Why Halo 3 doesn't live up to the reviews

I applaud Dan Shu of EGM for calling out publishers who don't like EGM giving the scores that they do. I think that reviews should be just that. A review. I hate it when some reviewer gives a game a huge score and doesn't even give a good reason why.

(Side note: We know that the reviewer of the game will get either a bonus check from the publisher for a good review or will be fired by management for a crap review. Jeff- hurry up and get hired.)

Halo 3 is a good example of reviews that are bought and paid for. If you look at the http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/926632.asp Gamerankings listing of Halo 3 views shows who was paid and not paid. We all know that Halo 3 was one of the most hyped games ever made. I fell into the hype machine. When you have an RSS feed dedicated to a game, you know that it is way to much PR.

Eighteen reviews listed on Gamerankings have Halo listed as either 10 out of 10 or 5 out of 5. This is really concerning. Is Halo 3 worth giving that kind of review. I say NO. Here is why. The first Halo was great on the original XBOX. (Note: In case you live under a rock, they have Halo listed as a download on XBOX Originals via XBOX LIVE.) It wasn't ground breaking, but it sure looked really cool. The thing with Halo was that it was the best shooter for release on day one for the original XBOX. No one thought that it would really be a big hit. IGN is quoted on the box as saying it was the reason to own a XBOX. Was it a reason to own an XBOX? Sure, but I bought the XBOX to play Medal of Honor.

Halo 2 built upon the success of Halo 1. Like most sequels to games it was built on a new graphics engine and looked good. It did what most sequels do by adding new weapons and a few other options. Halo 2 picked up some pretty big scores. Was it worth the scores? Sure. I liked it, but the ending sucked and everyone knows it. Playing as the "good bad guy" was lame and Bungie will never be forgiven for making that mistake. Sorry, you can't repent for that sin and get forgiveness. Halo came out in 2001 and Halo 2 in 2004. Thus ends the original generation of Halos. Bring in 2007 and Halo 3.

Everyone went crazy over Halo 3. OXM had the exclusive first review and gave it a 10 out of 10. I remember reading the review and it mentioned nothing. It was a poor review. Never really mentioned the crap graphics or the questionable length of the game. OXM dropped the ball on the biggest review of the year. Ok, so you got the part in there about the sound kicking some tail but still dropped the ball on everything else. If you read the review you would know nothing about how the game really played. It was just a bunch of trash. I really don't care what you think about OXM, but they didn't do a good job reviewing Halo 3.

The graphics in Halo 3 are horrible! You know they aren't the best and don't want to admit it. (Bring it fanboys, bring it you little snots!) Bungie had some really lame excuse about the reason the graphics sucked, but no one really believed it. I noticed it and was kinda mad that we had been shown cool screen shots and never told they most likely been photo shopped. (Side note: This is my opinion on the graphics and I have nothing to back up the comment about photo shopping the screenshots.) The graphics are comparable to a really good original XBOX game. Bottom line is no review really addressed this major issue.

Length of the game is a major issue for me. I think that when people pay 60.00 dollars for a game that it should be a little longer. 5-6 hours for Gears is pretty bad. Yeah, it was fun but too short. Halo 3 had the same issue of being to short. I beat it in about 7 hours. I was surprised that it was so easy to beat. When you can co-op play it and beat it in about five hours then you have something wrong. I don't think that for the money it is a good buy. Funny thing is most people really don't care about the single player and are focused on the multiplayer.

Multiplayer is cool. I really like multiplayer is the bomb in most games. Most games, not all. I really don't see buying a game just for the multiplayer. It's the single player that matters. In all the reviews you will notice an emphassis on th multiplayer and not much mentioned on the single player. Did I miss something? What about the experience of going Rambo by yourself and kicking Covenant tail? It could be worse and be a Call of Duty 4. That will be in another post.

Bottom line is this. If you are a established reviewer then you have the responsibility to tell the truth about the game you are reviewing. If you are working for Gamespot then we know that you are a liar and can't be trusted. It's a shame that for years Gamespot was respected an now is just another pile of trash. Corporate payoffs. Jerks.

We welcome your thoughts and comments about this post and all the other posts we will be ranting about. Just a reminder: kick a NAZI if you see one. The world will thank you.

Isaiah