was godawful scores 75 on PS2.
I think Halo 3 deserves a solid 8/10. Game was good throughout with a couple of fantastic moments like the last level (copied from Halo 1 but still good) and the Mongoose v Scarab moment. But not the best thing ever made by anyone ever. Also when was the last game you saw scored that you honestly agreed with when compared to other media? Most big games are always in the 8-10/10 bracket no matter how pants or frustrating they are.

What a superb review. I

What a superb review. I appreciate someone writing thoughtfully and critically about games -- a welcome relief from all the fawning and bloviating that the gaming press generates!

This was a fantastic review

This was a fantastic review whether or not you love the game or not. He raises a lot of interesting points that I agree with. This is XBOX's baby, its big gun...and all it was, was Halo 1 with polished graphics, and its not even close to being the best graphics on the Xbox.

There was nothing extraordinary with the gameplay and didn't revolutionize anything. This is supposed to be the last Halo on Mircosofts best console. It should have been a bit more engaging and it flopped. There are one or two cool moments, but nothing that will go down in gaming history.

What made it worse was event he graphisc were piss poor. The minute I turned this on I immediately checked all settings because I counldnt believe how unimpressive they were.

You goons who are calling for his heads are the biggest queers on the planet. Get over yourselves and put that energy into getting out of the house.

7/10?

How can you spend an entire article ripping on one of the greatest games ever? You say its overhyped. Let me ask you this how did it get hyped in the first place? Oh yes, now i remember Halo and Halo 2 were the most succesful video games to come out in a long time, maybe ever. As you said halo 3 is no different than Halo 1 or 2 then doesnt that mean it is a great game. You are reviewing Halo 3 not comparing it to its predeceders or to its hype. This game is in now way a average game or there wouldnt be 200,000 people online everday playing it. So why would you give it and average score?

so.....over.....halo........

so.....over.....halo........

Halo 3 was good, but it's not the evolution of the series we all hoped for. The review was honest - and the reason you fanboys are gettin so pissed off is because you know there is some truth in it.

It was the same 12 months ago with twilight princess - the nintendoids were rabid!

Your careless pretense is astonishing

NunianVonFuch wrote:

"Somebody" above was bang on the money. I find it hard to believe people are still harping on about this "terrible" score. The author liked the game and it's quite immature to attack him rather than his points. It's more a review of the single player than anything else and yes it does have it's problems. Game scores have a tendency to be overblown.
I liken this as the game equivalent of Transformers. Just to continue this example have a look at the metacritic scoring for Transformers, 61. I don't see anyone attacking ReelViews or Chicago Reader for their 3/10 score. Now I liked that film and I'm just going to assume most people here did if they saw it as Halo=action as well. The Transformers game which if anybody has played it was godawful scores 75 on PS2.
I think Halo 3 deserves a solid 8/10. Game was good throughout with a couple of fantastic moments like the last level (copied from Halo 1 but still good) and the Mongoose v Scarab moment. But not the best thing ever made by anyone ever. Also when was the last game you saw scored that you honestly agreed with when compared to other media? Most big games are always in the 8-10/10 bracket no matter how pants or frustrating they are.

You are aware that it is blatantly obvious and transparent that you are the "Somebody" that you refer to as "bang on the money". Just your syntax and formatting are dead giveaways. How sadly embarrassing that you need to mask as another person and give yourself props, as if anyone with half a brain would agree with you. I don't think you are the writer of the article, but if you are, then shame on you.

Rating...

I have not read the review but the rating of 7 out of 10 I do agree with as far as the single player campaign is concerned.

It took me less than 24hrs to complete and was un-original and did hold much back tracking.

After playing it so shortly after completing Bioshock which literaly took my breath away, all I can say is Halo 3 after the wait and the hype was a dissapointment as a single player game.

I do hope Bioshock Gets the GOTY for its single player part of the game, replay value or not it was pure pleasure playing through it.

Now as far as the multiplayer side of Halo 3 goes then yes that is a solid 9/10 i would say.

I really wish game reviews on games with a multiplayer aspect would rate the single player and multiplayer side individualy as IMHO that would make more sense.

SO for single player than yes 7/10 is spot on, as far as xbox360 online multiplayer games go then Halo 3 I reckon is a definate 9/10.

Just my personal opinion ofcourse.

Thought some of his points

Thought some of his points are correct, in saying that there is some backtracking, and that the game didn't live up to the expectations given by the ads. Oh wait, they never made any clear details about the game in the ads! They simply showed a diorama of a large battle, and you very clearly state that you do this almost constantly throughout the game (fight in a big battle in an open area that is). No game-play is shown, so they aren't showing you what you should expect :P The only time they showed game-play was in their vidocs which documented Halo 3's conceptualization and eventual creation. The other ads which showed cg of the MC in combat gave you a feel for exactly what you do in a game, protect yourself from Wraith plasma blasts, drop a bubble shield, and use your weapons to fight enemies. They show you in the same spots you find yourself in the game, so your expectations really shouldn't be shaken. Unless you realize that the hardest difficulty is too tough for you :P

Though the general portion of the game is run and gun, you simply can't rush into every encounter. Play the game on Legendary or with the Mythic skull activated, and say again you can charge into combat. Try it yet? Succeed? No, thought not.

Also, the multi-player aspect of the game is going to become one of the most competitive online games ever. If you try and run straight at me online, I'll strafe, gandhi-hop, strongside,and kill you before you ever knew what had happened. I doubt you'd be able to get a single kill if we were spawned with the most balanced weapon, the battle rifle.

Those terms come from the collection of vast knowledge gained from Major League Gaming, the organization for competitive gaming. Halo 3 is on next year's circuit. The players are far better than what you will achieve, and don't complain about the variety of games played online. Why would they let you choose your favourite gametype for ranked matches? That hardly demonstrates how you are a better player, mastering a single gametype would make you a high level. You have to be good at everything, and have to earn the levels and ranks awarded accordingly.

Anyone claiming that the single player campaign is less than an 8/10 is deluded. You can play it in 4 player co-op with friends, and the skulls add immense re-playability. Beating the game on normal and giving a review is one thing, that one thing is a demonstration of your lack of ability. Beat the game on the hardest difficulty before you review it. Your claims that run and gun work are horrendously false.

The multiplayer is perfect. You can download things online, review your games in the theater mode. You can create new gametypes and map variants, and play them with friends. There is a brilliant matchmaking system, unparalleled by any game to date. Go to mlgpro.com and watch the video on demand. Watch how a map is set up, and your team wins. Try playing with people like that online, with no strategy, and see how many kills you can get. I can guarantee you, your team will lose approximately 15-50. Or worse.

Why was 90% of this review about the campaign?

First, learn how to spell SCARAB not "Scarabe". Also, you spent way to much time on the campaign and not the other features. Forge, Theatre mode? Let me explain this to you, the Master Chief is "blocky" because he is, I do not know, umm... made out of steel? Incase you still wondering "Why dosent Mastah Chief look like he does in the announcement trailer" thats because his armor is made out of steel, not concreate. Nothing new? Does equipment ring a bell? Back to the multiplayer, you can download game types, videos, screenshots on bungie.net which are all viewible via Halo 3. You act as though Halo 3 is an entirely new franshise, it is not. It is a sequel.

