| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (191)

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 12:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If Joystiq looks hard enough they would be able to do a nega review of RE4, which is widely lauded as perfect.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 1:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a big Halo fan, but I can't help but agree to most of these points. I play Halo mainly for the campaign and I was so looking forward to the 4 player co-op. This is not to say I didn't enjoy the Halo 3 online co-op, but a lot of the levels were "go here, now come back, now go back again." There are a bunch of new weapons that we don't get to use until hours into the game, so the gameplay gets boring with using the Brute Spiker and BR all the time. Negative reviews don't always equal a bad game though.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 2:16PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Welcome to FPS.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 1:05PM DanielSW said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This was a great idea, and I really thank you for doing it. I typically read through the reviews of massively-hyped, reviewed-as-awesome games looking for the nuggets of bad news in there. Not because I'm looking for some fire to bring to a flame way, but because I'm looking to see if it's really as good as the review scores would make it seem.

It's really easy to give something a 9 or a 10 in this day and age, but a lot of times in the review, they'll admit things are wrong with the game, and those "minor insignificants" to the reviewer could mean "broken game" to me. Let's check out some examples.

I'm not a graphics over gameplay kind of guy. So the fact that the water technology sucks, and the faces look bleek doesn't concern me. But the back-and-forth progress does. This isn't Mario Kart; going the opposite way down the same path doesn't present a challenge, just aggrevation. Plus I like comedy in my games, so the lack or Cortana will effect me.

These are the kinds of things you can take out of a nega-review. With reveiw scores like these for Halo 3, you expect the game to be flawless; this is just a nice reminder that "nothing's perfect".

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 1:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A lot of people who complain about a game getting 10/10 or 5/5 really should look at the review guidlines for those sites. Most clearly stated that a perfect score does not mean a game is without flaws. What it does mean is that the game is at such a high level that it flaws do not take away from the total experience. Maybe there should be another point added to a scale which signify complete excellence where there are no flaws in a game. I am no game would ever obtain this mark but it would make the haters happy.

If this nega review is done for any other game it would be the same result. Like RE4, Mario, Zelda, MGS, FF, Half Life, Bioshock, GTA, you name it. All of the games I mentioned have flaws but do we need a negareview to list them all at once without the context they were said and how they effect the game.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 1:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
WOW, joystiq got:

"The campaign ... is Halo 3's weakest point. It doesn't capture the cavalier spirit of the original Halo."

from IGN's

"The campaign, which is very good, is Halo 3's weakest point. It doesn't capture the cavalier spirit of the original Halo, but you'll still have fun playing through it."


context much?

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 1:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't get what I am supposed to do with this review...

So you've cut-and-pasted all the negative sentences from major news sites. OH LOOK the review looks all negative.

...

Is this supposed to be valuable info that could save me money, or is it just one big Hater exercise? If I posted a collage of positive statements, wouldn't I be a fanboy? (Or a PR plant?)

Why do haters and trolls win the Internets :-P

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 2:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What amazes me is that the hype machine really worked, even after mentioning the flaws some reviewers still gave the game a perfect score while they are not as forgiving with some less hyped games, maybe it's fear of the rabid fanbase, maybe it's the multiplayer side that blinds them to the flaws but in all reality I rather play GoW's single player and Halo 3 will only work as a multiplayer game for me.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 2:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love this idea. Keep doing it.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 2:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe the flaws took away nothing from the total experience of the game. Are you trying to say every game that has received perfect scores were without flaws. Are you trying to say that every game that received perfect scores was hyped first and the reviewers were scared of the fans. Why don't you do this, for ever review site that gave Halo 3 a perfect score, why don't you actually read their review guide to see what it takes to get a perfect score. You will find out that it has nothing to do with perfection but instead total experience.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 2:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the best part about this is, that from all of the bad stuff joystiq quoted from the 1up review like "anyone would be hard pressed to call it mind-blowing" and "The big 'Oh wow!' gameplay moments just aren't there" among others, 1up still gave halo 3 a 10/10

way to fear the fanboys and cave in to the hype 1up.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 3:25PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If Halo multiplayer is what saves the game, it shouldn't be put up at anything over a 7.5. While I admit that Halo does have some solid multiplayer, it isn't anything more than what PC gamers have come to expect as a bare minimum. If Halo 3 players aren't too busy drooling over ancient gameplay, they will be saying "Halo what?" when Orange Box, which includes the masterpiece Team Fortress 2, releases.

