Metareview: Halo 3 (Xbox 360)
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Sep 24th 2007 at 12:14PM }
- GamePro (100/100): "I want to first start off by saying that Halo 3 is worth every penny: Go buy it! In fact, it's worth investing in an Xbox 360 if you don't already own one -- I'm willing to bet there will be more than a few gamers who line up on launch day to buy not only the game but a console as well. The Limited Edition for $69.99 is the sweet spot for me. It comes with some really cool bonus features, such as Making Of documentaries and a nifty A/V Calibrator for your television. The Legendary Edition for $129.99 is a little ridiculous unless you're a Halo fanatic and have a small cat or dog that can wear the helmet. The standard version for $59.99 is just fine too if you don't care about any of the fancy extras."
- Game Informer (98/100): "Halo 3 does have a few small problems that are primarily located in the campaign. First off, full on boss battles are noticeably absent. Sure, you'll fight a few massive enemies, but none of them really feel like a true boss. And the last major fight is more like a quick interactive cutscene than a knock-down, drag-out fight ... Overall, Bungie has crafted another masterpiece that serves as a fitting end to the trilogy (no big cliffhanger here). Of course, not every mystery of the Halo universe is answered, but it does look like the next game is moving in a very interesting direction."
- GameSpot (95/100): "As games start to consider user-generated content, it's becoming clear that more and more games will be ready to give you back just as much as you're willing to put into them. On the surface, Halo 3 is every bit the sequel you would expect it to be, in that it delivers meaningful upgrades to both the story-driven and competitive sides of the package. However, it's the addition of the Forge level editor and the saved films that give the game an even longer set of legs, legs that will probably keep you running at full speed until Bungie figures out where, exactly, to go from here."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
RedJoggingSuit(MSDF-Battle Angel) @ Sep 24th 2007 12:18PM
In before the haters! Gamer 2.0 was a bit harsh no? An 8.8 really? They scored the Darkness higher.
NaeemTHM @ Sep 24th 2007 12:20PM
Halo 3 is offically the new Twilight Princess. Remember when Gamespot rated TP 8.8? The friggin internet exploded.
Well prepare for Armageddon.
In other news: Must get teh Haloz....
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Sep 24th 2007 12:25PM
I don't think so,is different when you get a 8.8 from Gamespot a site well known in the internet than a 8.8 by an unknown site I mean who the hell has ever heard of gamer 2.0?,is like getting an 8.8 from some shitty blog *cough kotaku *cough.
NaeemTHM @ Sep 24th 2007 12:32PM
Now that I think on it, you're absolutely right. They probably scored it so low just to garner some attention.
I mean if every other major gaming site rates Halo 3 above 9.5....it must be STELLAR. I can't wait.
After being spoiled rotten by Half-Life 2 and BioShock; it will be interesting to see how Halo stacks up.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:37PM
A review is a persons opinion. Maybe he's not fond of multiplayer. Or, like me, finds Bungie's level design bland. Could be a bunch of reasons, not just 'attention-grabbing'.
RedJoggingSuit(MSDF-Battle Angel) @ Sep 24th 2007 12:52PM
I actually went to their website to read the review. I fell for their plan.
Alex @ Sep 24th 2007 1:04PM
Not saying that Halo3 will probably be a great game, why are u people complaining people rating it lower than 9.0 or 90 points? have u played the game already to know? thats probably one of the easiest way to spot a 360 fanboy.
RedJoggingSuit(MSDF-Battle Angel) @ Sep 24th 2007 1:13PM
Hellooo I complain when everyone rates it above 9.0 or 90 and ONE place rates it lower than shitty games I have played. Respect
Grant @ Sep 24th 2007 1:31PM
i think the hype really hurt halo 3 in this aspect.
it couldn't live up to impossible hype, so reviewers penalized it for this.
I really think that this game deserves a 10 just for the fact that it has so much in it, is so complete, and really sets a benchmark for other games.
I think EGM has their rating scale correct where perfect is an 11.
No one will ever have a perfect game, but in a world where decent games typically receive in the 7.5-8.5 range, instead of the 5-6 they deserve, we need the best to receive 10s.
upz @ Sep 24th 2007 1:45PM
Sony told me that it's now Game 3.0. Ergo, Gamer 2.0's opinion is irrelevant.
brian586 @ Sep 24th 2007 3:00PM
Spinal tap moment: "Yeah, but ours go to 11."
Spartacus @ Sep 24th 2007 4:33PM
Gamer 2.0 has no scoring standard. They claim to score a game "based on its own merits" rather than comparing it with other games. Therefore a really crappy game can score higher than a universally and critically acclaimed game on their site for various reasons.
Point in case:
Overlord scored the same as Halo 3 in the sound category.
The Darkness scored better than Halo 3 in "value", which according to the editor of the site is replay value.
The site obviously needs a reality check...
blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 12:19PM
why were ppl mad at halo 2's ending? they didnt want a trilogy?
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:35PM
They were mad (and I wasn't too happy either) that it didn't have an ending. It was this big story and then suddenly "Oh shit buy the next game!" THE END.