To be honest, this is a very bad review. I understand you give it a 7 out of 10. Any one can slap numbers on something. I give this review 2 out of 10 for not talking about all of the games features. Also because this is more of a 'Halo 3 isn't what it was advertiesed to be' than a review.

Why do you actually care so

Why do you actually care so much?

Does the 7/10 rating actually affect your feelings towards the game? Are you planning to make a career out of selling this game to people?

Why do any of you care so much?!

It's a game, but that's it. I actually found it a very good game (excluding the Floodgate level, which I found to be a little aggravating and tedious), but that's what it is - a game.

I'm only on here because it's quarter to 1 in the morning, I can't sleep and I happened to find a lot of these comments amusing, but seriously... some of you need to get out more, or, at least, play the game more and make your own decisions instead of looking up so many reviews of it.

Last time I checked, Daniel Weissenberger wasn't God and his opinion wasn't final.

Oh, and I do agree with the comments about his review being a bit nit-picking, but it did have a lot of valid points, blah, blah, etc. etc. Whatever.

Oops, actually replied to a

Oops, actually replied to a comment (twice by accident!) made on the first page without realising there was another 4 pages worth of comments.

No idea what's happening now and, to be honest, I don't care enough to bother reading it, but yeah. Not a bad game! :)

241 Comments So Halo 3 is great go play it then!

Well in most respects I tend to agree with this review. I've played through all of the Halo software titles and I believe it is safe to say a seven sums it up just right. Still a seven in my opinion isn"t half bad. Bungie did cut a few corners in the graphics department but what are graphics anyway if a game is fun its fun right? I've always owned all the major videogame consoles so I am no fanboy of anything. Well just games back off so you don't agree with this review that justifies personally atacking someone. I'm sorry but it is the mentality of many of you that make gaming anymore embarrassing. Props to you for stating your honest opinion in a world full of marketing buyoffs. O.k. let the personal atacking begin.

Score still to high

Ok to start off Halo 3 is a good game that's it. Its not great, grand or anything else just good. Personally I would give it about a 6 to 6.5. The game is too much like the other two, same shit better graphics thats all. The multiplayer is plain boring, who cares that you can share videos and screenshots, if you want them that bad just download them off the net. My biggest problem with multiplayer is that you cant have more than 16 people on a server, and personally I haven't seen more than 10 and that was a team match, on a single match I haven't seen more than 5 including yourself which makes it hard to find people to kill on the huge maps, which just makes the match boring with not enough excitement. So overall if you ask me the game is just mediocre.

Hmm...to each his own, i

Hmm...to each his own, i suppose

I can definitely agree with your mention of the AI (and so can my many in-game deaths as a result of close proximity rocket launches from marines), but besides that, I'm not seeing how you can validly extrapolate on your remaining arguments enough to chop off 30% of the score. Sure, they don't focus on the "ZOMG planet's going down" aspect, but I don't consider this to be the big picture of the game.

I'm not going to mass-uber flame you, I just think you focused on the wrong aspects of the game, expanded on them, and took points off. Sure, a game is at least partially about details, but in the context of the halo series, I think that the population of Africa is an unnecessary detail.

No Blood though - i definitely agree with your hit on the marine's AI...namely when they have a rocket launcher in their hands

THIS REVIEW SUCK

FOR THIS REVIEW HALO 3 DESCEND A LOT OF PLACES IN GAMERANKINS.

THIS REVIEW IS FANATIC, STUPID AND BORED.

I SMELL..... JEALOUS.

HALO 3 = 10

FANBOYS

65% Accuracy

This review is a hit and miss. I'd say only about %45 of the stuff you complain about is actually detremental enough to keep Halo 3 from getting a near-perfect score. The rest is nitty-gritty insignifficant expressions of malcontent. The 2D pictures looked beautiful on 1080i, although it may have looked like a drawing, it was great art nonetheless. The repetitious pattern of gameplay is Halo's proprietary "30-seconds formula." Quick and decisive 30 seconds of ass kicking followed by breaks in which the player recovers in ammo and reconciles with the badass tactics that preceded it. Complainging about the formula is quite srange, because other games such as GRAW and Gears of War adopted Halo's formula, and its far from negative to the overall experience of the game, or any of the games that used it.

Despite its few flaws, Halo 3 is still the most fun and immersive gameplay to be found on the 360, and in contemporary gaming in general for that matter. Not to mention the gameplay balance; the perfect blend of gun shooting, vehicle driving, grenade throwing, and melee smacking. I feel that Halo 3 is especially good after the dissapointintg medicrority that was Halo 2. Halo 3 is leaps and bounds beyond its former sister games, taking the absolute best and mking it better.

The story took some time to get warmed up to, but immediatly after the (spoiled) glassing of Africa, I knew it would be getting epic soon. Sure enough, it didn't disappoint. From the sniper begining of "The Ark," paying homage to Halo Combat Evolved's "Truth and Reconciliation," to the original and unprecedented air-to-ground battles of "The Covenant." Halo 3 is simply a chaotic game that kept me saying "No way!"

Perhapes my gaming experience was so much more enriched simply becuase I had friends to play with. Riding two warthogs along side each other or flying four Hornets across ocean cliffs with three other friends is simply too much fun for one game to hog to itself. It would be wise, to say the least, for all other developers to take some chapters from Bungie's book of magic.

So, make some friends, activate some skulls, and tred your way through the Covenant and Flood on Legendary. Then, and only then will you truly experience the greatness that is Halo 3. Do it, because you're mising out on something that no one who claims to be a gaming fan should be deprived of.

I wont even get into the Multiplayer, Forge, and Theater aspects of Halo 3, because those need not be defended by anyone whose actually played with them.

They just keep coming!

I find it quite amazing that so many people will just blindly back a game which is just plain average when you take out the multiplayer and let’s not forget that a massive proportion of gamers out there don’t actually like playing online * gasp *. How can this be? How could someone be such a ‘nerd’ (as I was ironically called) that they choose not to spend all of their free time playing people they’ve never met at computer games? When I play games with my mates it’s when they are actually in the same room as me and we can have all the banter and beer we want, playing games with strangers holds no appeal to me.
I’ve been a gamer for a long time and multiplayer gaming was not really something which was regarded as essential, any multiplayer option, sporting games aside, was merely tacked on just in case you wanted to mess around with a mate(s) when they come round. Gaming was all about escapism and immersion to take you away from the daily grind and sometimes they even threw in a great story as well. For some reason in the last 10 years single player gaming has been progressively getting marginalised in favour of online gaming which we’re all being told is what we MUST do, how can we live without it? In my opinion developers do this purely because it is much easier to make 6-8 maps which require no plot, no set pieces, no innovation and very little imagination.

I can only tell you how I perceived Halo 3 as like Halo and Halo 2 I played it purely for the single player and I can honestly say I’ve played at least 5-6 games this year alone which I enjoyed much more than Halo 3.
I won’t even try and blame the length of the game as a contributing factor for this lack of enjoyment as my favourite game this year is of a similar length but is a much more cinematic and involving production, Call Of Duty 4! That game should make Bungie feel as guilty as sin for producing the pile of dog shit they professed to be the game to end all games when it wasn’t even the best game released that month.

