ChronotriggerJM said: @Rocket, I'm usually pretty good when it comes to FPS's, my friend and I have this tendancy to RAPE a game for its value :P We spent a good 20 minutes beating a stuffed bear from one end of the map to the other in Bioshock, we have a very good sense of what we expect as far as detail is concerned in an FPS and I'm usually pretty good at the games ^^ it's not that I sucked at Halo, in fact quite the opposite, I found it pretty easy, but again like I said it was just the glitches and certain areas of horrid low quality that really drag me down :/ I've read a ton of reviews on it, and I was just so into the hype that the actual game kinda pushed me away :(

Ah, okay, my mistake. It just seemed like most of the complaints you had were really odd because I can't recall most of them ever happening to me in Halo. I do agree that the collision system is a little wonky but not to the extent you were talking about.

Last appeal only a 9.4? its the most lasting game ive ever seen, except mmorpgs like WoW and few get time put into it like halo does.

Graphics i can more or less agree on, the faces are sad, but the lighting is gorgous

sound, more or less agree on

gameplay so low? Very VERY few games have this lvl of fun in its gameplay, and i know its nothing that great and new, but what FPS actually do that? Seriously why would Halo change its gameplay so much, when it was so danm fun and perfect, why screw it up?

Game deserves at least a 9, its by far the best game to purchase with 60 bucks, very VERY few games give so much replay, let alone so much fun, cant agree with this review

Lost tears of Kain - Don't you think it's a little early to be calling it a "lasting game?" Not trying to troll, just seriously asking. I mean, Starcraft, now that is a lasting game, but I think a week after launch is too soon to jump to such conclusions.

Also, it's not much different from Halo 2 IMO, so I can see it wearing out it's welcome sooner, so to speak.

Lost tears of Kain said: Last appeal only a 9.4? its the most lasting game ive ever seen, except mmorpgs like WoW and few get time put into it like halo does. Graphics i can more or less agree on, the faces are sad, but the lighting is gorgous sound, more or less agree on gameplay so low? Very VERY few games have this lvl of fun in its gameplay, and i know its nothing that great and new, but what FPS actually do that? Seriously why would Halo change its gameplay so much, when it was so danm fun and perfect, why screw it up? Game deserves at least a 9, its by far the best game to purchase with 60 bucks, very VERY few games give so much replay, let alone so much fun, cant agree with this review

When I try to give a score to a game I try to think of a game that might get a 10 and another that would get something close to a 1 in that particular catagory.  With lasting appeal, I do think of something like an MMORPG as a 10.  To me, Halo 3 ranks slightly below that because those people wanting single player won't have much and the multiplayer just does rank slightly below an MMORPG in my honest opinion.  Only a 9.4 is an incredible score and anyone should be happy with anything over a 9.

As for the gameplay, the laziness just seriously bothered me (wonderful exteriors boring interiors and overall bad layout, pacing, and flow) and the basic level design was just bad in the single player.  The multiplayer level design is pretty good, but they are all also very simple symmetrical maps (the ones I've played at least).  They are nice but not anything at all special.  Anything that breaks a 9 needs to be special and Halo 3's mutliplayer maps can't do that and they especially can't do that with the campaign maps dragging them down.  

The gameplay is good but I do want change.  Gamers constantly complain that EA doesn't change their sports games rather than keep it the same, why should Halo be the exception?  Bungie went nice and safe with their gameplay so they get a nice and safe 8.2 for their gameplay (which is still a very good score). 

little to early no, its like saying the new starcraft will not last, its alot like its predcessor, and it was played for billions of hours

Then thats saying every single game, even WoW expansions will soon get boring, and will not have a lasting appeal?

What games are completely different from its predcessor?
People are saying OMG SMG is gonna get GOTY! Yet like this review says, unless its something completely different its not that great.

Lost tears of Kain said: little to early no, its like saying the new starcraft will not last, its alot like its predcessor, and it was played for billions of hours Then thats saying every single game, even WoW expansions will soon get boring, and will not have a lasting appeal? What games are completely different from its predcessor? People are saying OMG SMG is gonna get GOTY! Yet like this review says, unless its something completely different its not that great.