Crono (NDF - French Taunting from Holy Grail Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 1:32PM
Seemed like a perfectly legitimate ending to me. Its what we like to call a "cliffhanger"
Seriously, were these same people pissed when The Two Towers ended, or when the Fellowship ended on a cliffhanger. OMG WATCH THE NEXT MOVIE.
wes luger @ Sep 24th 2007 1:59PM
Seemed like a perfectly legitimate ending to me. Its what we like to call a "cliffhanger"
Seriously, were these same people pissed when The Two Towers ended, or when the Fellowship ended on a cliffhanger. OMG WATCH THE NEXT MOVIE.
Totally different situation. We already knew the Complete LOTR story, so there was never really a cliffhanger there. ALso, no one knew how long it was going to be untill the conclusion. Can you think of another genuine cliffhanger that took three full years to resolve?
baby sea tuna @ Sep 24th 2007 2:09PM
The end of H2 is not nearly as irritating when you play it the second time around. Nor are the Arbiter levels.
Time heals all wounds.
Ska Oreo @ Sep 24th 2007 2:14PM
@crono
Exactly. Sci-fi stories do it all the time. I don't know Halo 2 got so much shit about it.
Almack64 (NOF - Ultrazord) @ Sep 24th 2007 3:00PM
Well I've been "cliffhanging" on some Shenmue for some years now and its starting to piss me off.
Crono (NDF - French Taunting from Holy Grail Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 4:26PM
wes luger:
There was a point, believe it or not, when people DIDN'T know there were 3 books, you know.
Cal @ Sep 24th 2007 7:31PM
Great you guys, you've got me reading the LOTR books again for some reason (screw The Hobbit). 1000 or so pages here I come.
Jeff @ Sep 24th 2007 12:20PM
Here's to Bungies next game.
My only problem with Halo would have to be the fact that its so blatantly owned by Microsoft. I'd like to see Bungie come out with another masterpiece, absolutely as they'd like to do it-- perhaps a game exclusively for the mac? =P
blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 12:22PM
how is it so blatantly owned? i don't remember seeing windows on the alien computers in halo 2
horngreen @ Sep 24th 2007 12:28PM
Developing a next gen game for the Mac and it's limited user base would be like developing a game for the PS3. Just a bad idea all around...ZING!
waves @ Sep 24th 2007 12:39PM
and yet that's exactly what Bungie used to do. They ported some of their games to Windows, and even did some simultaneous releases, but they were always a Mac focused shop... Until they were bought by Microsoft, that is.
I still play the original Halo online on the Mac fairly regularly. When Bungie was bought by Microsoft they promised their Mac fans that it would come out for the Mac at the same time as the Windows release. Of course both versions came out years after the Xbox game.
Snap @ Sep 24th 2007 12:50PM
Bungie Mac fans unite. I'm still bitter about seeing Halo on a B&W G3 at Macworld in 1999. I betcha most of these "fans" don't even know what the means.
Long live Bungie.net and Myth II.
CLack @ Sep 24th 2007 12:58PM
"I still play the original Halo online on the Mac fairly regularly. When Bungie was bought by Microsoft they promised their Mac fans that it would come out for the Mac at the same time as the Windows release. Of course both versions came out years after the Xbox game."
But of course, nobody cares about Halo 1 or 2 on PC or Mac cause we have real FPSs to choose from. Analog sticks ftl.
Marasai @ Sep 24th 2007 1:23PM
@ horngreen
Except that at least now, Macs are geting decent EA support.
Vidikron (FU) @ Sep 24th 2007 1:14PM
@CLack
"Real" FPS like what? Seriously, you PC-elitists are just plain stupid. In case you haven't noticed, most of the big PC FPS games do find their way to consoles too. Yet console gamers don't seem to be blown away by them any more than the FPS games that start out on consoles. If you prefer KB/M, that's cool, but there are a lot of us that game just fine with both KB/M and DA.
umm....hello??? @ Sep 24th 2007 12:28PM
blooh-
have you even PLAYED Halo2?? you definitely have the "ass ring" part down to your name...
blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 9:53PM
yeah, i played it a couple months ago
decent game, pretty mindless though
Zsavior @ Sep 24th 2007 12:31PM
I will tell you right now, I will trust any review but gamespot they are just violent obsessed graphics whores. Any game that doesn't have these two variants isn't worth of 9s to them. Gaming is nothing but graphics and how my death you can get out of it to them.
The rest I actually trust, Gamespot said, Twilight princess didn't deserve a 9 rating because it was a sequel, then proceeded to give Halo3 a 9.5. Same thing with Metroid prime corruption matter of fact I am pretty positive the guy who rated halo 3 did Metroid, this is game spot. Other than that I trust from Famitsu to Game informer that Halo 3 deserves the ratings they have gotten, but Gamespot can go to hell, Shadow of the Colossus 7.5 Grand Theft Auto 9s those guys are a joke.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:39PM
You know my mantra? Don't trust reviews. I read them to see what the game has to offer in terms of features and whatnot, then make my own decision on how good the game could be without caring about what the reviewer says or enjoys.