And you're mister cool guy?

Whether the majority(your claimed numbers) does or does not enjoy the multiplayer is irrelevant. I'm judging a game, not how a society plays or takes to a game, nor how a game should or shouldn't be played. But I judge after experiencing all the game has to offer, example; LAN co-op with beer and your best buddies(even if they suck and online players are better).

Single player and multiplayer are both equally relevant, but exceptional gamepaly in one can compensate for not-so exceptional other. Halo 3, however, has both.

And you must see the hypocrisy of defending a third-rate professional game reviewer and using the term "nerd" in your arguement.

Ummm...

You say all that and yet you haven't even read his review! I'm sure has at least a few points to back his argument. If you really wanted to burn him, then you'd actually read it and find his flaws. Otherwise, your comments mean nothing...

Not everyone likes women....

So it only makes sense that there are wierdos out there who don't like Halo....

nobody asked your ass to

nobody asked your ass to write a mini-review! he's right about some things and some things he isn't right about. a review is an opinion, often a biased opinion, but you have your own opinion of the game so stop telling the reviewer that his is wrong!

Wow 7/10 and people are

Wow 7/10 and people are crying? I swear they act like you shot their dog or something. 7/10 is a good score. The problem is too many reviewers fall into the hype and give every game a 9/10. I've seen people cry over a 9/10 even. Halo is overrated. Deal with it. It's a great game, but it's not world changing. A 7/10 is a fair score. Also I loved the comments "The reviver shouldn't be allowed to respond to comments". You kids are funny, don't like it when someone stands up to you on the internet?

LOL.

Man no inventory management? Christ go play mass effect. Just shooting? what about equipment? grenades? vehicles? If guns are the only way your approaching halo 3s perfectly staggered encounters no wonder you rated it so poorly.

I get the feeling your just bad at it.

pathetic

stop getting annoyed because the game you have been manipulated into buyin because of hype does not live up to expectations. I know you have been waiting a long time for it but just face facts, it is NOT a 9.5 out of 10 game and only gets those reviews because of hype. A lot like the Tomb Raider franchise used to. Just except it is not the game everyone hoped and shut up. to say that no game on any console comes close is just pathetic and you need to be realistic. Halo 3 is like an expansion to Halo 2. A couple new weapons and new maps, graphics are NOT good enough. And what happened to the new and improved brutes?? They seemed same as ever to me.

Forget these dumb reviews buy gamespot etc and losers who have loyalty to a FRIKKIN GAME!!! i suggest people instead ask their friends what they think of the game, i guarantee you they will say its not as good as what they expected.

Your actually pathetic, you

Your actually pathetic, you need help. Its a game, get over it, you are the type of losers who will not go out on a weekend to play a game get some help.

Daniel you're a good reviewer, but I'm sorry that speaking the *truth* is not allowed anymore.

Anyway boys why waste time reading this, shouldn't you be finishing Halo 3 for the 30th time.

Hugs & Kisses. xx

H3

I am an avid h3 player. In my opinion, i think the critic said a lot of things that were true. I think bungie should consider some of the negative comments to only make the next game better (if there will be a next game). I love multiplayer halo 3 and i frequently play it online. I think it is the best game out there (but not all that much better than H2), however, overall i think there were a lot of things that could have been made better ESPECIALLY (underline underline)for campaign mode. Quite honestly, it was a disappointment. Put simply, the AI were idiots (and i awaited the much anticipated arrival of the "smart" AI), the game was too short, and i totally agree about the flood. If i wanted to play a game where i justed repeatedly tapped the attack button to kill my foe with no thought of strategy, i would still be playing golden axe on my sega genesis. The flood have no brains. They are not a challenge what-so-ever, in fact, i am annoyed they are a big part of the game because i receive no gratification by "outsmarting" them. That is why halo shines online...because people can play against other people who are also clever and unpredictable.
FYI, to those of you who love halo (like me) and can not admit its flaws...take a chill pill and stop wasting energy adamantly defending the game that also has many problems.

WTF

Whoever reviewed Halo 3 should be shot. End of story. You dont base a game on its advertising! That is just ut out to build hype and get people to buy the game, it has usually nothing to do with the actual game! look at Bioshock, it was an awesome game but could the big daddy really throw you thought the room and could you really hack a robot by pulling out the wires? No but did you criticiseth game for it? No, Halo trailers didnt promse nything to be in the game they promised the game would come. You dont rate a game on its commercials, you rate it on the final product! Is a commercial a game? NO! So Daniel or w/e your name is, dont rate another game on the commercials because no one intends the commercials to be rated.

Good review Dan!

Okay, first off, I really enjoyed the first Halo, it was the best multiplayer fps of it's time and the best console fps of that time too. Halo2, just wasn't as good, still the best console FPS, but lagging way behind any similar budgeted PC FPS. Multiplayer was still good fun though. Halo3 was the first time Halo actually had any real competition on the consoles and it fell...like a brick.

Story - I'd just like to make one point on this: HALO GAMES HAVE NO STORY. That's figuratively speaking folks, I know there's some story in there, it's just unless you read the novels all you get is the default "aliens attack humanity" garbage that almost every non-WWII FPS has been spewing since...ever.

Graphics - The graphics for Halo3 were nice, very nice in fact. They were so nice in fact that I noticed the xBox360 couldn't keep up and as a result, the frame rate dropped ESPECIALLY toward the end when you're driving the warthog over the exploding...thing(never really got WHY that was there).

Single Player - Where to start...hmm It's like bungee decided to address some problems they saw in the first Halo when they released Halo2, but then decided, rather than fix the new problems created, they'd just combine aspects of 1 & 2 and add in some gimicks. You still can't dive or roll around. The brutes manage it! The gravity hammer is woefully overpowered, you have been given back that toy rifle again from Halo. I mean that thing is ridiculous, it has less rounds than a modern day rifle, a lower fire rate, is bigger and the recoil is exactly the same, also the bullets seem to have less stopping power. The humans haven't really advanced, except in making thier alloys all look like they're made of plastic.

Multiplayer - Halo excels at multiplayer, but it's not enough, sure the xBox live experience is good, but get a few mates in a room, playing on a few tvs and you just don't have the same atmosphere as you did in the two previous titles. Not everyone wants to play with complete strangers, who are usually ten year olds, serious halo gamers who crush you instantly and call you a n00b or people who have managed to crack the game. The multiplayer in Halo3 is very good and the playback can satisfy those people withn inflated egos, map maker is an excellent idea, but the fact remains that it only raises this game above average. It certaintly should not promote it to 'the perfect game'.

In closing I'd like to give my score of Halo, 6 maybe 6.5 out of ten. Overall, and also would like to say that if somone has a bias towards something it means they are in favour of it. I think you mean "has a bias against". Finally, don't just dismiss someone's views out of hand and assume you are the ultimate beacon of knowledge and understanding. Different people like different things, but if you're honest with yourself I think you'd find that you really preferred the other Halo's. And maybe at the moment you're just blinded by the shiny newness of halo3.