Halo 3 getting high 9's on the back of its multiplayer goes to show you the sorry state of the console shooter multiplayer experience. Like Halo 2, if Halo 3 ever comes to PC, it wouldn't warrant anything more than mid-7's.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 3:31PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
blah blah blah blah, I'm an elitist pc bitch and I have nothing better to do then remind everyone that Hl2 is better than Halo.

God you guys sound the same. And the fact is, nobody really gives a shit. Halo is still an enjoyable game regardless of whether Half-life is better than it or not.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:19PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hard to be elitist when Orange Box is coming to Xbox 360 at the same time. It is, therefore, a console game. A superior one at that.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:30PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And yet you still do the common pc elitist bullshit by claiming that in some way, pc shooters are better than Halo. Which is why I'm calling you a pc elitist. And like I said, nobody gives a fuck.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:35PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, it has nothing to do with it being PC in origin. It is superior because it does more than offer up basic capture the flag and deathmatch modes. Team Fortress 2 does it with a style that Halo doesn't have. TF2 offers up advanced teamwork concepts that involves more than basic tacical positioning, it offers up 9 different options in which to play the game. It places new emphasis on base defense and support personnel that are absent in Halo. Simply put, TF2 is deeper, more varied and more accessible to a larger audience by offering up roles to play that don't involve pure twitch reactions. Halo cannot say it has that.

And if I wished to be elitist about it, I would not be using TF2 as an example, but the upcoming game Frontlines: Fuel of War, which does everything TF2 does but on an even larger scale and offers up a new gameplay mechanic that keeps the action moving. However, I cannot do a comparison as it isn't coming to a console (as far as I know anyway).
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 5:00PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I also do find this comical. Remember, Halo was a PC game before making the quick port to the Xbox. I can't be elitist when saying one PC game is better than another.

Had Halo 3 used the original Halo design document, I wouldn't even be saying this. Halo's early in-game demonstrations showed a large world with squad tactics, utilizing transports and vehicles to battle the opponents. One side took the Covenant, the other the humans. The rush to launch Halo on the Xbox eliminated that. That online portion of Halo already existed, it was simply scrapped to get Halo launching with the Xbox. If anything, I'm irritated Bungie took the easy way out on this.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Look, I enjoy playing PC shooters and building a computer, and going to LAN parties as much as the next guy, but seriously, shut the hell up. You're a PC snob, deal with it. Do I enjoy Halo? Yes. Would I like it more if it were on the PC? Yes. Does the fact that it's on a console make it any worse of a game? No. So please, enjoy a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/gallery/silly/big_cup_of_STFU.jpg

Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 3:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Needs some sort of incipit, like: "Negareview shows you this would the best game of the world if only...". Halo 3 surely is not a wreck, it's actually a better sequel to H1 than H2 ever was and let's not forget that the multiplayer is the 360's version of CS, but the constant denial of over-praising reviews over its flaws has to be countered if we don't want to become all Bungie's PRs.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 3:52PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*ska is clearly annoyed*

you know, you'd think it would be common sense to think that all of these reviews are genuine, because you know all people have opinions (including game reviewers) and sometimes they differ from others. And you'd also think it would be common sense for people to realize that just because a reviewer says something, doesn't mean gamers have to agree. But no. Thanks to the stupidity brought on by the shitty console wars and stupid fanboy bitching, it's apparently much easier to call someone bias when they don't agree with you.