Squall @ Sep 24th 2007 3:54PM
shadow of the colossus got 8.7 on gamespot
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/wandaandthecolossus/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;summary
Mr Khan @ Sep 24th 2007 5:39PM
Reviews breed hate, more or less. Certainly out there are people saying "zomg, Halo 3 with high scores, what ignorant sheep the reviewers are!" and then there was all the furor from the "underrating" of TP
Reviews have lost their purpose, instead of being a guide for consumers, they are a place for a few select people to wax poetic about why "game x" rules or sucks
Farseer @ Sep 24th 2007 12:33PM
And flames shall rain down...
oldest gamer @ Sep 24th 2007 12:34PM
last gen visuals, last gen game play. Yup 360 users will suck it up. 4 player co-op is that all they can offer after a 3 year wait? Who cares about recording game play videos? Holly hyperbole.
bounchfx @ Sep 24th 2007 12:38PM
Ignorant much?
Lanturn of Ash @ Sep 24th 2007 12:41PM
Strange, because I could have sworn since the day I played the original Halo that I wanted a replay system more than anything.
Stupidiot @ Sep 24th 2007 12:41PM
Care to point out to me any games on the PS3 or Wii with the next gen gameplay and visuals you crave so much? Idiot...
CLack @ Sep 24th 2007 1:05PM
"Care to point out to me any games on the PS3 or Wii with the next gen gameplay and visuals you crave so much? Idiot..."
I'd call MP3 "next gen gameplay". Actually I'd call it "first gen of console FPS gameplay that doesn't blow goats".
Knight Marquise @ Sep 24th 2007 1:16PM
Must be nice being an ignorant tool for Sony.
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Sep 24th 2007 2:50PM
Trolltastic as he is, he's kind of not wrong, though. Isn't the main game only about 10 hours, I recall reading? For a game that had a 3 year wait, a 10ish hour game and a few silly other features is pretty skimpy, if you ask me.
I can't help but think that given how long it was in development, maybe people SHOULD be expecting a wee bit more.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:34PM
Okay I don't know about how great this game is, personally I don't like console FPSs. But I am a reviewer, and I do know about that. And I know a game should never, ever, ever score a perfect 100. Even 99 is a little suspect. Because that means that every gamer in the world is going to pick it up and think "Well shit, this is damn perfect, there is not a single thing wrong at all with this game!" I've seen the 100 for reviews of Gears of War and Guitar Hero II, and I feel like a site loses credibility when they do that.
Incidentally, I thought GHII was a damn fantastic game, but even I knew that it wasn't a 100.
Forsakyn @ Sep 24th 2007 12:40PM
I disagree; what's the point of having 100 as the maximum rating if no game can ever achieve it? When a game is exceptionally well-done there's no reason it can't earn a 100. I'm certainly not saying Halo 3 is that game, although I'm sure it deserves to be in the 90s.
Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Sep 24th 2007 12:44PM
A few games have a 100 perfect score.
Ocarina of Time is an example.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:46PM
It's not that no game should achieve it, perhaps I shouldn't have used the 'never ever etc'. It's that a 100 implies that the game is perfect. Unbelievably so. That there isn't a single thing wrong with any aspect, at all, of the entire game. And considering a bunch of people (Halo fans, in the 'pre-review' article) have stated that the game is, in fact, not perfect, a 100 score feels like malarky.
Okay, for example, in the GamePro review:"Where it falters in the visual department, however, is in the clay-like, low-res character models and flat geometry."
Right there, that's an imperfection. Now graphics shouldn't be a defining portion of a game's score, but that implies imperfection, and therefore not a 100 score. Or "a few level-design quirks with some of the later levels in the game" Etc etc. I think you get the point.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:46PM
It's not that no game should achieve it, perhaps I shouldn't have used the 'never ever etc'. It's that a 100 implies that the game is perfect. Unbelievably so. That there isn't a single thing wrong with any aspect, at all, of the entire game. And considering a bunch of people (Halo fans, in the 'pre-review' article) have stated that the game is, in fact, not perfect, a 100 score feels like malarky.
Okay, for example, in the GamePro review:"Where it falters in the visual department, however, is in the clay-like, low-res character models and flat geometry."
Right there, that's an imperfection. Now graphics shouldn't be a defining portion of a game's score, but that implies imperfection, and therefore not a 100 score. Or "a few level-design quirks with some of the later levels in the game" Etc etc. I think you get the point.
Geist @ Sep 24th 2007 12:48PM
Curse double post! Also, I'm not trying to make it sound like I only feel this way about the Halo 3 scores, just perfect scores in general.
MooseMuffin @ Sep 24th 2007 12:57PM
You're reading too much into it. Gamepro and gamespy and others rate on a scale of 1-5. Its metacritic that converts these into 100s. I would agree that rating something 100/100 implies perfection, but rating 5/5 seems less so. I read my 1 to 5 scale as [awful, bad, ok, good, great] and theres nothing wrong with rating games as great.