I agree with Dan

I completely agree with u, its like nobody wants to believe that this game was a let down because IT WAS. Dan was trying to explain that to everyone, but nobody wanted to accept the fact that this game was "ok" at best. Dan I think u have given one of the only true and honest reviews and shouldn't take shit from any of the people on these boards that disagree...probably because none of them have gone through puberty.

This Review is a Monumental Achievement, Indeed

This review is a monumental achievement. Not only has it managed to be the worst review written ever on this piece of shit site, itself an unbelievable achievement, but it's possibly the worst written review of any medium, ever, in the history of Western Civilisation. Yes, it is that bad. Ten thousand bludgeoned monkeys couldn't be so illiterate and mindless. This review gives the word "retarded" a bad name. The reviewer should be dissected and his brain frozen immediately for future preservation and study on the absolute potential of the lack of intellect possible in a human mind.

Daniel's Dad: This is a

Daniel's Dad:

This is a fantastic piece of rhetorical excellence. You have managed to use almost 100 words to insult another person without invoking anything but empty insults. And you have most admirably abstained from using any evidence to support your insults. Congratulations. You are the sophisticated form of internet idiocy.

On a linear scale between

On a linear scale between 0(hated it) and 10(loved it), 5(neither loved it nor hated it) is dead-centre.

5 is exactly how "I" feel about this game. Neutral.

Notice the pronoun "I"? As in "of myself"?

There are a lot of people posting horrible comments on this site and it makes me question how secure they feel as individuals. The civilised west claims to wage war against insane, fanatical savages and yet parts of this forum, this snippet of our culture, does not agree.

A man cannot comment on a game without being descended upon by savages. So what if you don't agree with the reviewer, say "I don't agree". It's that simple. Don't become a mindless animal because, believe it or not, a culture does take effort. And a culture in decline doesn't last forever.

Peace.

look, im a huge fan of halo

look, im a huge fan of halo 3, and i just recently acheived colonel, but i still acknowledge that much what he says is actually true, invovling back tracking escpically *SPOLIER* the end sequence was ripped from the first game, random explosions, flood running away, random jumps. *end spolier* anyway, the marines where highly incompetent, and i remember getting lost at least 3 times in the levels. that all being said, its still a very fun game

Halo is the steaming pile

Halo is the steaming pile you can find on your shoe early morning after walking your dog down the park.

The smell of the god awful shit just lingers on your shoes. God forbid if you were to not clean it off, It would continue to pollute society.

This is the case with Halo3. Steaming pile, no one will clean this shit form the gaming community. Advertising for drones telling them how epic a game is = fanboys, creaming their pants in exictement for a company who has some sick helmet fetish and releases 3 games nearly identical in content.

The visuals are god awful.. If it was on the xbox1 I'd be very impressed( Ninja Gaiden) however it's still a steaming pile in every aspect.

Bungee (Bunjie) remind me of a transvestite. Beneath it all they are what they are.

Halo 3; the dust now settled...

Reviewers get a raw deal, I think. Particularly so when it comes to reviewing games that come complete with an international media circus of uber-hype designed to blind one and all to even the possibility that the game in question isn't much good.

Halo 3 doesn't do anything terribly innovative as a single-player game, but it offers new environments across which to continue the adventure that the majority of Halo's players desperately wanted to continue, and conclude. The hideously punishing Legendary difficulty of Halo 2, which crippled its longevity in my opinion, was repealed and good sense restored; I'm not going to re-review the game from the ground-up but, suffice it to say, Halo 3's single-player game did 'The Fans' proud, and if other folks "didn't get it", that wasn't going to bother The Fans one bit.

Personally, I adore Halo 3. But I was always going to. I loved the previous games, the first one in particular, and I was emotionally invested in the plot long before the release date of Halo 3 came around. I feel that Bungie made this game for me and people like me, and that the interests and enjoyment of Johnny-come-latelies were marginalised at The Fans' expense. The Fans' hopes and fears were clearly at the forefront of Bungie's collective mind; whereas newcomers to the franchise might've been nonplused by the comparatively leisurely pace of the combat, and the absence of a cover system and "previously on Halo..." plot recap, The Fans didn't need, or even want, such things. So Bungie didn't include them.

In view of this, when one considers that reviewers need to consider the interests of all gamers, Halo 3 perhaps deserved one or two lukewarm reviews; but then, when one considers that very few games can appeal to everyone, and that even the most snot-nosed Rainbow Six fan would have to admit that The Forge heralds the dawning of a new era in console map-design, I think 7 out of 10 is excessively hobbling. I believe, as some other posters do, that this reviewer's score represents in part a reaction to the inordinate hype that preceded Halo 3's release.

But, then, given Halo 3's deliberate non-departure from what are almost seven-year old game mechanics, it wasn't going to convince everyone, and excessive hype is notorious for sharpening disappointment; the knives were out in some quarters, and it was bound to get stabbed at least once or twice. That said, reviewers are professional journalists who ought to have the experience and skill to see beyond the guff and find a fair and representative score; I do not believe that this site's reviewer has done so.

So, seven months after the release of Halo 3, what do we know...? We know that circa 400,000 people were online-matchmaking last night, and that others were either playing private games of deathmatch or, as I was doing, playing online co-op. This is not reflective of a game that scores 7 out of 10; even the most loyal of fanboys lose faith after a few weeks if a game is genuinely mediocre.

More practically, we also know it's sold a truckload, and that another Halo game will be coming in time and that, by then, the gameplay mechanics will have been comprehensively remodelled. Let's see what the next generation of Halo can do to win over the naysayers...

Nice one mbchfdh2

Exemplary. "How to critique a critic". :)

Quote:

Reviewers get a raw deal, I think. Particularly so when it comes to reviewing games that come complete with an international media circus of uber-hype designed to blind one and all to even the possibility that the game in question isn't much good.

Halo 3 doesn't do anything terribly innovative as a single-player game, but it offers new environments across which to continue the adventure that the majority of Halo's players desperately wanted to continue, and conclude. The hideously punishing Legendary difficulty of Halo 2, which crippled its longevity in my opinion, was repealed and good sense restored; I'm not going to re-review the game from the ground-up but, suffice it to say, Halo 3's single-player game did 'The Fans' proud, and if other folks "didn't get it", that wasn't going to bother The Fans one bit.

Personally, I adore Halo 3. But I was always going to. I loved the previous games, the first one in particular, and I was emotionally invested in the plot long before the release date of Halo 3 came around. I feel that Bungie made this game for me and people like me, and that the interests and enjoyment of Johnny-come-latelies were marginalised at The Fans' expense. The Fans' hopes and fears were clearly at the forefront of Bungie's collective mind; whereas newcomers to the franchise might've been nonplused by the comparatively leisurely pace of the combat, and the absence of a cover system and "previously on Halo..." plot recap, The Fans didn't need, or even want, such things. So Bungie didn't include them.

