Rubang, I have to ask...why should Galaxy be ahead of Halo 3? All Galaxy really has is a lame story mode in which the 2nd player can grab a couple star bits. Yawn. Halo 3 has a full fledged online system with thousands upon thousands of players. I might agree with your other choices (wouldn't know, haven't played them for more than a couple minutes) but Galaxy would just be a huge crock. And the occasional waggle controls didn't add enough to the game to make it feel like I was really interacting with it.

By the way, what is "interactive innovation" really supposed to mean? The description I read sounds like a bunch of buzz words stitched together. I've played 3 of the games they described (Halo 3, Galaxy, GTA4) and Halo 3 was the only one that kept me coming back for more. Super Mario Galaxy may be a great game, but I quit after 100 stars (that's just me so don't get offended). Grand Theft Auto 4 had a great story mode but the online was completely laughable. Halo 3 was the only one that kept me coming back over and over just because of how great the online is. I don't know about Rock Band and Portal, but I remember reading quite a few times that Wii Fit buyers were already quitting on their product, which is sort of predictable and I don't actually blame Wii Fit for it.

Well that's why you think it's innovative.  It was your first Halo.  For millions of others it was their THIRD Halo, and thus, "more of the same," henceforth "not innovative."

Galaxy revolutionized and raised the bar for platforming.

Wii Fit revolutionized and raised the bar for exergaming, and added a great new input method for future control schemes.

Portal basically invented the First Person Puzzle genre, and added great new physics tricks, and is the only thing I've ever seen (including films) that effectively mixed horror and comedy without being stupid.

Halo 3 added some online stuff?  Lolwat?

I think they were referring to the forge and theatre modes.

Galaxy's gimped 2 player mode was a welcome touch, so a girlfriend or mom or kid or somebody could hop in at any time and just kinda help out as a sidekick.

And the multiple sources of gravity and overall level design were better than any platformer or FPS in years.

although galaxy is one of the best games i've played this year, i don't think it really revolutionized anything. it just stuck to the same working formula but added the ability to point at star bits and waggle the controller to spin. the reason why it worked so well for me was because it was pure classic mario.

wii fit didn't revultionize anything either in my opinion. it's a great addition, but nothing revolutionary. it won't set a trend or a standard, it's an extra input method, that would probably only last for this gen, in my opinion of course.

and if you actually played halo 3 online, you would know why everyone says it's so good. the campaign is crap, but the multiplayer is one of the best online experiences out there.

I have since then downloaded the original halo on live.

I found it hard to get into having experienced 3.

On topic I am not saying the games you mentioned are not as good.

after all every gamer is different.

but imo halo 3 was a brilliant game and deserves the award.

Only a noob would need some crony to get star bits for them. Both nevermind that. Honestly, I looked back at my post and I realized that the whole thing was pointless, since I still don't know what "interactive innovation" even means. Supposedly Halo 3 gets it for the great multiplayer experience, but did it really make you feel as though you were interacting with the things in the game? It's a bit confusing.

I still don't consider streamlining an online experience an innovation. Seems like the boring natural progression of online FPS gaming that we've always had.

And I've played online PC games before, so any "innovation" in online console gaming is a joke. Giving the award based on online stuff seems pretty disingenuous.

Have you played Halo 3 at all?

HELL NO.