There is no such thing as a right review or a wrong review. Why? Because it's called an opinion. Sure most reviews list shit that are objective, but ultimately whether certain problems prove to damper the game experience ultimately is based on the reviewers opinion. Also another thing that people seem to be incapable of understanding is that just because you don't agree with a review does not mean they are wrong/or bias. It just simply means that you have different tastes. I mean you'd think that most people would understand this. I guess not.

Also to any poster here who claims that these reviewers have a hidden agenda, please do me one simple favor and please provide proof. If not, it just proves that you're full of shit and need to shut the fuck up.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 3:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
those complaints seem 90% valid.

9/10 for halo 3 sounds fair.

what's to argue?

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:00PM Triforceowner said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Joystiq was going to do one for Lair, but it was so long it crashed the server when they attempted to upload it, oh! Just kidding.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:23PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also, how the fuck can anyone take this nega-review seriously. The author is right now laughing at everyone while they have a pissing match in this thread. Seriously did any of you even bothered to read the articles? While I commend the few that actually realized what this nega-review really is, it seems that most of you fell into the trap that Joystiq set for you.

Let me explain: All of these supposed negative comments are taking way out of context and some of them aren't even real problems at all.

For example: By itself, IGN saying "But just like that girl you dated in college, Halo 3 has some issues."
seems pretty terrible, yet when you actually read the whole thing, "But just like that girl you dated in college, Halo 3 has some issues. Don't' worry; the good far outweighs the bad. This is Halo 3, and it is indeed the game you've been waiting for the past three years." Sounds better right?

Another example comes from the 1up review. "The studio promised a more straightforward narrative in Halo 3 ... but it certainly won't be drawing in any new fans to the series".
By its self, it seems pretty fucking bad, yet if you finish the sentence, "there's hardly any setup, recapping, or reminders of who the cast is." Now yeah that might still sound pretty bad, but keep in mind that many games do this (especially rpgs where they barely give you a recap on what happened in the last game) and that this being the fucking third game, you should have played the first or second game.

If you read each and every review you'll find that all of these comments aren't really big problems that take away from the experience, which is why all these developers still gave this game high scores.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:25PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And joystiq even stated that the quotes were purposely stated out of context. Goddammit people.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:35PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
and I meant reviewers. For some reason I was thinking developers.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 4:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
talk about taking it too seriously, you're awfully quick to defend it to the death
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 5:10PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
how am I taking it seriously? There are people here who think that this is a real review and that they don't understand why the game got a 10 or a 9. I'm just pointing out to those that don't get it is that this is obviously meant as a joke to piss people off.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 5:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know if a Nega review is a good concept as you really can't just focus on the negative of a game as there are positive and negative things in all things without it becoming just pure flame bait.

I personally think the game turned out pretty good and shouldn't be a total disappointment for Halo fans. I always look at the broad spectrum of reviews because there are some reviews that may not be accurate but I think as a whole all together they are generally fair. I dont think its fair to the review sites to say they are all biased.

If you went in expecting Halo 3 to look like Gears of War though you will be disappointed. Now as far as models and Bump mappings are concerned many of the things seem to be of the same level of detail as GoW but they are stylised very differently. Lets face it, it is easier to make a gray grizzly world look more realistic than one that has a bit more color like Halo. I think much of the complaints people have with the graphics are really due to them keeping the same basic look and feel of the original game and as a trilogy I think that is wise they did(AKA why would the existing enemy vehicles/characters be totally different and the architecure for that matter). Could you imagine if Nintendo tried to make make there next Mario game ala GoW a harsher meaner Mario with a chainsaw, Mario has to be Mario is all im saying.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 5:27PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
totally agreed.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 5:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It Must be about the time of the month joystiq needs to court new advertisers. So they post one of their trolling posts, so they can say: "Look at our traffic! Your penis enlargement pills will fly off the shelves if you advertise them here!!!"

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 6:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
VOTE UP!

Seriously Joystiq its just embrassing on your part and it screams desperation.

If you can't or refuse to see how offensive and dumb this article is then I pity you.