In view of this, when one considers that reviewers need to consider the interests of all gamers, Halo 3 perhaps deserved one or two lukewarm reviews; but then, when one considers that very few games can appeal to everyone, and that even the most snot-nosed Rainbow Six fan would have to admit that The Forge heralds the dawning of a new era in console map-design, I think 7 out of 10 is excessively hobbling. I believe, as some other posters do, that this reviewer's score represents in part a reaction to the inordinate hype that preceded Halo 3's release.

But, then, given Halo 3's deliberate non-departure from what are almost seven-year old game mechanics, it wasn't going to convince everyone, and excessive hype is notorious for sharpening disappointment; the knives were out in some quarters, and it was bound to get stabbed at least once or twice. That said, reviewers are professional journalists who ought to have the experience and skill to see beyond the guff and find a fair and representative score; I do not believe that this site's reviewer has done so.

So, seven months after the release of Halo 3, what do we know...? We know that circa 400,000 people were online-matchmaking last night, and that others were either playing private games of deathmatch or, as I was doing, playing online co-op. This is not reflective of a game that scores 7 out of 10; even the most loyal of fanboys lose faith after a few weeks if a game is genuinely mediocre.

More practically, we also know it's sold a truckload, and that another Halo game will be coming in time and that, by then, the gameplay mechanics will have been comprehensively remodelled. Let's see what the next generation of Halo can do to win over the naysayers...

Another comment...

Very courteous of you, Alevine.

I maintain that reviewing videogames is not easy – I don’t think that, personally, I’d be very good at it because I can radically change my mind about how good or bad a game is a number of days after I’ve begun to play it. And I’m not suggesting that the reviewer of this game is poor at his job; anyone can have a “bad day at the office” and get something wrong, anyone can simply get off on the wrong foot with something (as many folks might’ve done, in view of Halo 3’s publicity campaign…), and anyone can simply decide that they don’t particularly like something and, as a professional critic, rightly deliver a firm opinion based upon that decision. Everyone is entitled to an opinion…

… but, above all else, I maintain that Halo 3 is objectively better than this review suggests. The review’s criticisms are, mostly, accurately observed; but the obsessive preoccupation with the game’s flaws smacks of a reviewer actively looking to prove Microsoft, Bungie, me, my friends, a several million people across the World wrong about Halo 3 being “the genre-defining experience that we were promised”, and to dish-out punishment in the form of a seriously modest score. And that is not a critic’s place.

Let us consider this same reviewer’s critique of GTA IV, which I consider to be a shining, near-flawless example of how to review a game with a ridiculously high profile; the reviewer correctly identifies that GTA IV is not objectively devastating, but that it certainly does enough to warrant a decent score.

Now let us consider what the reviewer could have chosen to do, had he been so minded; he could’ve obsessed about the modesty of GTA IV’s graphics which, although good, are by no means incredible – and a game with a development-time and budget of GTA IV has no excuses for this; he could’ve obsessed about the fact that, if you didn’t like GTA games in the past, this won’t convert you; the cover system being clunky-as-Hell and, sometimes, just not working; some of the missions being horribly frustrating, particularly the first time that you play them, when you don’t know how well-armed you need to be and how robust and/or fast your car needs to be…

If anyone chose to let these comments dominate a review of GTA IV, one might get the impression that the game isn’t very good – whereas it certainly is. I’d say the same for Halo 3; if anyone were to obsess about the slightly messy cut-scenes, the ropey Marine AI, the occasional backtracking, and other such things, that person might convince himself, and others, that the game’s not that good – and that just ain’t so.

I’m not going to moan about this any longer; I’ve had my say, and I thank these forums for allowing me.

RE: fanboy guff

Great Halo 3 sold well. That doesn't make it a good game. There are plenty of brilliant games which haven't sold well. Wow 400,000 people playing Halo3? That sounds massive. Oh wait, how many copies were sold again? 8million? that makes it about 5% of the people who bought the game that are still playing it. Yeah, that's not initial hype at all *sarcasm*. Look that game Halo3 is average, not great. It's not a bad game, it's just bland, unexciting and uninnotive. It's the same shit we've seen before. I loved the first Halo, enjoyed the challenge the second one gave and could take or leave the third. It's not great by any stretch of the imagination it's average at best.

In reply...

Hello,

"Fanboy" is generally used as a term of abuse and, if that's the way in which you meant it, you've used it incorrectly - I'm not blind to the failings of Halo 3, and I'm not using coarse language to rebuke the reviewer and other posters for having a different opinion - I am simply a fan; something I admitted in my first post, rather than a revelation borne of ingenious deduction. If you find that people disagreeing with you is so unbearable that you immediately resort to name-calling and sarcasm, I can't picture you as being good company at dinner parties...

... I don't know how to deliver this without sounding like I'm talking down to you, which I don't want to do, but it's such a blindingly obvious point that it's hard to put it any other way… Life goes on. New games come out, and people play those instead. Call of Duty 4 dethroned Halo 3 as the most popular game on Live several months ago and, now that GTA IV has been released, GTA IV has taken that mantle. Does this make for irrefutable evidence that CoD4 is overrated, or does it simply mean that players are exercising their civil rights to buy and play something new…?

You might also consider certain other flaws in your reasoning, as; players in different time-zones don’t play at the same time, people playing Halo 3 offline at the time won't have been included in the 400,000 online figure, not everybody who owns Halo 3 has a Live subscription, some people with Halo 3 and Live subscriptions never play online, and just because a person owns Halo 3 it doesn't necessarily follow that he or she plays it every single night. All in all, you’ll agree that your 5% estimate is nonsense. Which makes your using it in a sarcastic manner rather unfortunate for you. It’s also a pity, because there are certain comments in your post that I completely agree with.

Take-home message: if you’re going to disagree with someone, better to do it politely.

retract the fanboy

I'm sorry if you took offense at the 'fanboy' in my subject line, it was not aimed at you personally, but rather the stance you were taking. You were making Halo 3 out to be the glittery 10/10 game that other reviews have given it, I would put to you that 8/10 is even going a bit far. I never claimed that Halo3 is a BAD game, it's just not a particularly GOOD game. It's an alright game. 5% wasn't supposed to represent all the Halo3 players left in the world, I was simply pointing out that you using 400,000 players as a basis for the game being perfect were a bit off. I do once again apologise for calling you a fanboy, but would say that you're a little bit hypocritical when you sting me for insulting you, but claim that I would be unpopular at dinner parties for some sarcasm. Again, no offense meant, I was just making an observation. I do notice that you call for a unbiased look at Halo 3, and I am of the opinion that the author of this article does it very well. 7/10 is NOT a bad score, it's quite a good score for an average game.
Higher scores are reserved for games that are very replayable, contain excellent storylines, excellent graphics, unique twists to gameplay, but fall down in one area or another( unless they get a 10/10, then they would be absolutely perfect in every aspect). I haven't played CoD4, but based on the amount of advertising it got compared to the latest Halo, and what I've heard back on it, I would venture that it is the better game. I don't know for sure though

Thank you for your

Thank you for your reply.

