By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Official Halo 3 review thread

Lost tears of Kain on 23 September 2007
leo-j said:
I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks.

Not story wise, graphic and newer gameplay (halo is a sequal so HS seemed much more "newer") makes it a more likely choice for single player campaign over halo, story wise halo wins, but with multiplayer and co op, replay videos and the forge, it blows HS out of the water



                 With regard to Call of Duty 4 having an ultra short single player campaign, I guess it may well have been due to the size limitations of DVD on the XBox 360, one of various limitations multi-platform game designers will have to take into consideration-Mike B   

Proud supporter of all 3 console companys

Proud owner of 360wii and DS/psp              

Game trailers-Halo 3 only dissapointed the people who wanted to be dissapointed.

Bet with Harvey Birdman that Lost Odyssey will sell more then Blue dragon did.
Around the Network
naznatips on 23 September 2007
GranTurismo said:
@naznatips, you bash sites like gamespot for giving MP3 an 8.5. What do you expect the game is nothing on Halo3, halo is by far the best thing on a console. A great story mode, and 4player co-op online, and 11 mp maps and the ability to make more and play them online. MP3 has nothing on Halo3 and the reviews should show that.

Please don't judge games you haven't played.  Ignorance does not become you.  MP3 is not a shooter, and shouldn't be compared to Halo directly.  As an adventure game though it's top of it's class.  Reviews should reflect that.  Halo's reviews should show it as top of shooters, but if you are going to take off points for games being too much like their predecessors once, then you need to be consistent.  I'm not really sure why I'm responding to your post though, because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  At least I played the previous Halo games and admit they are great.  You are just hating on anything Nintendo related regardless of the fact that you have never played it.



leo-j on 23 September 2007
Lost tears of Kain said:
leo-j said:
I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks.

Not story wise, graphic and newer gameplay (halo is a sequal so HS seemed much more "newer") makes it a more likely choice for single player campaign over halo, story wise halo wins, but with multiplayer and co op, replay videos and the forge, it blows HS out of the water


I dont know about story(the covenant?) everything else I would agree on.



 

mM
Erik Aston on 23 September 2007
NeoRatt said:

I completely agree.  If there is any negative comment or the slightest hint of something that should be done better in a game it should not get a 100/100... 

On the other side though there are many sites that only rank out of 5 or 10... And will only do .5's on those numbers.  So there will also be a lot of 9's that maybe should have been 9.3's or 9.7's... 

It all averages out and that's why I rely more on metacritic and gamerankings then each individual review.  I only look at reviews for the details on why and I use the metacritic and gamerankings for the "average" scores which are much more realistic.


Heh... I disagree on all three points.

First of all, every game will have "the slightest hint" of a flaw. It should be pointed out, and then mentioned that it doesn't hurt the experience. That doesn't seem to be the case with some of these Halo reviews, though.

Second... I hate the 100 scale. Reviewing on a 5, 10 or 20 scale is bound to be more consistent than doing it on a 100 scale. There really is no difference between a game ranked 2.7 and one ranked 3.3. Give them both 3.

Lastly, I think meta and GR end up showing a greater genre-bias than an individual site might, because they're averaging in the vast amount of genre-bias reviews. Brain Age is a groundbreaking title, and the cream of the crop for games of it's type. It got a 77, it's sequel a 78 on meta. Metroid Prime Hunters, considered a somewhat awkward game, not groundbreaking at all, which maybe would have been better left on a home system, got an 85.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.

naznatips on 23 September 2007
leo-j said:
Lost tears of Kain said:
leo-j said:
I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks.

Not story wise, graphic and newer gameplay (halo is a sequal so HS seemed much more "newer") makes it a more likely choice for single player campaign over halo, story wise halo wins, but with multiplayer and co op, replay videos and the forge, it blows HS out of the water


I dont know about story(the covenant?) everything else I would agree on.


Halo has a very good story (and even better music).  I don't think Halo and HS should be compared directly though because they are a different type of game.  Just like MP3 and Halo shouldn't be compared directly.  Games should be reviewed for their quality and value within their genre.  Comparing a game with multiplayer to one that's single player only isn't really fair because of course the multiplayer one will have more value.  HS should be compared to other hack and slashes like God of War.



Around the Network
craighopkins on 23 September 2007

I like this review.

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=46189&mode=thread&order=0



rocketpig on 23 September 2007
leo-j said:
I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks.

Since when is 8 an average game? 8, according to GameRankings, is a "B" game. That's definitely not average.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

albionus on 23 September 2007
shams said:
Probably end up somewhere between Bioshock and Metroid 3.

Disappointed to read reviews that say "...its a flawed game..." 100/100. (wtf??)

I think the IGN score (yet again) is probably the most accurate - game will end up around the 95% mark.

As usual I agree. I also agree with Naznatips, what ever happened to docking 1/2-1 point from a game for being similar to previous installments that many of these sites used to hit MP3? Yeah as I knew at the time that's a selective rule. Anyhow, as expected it's a great but not perfect game and if I had a 360 I would most definitely pick it up.

a.l.e.x59 on 23 September 2007

This one link means more than every other review mentioned above:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926632.asp

There! That is your final answer! 96.3%! Was that so hard? Just go to Game Rankings, and make life easier. Anyways, well done Microsoft! I know what I'm buying soon! Wow, this beat Super Mario 64... I wonder if The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, will ever be defeated... And it also beat Bioshock. Now the Xbox 360 has Gears of War, Bioshock, and Halo 3. Man, Xbox 360 is going to have a major sales boost, very, very soon, if not already!



leo-j on 23 September 2007
rocketpig said:
leo-j said:
I see so basicly heavenly sword (an 8 average game) has a better story than Halo 3. But was shot down because it didnt have multiplayer. Well that sucks.

Since when is 8 an average game? 8, according to GameRankings, is a "B" game. That's definitely not average.


What are you talking about? The average review is 8.1 http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928391.asp

 

mM