MikeB said:
@ Squilliam
I think Halo 3 was overhyped by the media. It's not the best FPS by far, the story campaign is short and repetivie, so XBox 360 fans better pay for online in addition, but even its online doesn't provide much new, nothing like the fresh air Resistance 2 or Warhawk provided. Technically I thought this game would set a standard for 360 gaming as the platform's most anticipated 1st party exclusive. The game instead underlined the bottlenecks with 640p graphics rendering and no AA at all (which was hyped to be "free" at a time).
IMO this game also underlines why metacritic sadly isn't that useful, there are a lot of biased media out there which affect the score averages. For example Gamespot's main criticism with regard to Ratchet & Clank: Future was that the game is similar to previous popular games in the series (despite the huge upgrade and there are many new gamplay aspects in this game), yet they didn't do this with regard to Halo 3 in comparison to Halo 2 and gave the game an amazing 9.5.
|
For a tech-head you've got to be impressed with the HDR lighting and physics they were able to pull off with the game, which many consider the best for a console game thus far.
For many it's a game that offers the best replayability because of it's great online community. It's a game that just ceases to stop being fun, it always makes for a good night playing with friends, which is pretty rare to find with a lot of games. I think it warrants the 'amazing' score it received based upon that fact alone and doesn't reflect biased media - is Ratchet & Clank a game that you play as often as Halo?
EDIT: I think the best measure of a game's success/greatness is by how long and how often it is played for and this game would then deserve an even higher score.