Frankly, if the game had scored 8 of out 10, I wouldn’t have moaned. I think once a game gets to that score it’s accepted as being very good “if you like that sort of thing”; which I completely accept about Halo 3. It’s not perfect, and I have no difficulty acknowledging this. In fact, I think it’s clear from my first post (… I may be mistaken, of course…) that I consider Halo 3 to be a game for the fans, rather than a game for everyone.

My friends and I all played Halo and, to a lesser extent, Halo 2 over and over again on the original Xbox, and we love Halo 3 because it let us (forgive the commercialist slogan…) “finish the fight”; which we really, really wanted to do. I’ve played through the game twice in single-player and twice more in co-op, and enjoyed it thoroughly each time. I’m not delusional, or lying; I honestly feel that way. Believe me when I say that I have better things to do than pick fights with strangers for no reason.

As for my hypocrisy, maybe you’re right. But I was slightly hurt by what I thought was a personal insult, and felt the need to respond. I too hope that no offence was taken. I credit you for being so courteous and articulate; being honest, I had previously thought you were just gonna be a dick, no matter what I said.

My position in a nutshell is that Halo 3 is not objectively perfect, but it’s perfect for me and, I believe, a lot of other people. And I think that 7 out of 10 is too conservative a score to reflect that. You and others are, of course, free to disagree with me.

Thank you again. No hard feelings, I hope.

... ummm...

... that last comment was from me, in case you weren't sure! Dunno what the Hell's going on with my internet connecton this evening...!

Review

I rate this review FOS(Full OF Sh*t). All you have to do is play the game people, dont listen to this wacko.

RE: Review by Mike

Why is this review FOS as you so eloquently put it? I have played the game and I agree with this 'wacko'. In fact I think this may be one of the only objective reviews out there. I'm pretty sure Microsft is paying the rest of the reviewers off. Why? Because Halo3 is simply an average FPS. It's a far cry off amazing, the graphics are recycled, the storyline is almost identical to 2, and the online play is only as good as most FPSs for the PC. The Single player is fairly awful, the AI is pretty retarded and the game still manages to pull 9 and 10 out of 10 out of its arse most of the time.

Good review!

This is the most neutral and honest review I've seen so far! SEVEN out of TEN (or just 7/10) is probably the perfect score for the game. Great review!

Halo on PC

....you laughed at Halo 1 from your high and mighty pc throne? lol! I had a pc at the time and no fps at the time came close to the seamless 1st person shooting to 3rd person vehicles and awesome physics. The campaign was so sick and the only fps on pc at the time that came close was counter strike and that was multiplayer only and did not have the vehicle aspect or physics of Halo 1. You're not cool because you bash Halo; and you're not some rebellious flag-burner because you criticize the game. The only thing that bothers me more than fanboys are the people that think they're cool for bashing a particular game.

great idea

what a great idea to get famous! piss off 8 million people so you will go down in their minds as a douche of Billy Mitchel proportions! well you did your job, completely ruined yourself to get people to know your name and read 1 of your reviews. did you know there is hate sites built about you?
also anything credible about you went out the window the second you wrote that it is fair to review a game based on its advertising. what if a game has a complete crap advertising? such as Gears of War? does this make gears of war a 1/10??? wow! im so amazed at what you've done! lose so many potential viewers and fans of this site just to get them to read it once!! wow! show your true biased nature! wow! you really are a smart and business smart douche! all to get some attention, WHEN YOU KNEW IT WAS GREAT GAME.
again. GREAT IDEA

i only add this: a game is

i only add this: a game is supposed to be fun. graphics, story and innovations are thin icing on a delicious cake. you yourself said how fun the game is in single and multiplayer.

Thanks for this outstanding

Thanks for this outstanding review, Daniel. You have continued to review games based on their merits and after playing many games you have reviewed, all of your arguments prove correct. You say it how it is, and the internet could use more reviewers like you (thanks for not selling out to game developers like Gamespot did).

The actual score, the 7/10 in this case, I never actually read. I learned what it was from reading other comments posted here. What does the exact score matter, anyway? The words are the important part as they accurately describe all aspects of the game. They allow people to realize that one part of the game may be more appropriate for their tastes than another part. And after reading this review, I can proudly say that yes, I will buy Halo 3. My reasoning is this: I have never played a previous Halo game, so the experience will feel fresher to me than it will to most. I also never intend to play over Xbox Live, and I never intend to play the campaign alone (so the AI hopefully won't be an issue). I am buying it for my particular situation in a college dorm room, so that me and my buddies can play some split screen multiplayer or co-op mode. It seems to me that in this environment, the game will prove to be a fun diversion, and the best of its kind that I can get on a 360 today. That's right, despite the relatively low score (which I am ignoring), I am buying this game over COD4, Gears, and any other FPS you can think of.

PROTIP: Daniel is a good reviewer. Don't trash his reviews just because you enjoy playing a game in your particular situation or mindset. Other people might have been thinking of buying it for the single player, and not have Live, and this review would have rightfully informed them that this was a bad idea.

Thanks again, Dan.

Wow this is an incredibly

Wow this is an incredibly bad review. Where is this guy's writing skills. And please tell me that this guy has not been allowed to write another video game review since this one, or any review for that matter.

First off he starts his review off by critizing the game's advertisements. What the hell is that all about? I know this guy is trying to be different from all the other reviewers out there, and it is ok to mention the hype a game gets in a review, but you never start your review off on advertisements. Thats just silly.

Then by the 3rd paragraph the reviewer starts to show just how ignorant he is about the Halo universe. Master Chief has never been portrayed as a cyborg Jesus. Master Chief was not the son of god nor was he there to convert people into believing a faith to save themselves from eternal damnation.

Then in the 4th paragraph he says that Halo 3 is full of nothing but fighting, atleast every 30 seconds but then in the 15 or 26 paragraph he says that there are times when you are walking through halways that are devoid of life. Tell me how fighting can constantly be going on when you are walking through hallways that have no one in them? Contraditing himself is something he apparently likes to do.

Then he says teh gameplay offers nothing new since Halo 1. Which is dead wrong. Obviously between Halo 1 and 2 there was alot added. And anyone who has actually played the game will know this, so he obviously is lying to us about playing the previous halo games. I dont need to state the obvious on how Halo 1 is different from Halo 2, and how that is different from Halo 3. Play the games and you will know.

Then he mentions the Multiplayer in 1 paragraph. How do you write a 22 paragraph review and only use 1 paragraph to mention the multiplayer. Worse than that he doesnt even tell you about the different modes that there are, or much else. Just the weapon balance and controls. That is unnacceptable.

Then he starts ripping into the game becuase of what the other characters say while playing. So you want characters that only say stuff about killing? He has obviously never been around people who are in the military.