Its kinda like that whole, "Wii is destroying gaming" article you put out a few weeks ago.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 7:07PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Wii doesn't have the longevity to destroy gaming.
Reply

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 7:45PM SoCoolCurt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i like this idea Joystiq. hope they do this for all major hype games in the future. that means Killzone 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy XIII, Gran Turismo 5, etc, etc.

i can honestly say that i hate reviewers that are so caught up in the hype of a game that they inflate scores. i dont buy games based solely on review scores but they do help me decide if i want to rent a game before i buy it or not. im a poor college student for gods sake! i take a firm stand against paying $50-$60 for sucky games!

thank you again Joystiq!

(slowly wipes smelly brown substance off of nose...)

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 8:01PM pimpzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All of these comments relate to the campaign, which, while extremely fun, is not the reason 90% of the people who love Halo do so. Halo is all about online multiplayer. Writing a Halo review and complaining about the campaign is like writing a review of porn and focusing on the implausibility of the storyline.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 8:08PM Mike Knew said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm surprised that most people seem to agree with most of the complaints in from what I read in the comments.

Posted: Sep 26th 2007 8:55PM DohHefe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have major issues with Halo 3. First is that it is day two and I have not been able to connect to one online game. It will enter matchmaking and then sign me off of XBL. They should kick off all of the free best buy players until it gets better.

I agree with all of the nega comments that are above. My biggest problem is that there are all of the new powerups but they really don't affect the game too much. The game should have made them more vital to survival. Also why cant the chief dual wield a needler anymore? Did that fall hurt his hand? I hate all of the backtracking. The interiors as with all Halo games are confusing and easy to get lost in. Where are the boss battles? I really liked the big tank, but then to see it again a few missions later was boring. I did like the brute circle battle part. but it would have been nice to have some more "boss" battles besides the stupid monitor one. But after the awesome combat in Gears, Halo needs something fresh and this game did not have it.

Posted: Sep 27th 2007 3:11AM velocitystrike said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is fantastic...I love that it's not explained 'til the end too. Makes a good read :)

Posted: Sep 30th 2007 10:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty cool idea, Joystiq, it's good to be reminded that no game is perfect. May I suggest going BACKWARDS and nega-reviewing some fan favorites? Start with Final Fantasy VII, then move on to Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Grand Theft Auto, and Knights of the Old Republic. Seriously, I'd read 'em!

On a side note, I still think Halo 3 is awesome. Certainly the best in the series, and the 7th level is one of the best levels--nay, one of the best THINGS ever put into a game, IMHO. It's definitely one of my favorite games, and I'll certainly be playing it for months to come. This year's Shooter of the Year awards will no doubt be divisive, though (heck, even I can't decide between Bioshock or Halo 3). I think Shagittarius said it best: Halo 3's a better shooter, but Bioshock's a better game.

Posted: Oct 15th 2007 3:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Interesting Review.
I typed into google 'honest review for halo 3' and this is what came up. And in my mind it is exactly that, honest.

Halo 3 is good, no doubt about it, it has all those qualities and a few more that made us love Halo and Halo 2. However it doesn't have that element of surprise. As said earlier it is all about the gun and run. A little duck and cover (gears of war-esque) would have been good.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 7:39PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I fuging hate the halo series. Not because they are bad games. Just because they are hyped. Thats the exact reason I hate WoW.

I'm sure the the gameplay is just fine. but I refuse to jump on the hype bandwagon.

Not to mention, all of the things that people say are groundbreaking in halo 2/3 have already been done for over a nearly a decade on previous PC titles.

It may be ground brekaing for the xbox or consoles in general. However, if you generalize to gaming, the game turns out to be pretty standard.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 7:42PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shoulda proof read. Lemme fix some problems.

I fuging hate the halo series. Not because they are bad games. Just because they are hyped. Thats the exact reason I hate WoW.

I'm sure that the gameplay is just fine. However, I refuse to jump on the hype bandwagon.

Not to mention, all of the things that people say are groundbreaking in halo 2/3 have already been done for nearly a decade on previous PC titles.

It may be ground brekaing for the xbox or consoles in general. However, if you generalize to gaming, the game turns out to be pretty standard.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW