Adding guns does nothing for the core gameplay unless it's a groundbreaking gun like the Portal gun in Portal or the Gravity Gun in Half-Life 2. Gravity changes everything that defines a platformer, and completely changes the gameplay. Not to mention having small spherical levels on their own are a huge change to the platforming style. You have to understand that there are really only two components to a platforming game. Level design and gameplay. SMG is changing both of these in ways that haven't been done before.

Also, I agree that I would probably give Halo 3 a 9 or so on the multi-player, but I haven't played the single-player so again I don't feel comfortable giving a score to the game as a whole. However, if twesterm is basing his opinions on how revolutionary a game is as well as how good it is I can see his reasoning. Personally, I just review on how good a game is, but he's got a different review style than I do. He was pretty hard on Bioshock too if you remember. Bioshock is great but it's really just a dumbed down System Shock 2. That game I have beaten and would confidently review as such.

True, but will it change the overall gameplay, or be revolutionary, not really in my mind.

I dont know, i keep seeing it in my mind that alot of people, are just to pro nintendo games, and do not like the fps, i think you said it yourself you dont really enjoy them. I just want the game to be reviewed fairly, and it seems every t western review for every 360 game has been below the norm, if he has any for nintendo, did he go below norm?

In all im just saying, halo is a great game, and you dipped into the score for the wrong reasons in my mind.

Its like how metroid got beaten up because it wasnt a huge change, and nintendo fans through a fit on here, same could be said in halo for player reviews on here in my mind.

SMG looks to be game of the year material, but you have to see, that in my mind halo also is up there, after having such a phenominal mult

I find the notion that a game has to be "revolutionary" in it's genre in order to warrant a score over 9 (or whatever artificial limit someone might choose) to be ridiculous. There are games like Starcraft, Warcraft, Unreal Tournament, Final Fantasy 3, Baldur's Gate 2, and others that are truly brilliant games in their own right and genres yet there're people here saying they don't deserve perfect scores not because of problems with the games but because they aren't considered "revolutionary"?

Even though those games are extremely polished and there are technically no gameplay problems (some of those games are pefect) they don't deserve a perfect score because the designers chose not to add something that wasn't in their vision of the game they wanted to make? Should a game be reviewed for what it is or for what it isn't? Should it be docked points because it doesn't add anything new even though the people reviewing it can't think of anything that could be added to the game (within the limits of the hardware the game was made for) to make it better?

yea what legend said

I wouldn't rate Warcraft, UT, FFIII (unless you meant FFVI), or Baldur's Gate 2 over a 9, but that's just me. I'm not even rating based on revolutionary gameplay, I just don't think any of those games are that special. However, I do think at the very least a score of a 10 should be reserved for something revolutionary. Otherwise how would we recognize those amazing achievements that really do change gaming when 10s are thrown out like candy to any anticipated game...

yes 10s are one thing nazna, why few games in history have gotten them, i think we are trying to point out scores that are less then they really are, like Halo 3 getting rated lower then 9 just because its been done before

Oh and there were things revolutionary about FFVI. It revolutionized video game storytelling and emotional expression in ways never seen before. It was a huge step for RPGs and most games even today are unable to pass it in those respects.

 I gave Wii Sports an 8.1.  For the Biohsock review I gave it a low score (low being releative, I still gave it a  9, what more do you want?) because of some pretty bigs.  I'm working on Dewey's Adventure at the moment and that game will score below an 8.  If I had to rate Metroid Prime right now it would probably get a solid 9 or maybe a high 8.

Also, I'm not saying that a game has to be revolutionary to get a 9, it just has to be something special.  In my opinion, I don't think Halo 3 is special enough to get a 9.  For my reasons, just read all my posts.

Also, I see no wrong with repeated gameplay and if you have something that worksm great!  Good gameplay is in fact good gameplay, just don't expect to get the same treatment your third time around using that good gameplay.  The reason the gameplay section was as low as it was

As for the 9.4 lasting appeal, there is nothing wrong with that score.  If I did decide that for whatever reason Halo 3 really did deserve something like a 9.8 or even a 10 like some people think, where would I go from there?  Lets say Halo 4 came out and the multiplayer was even better and the campaign was five times longer, what can I score it?  I already handed Halo 3 a 10 so it just wouldn't seem right that something so much better gets the same score.  I really don't like giving out 10's or things close to them becaise it implies there's nowhere else to go.  I realize I gave a 10 in this review but that's because I experienced no bugs, no framerate drops, and an excellent art style.  In presentation terms, it doesn't get better than that so I didn't mind giving it such a high score.

As for SMG, yes, I'm really anticipating that game but that generally doesn't get in the way of ability to see a pile of crap, something great, or just a good game.  I  predicted that Dewey's Adventure was going to be the next Okami and I was dead wrong about that one and I don't mind admitting so.  If something like Zack & Wiki turns out to be bad I'll be upset but I won't let that get in the way of rating it what it should be.  I don't lets things like that get in my way.

Oh, and I know this may make my above paragraph seem silly, but leave FFVI alone.  That was truly a revolutionary game and I have tried to review it many times but I just cannot find the words to properly review and score that game.  While the gameplay was *very* flawed (and it would receive a low score for gameplay because of that) everything else was just incredible.  I'm just going to stop typing now because if I don't I'll probably go on for five pages about that game. 

when i said that wasnt trying to bash i was really curious

the 10 score is going into the entire thing of should games get rated 10,s and of course thats a no, but with standards put by people, if a game has an extreme replay value, they usually mark it a 10, wether or not its the best

I dont think i ever bashed ff 6...

Have you ever played the Ultima series?  The original games, especially Ultima 3's, ideas were basically "borrowed" by Japanese developers for their rpgs and there's nothing revolutionary about FFVI when you compare it to that series.  (Well up until FF7 because CGI was not available at the time of the last Ultima game).  FFVI may have told a good "emotional story" but how would that make it different than say a FPS with an emotional story?  Would you consider a FPS with an emotional story but with all the play mechanics the exact same as other previous FPS games revolutionary?