All in all. I do not believe this guy was the right choice to right this review. He wrote it based off of his OPINION which is something that you are not supposed to do for an official review. I mean he hit on a few valid points, but they were few and far between. It seems to me this guy wanted to be a reviewer who wanted to bust the big dog down from his throne just becuase he could.

forge replays etc

Seriously how was the best replay making, great coop, forge, sharing, all that stuff that I haven't even had the time to use it all not mentioned in the review? I can't think of any other game that comes close to halo 3 in this way, really stupid of Daniel not to even bring it up. It makes ur review seem like nothing more than a low score attention getter for a pretty good game. I was however disappointed with the lack of new gameplay stuff, sure the old was good but halo 1 2 and 3, it gets a little repetative (BIG exeption being the scarab fight which was fuckin amazing and the new equipment was nice). Should've added some levels where its more than just Master chief attacking a group of covenant, then moving on to the next group using guns and vehicles, maybe a defend mission or something, since it is supposedly humans trying to make a last stand against the covenant.

what?

so halo 3 gameplay is nothing special, yet call of duty 4 gameplay is sublime?

what?

can gamecritics please delete the call of duty 4 review or at least second opinion with a reviewer who can actually comment on the extreme shortcomings of that game?

brad is an idiot

thank you

The Worst reviews of all times

My friends and I were bored at school in study hall so decided to figure out what were the worst reviews of all-time. N this review made our list!! Congrats Mr. Reviewer just thought i'd share that information with you not that you care :)

Just to let everyone know

Just to let everyone know that Daniel was fired two months ago. We apologize for his lame reviews but you must understand that daniel was an afganastain terrorist who workd for Osama bin laden. We are happy we found this out when we did and are thankful he was brought to justice. I want to apologize for the pain and hurt this baboon caused to the video game fans out there and all we can do now is ask for forgiveness and hope you keep visiting our site. We are pleased to tell you that daniel(whos real name is Osama Bad Reviewama)is now behind bars where he will review and test the Balls of all the black inmates in the prison. I hope all you fans are satisfied with this punishment. Thank you.

the multiplayer is severely

the multiplayer is severely underwhelming. Are you kidding me when you can't choose which game mode you would like to play? Simplification is generally good, but I don't think people are so innept that they cannot choose a mode. Also, the level design is made for second graders with ADD. That egyptian-tomb themed map must have been made by Bungie in a few hours. I agree with the reviewer, if the game is going to be this stripped down, it better come with a lot of modes. Really though, there are so many better online FPS multiplayer experiences out there. Halo 3 seems like it should be a minigame while you wait for your real game to load.

RE: PC n00b

Anonymous wrote:

....you laughed at Halo 1 from your high and mighty pc throne? lol! I had a pc at the time and no fps at the time came close to the seamless 1st person shooting to 3rd person vehicles and awesome physics. The campaign was so sick and the only fps on pc at the time that came close was counter strike and that was multiplayer only and did not have the vehicle aspect or physics of Halo 1. You're not cool because you bash Halo; and you're not some rebellious flag-burner because you criticize the game. The only thing that bothers me more than fanboys are the people that think they're cool for bashing a particular game.

You had a PC at the time Halo1 came out, and you thought the next best thing was Counter Strike. First off, most people have PCs, so that statement is more or less redundant. As for FPS's better than Halo; Timesplitters, Quake 2, HALF-LIFE, Red Faction and descent to name but a few. The reason Halo became so popular was because it was the first decent game released for the Xbox, I'll admit, it was a good FPS, I thoroughly enjoyed it. There were some issues and it certainly didn't entertain me for as long as any of the games in the above list, but it was still a decent enough game, it just wasn't a perfect game, and IMHO Halo3 is a step back from the original Halo. It is certainly behind compared to other FPS's released since Halo.

Hmm.

One year on from the release of Halo 3, I am convinced that Halo 3 is the definitive Xbox game.
A couple of quick points:
Has any game been able to do 4 player co-op online an 2 player co-op offline yet? Only Halo 3 has both of these features. For those of us who aren't MLG, we need buddies for Legendary. Being able to have them over and play as well as being able to play with them online is a major point for those of us who want to beat the game with friends.
Skulls made the game more interesting. Most players won't know what these are, but suffice it to say they are all a new gameplay mechanic. Take a skull like Black Eye- the only way you can recharge your shields is if you melee enemies. Even on Heroic, this can be a real pain in the ass. How can you not mention something like this in the review? They are 90 G's worth of achievement points.
About the "Dumb" marine AI- what difficulty were you playing on? The AI is considerably smarter on Easy then even normal. Higher difficulty=less help from Teammates.
There is a element of using what you have wisely. In the level the Ark, you get some rocket's at one point. You can choose to use them right away, but then you will be SOL for the rest of the level. You need to know when to use the Equipment, the weapons,etc.
The Cortana and Gravemind interludes are amazing during the first play through. To those who care, it will reveal story and will provide emotional wonder. When they all make sense, the little blue lady is back in your head.
In terms of the story, at least it gives us some sense of closure. The threat is eliminated. No more Covenant or Flood. As much as I hated the Elite story line, I would have liked to seen some more insight into the Inner workings of the Covenant, but they defiantly missed the boat on that one.
In terms of the Graphics, where COD4 is focused on making things people see look good, Halo succeeds in term of scale. At the start of the 4th level, you can see the mountain from the 2nd level-which is smoking from the explosion. Most devs would have just rendered in a generic hill, but Bungie went above and beyond in giving the game a sense of scale.
I noticed that neither forge and theater is mentioned in the review. When you look out there for a game with the same features on a console, you come up with shortlist-and none of those do all of the things Halo does.
I would like to give you a chance to rescind the earlier comment in which you said Bungie didnt bother putting any effort into the game. Can you name any other game on console that is still supported every week by it's dev? I don't think so. Bungie is proud of the product and they are making maps for it even after the next COD game has come out.
There are a number of different things I would like to point out, but I am tired. I agree that you have a right to your own opinion, but I just don't think you see enough of the minor things that your 7/10 review credence as compared to IGN's, 1UP's or OXM's reviews.

respose

Justin Azevedo wrote:

One year on from the release of Halo 3, I am convinced that Halo 3 is the definitive Xbox game.
A couple of quick points:
Has any game been able to do 4 player co-op online an 2 player co-op offline yet? Only Halo 3 has both of these features. For those of us who aren't MLG, we need buddies for Legendary. Being able to have them over and play as well as being able to play with them online is a major point for those of us who want to beat the game with friends.

I don't think online co-op is a good thing, co-op is only fun when the two (or four) of you are in the room together IMHO. Plenty of other games have 2 player co-op though.
I don't know what MLG means, I don't spend enough time on the internet I guess.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

Skulls made the game more interesting. Most players won't know what these are, but suffice it to say they are all a new gameplay mechanic. Take a skull like Black Eye- the only way you can recharge your shields is if you melee enemies. Even on Heroic, this can be a real pain in the ass. How can you not mention something like this in the review? They are 90 G's worth of achievement points.

This is just nonesense. Skulls aren't a new gameplay element, they were in Halo 2 as well. And while they are fun, they don't elevate Halo 3 above an average game.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

About the "Dumb" marine AI- what difficulty were you playing on? The AI is considerably smarter on Easy then even normal. Higher difficulty=less help from Teammates.
There is a element of using what you have wisely. In the level the Ark, you get some rocket's at one point. You can choose to use them right away, but then you will be SOL for the rest of the level. You need to know when to use the Equipment, the weapons,etc.