I'm not sure where you got WoW was boring (I personally think that but that's beside the point :P) but to me, it seems like the best way to rate a game is to compare it to other great games. As for expansions, those don't have to be too different since they are just doing things like adding troops, maps, whatever.

And games don't have to be entirely different from their predecessors to be good. Halo 3 may be a reskinned Halo 2 (which was a reskinned Halo) but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. Halo 3 is a very good game and if you like Halo 2 you're going to like this game. I'm really not sure where you get the idea that if something is like the previous game it's automatically bad. I do say that if you just keep the same exact gameplay as the previous game you're not going to get nearly as high marks for it as if it were new.

Think of Gears of War. When it came out it had an awesome cover system that brought about a whole new way of playing that people just loved. That cover system earned Gears of War very high marks because it was just so good. Lets say Gears of War 2 came out tomorrow and had the same cover system. It would of course still be good but would it be as special? Even if they only made minor improvements to it, it's still something that had been done before and just wasn't as special. To me, anything 9+ needs to be special.

-edit-
I had some SMG galaxy comments but I really don't feel like derailing my own thread.  If you make another thread I might comment if I see it but going to leave it alone in this thread.

To some, just like SMG is, halo is special, its a game i will enjoy BIG time, its fun, and its awsome. It comes down to matter of opinion, alot of games you guys rate high, i wouldnt, and vice vers


The comment about SMG is that im comparing it how 360 fans hype halo, its going to be a great game, but is it going to be game of the year? Maybe, but only if it does something amazing, but from what ive seen its been a improvement and made better from its predecessor. Im only comparing them, because people love SMG and consider it game of the year, and its how halo is to 360 owners. I cant believe that wii owners say that Halo is not that great, yet SMG rocks everyones world.
They are alot alike, SMG like halo, will most likely be a fantastic game, that isnt something completely new, but improves on what the predessor did, which in my mind makes it just as good of game. Yet to them since halo did nothing new its not that great, what about SMG its almost the same in my mind.

I'm a tad late, but bravo twesterm. Not only was it a well written review, but it gave it a just score. I was quite irrate after seeing X-play's review (which was a fanboy "pleasuring" session, pardon my French) and I'm glad someone gave it a fair review. You said what I though. The game is amazingly fun, but it's just the same stuff we've seen before. So that you very much.

Also, for some criticisms, your second paragraph in the "Lasting Appeal " was too much like the first.

LtoK, no one can rate SMG. It's not out yet. However, if you are trying to use it as an example of a great game that doesn't change anything from it's predecessors you probably should look elsewhere. By adding varrying degrees of gravity on every part of the game SMG has completely changed the core platforming gameplay. What defines a platformer is consistent abilities used in perfect timing. SMG is shaking taking that and bitchslapping it. As I have said many times, Halo 3 is very fun. What has it changed in the shooter genre though?

naznatips said: LtoK, no one can rate SMG. It's not out yet. However, if you are trying to use it as an example of a great game that doesn't change anything from it's predecessors you probably should look elsewhere. By adding varrying degrees of gravity on every part of the game SMG has completely changed the core platforming gameplay. What defines a platformer is consistent abilities used in perfect timing. SMG is shaking taking that and bitchslapping it. As I have said many times, Halo 3 is very fun. What has it changed in the shooter genre though?

again it seems its just polishing and adding things to the original 64 game. It still is the same old game, but adding gravity, thats no different then adding guns that have never been seen before, or such a unique theater as well. It still comes down to the fact that both are the same game, should they be dealt a bigger blow because they are not completely new, and thats what im saying. The answer in my mind is of course no Both SMG and Halo in my mind are GOTY material, yet ive seen people say "well its to much like halo 2" same could be said of SMG, so should it be dealt the same consequences. It will most likely not on this site because of the huge pro nintendo on this site. Both are good games, and neither should be dealt a blow in their review score because they are not completely new, instead mention how its more like a good polished Halo 2 that adds stuff, but is not completely different.