I agree with you here, that's basic FPS mechanics. The main problem I have with Halo 3 and its weapons are gravity hammers.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

The Cortana and Gravemind interludes are amazing during the first play through. To those who care, it will reveal story and will provide emotional wonder. When they all make sense, the little blue lady is back in your head.

I didn't think so, I'd seen this before in horror games, except in Halo, they just got in the way and irritated me. No significant story was ever revealed by these scenes.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

In terms of the story, at least it gives us some sense of closure. The threat is eliminated. No more Covenant or Flood. As much as I hated the Elite story line, I would have liked to seen some more insight into the Inner workings of the Covenant, but they defiantly missed the boat on that one.

I agree with you here, Halo 2 was disappointing after the story in Halo:CE and Halo 3 did nothing to address this.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

In terms of the Graphics, where COD4 is focused on making things people see look good, Halo succeeds in term of scale. At the start of the 4th level, you can see the mountain from the 2nd level-which is smoking from the explosion. Most devs would have just rendered in a generic hill, but Bungie went above and beyond in giving the game a sense of scale.

I didn't notice this, but concentrating on stuff far away at the expense of things the majority of players will see seems a bit stupid to me, maybe I've missed your point though.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

I noticed that neither forge and theater is mentioned in the review. When you look out there for a game with the same features on a console, you come up with shortlist-and none of those do all of the things Halo does.
I would like to give you a chance to rescind the earlier comment in which you said Bungie didnt bother putting any effort into the game. Can you name any other game on console that is still supported every week by it's dev? I don't think so. Bungie is proud of the product and they are making maps for it even after the next COD game has come out.

Forge and theater are in many PC titles, while it's good to see them in a console game, it doesn't make up for all Halo 3's shortcomings. The multiplayer in Halo 3 is probably the best thing about it and the maps are recycled. Maybe that's why Bungee have decided to make more maps, though you'll probably have to pay for them.

Justin Azevedo wrote:

There are a number of different things I would like to point out, but I am tired. I agree that you have a right to your own opinion, but I just don't think you see enough of the minor things that your 7/10 review credence as compared to IGN's, 1UP's or OXM's reviews.

I still don't understand how anyone can rate Halo 3 as more than an 8/10. I like this review because the score is more realistic than most.

Just... Wow. and Thanks Dan.

I really enjoyed your review of this game, honesty is pretty much lost when it comes to most reviews now a day's. I appreciate you at least having the balls to express your own opinion, And it also made people leave some of the funniest comments ive ever read. This game was clearly not what most people were waiting for, granted, I do disagree on some of your comments about the multiplayer, I thought Halo 2 put together a very easy to use and creative matchmaking system and Halo 3 followed that up wonderfully. Keep on reviewing games and telling people how they really are. I know this is over a year later, but, I just stumbled across this and started reading the asinine comments people had left and had to leave one myself. The 7/10 is what got my attention, because I was amazed there was a review of Halo 3 I could actually agree with, Kudos to that.

I completely agree with this

I completely agree with this guy and the review. I finally bought an Xbox 360 after having a Playstation 3 for a year because most of my friends have one and they always talk about Halo 3 and how good it is. I have only played the game offline so far (well I have played online a little at a friends) and I must say that it is very average, nothing new, a little repetitive, this should automatically bring down the scores of 9.5-10's to an 8 or 9 at the most.

The graphics look exactly the same as Halo 2 on the original xbox UNLESS you have a HD television set, (which fortunately I have). I tested the game on both non-HD and HD TV sets and HD looks far superior. So don't expect much from the graphics if your still using a CRT TV. This again IMO should bring the score down. (There are still alot of games that look great on both types of TV's). Shoulda named it HALO 2: High definition

When I compare this game to Call of Duty 4 on the Playstation 3, COD4 is the winner by far, AWESOME graphics, short but great single player, online is superb, large community, (Not sure but was king of Xbox Live awhile ago, dunno whether it still it) better variety of weapons than in Halo 3, for some reason halo 3's weapons just feel all the same. Overall a fantastic experience.

There's alot of better games out there, ie; COD4, Bioshock, Gears of war (1 and 2) can't think of any others off the top on my head, those games pretty much got the same scores as halo 3 yet they didn't sell as well.

To wrap this up, I would have to say Halo 3 is a good game but nowhere close to "epic", it was over-hyped and Halo 3 fanboys won't admit it.

Oh yea one more thing (lol) they are now milking it even more with this Halo Recon garbage (expansion) and Halo wars (RTS, WTH!!!)

Ive played halo 2 on my PC,

Ive played halo 2 on my PC, max settings at 1080P, and it looks like dried shit compared to Halo 3. Halo 3 uses many more sophisticated rendering techniques to make it the shining winner that it still is today.

Anyone who has a problem with Halo 3, feel free to suck my balls.

still enjoying the extra hits?

=D

There's no doubt in my mind

There's no doubt in my mind that Halo 3 was a commercial success, but I feel that the game a bit over rated. I have a 360, and I have Halo 3. I just don't see what the big deal is. The game feels... 'slow paced'. The multiplayer elements are great and it works really well on Xbox Live, but for FPS games, i'll stick to the PC.

"Gamer" (oh, and this review sucks)

Hey Gamer, why don't you tell me what games are "good" so I'd bash the heck out of that too.

I despise the term "overrated" it's just something ignorant losers come up with to say their opinion is better than others.

This review is completely UNPROFESSIONAL for the fact that he completely relates it to the hype and is intentionally being contradictory. 7.0? Fine, I'm curious about what games he rated 7.6.

Halo 3 review still getting the love.

Just curious, how do you guys keep finding this old review?

It's the lowest rating

It's the lowest rating received by Halo 3 as per Gamerankings.com.
As you can see, the plan... it worked!

I think 7/10 is more than

I think 7/10 is more than fair...

I dont understand what so many people see is this game.
Graphics are just decent and story too, and the creatures remind me a children cartoon.

I guess Halo 3 doesn't

I guess Halo 3 doesn't include Forge, Theatre, or an awesome soundtrack...

The same way you do...

The same way you do... ;)

It's just amazing how many people like this game. I loved/lived Halo 1 and finished it on Legendary. Also liked Halo 2 a lot. DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER PLAYING HALO 3 BECAUSE OF THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW GUN SOUND VOLUME! It just kills all the fun for me.

-_-

Look at it this way. Epic story, tension is building up, you're in the jungle, all of a sudden you encounter the enemy, you start shooting. Pet put put put puut... ??? Hey, the sound of my gun is muffled even by the sound of my voice!... And no, it's not my setup, other games sound just fine. The sound mixing is just totally off in this game. And to think a simple sound menu could have solved this problem : sound up, voice down. UNBELIEVABLE HOW NOONE SEEMS TO EVEN MENTION THIS!... Gun sound is "essential" in a "shooter".

IMHO all Halo 3 fanboys are idiots.

PATCH THAT FRIGGIN' GUN SOUND BUNGIE INSTEAD OF LOOKING THE OTHER WAY!... It's the least you guys can do.

Giving Halo 3 a 70/100 = a

Giving Halo 3 a 70/100 = a wrecking ball to your credibility Daniel Weissenberger. Way to go buddy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.